No no no. The majority of people have no clue what’s going on because they think it is just a little bus route and some sidewalks. Not an entire new development plopped onto our neighborhood. I only found out by delving into the very vague info and attending a meeting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

Without job growth, the county is solely reliant on in-migration of affluent households who work elsewhere. What’s the value proposition that this county offers instead of living closer to your job? High taxes and a horrible commute.

What’s worse is that while Planning is targeting housing growth towards “affordable” or “attainable” housing to low-AMI households which induced more in-migration of low income households, they put up huge obstacles to build housing that would be attractive to wealthy households moving here. The outcome is that the poor population is growing and the rich population is aging out to retirement.

Anyone that thinks a tax base for a county that is growing increasingly poor can be sustained by a static number of about 100k people who either work outside of the county or are retired are fooling themselves.

If Planning was smart, they would get rid of MPDUs and require a 1-to-1 offset of housing new production targeting the top of the market for every regulated affordable or attainable unit approved.

Thrive allows for new housing types, including housing that is not street facing. It’s past time that lot splitting gets approved so that there can be a big rush of new housing production on those massive lots in Bethesda and Potomac.

You seem to think that there's some tradeoff between, say, having density and transit vs. jobs. It's just so bizarre. People want to live in this county, people with jobs. And they want to be able to get to those jobs.

DP / that "that DP" from above. This "tradeoff"/"bizarre" characterization is yet another strawman-type argument. PP is saying that there should be focus on attracting high-paying jobs to the area so that commutes may more often occur within the county at presumably lower impact, similar to that end sought by planners, but with a more economically sustainable result than that likely resulting from that which those planners currently propose.

With regard to the second idea in your post, one could as easily say, "People live in this county, people with jobs. And they want to live with similar expectations related to the neighborhoods in which they settled as there were when they made the significant and heavily-burdensome-to-alter life decisions to settle there." I suggest that Montgomery Planning (and the County Council members who appoint/approve the planning board members) should be more responsible to the current residents of the county than to potential residents of the county where such conflict exists.

The County Council, which is elected by the voters of the county, keeps adopting plans that, according to DCUM, nobody wants - except evidently a majority of the voters of Montgomery County.

If you bought property in the expectation that nothing would change henceforth, I'm sorry, but you're going to be disappointed no matter what.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

Without job growth, the county is solely reliant on in-migration of affluent households who work elsewhere. What’s the value proposition that this county offers instead of living closer to your job? High taxes and a horrible commute.

What’s worse is that while Planning is targeting housing growth towards “affordable” or “attainable” housing to low-AMI households which induced more in-migration of low income households, they put up huge obstacles to build housing that would be attractive to wealthy households moving here. The outcome is that the poor population is growing and the rich population is aging out to retirement.

Anyone that thinks a tax base for a county that is growing increasingly poor can be sustained by a static number of about 100k people who either work outside of the county or are retired are fooling themselves.

If Planning was smart, they would get rid of MPDUs and require a 1-to-1 offset of housing new production targeting the top of the market for every regulated affordable or attainable unit approved.

Thrive allows for new housing types, including housing that is not street facing. It’s past time that lot splitting gets approved so that there can be a big rush of new housing production on those massive lots in Bethesda and Potomac.

You seem to think that there's some tradeoff between, say, having density and transit vs. jobs. It's just so bizarre. People want to live in this county, people with jobs. And they want to be able to get to those jobs.

DP / that "that DP" from above. This "tradeoff"/"bizarre" characterization is yet another strawman-type argument. PP is saying that there should be focus on attracting high-paying jobs to the area so that commutes may more often occur within the county at presumably lower impact, similar to that end sought by planners, but with a more economically sustainable result than that likely resulting from that which those planners currently propose.

With regard to the second idea in your post, one could as easily say, "People live in this county, people with jobs. And they want to live with similar expectations related to the neighborhoods in which they settled as there were when they made the significant and heavily-burdensome-to-alter life decisions to settle there." I suggest that Montgomery Planning (and the County Council members who appoint/approve the planning board members) should be more responsible to the current residents of the county than to potential residents of the county where such conflict exists.

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:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

There's a demand for housing in this county. It does make sense to work to meet that demand, and to now have the tax revenue from those people in the county. There's a lot of office vacancies in this county. Not sure what you want planners to do with those vacancies.

