Anonymous wrote:
Here's another example of how you folks demand everything to be exactly what you want.

You: We need more "missing middle" housing like townhomes, especially near metro stations.
Me: Actually, there is a good deal of townhomes, have you looked?
You: No, not those townhomes. I mean that there should be a townhome right next door to your house.
Me: So there is no "missing middle" after all, your issue is not about adding more townhomes at all, you just hate my neighborhood? That's not normal.

Really? People are proposing to change the zoning of just the properties adjoining the one you own, and no others? I'm so sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The entire premise of this thread is to create housing opportunities for families. Townhouses are middle compromise between SFH and condos. As for real townhouse communities, building 100-200 townhouses in an organized community creates a real community, not the random collection of 10-20 townhouses. Moreover, the large mixed use developments in MoCo are simply bizzare. MoCo has that opportunity on the Pike.

Well, no, actually to create housing. Housing for people who have children under 18 at home, as well as housing for people who don't have children under 18 at home. Everyone needs housing.

When you say "townhouses are a middle compromise between single-family houses and condos" - I do not understand who is compromising what. Also, how do renters fit into this?

I also don't understand your distinction between a townhouse community and, you know, townhouses in a community. Are you saying that it's possible for there to be a real community in an area with lots of different housing types? People who live in attached houses in a neighborhood can't form a community with people who live in detached houses in that neighborhood?

And by "large mixed use developments," are you referring to Pike + Rose? Or maybe Crown Farm? Or...? What's bizarre about them, other than that they're brand-new (which your neighborhood was too, at one time)?

It feels like the same pattern over and over. According to you, the only reasonable outcomes are exactly what you want and nothing else. So bizarre.

You: We need more housing.
Other people: great, how about townhomes.
You: No, not that type of housing. It has to be exactly this type of housing and nothing else.

Eh? Current zoning allows apartment buildings in mixed-use commercial/residential developments along Rockville Pike. The PP was saying no, the residential part shouldn't shouldn't be apartment buildings, it should be attached houses, because that's a compromise. Maybe the PP can explain their thinking a bit better here, because it doesn't immediately seem to make much sense. Not to mention there would be less housing if attached houses were built instead of apartment buildings.

Here's another example of how you folks demand everything to be exactly what you want.

You: We need more "missing middle" housing like townhomes, especially near metro stations.
Me: Actually, there is a good deal of townhomes, have you looked?
You: No, not those townhomes. I mean that there should be a townhome right next door to your house.
Me: So there is no "missing middle" after all, your issue is not about adding more townhomes at all, you just hate my neighborhood? That's not normal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The entire premise of this thread is to create housing opportunities for families. Townhouses are middle compromise between SFH and condos. As for real townhouse communities, building 100-200 townhouses in an organized community creates a real community, not the random collection of 10-20 townhouses. Moreover, the large mixed use developments in MoCo are simply bizzare. MoCo has that opportunity on the Pike.

Well, no, actually to create housing. Housing for people who have children under 18 at home, as well as housing for people who don't have children under 18 at home. Everyone needs housing.

When you say "townhouses are a middle compromise between single-family houses and condos" - I do not understand who is compromising what. Also, how do renters fit into this?

I also don't understand your distinction between a townhouse community and, you know, townhouses in a community. Are you saying that it's possible for there to be a real community in an area with lots of different housing types? People who live in attached houses in a neighborhood can't form a community with people who live in detached houses in that neighborhood?

And by "large mixed use developments," are you referring to Pike + Rose? Or maybe Crown Farm? Or...? What's bizarre about them, other than that they're brand-new (which your neighborhood was too, at one time)?

It feels like the same pattern over and over. According to you, the only reasonable outcomes are exactly what you want and nothing else. So bizarre.

You: We need more housing.
Other people: great, how about townhomes.
You: No, not that type of housing. It has to be exactly this type of housing and nothing else.

Eh? Current zoning allows apartment buildings in mixed-use commercial/residential developments along Rockville Pike. The PP was saying no, the residential part shouldn't shouldn't be apartment buildings, it should be attached houses, because that's a compromise. Maybe the PP can explain their thinking a bit better here, because it doesn't immediately seem to make much sense. Not to mention there would be less housing if attached houses were built instead of apartment buildings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The entire premise of this thread is to create housing opportunities for families. Townhouses are middle compromise between SFH and condos. As for real townhouse communities, building 100-200 townhouses in an organized community creates a real community, not the random collection of 10-20 townhouses. Moreover, the large mixed use developments in MoCo are simply bizzare. MoCo has that opportunity on the Pike.

Well, no, actually to create housing. Housing for people who have children under 18 at home, as well as housing for people who don't have children under 18 at home. Everyone needs housing.

