Posts about Development

After 25 years, Montgomery's APFO has not delivered the traffic relief it promised. Over the years, it has been revised again and again to fix the most obvious defects. But because the underlying error is never corrected, it keeps getting more complicated—to the point that now almost no one can understand it.

The law is now up for renewal once again, and the Planning Board will hold a hearing today. A 179-page staff report proposes dropping the development moratoriums. Instead, staff recommend taxing developers to build more roads in high-traffic areas and run buses more frequently.

Band-aids don't cure the disease

Such tinkering does not fix the fundamental flaw in the concept of APFOs. It's like keeping the leeches and putting band-aids on the bite marks.

The Montgomery planners started out, the first page of their report tells us, by asking how more "needed transportation infrastructure" can be built. In the back is a long list of "needed" roads, copied out of plans drawn up years ago. That puts the cart before the horse—what is a transportation planner's job, if not to figure out what transportation infrastructure is really needed?

That's also not the question concurrency promised to answer. The concept was sold to the public as an answer to "How do we get rid of traffic jams?" That is surely a better question than "how can we build more roads," though still not the right question to ask.

There's only one way to actually reduce congestion: price it, with a congestion charge. Cities like London and Stockholm charge a daily fee to each car that drives into the congested district during times of heavy traffic. (People who live inside the congested zone are usually exempt.) Montgomery could ensure its roads flow smoothly by assessing a fee on drivers who enter any of its 33 "policy areas" which fail the annual traffic test.

But this is not the cure for what ails Montgomery County. Congestion charges make sense in places where the fee is voluntary, because you don't need a car to get around. That's not the case in the cul-de-sac subdivisions of American suburbs, where you are stuck at home if you can't afford to drive.

Smooth flowing traffic is not the goal; mobility and livability is

Instead of asking how to get rid of traffic, we should really be asking, "How can we make it easier to get where we need to go to live our lives?" After a century of sprawl, it is clear that this question has no answer in suburbs that were designed for automobile-dependence. Only where people can accomplish their everyday needs without being forced to drive can people be free of traffic. That requires mixed land uses, closely spaced grid streets, rail transit, and roadways shared by drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.

Today's suburbanites are trapped in a vicious circle. Development requires more roads and the roads create more sprawl. Each time around, the highways get more expensive to build and the traffic is worse. Transit requires ever larger subsidies to compete with subsidized car trips to low-density destinations. And APFOs only dig us in deeper.

There is no way out of this morass until we recognize that the old suburban model has failed. Montgomery County understood the need for a new direction when it adopted the visionary White Flint master plan two years ago. To make that plan work, planners had to junk their old APFO mindset in one section of the county. All leaders should take that lesson to heart, not just in Montgomery, but in suburbs everywhere.

The decision ends a long and often acrimonious debate over how to spark the redevelopment of downtown Wheaton. In February, Leggett's administration claimed that there wasn't enough money to pay for revitalization in Wheaton and a new Metro entrance in Bethesda, pitting supporters of both projects against each other.

When the council found funding for both projects, the conversation turned to the merits of Leggett's proposal. While County Council analyst Jacob Sesker wasn't opposed to building atop the Metro, he created the alternative proposals because he felt it wasn't feasible in the immediate future. Meanwhile, the Coalition for a Fair Redevelopment of Wheaton has expressed concerns about local businesses, calling for a more substantial town square or a community benefits agreement.

These questions led to accusations that the council was being meddlesome and was opposed to making Wheaton better. After the vote on Tuesday, resident Henriot St. Gerard wrote a scathing blog post on Wheaton Patch calling it a "show of disrespect" to the community.

I understand that people in Wheaton are impatient for change. I grew up in East County and started blogging six years ago because I wanted to see the kind of amenities that residents of Rockville or Bethesda enjoy right in my own backyard. But I too have had to grapple with a few uncomfortable truths:

Jobs are concentrated on the west side of the county and will remain there for a long time.

In 2010, there were 506,000 jobs in Montgomery County, 70% of which are located along the I-270 corridor. Bethesda alone has 87,000 jobs, more than Silver Spring, White Oak and Wheaton combined. Plans for additional employment growth in White Flint, the Great Seneca Science Corridor, and Germantown ensures that the west side will continue to remain the county's job center.

