MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

There's fewer people taking the bus today than there were 20 years ago. Use of all forms of public transportation crashed after the pandemic, even after accounting for remote work. Driving has gotten a lot more popular.

Are you saying that mode share has shifted in favor of driving? Do you have any data for that? Bus service post-covid is also worse, of course. If the point you're making is that inadequate bus service is not popular, I won't argue. Bus riders will be the first to tell you about that, in detail, because they actually ride the bus. However, I think the conclusion to draw from this is that we need better bus service.

Now could you please explain how this relates to the zoning proposals?

DP.

Sure. Shouldn't the planning board and county council be focused on workable initiatives to make the lives of the residents they represent better?

The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things. Yet there is not adequate bus service, existing or as planned, to support increased density making things better for current residents.

Just like most of the infrastructure that would be necessary. Yet they do not propose tying increased density to achieving adequate infrastructure.

Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus.

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

YIMBY: Let's increase density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods, moreso close in where BRT corridors and Metro start to converge. There isn't enough housing there for those who want to live in those locations.

NIMBY: I don't want the added burdens in my neighborhood that come with what you are proposing. [Gives laundry list, including increased local vehicle traffic and cramped street parking with the proposed zoning allowing fewer on-site parkong spaces per unit].

YIMBY: That's OK, the new residents are going to take advantage of the bus, especially the BRT along those corridors.

NIMBY: Not enough of them will, and probably not very many at all. Folks tend to take the most convenient form of transportation, and that tends to be cars for many reasons.

YIMBY: You are being classist [phrases such responses to hint at racist, too].

[a whole lot of unproductive yes/no responses]

TEACHER: [starting new post vs. a direct reply] We, and other public servants who are among the classes that the density appears to be proposed for, don't tend to take the bus.

[NIMBY throws in more of same]

YIMBY: Sure, bus is inadequate and therefore unpopular. How does this relate to the increased density proposal?



DP: The proposed change depends on bus, but bus and other infrastructure won't be adequate to support it.

YIMBY: "Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus."



The report that Montgomery Planning put to the County Council on this has bus/BRT as a support. They've used public transit in the past as a support to permit lower parking minimums. They've discussed the same in public meetings on the current initiative.

So more density and increased traffic. Sounds like heat islands to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was chatting with someone who lives in Alexandria. They said their older building's systems can barely keep up in this heat wave. They also said that the neighbors in their building said the situation had gotten markedly worse when a high rise was put up across the street a few years back, its glass panels reflecting heat onto their building. I thought the density types were promising that density would have a net climate cooling effect, but it sounds like the trade off is heat island misery for the folks who actually live in the dense stretches. Why do they only talk about multiplexes, but never parks and tree planting and smart heat adaptive surfaces as part of their climate cooling sell? All they ever talk about is mitigating commuting.

They who? The Planning Department is constantly talking about parks, environmental issues, and climate resiliency.

And do they enact any of it? Dense Moco areas are pretty hot and concretey. How will further density be done better, according to they? And how will they remediate and cool current dense areas, according to they?

Are you asking whether Park and Planning enacts parks? Do you live in Montgomery County?

If I supported climate resilience, I would advocate for street trees, pavement removal, less space devoted to parking lots, and better options for going places using transit, biking, or walking. (In fact, I do support climate resilience, and I do advocate for those things.) I would not advocate against proposals to allow more housing in areas that already have housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was chatting with someone who lives in Alexandria. They said their older building's systems can barely keep up in this heat wave. They also said that the neighbors in their building said the situation had gotten markedly worse when a high rise was put up across the street a few years back, its glass panels reflecting heat onto their building. I thought the density types were promising that density would have a net climate cooling effect, but it sounds like the trade off is heat island misery for the folks who actually live in the dense stretches. Why do they only talk about multiplexes, but never parks and tree planting and smart heat adaptive surfaces as part of their climate cooling sell? All they ever talk about is mitigating commuting.

Glass and steel are cheap, can use standard box designs, can be cheaply assembled and sold at a premium.

Shade, greenery, water, airflow, etc... require specific adaptation to a space, which requires thought and time. Things developers don't have. They all borrow money and have to deliver units before loans come due.

You want something better than that, then you need a Crown Prince with development as a hobby or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not related to the transit corridor plan discussed on the other thread, so it seems that it deserves its own.

