Posts about Townhouses
Some people may consider "density" a dirty word, but if designed well, a dense community can feel both spacious and private. Take Top of the Park, a 1940's-era condominium in Silver Spring. While none of the townhouses have their own yards, they share a backyard that anyone would envy.
Top of the Park was built in 1942 as apartments and converted to condominiums in the 1970's. It's a product of the Garden City movement, which tried at the turn of the 20th century to synthesize the best features of the city and country, giving residents access to urban amenities in a more natural setting.
Garden City ideas were very popular in the design of European neighborhoods, but they appeared in American communities as well, like Radburn, New Jersey and nearby Greenbelt.
Though it was built on what was once the suburban edge, Top of the Park can arguably be called an urban neighborhood now, surrounded by taller buildings and within a short walk of the Long Branch shopping district. One day, it will be a few blocks from two Purple Line stations.
Nonetheless, the community still retains a country feel. In keeping with the Garden City ideal of separating car and pedestrian traffic, Top of the Park is organized around a few dead-end streets where residents park their cars, then walk through shared courtyards to their homes, which face common footpaths.
The walk from the car to the house can be a little long, but it might be worth it. The paths are lined with beautiful flowers and bushes, and everywhere you look are views of mature trees. Little touches like these built-in benches make the walkways a place for spending time in, not just passing through.
The original designers also took advantage of the site's hilly terrain. The two rows of houses pictured above can't be more than 50 feet apart, but placing one of them at a higher elevation ensures that they don't look directly into each other, giving residents more privacy.
Since it's a condominium, Top of the Park residents own their homes, but not the land they sit on. However, they are allowed to make some alterations to the front and back of their units, like this porch. This policy gives residents the ability to individualize their homes, but at a lower cost than if they bought a conventional townhouse or detached house with a private yard.
Besides, residents get to enjoy these shared courtyards, filled with trees, flowers and some outdoor furniture. When I visited a few months ago, I heard birds singing as neighbors tended their gardens and kids ran around. I imagine it would be very difficult, or at least very expensive, to find a private yard this nice this close to downtown Silver Spring.
These terraces seem to lend themselves well to neighborly gatherings, like a picnic or cookout. I noticed that in addition to providing shade, the trees screen views of the surrounding houses, giving them privacy.
With 166 homes on 15 acres, Top of the Park wouldn't be mistaken for Manhattan, but it's part of one of Montgomery County's densest neighborhoods. It's also about as dense as some recently-built or proposed townhouse developments around Silver Spring. Unlike those neighborhoods, however, Top of the Park has had decades to let its trees grow to the point where you can barely see the houses between them in an aerial photo. Hopefully, the same thing will happen in newer projects.
Top of the Park may be 70 years old, but it shows that we can still offer privacy, ample open space and opportunities for personal expression to families who may not want or can't afford a large, detached house. It's a useful example for Montgomery County as it tries to accommodate a growing population in an increasingly limited space.
Neighbors of Chelsea Court, a proposed townhouse development at the site of the former Chelsea School outside downtown Silver Spring complain it's too dense for a neighborhood of single-family homes, and last month, the County Council agreed. But why can't different housing types coexist?
Local developer EYA bought the Chelsea School's campus in May 2010 after the private academy announced they were closing. EYA, which has built dozens of townhome and condominium projects around Greater Washington over the past twenty years, wants to build 76 townhomes on the site, located in the Seven Oaks neighborhood less than a block from downtown Silver Spring.
To do so, they need the County Council to change the property's zoning, which right now only allows single-family homes.
There's a group of neighbors who say they'd prefer detached houses, while county planners and blogger Silver Spring, Singular, who also lives in the neighborhood, point out that there's already high-rise buildings in the area.
Neighbors will always complain that a development is "too dense" on the basis of overcrowded schools or congested roads, though that isn't really an issue with two-bedroom townhouses within walking distance of a large urban center. So let's talk about the other issue: is it a foregone conclusion that you can't have single-family homes, townhomes and apartments in the same neighborhood? Not at all, especially if they're designed to get along with each other.
This is the corner of 47th Street and Osage Avenue in West Philadelphia, about three blocks from my house here. The specific neighborhood is called Garden Court, and it was built in the 1920's as a "streetcar suburb" for middle- and upper-middle-class families. Even as much of West Philadelphia fell into disinvestment and poverty, this neighborhood has been relatively stable. Today, it's home to many students and faculty at Penn, Drexel and other universities in the area. Even a rowhouse here will easily run above $500,000, a bargain by D.C.-area standards but expensive for here.
Take a look at this intersection. On three corners are large, single-family homes. Next to them are duplexes, maybe a little smaller but still more than enough room for a family. Go west on Osage about a hundred feet, or east one block, and you'll find rowhouses. See that big building poking through the trees? That's a high-rise condominium, just a block north.
Different types of houses mix well in my West Philadelphia
neighborhood, so why can't they in Silver Spring?
This neighborhood's not a bad comparison to, say, Woodside Park or Seven Oaks, neighborhoods adjacent to downtown Silver Spring. Woodside Park and Seven Oaks were built around the same time. Though those neighborhoods have bigger lots and lack sidewalks, they were intended for the same, well-heeled clientele. And both have a mix of different house types, sizes and heights.
Nonetheless, Garden Court has the benefit of being built all at once, so the high-rise building has similar details and materials as the single-family houses. In the neighborhoods around downtown Silver Spring, you might have single-family homes built before World War II, apartment buildings built in the 1960's, and townhouses built more recently.
