According to a nugget in this week’s Washington Business Journal, JBG has signed three new tenants for the North Bethesda Market complex on the Rockville Pike across from the White Flint Mall. These are: Seasons 52, Dolcé Amoré Café, and Arhaus Furniture. These additions will join Whole Foods and L.A. Fitness.
Seasons 52 is a restaurant chain based in Florida, and owned by the Darden Restaurants, according to Wikipedia. Other restaurant chains in their portfolio include Red Lobster and the Olive Garden. Seasons 52 boasts 4 menus, one for each season (the '52' refers to the 52 weeks of one year). We checked out the dinner menu for summer which states the menu consists of “Seasonally inspired cooking with every item under 475 calories." Entrees seem reasonably priced and include this random sample: Tiger Shrimp Penne Pasta, Grilled Boneless Rainbow Trout, Grilled Rack of New Zealand Lamb. Key Lime pie, one of my personal favorites, is on the dessert menu, and given that the chain is based in Florida, we are assuming this will be made with fresh key limes! We can’t wait to try it out.
Dolcé Amoré Café is rooted in Del Ray, Florida (we sense a theme here) where, according to tripadvisor, it is a ‘hidden gem.’ The dinner menu ranges from Chicken Saltimbocca to Eggplant Parmigiana to Chicken Caprese. The menu is moderate to expensive. The owners seem firmly rooted in their community too, which will be a big plus.
When JBG presented their plans to the Planning Board they talked about open sidewalk cafes facing Woodglen and we assume these restaurants will fulfill that promise to we nearby residents who will be walking to the restaurants.
We can't wait too for the sculpture on the interior 'Paseo' street that JBG promised in their presentation to the Planning Board way back when.
Finally, furniture store Arhaus, which looks to be a chain store with branches in Annapolis and Baltimore, as well as Tyson’s Corner and Fairfax. To get an idea of their furniture, check out the website, here.
Gee, these all sound like great additions to our neighborhood. One comment to all the developers: please keep looking for some more unusual stores and restaurants as well. Check out Busboys & Poets; check out E Street Cinema; take a chance on some local restaurants. That’s how Volt and The Tasting Room got started up in Frederick. We who live here all know that little Thai or Cuban restaurant, or that barbeque spot located out of the way…Take a chance.
Paula B.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
White Flint Sector Plan Design Guidelines Out Now
The Planning Department has released the Draft Design Guidelines for the White Flint Sector Plan, and here they are! The Planning Board will discuss and vote on the Guidelines this coming Thursday, May 27.
White Flint Urban Design Draft Guidelines May2010
...and here is the May 21, 2010 Staff Report that accompanies the Draft Design Guidelines
White_Flint_Design_Guidelines Staff Report May 21, 2010
Paula B.
White Flint Urban Design Draft Guidelines May2010
...and here is the May 21, 2010 Staff Report that accompanies the Draft Design Guidelines
White_Flint_Design_Guidelines Staff Report May 21, 2010
Paula B.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Sectional Map Amendment
Yesterday I attended the public hearing on the White Flint Sectional Map amendment. There was only one speaker with no written testimony, just casual comments. It's interesting that the PHED committee meeting on this is set for the end of July. This is May. I'm curious why there was such a rush to approve White Flint when there appears to be several months to spare.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Metro Report is Public and we have it!
There has been so much going on with Metro, its safety, maintenance, and financing now and for the future that I thought I would roll up the articles that have been published in the neighborhood newspapers to address our question, how exactly will Montgomery County achieve the 50 percent non-auto mode share promised in the White Flint Sector ‘Plan.’ And, according to the ‘Plan’ when will this be achieved? Is there a Plan B in case the 50 percent target is not reached? Well, of course, the second question is easy to answer. No. There is no Plan B. And the corollary question, what then? Answer from the Council: So what. It is only a ‘Plan.’
Most recently, a study was completed describing in some detail the problems with Metro. The report was presented by David Gunn, General Manager of WMATA from 1991-1994. Thanks to pushing by Congress to make this report public, including our own Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the study was made public in late April. And, here it is!
Paula B.
Washington, D.C. Metro Study David Gunn Presentation March 11, 2010
Most recently, a study was completed describing in some detail the problems with Metro. The report was presented by David Gunn, General Manager of WMATA from 1991-1994. Thanks to pushing by Congress to make this report public, including our own Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the study was made public in late April. And, here it is!
Paula B.
Washington, D.C. Metro Study David Gunn Presentation March 11, 2010
Proposed Sectional Map Amendment for the White Flint Sector Plan
Here you go, folks! The Sectional Map Amendment, to be heard by the Montgomery County, MD Planning Board on Tuesday, May 18th, at 1:30 pm. What great timing for public involvement, in keeping with the philosophy of this Planning Board and Planning Department. Hold the public hearing in the middle of the afternoon, so no one from the public can attend unless they can take an entire day off. We expect the room will be filled with the developers, their planners, and their attorneys however. happy days.
Paula B.
Montgomery County MD Sectional Map Amendment for White Flint April 2010
Paula B.
Montgomery County MD Sectional Map Amendment for White Flint April 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
The Proposed New Transportation Policy Area Review
Here is the latest and greatest from our Montgomery County, MD County Executive, Ike Leggett, and MoCo DOT, Edgar Gonzalez and staff. If you have comments post them here and of course don't hesitate to tell our County Exec, at ocemail@montgomerycountymd.gov.
Paula B.
Montgomery County, MD Proposed Transportation Policy Area Review 4-19-2010
Paula B.
Montgomery County, MD Proposed Transportation Policy Area Review 4-19-2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Growth Policy Amendment
This Tuesday the Council unanimously passed the Growth Policy amendment, with no discussion of the staff recommendations or of the community concern for a balance between density and infrastructure..
A number of Councilmembers including Councilmember Berliner, Councilmember Leventhal, Councilmember Elrich and Councilmember Tractenberg spoke about the importance of the financial plan and how it is going to insure that the needed infrastructure is funded. Mentioned was how the Financial Plan is a public process and that it requires approval by the Planning Board and the Council. What was missing from the discussion is the fact that infrastructure alone will not provide balance and that there needs to be a clear measure for adequacy.
The Sector Plan provides for CLATR and identification of problems, but not until the end of Phase I or the end of Phase II is there any mention of delaying development until intermediate mode share goals are met. Until then existing communities will be forced to deal with increasing congestion.
