RM Cluster Overcrowding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somewhat OT, but Dawson’s Market is actually re-opening in December.

Where did you hear this?

Not the PP that said it but I just heard it on the MoCoShow podcast (episode 22). He said he’s confident it will reopen December 19th.

NP here. Dawson's is opening under new ownership. The former manager of Dawson's is now the owner. Soft opening is this Friday. Official is 12/20. The new owner has posted on Facebook. It's getting press on Bethesda Beat, as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somewhat OT, but Dawson’s Market is actually re-opening in December.

Where did you hear this?

Not the PP that said it but I just heard it on the MoCoShow podcast (episode 22). He said he’s confident it will reopen December 19th.

NP here. Dawson's is opening under new ownership. The former manager of Dawson's is now the owner. Soft opening is this Friday. Official is 12/20. The new owner has posted on Facebook. It's getting press on Bethesda Beat, as well.

Are they going to lower the prices on their stuff? Because otherwise, I still don't see how that place will stay open long term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that MCPS would drop their position on ignoring overcrowding in favor of finding ways to get high to mid income people into poorer areas. There is a good sized area that feeds RM which prior to 2002 used to ffed Wootton. This area was pulled out of Wootton because RM was so under enrolled it was in danger of closing. Now Wootton is around capacity but not horribly over. It does need updating and is falling apart. MCPS should make the area that used to be Wootton a dual enrollment zone. If RM is overcrowded they get to choose Wootton. If Wootton is overcrowded they get to choose RM. Done, problem solved.

You mean the decision from 1987? The decision 31 years ago? Should we revisit every zoning decision the school board has made?

I assume that poster was referring to the 2002 change when Fallsgrove got developed. That land used to be zoned for Wootton, pre-development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What story did I make up?

There is no park or playground at Rockville Town Center. So RTC does not draw people to it the way Rio does. If we want RTC to survive and thrive the way Rio does, we need to make it more inviting. Putting up more high density housing does not make RTC more appealing to anyone.

Presumably it makes it more appealing to the people who will live in the housing - even if it doesn't make it more appealing to you.

I, personally, can't understand the appeal of Rio. Yet there it is. So obviously things that don't appeal to me personally can nonetheless be successufl.

I agree with this pp. I’d take it one step further. I don’t even consider Rio to be the same thing as RTC. Rio is just a mall with housing and strip malls built around it. It’s a better designed Columbia or Arundal Mills. RTC is not a mall. There are government offices, the courts, lawyer offices, and more in the RTC area. People can live and/or work at RTC. It has a large employment base. The number of office workers a block or two blocks from Rio is mindfulness compared to RTC and they don’t have Metro.

That’s not to say I have a problem with a playground being added to RTC but the idea that a playground or some small park will save businesses is kind of silly.

RTC has the splash fountain, the skating rink,the rocks and the library..which I think sort of checks off the kid fun box ok.

DP.. The "green" area is tiny. I think a little park adjacent to TC would be good. It would definitely draw in even more families.

The whole park argument doesn’t hold any water for me. Why would it attract people when there are already 3 parks within a mile of RTC? College Gardens Park, Woolley Gardens Parks, Welsh Park.

Most young families want the convenience of being a block or two from a park, not a mile away (with major roads to cross in between).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP.. The "green" area is tiny. I think a little park adjacent to TC would be good. It would definitely draw in even more families.

The whole park argument doesn’t hold any water for me. Why would it attract people when there are already 3 parks within a mile of RTC? College Gardens Park, Woolley Gardens Parks, Welsh Park.

Because you still have to walk a ways to get there. If it's right next to TC, people are more apt to go to the park then to TC to eat. I wouldn't want to walk that far out to Welsh park only to come back to TC to eat. If people have to hop in a car to go to the park, they could just as easily drive some place else to eat. It's the convenience of having the park literally within a block or two from TC.

I lived in a town where the town center had a sizeable park at the end of the town center. Lots of people would go to the park then TC to eat and hang out. They could also get take out and go to the park and eat. It was awesome. I miss that area.

Agree. This is why Rio is more appealing for most people versus RTC. RTC does draw the people who work in the area, but other than that, moms aren’t bringing their strollers to run around RTC and then get coffee afterwards. Older couples are not coming to RTC to walk around the (non-existent) lake and then pick up bananas at Target.

People LIKE green space. RTC is a depressing, soulless, concrete monstrosity with PITA parking and aggressive parking enforcement personnel.

Nobody wants to sit around that pathetic artificial turf square when they can go to Rio to paddle boat and park for free.

[Anonymous]

But in February no one is paddle boating at Rio but all ages are visiting the library and parking for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Agree. This is why Rio is more appealing for most people versus RTC. RTC does draw the people who work in the area, but other than that, moms aren’t bringing their strollers to run around RTC and then get coffee afterwards. Older couples are not coming to RTC to walk around the (non-existent) lake and then pick up bananas at Target.

People LIKE green space. RTC is a depressing, soulless, concrete monstrosity with PITA parking and aggressive parking enforcement personnel.

Nobody wants to sit around that pathetic artificial turf square when they can go to Rio to paddle boat and park for free.

One could equally say, nobody wants to go walk around that pathetic artificial lake filled with goose poop (at Rio) when they can to go Rockville Town Center and climb on rocks/play in the splash fountain/go to the library.

