Removal of development cap in downtown Bethesda

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slightly back on topic I do feel like this is a bit of a bait and switch because when people complained about the size of the buildings going up on Wisconsin (because maybe we wanted more of a human scale and less of Rosslyn 2) we were told not to worry because the development cap would prevent Wisconsin from becoming a street canyon.

Now they are like “oh we’ve maxed out the development cap already, guess we have to raise it”

You think there shouldn't be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda on top of the Metro and Purple Line stations?

They hope that politicians and the executives they appoint won't say one thing to achieve an objective and then do another or promise something for the same without coming through. The populace is easily manipulated.

Devlopers (and businesses, in general) have a much more pragmatic take, buying influence to be on the front end of such promises and positioning themselves to profit, accordingly.

I don't remember anyone promising that there wouldn't be any tall buildings in downtown Bethesda, not to mention that it would be an odd promise to make, since there already are tall buildings in downtown Bethesda.

Well maybe you don’t live around there but when the zoning/development cap was last up for debate (2016ish??) the scale of buildings in Bethesda was definitely a hot topic. Lots of “communities not canyons” yard signs.

Of course no one is saying there shouldn’t be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda but there is a difference between 10-15 stories and 15-20 stories and there is a difference if there are a few or blocks and blocks of them.

At the time some people produced illustrations of what Wisconsin ave and downtown Bethesda would look like if those 15+ story buildings were allowed everywhere and the planning board definitely said that was completely unrealistic because of the development cap.

Mathematically you're correct, but meaningfully? Nah. Not to mention that it's been over 100 years since a twenty-story building was considered a [banned-on-DCUM term for a very tall building], and why shouldn't there be blocks and blocks of them?

Because some people don’t want to live in NYC, or even Rosslyn. A lot of people think there is a meaningful difference between a city like DC or Paris where there is still some human scale vs cities with noticeably taller buildings crowding the streets. There are also single family homes a block or two away from DT Bethesda and an extra 50 or 60 feet of building throws off the transition between those areas (if not literally blocks the sun).

Maybe you don’t think there’s a meaningful difference or maybe you think the benefits of increased density are worth it but the point is that instead of having a full discussion of what Bethesda should look like we had this backwards approach where taller buildings were authorized (subject to the overall cap, creating a weird race to build as tall and as soon as possible) while people were assured overall density would stay down but now they are saying actually it doesn’t make sense to keep density down.

That’s why it feels like a bait and switch. If the planning board really thought this was the appropriate level of density they should have owned up to that 10 years ago.

Then don't live in downtown Bethesda. Nobody will be forced to live in downtown Bethesda.

As for the single family houses a few blocks from tall buildings in Bethesda, so what?

You seem willfully obtuse. There is an entire community that lives in and around downtown Bethesda. Yes no one is forcing people to live there but they live there and the whole point of doing planning is so growth happens in a way the community is happy with, not according to the random desires of some
builder.

No, it's not. Especially it's not when you define community as the people who currently live in the immediate area. Whatever the point of planning is, it's NOT prohibiting tall buildings in downtown Bethesda on grounds that people who own houses in in Chevy Chase and Edgemoor don't want to live near tall buildings.

No one said we should leave it up to people in Edgemoor but the suggestion that if you don’t like the planning board proposal you should live somewhere else is bizarre.

The suggestion is that if you don't like living in tall buildings in downtown Bethesda, you shouldn't live in tall buildings in downtown Bethesda. Similarly, if you don't want to live in NYC, don't live in NYC. If you don't want to live in Rosslyn, don't live in Rosslyn.

The whole freaking discussion is not about where people should live but what size buildings should be built in the future in a place people already live so it’s insanely stupid to say live where you want to live.

Downtown Bethesda already has tall buildings, which people are already living in. If you live in a tall building in downtown Bethesda but you think there shouldn't be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda for people to live in, then I don't know what to say.