Companies located in East County aren't sticking around.

Last year, defense contractor BAE Systems moved a branch office from Aspen Hill to Rockville. The empty building added to an already high vacancy rate in the Kensington-Wheaton area, where nearly a quarter of all office space is empty, compared to just 11 percent countywide. Lee Development Group, which owns the building, will replace it with a Walmart because they concluded that the area was "a retail destination, not an office center."

Companies already located on the west side aren't interested in going east.

The county is planning to create a research and development center in East County called the White Oak Science Gateway around the Food and Drug Administration's new campus. Though the area enjoys the lowest office vacancy rate in the county, with just 6 percent of offices sitting empty, it's unclear who will fill them.

A recent report from planning consultants surveyed research and development firms located at the county's existing Life Sciences Center in Gaithersburg and found that wouldn't move to White Oak because they appreciate the proximity to other R&D firms along the I-270 corridor.

Officials are more concerned about keeping jobs in the county than where they specifically end up.

In addition to planning for future job growth on the west side, the county also gave subsidies to one company in exchange for moving there. Next year, Choice Hotels will move their headquarters from Silver Spring to Rockville with $4.3 million in loans and grants from the county, state and City of Rockville and additional tax credits.

Choice Hotels wanted to be closer to a Metro station, so having them move to Wheaton would've met both their needs and Leggett's goals. But after seeing firms like Hilton Hotels and Northrup Grumman pass up Montgomery County for Northern Virginia, county leaders were surely relieved that they decided to stay here at all.

Wheaton has many strengths: stable neighborhoods, diverse population, and a compact downtown well-served by both transit and major roads. But as a potential job center, it competes with larger and more established places like downtown Bethesda, the I-270 corridor, and others throughout Greater Washington. That's why earlier recommen­da­tions for redeveloping Wheaton, both from the public and planning experts, focused on housing, retail and entertainment in the short term, with offices coming later if demand warrants it.

Residents are both eager and worried that redevelopment will turn Wheaton into a place like Silver Spring or Bethesda, but we shouldn't be limited to those examples. Skeptics of Leggett's proposal don't lack faith in Wheaton's potential. They recognize that Wheaton's constraints and strengths, if properly harnessed, will let it grow into something else entirely.

Safeway went back to the drafting board, and partnered with Clark Realty and New Urbanist architects Torti Gallas to design a mixed-use development with a 56,000 square foot grocery store and 190 residences.

The development team has spent a lot of time engaging the community. They have created an imaginative project with reasonable density that will blend into the existing neighborhood fabric while also enlivening the street.

The plan calls for more than just replacing the timeworn Tenleytown Safeway with a new store. By adding a residential building, the project will reinvigorate this stretch of Wisconsin Avenue marked by aging commercial development and help it start to transform into a mixed-use commercial and residential district.

Unfortunately, at the March 8 ANC 3E meeting, residents lodged a litany of complaints about the height, density, and parking and traffic impacts of the project.

Some Ward 3 residents have criticized the project as being too dense for the surrounding neighborhood. But the site's location on Wisconsin Avenue, between the Tenleytown and Friendship Heights Metro stations and served by high-frequency bus lines, makes it very appropriate for transit-oriented, slightly denser development.

Growth like what Safeway proposes will bring increased foot traffic and customers to stores and restaurants, giving residents in quieter surrounding neighborhoods more shopping and dining choices, and bolsters DC's tax-base while adding minimal traffic.

The development team showed great sensitivity to community concerns. The architects moved delivery traffic to Davenport Street from the originally proposed location on Elicott Street, where drivers will now unload in a covered delivery court. This buffers the noise and keeps truck traffic away from Georgetown Day School students across the street. The team also added a cover over the delivery court after residents voiced concerns about noise.

The architects added a row of liner townhouses to screen off the potentially blank, uninteresting walls of the grocery store, enhancing the sense of a residential environment. They also stepped back the height of the building to create terraces, increasing green space for the development, and added a second entrance to Safeway along 42nd Street to make the shopfront livelier.