If the Council argument is correct and you can buy your way out of congestion via the Financial Plan, then why are they loath to support the APFO and loath to have an adequacy test? The existing communities are the losers on this.
Natalie
A number of Councilmembers including Councilmember Berliner, Councilmember Leventhal, Councilmember Elrich and Councilmember Tractenberg spoke about the importance of the financial plan and how it is going to insure that the needed infrastructure is funded. Mentioned was how the Financial Plan is a public process and that it requires approval by the Planning Board and the Council. What was missing from the discussion is the fact that infrastructure alone will not provide balance and that there needs to be a clear measure for adequacy.
The Sector Plan provides for CLATR and identification of problems, but not until the end of Phase I or the end of Phase II is there any mention of delaying development until intermediate mode share goals are met. Until then existing communities will be forced to deal with increasing congestion.
If the Council argument is correct and you can buy your way out of congestion via the Financial Plan, then why are they loath to support the APFO and loath to have an adequacy test? The existing communities are the losers on this.
Natalie
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Bus Rapid Transit Presentation April 19 7:30Pm
Paula B.
DATE: April 19
TIME: 7:30 PM
LOCATION: Garrett Park Town Hall
10814 Kenilworth Ave
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Growth Policy
Last Thursday I was at the Planning Board for the consideration of the Growth Policy Amendment. There were three speakers: myself, concerned about traffic; the attorney for Federal Realty supporting the amendment and offering a modification to the amendment; and a woman concerned that the Wshington Post picture failed to show the congestion on the Pike. What was most concerning to me was that neither the Planning Board staff, nor any of the three Planning Board members made any mention of Adequate Public Facilities or managing congestion. It was cleary stated by one Planning Board member that this change would make it easier for development to move faster. What a shame that approval of the White Flint Sector Plan has allowed our public officials to forget about managing traffic and about the existing communities who will be so adversely affected by unmanaged growth
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Closing the Metro Budget Gap: Public Hearing Thursday, April 1, 7pm
WMATA is currently holding hearings on the estimated $189 million budget gap for FY11. Hearings in Montgomery County are scheduled for this Thursday, April 1. This is Hearing No. 553.
An online survey to get public input on how the transit agency should close a $189 million budget gap in fiscal year 2011 is also available. To take the survey go here.
The public is invited to provide input on a number of proposals to balance the budget, which include a combination of fare increases, Metrorail and Metrobus service reductions, changes to the MetroAccess fare structure and service area allowed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, departmental and staff reductions, additional contributions from the jurisdictions that fund Metro, and the use of capital funds to pay for preventive maintenance.
In addition to the General Manager’s proposed budget, Metro is including suggestions from the Riders’Advisory Council, other rider groups and ATU Local 689 for the public’s consideration during the hearings. More detailed information about the proposals will be posted on Metro’s Web site, http://www.wmata.com/, with the public hearing docket in mid-March.
Directions can be found here.
Proposals to balance the budget include the widest array of options possible to help the Board of Directors get the public input they need before they make a final decision on the budget in June. Not all of the options presented are necessary to balance the budget. Any proposed fare increases, service reductions and changes to MetroAccess service would start June 27, 2010.
Possible fare increases being considered for FY2011 include:
• Increasing the Metrorail peak period boarding charge from $1.65 to up to $2;
• Increasing the Metrorail maximum peak period fare from $4.50 to up to $5:45;
• Implementing a surcharge of up to 50 cents for “peak-of-the-peak” trips from 7:30 to 9 a.m. and 4:30 to 6 p.m. weekdays;
• Increasing the Metrorail off-peak boarding charge from $1.35 to up to $1.65;
• Increasing Metrorail and Metrobus passes so the price is consistent with boarding charges;
• Increasing the Metrobus boarding charge from $1.25 to up to $1.60 with SmarTrip® and from $1.35 to up to $1.70 with cash;
• Increasing the MetroAccess fare to up to twice the comparable fixed route fare;
• Increasing all daily parking rates by up to $1.15; and
• Increasing the bicycle locker yearly rental fee from $70 to up to $200.
Service reductions being considered for FY2011 include:
• Making seasonal adjustments to service to meet demand;
• Increasing intervals between trains and buses;
• Closing some station mezzanines and rail stations during periods of low ridership (such as weekends or late at night);
• Beginning rail service later in the mornings;
• Modifying late-night rail and bus service; and
• Eliminating some low-ridership bus routes or portions of routes.
Changes to MetroAccess service being considered for FY2011 include:
• Reducing the MetroAccess service area (within Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines) to reflect actual fixed-route bus and rail service areas reflecting the actual time, day and location;
• Charging a premium for service provided to locations beyond the ¾-mile corridor around fixed-route services. The premium for zones would be up to $5 for zone 1, up to $10 for zone 2, up to $15 for zone 3 and up to $20 for zone 4;
• Aligning the MetroAccess fare structure to the maximum allowed under the ADA definition, which is twice the equivalent of fixed-route fare; and
• Restricting the use of the Free Ride Program to only those MetroAccess certified persons with conditional eligibility.
To establish a witness list for the public hearings, individuals and representatives of organizations who wish to be heard at the hearings are asked to provide in writing their name, address, telephone number and organization affiliation, if any, to Office of the Secretary, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 600 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001. Alternatively, requests to speak may be faxed to 202-962-1133 or e-mailed to public-hearing-testimony@wmata.com. Please submit only one speaker’s name per letter and reference the hearing number. Lists of individual speakers will not be accepted. Others present at the hearing may be heard after people who have registered have spoken. Public officials will be heard first and will be allowed five minutes each to make their presentations. All other speakers will be allowed two minutes each. Relinquishing of time by one speaker to another will not be permitted.
Written statements and exhibits may be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 600 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, or e-mailed to public-hearing-testimony@wmata.com. Please reference the hearing number. Submissions must be received by 5 p.m. Tuesday, April 6.
Paula B.
An online survey to get public input on how the transit agency should close a $189 million budget gap in fiscal year 2011 is also available. To take the survey go here.
The public is invited to provide input on a number of proposals to balance the budget, which include a combination of fare increases, Metrorail and Metrobus service reductions, changes to the MetroAccess fare structure and service area allowed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, departmental and staff reductions, additional contributions from the jurisdictions that fund Metro, and the use of capital funds to pay for preventive maintenance.