If you don’t understand the difference between Bethesda with a development cap and Bethesda without a development cap then I don’t really know what to say either because that is what is being discussed.

Bethesda with a development cap has tall buildings. Bethesda without a development cap would have more tall buildings.

Where in Montgomery County do you think there should be tall buildings, if not in downtown Bethesda? Or do you think there shouldn't be anywhere with tall buildings in Montgomery County?

Tall buildings are ok.

Having no development cap is poor planning.

These things can exist at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Why is it bad planning to have no development cap?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it bad planning to have no development cap?

For one thing it makes everyone who bought bonus density into a chump.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slightly back on topic I do feel like this is a bit of a bait and switch because when people complained about the size of the buildings going up on Wisconsin (because maybe we wanted more of a human scale and less of Rosslyn 2) we were told not to worry because the development cap would prevent Wisconsin from becoming a street canyon.

Now they are like “oh we’ve maxed out the development cap already, guess we have to raise it”

You think there shouldn't be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda on top of the Metro and Purple Line stations?

They hope that politicians and the executives they appoint won't say one thing to achieve an objective and then do another or promise something for the same without coming through. The populace is easily manipulated.

Devlopers (and businesses, in general) have a much more pragmatic take, buying influence to be on the front end of such promises and positioning themselves to profit, accordingly.

I don't remember anyone promising that there wouldn't be any tall buildings in downtown Bethesda, not to mention that it would be an odd promise to make, since there already are tall buildings in downtown Bethesda.

Well maybe you don’t live around there but when the zoning/development cap was last up for debate (2016ish??) the scale of buildings in Bethesda was definitely a hot topic. Lots of “communities not canyons” yard signs.

Of course no one is saying there shouldn’t be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda but there is a difference between 10-15 stories and 15-20 stories and there is a difference if there are a few or blocks and blocks of them.

At the time some people produced illustrations of what Wisconsin ave and downtown Bethesda would look like if those 15+ story buildings were allowed everywhere and the planning board definitely said that was completely unrealistic because of the development cap.

Mathematically you're correct, but meaningfully? Nah. Not to mention that it's been over 100 years since a twenty-story building was considered a [banned-on-DCUM term for a very tall building], and why shouldn't there be blocks and blocks of them?

Because some people don’t want to live in NYC, or even Rosslyn. A lot of people think there is a meaningful difference between a city like DC or Paris where there is still some human scale vs cities with noticeably taller buildings crowding the streets. There are also single family homes a block or two away from DT Bethesda and an extra 50 or 60 feet of building throws off the transition between those areas (if not literally blocks the sun).

Maybe you don’t think there’s a meaningful difference or maybe you think the benefits of increased density are worth it but the point is that instead of having a full discussion of what Bethesda should look like we had this backwards approach where taller buildings were authorized (subject to the overall cap, creating a weird race to build as tall and as soon as possible) while people were assured overall density would stay down but now they are saying actually it doesn’t make sense to keep density down.

That’s why it feels like a bait and switch. If the planning board really thought this was the appropriate level of density they should have owned up to that 10 years ago.

Then don't live in downtown Bethesda. Nobody will be forced to live in downtown Bethesda.

As for the single family houses a few blocks from tall buildings in Bethesda, so what?

You seem willfully obtuse. There is an entire community that lives in and around downtown Bethesda. Yes no one is forcing people to live there but they live there and the whole point of doing planning is so growth happens in a way the community is happy with, not according to the random desires of some
builder.

No, it's not. Especially it's not when you define community as the people who currently live in the immediate area. Whatever the point of planning is, it's NOT prohibiting tall buildings in downtown Bethesda on grounds that people who own houses in in Chevy Chase and Edgemoor don't want to live near tall buildings.

No one said we should leave it up to people in Edgemoor but the suggestion that if you don’t like the planning board proposal you should live somewhere else is bizarre.