Also, in direct response to concerns expressed at the January ANC meeting, the development team removed one whole story from the residential main block, making it 4 residential stories instead of 5 as originally planned.

There are, of course, details that still need to be resolved, such as how to foster lively street life, how to to minimize traffic congestion and enhance safety, putting utility lines, and encouraging other amenities like bike and car sharing.

The one area that could most improve is at the corner of Ellicott and 42nd, where WMATA has a small service building often referred to as a "bunker." Safeway and Clark are negotiating with Metro about this property. A semi-public use, such as a coffeehouse pavilion, would bring many benefits to the community and developer alike. DC could also modify the slip lanes in this area to create additional public space.

Either way, the final proposal is an excellent one. The team has shown willingness to compromise, and deserve full support from area residents.

Leggett's proposal

In 2010, Leggett made an agreement with developer B.F. Saul to redevelop several county-owned parcels in the center of downtown Wheaton. On Parking Lot 13, located at the corner of Reedie Drive and Grandview Avenue, B.F. Saul would build a six-story, 250-unit apartment building with ground-floor retail and a new town square in a setup comparable to Bethesda Row.

The developer would also build a platform over the Wheaton Metro station's bus turnaround as the base for a hotel and three 14-story office buildings. With approximately 900,000 square feet, nine times the existing amount of Class A office space in downtown Wheaton, these buildings would bring about 3,600 workers to Wheaton's downtown every day.

Those offices would house the county's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Department of Permitting Services (DPS), both currently located in Rockville, along with the Park and Planning Commission, currently in Silver Spring.

The county would also like to find a federal government tenant, though the rent cap on government offices will require them to subsidize rent, as they already do for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's headquarters in downtown Silver Spring.

Leggett wants to set aside $42 million for the project, which would only cover the cost of building the platform. It's unclear how much it would cost to build the rest or whether the county or B.F. Saul would pay for it. Nonetheless, the proposal has been endorsed by the Wheaton Urban District Advisory Committee and Mid-County Citizens Advisory Board, another developer working in Wheaton, and the Gazette.

Council plan similar, but priorities are different

Concerned about the size and cost of Leggett's proposal, the County Council's Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee offered a counterproposal last month. In their proposal, estimated to cost $55 million, B.F. Saul the county would build a new town square on Lot 13 with an underground parking garage, at a cost of $2.5 million and $5.6 million, respectively, along with a building for DEP and DPS for $46 million.

There's also room for the Park and Planning Commission if another $46 million is found to build another building. Both buildings would contain 415,000 square feet of office space and hold about 1,600 workers.

"It is misleading to say that $42 million will revitalize Wheaton," says Councilmember George Leventhal, who sits on the committee. (Full disclosure: I used to work for Leventhal.) "The only thing that $42 million buys now is a concrete hat over the bus bay, and if you want to relocate county agencies, the cost will go above $100 million."

Though local blogger Wheaton Calling accuses the council of "throwing a wrench" into the redevelopment process with their counterproposal, the benefits of Leggett's proposal remain unclear. The county's Department of Economic Development usually does a cost-benefit analysis of major public investments, like the $4 million big-box retailer Costco received to open a store in Wheaton Plaza, but they haven't done one for this project.

"The 'end' is not to build a platform, to execute a General Development Agreement, or to attract a federal tenant," writes Jacob Sesker, economic analyst for the County Council, in a report for the PHED committee. "Rather, the desired end is to introduce land uses (to wit, office space) . . . that downtown Wheaton currently lacks and which the market will not provide."

In a phone call, Sesker points out that in large-scale redevelopment projects, the best way to start is with the least challenging or expensive parts, like Lot 13. Those improvements will add value to the rest of the development, which makes the expensive parts more profitable to build later on, meaning B.F. Saul will require fewer subsidies.

The platform also has no direct benefit to the community by itself. "Unlike a school or a train, a platform does not teach any child to read and does not take anyone to work." Without those benefits, Sesker says, "If it is not generating revenue, then it probably is not a good investment."

