Will the Westbard redevelopment blow up the Whitman cluster?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maintain or slightly increase the current retail square footage but rebuild/renovate the current buildings. Bring in other mixed use (ie, a nursing home again, dogpark, daycare, etc.). Build only more residential that can be supported by current school capacity (when Woodacres is renovated, and also factoring in Pyle and Whitman). The fact is simply there is no where else (and no $) to build more schools in the area - so new development has to be supported by these current schools. That is what I meant by low density.

Master plans are supposed to last 20-30 years, so I don't think it would make sense to limit the master plan based on current limitations. There would be places to put schools, if MCPS changed their requirements for school sites. Do elementary, middle, and high schools really have to have 7.5, 15.5, and 35 acres, respectively? And while there is currently insufficient capital funding for schools, we shouldn't assume that there will always be insufficient capital funding for schools.

Maybe the solution is to add school staging requirements for residential development -- for example, no more than x residential units until MCPS has acquired a school site; no more than y residential units until capital funding for the school is in the five-year plan etc.

Staging is a good idea -- but MCPS would have to actually give a crap and sit in on these meetings to tell planners and developers what the limits of the school infrastructure are and to be honest about what that will mean for smart and sensible growth. Instead, MCPS's attitude has been, "just tell us when you're done building and there are kids who want to go to school, and we'll figure it out somehow." A complete abdication of responsibility to the community, if you ask me. And there won't be places to build schools of any size if MCPS keeps telling planners they don't need to reserve any space out of the land that *is* available, so that new facilities can be built. I get that it's MCPS's policy not to direct development or tell developers what they can and can't do, but it seems like it is going out of its way to make things harder for itself and the community in years to come. At least give planners and the community better information and guidelines for what will work for what we've got, rather than giving developers a blank check that MCPS and the community cannot cash later.

And by the way, while developers try to sell the planning commission on the idea that no one but retired and single/childless people will buy in Westbard, just wait till the marketing materials come out and trumpet the great schools and kid-friendly amenities. Great schools are always a big draw -- even for those without kids, great schools keep the property values up. But developers will kill the golden goose if they overstuff the community with housing that the school infrastructure can't handle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maintain or slightly increase the current retail square footage but rebuild/renovate the current buildings. Bring in other mixed use (ie, a nursing home again, dogpark, daycare, etc.). Build only more residential that can be supported by current school capacity (when Woodacres is renovated, and also factoring in Pyle and Whitman). The fact is simply there is no where else (and no $) to build more schools in the area - so new development has to be supported by these current schools. That is what I meant by low density.

Master plans are supposed to last 20-30 years, so I don't think it would make sense to limit the master plan based on current limitations. There would be places to put schools, if MCPS changed their requirements for school sites. Do elementary, middle, and high schools really have to have 7.5, 15.5, and 35 acres, respectively? And while there is currently insufficient capital funding for schools, we shouldn't assume that there will always be insufficient capital funding for schools.

Maybe the solution is to add school staging requirements for residential development -- for example, no more than x residential units until MCPS has acquired a school site; no more than y residential units until capital funding for the school is in the five-year plan etc.

Staging is a good idea -- but MCPS would have to actually give a crap and sit in on these meetings to tell planners and developers what the limits of the school infrastructure are and to be honest about what that will mean for smart and sensible growth. Instead, MCPS's attitude has been, "just tell us when you're done building and there are kids who want to go to school, and we'll figure it out somehow." A complete abdication of responsibility to the community, if you ask me. And there won't be places to build schools of any size if MCPS keeps telling planners they don't need to reserve any space out of the land that *is* available, so that new facilities can be built. I get that it's MCPS's policy not to direct development or tell developers what they can and can't do, but it seems like it is going out of its way to make things harder for itself and the community in years to come. At least give planners and the community better information and guidelines for what will work for what we've got, rather than giving developers a blank check that MCPS and the community cannot cash later.