The suggestion is that if you don't like living in tall buildings in downtown Bethesda, you shouldn't live in tall buildings in downtown Bethesda. Similarly, if you don't want to live in NYC, don't live in NYC. If you don't want to live in Rosslyn, don't live in Rosslyn.

The whole freaking discussion is not about where people should live but what size buildings should be built in the future in a place people already live so it’s insanely stupid to say live where you want to live.

Downtown Bethesda already has tall buildings, which people are already living in. If you live in a tall building in downtown Bethesda but you think there shouldn't be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda for people to live in, then I don't know what to say.

If you don’t understand the difference between Bethesda with a development cap and Bethesda without a development cap then I don’t really know what to say either because that is what is being discussed.

Bethesda with a development cap has tall buildings. Bethesda without a development cap would have more tall buildings.

Where in Montgomery County do you think there should be tall buildings, if not in downtown Bethesda? Or do you think there shouldn't be anywhere with tall buildings in Montgomery County?

Tall buildings are ok.

Having no development cap is poor planning.

These things can exist at the same time.

Does anyone know if the height limit would still apply? I’m curious if the height limit is directly tied to this cap or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it bad planning to have no development cap?

For one thing it makes everyone who bought bonus density into a chump.

Are the people who bought bonus density complaining?

[Anonymous]

It's hilarious to me that PPs are using Paris as an example of what Bethesda should look like. If that was the case, you'd have to raze nearly all the SFH where many of the UMC and wealthy live and replace them with 5-6 story apartment buildings (with no or very few garages) and rezone residential areas to mixed use.

I mean, get a grip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious to me that PPs are using Paris as an example of what Bethesda should look like. If that was the case, you'd have to raze nearly all the SFH where many of the UMC and wealthy live and replace them with 5-6 story apartment buildings (with no or very few garages) and rezone residential areas to mixed use.

I mean, get a grip.

Right? Paris is much denser than Singapore. Paris is much denser than Tokyo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it bad planning to have no development cap?

For one thing it makes everyone who bought bonus density into a chump.

Are the people who bought bonus density complaining?

They will be privately, certainly. In addition, what this signals to the market is that the county is not serious. So if you were a real estate investor, you just have to wait them out and eventually they will give away everything. I does the exact opposite of what they were hoping, because it makes a mockery of the rules and as a result decentivizes investors from investing now versus waiting into the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it bad planning to have no development cap?

For one thing it makes everyone who bought bonus density into a chump.

Are the people who bought bonus density complaining?

They will be privately, certainly. In addition, what this signals to the market is that the county is not serious. So if you were a real estate investor, you just have to wait them out and eventually they will give away everything. I does the exact opposite of what they were hoping, because it makes a mockery of the rules and as a result decentivizes investors from investing now versus waiting into the future.

It is widely known that the county isn’t serious. The county thinks it’s being pro-development but instead its just giving people reasons to wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious to me that PPs are using Paris as an example of what Bethesda should look like. If that was the case, you'd have to raze nearly all the SFH where many of the UMC and wealthy live and replace them with 5-6 story apartment buildings (with no or very few garages) and rezone residential areas to mixed use.

I mean, get a grip.

Actually that could be done if the units in multifamily buildings could sell for enough money. The trick is that nobody wants infill standalone 6 unit buildings on teardown lots in SFH neighborhoods (like everyone fights about in the Arlington forum). So you have to build outward from the "taller" parts in the downtown core.

Big mirrored towers with no balconies are ugly and Bethesda's tall buildings have little architectural merit.

If people don't build 5-6 story apartment buildings but approve more density, there will just be more ugly towers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious to me that PPs are using Paris as an example of what Bethesda should look like. If that was the case, you'd have to raze nearly all the SFH where many of the UMC and wealthy live and replace them with 5-6 story apartment buildings (with no or very few garages) and rezone residential areas to mixed use.

I mean, get a grip.

Actually that could be done if the units in multifamily buildings could sell for enough money. The trick is that nobody wants infill standalone 6 unit buildings on teardown lots in SFH neighborhoods (like everyone fights about in the Arlington forum). So you have to build outward from the "taller" parts in the downtown core.