"The County Council is the steward of public money," adds Leventhal. "If we're going to spend that money, it's reasonable to ask what this will do for taxpayers. We have to be very cautious about our decision, and we need much better analysis than what we've gotten."

Some still say offices just don't make sense in Wheaton. In 2009, a group of real estate and design experts commissioned by the Urban Land Institute to offer recommendations for redevelopment concluded that there is "no inherent reason" for offices to locate there:

The panel heard from a number of stakeholders that there is a desire for more office space in the CBD, in order to bring in greater daytime foot traffic . . . Wheaton is not well-positioned to attract development of, or users for, new large-scale office space. There are simply too many other office centers within the region that possess greater strengths, particularly in the near-term, where so much new office space has recently been built.

Instead, the panel suggested building apartments and townhomes to draw young professionals being priced out of Silver Spring, as well as chain stores and restaurants to Wheaton Plaza to "anchor" the downtown, and developing a small music venue to take advantage of its proximity to the renowned Chuck Levin's Washington Music Center.

On Lot 13, the panel proposed a town square and a smaller "2-3 story building" with shops and apartments. Like Sesker, they recommend waiting to build over the bus turnaround, as that site is the "most valuable" in downtown Wheaton and has "the potential for the greatest density." This vision, particularly its focus on music and entertainment, fits in with earlier proposals for Wheaton that were well-received by the community.

No matter what the county does, they should heed the ULI panel's warning on any development in Wheaton: "Wheaton's strengths, such as its eclectic retail mix, are also quite fragile, and could be irreparably harmed by any redevelopment projects that are ill-conceived or rushed. Thus, the panel recommends a gradual approach to redevelopment," they write. "An attempt to force a desired result . . . would not only fail, but would also end up undermining the unique identity that Wheaton already possesses."

We've been waiting for a new Wheaton for twenty years, so it's understandable some are impatient. But rushing into any project without a thorough understanding of its potential costs and benefits could destroy what people already like about the old Wheaton while limiting its future potential.

In response to these proposals, Fairfax County authorized a special study to examine the area's potential for revitalization. The county appointed a citizen task force and funded a market analysis and a traffic study.

The task force began its work in December 2010. They met monthly for the next 16 months, and staged 3 public hearings. As the process evolved, planners generated a binder full of data pointing to a series of related conclusions:

• The community is concerned about the ongoing decline of Penn Daw and wants to attract better retailers to the area.
  
• The retail market no longer supports either the volume or the layout of the area's existing retail space.
  
• There is unmet demand for high quality, multifamily residential development in the market area.
  
• Several intersections in and around the study area have existing traffic congestion and safety concerns.
• Surrounding residential streets need to better accommodate pedestrians.

At the end of the process, the task force drafted a plan to replace the area's single-use, auto-oriented pattern with up to 735 apartment units and about 40,000 square feet of urban scale retail space.

Some local residents spoke out against the proposed plan with concerns about increased cut-through traffic and the potential loss of community-serving businesses. Others went a step further and openly challenged the veracity of the planners working on the project.

Some opponents simply did not believe the results of the market or traffic studies. They suggested that the consultants either didn't know what they were doing or were somehow compromised. This group seemed believe that there was demand for retail at Penn Daw, and that the applicants were holding out on signing leases with potential retail tenants in order to push mixed-use projects.

While the charge about greedy developers lying to make money is as old as planning itself, at multiple public hearings one resident after another stood up and made a number of other emotionally driven claims. But the facts refute each of the opponents' fears.

• Fear: Residential development would cause worse traffic problems than retail development. Reality: Retail uses typically generate far more traffic per square foot than residential, a fact highlighted by the county's traffic study.
  
• Fear: The apartments wouldn't really be luxury, and would actually attract large, low-income families, causing overcrowding in schools. Reality: The two proposed apartment buildings are conceived as consisting of urban-style units that expressly appeal to young professionals and empty nesters.
  
• Fear: Development would gridlock neighborhood streets and lead to children being killed by speeders. Reality: It is directly contradictory to simultaneously claim that traffic will become gridlocked, and that there will be so many speeders that children's lives become endangered.
  
