Public Spaces
Plan preserves Kensington's assets while fixing its problems
For the past year, Kensington town councilmember Lydia Sullivan has been making fun of snobby suburbanites with Snoburbia, a T-shirt company and blog. But she's not laughing at plans to allow redevelopment along a stretch of Connecticut Avenue that's seen better days.
10400 Conn. Ave., one of several unloved buildings in Kensington's center. Photo by Jomo on Flickr.
Sullivan and some of her neighbors have written up a website, called KensingtonDevelopment.info, to oppose the Kensington Sector Plan, which is currently working its way through the Montgomery County Planning Department for a second time.
Planners and town officials say it'll bring much-needed amenities to the area while making it more attractive, but Sullivan's concerned it'll allow too many apartments, ruining Kensington's "sense of place."
"We are just battling for the soul of a place that already is different from the surrounding area," she writes in one of many e-mails we exchanged over the past month. "Seriously, how many more generic, developerville town centers do we need in Montgomery County?"
A local hardware store, located in a strip mall in Kensington. Photo by MoHotta18 on Flickr.
The Sector Plan seeks to give Kensington something Sullivan says it already has: small-town character. They propose adding trees and wider sidewalks to Connecticut Avenue in the hopes of slowing cars down, by creating new parks and plazas were people can gather, and by using the new CR or Commercial-Residential zone, which will allow a mix of housing, shops and offices.
Nonetheless, the plan's been very controversial, particularly its allowance of taller buildings up to 75 feet on Connecticut Avenue and 45 feet on adjacent blocks. KensingtonDevelopment is especially concerned with the number of apartments that could be built. "Montgomery County wants density and more moderate-income housing in downcounty areas like Kensington. (But is this good for people in and near Kensington?)" asks one page.
"For the first time in many decades, developers could build apartment buildings in sought-after Kensington," says another. "The Plan could add between 501 To Sullivan, who's lived in Kensington for 18 years, the town is "Mayberry," she says, where its "tone of small-town friendliness" has been unchanged for over a century. In an e-mail, she told me a story about running errands with her 11-year-old son one Saturday morning. "I was out maybe an hour Actually visiting Kensington, meanwhile, tells a different story. The century-old railroad town, laid out by Brainard Warner in the 1890's and named for a fashionable district in London, has become one of the most sought-after suburbs in Greater Washington.
Yet in the 1950's, two state highways, Connecticut Avenue and University Boulevard, were rammed through the town, bringing with them a mess of strip malls and office buildings that's started to look quite shabby. Though both roads see thousands of people each day, they're a distraction from the gorgeous, intact Victorian homes that sit just a block away.
You can see it in the pictures people take of Kensington: search for "kensington md" on Flickr and you'll find pictures of the Mormon Temple, not of the town's adorable Antique Row. The Planning Department held a a photo contest for Kensington residents to find what they liked about their community, and almost all the entries depict kids or flowers, not architecture or public spaces.
Mayor Pete Fosselman, who supports the Sector Plan, is eager to see the Connecticut Avenue corridor fixed up. "With our six gas stations and now a pawn shop, zero night life, lack of pedestrian connections, automobile dependent state, deficient open space, and no architectural oversight, Kensington is due for a makeover," he wrote in an e-mail.
Fosselman has the support of other councilmembers, local businesses, and town residents, who say Sullivan's part of a "vocal minority".
Recently, Sullivan's taken the fight to Snoburbia's blog, where she wrote about how places develop character: We don't know why, but we feel at home in these places. We walk on uneven sidewalks. We walk by imperfect windows filled with objects arranged (without a chart!) by local owners who know their customers. The downtowns were built slowly, over time, by locals. You can live there whether you're a student or a Kennedy. This community formed because people live close together. But the urban form also allowed Georgetown to weather two hundred years of social and economic changes.
Kensington's had over a hundred years to age, but it lacks the urban form, the density, or the diversity of a Georgetown. Sullivan doesn't like "generic developervilles" like Downtown Silver Spring or Bethesda Row, but they're a lot closer to Georgetown than Kensington is.
Beyond the chain stores and new buildings are all of the things that Georgetown teaches us about how to make a unique, pleasant place. They put lots of people and activity in a small area. They mix different classes and incomes as much as possible.
And they, too, have grown over time. Silver Spring has been an urban center for nearly a century, and tall buildings have been sprouting up since the 1960's.
Allowing development in Kensington won't automatically turn the town into a lifestyle center. But restricting development will keep out the people and activities that could make Kensington an even more unique and interesting place.
Even if everything that gets built in Kensington under the Sector Plan isn't affordably priced (and not all of it will be), adding supply will still make it cheaper than it is now to live or work there. That lets people already living and working in the community invest there rather than being forced to go somewhere else.
Kensington today is a prohibitively expensive place to live. A search on real estate website HomesDatabase reveals three houses for sale in the town today, ranging in price from $489,000 to $959,000. KensingtonDevelopment points out that homes in the town sell for "an average of $150,000 to $200,000 more than equivalent houses" elsewhere, while a Post article on Snoburbia says Sullivan's own house is assessed at $675,000.
She tells me the town already has "200+ moderately priced apartments" in a 1960's-era high-rise just across the town line called Kensington House. But rents there range from $1,220 for a studio to $1,725 for three bedrooms, placing them out of reach for many working-class people.
On Snoburbia, Sullivan frequently explores the issue of privilege in her life. She's mourned the departure of blue-collar families from her street and thoughtfully examined the separation between race and class in her kids' high school.
In her latest blog post, she asks, "What happens to the small local pizza joint that has been here since 1967, where all the firefighters and police officers hang out? Will the Greek father and son owners be able to afford the rent in the shiny new building?"
These people are being pushed out of Kensington already by high housing prices due to a lack of supply there and throughout Montgomery County. Sullivan has an ideal of small-town life, but the version she wants is inherently exclusive.