When you say "townhouses are a middle compromise between single-family houses and condos" - I do not understand who is compromising what. Also, how do renters fit into this?

I also don't understand your distinction between a townhouse community and, you know, townhouses in a community. Are you saying that it's possible for there to be a real community in an area with lots of different housing types? People who live in attached houses in a neighborhood can't form a community with people who live in detached houses in that neighborhood?

And by "large mixed use developments," are you referring to Pike + Rose? Or maybe Crown Farm? Or...? What's bizarre about them, other than that they're brand-new (which your neighborhood was too, at one time)?

It feels like the same pattern over and over. According to you, the only reasonable outcomes are exactly what you want and nothing else. So bizarre.

You: We need more housing.
Other people: great, how about townhomes.
You: No, not that type of housing. It has to be exactly this type of housing and nothing else.

Anonymous wrote:

The entire premise of this thread is to create housing opportunities for families. Townhouses are middle compromise between SFH and condos. As for real townhouse communities, building 100-200 townhouses in an organized community creates a real community, not the random collection of 10-20 townhouses. Moreover, the large mixed use developments in MoCo are simply bizzare. MoCo has that opportunity on the Pike.

Well, no, actually to create housing. Housing for people who have children under 18 at home, as well as housing for people who don't have children under 18 at home. Everyone needs housing.

When you say "townhouses are a middle compromise between single-family houses and condos" - I do not understand who is compromising what. Also, how do renters fit into this?

I also don't understand your distinction between a townhouse community and, you know, townhouses in a community. Are you saying that it's possible for there to be a real community in an area with lots of different housing types? People who live in attached houses in a neighborhood can't form a community with people who live in detached houses in that neighborhood?

And by "large mixed use developments," are you referring to Pike + Rose? Or maybe Crown Farm? Or...? What's bizarre about them, other than that they're brand-new (which your neighborhood was too, at one time)?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets take sizable segments of Rockville Pike, and build townhouse communities. Townhouses can be of varying sizes, thus varying prices. All of the current retail space will never be used. There is already some infrastructure in place. There is plenty of space on both sides of Rockville.

I agree. But what is going up on Rockville Pike now is large apartment complexes instead. The county is not standing in the way of anyone wanting to build residential on Rockville Pike. However, you may want to be careful, because if you propose lower density townhomes than these massive apartments then you will be called a NIMBY.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0433504,-77.1120119,3a,75y,167.86h,117.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUCqnj3keK20ZFGNGcvOV8A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DUCqnj3keK20ZFGNGcvOV8A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D20.6539%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.051067,-77.116292,3a,75y,216.29h,120.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJPj2LGRdgtJYfogGR_mMBA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DJPj2LGRdgtJYfogGR_mMBA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D75.43149%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0602997,-77.1222446,3a,75y,91.41h,89.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svLbwXJe6BX3UDRFbWatq4A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DvLbwXJe6BX3UDRFbWatq4A%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D148.72278%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0599989,-77.1200372,3a,75y,78.38h,112.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2J0wyqSE_pfpcG06fsdEaw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D2J0wyqSE_pfpcG06fsdEaw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D140.39777%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0622811,-77.1165373,3a,75y,279.28h,92.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s83o4Bq-5qyUEVbE46ZiQoQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0572546,-77.1169592,3a,75y,157.74h,144.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stFrqKpTuh-zinGumew-o6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

An advantage of real townhouse communities is that they will create demand for the nearby remaining retail space, whether Starbucks, grocery stores, restaurants, etc. Rockville Pike avoids messing with neighborhoods of SFHs. You can also include some open spaces, for recreational activities.

I don't know what you mean by "real" townhouse communities (as opposed to fake, I guess?), but I would think it's self-evident that apartments/condo buildings will create even more demand for the commercial part of the mixed commercial/residential development.

The entire premise of this thread is to create housing opportunities for families. Townhouses are middle compromise between SFH and condos. As for real townhouse communities, building 100-200 townhouses in an organized community creates a real community, not the random collection of 10-20 townhouses. Moreover, the large mixed use developments in MoCo are simply bizzare. MoCo has that opportunity on the Pike.

Well said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets take sizable segments of Rockville Pike, and build townhouse communities. Townhouses can be of varying sizes, thus varying prices. All of the current retail space will never be used. There is already some infrastructure in place. There is plenty of space on both sides of Rockville.