• Fear: There isn't enough market demand for apartments, so mixed-use development will end up a vacant slum. Reality: In the current economy, it's extremely unlikely a non-viable project would receive funding from money lenders.
  
• Fear: The developers would make more money by building fewer units. Reality: Given the high costs of demolishing existing buildings, preparing sites for redevelopment, and navigating such a lengthy and contentious planning process, a large number of units are needed to justify proceeding with the projects.

In the end, the county Planning Commission was not swayed by the dissenters' pleas and voted unanimously in favor of the plan.

In light of such a strong endorsement from the county, it may seem that future revitalization efforts along Richmond Highway will proceed smoothly. While this may prove to be the case, the battle lines are clearly drawn for the next skirmish.

Even if the developments at Penn Daw are successful and new residents do in fact choose to walk and use transit, the overall volume of traffic along Richmond Highway isn't going to shrink anytime soon. Future development proposals are thus likely to generate the same protests and angry reactions from surrounding neighborhoods.

While the commission voted based on the recommendations of a citizen task force and two technical studies rather than the emotionally charged opposition, planners can learn from the Penn Daw process in two key ways.

First, planners and developers need to be very proactive about engaging and educating citizens. And second, development projects should take place within the framework of a comprehensive transportation plan, so that residents cannot blame individual developers for existing and longstanding traffic problems.

Lower income families feel the effects of this economic shift most, as families making less than 50% of the area median income, about $60,000 in Alexandria, have seen the largest increase in the percentage of their income that they spend on housing. They now pay over 40% of their income on housing. Those earning approximately 30% of the area median, about $40,000 in Alexandria, pay closer to 80% of their income on housing.

While most of the apartment rents in the city, even the affordable ones, are most financially accessible to people earning over $60,000 a year, there are thousands of people paying for these units even though their incomes are much lower. The result is they have little, if any, disposable income to live on.

And, these so-called affordable units are becoming ever more scarce. When property owners repair and fix up their buildings they are able to double rents, driving moderate income workers out of our city and further away, forcing longer commutes on them and more congestion on our region.

Last year, the average value of apartment buildings went up about 15% because a shortage of housing choices and the cost of construction continue to drive up costs. Alexandria gives substantial bonuses to create affordable housing projects. The city waives parking requirements. It allows for extra density. It helps non-profits to get subsidized financing.

But, it is evident that these measures are not enough. The lack of supply and increasing cost of managing or building units render it impossible for non-profits, and for profit organizations, alike, to create an apartment that is reasonably affordable to a person earning under $40,000 a year.

In short, our region isn't keeping up with the demand for rental housing. People want to live near jobs and fewer want long commutes from the far-out suburbs, especially with gas prices at over $4.00 per gallon.

The fact is that these trends are likely to continue. Every regional forecast expects significant growth of millions of residents over the next twenty years. This is economics 101. A good economy and jobs insulate us from some of the worse parts of the national economy. However, all of these factors also put huge pressure on rental prices.

Despite the awards Alexandria has won and the millions of dollars we have spent over the last ten years to preserve a range of affordable housing options, there is no city policy that can stop these rental price trends.

Typically, the most affordable housing in any area are the older apartment buildings. As those are replaced and upgraded, we lose affordable options. Building more rental housing now is the best long-term solution, because it increases supply, and because today's new unit will most likely become more affordable over time.

However, if we are to truly impact the supply and demand problems facing our region, it's going to take more than just Alexandria's participation. We will need the whole of our region to recognize and begin to address the problem.

In the conversation about how to keep rents affordable, some have suggested that the city not fix up public housing, or that it not advance public safety improvements, or that it not allow investment in our parks and other city infrastructure, in order to suppress the value of property.

Although purposely running real estate into the ground and encouraging crime would certainly keep some rents affordable, this is a narrow and dangerous approach that ignores the larger national economic trends behind this.

Furthermore, it is inconsistent with the city's identity, as a place where people from many backgrounds and incomes can live safely and enjoy a good quality of life. Smart urban planning and common sense would say there should be a range of housing options throughout the city, not segregated pockets of low income workers in crime ridden, rundown housing.