Nonetheless, she's willing to admit that Kensington could use some sprucing up. "I want to see a cleaned up commercial area as much as anyone, and would welcome some apartments and new people. That's kind of exciting," Sullivan writes. Yet she also sees it as a zero-sum game, asking on Snoburbia, "Will my town's uniqueness, its sense of place, be lost?"
For Fosselman, the costs of not doing anything are much higher. "If we simply "spruce" up the town and go for status quo, Kensington will continue to deteriorate as other communities around us rejuvenate," he writes.
If a great place is built over time, that means it's always changing. If Lydia Sullivan really wants to preserve Kensington's "sense of place," she should let the town grow as it naturally would.
The intersection of Connecticut Avenue and University Boulevard in Kensington. Image from Google Street View.Think about some of the places that are revered, that have been for many years. Think: Georgetown, Rhinebeck, Telluride, Santa Barbara, Athens, Burlington and many others like them. They don't need "mixed use town centers" or manufactured "green space" and "pocket parks."
Georgetown. Photo by the author.
This is a "generic developerville"? Photo by the author.
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
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- WMATA launches "Short Trip" rail pass on SmarTrip
- Small changes can make walking to school safer
I can understand being concerned about growth, especially in an age where "natural growth" means "looking like Tysons Corner" (or White Flint, etc. etc.)
Of course, growth does not have to mean becoming the next Tysons. The question is how should an area grow to promote the "sense of place" that Bethesda or downtown Silver Spring have? (And which Montgomery County would like White Flint to have)
Isn't that the driving question behind "smart growth" and "new urbanism"?
by EJ on Feb 15, 2011 10:45 am • link • report
Besides the most obvious extension of the metro by coordinating a metro train with the hourly marc trains along the Brunswick line, this community needs a proper center. And that's said from a regional stand point, if smart growth means anything. It's all about accomodating growth in a way that will preserve unpaved land at the perifery while creating pedestrian centers to stimulate socializing. Local farming will only increase what with oil price instability and extreme weather patterns on the rise. We should be severely restricting peripheral development in favor of redeveloping low density suburbs, but I guess we'll have to wait till things get really bad before moving beyond the usual socialism vs. free market discussions.
This lady, while funny at times contains the often seen liberal nimbyism that they love the town cobbler, while not allowing the zoning that might allow him/her to live in their community. Bullshit, and three cheers for Dan for pointing it out.
We're all going to have to make some sacrifices to keep our region competative, and it should be clear by now that sustainability will be the central component in this future.
by Thayer-D on Feb 15, 2011 10:47 am • link • report
by EJ on Feb 15, 2011 10:49 am • link • report
My investment strategy going forward can be described as simply "shorting the burbs".
by oboe on Feb 15, 2011 10:59 am • link • report
Usually, I can at least see where Fritz and Lance's arguments are coming from, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. Sullivan's argument is either extremely misinformed or completely nonsensical.
The crux of her argument seems to be that Kensington is perfect, and should never change for any reason. Right.
by andrew on Feb 15, 2011 11:03 am • link • report
by SG on Feb 15, 2011 11:10 am • link • report
They're only closer in terms of density and not in terms of being 'real'. They've been manufactured with one aim in mind 'extracting' dollars from you and I. For example, the sidewalk cafes in Bethesda row ... all the same ... even those that are placed way too close to the garage entrances to properly serve their purpose. You could be in one restaurant or the other there, and with the exception of the decor and food type, you wouldn't know which one you're in. They're subburban blandness masquerading as urban chic in buildings that have no charm. You could eat there every night of the week, and they'll never know your name since the manager isn't the owner and follows some company guideline somewhere on how best to churn the dollars vs. being a real part of his/her community. I used to live near Kensington, and it's perfect as it is. If you want to get the feel of a town still lost in a simpler time, go to Kensington. Yes, the big roads such as Conn. Avenue ruin the feel somewhat. But swapping the area with multi-family units of people living in highrises in what now is an idealic village of people living close to the land, isn't a move in the right direction. Adding green around the arterials isn't the problem. It's proposing the change the charcter of this small town that is. We have plenty of land to develop further out of town, where a lot of business is developing. There's no need to ruin what we have here.
by Lance on Feb 15, 2011 11:12 am • link • report
Basically, if its a choice between sprawled out design and "urban chic blandness" I'm still going to go with the latter.
by Canaan on Feb 15, 2011 11:36 am • link • report
For me, I'd take 10 Kensingtons before one Silver Spring.
by Local on Feb 15, 2011 11:39 am • link • report
I tend to agree with you about Bethesda. I grew up nearby and I graduated from BCC High School, so I know the area well and I think your criticisms have a lot of validity. Honestly I cannot stand the area since the development off Arlington Rd. between Bethesda Ave. and Elm St. It feels like Disneyland.
BUT who cares what I happen to like? Government policy should be neutral toward blandness and Disneyland alike. Clearly there is demand for areas that I find distasteful. That doesn't mean I should lobby the government to impose categorical, command-and-control regulations on the activity I find personally distasteful.
You said "there's no need to ruin what we have here." But clearly there is demand to change it!! It's easy to paint this as "current residents versus evil developers (or worse, hipsters)."
That's a false view. In order for the changes to occur, current residents must willingly sell their interest in exchange for value. We want to think of Kensington as "an idyllic village" but if that were the case, why would theses peaceful residents want to sell their land to developers in the first place? If the current landowners were worse off selling their plots to developers, why are they clamoring to do so and prevented only by the force of law? This women's own neighbors are trying to chose an alternative but Sullivan has lobbied the government to block free transaction. I see this as really wrong!
Also, I'm not sure what you're smoking. People in Kensington are NOT "living close to the land." On what planet are commuting lobbyists and lawyers doing that?
by WRD on Feb 15, 2011 11:41 am • link • report
I think you have this backwards. Planners of days past imposed strict caps and restrictions on private property in Kensington. Yet you oppose relaxing those caps and decry urban planners who "push their ideals" on others?
