Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that MCPS would drop their position on ignoring overcrowding in favor of finding ways to get high to mid income people into poorer areas. There is a good sized area that feeds RM which prior to 2002 used to ffed Wootton. This area was pulled out of Wootton because RM was so under enrolled it was in danger of closing. Now Wootton is around capacity but not horribly over. It does need updating and is falling apart. MCPS should make the area that used to be Wootton a dual enrollment zone. If RM is overcrowded they get to choose Wootton. If Wootton is overcrowded they get to choose RM. Done, problem solved.

You mean the decision from 1987? The decision 31 years ago? Should we revisit every zoning decision the school board has made?

NP here. Yes. A responsible board would review zoning regularly. Because the zoning made sense 31 years ago does not mean it makes sense today. They should consider zoning parts of RM for Wootton if RM is so much more overcrowded. But keeping Wootton cluster schools at or below capacity seems to be more of a priority for the board than solving overcrowding at neighboring clusters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that MCPS would drop their position on ignoring overcrowding in favor of finding ways to get high to mid income people into poorer areas. There is a good sized area that feeds RM which prior to 2002 used to ffed Wootton. This area was pulled out of Wootton because RM was so under enrolled it was in danger of closing. Now Wootton is around capacity but not horribly over. It does need updating and is falling apart. MCPS should make the area that used to be Wootton a dual enrollment zone. If RM is overcrowded they get to choose Wootton. If Wootton is overcrowded they get to choose RM. Done, problem solved.

You mean the decision from 1987? The decision 31 years ago? Should we revisit every zoning decision the school board has made?

NP here. Yes. A responsible board would review zoning regularly. Because the zoning made sense 31 years ago does not mean it makes sense today. They should consider zoning parts of RM for Wootton if RM is so much more overcrowded. But keeping Wootton cluster schools at or below capacity seems to be more of a priority for the board than solving overcrowding at neighboring clusters.

Right and combining Wooton capacity with the new diversity requirement. So Twinbrook ES should be moved to Wooton. Just because one school was part of Wooton 30+ years ago doesn’t necessarily mean that a new rezoning will reassign that same school there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that MCPS would drop their position on ignoring overcrowding in favor of finding ways to get high to mid income people into poorer areas. There is a good sized area that feeds RM which prior to 2002 used to ffed Wootton. This area was pulled out of Wootton because RM was so under enrolled it was in danger of closing. Now Wootton is around capacity but not horribly over. It does need updating and is falling apart. MCPS should make the area that used to be Wootton a dual enrollment zone. If RM is overcrowded they get to choose Wootton. If Wootton is overcrowded they get to choose RM. Done, problem solved.

You mean the decision from 1987? The decision 31 years ago? Should we revisit every zoning decision the school board has made?

NP here. Yes. A responsible board would review zoning regularly. Because the zoning made sense 31 years ago does not mean it makes sense today. They should consider zoning parts of RM for Wootton if RM is so much more overcrowded. But keeping Wootton cluster schools at or below capacity seems to be more of a priority for the board than solving overcrowding at neighboring clusters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that MCPS would drop their position on ignoring overcrowding in favor of finding ways to get high to mid income people into poorer areas. There is a good sized area that feeds RM which prior to 2002 used to ffed Wootton. This area was pulled out of Wootton because RM was so under enrolled it was in danger of closing. Now Wootton is around capacity but not horribly over. It does need updating and is falling apart. MCPS should make the area that used to be Wootton a dual enrollment zone. If RM is overcrowded they get to choose Wootton. If Wootton is overcrowded they get to choose RM. Done, problem solved.

You mean the decision from 1987? The decision 31 years ago? Should we revisit every zoning decision the school board has made?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP.. The "green" area is tiny. I think a little park adjacent to TC would be good. It would definitely draw in even more families.

The whole park argument doesn’t hold any water for me. Why would it attract people when there are already 3 parks within a mile of RTC? College Gardens Park, Woolley Gardens Parks, Welsh Park.

Because you still have to walk a ways to get there. If it's right next to TC, people are more apt to go to the park then to TC to eat. I wouldn't want to walk that far out to Welsh park only to come back to TC to eat. If people have to hop in a car to go to the park, they could just as easily drive some place else to eat. It's the convenience of having the park literally within a block or two from TC.

I lived in a town where the town center had a sizeable park at the end of the town center. Lots of people would go to the park then TC to eat and hang out. They could also get take out and go to the park and eat. It was awesome. I miss that area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP.. The "green" area is tiny. I think a little park adjacent to TC would be good. It would definitely draw in even more families.

The whole park argument doesn’t hold any water for me. Why would it attract people when there are already 3 parks within a mile of RTC? College Gardens Park, Woolley Gardens Parks, Welsh Park.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pike and Rose is very new too. RTC seemed successful in the beginning and it is not like PR has not lost stores already. We have no idea where they will be in 10 years. People go to what's new to try it out. Getting them to go back is harder. Will both llbean and REI survive? . We trecked down to the Baked Bear this summer but it will be a long time before we go back with Carmen's and Marble Slab and B&J right here.

I agree that Pike and Rose is new so people go there to check it out. It will not be successful in the long run. Again, the parking is ridiculous. People will not pay those prices to park to go bowling at a tiny, crowded bowling alley. Parking at Pike and Rose costs almost as much as it does in DC.

Maybe the housing there be able to sustain it, but it seems doubtful. Especially with so many units empty, plus the fact that there are thousands of additional new units going up all over the County.

It's amazing how there can be all of those empty units, yet developers keep building more, AND housing prices are high.