I agree. But what is going up on Rockville Pike now is large apartment complexes instead. The county is not standing in the way of anyone wanting to build residential on Rockville Pike. However, you may want to be careful, because if you propose lower density townhomes than these massive apartments then you will be called a NIMBY.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0433504,-77.1120119,3a,75y,167.86h,117.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUCqnj3keK20ZFGNGcvOV8A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DUCqnj3keK20ZFGNGcvOV8A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D20.6539%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.051067,-77.116292,3a,75y,216.29h,120.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJPj2LGRdgtJYfogGR_mMBA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DJPj2LGRdgtJYfogGR_mMBA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D75.43149%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0602997,-77.1222446,3a,75y,91.41h,89.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svLbwXJe6BX3UDRFbWatq4A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DvLbwXJe6BX3UDRFbWatq4A%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D148.72278%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0599989,-77.1200372,3a,75y,78.38h,112.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2J0wyqSE_pfpcG06fsdEaw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D2J0wyqSE_pfpcG06fsdEaw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D140.39777%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0622811,-77.1165373,3a,75y,279.28h,92.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s83o4Bq-5qyUEVbE46ZiQoQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0572546,-77.1169592,3a,75y,157.74h,144.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stFrqKpTuh-zinGumew-o6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

An advantage of real townhouse communities is that they will create demand for the nearby remaining retail space, whether Starbucks, grocery stores, restaurants, etc. Rockville Pike avoids messing with neighborhoods of SFHs. You can also include some open spaces, for recreational activities.

I don't know what you mean by "real" townhouse communities (as opposed to fake, I guess?), but I would think it's self-evident that apartments/condo buildings will create even more demand for the commercial part of the mixed commercial/residential development.

The entire premise of this thread is to create housing opportunities for families. Townhouses are middle compromise between SFH and condos. As for real townhouse communities, building 100-200 townhouses in an organized community creates a real community, not the random collection of 10-20 townhouses. Moreover, the large mixed use developments in MoCo are simply bizzare. MoCo has that opportunity on the Pike.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly. When it comes to real estate, the old saying is that you have three choices: location, price and quality - pick two.

These folks think that they can have it all and it is utterly ridiculous.

But beyond that, I find it fascinating how different attitudes are now from when I first moved to this area in 1999. Back then, basically white people did not live east of 16th street and Logan Circle was dangerous and 14th street was a hotbed of prostitution. People, mainly gay, that first starting moving to these neighborhoods considered themselves "urban pioneers". They then proceeded to buy cheapy and invest in their neighborhoods and then more people came and invested and then the city invested (adding the Columbia Heights metro stop) and so on until these neighborhoods are what they are today. I guess people are not interested in taking risks and building value anymore. Typically instead, they feel entitled and deserve to live where they want. It's such a bizarre mindset, I have trouble wrapping my head around it.

That's an interesting definition of "people" you're using there.

Yeah, as a Black person I am talking about downwardly mobile, entitled white people like you. Get over yourself and go live someplace that you can afford, like everyone else in this city has to.

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly. When it comes to real estate, the old saying is that you have three choices: location, price and quality - pick two.

These folks think that they can have it all and it is utterly ridiculous.

But beyond that, I find it fascinating how different attitudes are now from when I first moved to this area in 1999. Back then, basically white people did not live east of 16th street and Logan Circle was dangerous and 14th street was a hotbed of prostitution. People, mainly gay, that first starting moving to these neighborhoods considered themselves "urban pioneers". They then proceeded to buy cheapy and invest in their neighborhoods and then more people came and invested and then the city invested (adding the Columbia Heights metro stop) and so on until these neighborhoods are what they are today. I guess people are not interested in taking risks and building value anymore. Typically instead, they feel entitled and deserve to live where they want. It's such a bizarre mindset, I have trouble wrapping my head around it.

That's an interesting definition of "people" you're using there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My area is already crowded in terms of roads and schools with single family homes. There would have to be some massive infastructure projects to accomodate adding multifamily dwellings to large areas of the county.

There would be fewer cars on the road if more people were able to live closer to things they can currently only reach by car.

I’m so tired of the NIMBY’s pushing everyone out to Clarksburg and Frederick.

Have you been pushed out to either Clarksburg or Frederick? The DMV is a huge area that provides lots of housing choices for everyone who has lots of money.

Fixed that for you.

That is just factually untrue, both for rental housing and ownership. For example, this is a perfectly nice starter home for $371k that is half a mile to two Metro stations, the same distance to groceries and other amenities and only 1.5 miles to the DC border.
https://www.redfin.com/MD/Hyattsville/3300-Lancer-Pl-20782/home/10952561

Is this a joke? Hyattsville is not in MoCo but sure someone that is going to live in Montgomery County is going to be in Hyattsville instead. Heck, they should just move out to Winchester VA while they're at it! You basically proved the point of the theread, thanks!