What's wrong with letting the current residents express their preferences the way we do in America: the Free Market? If they like the land as is, they can band together and buy it. Then, they're free to do what they wish.
by WRD on Feb 15, 2011 11:45 am • link • report
...
"Seriously, how many more generic, developerville town centers do we need in Montgomery County?"
Talk about a complete lack of self-awareness.
by jcm on Feb 15, 2011 11:46 am • link • report
The difference is that many of these places have evolved over time. Georgetown, for example, has the benefit of hundreds of years of age and evolution. As Dan notes, the key is to set down the framework for an urban place - the streets, sidewalks, etc - the walls of that urban room will be (and frankly, should be) changing over time.
by Alex B. on Feb 15, 2011 11:47 am • link • report
However, I'm leaving it in because your attack is far more ridiculous than offensive. Dan Reed was born in DC and raised in Montgomery County. Calling him "a student from Philadelphia" is just laughable.
Is the North Bethesda resident who works in downtown DC unqualified to speak about development issues along Rockville Pike during daytime hours, because at that moment he or she may be at a desk that's not inside the State of Maryland?
However, our region's growth and form affects all of us, not just those who live next door. Furthermore, Dan interviewed a number of people who do live right in the area who support the Sector Plan.
by David Alpert on Feb 15, 2011 11:51 am • link • report
You should probably know (by either reading JUTP or my bio here) that I've lived in Maryland my entire life, including nineteen years in Montgomery County. I am currently a planning student at the University of Pennsylvania, but I've spent plenty of time in Kensington.
No one's saying we should turn Kensington into Downtown Silver Spring. Arguably, you could say that those who are fighting the Sector Plan are imposing their views of what Kensington is today to people in the community who aren't satisfied with current conditions.
by dan reed! on Feb 15, 2011 11:51 am • link • report
"urban chic blandness" I'm still going to go with the latter."
This + a million. Anyone who disagrees should stay at my company's rental units in Dubai or Jakarta.
by JTS on Feb 15, 2011 11:51 am • link • report
Georgetown has a street grid. It's easy and pleasant to walk there. There are shops and offices, apartments and mansions, 19th-century factories and 21st-century embassies, all mixed together. You can live there whether you're a student or a Kennedy.
It's worth noting that Ms. Sullivan's counterparts in Georgetown do not want students living there, and they deploy many of the same rhetorical flourishes about frozen-in-time idyllic residential neighborhoods.
by Dizzy on Feb 15, 2011 11:56 am • link • report
by Mike on Feb 15, 2011 12:12 pm • link • report
The key to the new development is to recognize where mistakes were made in the past and not repeat them. This is where all of the hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into Montgomery County's historic preservation efforts could actually be leveraged into useful planning information beyond being a hammer to regulate designated historic properties. The county has paid (consultants and staff) for decades to research suburbs, including Kensington. Why not pull the information off the shelf and see if it is usable?
by David Rotenstein on Feb 15, 2011 12:15 pm • link • report
by Ben Ross on Feb 15, 2011 12:32 pm • link • report
by BethesdaGuy on Feb 15, 2011 12:33 pm • link • report
by Mike on Feb 15, 2011 12:46 pm • link • report
by Eric on Feb 15, 2011 2:34 pm • link • report
I don't know how you tell the differences between restaurants, but decor and food type are the main differentiating features.
And as everyone knows, Takoma Park has its origins in being a "developerville."
by JustMe on Feb 15, 2011 3:47 pm • link • report
1) Urban Land Institute study commissioned by the town of Kensington (for which Kensington paid roughly $13,000) – clearly states what the PARKING – FAR – HEIGHTS should be for the heart of our commercial district. It can be found on the Town of Kensington website.
A) Page 33 – Parking needs to be within 500 feet as ULI clearly states not ½ to 1 mile as proposed by the planning board. (Most would prefer onsite) Reductions of 20-40-60% for parking ½ (2,640 ft) to 1 mile (5,280 ft) when the Planning Board + Council would not walk it themselves daily in all sorts of extreme cold + extreme hot is crazy! This will only create spill over parking that will hurt quality of life + upset residents! How many millions will it cost to buy commercial land and build garages? Who’s increased taxes will pay for these purchases + major construction?
B) CRN + CRT - FAR (Floor area ratio should be no more than 1.5 for Hardware City + 1 for Metropolitan Ave as ULI clearly states!)
C) CRN + CRT - Heights for Kensington should be a max of 65 Feet.
2)Traffic - 3 of Montgomery Counties worst intersections are already on Connecticut Avenue (Kensington already has 2 failed intersections at Conn + Plyers Mill + at Conn + Knowles Ave) and this is before the ICC and new combined National Naval/Walter Reed Hospital (which will be one of the busiest hospitals in the country) opens this Sept. What does this do to our quality of life and what will be the cost to correct these traffic issues? BRAC was going to orginally spend $300 million is not presently available. Wisconsin Ave + Conn Ave each with 3 failed intersections will only get even far worst starting Sept 1, 2011 when the new combine hospital opens completely.
3) SCHOOLS + UNDERESTIMATE COST - Gazette article - “Despite the perception by planners that apartments bring relatively few students into the school system, the opposite has proved to be true, said Therese Salus, the area vice president for Walt Whitman, Walter Johnson, Bethesda-Chevy Chase and Wheaton for the Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations. "Apartments do produce students. And that's where we're getting a lot of students," Salus said”
A) New children: The Kensington Sector Plan is expected to add anywhere from 58 – 161 children to Kensington, according to MCPS Long Range Planning (based on a range of 501 to 1,410 new housing units, per MNCPPC.) MCPS is projecting just 58/501 = 11.5% to 161/1410 = roughly 11.5%
B) Kensington House: The nine-story Kensington House apartment building (the only tall apartment building in Town, with 138 units) alone has 27 MCPS students. 27students/138units = 19.5% so actual number in Kensington is higher than the 11.5% projected by MCPS (41% under projection of students from apartments)
C) 41% Under projection of students from apartments. So low end projected # of units is 501 x Kensington House actual 19.5% = 97 – 58 students project by MCPS = 39 under projected students by MCPS for just Kensington at the low end. High end 1410 projected # of units x Kensington House actual 19.5% = 275 students not MCPS 161 projected students. (Kensington House % = 97 students - MCPS 58 projected students = 39 under projected students at the low end to high end projected construction producing 275 students using Kensington House 19.5% – MCPS projected 161 = 114 under projected students once again for the high end of development.)