Certainly, living next to a genteel 1920's apartment house might be nicer than living next to a 1960's Modernist apartment tower. It's not surprising that some people living in neighborhoods like Seven Oaks are uncomfortable with new development when they have to contend with buildings that aren't so sensitive to their context.
Townhomes in Chelsea Court will look at Colesville Towers,
a 1960's-era apartment tower. Image from Google Street View.
Yet my example shows that single-family houses and townhouses and apartments can play together if done right. Like the different housing types in my West Philadelphia neighborhood, the proposed Chelsea Court houses use similar materials and detailing as existing homes nearby, while providing a opportunity for families who can't afford or don't want a detached house to live there. What makes Silver Spring a great place to live is that it attracts a mix of people, and that comes from having a mix of housing styles, types and prices. And like I wrote last week, those qualities are threatened when we try to push out anyone or anything that seems "different" than what's already there.
Like any development in an existing neighborhood, Chelsea Court needs to fit in with its context. But that doesn't have anything to do with how dense it is. In fact, an urban center like Silver Spring needs new residents within walking distance of its shops, restaurants, and extensive public transit. What we can do is ensure that these new townhouses are designed to complement their single-family neighbors. It's been done before, and we can do it again.
reported that developers have been chosen for Northwest One, which will replace the Sursum Corda and Temple Court projects near New York Avenue and North Capitol with mixed-use redevelopment that has the potential to become a walkable neighborhood. But it also reveals some very different views on how to handle traffic around New York Avenue and I-395.
The master plan from 2005 has a lot to recommend it. In addition to building mixed-income townhouses on the side streets and larger apartment buildings with retail facing the larger thoroughfare of K Street, it will reconnect many of the smaller streets like L Street. Right now, that area is a hodgepodge of dead-ends and superblocks; the more connected the street grid the more walkable a neighborhood.
But I noticed one very bad idea briefly mentioned on page 24 of the plan, the section on traffic. The neighborhood is very close to the intersection where the I-395 freeway comes out of the tunnel under the Capitol and dead-ends at New York Avenue. This is one of the last pieces to be built of the original DC interstate plan. The Northwest One master plan (from 2005, remember) says, "There is significant congestion along New York Avenue between the I-395 tunnel and North Capitol Street... This study recommends... the extension of the I-395 tunnel from its current terminus to Florida Avenue."
DC planners may have good ideas on smart growth, but at least in 2005 they still were stuck in the past on traffic. Adding more traffic lanes does not reduce congestion; at most it pushes it elsewhere. Extending the tunnel might allow New York Avenue to become a pedestrian-friendly road, but will also make I-395 even more appealing for drivers, increasing traffic volume there. If there are bottlenecks in the tunnel, more drivers may divert to the same city streets the plan aims to protect. And what about New York Avenue east of Florida Avenue? Enabling more traffic will make that area even more difficult to turn into walkable urban neighborhoods one day.
Continuing to surprise me, however, is the federal government: the National Capital Planning Commission conducted a charrette with Federal agencies and six consultants, which resulted in a report recommending the opposite of DC Planning's tunnel extension. Noting that many drivers use New York Avenue and 395 to cut through the District between Maryland and Virginia instead of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge on the Beltway, the report advocates designing New York Avenue to serve DC residents instead of suburbanites. It recommends planners "encourage more smart, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use development" and "create a corridor with a better balance of transportation modes (e.g. transit, walking, bicycling)."
For the New York/Florida Avenue intersection, the group suggests policies to "discourage drive-through, auto-oriented uses at the intersection" and "employ traffic-calming measures to slow traffic to a level compatible with the urban neighborhood." Most remarkably, the report recomments DC evaluate congestion pricing in the area, and even cutting I-395 back to end at Massachusetts Avenue (a road which leads to DC neighborhoods on both ends, rather than connecting directly to a Maryland freeway).
This is remarkably progressive thinking from a federal board. This is a major intersection that carries large amounts of traffic, but is also ugly and overly designed for cars. Most Departments of Transportation would only be able to think about increasing its traffic capacity, but NCPC is instead recommending restoring the area to a vibrant urban fabric. And it can be done while still enabling people to drive in and out of the city, just as people successfully do along the avenues to the north, which work relatively well as neighborhood main streets and commuter boulevards at the same time.
During the dark ages of urban planning (the 1960s and 70s), many old residential buildings were replaced with discredited the idea. Block after block of attractive row houses are gone forever, even though brownstones in places like Brooklyn, Boston, San Francisco, and DC sell for a million dollars or two, or more.
Can we ever go back? Most of today's urban developments are glassy high-rises, the better to capture the maximum possible revenue for the developer. They're better than 1970s concrete boxes, but is anyone building brightly colored townhouses with bay windows in front?
They are building them in one place, DC's "Capitol Quarter" development in Southeast DC near the new baseball stadium.
These aren't Dupont's ornate Victorian row houses or Brooklyn's brick brownstones, but they look quite nice nonetheless. And with many people interested in living in the city but not craving the high rise apartment life, we need more townhouses in mixed-use areas. This district is near stores, offices, and the Metro.
Hopefully, mixing mixing low- and middle-income housing with market-rate, all next to one another in buildings of similar appearance, will avoid mistakes of the "housing projects" where concentrations of poverty create high-crime zones. And hopefully this project will look as good as it does in the drawing, encouraging more construction of new townhouses and creating new Park Slopes or Capitol Hills for future generations.
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- DDOT agrees to repave 15th Street cycle track
- Redeveloping McMillan is the only way to save it
- Vienna Metro town center won't have a town center