"County leaders are now proposing big changes to a third of the land area in Montgomery County. Roughly 33% of the county is zoned as 'residential'. The proposed plans would allow for a duplex, triplex or even a fourplex to be built in areas zoned as 'residential' that right now only allow a single-family structure.”

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/housing/missing-middle-montgomery-county-maryland-zoning-affordable-housing/65-93cefa3c-c40c-4dc4-87ee-f6484047d9eb?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2P3BnRVnlBolejyz0A3sqMLaZi_eWyfLuj85ZZbju90xYP7mN9Dg_01V8_aem_AfbsI1tcRqPPtS-dsOSgr5pipQ_IFHTQOOZm4apLV6ObY6Bs8hAndoQYB59jUaadDfNNQDH5oRXZa3IRMgRPCKAq

https://ggwash.org/view/93944/montgomery-countys-planning-board-will-recommend-relaxing-single-family-zoning?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0qDsA8w9ulYrb9Fgo12QdAD8pv-hs8SWKg8jpAfC3PaQY7alnQY3y_fVU_aem_AfapxC0nYC0N_v7kFbK4CSAP9Mg1z87L8nXsqIl63IpAnKM-l8O63kaDcK5z62oa_W21l6yIkR4jAI_FGcJP8NKI

It is entirely inappropriate for the current MOCO county planning director to post opinion articles for a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that conducts political advocacy related to zoning and land use! He is employed by MOCO (not GGW) to make important zoning and development decisions about the county. This is very unprofessional, and it raises legitimate questions about the credibility of his recommendations and whether he is acting with the interests of county residents in mind.

Weird take.

How is better to write letters to for-profit media organzations? Or just keeping your mouth shut and doing everything secretly?

They should be having public meetings an interviews with the media. Most people think it’s inappropriate for local government employees to have this type of relationship with lobbyists. They are supposed to protect the health and welfare of county residents not to advance political policy goals of private equity funds.

They are doing that too.

I'm hoping you'll explain how you got from "posted an opinion piece on a non-profit organization's blog" to "advanced political policy goals of private equity funds."

DP. They are having 2 pro-forma public Cointy Council PHP Committee working session meetings following the presentation of the report. Neither the meeting at which the report was presented nor the workshops (next/last one is Monday, 7/22) allow for the public to speak. It is just the planning folks, directed by the County-Council-appointed Planning Board, having a relatively meaningless exchange with the Council, who already know the outcome they seek and who are just making a show of the interaction, already knowing the thrust of the report.

Councilmember/PHP Committee Chair Friedson indicates that there will be an opportunity for public input in the fall. However, this would be far too late to shape the initiative vs. the timeline they have suggested, and there is every reason to believe that they will utilize that lateness simply to dismiss raised concerns, given the Councilmembers' stances on this issue: Friedson (committee chair) and the Montgomery Planning director were each vocal in their support, commenting that this is a must-do. Jawondo's own voiced support is entirely unsurprising, as he had previously introduced related zoning legislation (not passed at the time). Fani-González vigorously supported it.

Meanwhile, the public engagement to which Montgomery Planning points whenever asked happened much further back in the planning process, and well before the massively more consequential set of changes proposed was presented. There has been (and, likely, there will be) no meaningful opportunity afforded to MoCo citizens to weigh in on those.

[Anonymous]

You are complaining that the Montgomery County Council is following their well-established processes for considering and enacting laws, after the Montgomery Planning Board followed their well-established processes for considering and making recommendations.

It reminds me of people standing up at public meetings to complain that they do not have any opportunity to make their voice heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

Way to avoid the issue. Good thing most can see that avoidance as merely a rhetorical/political ploy.

Way to avoid which issue? The PP said, "The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things." However, I don't think it is dependent on the bus. I think it's a good idea completely irrespective of bus usage. If you have a different opinion about this, please explain. Or don't explain, it's up to you.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was chatting with someone who lives in Alexandria. They said their older building's systems can barely keep up in this heat wave. They also said that the neighbors in their building said the situation had gotten markedly worse when a high rise was put up across the street a few years back, its glass panels reflecting heat onto their building. I thought the density types were promising that density would have a net climate cooling effect, but it sounds like the trade off is heat island misery for the folks who actually live in the dense stretches. Why do they only talk about multiplexes, but never parks and tree planting and smart heat adaptive surfaces as part of their climate cooling sell? All they ever talk about is mitigating commuting.

They who? The Planning Department is constantly talking about parks, environmental issues, and climate resiliency.