That DP again. From a strictly financial standpoint, it does not make a lot of sense to have the tax revenue if the associated public expense associated with those households would be greater than the tax revenue. From a demand standpoint, again, neither the already-developed older detached SFH neighborhoods most affected, here, nor MoCo, itself, exist in a vacuum.

There is a lot of under-utilized existing residential-inclusive zoning with greater concentration around/access to Metro. It may not be the type that smaller developers pushing for "missing middle" might be able to build, but it would be far more efficient. Continued greenfield development farther out might efficiently support demand associated with employment in the 270 corridor, which, itself, might produce many of the higher-end jobs that would make a more net positive impact on the county's bottom line if better encouraged.

MoCo does not need to absorb all of this demand, either -- there are neighboring jusrisdictions where that demand might be met at lower cost.

I was not the recent poster suggesting office conversion, and I don't know the relative cost (and cost-benefit), there. Do planners need to do something directly with those properties (from a regulatory perspective)? I don't know. However, if we have a lot of vacant office space (and it seems that we do), we might want to address that before seeking to add population without associated higher-end jobs that might fill those empty offices.

What drives me crazy is that instead of promoting policies that work and encourage private sector job growth, like promoting development along the 270 corridor. The country instead seems intent to continue with policies that discourage greenfield investment while simultaneously promoting job creation through commercial rent subsidies. It’s the most unfashionably dumb and unsustainable thing you can imagine.

Good.

Thanks for clarifying that you’re in favor of a company like AstraZeneca building new wet labs in Frederick or Loudon instead of next to 270 in this county. And unfortunately this is the same attitude that’s prevalent in Planning and why this county is falling behind economically.

In Fairfax they got the global headquarters for one of the largest Banks in the world and all of the world’s leading tech companies lining their freeways. In Montgomery County, we’ve got a prison and a bus barn. Makes total sense.

This AstraZeneca?

https://commerce.maryland.gov/media/governor-moore-announces-astrazeneca-to-expand-manufacturing-operations-in-montgomery-county

Congratulations on being able to use Google to contradict yourself.

Governor Moore Announces AstraZeneca to Expand Manufacturing Operations in Montgomery County

​BALTIMORE, MD (February 6, 2024) — Governor Wes Moore today announced that AstraZeneca, a global science-led biopharmaceutical company, is establishing a new manufacturing facility in Rockville. The company is investing $300 million in a state-of-the-art facility located at 9950 Medical Center Drive, where it will launch its life-saving cell therapy platforms in the U.S. for critical cancer trials and future commercial supply.

“AstraZeneca and the State of Maryland share a deep commitment to innovation. It makes us the perfect pairing for this next-generation cell therapy facility,” said Gov. Moore. “This significant investment in our life sciences sector will help maintain Maryland’s leadership in the industry and sharpen our competitive edge. We are deeply grateful for AstraZeneca’s partnership and continued commitment to our state.”

The new facility, expected to be fully operational in 2026, will also lead to recruitment for approximately 150 new employees focused on an array of cutting-edge technologies to deliver life-saving cell therapies. Additionally, AstraZeneca plans to retain 4,500 employees at its other facilities throughout Montgomery County.

The 84,000 square-foot space will initially focus on the manufacturing of CAR-T cell therapies to enable cancer clinical trials to be conducted around the world. Over time, the site may expand its focus to support other disease areas.

“We are incredibly excited that more than 150 new highly skilled jobs are being created to bring our scientific work and therapies to clinical trials which could transform the lives of patients around the world,” said AstraZeneca Executive Vice President of Global Operations & IT and Chief Sustainability Officer Pam Cheng. “This new $300 million investment will accelerate our ambition to make next-generation cell therapy a reality, ensuring that we are ready to scale and meet the demands of patients.”

To assist with project costs, the Maryland Department of Commerce is working to approve a $500,000 conditional loan through the Advantage Maryland program. Montgomery County is planning to provide a $100,000 conditional grant through its Economic Development Fund. The company is also eligible for various other incentives, including the More Jobs for Marylanders program and the state's Job Creation Tax Credit.

“While Maryland's pool of talented life science professionals continues to grow, so does the amount of career opportunities in the industry. We are very grateful to AstraZeneca for planning to bring approximately 150 new jobs to Montgomery County over the next few years,” said Maryland Department of Commerce Secretary Kevin Anderson. “We look forward to watching this facility become a major player for the company and the life sciences community in Maryland.”