In addition to the General Manager’s proposed budget, Metro is including suggestions from the Riders’Advisory Council, other rider groups and ATU Local 689 for the public’s consideration during the hearings. More detailed information about the proposals will be posted on Metro’s Web site, http://www.wmata.com/, with the public hearing docket in mid-March.
Open House 6:30 pm; Meeting at 7:00 pm
Montgomery County Executive Office Building, Cafeteria
101 Monroe Street (entrance on Jefferson Street)
Rockville, MD
Directions can be found here.
Proposals to balance the budget include the widest array of options possible to help the Board of Directors get the public input they need before they make a final decision on the budget in June. Not all of the options presented are necessary to balance the budget. Any proposed fare increases, service reductions and changes to MetroAccess service would start June 27, 2010.
Possible fare increases being considered for FY2011 include:
• Increasing the Metrorail peak period boarding charge from $1.65 to up to $2;
• Increasing the Metrorail maximum peak period fare from $4.50 to up to $5:45;
• Implementing a surcharge of up to 50 cents for “peak-of-the-peak” trips from 7:30 to 9 a.m. and 4:30 to 6 p.m. weekdays;
• Increasing the Metrorail off-peak boarding charge from $1.35 to up to $1.65;
• Increasing Metrorail and Metrobus passes so the price is consistent with boarding charges;
• Increasing the Metrobus boarding charge from $1.25 to up to $1.60 with SmarTrip® and from $1.35 to up to $1.70 with cash;
• Increasing the MetroAccess fare to up to twice the comparable fixed route fare;
• Increasing all daily parking rates by up to $1.15; and
• Increasing the bicycle locker yearly rental fee from $70 to up to $200.
Service reductions being considered for FY2011 include:
• Making seasonal adjustments to service to meet demand;
• Increasing intervals between trains and buses;
• Closing some station mezzanines and rail stations during periods of low ridership (such as weekends or late at night);
• Beginning rail service later in the mornings;
• Modifying late-night rail and bus service; and
• Eliminating some low-ridership bus routes or portions of routes.
Changes to MetroAccess service being considered for FY2011 include:
• Reducing the MetroAccess service area (within Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines) to reflect actual fixed-route bus and rail service areas reflecting the actual time, day and location;
• Charging a premium for service provided to locations beyond the ¾-mile corridor around fixed-route services. The premium for zones would be up to $5 for zone 1, up to $10 for zone 2, up to $15 for zone 3 and up to $20 for zone 4;
• Aligning the MetroAccess fare structure to the maximum allowed under the ADA definition, which is twice the equivalent of fixed-route fare; and
• Restricting the use of the Free Ride Program to only those MetroAccess certified persons with conditional eligibility.
To establish a witness list for the public hearings, individuals and representatives of organizations who wish to be heard at the hearings are asked to provide in writing their name, address, telephone number and organization affiliation, if any, to Office of the Secretary, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 600 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001. Alternatively, requests to speak may be faxed to 202-962-1133 or e-mailed to public-hearing-testimony@wmata.com. Please submit only one speaker’s name per letter and reference the hearing number. Lists of individual speakers will not be accepted. Others present at the hearing may be heard after people who have registered have spoken. Public officials will be heard first and will be allowed five minutes each to make their presentations. All other speakers will be allowed two minutes each. Relinquishing of time by one speaker to another will not be permitted.
Written statements and exhibits may be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 600 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, or e-mailed to public-hearing-testimony@wmata.com. Please reference the hearing number. Submissions must be received by 5 p.m. Tuesday, April 6.
Paula B.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Growth Policy Amendment at Planning Board on March 25
And here is the amendment on the Growth Policy that will go before the Montgomery County, MD Planning Board. Get your cards and letters in folks! Email Royce Hanson, the Planning Board Chair, at MCP-Chairman@mncppc-mc.org. The Planning Board will be voting on this amendment on March 25.
Paula B.
Montgomery County, MD Planning Board Growth Policy Amendment White Flint Mar-19-2010
Paula B.
Montgomery County, MD Planning Board Growth Policy Amendment White Flint Mar-19-2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
White Flint Sector Plan: The Resolution
"Amend the Growth Policy to expand the White Flint Metro Station Policy Area (MSP A) to encompass the Sector Plan boundary, and to exempt development within White Flint from the Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR) test. The traffic from existing and approved development in the White Flint MSP A would still be counted in the PATR of all other Policy Areas, including North Bethesda."
Paula B.
White Flint Sector Plan Resolution Mar19 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
USPS to sell Bethesda Post Office
In addition to the article, USPS is advertising a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) on page 6 of that newspaper. According to the advertisement, "The property has significant development rights and the successful Buyer will be required to condo back the space the United States Postal Service requires to maintain its current Retail operations at this location." For more information on the purchase requirements, here is the website: www.cbre.com/USPSBethesdaMPO
Here is an excerpt from Ms. Krouse's article:
"The U.S. Postal Service has issued a request for qualifications from developers interested in buying its small office at 7400 Wisconsin Ave. in Bethesda and selling back the service’s retail space.Paula B.
The office is 4,296 square feet and sits on a 13,211-square-foot site atop the Bethesda Metro, but the site could ultimately accommodate up to 40,000 square feet.
Nearby Bethesda land owners such as The Meridian Group, The JBG Cos. and Clark Construction Group LLC have all approached the service in the past about the potential to purchase the Wisconsin Avenue site in part for its independent appeal, but also because they might be able to transfer development rights from that site to another project in the county.
Qualifications are due March 22."
Saturday, March 6, 2010
County Council Vote on WF Sector Plan March 23: Read the Resolution!
The Council is scheduled to take action on the White Flint Sector Plan on March 23. A DRAFT of the resolution is available for interested parties to review. Council staff will accept comments on the draft resolution until close of business on Monday March 15. The only changes that will be made are those that are consistent with Council decisions on the Sector Plan. Comments should be sent to Marlene.Michaelson@montgomerycountymd.gov.
The draft is available at http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/doc/wf_res_draft.pdf. Or you can read it here.
Paula Bienenfeld
Wf Res Draft
The draft is available at http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/doc/wf_res_draft.pdf. Or you can read it here.
Paula Bienenfeld
Wf Res Draft
Sunday, February 28, 2010
WF Relies on Metro -- But How Safe?