They talk about these things a lot but never do anything effective.

There is a whole Parks Department in Park and Planning.

I’m aware. The Parks Department hasn’t added park space at the pace that population has grown. They are also bad at their jobs, just like the Planning side of Park and Planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

Way to avoid the issue. Good thing most can see that avoidance as merely a rhetorical/political ploy.

Way to avoid which issue? The PP said, "The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things." However, I don't think it is dependent on the bus. I think it's a good idea completely irrespective of bus usage. If you have a different opinion about this, please explain. Or don't explain, it's up to you.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

Way to avoid the issue. Good thing most can see that avoidance as merely a rhetorical/political ploy.

Way to avoid which issue? The PP said, "The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things." However, I don't think it is dependent on the bus. I think it's a good idea completely irrespective of bus usage. If you have a different opinion about this, please explain. Or don't explain, it's up to you.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

Way to avoid the issue. Good thing most can see that avoidance as merely a rhetorical/political ploy.

Way to avoid which issue? The PP said, "The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things." However, I don't think it is dependent on the bus. I think it's a good idea completely irrespective of bus usage. If you have a different opinion about this, please explain. Or don't explain, it's up to you.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was chatting with someone who lives in Alexandria. They said their older building's systems can barely keep up in this heat wave. They also said that the neighbors in their building said the situation had gotten markedly worse when a high rise was put up across the street a few years back, its glass panels reflecting heat onto their building. I thought the density types were promising that density would have a net climate cooling effect, but it sounds like the trade off is heat island misery for the folks who actually live in the dense stretches. Why do they only talk about multiplexes, but never parks and tree planting and smart heat adaptive surfaces as part of their climate cooling sell? All they ever talk about is mitigating commuting.

Glass and steel are cheap, can use standard box designs, can be cheaply assembled and sold at a premium.

Shade, greenery, water, airflow, etc... require specific adaptation to a space, which requires thought and time. Things developers don't have. They all borrow money and have to deliver units before loans come due.

You want something better than that, then you need a Crown Prince with development as a hobby or something.

That's the thing. Even Saudi has realized the importance of green space and modern planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was chatting with someone who lives in Alexandria. They said their older building's systems can barely keep up in this heat wave. They also said that the neighbors in their building said the situation had gotten markedly worse when a high rise was put up across the street a few years back, its glass panels reflecting heat onto their building. I thought the density types were promising that density would have a net climate cooling effect, but it sounds like the trade off is heat island misery for the folks who actually live in the dense stretches. Why do they only talk about multiplexes, but never parks and tree planting and smart heat adaptive surfaces as part of their climate cooling sell? All they ever talk about is mitigating commuting.

Glass and steel are cheap, can use standard box designs, can be cheaply assembled and sold at a premium.

Shade, greenery, water, airflow, etc... require specific adaptation to a space, which requires thought and time. Things developers don't have. They all borrow money and have to deliver units before loans come due.

You want something better than that, then you need a Crown Prince with development as a hobby or something.

That's the thing. Even Saudi has realized the importance of green space and modern planning.

The Line is, well, I guess it's modern, and it's planning, but it's also a vanity project that won't work.

[Anonymous]

This thread feels like a bunch of 80 year olds shaking their fist at the clouds.

Get over it NIMBYs!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was chatting with someone who lives in Alexandria. They said their older building's systems can barely keep up in this heat wave. They also said that the neighbors in their building said the situation had gotten markedly worse when a high rise was put up across the street a few years back, its glass panels reflecting heat onto their building. I thought the density types were promising that density would have a net climate cooling effect, but it sounds like the trade off is heat island misery for the folks who actually live in the dense stretches. Why do they only talk about multiplexes, but never parks and tree planting and smart heat adaptive surfaces as part of their climate cooling sell? All they ever talk about is mitigating commuting.

Glass and steel are cheap, can use standard box designs, can be cheaply assembled and sold at a premium.

Shade, greenery, water, airflow, etc... require specific adaptation to a space, which requires thought and time. Things developers don't have. They all borrow money and have to deliver units before loans come due.

You want something better than that, then you need a Crown Prince with development as a hobby or something.

That's the thing. Even Saudi has realized the importance of green space and modern planning.

I was thinking of a different prince: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundbury

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread feels like a bunch of 80 year olds shaking their fist at the clouds.

Get over it NIMBYs!

Wonderful mischaracterization.