D) Under projection of Cost at $15,000-$20,000 a student so if we use the average cost of $17,500 x low end under projected = 39 x $17,500 = $685,500 a year in under projected cost to $17,500 x 275 = $1,995,000 or rounded to roughly $2 million dollars a year in under projected school cost just in Kensington at the high end of development. Range of cost for under projected school costs are roughly $700,000 to $2million a year so whose tax dollars are covering this?
E) What is the cost of buy a new location for HOC, moving them + remodeling old Kensington Elementary School? Are Parkwood Elementry was remodeled just 4 yrs ago an is already at 129% of capacity + our high school was also recently renovated + is already over capacity before White Flint + Kensington are revitalized.
4) Electrical system – Who is going to discuss our electric system and wheather it is ready for 100% more people?
5) Water – Only a few summers ago we had a drought. Do we have enough water for 100% more residents! We may have enough water for the 20% growth but please show me where we will get 100% more?
6) Google - The Folly of Smart Growth – Portland, Oregon.
I know facts are alot less fun to discuss but these are the costly facts so how much more are you willing to pay in county taxes for over development versus right sizing. I eat at MacDonalds some times on the run but I know that too much supper sizing is bad news and extremely costly in future health care/intrastructure cost!
by Facts on Feb 15, 2011 5:37 pm • link • report
by JJJJJ on Feb 15, 2011 6:32 pm • link • report
I was under the impression the schools exist for the children, not the children for the schools.
by WRD on Feb 15, 2011 10:37 pm • link • report
I live in Dupont, but had to go up to the frontier a couple times for work. The first time around I figured- since I wasn't going *that* far away- I could still get there by Metro. When I found out that I had to transfer to a non-Metrobus bus I thought- well, I used to live in a third-world country, I can do this too. Never again. I rented a car the second time around.
I'm not going to do that again either, but I also don't plan on returning to Kensington; let the rich white lady have the place for all I care! The bottom line: you can find cheaper AND nicer AND hipper AND better places to live than Kensington.
by Steven on Feb 15, 2011 11:20 pm • link • report
by Young Proffesional on Feb 16, 2011 8:31 am • link • report
Just from memory I can think of 7 local resturants, two cafes and 3 stores. I hang around Kefa Cafe, a real gem.
by Interguru on Feb 16, 2011 8:43 am • link • report
So stop fighting a straw man ("Sullivan is against development" as if it's just her!), or rather a "rich white lady" as one of your commenters put it (I happen to know her, and she isn't one-- unless owning real estate that has appreciated since you bought it 18 years ago makes you a rich lady-- are you against home ownership? and she's not racist either as your commenter seems to imply). By the way, I notice you didn't call your commenters on their ad hominem/feminam remarks while protesting so strongly against the "Philadelphia student" crack.
If this plan is so fab, why didn't the mayor present it openly to people in town? He didn't want them to because he knew they wouldn't like it. Don't people who live there have something to say about it?
When did any town ever REGRET fighting high-rise development? The answer is, never.
by Jane Deaux on Feb 16, 2011 1:21 pm • link • report
I'll repost what I asked Lance with a few minor edits and see if you respond:
Government policy should be neutral toward private action whether we subjectively like it or not. Clearly there is demand for certain things residents subjectively "like" or dislike. That doesn't mean they should lobby the government to impose categorical, command-and-control regulations on the activity they personally distasteful.
Clearly there is demand for high-rises It's easy to paint this as "current residents versus evil developers (or worse, hipsters)."
That's a false view. In order for the changes to occur, current residents must willingly sell their property in exchange for value. If the current landowners were worse off selling their plots to developers, why are they clamoring to do so and prevented only by the force of law? Kensington's own residents are trying to chose an alternative but some are lobbying the government to block free transaction. I see this as really wrong!
What's wrong with letting the current residents express their preferences the way we do in America: the Free Market? If they like the land as is, they can band together and buy it. Then, they're free to do what they wish.
When did any town ever REGRET fighting high-rise development? The answer is, never.
That might come as a surprise to the high rise occupants, the owners of the property that got turned into a high rise, the high rise owner, and those of us who understand housing market caps only increase the cost of living.
by WRD on Feb 16, 2011 1:39 pm • link • report
2nd, I'm sure lots of people in towns have regretted not having any highrise development. It's a blanket assertion that is hard to prove much.
by Canaan on Feb 16, 2011 1:45 pm • link • report
Someone who has worked in county politics and has familiarity with the development process surely is not that naive. Not everyone can be expected to care whether Kensington will soon has a lot more traffic, a number of high-rise apartment buildings, and even more school overcrowding, and of course not everyone presently believes that will happen. Besides, if people in Kensington end up not liking the change in five or ten years, they can always move farther west anyway.
Chipotle is great, and people who live in apartment buildings are often nicer than people who live in single family homes, and if everyone lives closer together and nearer where they work, maybe suburban sprawl will drop a little and protect us from global warming and foreign wars over oil. (Maybe, but don't count on it.) Change isn't all bad, but to pretend that zoning and development are natural processes is a little intellectually dishonest and suggests a bias behind this post against those snobby west-county people who have been able to escape the problems everybody else can't escape. The irony is, those who actually profit from this development in Kensington and elsewhere down county will not be less affluant at all. Some corporations and their shareholders will profit immensely, as will development and planning companies and the owners of commercial real estate, and that's the force behind the proposed development, not a heartwarming desire to make places like Kensington more affordable for others who do not live there and at present have no plan to. The Kensington Sector plan is not about progressive politics--that's just ridiculous.