I agree. Why is more development being approved when there are so many apartments/condos left empty? Anyone in real estate will tell you that trying to sell a condo in this market is incredibly difficult since there are so many units available.

Anonymous wrote:I wish that MCPS would drop their position on ignoring overcrowding in favor of finding ways to get high to mid income people into poorer areas. There is a good sized area that feeds RM which prior to 2002 used to ffed Wootton. This area was pulled out of Wootton because RM was so under enrolled it was in danger of closing. Now Wootton is around capacity but not horribly over. It does need updating and is falling apart. MCPS should make the area that used to be Wootton a dual enrollment zone. If RM is overcrowded they get to choose Wootton. If Wootton is overcrowded they get to choose RM. Done, problem solved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What story did I make up?

There is no park or playground at Rockville Town Center. So RTC does not draw people to it the way Rio does. If we want RTC to survive and thrive the way Rio does, we need to make it more inviting. Putting up more high density housing does not make RTC more appealing to anyone.

Presumably it makes it more appealing to the people who will live in the housing - even if it doesn't make it more appealing to you.

I, personally, can't understand the appeal of Rio. Yet there it is. So obviously things that don't appeal to me personally can nonetheless be successufl.

I agree with this pp. I’d take it one step further. I don’t even consider Rio to be the same thing as RTC. Rio is just a mall with housing and strip malls built around it. It’s a better designed Columbia or Arundal Mills. RTC is not a mall. There are government offices, the courts, lawyer offices, and more in the RTC area. People can live and/or work at RTC. It has a large employment base. The number of office workers a block or two blocks from Rio is mindfulness compared to RTC and they don’t have Metro.

That’s not to say I have a problem with a playground being added to RTC but the idea that a playground or some small park will save businesses is kind of silly.

RTC has the splash fountain, the skating rink,the rocks and the library..which I think sort of checks off the kid fun box ok.

DP.. The "green" area is tiny. I think a little park adjacent to TC would be good. It would definitely draw in even more families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What story did I make up?

There is no park or playground at Rockville Town Center. So RTC does not draw people to it the way Rio does. If we want RTC to survive and thrive the way Rio does, we need to make it more inviting. Putting up more high density housing does not make RTC more appealing to anyone.

Presumably it makes it more appealing to the people who will live in the housing - even if it doesn't make it more appealing to you.

I, personally, can't understand the appeal of Rio. Yet there it is. So obviously things that don't appeal to me personally can nonetheless be successufl.

I agree with this pp. I’d take it one step further. I don’t even consider Rio to be the same thing as RTC. Rio is just a mall with housing and strip malls built around it. It’s a better designed Columbia or Arundal Mills. RTC is not a mall. There are government offices, the courts, lawyer offices, and more in the RTC area. People can live and/or work at RTC. It has a large employment base. The number of office workers a block or two blocks from Rio is mindfulness compared to RTC and they don’t have Metro.

That’s not to say I have a problem with a playground being added to RTC but the idea that a playground or some small park will save businesses is kind of silly.

RTC has the splash fountain, the skating rink,the rocks and the library..which I think sort of checks off the kid fun box ok.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pike and Rose is very new too. RTC seemed successful in the beginning and it is not like PR has not lost stores already. We have no idea where they will be in 10 years. People go to what's new to try it out. Getting them to go back is harder. Will both llbean and REI survive? . We trecked down to the Baked Bear this summer but it will be a long time before we go back with Carmen's and Marble Slab and B&J right here.

I agree that Pike and Rose is new so people go there to check it out. It will not be successful in the long run. Again, the parking is ridiculous. People will not pay those prices to park to go bowling at a tiny, crowded bowling alley. Parking at Pike and Rose costs almost as much as it does in DC.

Maybe the housing there be able to sustain it, but it seems doubtful. Especially with so many units empty, plus the fact that there are thousands of additional new units going up all over the County.

It's amazing how there can be all of those empty units, yet developers keep building more, AND housing prices are high.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What story did I make up?

There is no park or playground at Rockville Town Center. So RTC does not draw people to it the way Rio does. If we want RTC to survive and thrive the way Rio does, we need to make it more inviting. Putting up more high density housing does not make RTC more appealing to anyone.

Presumably it makes it more appealing to the people who will live in the housing - even if it doesn't make it more appealing to you.

I, personally, can't understand the appeal of Rio. Yet there it is. So obviously things that don't appeal to me personally can nonetheless be successufl.

I agree with this pp. I’d take it one step further. I don’t even consider Rio to be the same thing as RTC. Rio is just a mall with housing and strip malls built around it. It’s a better designed Columbia or Arundal Mills. RTC is not a mall. There are government offices, the courts, lawyer offices, and more in the RTC area. People can live and/or work at RTC. It has a large employment base. The number of office workers a block or two blocks from Rio is mindfulness compared to RTC and they don’t have Metro.

That’s not to say I have a problem with a playground being added to RTC but the idea that a playground or some small park will save businesses is kind of silly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What story did I make up?

There is no park or playground at Rockville Town Center. So RTC does not draw people to it the way Rio does. If we want RTC to survive and thrive the way Rio does, we need to make it more inviting. Putting up more high density housing does not make RTC more appealing to anyone.

Presumably it makes it more appealing to the people who will live in the housing - even if it doesn't make it more appealing to you.

I, personally, can't understand the appeal of Rio. Yet there it is. So obviously things that don't appeal to me personally can nonetheless be successufl.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somewhat OT, but Dawson’s Market is actually re-opening in December.

Where did you hear this?