Last week from February 23 – 25, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) held hearings on the June 22, 2009 metro accident that occurred at the Fort Totten Metro Stop in Washington, D.C. A number of documents were also released by the NTSB, to be found here. They make for fascinating reading, BTW. A synopsis of the hearings and some video can be found here.
While the White Flint Sector Plan is predicated on additional train cars and, as Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson has stated repeatedly, 2-½-minute headways, the reality is quite different. How will the non-auto driver mode share, or NADMS, be achieved? NADMS refers to any other type of travel, carpool, bicycling, walking, or public transit, anything other than driving your car alone. To meet the stated goal the White Flint Sector Plan must meet an ambitious mode share – 51% for residents; and 50% for employees. Good luck with that. Read about it in the latest staff report, here.
When will that happen? How will it happen? Will it happen? Let’s take off the rose-colored glasses and look at reality. As a first step, let’s compare our 30-year old system to the 100+ year system in New York City. The website http://www.nycsubway.org/ has posted all the accidents on this system, starting with an accident that took place on October 3, 1918. In that accident, according to the report in The New York Times the next day, two people were killed, including the motorman, and 28 people sustained injuries.
Our own metro system has been in place for almost 34 years, starting on March 27, 1976. The Washington Post has provided a list of all the fatalities in that time. In that time there were 14 fatalities. Four of these deaths, 29%, occurred in one year, 2009. In that same time 12 people died in New York subway system accidents, including in 1986, one motorman who suffered a heart attack and died. It is worth remembering the difference in the number of cars, trips, and miles between the two systems. According to Wikipedia, our Metro system has 86 stations, 5 lines, and 106.3 miles of track. In 2008, there were 218.5 million trips, and 727,684 trips each weekday. According to Wikipedia, the New York system has 468 stations and covers 229 miles of routes, or as the Wikipedia article states, “229 miles (369 km) of routes, translating into 656 miles (1,056 km) of revenue track; and a total of 842 miles (1,355 km) including non-revenue trackage;” and in 2008, delivered over 5 million rides each weekday. That year, it delivered approximately 1.623 billion rides. While I am not about to do the math, it strikes me that if we use the data from a 100+ year-old system that is almost seven times the size of our own metro (based on weekday trips) with fewer fatalities in the same time span, and compare those data with the data from metro, including of course the qualitative knowledge that our own metro is now under investigation by the NTSB, this could mean that the official county government expectations for the public transit capacity of the White Flint Sector Plan may be somewhat wide of the mark. We shall see.
Paula Bienenfeld
While the White Flint Sector Plan is predicated on additional train cars and, as Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson has stated repeatedly, 2-½-minute headways, the reality is quite different. How will the non-auto driver mode share, or NADMS, be achieved? NADMS refers to any other type of travel, carpool, bicycling, walking, or public transit, anything other than driving your car alone. To meet the stated goal the White Flint Sector Plan must meet an ambitious mode share – 51% for residents; and 50% for employees. Good luck with that. Read about it in the latest staff report, here.
When will that happen? How will it happen? Will it happen? Let’s take off the rose-colored glasses and look at reality. As a first step, let’s compare our 30-year old system to the 100+ year system in New York City. The website http://www.nycsubway.org/ has posted all the accidents on this system, starting with an accident that took place on October 3, 1918. In that accident, according to the report in The New York Times the next day, two people were killed, including the motorman, and 28 people sustained injuries.
Our own metro system has been in place for almost 34 years, starting on March 27, 1976. The Washington Post has provided a list of all the fatalities in that time. In that time there were 14 fatalities. Four of these deaths, 29%, occurred in one year, 2009. In that same time 12 people died in New York subway system accidents, including in 1986, one motorman who suffered a heart attack and died. It is worth remembering the difference in the number of cars, trips, and miles between the two systems. According to Wikipedia, our Metro system has 86 stations, 5 lines, and 106.3 miles of track. In 2008, there were 218.5 million trips, and 727,684 trips each weekday. According to Wikipedia, the New York system has 468 stations and covers 229 miles of routes, or as the Wikipedia article states, “229 miles (369 km) of routes, translating into 656 miles (1,056 km) of revenue track; and a total of 842 miles (1,355 km) including non-revenue trackage;” and in 2008, delivered over 5 million rides each weekday. That year, it delivered approximately 1.623 billion rides. While I am not about to do the math, it strikes me that if we use the data from a 100+ year-old system that is almost seven times the size of our own metro (based on weekday trips) with fewer fatalities in the same time span, and compare those data with the data from metro, including of course the qualitative knowledge that our own metro is now under investigation by the NTSB, this could mean that the official county government expectations for the public transit capacity of the White Flint Sector Plan may be somewhat wide of the mark. We shall see.
Paula Bienenfeld
Friday, February 26, 2010
Commercial/Residential (CR) Zone: the vote for the Closed Session
Before the public session on the CR Zone, the council held a closed session, apparently with their attorney, as the legality of this zone was questioned. We don't know because the discussion was "closed." The motion was made by Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg, and Councilmember Valerie Ervin seconded the vote. Here is the document recording that vote.
CR Zone Closed Meeting Vote Montg Co Council MD
CR Zone Closed Meeting Vote Montg Co Council MD
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Two Important Upcoming Meetings from our friends in Gaithersburg
Hi Everyone,
Two upcoming meetings will provide excellent opportunities to express our concerns about the Gaithersburg West Master Plan and get answers from the County Council. Please make every effort to attend as everyone is invited to both meetings and is encouraged to attend.
What: The Cities of Rockville and Gaithersburg will meet with the County Council
When: Monday, March 1 at 6:30 p.m.
Where: In the Mayor and Council Chambers, Rockville City Hall, 111 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20850.
Key Topic: City officials from Rockville and Gaithersburg will discuss their concerns about the traffic and other issues regarding the Gaithersburg West Master Plan with the County Council.
The entrance to the Rockville City Hall is on Vinson Street which across the street from the County Council Building. There is parking in the lot next to the City Hall and an overflow parking lot off of South Washington Street behind City Hall. Google maps does not give the correct location for the City Hall. There is a map on the Rockville website: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/parks-facilities/cityhall.htm .
For those who live in Gaithersburg or Rockville, please email your Mayor and Council members to urge them to ask the tough questions.