The likelihood is, when this change comes to Kensington and much of the rest of the county, its going to bring more traffic and school overcrowding and buildings that are more likely to be unsightly than architectural wonders, though of course there will be a few planters out front to beautify the developments and brag about. When people realize this, and that time may not be so far off, people will not be happy about what has happened, even if they didn't have time to head it off at the pass, and many people will wonder who sold them this bill of goods. Wait and see.
By the way, if anyone doesn't know it, the whole Montgomery County zoning code is being written and rewritten right now, so more than just the future of Kensington is being decided, and whether anyone is or isn't a snob is a trifling matter.
by Proud Kensingtonian on Feb 16, 2011 2:01 pm • link • report
by Capt. Hilts on Feb 16, 2011 3:54 pm • link • report
I don't particularly like the development. It's just a personal preference. I'm certainly not qualified to determine what the area "needs." That's up to the market. If people shop in competing paper/stationery stores, or competing pet rock stores, or competing Wal-Marts, I'm indifferent.
@Proud Kensingtonian--
Perhaps I should rephrase: you have not addressed my central point. That was my fault for being long-winded. Let's try again.
Why should the preference or interests of some Kensingtonians serve to limit the private property rights of another?
Given that Kensingtonians can purchase the land in question in order to keep it in its current use, why are government neutrality and market forces bad policies in this particular instance?
by WRD on Feb 16, 2011 4:36 pm • link • report
So . . . even though we know people are moving to the county (not just Kensington), we shouldn't build anything else because those new buildings might be ugly?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but you can't guarantee that new development will just be ugly. (In fact, all the more reason for neighbors to speak up when a development is actually proposed.) Nor should we use that as a reason not to accommodate people who are already moving to the area.
by dan reed! on Feb 16, 2011 5:25 pm • link • report
There aren't a lot of guarantees in life, or in urban planning, but one thing you can guarantee is that developers won't spend money that they don't think they'll recover. Is putting lots of money into large apartment buildings in Kensington going to entice developers to go all out to attract the real high-end renter's market so that the town will become more attractive? Sure, you bet, and I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you in Arizona.
People can build apartment buildings to try to take the city to the suburbs and try to make an urban planner's nirvana with density that offers jobs nears homes and prevents sprawl, but between what now exists and that future vision, reality will harshly intrude. The present constantly-evolving plan to make this happen is so complex, self-contradictory, and impossible to understand by non-zoning experts that those making it are offering nothing but promises and a sales pitch. Some corporate interests are likely to make a boatload of money, and as the buildingz start going up people who have the resources and insufficient attachment to the town (and county) will leave as it changes in ways they don't like, and the newcomers who are said to be so important will get what they get. For those newcomers maybe it'll be okay, maybe not, and that's really a hard question, but worsening places to make them more affordable to more people is public policy that has a lot of unpleasant side effects. And to think that the plan is progressive is ridiculous--that's my main point. The plan is sponsored by predominantly absentee corporate ownership interests, not progressive interests, and supporting it in the name of progressive interests is a fool's errand.
by Proud Kensingtonian on Feb 16, 2011 6:26 pm • link • report
So people who build apartment buildings would rather not make money? If anything, the trends in apartment building have been to add more amenities and perks. Look at what has generally been built in this area over the past decade, tenements they are not. Besides, a lot of single family homes (especially in planned neighborhoods) were built by corporations or rich people because guess what. It takes a lot of money to build a building.
"but worsening places to make them more affordable to more people is public policy that has a lot of unpleasant side effects"
I think I found the issue here, this sentence right hear sounds to me like you're saying that "affordable = poor and crime ridden"
finally, Dan never argued for progressive interests, he's argues for sensible planning that would let some so called progressive goals out of smart planning rather than be stymied by misconceptions of what constitutes "sense of place"
by Canaan on Feb 16, 2011 7:22 pm • link • report
by Kensingtonian on Feb 16, 2011 8:22 pm • link • report
And, Lance, now that Facts has explained that the new apartment buildings in Kensington will fill up with families with children, and not with "hipsters," do you support them?
by Ben Ross on Feb 16, 2011 10:03 pm • link • report
I never said anything about tenements or crime--you're revealing your prejudices, not mine. What both you and Dan Reed would seem likely to benefit from is putting your biases aside and learning what's going on with the development plans, both at the level of the master plans and the zoning code, which is now being extensively rewritten. And I think you might benefit from a redirection of your cynicism, because right now I think your vision is obscured by biases against and misplaced assumptions about people who don't want their communities to change in the ways I described.
by Proud Kensingtonian on Feb 17, 2011 11:11 am • link • report
by Canaan on Feb 18, 2011 10:24 am • link • report
I also never said redevelopment is always bad, which would be a pretty ridiculous oversimplification, and you did profess that you could read between my lines to see that I'm really afraid of crime and tenements, which all came out of your head, not my words.
by Proud Kensingtonian on Feb 18, 2011 10:54 am • link • report
by Canaan on Feb 18, 2011 11:24 am • link • report
I'm not a mathamatician or a rocket scientists or anything fancy like that, but I wasn't aware that 75 feet counted as a high rise.
You know a place with buildings that high? It's a real slum, and I'm sure you hate it, Paris.
God, it would suck if Connecticut Ave. became more like Paris wouldn't it? I mean it's such a gem as it is. I bet people from that slum known as Paris come and visit beautiful Kensington.
Besides a few shops, Kensington is an eyesore as it is. Have you been to Connecticut Ave and seen the strip malls? I swear I was in a third world country.