And by the way, while developers try to sell the planning commission on the idea that no one but retired and single/childless people will buy in Westbard, just wait till the marketing materials come out and trumpet the great schools and kid-friendly amenities. Great schools are always a big draw -- even for those without kids, great schools keep the property values up. But developers will kill the golden goose if they overstuff the community with housing that the school infrastructure can't handle.

It might not be MCPS' job to tell developers what to do, but it is the job of the Planning Commission to approve such large projects. The public needs to ensure that MCPS is engaged in the review process and informing the PC of its conclusions. Many projects of this size require the provision of "community amenities" and funding in escrow that partially funds construction of new public school space would be a very appropriate and needed amenity. In other parts of the country, developers are routinely expected to pay for infrastructure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly. That is why the new Bethesda Middle School will pretty much be in Kensington. There simply wasnt the space elsewhere in Bethesda. And concern for school overcrowding isn't stopping the apartments from being built in downtown Bethesda. The ratio MCPS uses for predicting families from apartments is flawed. Just wait 5-15 years from now. It will not be pretty at the Elementary and High School levels. Westbard does need re-development - but they need to be smarter about it!

What would smarter redevelopment be at Westbard?

Renovation and low density development (it is not close enough to mass transit except buses on already crowded River Rd). High density development there is going to add to these major problems.

Be forewarned. There is already lobbying to extend the Purple Line south and west of downtown Bethesda on the trail right of way. As we know, this used to be a railroad, but it would effectively spell the end of the trail. Proponents see extension of the line as a necessary element of really "unlocking" the development density potential not only of Westbard but also of the Sangamore area.

There is? From whom? Where? How?

And since the Purple Line between Bethesda and Silver Spring, also on former railroad land, will actually improve the Capital Crescent Trail in many ways, I don't understand why an extended Purple Line would "effectively spell the end of the trail" west of Bethesda. Please explain.

Look at Greater Greater Washington, for example, the mutual stimulation echo chamber of the development and "smart growth" community.

The right of way south of Bethesda Row is very narrow. It would be a transit line vs trail choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly. That is why the new Bethesda Middle School will pretty much be in Kensington. There simply wasnt the space elsewhere in Bethesda. And concern for school overcrowding isn't stopping the apartments from being built in downtown Bethesda. The ratio MCPS uses for predicting families from apartments is flawed. Just wait 5-15 years from now. It will not be pretty at the Elementary and High School levels. Westbard does need re-development - but they need to be smarter about it!

What would smarter redevelopment be at Westbard?

Renovation and low density development (it is not close enough to mass transit except buses on already crowded River Rd). High density development there is going to add to these major problems.

Be forewarned. There is already lobbying to extend the Purple Line south and west of downtown Bethesda on the trail right of way. As we know, this used to be a railroad, but it would effectively spell the end of the trail. Proponents see extension of the line as a necessary element of really "unlocking" the development density potential not only of Westbard but also of the Sangamore area.

There is? From whom? Where? How?

And since the Purple Line between Bethesda and Silver Spring, also on former railroad land, will actually improve the Capital Crescent Trail in many ways, I don't understand why an extended Purple Line would "effectively spell the end of the trail" west of Bethesda. Please explain.

Look at Greater Greater Washington, for example, the mutual stimulation echo chamber of the development and "smart growth" community.

The right of way south of Bethesda Row is very narrow. It would be a transit line vs trail choice.

Posts and comments on a transportation and land use blog count as "lobbying" now?

Also, I'm guessing that you live in Chevy Chase.

[Anonymous]

Dear transportation nerds:

Thanks for killing this thread about SCHOOLS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dear transportation nerds:

Thanks for killing this thread about SCHOOLS.

It's hard to separate the development, school, and transportation issues in Montgomery County.

[Anonymous]

I don't know, the transportation guys peeled that piece off pretty easily and dropped any comment about the impact of the Westbard redevelopment on schools without too much trouble.

[Anonymous]

that area that now goes to Whitman used to go to western and was slated to go to b-cc but they changed in in 1979 when they also closed many elementary schools and redrew the high school and jr high school lines.

river falls will shift back to cabin john and Churchill, they will reopen clara barton, Radnor, and the other one I can't remember the name of on sangamore even though the school system got taken for a ride on the lease.