Rockville: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/government/mc/
Gaithersburg: http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/poi/default.asp?POI_ID=258&TOC=256;258
What: Town Hall Meeting, hosted by the North Potomac Citizen Association (NPCA)
When: March 9, 2010, 7:00 - 9:00 pm
Where: Quince Orchard HS, Cafeteria
Key Topic: Gaithersburg West Master Plan
Participants: The Four "At-Large" Montgomery County Councilmembers: Nancy Floreen, George Leventhal, Duchy Trachtenberg, and Mark Elrich
If you haven’t had a chance to read the “Science City vs. The Pentagon” comparisons, please visit www.scale-it-back.com . I guarantee you will have LOTS of questions to ask the Council once you see that the Science City will be equivalent in size to four and a half Pentagons...without the transportation options.
Thanks and best regards,
Donna Baron
Coordinator
The Gaithersburg - North Potomac - Rockville Coalition
Two upcoming meetings will provide excellent opportunities to express our concerns about the Gaithersburg West Master Plan and get answers from the County Council. Please make every effort to attend as everyone is invited to both meetings and is encouraged to attend.
What: The Cities of Rockville and Gaithersburg will meet with the County Council
When: Monday, March 1 at 6:30 p.m.
Where: In the Mayor and Council Chambers, Rockville City Hall, 111 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20850.
Key Topic: City officials from Rockville and Gaithersburg will discuss their concerns about the traffic and other issues regarding the Gaithersburg West Master Plan with the County Council.
The entrance to the Rockville City Hall is on Vinson Street which across the street from the County Council Building. There is parking in the lot next to the City Hall and an overflow parking lot off of South Washington Street behind City Hall. Google maps does not give the correct location for the City Hall. There is a map on the Rockville website: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/parks-facilities/cityhall.htm .
For those who live in Gaithersburg or Rockville, please email your Mayor and Council members to urge them to ask the tough questions.
Rockville: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/government/mc/
Gaithersburg: http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/poi/default.asp?POI_ID=258&TOC=256;258
What: Town Hall Meeting, hosted by the North Potomac Citizen Association (NPCA)
When: March 9, 2010, 7:00 - 9:00 pm
Where: Quince Orchard HS, Cafeteria
Key Topic: Gaithersburg West Master Plan
Participants: The Four "At-Large" Montgomery County Councilmembers: Nancy Floreen, George Leventhal, Duchy Trachtenberg, and Mark Elrich
If you haven’t had a chance to read the “Science City vs. The Pentagon” comparisons, please visit www.scale-it-back.com . I guarantee you will have LOTS of questions to ask the Council once you see that the Science City will be equivalent in size to four and a half Pentagons...without the transportation options.
Thanks and best regards,
Donna Baron
Coordinator
The Gaithersburg - North Potomac - Rockville Coalition
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Today at the Council: White Flint and the CR Zone
"The Montgomery County Council endorsed major revisions to its zoning code Tuesday, the first stage of a broader debate over how to transform strip malls and commercial buildings into more walkable, livable settings.
The council took a series of straw votes on the details of a proposed "commercial-residential" zone that would encourage mixed-use projects while also reducing parking, allowing taller buildings and, in some instances, limiting required green space."And, she reports, Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson stated that this new zone would produce "a really great environment." Apparently others were not so sure, as the Council staff actually recommended against the zone, as did the Montgomery County Civic Federation; and former Planning Board member Pat Baptiste, who stated, "It is structured so that there is no interest in what the local community wants."
As for the speedy review of the White Flint Sector Plan, which will be reviewed next week as well, wow, it went by so fast your reporter can barely remember what happened. What a blur! Staff reviewed all the developer properties and sped by the transportation issues. Not to worry, though, we have assurances that the 50% mode share will be no problem. Then within the hour the full council adjourned to discuss the financing mechanisms, at the PHED worksession. Perfect timing, too, as April 15 is almost here! Financing will be on the table for awhile, we hear.
And as for staging, that is tomorrow, February 24, read the staff report here.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Tuesday Feb 23rd at the Council: WF Sector Plan Worksession and CR Zone Vote
And, that same afternoon of Tuesday, February 23rd, at 2pm, the Council will hold a closed session to discuss the legality of the proposed Commercial/Residential (CR) Zone. And...the vote on said CR Zone will take place just a few minutes later, at 2:30pm. Read the staff report on the CR Zone here.
Be there folks to watch your county council discuss these issues which will impact your quality of life in the coming decades. The Montgomery County Civic Federation has sent a letter to the Council stating they have ‘grave doubts’ about the CR Zone.
And, according to a memo signed by former Planning Board members Pat Baptiste and Meredith Wellington,
“…the Legislative Attorney told the members of the PHED Committee that, as presently drafted, he could not recommend the CR zone to the full Council.”
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Time to Speak Up on Commercial/Residential (CR) Zone
We received the following from Meredith Wellington, a former Montgomery County (MD) Planning Board member. She asks that you contact the County Council by this Monday, February 22, and tell them to reject this zone. To send an email to Nancy Floreen, click here. To send an email to the whole council, click here.
Dear Friends,
It is time to speak up again about the CR zone. The Full Council took it up yesterday, and is supposed to have its final vote next Tuesday, February 23rd in the afternoon. In a three and a half hour work session, it became clear that the CR zone is inferior to existing zones, and that it carries with it a serious set of problems, as explained in the attached memo. We ask that you send an email to Nancy Floreen, Council President (Councilmember.Floreen@montgomerycountymd.gov)--it should arrive no later than COB on Monday, February 22-- that includes some of the following ideas:
The CR zone should be rejected because it is untimely, untested, legally deficient, overly complex, and contrary to Montgomery County’s tradition of public participation. Further, it is a “one size fits all” zone when, in fact, one size does not fit all in communities as different as White Flint, Kensington, and Takoma/Langley. The imposition of the zone throughout the entire County will result in fewer significant public benefits throughout, and, in certain parts of the County, little, if any, benefits at all. Please reject this zone, and look to existing zones, like the TMX, that do not have the problems currently found in the CR zone.
Please feel free to forward this to other civic organizations.