You could only be so lucky if you had some Silver Spring or Bethesda put there.
by Patrick Thornton on Feb 18, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report
Most of Kensington is great, and there are plenty of eyesores in Silver Spring in Bethesda. Kensington doesn't need the sort of "luck" being offered, though people who drive through from time to time with such thoughtful opinions deserve to spend more time stuck in traffic with us, perhaps imagining a splendid view of the Eifel Tower.
by Proud Kensingtonian on Feb 18, 2011 3:11 pm • link • report
Kensington doesn't need the sort of "luck" being offered
Then why is there demand for the buildings? Why does it take threats of fines to stop the development from happening?
by WRD on Feb 18, 2011 3:19 pm • link • report
by Miriam on Feb 18, 2011 3:25 pm • link • report
I don't even understand those questions, I think because you don't understand the issue, which doesn't surprise me in light of the article you are commenting on. This is about what development will and will not be permitted, both through the Kensington Sector Plan and the zoning rules that are not being extensively rewritten for the county as a whole now. There is pretty much always some "demand" by developers for rules that permit them to build something they can't, typically something cheaper--that's why zoning laws exist. Fines aren't involved.
Miriam
Now I'm unsure whether Kensington soon will be blessed with an Eifel Tower or Corinthian columns! Seriously, rather than being an architectural wonder, what might be built may instead have the aesthetic appeal of the 10400 Connecticut building actually there, and it may age as well over the coming decades.
by Proud Kensingtonian on Feb 18, 2011 3:42 pm • link • report
The height and density that the plan calls for are totally within a range that architects can handle well. It's quite possible to make beautiful, functional, and interesting structures at this scale. You may have had bad experiences in the past, but the architecture world is more pluralistic now and developers realize that environmental quality is an important selling point. Planners, likewise, want to improve the built environment and reduce traffic.
Raising the specter of a building that was designed to 1970s codes, theories, and lifestyles is not applicable in this case. The possibility that any development might be bad is a misleading argument, and I think you will get a better result by arguing for development on specific terms, rather than throwing all kinds of absolutist arguments out and seeing what sticks.
If you would like suggestions for what to argue for, I can recommend books to read, buildings to visit, and firms to look at. I think you would be encouraged.
by Neil Flanagan on Feb 18, 2011 5:09 pm • link • report
There is pretty much always some "demand" by developers for rules that permit them to build something they can't, typically something cheaper--that's why zoning laws exist.
This is either flat wrong or I'm misunderstanding. Density maximums (and minimums) are economically inefficient because they impose a supply cap on the relevant market. More people want to live in the area than there is space for them to live. The market adjusts by increasing prices in the short run and units supplied in the long run. The zoning code prevents the long run supply adjustment. This drives up unit costs across the board and causes deadweight loss.
Clearly, there is not always demand for higher, denser development. It just happens to be the case in our area because zoning codes have restricted supply. http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/the-height-act-and-vacant-land/">For example, the Height Act does this very effectively in DC. The "cost" of these policies is much higher rent for offices and housing.
And the land owners benefit, too, because the builders are willing to pay them more than their land is worth when it's zoned low-density.
by WRD on Feb 18, 2011 5:52 pm • link • report
by Proud Kensingtonian on Feb 18, 2011 9:08 pm • link • report
Neil Flanagan
"If what you are concerned about is architectural quality, why are you not pushing for higher architectural quality on any new buildings?"
I didn't say architectural quality is the only issue. I was responding to the comment suggesting that relaxing zoning laws will lead to Kensington becoming Paris, which strikes me as highly unlikely, to say the least. In fact, the commercial interests interested in development in Kensington want to make a profit and can be expected to seek to relax standards if necessary to do so. It's more likely that what will be built will be a contemporary version of what has been built before, because that's what the market has proved able to support. (I say that since everybody is so interested in economics.)
When I hear that the developers and planners are all so aesthetically advanced and environmentally conscious now that I should just put all these worries aside, I am reminded of the banking crisis and the hubris among economists about what Bernanke and others called "the great moderation," i.e., the advances in macroeconomic policy that made worrying about past problems seem unnecessary, because all those harsh problems of the past had been solved. (Remember, that was just a few years ago, and we're still all stuck in the wake of the fiasco that resulted from that hubris.)
Rest assured, there will be traffic and school overcrowding and other problems caused by this sort of development, not the least of which the infrastructure costs will eat up the tax base expansion. Quality of life will decline, and though some money will be made on the development, it may not be enough to finance the fine architecture that the enlightened developers and socially conscious planners you envision hope for. What is built will be only what profitably can be built, and we will have to settle for it or move, if we can afford it, to somewhere more like the places the developers themselves live. Or adapt to a different place than we have, and which many of us who live here really like very much, even if those driving by on Connecticut Avenue can't figure out why.
by Proud Kensingtonian on Feb 18, 2011 9:54 pm • link • report
I've tried to avoid lectures but I do believe it's an efficiency issue. Externalities are a problem, but to compensate, should developers be able to compensate you to the extent the FMV of your property decreases? I think so. Should you have to reimburse the developer to the extent the FMV of your property increases? I don't think so, but some might.
Why can you and neighbors together purchase the property and protect your interests? I don't know.
Finally, why should policy default to you externalizing costs to others instead of the other way around?
by WRD on Feb 18, 2011 11:01 pm • link • report
We seem to have supporting these development policies a strange alliance between market ideologues and others who think they are supporting something progressive but who will almost certainly learn with the benefit of more experience that corporate money adapts its message as it needs to adopt it, with skilled professionals of all sorts. This is just commerce, and it's certainly not malevolent most of the time, but the finest sentiments and most laudable goals do not always withstand close examination. The free market crowd will end up happy about less regulation, because hell would be fine with them if it had no government, but the progressives who mean well will simply learn the hard way that some of the most tangible costs of progress are more substantial than they had believed.
by Proud Kensingtonian on Feb 18, 2011 11:36 pm • link • report
I took some time to review the opposition sites. The arguments against the project are contradictory and problematic. I don't have much to add to Dan's post. I think he covers all of the issues meticulously.
I dare to presume your remark about being better-read than you was directed at me. I don't know if you can give a lecture on Keynes, are a published author, or have an oak-paneled library of many weighty tomes. But I can't help but notice that your examples include a lot of talk about changing zoning, 1970s architecture, an economist who was at his peak in the 1970s, or relate everything to wall street. It comes off as out of touch, or less charitably, deceptive.