The new facility in Rockville is located less than five miles away from one of the company’s five global research and development centers and sits within Montgomery County’s booming life sciences corridor. With close proximity to several universities, the location provides an attractive place for ongoing talent recruitment. This site will become part of the AstraZeneca global supply network of nearly 30 manufacturing and supply sites in 16 countries which are either currently operational or under development.

“Manufacturing is an area that many people do not associate with Montgomery County, but we are aggressively pursuing more manufacturing opportunities and hope for more successes like we are witnessing with AstraZeneca,” said Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich. “AstraZeneca’s decision to invest and build its CAR-T therapy manufacturing operation in Montgomery County affirms our role as a global leader in cell therapy and related technologies. We are excited about their plans to locate this facility here, expanding jobs and adding to the important work thousands of AstraZeneca employees already do here in the county every day.”

"Montgomery County is at the epicenter of cell and gene therapy, anchoring the third largest life sciences hub in the U.S.,” said Montgomery County Economic Development Corporation President and Chief Executive Officer Bill Tompkins. “We are home to innovation and life-saving treatments that make a positive global impact. And we are thrilled that AstraZeneca continues to grow and invest in new technologies here in Montgomery County, which will ultimately lead to greater economic viability for our region. We join Governor Moore, County Executive Elrich, and all of our partners and stakeholders in congratulating AstraZeneca for their continued expansion.”

AstraZeneca focuses on the discovery, development, and commercialization of prescription medicines in oncology, rare diseases, and biopharmaceuticals, including cardiovascular, renal and metabolism, and respiratory and immunology. Based in Cambridge in the United Kingdom, AstraZeneca operates in more than 100 countries and its innovative medicines are used by millions of patients worldwide. To learn more, visit astrazeneca.com

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:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

There's a demand for housing in this county. It does make sense to work to meet that demand, and to now have the tax revenue from those people in the county. There's a lot of office vacancies in this county. Not sure what you want planners to do with those vacancies.

That DP again. From a strictly financial standpoint, it does not make a lot of sense to have the tax revenue if the associated public expense associated with those households would be greater than the tax revenue. From a demand standpoint, again, neither the already-developed older detached SFH neighborhoods most affected, here, nor MoCo, itself, exist in a vacuum.

There is a lot of under-utilized existing residential-inclusive zoning with greater concentration around/access to Metro. It may not be the type that smaller developers pushing for "missing middle" might be able to build, but it would be far more efficient. Continued greenfield development farther out might efficiently support demand associated with employment in the 270 corridor, which, itself, might produce many of the higher-end jobs that would make a more net positive impact on the county's bottom line if better encouraged.

MoCo does not need to absorb all of this demand, either -- there are neighboring jusrisdictions where that demand might be met at lower cost.

I was not the recent poster suggesting office conversion, and I don't know the relative cost (and cost-benefit), there. Do planners need to do something directly with those properties (from a regulatory perspective)? I don't know. However, if we have a lot of vacant office space (and it seems that we do), we might want to address that before seeking to add population without associated higher-end jobs that might fill those empty offices.

What drives me crazy is that instead of promoting policies that work and encourage private sector job growth, like promoting development along the 270 corridor. The country instead seems intent to continue with policies that discourage greenfield investment while simultaneously promoting job creation through commercial rent subsidies. It’s the most unfashionably dumb and unsustainable thing you can imagine.

Good.

Thanks for clarifying that you’re in favor of a company like AstraZeneca building new wet labs in Frederick or Loudon instead of next to 270 in this county. And unfortunately this is the same attitude that’s prevalent in Planning and why this county is falling behind economically.

In Fairfax they got the global headquarters for one of the largest Banks in the world and all of the world’s leading tech companies lining their freeways. In Montgomery County, we’ve got a prison and a bus barn. Makes total sense.

This AstraZeneca?

https://commerce.maryland.gov/media/governor-moore-announces-astrazeneca-to-expand-manufacturing-operations-in-montgomery-county

Congratulations on being able to use Google to contradict yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3-5 story single stair walk up apartments (with or w/o elevator) are the next frontier in adding housing density to our low density suburbs.

