Reply to MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]Lost in all of the banter about economics and x-plex definitions is, among other things, the set of neighborhoods most likely to be in the crosshairs for the increased density, especially that granted by corridor 500-foot proximity allowing up to 19-unit structures (more where recently established state law awards bonus densities).  These are the existing detached SFH neighborhoods in closer-in locations in the southeast of the county, built out for some time and already underserved with regard to infrastructure, but less costly for development acquisition than their counterparts to the west.  With the plan doing little to nothing to ensure that adequate infrastructure will be in place (e.g., by placing moratoria on locations where infrastructure capacity is inadequate), the County Council will be working to the relative detriment of these neighborhoods, mostly in Silver Spring, and any in the immediate vicinity, whether detached SFH or higher density, that would be affected by the greater infrastructure deficit.

Ironically, existing detached SFH properties in these neighborhoods are currently among the more attainable in the closer-in portions of the county, with among the greatest diversity, economic and otherwise, for detached SFH neighborhoods.  Significant portions of Bethesda are not among the areas to which highest density would apply, and other portions of Bethesda and Chevy Chase (and the most expensive areas of Takoma Park) have various protections and/or prohibitive land acquisition cost.

Meanwhile, encouragement of clustered, close-walk-to-Metro, high density in areas currently zoned for such but under-built (unsurprisingly, [i]downtown[/i] Silver Spring among them) as an option to increase housing stock appears to have ceased.  And nobody appears to be considering additional greenfield options farther out which might better afford infrastructure, and at a lower cost, when seeking to increase the stock of SFH (detached or otherwise).

It appears that they are fine with all of this, as, I'm sure, are small to mid-scale developers and interested real estate investment groups.  Well done, County Council, well done.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics