Bethesda Row after the Purple Line Opens?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

Sadly, I have yet to meet a housing advocate (in the U.S.) who is anti-sprawl on greenfield sites in the ever-expanding, soulless exurbs. We should simply look to Europe for healthy solutions for all residents, with a balance of open space, preserving agricultural land close to the city, and creating dense urban cores. And with the dense areas connected by rapid transit. The economic model they use can work in the U.S. It just takes some vision and initiative.

That's funny, because ALL of the housing advocates I know (in the U.S.) are anti-sprawl on greenfield sites, and I know a lot of housing advocates (in the U.S.).

They need to speak up in Prince William County, Loudoun County, Montgomery County, etc… Otherwise the local housing advocates who don’t value open space will continue to support policies that pave over open space.

PWC eliminated their approved public sewer area. Now the whole county is open for extension of the sewer/water lines. They need to bring back a portion of it, to protect some of the remaining rural space or all of it will be paved over to make room for endless sprawl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

Sadly, I have yet to meet a housing advocate (in the U.S.) who is anti-sprawl on greenfield sites in the ever-expanding, soulless exurbs. We should simply look to Europe for healthy solutions for all residents, with a balance of open space, preserving agricultural land close to the city, and creating dense urban cores. And with the dense areas connected by rapid transit. The economic model they use can work in the U.S. It just takes some vision and initiative.

That's funny, because ALL of the housing advocates I know (in the U.S.) are anti-sprawl on greenfield sites, and I know a lot of housing advocates (in the U.S.).

To your point, “anti-sprawl” is the mainstream position among housing advocates in Montgomery County and it is the official policy in the general plan.

This is true, but “anti-sprawl” is also a policy that favors less and more expensive housing. The Montgomery County “housing advocates” are not focused on nor care about housing. They are grinding other ideological axes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

Sadly, I have yet to meet a housing advocate (in the U.S.) who is anti-sprawl on greenfield sites in the ever-expanding, soulless exurbs. We should simply look to Europe for healthy solutions for all residents, with a balance of open space, preserving agricultural land close to the city, and creating dense urban cores. And with the dense areas connected by rapid transit. The economic model they use can work in the U.S. It just takes some vision and initiative.

That's funny, because ALL of the housing advocates I know (in the U.S.) are anti-sprawl on greenfield sites, and I know a lot of housing advocates (in the U.S.).

To your point, “anti-sprawl” is the mainstream position among housing advocates in Montgomery County and it is the official policy in the general plan.

This is true, but “anti-sprawl” is also a policy that favors less and more expensive housing. The Montgomery County “housing advocates” are not focused on nor care about housing. They are grinding other ideological axes.

No, I think that's you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

Sadly, I have yet to meet a housing advocate (in the U.S.) who is anti-sprawl on greenfield sites in the ever-expanding, soulless exurbs. We should simply look to Europe for healthy solutions for all residents, with a balance of open space, preserving agricultural land close to the city, and creating dense urban cores. And with the dense areas connected by rapid transit. The economic model they use can work in the U.S. It just takes some vision and initiative.

That's funny, because ALL of the housing advocates I know (in the U.S.) are anti-sprawl on greenfield sites, and I know a lot of housing advocates (in the U.S.).

To your point, “anti-sprawl” is the mainstream position among housing advocates in Montgomery County and it is the official policy in the general plan.

This is true, but “anti-sprawl” is also a policy that favors less and more expensive housing. The Montgomery County “housing advocates” are not focused on nor care about housing. They are grinding other ideological axes.

No, I think that's you.

No, that poster was correct, but thanks for your input.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Oh, really? Funny how about ten years ago the Planning Commission told us all this new development in downtown Bethesda would result in more parks. Instead we got more crowding without an improvement in parks and green space. Oh and they told the retirees in Chevy Chase that the new development would enable their kids to move back to Bethesda and Chevy Chase. Instead we have luxury housing and low income housing, with the few remaining original homes (generally of high construction value) leveled to make way for more development. If they had just left Bethesda alone, there would have been more rental units (naturally occurring affordable housing) in both old original homes and the old garden apartments.

The county bought land that they said they would use for a park but then sold it back to a developer. Total bait and switch.