Thanks very much,
Meredith Wellington
Dear Friends,
It is time to speak up again about the CR zone. The Full Council took it up yesterday, and is supposed to have its final vote next Tuesday, February 23rd in the afternoon. In a three and a half hour work session, it became clear that the CR zone is inferior to existing zones, and that it carries with it a serious set of problems, as explained in the attached memo. We ask that you send an email to Nancy Floreen, Council President (Councilmember.Floreen@montgomerycountymd.gov)--it should arrive no later than COB on Monday, February 22-- that includes some of the following ideas:
The CR zone should be rejected because it is untimely, untested, legally deficient, overly complex, and contrary to Montgomery County’s tradition of public participation. Further, it is a “one size fits all” zone when, in fact, one size does not fit all in communities as different as White Flint, Kensington, and Takoma/Langley. The imposition of the zone throughout the entire County will result in fewer significant public benefits throughout, and, in certain parts of the County, little, if any, benefits at all. Please reject this zone, and look to existing zones, like the TMX, that do not have the problems currently found in the CR zone.
Please feel free to forward this to other civic organizations.
Thanks very much,
Meredith Wellington
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
CR Zone and Staging
I spent from 9:30 until 1:10 today at the Council worksession on the CR zone and I really think they got nowhere. Councilmember Berliner is introducing an amendment on the Density Transfer which was my major concern. They will be meeting again next week in Executive session to discuss the legality issues with the zone, and then to discuss the zone and to vote on it. But nothing was decided today with lots of vague conversations about incentive densities and how do we know which incentive will be implemented. There was also a lot of discussion about whether or not they should use the TMX zone instead as the Zoning Rewrite Committee is still producing a report which will have many changes for the CR zone, or possibly use a unique CR zone for White Flint only.
This afternoon was the PHED Committee and they discussed staging, but didn't really agree to anything, except they seemed to agree on dropping Phase 4. The staff was pushing for mode share requirements for staging criteria rather than specific projects, even though some specific projects seemed to be okay if they were for "placemaking". Councilmember Floreen seemed to favor specific projects. Maybe they all agreed on the 2nd Metro entrance during Phase 2.
After the PHED Committee worksession, during conversation, it was suggested that they take the optional incentive densities from the CR zone (like green roofs) and put them in the White Flint Plan so we know they have a chance of being implemented.
Next week at the PHED Committee is financing followed by staging and supposedly the Plan also goes to the Council for discussion next week and the following week. Then we're done.
Some time ago I suggested that the process needed more time. I still feel that way if they are going to get a quality project.
Natalie
This afternoon was the PHED Committee and they discussed staging, but didn't really agree to anything, except they seemed to agree on dropping Phase 4. The staff was pushing for mode share requirements for staging criteria rather than specific projects, even though some specific projects seemed to be okay if they were for "placemaking". Councilmember Floreen seemed to favor specific projects. Maybe they all agreed on the 2nd Metro entrance during Phase 2.
After the PHED Committee worksession, during conversation, it was suggested that they take the optional incentive densities from the CR zone (like green roofs) and put them in the White Flint Plan so we know they have a chance of being implemented.
Next week at the PHED Committee is financing followed by staging and supposedly the Plan also goes to the Council for discussion next week and the following week. Then we're done.
Some time ago I suggested that the process needed more time. I still feel that way if they are going to get a quality project.
Natalie
Monday, February 15, 2010
Staging: Staff Report is Out
The Staff report on Staging is out, and you can read it here. The PHED work session is February 16, at 1:30 in the 7th Floor Conference Room, at the Montgomery County Council (Maryland) Building, 100 Maryland Ave., Rockville.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
PHED Committee Work Sessions in February – Staging and Financing
Staff reports are not out yet but will be on this blog, so stay tuned!
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Development - Coordination, Oversight Bill 1-10
Today I testified for the WFCC at the Montgomery County Council on Bill 1-10, Development-Coordination, Oversight. The WFCC supports the bill believing that an objective coordinator could provide the monitoring of mode share for White Flint as well as for the other Sector Plans for which White Flint makes assumptions, plus financial monitoring, plus provide for regular reporting to the Council. We recommend funding this position as part of the financial plan for the White Flint Sector Plan. Major suggested change is to allow residents in nearby communties to use this position as a primary point of contact.
Snow Emergency Information: All the News that Fits
* If there is an emergency, County residents should call 911. The Police non-emergency number is 301-279-8000. Please do not call 911 with snow plowing questions, as that delays responses to emergency calls.
* Residents are encouraged to sign up for Alert Montgomery
* Stay safe. Stay off the roads if at all possible. Also, be careful of not to overexert yourself when shoveling.
* To report snow removal problems, downed trees, social service needs or other storm-related issues, call 240-777-6000.
* To report "hot" wires or sparking wires, especially those across roadways, call 911.
* For power outages, call Pepco at 1-877-737-2662, Allegheny Power at 1-800-255-3443 or Baltimore Gas and Electric at 1-877-778-2222.
* Clear snow away from fire hydrants if you are able. If not, mark them with some sort of flag (even a broomstick will do).
* The shelter at Richard Montgomery High School, 2500 Richard Montgomery Drive in Rockville, remains open. Transport to the center is being handled by County volunteers with four-wheel drive vehicles and by Maryland National Guard Members. Two more shelters have opened at the Gwendolyn E. Coffield Community Center in Silver Spring and Seneca Valley High School in Germantown.
* If you have a four-wheel drive vehicle and would like to volunteer, call 240-777-2600.
* Montgomery County's Fire and Rescue Service urges residents without power to be aware that using gas or charcoal grills, propane heaters and stoves, kerosene space heaters or generators indoors can be fatal. They are a source of carbon monoxide, which can build up indoors and cause carbon monoxide poisoning.
* Montgomery County government's cable television channel-County Cable Montgomery, which can be viewed on Channel 6 on the Comcast and RCN cable systems and Channel 30 on Verizon-is continuing to feature live coverage of road conditions at all major traffic intersections.
* Suspension of enforcement of parking restrictions in all public parking garages and lots will continue through Thursday.
* You can find information on County plowing policies and procedures on the County Web site
* For a street that may have been missed by County plows, report it via the County Web site
* For County Council weather-related schedule changes, call 240-777-7900.
* Within 24 hours of the end of a snowstorm, all residential and commercial property owners are required by county law to clear their sidewalks. Residents are encouraged to help elderly or ill neighbors with this task. Snow shoveling services for a fee are listed through a web search ("snow removal services, Montgomery County, Maryland") or through the yellow pages ("landscaping and maintenance services"). Casa de Maryland, a non-profit organization, may also be able to provide fee-based services, and can be reached at 301-431-4177 or 301-431-4185.