I, personally, don't like either one, for different reasons, but nonetheless I understand that lots of people like stuff that I don't like. I don't have to be the target market demographic for every development and commercial endeavor in the county. It's ok for people to build stuff aimed at attracting people who aren't me.

[Anonymous]

2 hours free parking is too short. 2 hours is fine if you are doing only one thing. But if I choose to go to the library and have a sit down lunch, I usually end up having to pay for parking. I mean I can go to the car, exit, and reenter, but that is a bit ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2 hours free parking is too short. 2 hours is fine if you are doing only one thing. But if I choose to go to the library and have a sit down lunch, I usually end up having to pay for parking. I mean I can go to the car, exit, and reenter, but that is a bit ridiculous.

When I take Metro or the bus to the Rockville library, I have to pay for Metro or the bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 hours free parking is too short. 2 hours is fine if you are doing only one thing. But if I choose to go to the library and have a sit down lunch, I usually end up having to pay for parking. I mean I can go to the car, exit, and reenter, but that is a bit ridiculous.

When I take Metro or the bus to the Rockville library, I have to pay for Metro or the bus.

Yes, you are correct that you have to pay for the bus when you go to RTC. Just like you have to pay for the bus when you go to Rio.

I am talking about the parking situation. I can go to Target, have lunch, go to the playground at Rio and not worry about parking. This is not true when I go to RTC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 hours free parking is too short. 2 hours is fine if you are doing only one thing. But if I choose to go to the library and have a sit down lunch, I usually end up having to pay for parking. I mean I can go to the car, exit, and reenter, but that is a bit ridiculous.

When I take Metro or the bus to the Rockville library, I have to pay for Metro or the bus.

Yes, you are correct that you have to pay for the bus when you go to RTC. Just like you have to pay for the bus when you go to Rio.

I am talking about the parking situation. I can go to Target, have lunch, go to the playground at Rio and not worry about parking. This is not true when I go to RTC.

Yes. Why should you get free parking when you go to the Rockville library, but bus/Metro riders don't get free bus/Metro when they go to the Rockville library?

You can't go to the library at Rio, because Rio doesn't have a library.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Agree. This is why Rio is more appealing for most people versus RTC. RTC does draw the people who work in the area, but other than that, moms aren’t bringing their strollers to run around RTC and then get coffee afterwards. Older couples are not coming to RTC to walk around the (non-existent) lake and then pick up bananas at Target.

People LIKE green space. RTC is a depressing, soulless, concrete monstrosity with PITA parking and aggressive parking enforcement personnel.

Nobody wants to sit around that pathetic artificial turf square when they can go to Rio to paddle boat and park for free.

One could equally say, nobody wants to go walk around that pathetic artificial lake filled with goose poop (at Rio) when they can to go Rockville Town Center and climb on rocks/play in the splash fountain/go to the library.

I, personally, don't like either one, for different reasons, but nonetheless I understand that lots of people like stuff that I don't like. I don't have to be the target market demographic for every development and commercial endeavor in the county. It's ok for people to build stuff aimed at attracting people who aren't me.

That is true, but it is obvious that whatever demographic they are targeting with RTC, it was a failure. So, maybe they should take a look at what works better and then run to improve it. There have been TONS of complaints regarding parking and parking enforcement at RTC. Obviously, parking there is inconvenient and unnecessarily expensive and is a deterrent for people.

[Anonymous]

And fine if Rio is not your cup of tea. What about Kentlands? That has been more successful than RTC. What is the difference? Easy, accessible, free parking. And some trees.

Even planting a few more trees and some grass at RTC would help make it less depressing.

Most demographics prefer some geeen space over pure concrete and glass

Remember that glass building at RTC that was blinding people? Obvious poor planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Agree. This is why Rio is more appealing for most people versus RTC. RTC does draw the people who work in the area, but other than that, moms aren’t bringing their strollers to run around RTC and then get coffee afterwards. Older couples are not coming to RTC to walk around the (non-existent) lake and then pick up bananas at Target.

People LIKE green space. RTC is a depressing, soulless, concrete monstrosity with PITA parking and aggressive parking enforcement personnel.

Nobody wants to sit around that pathetic artificial turf square when they can go to Rio to paddle boat and park for free.

One could equally say, nobody wants to go walk around that pathetic artificial lake filled with goose poop (at Rio) when they can to go Rockville Town Center and climb on rocks/play in the splash fountain/go to the library.

I, personally, don't like either one, for different reasons, but nonetheless I understand that lots of people like stuff that I don't like. I don't have to be the target market demographic for every development and commercial endeavor in the county. It's ok for people to build stuff aimed at attracting people who aren't me.

That is true, but it is obvious that whatever demographic they are targeting with RTC, it was a failure. So, maybe they should take a look at what works better and then run to improve it. There have been TONS of complaints regarding parking and parking enforcement at RTC. Obviously, parking there is inconvenient and unnecessarily expensive and is a deterrent for people.

Try to improve it. Not run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And fine if Rio is not your cup of tea. What about Kentlands? That has been more successful than RTC. What is the difference? Easy, accessible, free parking. And some trees.

Even planting a few more trees and some grass at RTC would help make it less depressing.

Most demographics prefer some geeen space over pure concrete and glass

Remember that glass building at RTC that was blinding people? Obvious poor planning.

There are plenty of places in the county where you can easily drive and park for free. We don't need to have another one right next to a Metro station. That's a waste.