Big mirrored towers with no balconies are ugly and Bethesda's tall buildings have little architectural merit.

If people don't build 5-6 story apartment buildings but approve more density, there will just be more ugly towers.

I fully support balconies for apartments.

On the other hand, I don't think that I, or you, or anybody, should get to approve or disapprove buildings based on Do I Think This Building Is Pretty Or Ugly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It just demonstrates that the county government lies constantly. Across the board, every facet of county government that interacts with the public lies constantly. It’s a culture problem that is probably borne out of a lack of accountability due to one party rule. MCPS, the Council and particularly Planning just lie. No integrity.

All the way down to public school officials and administrators. Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it bad planning to have no development cap?

For one thing it makes everyone who bought bonus density into a chump.

Are the people who bought bonus density complaining?

They will be privately, certainly. In addition, what this signals to the market is that the county is not serious. So if you were a real estate investor, you just have to wait them out and eventually they will give away everything. I does the exact opposite of what they were hoping, because it makes a mockery of the rules and as a result decentivizes investors from investing now versus waiting into the future.

It is widely known that the county isn’t serious. The county thinks it’s being pro-development but instead its just giving people reasons to wait.

And as a result, lots of approved developments just sit there for years unimproved, like Westbard, Strathmore Metro, White Flint Mall, White Flint Metro, etc.

And speaking of Westbard, which is finally but slowly being built, EYA sold out 100% of their THs before breaking ground.

It’s malpractice that planning hates THs when they deliver density, consumers want them and communities don’t object to them.

And it’s a show of how extremely ideological Planning is to push missing middle instead. That should really concern everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it bad planning to have no development cap?

For one thing it makes everyone who bought bonus density into a chump.

Are the people who bought bonus density complaining?

They will be privately, certainly. In addition, what this signals to the market is that the county is not serious. So if you were a real estate investor, you just have to wait them out and eventually they will give away everything. I does the exact opposite of what they were hoping, because it makes a mockery of the rules and as a result decentivizes investors from investing now versus waiting into the future.

It is widely known that the county isn’t serious. The county thinks it’s being pro-development but instead its just giving people reasons to wait.

And as a result, lots of approved developments just sit there for years unimproved, like Westbard, Strathmore Metro, White Flint Mall, White Flint Metro, etc.

And speaking of Westbard, which is finally but slowly being built, EYA sold out 100% of their THs before breaking ground.

It’s malpractice that planning hates THs when they deliver density, consumers want them and communities don’t object to them.

And it’s a show of how extremely ideological Planning is to push missing middle instead. That should really concern everyone.

Attached houses (non-missing middle housing) are fine. Missing middle housing is fine too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it bad planning to have no development cap?

For one thing it makes everyone who bought bonus density into a chump.

Are the people who bought bonus density complaining?

They will be privately, certainly. In addition, what this signals to the market is that the county is not serious. So if you were a real estate investor, you just have to wait them out and eventually they will give away everything. I does the exact opposite of what they were hoping, because it makes a mockery of the rules and as a result decentivizes investors from investing now versus waiting into the future.

It is widely known that the county isn’t serious. The county thinks it’s being pro-development but instead its just giving people reasons to wait.

And as a result, lots of approved developments just sit there for years unimproved, like Westbard, Strathmore Metro, White Flint Mall, White Flint Metro, etc.

And speaking of Westbard, which is finally but slowly being built, EYA sold out 100% of their THs before breaking ground.

It’s malpractice that planning hates THs when they deliver density, consumers want them and communities don’t object to them.

And it’s a show of how extremely ideological Planning is to push missing middle instead. That should really concern everyone.

Attached houses (non-missing middle housing) are fine. Missing middle housing is fine too.

Giving up on zoning is not fine. Giving up on zoning is lazy and stupid.

We can build plenty of planned housing, more that enough for all.