* Montgomery County Police report that as some roads become more passable, drivers are increasing their speed. However, motorists are advised that they may encounter varying conditions on the same stretch of road, as plowing operations continue.
* If a County plow has damaged your mailbox, the County will install a standard post and mailbox at your residence as soon as all snow plowing is completed. Call 240-777-6000 to file a report. If you have a non-standard mailbox, call the County's Risk Management Division at 240-777-8920. In the meantime, a temporary mailbox will be installed.
* Montgomery County Public Library customers are asked not to return library materials until libraries reopen and are asked not to leave materials outside the library buildings. Materials due Feb. 5 through Feb. 10 will have their due dates extended one week. No fines will be charged for the period from Friday, Feb. 5, through Wednesday, Feb. 10.
Montgomery County Division of Solid Waste Services
*** February 9, 2010 - Collection and Facility Status Update ***
Montgomery County-provided residential garbage, recycling and yard trim collection services are cancelled for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday February 10 - 12. The normal collection schedule will resume on Monday, February 15.
The Transfer Station will be closed on Wednesday, February 10. Weather and road conditions may cause these schedules to be altered. Any changes will be posted on our web site: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov
We thank you for your patience and understanding during these extreme weather conditions.
If you have any questions or concerns about your County-provided collection, please contact our Customer Service staff online
The direct link for the Division of Solid Waste Services is: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/solidwaste
Monday, February 8, 2010
Show us the Data
Miranda Spivack has an interesting article in today’s Washington Post. While the focus is on the enormous Gaithersburg West Master Plan being pushed by Johns Hopkins, there are some nuggets in the article that clearly show the thinking of this Planning Board and Planning Department. The Hopkins Science City could create 23,000 new jobs, according to those favoring the plan. Here in the White Flint Sector, the magic number is 20,000 new jobs. At least at the "Science City" we know where the jobs will come from. Here in White Flint we just have the magic number. And, not a peep from the representatives of those on the East side of the County, Nancy Navarro and Valerie Ervin, asking, why 20,000 new jobs on the west side of the County? Why not any job creation on the East side of the County?
And here’s another nugget. When looking at real numbers and data, Planning Department Director Rollin Stanley is quoted as saying, “Don’t even look at them.” Where have we heard that before? Ignore the data, ignore the numbers. In fact, don’t even provide data. That’s where we are with the White Flint Sector Plan. Where are the data to support the huge mode share percentages promised? Not even the council staff believes the promises. We already have people living within ¼ and ½ mile of the White Flint Metro station. So, how do those people get to work? Do they bike? Do they walk? Take the metro? Show us the data. Show us some evidence that this plan will work.
And here’s another nugget. When looking at real numbers and data, Planning Department Director Rollin Stanley is quoted as saying, “Don’t even look at them.” Where have we heard that before? Ignore the data, ignore the numbers. In fact, don’t even provide data. That’s where we are with the White Flint Sector Plan. Where are the data to support the huge mode share percentages promised? Not even the council staff believes the promises. We already have people living within ¼ and ½ mile of the White Flint Metro station. So, how do those people get to work? Do they bike? Do they walk? Take the metro? Show us the data. Show us some evidence that this plan will work.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Staging: The WFCC Response
The next work session of the Montgomery County Council (MD) Planning, Housing, and Economic Development (PHED) Committee is now scheduled for Wednesday, February 10 at 2 PM and the subject is Staging. This is a huge issue for the success of the plan. When should the redevelopment of the Rockville Pike take place? How about the construction of the new, full-service library? Will there be enough public transit for the enormous number of people? When will additional public transit required be implemented, if the plan is to work? What exactly is ‘Stage 4?’
The staff report is available here. Take a look… The White Flint Community Coalition presents its response to the staff report here.
Tell the Council the plan must be in balance.
Email the council at county.council@montgomerycountymd.gov
The staff report is available here. Take a look… The White Flint Community Coalition presents its response to the staff report here.
Tell the Council the plan must be in balance.
Email the council at county.council@montgomerycountymd.gov
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
More Metro Woes
Today was another sad day in the area, with two more deaths in the Washington, D.C. area Metro system. These mounting fatalities add to the question of how well-equipped Metro will be to handle the tens of thousands of people planned to use the White Flint Sector on a daily basis. The article in The Examiner, here, by reporter Kytja Weir, provides details on this tragedy.
Each day we read about this failing system. In just two days this week The Examiner ran the following stories about Metro. ‘Area Transit Riders pinched amid budget crunch; and ‘New Metro Board member sees serious disorder’ in transit agency.’ The last highlights comments by Mortimer L. Downey, former director of the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority, who was recently appointed to the Metro Board by the feds. Downey said that our system is in 'serious disorder,' and 'things are not good.'
Those of us who ride the red line daily know things are not good.
So, how can a plan be ‘in balance’ when it is relying on a fantasy transit system?
Each day we read about this failing system. In just two days this week The Examiner ran the following stories about Metro. ‘Area Transit Riders pinched amid budget crunch; and ‘New Metro Board member sees serious disorder’ in transit agency.’ The last highlights comments by Mortimer L. Downey, former director of the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority, who was recently appointed to the Metro Board by the feds. Downey said that our system is in 'serious disorder,' and 'things are not good.'
Those of us who ride the red line daily know things are not good.
So, how can a plan be ‘in balance’ when it is relying on a fantasy transit system?
Monday, January 25, 2010
PHED Committee Meeting on the CR zone
Today I attended the PHED Committee meeting on the CR zone and even with a layman's understanding of the issues was able to determine some positive and some negative actions.
I am most pleased that the PHED Committee voted 2-1 (Elrich and Knapp in the majority) to remove the Transit Proximity Level 3 as a density incentive. This was proximity to a bus stop. I totally agreed with Councilmember Elrich when he said that transit proximity was a given, not an incentive density.
I remain concerned with the provision that allows averaging of density over one or more CR zones, believing that if you allow increased density in the lower zone closest to the community, you take away the certainty that a Master or Sector Plan is supposed to provide. Councilmember Floreen disagreed with me, stating that the community is concerned with height, not density.