[Anonymous]

That's a very high density plan (as such is most profitable to the developer, and eventually MoCo tax coffers), however it is unlikely to get approved at those quantities. Traffic, congestion, schools, utilities will all be over capacitated. It will have be revised down.

Watch for a series of "town halls" on the matter and votive your opinions. Serious renovations at multiple ES, Pyle and Whitman would be required and the county can put the developer on the hook for a portion (not just taxpayers and current students trailering it up) if that gets socialized now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS isn't the problem. The County leadership and Planning Board is. They are the ones who keep approving - no, encouraging - more development. They need to devise a process that forces developers to fund infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new properties. Chevy Chase Lake (which will feed into the BCC cluster) is equally terrifying in terms of potential impact on schools and transportation.

This! It is ridiculous that they allow developers to keep building these mixed use developments all around the county without seeming to give any thought to how that will effect infrastructure.

I'm under no illusion that these developments aren't going forward, but we residents can't hold these developers hostage when MCPS sits on its hands. If MCPS isn't engaged, there isn't anyone at the table saying, "No, you can't add 100-200 more students to this community given the schools we have in the area unless we have (1) a new school, or (2) build additions to these X schools, so you (developer) need to factor $X into your budget to help defray the cost to the community your development will create. But no, MCPS sends Bruce Crispell to these meetings to tell residents that MCPS won't do anything until the developers are done, which means 100% of the costs are borne by the taxpayers. The developer gets its project and the profits, and isn't making the investment it should into the infrastructure that's supposed to support the development because MCPS doesn't challenge anything the developer says. After the developers are gone, we residents have to deal with the overcrowding at the schools and also have to pay to support additions -- which of course won't be built anywhere near us because school construction funds are tight state-wide and no one thinks Bethesda needs anything.

Bingo. And it's not just roads and schools - it's all sorts of services. For example, swim classes were FULL by 9 am today - just 2.5 hours after registration opened. The pools are overcrowded. You can't find parking at Grosvenor metro and more...

Agree. Quality of life for all will plummet.
Downtown Bethesda and westbard high rises will create a total mess beyond your wildest imaginations. Not enough infrastructure, not enough public goods/buildings, not enough schools, not enough roads/parking, not enough restaurants, not enough daycare or preschools, and never enough tax money despite annual increases like clockwork. Will push the prices up of everything, simple supply and demand coupled with poor government planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WMAL's parent company selling 75 acres surrounding its radio tower in Greentree Road:
http://www.thesentinel.com/mont/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1632:washington-radio-station-acreage-up-for-sale&Itemid=766

Nice! Maybe some more high density pods can go up there too! Soon Bethesda can look like the waterfront of Vancouver following the Olympics build-a-thon!

This big of an increase in units will really compress prices down for everyone.

[Anonymous]

For the people who mentioned the Washington Waldorf School and the 30 year lease: Montgomery County can always use its authority to retake the lease/property if it finds it is needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WMAL's parent company selling 75 acres surrounding its radio tower in Greentree Road:
http://www.thesentinel.com/mont/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1632:washington-radio-station-acreage-up-for-sale&Itemid=766

Nice! Maybe some more high density pods can go up there too! Soon Bethesda can look like the waterfront of Vancouver following the Olympics build-a-thon!

This big of an increase in units will really compress prices down for everyone.

Developers are building "high density pods" because people are buying them.

And yes, increasing the supply of something whose demand exceeds its supply does tend to result in lower prices. That is the free market at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the people who mentioned the Washington Waldorf School and the 30 year lease: Montgomery County can always use its authority to retake the lease/property if it finds it is needed.

How do you know that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the people who mentioned the Washington Waldorf School and the 30 year lease: Montgomery County can always use its authority to retake the lease/property if it finds it is needed.

That can be REALLY expensive and it would have been a much better call to sign a 5-year lease with Washington Waldorf. I thought they learned this lesson when they were looking for the new B-CC cluster middle school sites.