Look, if instead of arguing for the status quo, look at how communities of the last decade were able to get valuable benefits and produce buildings that let people build their futures in. Bethesda Row might be fake now, but it might not be so boozhie after 40 years. There are countless examples of developers laying the foundation for successful communities. Kensington is one such place; there are others that are merely just being created.
by Neil Flanagan on Feb 19, 2011 6:16 pm • link • report
Sorry, but if I have to explain why the residents of Kensington shouldn't have to buy out everyone who wants to build something not in keeping with what the community has always been and not permitted under existing zoning, I don't think there's much point anyway.
I figured it was a good question. Why should you be able to force your preferences upon your neighbors? I keep asking a pointed question, not because I expect a serious answer but because it illustrates the point.
though you posit reductions in FMV because of restrictive changes in zoning, that is NOT what is happening. Your abstract arguments are counter-empirical, which seems usually to be the case when people start talking about microeconomics.
I would like some empirical evidence! I love empirical evidence! Please, tell me why it is I'm wrong.
As for the "progressive ideology" stuff, I disclaim opinion. I'm a Democrat and certainly not a market ideologue. However I would NEVER, EVER want to align myself with "progressives" or any of their ilk on the left-wing of the spectrum. I'm NOT a Ron or Rand Paul supporter, either. I do believe that zoning caps act as a serious supply constraint that does much more serious damage than is commonly understood. This article is only about zoning, so of course I seem like a one trick pony.
But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter who I am or what my other beliefs are. It matters that my arguments are sound. You clearly disagree and that's fine, but I've gone out of my way to explain what I think and why. I think it's your turn to attack my position more substantially. I look forward to seeing empirical evidence that I'm wrong.
by WRD on Feb 19, 2011 8:41 pm • link • report
I'm glad you favor empirical evidence, but alas, the strange thing about facts is that everyone believes himself open to them and yet many people are not:
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/sunday-commentary/20100806-Joe-Keohane-How-facts-backfire-5161.ece
All I have seen in your questions was market ideology, and that you would "NEVER EVER" want to align yourselves with progressives does illustrate what I said about the oddity of progressives aligning themselves with those favoring large-scale down-county commercial development. People who view zoning laws as unreasonable restrictions on private property rights will naturally tend to view zoning laws as bad, but others should not get confused about the basis for their opposition.
by Proud Kensingtonian on Feb 19, 2011 10:09 pm • link • report
I suppoaw I have both weighty and unweighty tomes full of deception, but I was just suggesting to you that maybe those who disagree with you actually do read and know things, and maybe even some of us know some things that you don't know. That you have concluded after reading all the comments, including my own guiling deception, that your original opinion was right all along, well congratulations, you're like most everybody else in that regard. Oddly, comments don't seem to change people's minds much, which I guess makes comments about like almost everything else.
But here's the thing you don't recognize in your statements. Nobody is arguing against all development, and of course development can be done right. This characterization that you make that those opposed to the Kensington Sector Plan in its current form favor the "status quo" is a shibboleth, one that Dan Reed has himself now helped foster. For better development to happen in the future, the process should be done right, the goals need to be appropriate, and the rules that emerge need to be clear. What's going on right now in the park and planning process in the county tends towards excess, confusion, and disorder, out of which abundant mistakes will likely emerge, because that's what excess, confusion, and disorder cause.
Apart from that, some progressives are fooling themselves about the interests at work in the process and what will emerge if unfettered development is lauded as an achievement apart from the terms of that development, and that sort of blanket endorsement certainly has been happening in Kensington. Some people have been supporting development without any clear idea of the terms of their own support, mostly it seems because they think developers won't come if they aren't given a free hand. That is sheer folly. The objective of corporate interests is making profits, not the best interests of people or communities. Developers are not bad people, but they of course do not have the best interests of others at heart, and those who regulate them should never forget that. Developers' goal and the community's goal and the government's goal do not coincide. They may be aligned in some ways, but nothing more.
Those of us who care about Kensington don't oppose all development and don't oppose much of the Kensington Sector Plan as currently conceived. We just want it done right, and with enough caution to protect what is good while changing what needs to change.
by Proud Kensingtonian on Feb 19, 2011 10:44 pm • link • report
Even if you think you won't change my mind--a fair assumption given the forum--I can only insist that I am open. I will read what you say. And to kick things off, I'll start with this interview with Ronald Coase where he mentions a famous economics paper called "Non-Zoning in Houston" from the Journal of Law and Economics. Or check out a more recent paper, courtesy of Marginal Revolution.
Or read Tyler Cowen on zoning here on local issues and here. And he does a great job here and hits on my own personal ambivalence on some aspects of zoning:
A key question is what zoning means. Let's say you wanted to set up a shack on the sidewalk and live in it; should that be allowed? How about a modest apartment building but without a water connection? Should Manhattan really become like Sao Paulo? Only in extreme cases would I wish to waive such infrastructure requirements for the housing stock. And if you agree with me on that one, then you don't want to get rid of most zoning either.
As he would say, read the whole thing.
Or Ryan Avent at The Economist on DC zoning (there's a lot more from him if you're interested), Arnold Kling on free market parking, Freakonomics on who joins zoning boards, Mark Thoma on zoning and sprawl, a somewhat interesting post from Cheap Talk, Andrew Samwick on zoning, Brad DeLong on Thoma on Glaeser, The Tax Foundation on zoning (other posts mention zoning in connection with the fight over slot machines in MD), and there's more. But I'm highly skeptical anyone will read more than 1 of those links. Doing this takes time, and we might be approaching Goodwin's Law. ("If you don't [support/oppose] this plan, you're exactly like Hitler")
I don't think the Houston approach is a good one. I don't think Houston is a nice city. But I do think, at the margin, Montgomery County should become a little bit more like Houston without becoming exactly like them, even in this respect.