There was a lot of discussion about allowing the Planning Board to approve changes to a sketch plan at the time of site plan review, but the wording proposed by the Planning Board was accepted,
The biggest surprise change came with the staff proposal to delete six criteria for density bonuses: community gardens, floor plate size, bio-retention and stromwater recharge, rainwater reuse, dark skies, and LEED rating. Some of these I had previously suggested be eliminated. Staff was not going to pursue their recommendation to delete these incentives because there is now a provision in the zone to allow the Planning Board to add density incentive criteria, but Councilmember Knapp suggestted deleting them. Councilmember Elrich concurred and Councilmember Floreen was out of the room. So to the chagrin of the Planning Board, this passed.
That ended the meeting on a very liveely note.
Natalie
I am most pleased that the PHED Committee voted 2-1 (Elrich and Knapp in the majority) to remove the Transit Proximity Level 3 as a density incentive. This was proximity to a bus stop. I totally agreed with Councilmember Elrich when he said that transit proximity was a given, not an incentive density.
I remain concerned with the provision that allows averaging of density over one or more CR zones, believing that if you allow increased density in the lower zone closest to the community, you take away the certainty that a Master or Sector Plan is supposed to provide. Councilmember Floreen disagreed with me, stating that the community is concerned with height, not density.
There was a lot of discussion about allowing the Planning Board to approve changes to a sketch plan at the time of site plan review, but the wording proposed by the Planning Board was accepted,
The biggest surprise change came with the staff proposal to delete six criteria for density bonuses: community gardens, floor plate size, bio-retention and stromwater recharge, rainwater reuse, dark skies, and LEED rating. Some of these I had previously suggested be eliminated. Staff was not going to pursue their recommendation to delete these incentives because there is now a provision in the zone to allow the Planning Board to add density incentive criteria, but Councilmember Knapp suggestted deleting them. Councilmember Elrich concurred and Councilmember Floreen was out of the room. So to the chagrin of the Planning Board, this passed.
That ended the meeting on a very liveely note.
Natalie
For whom is White Flint Intended?
It is ironic that the same day that the PHED committee is considering how to allocate $895 million for White Flint infrastructure the County Council is considering a resolution offered by the same PHED committee to make Workforce Housing optional instead of required. Perhaps this isn't surprising since I've heard developers indicate that they can't afford to build workforce housing, but I wonder what is happening to the priorities of this County. If we can't afford to build housing that a schoolteacher or a policeman can afford, is "smart growth" really smart? Are we building a community to enrich the developers, serve the affluent, and ignore the core worker in the County? Where is our value system?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
PHED Committe Hearing 1/19
Today's PHED committee hearing was a pleasant surprise for the communities who have long struggled to make sure that the White Flint Sector Plan was more than a developers' dream. In today's meeting, PHED members Floreen, Elrich and Councilmember Berliner (not part of the PHED but intimately involved as the District 1 Council Rep), can fairly be characterized as going out of their way to address constituent concerns. Nancy Floreen, in a surprise but welcome move, openly addressed the concerns of adjacent communities by asking staff to come back with language that would ensure that traffic mitigation measures in adjacent communities were part of the Sector Plan.
The Library Department, whose head, Parker Hamilton, has shown an unusual willingness to engage community dialogue, recommended that the Plan not proscribe the size or composition of future facilities. This willingness to recognize that Master Plans should preserve rights while ensuring flexibility, is the heart of good planning and good governance.
Additionally, today's hearing preserved the public's right of access by requiring that the four private grid streets in the Staff Report be subject to closure 'with DOT's concurrence". This is importnat, as it ensures the free flow of traffic, barring a reasonable closure ( a marathon, art festival, etc.).
The Library Department, whose head, Parker Hamilton, has shown an unusual willingness to engage community dialogue, recommended that the Plan not proscribe the size or composition of future facilities. This willingness to recognize that Master Plans should preserve rights while ensuring flexibility, is the heart of good planning and good governance.
Additionally, today's hearing preserved the public's right of access by requiring that the four private grid streets in the Staff Report be subject to closure 'with DOT's concurrence". This is importnat, as it ensures the free flow of traffic, barring a reasonable closure ( a marathon, art festival, etc.).
Monday, January 18, 2010
Transportation Analysis Staff Report Out: The Plan is Out of Balance
“Planning staff and Council staff concur that to reach 40% RAM (ed. note: Residential Arterial Mobility), only the proposed development in Phase I of the staging plan can be approved now: 3,000 dwelling units and 2 million square feet of non-residential development.”And,
“…the Council has decided in the Growth Policy that the balance point should have RAM drop no lower than D, and Council staff will not recommend a plan that is out of balance.”Surprise, surprise. While our coalition does not have the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the developers do, we do have this on our side: the unvarnished truth.
Please make sure to attend the January 19 PHED Committee Work Session and support our community.
DATE: Tuesday, January 19, 2010
TIME: 2PM
LOCATION: County Council Office Building, 100 Maryland Ave., Rockville. Parking available in parking garage at rear of building.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
The High Line Park in New York, lessons learned
The park designers had thought of everything. There were kiosks selling hot chocolate, coffee and snacks. There were benches to sit on. The weeds that had been part of the abandoned tracks had been saved and were labeled and replanted and interspersed with other native plants. The flooring design emphasized the outline of the rails. Every detail was well thought out, to delight the eye.
How did this happen? How did an abandoned piece of railway become such a wonderful vibrant place? We see the usual story. Property owners wanted to tear it down; then community activists and neighbors stepped in to lobby for reuse of the high line as a public space. Next, an “open ideas” competition, ‘Designing the High Line’ was held, in 2003. The award was let and ground was broken in 2006. In 2009 the park was open to the public.
This is a story of planning gone right, in the heart of New York City. City Council, planners, and civic activists all worked to make it happen. We can do this here in Montgomery County.
This is what we want for the White Flint Sector. Vibrancy. Innovation. Intelligent Growth.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
MoCo Planning Board Lifts 6-month Building Moratorium
Montgomery Board Lifts 6-month Building Moratorium
"Montgomery County's planning board has lifted a six-month building moratorium in Bethesda and Germantown."
and,
"The board unanimously agreed Thursday to lift the ban after the county council tentatively approved $27.5 million for more classrooms in the Bethesda-Chevy Chase school cluster and those served by Northwest and Seneca Valley high schools."
and, from the Post, in an article by Miranda Spivack,
"School officials cautioned that money for more classrooms will not be ensured until the council votes on its budget this spring, but the allocation of the money means that the moratorium could be lifted and new developments can be approved."
Read all about it here and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)