Also equity. They want us to have our fair share of MoCo’s problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

Sadly, I have yet to meet a housing advocate (in the U.S.) who is anti-sprawl on greenfield sites in the ever-expanding, soulless exurbs. We should simply look to Europe for healthy solutions for all residents, with a balance of open space, preserving agricultural land close to the city, and creating dense urban cores. And with the dense areas connected by rapid transit. The economic model they use can work in the U.S. It just takes some vision and initiative.

That's funny, because ALL of the housing advocates I know (in the U.S.) are anti-sprawl on greenfield sites, and I know a lot of housing advocates (in the U.S.).

To your point, “anti-sprawl” is the mainstream position among housing advocates in Montgomery County and it is the official policy in the general plan.

This is true, but “anti-sprawl” is also a policy that favors less and more expensive housing. The Montgomery County “housing advocates” are not focused on nor care about housing. They are grinding other ideological axes.

That is one explanation. The other explanation is that they care about housing but don’t understand it well enough to realize that their set of ideas caused the housing crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you wanted access to jobs, they should have extended the Purple Line to Tysons. That would save people a lot more time, curb emissions from cars jammed on the Beltway etc.

Tysons wants no part in inviting Maryland non sense to their locations. All of jobs already moved to Tysons/NoVa. No need for their people to travel to MD. MoCo doesn't care about these things. How many people in Chevy Chase go to Lanham for work? Not many, but no need to do a survey on how many actual MoCo residents this will help. We are liberal do gooders. We will accept more crime with no benefit to our economy. Those of us who do not live by this mantra will be called an "ist" of some sort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

But why have a park at all if you can put a additional high rise there instead? Wouldn’t we be better off with two residential buildings and no park than with one residential building and a park? We don’t need parks.

[Anonymous]

The one thing I noticed about a Bethesda is the lack of parks. I hope any remaining green space is preserved, and more planting. Continue to narrow roads and add walking trails. Esp with all these heat waves - we need to get the message on green space and trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

But why have a park at all if you can put a additional high rise there instead? Wouldn’t we be better off with two residential buildings and no park than with one residential building and a park? We don’t need parks.

the reason to have a park and high rise is it gives folks like you something to complain about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

But why have a park at all if you can put a additional high rise there instead? Wouldn’t we be better off with two residential buildings and no park than with one residential building and a park? We don’t need parks.

the reason to have a park and high rise is it gives folks like you something to complain about.

I imagine Sidwell will hold on to that space and use it as a camp/extra space?

Many dense cities manage to weave in greenery and green enclaves, even on roofs. Bethesda should be greener.

[Anonymous]

Really glad someone revived this thread 2 years later for an empty rant.

Also complaining Bethesda isn’t green enough is the strangest complaint I have heard about Bethesda. It has plenty of parks from pocket parks on street corners to large parks, plus a lot of trees. Right now the Caroline Freeman park is being rebuilt which is annoying but hardly an argument that Bethesda needs more parks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bethesda Row is already easily accessible by metro, and it hasn't caused major issues. I think Bethesda doesn't have what the "bad people" are looking for. The shopping, nightlife, and retail appeal only to certain demographics.

The places that will be worse as a result of the purple line are commercial areas that are currently not accessible by metro, which now will be much easier to access.

I mean, same could be said about friendship heights and look how many robberies there have been? Difference is, that’s DC and the criminals know they can get away with it, I suppose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really glad someone revived this thread 2 years later for an empty rant.

Also complaining Bethesda isn’t green enough is the strangest complaint I have heard about Bethesda. It has plenty of parks from pocket parks on street corners to large parks, plus a lot of trees. Right now the Caroline Freeman park is being rebuilt which is annoying but hardly an argument that Bethesda needs more parks.

When the Planning Board wanted to convert asphalt to green space on Little Falls Parkway, they heard from a lot of Bethesda residents that no, no, Bethesda already has enough green space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

But why have a park at all if you can put a additional high rise there instead? Wouldn’t we be better off with two residential buildings and no park than with one residential building and a park? We don’t need parks.

What is up with NIMBYs obsession with just completely making up imaginary scenarios then acting like being offended by their own wholesale fabrication is an actual argument?