While some have complained about the fact that the city is demolishing significant blocks of pubic housing right now, the truth is that every unit of public housing that Alexandria is taking down will be replaced with a newer, higher quality unit of public housing that will provide for a better and safer environment for residents to enjoy.

Alexandria's median income is close to $110,000. And, it's going up as more high skilled, high wage people move into our region. But for recent college grads, blue collar workers, teachers, police, construction workers, cleaners and more, it also means living multiple people to a unit or driving hours each day to work here.

If residents, planners and officials want to preserve, and even improve upon, the diverse, vibrant and accommodating character of Alexandria, they will have to go further and exercise open-mindedness, creativity and flexibility in the coming years. And, Alexandria will need the partnership of the greater Washington region to make a true impact on rent-to-income ratios as the city and metro area continue to expand and evolve.

Here's my approach. I think Wheaton's downtown is sorely missing a public place to go and just spend time. I know, for example, that if I go to Downtown Silver Spring, Bethesda or Rockville, I can spend several hours with my family without having to move the car. I can pick a destination—and the afternoon starts there. There will be other people moving about. I may run into friends. I can eat, shop at a market or in one of the stores. My kids can play at a fountain or other structure and I can knock off an errand.

Wheaton has many businesses to support this but it lacks a central place where people can gather. It lacks an Ellsworth Drive or Bethesda Row—not necessarily a town square, although it could be, but a place with a compelling and memorable identity that has been built and designed for people.

Wheaton's core already has many great shops. Some of my favorites there on Triangle Lane include Marchones, where I buy the best deli sandwiches, Showcase Aquarium, and one of the region's coolest stores, the Toy Exchange, which has vintage toys, from Star Wars figures to Lionel trains. In the surrounding blocks, there are notable restaurants such as Pho Hiep Hoa (where I discovered Pho), Nava Thai, Full Key, Hollywood East, Ren's Ramen, Caramelo Bakery (with the most spectacular saltenas), and the list goes on.

But what Wheaton does not have is a connecting space to weave the shops, and its identity, together. Typically I have to park at one restaurant and then get back in the car to drive to another location, which is a real pain with kids. I end up spending additional money somewhere else.

In my view, Silver Spring is a success not because of any particular office building in the area, but because of the public space that was created and the sense of identity it fostered. People just love going there.

Wheaton could have that, too. Wheaton has plenty of potential customers in the surrounding neighborhoods, but I suspect that many of them prefer to go out to other destinations that have more street life. They spend their money somewhere else, too.

It is hard to create street life in a parking lot, which is what we currently use as a big space at the center of the urban core.

If we are going to make Wheaton a real destination with appeal to families, teens, singles and everyone, we should start by building an urban park.

What is an urban park? My favorite is the spectacular Yerba Buena Gardens in San Francisco, where I've spent hours soaking in the city. While I don't think we can go that far, we do have nearly $42 million proposed in the capital budget for Wheaton redevelopment.

We also need to remake Triangle Lane, pictured below, so that not only cars and delivery trucks can access the area but people can walk around in an enriching environment. We could have a wider storefront sidewalk for businesses and customers, pavers, lamps, benches and trees. Triangle Lane is, after all, "Wheaton Row."

Finally, reaching a little further out into the orbit of the urban core, we should get the new Wheaton Library and Recreation Center built as fast as possible. A quality community amenity like that will go a long way to getting residents in the surrounding area even more engaged in their own local community, and it may help attract new, higher income residents to the area.

Wheaton certainly needs new office workers to support the businesses, and the county needs to relocate agencies in order to reduce leasing costs. Fortunately, there are many places in Wheaton to locate new office buildings. We could even build a tall tower where the Mid-County Regional center is today.

We will see what the best approach is, but I am dead set against any construction impact that will wipe out the businesses on Triangle Lane. If these businesses have their parking removed during many years of construction, I am worried that many of them may not survive. There is a possibility that this approach will only end up sterilizing the small business ecosystem that makes Wheaton unique.

Wheaton is different, and we should take a different approach to economic development there. Don't wipe the businesses out and then build new. Nurture the core and let it grow organically. Make it a destination, and the people will come.