It is telling that you specifically choose to exclude some neighborhoods from the DMV at your choice. That house meets every single criteria that people should want. In fact, YIMBYs should be upset that there is SFH in this "walkshed".

It seems to be true that YIMBYs really just want to live around white people.

Except for the "is in Montgomery County" one. Location, location, location.

Exactly. When it comes to real estate, the old saying is that you have three choices: location, price and quality - pick two.

These folks think that they can have it all and it is utterly ridiculous.

But beyond that, I find it fascinating how different attitudes are now from when I first moved to this area in 1999. Back then, basically white people did not live east of 16th street and Logan Circle was dangerous and 14th street was a hotbed of prostitution. People, mainly gay, that first starting moving to these neighborhoods considered themselves "urban pioneers". They then proceeded to buy cheapy and invest in their neighborhoods and then more people came and invested and then the city invested (adding the Columbia Heights metro stop) and so on until these neighborhoods are what they are today. I guess people are not interested in taking risks and building value anymore. Typically instead, they feel entitled and deserve to live where they want. It's such a bizarre mindset, I have trouble wrapping my head around it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets take sizable segments of Rockville Pike, and build townhouse communities. Townhouses can be of varying sizes, thus varying prices. All of the current retail space will never be used. There is already some infrastructure in place. There is plenty of space on both sides of Rockville.

I agree. But what is going up on Rockville Pike now is large apartment complexes instead. The county is not standing in the way of anyone wanting to build residential on Rockville Pike. However, you may want to be careful, because if you propose lower density townhomes than these massive apartments then you will be called a NIMBY.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0433504,-77.1120119,3a,75y,167.86h,117.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUCqnj3keK20ZFGNGcvOV8A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DUCqnj3keK20ZFGNGcvOV8A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D20.6539%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.051067,-77.116292,3a,75y,216.29h,120.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJPj2LGRdgtJYfogGR_mMBA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DJPj2LGRdgtJYfogGR_mMBA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D75.43149%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0602997,-77.1222446,3a,75y,91.41h,89.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svLbwXJe6BX3UDRFbWatq4A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DvLbwXJe6BX3UDRFbWatq4A%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D148.72278%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0599989,-77.1200372,3a,75y,78.38h,112.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2J0wyqSE_pfpcG06fsdEaw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D2J0wyqSE_pfpcG06fsdEaw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D140.39777%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0622811,-77.1165373,3a,75y,279.28h,92.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s83o4Bq-5qyUEVbE46ZiQoQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0572546,-77.1169592,3a,75y,157.74h,144.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stFrqKpTuh-zinGumew-o6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

An advantage of real townhouse communities is that they will create demand for the nearby remaining retail space, whether Starbucks, grocery stores, restaurants, etc. Rockville Pike avoids messing with neighborhoods of SFHs. You can also include some open spaces, for recreational activities.

I don't know what you mean by "real" townhouse communities (as opposed to fake, I guess?), but I would think it's self-evident that apartments/condo buildings will create even more demand for the commercial part of the mixed commercial/residential development.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets take sizable segments of Rockville Pike, and build townhouse communities. Townhouses can be of varying sizes, thus varying prices. All of the current retail space will never be used. There is already some infrastructure in place. There is plenty of space on both sides of Rockville.

I am confused. All of the redevelopment plans on Rockville Pike already include residential development - in fact at much higher densities than attached-single-family housing. Twinbrook Quarter, for example: https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/development/twinbrook-quarter-development-with-wegmans-approved-in-rockville/

So what are you proposing? Rezoning the commercial property along Rockville Pike to LOWER densities than currently allowed? You don't want big apartment/condo buildings along Rockville Pike, just attached houses?

Just as I predicted, they call anyone who suggests something different a NIMBY. So predictable and actually a bit sad really.

I'm the PP you're responding to. Please cite the part of my post where I call anyone a NIMBY.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets take sizable segments of Rockville Pike, and build townhouse communities. Townhouses can be of varying sizes, thus varying prices. All of the current retail space will never be used. There is already some infrastructure in place. There is plenty of space on both sides of Rockville.

I am confused. All of the redevelopment plans on Rockville Pike already include residential development - in fact at much higher densities than attached-single-family housing. Twinbrook Quarter, for example: https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/development/twinbrook-quarter-development-with-wegmans-approved-in-rockville/

So what are you proposing? Rezoning the commercial property along Rockville Pike to LOWER densities than currently allowed? You don't want big apartment/condo buildings along Rockville Pike, just attached houses?

Just as I predicted, they call anyone who suggests something different a NIMBY. So predictable and actually a bit sad really.