Also, you did accuse me of not understanding the ideas of deadweight loss. I think that was somewhat uncalled for, but it might be true. Could you elaborate? Finally, I'm curious: do you support the home mortgage interest deduction? One word yes/no would be sufficient, I'm just curious as to your opinion.
by WRD on Feb 20, 2011 1:00 am • link • report
Wow, that's a lot of libertarians--glad you found Coase, who I haven't read in a few decades. I do read Yglesias sometimes and sometimes think he's very insightful, but not always. Brad DeLong is certainly a smart guy. The Freakonomics bunch are of course right that zoning boards and all other regulators often get coopted. I feel like I could write most of the Economist most of the time without having to do that much research. I didn't see much of interest in Avent. Most of the stuff you mentioned strikes me as way too general to give much guidance regarding how much down-county development should be permitted, and how it should be zoned, in MoCo.
Libertarian theory generally doesn't do much for me, but thanks for the links. To free you from responding, which you seemed to be inviting by referring to Goodwin's law, it's obvious that you admire Hitler so I don't care about all your links and vast factual knowledge, and nothing you say will ever persuade me of anything, you damn dirty Nazi-lover.
As for your last question, I support the mortgage interest deduction because I, like millions of other people, own a house, and changing the rules in the middle of the game is unfair. If we were starting a new game, my answer would be that it would depend. (Sorry, but I couldn't quite say taht in one word.) My own social utopia probably would look more like Dan Reed's than yours, as I suspect from his general opinions (though I really don't know much about him) that he and I have many of the same values and even biases. I just think he's misguided on this, perhaps partly because of those biases.
by Proud Kensingtonian on Feb 20, 2011 9:59 am • link • report
We seem to have supporting these development policies a strange alliance between market ideologues and others who think they are supporting something progressive but who will almost certainly learn with the benefit of more experience that corporate money adapts its message as it needs to adopt it, with skilled professionals of all sorts. This is just commerce, and it's certainly not malevolent most of the time, but the finest sentiments and most laudable goals do not always withstand close examination. The free market crowd will end up happy about less regulation, because hell would be fine with them if it had no government, but the progressives who mean well will simply learn the hard way that some of the most tangible costs of progress are more substantial than they had believed.
I don't put myself in the free market crowd, I put my self in the urbanist crowd. And the simple reality is that many of the things we all like most about cities was the direct result of a far more free-market approach to building and managing them than we have today.
The built forms that even the most left-wing radicals enjoy were likely built and developed for a substantial profit. The very energy of a city is based on density and agglomeration - the same economic principles that make cities profitable.
In short - the free market view is not in actual conflict with the "progressive" view or even the "community oriented" view.
Apart from that, some progressives are fooling themselves about the interests at work in the process and what will emerge if unfettered development is lauded as an achievement apart from the terms of that development, and that sort of blanket endorsement certainly has been happening in Kensington. Some people have been supporting development without any clear idea of the terms of their own support, mostly it seems because they think developers won't come if they aren't given a free hand. That is sheer folly. The objective of corporate interests is making profits, not the best interests of people or communities. Developers are not bad people, but they of course do not have the best interests of others at heart, and those who regulate them should never forget that. Developers' goal and the community's goal and the government's goal do not coincide. They may be aligned in some ways, but nothing more.
To think that the economic incentives for density, agglomeration, and clustering (all manifested in real estate development) only represents an alignment "in some ways" with other urban stakeholders is simply incorrect in my view.
The other fundamental aspect of cities is that they are dynamic. They are constantly in flux, constantly changing. Those that would seek to keep things the way they are (a very real, very human desire) are also unintentionally retarding the dynamism that makes these very places special in the first place.
by Alex B. on Feb 20, 2011 12:27 pm • link • report
You say that most of the things you and 'the urbanist crowd' like about cities is the result of more of free market approach, but I'm not sure you're right about that. Zoning laws were created in response to market problems and have made a major contribution. Certainly change needs to happen, but deregulating the planning/zoning process will be just as successful as deregulating the financial sector proved to be.
Regardless, however, you made my point with your comment. You're deciding whether these complex changes are good or bad independent of their specifics, which isn't wise whether your reason is market ideology or general urbanist tendencies, whatever that means. Apart from commercial property interests and their paid professionals, the people who support this "development" the most know the least about it. If they are market ideologues, they'll be happy because any deregulation pleases them and confirms their views no matter what results from it. And maybe urbanists will get some sort of validation in the same way because they want more urbanization no matter how it's done. But those of a progressive bent who consider quality of life significant but are supporting large-scale commercial development throughout the county for general political and philosophical reasons that are virtually independent of the terms that emerge from the planning process are just being foolish.
by Proud Kensingtonian on Feb 20, 2011 1:10 pm • link • report
No one here is arguing that we completely scrap zoning all together. Rather, I would propose a re-evaluation of zoning to see if it actually accomplishes the things we want it to do. In short, calling this an exercise in extreme deregulation is false.
by Alex B. on Feb 20, 2011 1:20 pm • link • report
It seems like you're dismissing the arguments set forth because "libertarian theory generally doesn't do much" for you. But this doesn't address their claims on zoning. I don't have a libertarian fetish, either. I think they happen to be right on this particular issue.
It is valid to say none of them address this particular issue square on, in that none of them are talking narrowly about this specific zoning proposal. However they provide a good summary of my general thinking on the issue, which I will repeat: at the margin, we should roll back zoning codes a bit and allow (but not encourage) denser development. Not quite the libertarian dream you seem to want to argue against.
You said "economic inefficiency isn't what WRD contends, and its definitional limits are ignored at social peril." So please correct me here. How did I ignore the definitional limits of economic inefficiency?
You said "Your abstract arguments are counter-empirical." Please show this to be true.
by WRD on Feb 20, 2011 3:56 pm • link • report
I never really meant to initiate a general discussion of zoning laws, and I apologize to all those authors whom I mislabeled. Also, I should have said non-empirical rather than counter-empirical. Regrettably, I'm too busy to continue this exchange now, and I freely concede that you have a much bigger policy than I do.
by Proud Kensingtonian on Feb 20, 2011 7:16 pm • link • report
Add a Comment