Long outlawed by zoning and the fire code, British Columbia is taking the lead on rewriting the code to allow for these single stair apartments in order to provide much needed housing, due to the dire need for more affordable and diverse housing types in cities and suburbs alike.

There is a movement here in the U.S. to reintroduce this type of housing to our neighborhoods and communities.

Which low density suburbs are you talking about? This thread is about the University Boulevard corridor plan, not Potomac.

More about single-stair buildings, aka point-access blocks, here: https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/16880-exit-strategy-the-case-for-single-stair-egress There is nothing revolutionary or second-best about them.

Imagine attractive rows of slender one story walk ups about 5 stories in height with corner stores and/or first floor retail—perfect where the consolidation of adjacent properties would be challenged. That would not preclude other complementary taller, more dense developments. There is room for more density all up and down University Boulevard on the Montgomery County side. And the surface parking lots at the Takoma Langley Crossroads could be redeveloped into more dense housing and retail with some room left over for small parks and public spaces.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

Without job growth, the county is solely reliant on in-migration of affluent households who work elsewhere. What’s the value proposition that this county offers instead of living closer to your job? High taxes and a horrible commute.

What’s worse is that while Planning is targeting housing growth towards “affordable” or “attainable” housing to low-AMI households which induced more in-migration of low income households, they put up huge obstacles to build housing that would be attractive to wealthy households moving here. The outcome is that the poor population is growing and the rich population is aging out to retirement.

Anyone that thinks a tax base for a county that is growing increasingly poor can be sustained by a static number of about 100k people who either work outside of the county or are retired are fooling themselves.

If Planning was smart, they would get rid of MPDUs and require a 1-to-1 offset of housing new production targeting the top of the market for every regulated affordable or attainable unit approved.

Thrive allows for new housing types, including housing that is not street facing. It’s past time that lot splitting gets approved so that there can be a big rush of new housing production on those massive lots in Bethesda and Potomac.

You seem to think that there's some tradeoff between, say, having density and transit vs. jobs. It's just so bizarre. People want to live in this county, people with jobs. And they want to be able to get to those jobs.

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:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

There's a demand for housing in this county. It does make sense to work to meet that demand, and to now have the tax revenue from those people in the county. There's a lot of office vacancies in this county. Not sure what you want planners to do with those vacancies.

That DP again. From a strictly financial standpoint, it does not make a lot of sense to have the tax revenue if the associated public expense associated with those households would be greater than the tax revenue. From a demand standpoint, again, neither the already-developed older detached SFH neighborhoods most affected, here, nor MoCo, itself, exist in a vacuum.

There is a lot of under-utilized existing residential-inclusive zoning with greater concentration around/access to Metro. It may not be the type that smaller developers pushing for "missing middle" might be able to build, but it would be far more efficient. Continued greenfield development farther out might efficiently support demand associated with employment in the 270 corridor, which, itself, might produce many of the higher-end jobs that would make a more net positive impact on the county's bottom line if better encouraged.

MoCo does not need to absorb all of this demand, either -- there are neighboring jusrisdictions where that demand might be met at lower cost.

I was not the recent poster suggesting office conversion, and I don't know the relative cost (and cost-benefit), there. Do planners need to do something directly with those properties (from a regulatory perspective)? I don't know. However, if we have a lot of vacant office space (and it seems that we do), we might want to address that before seeking to add population without associated higher-end jobs that might fill those empty offices.

What drives me crazy is that instead of promoting policies that work and encourage private sector job growth, like promoting development along the 270 corridor. The country instead seems intent to continue with policies that discourage greenfield investment while simultaneously promoting job creation through commercial rent subsidies. It’s the most unfashionably dumb and unsustainable thing you can imagine.

Good.

Thanks for clarifying that you’re in favor of a company like AstraZeneca building new wet labs in Frederick or Loudon instead of next to 270 in this county. And unfortunately this is the same attitude that’s prevalent in Planning and why this county is falling behind economically.

In Fairfax they got the global headquarters for one of the largest Banks in the world and all of the world’s leading tech companies lining their freeways. In Montgomery County, we’ve got a prison and a bus barn. Makes total sense.

This AstraZeneca?

https://commerce.maryland.gov/media/governor-moore-announces-astrazeneca-to-expand-manufacturing-operations-in-montgomery-county

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:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

Without job growth, the county is solely reliant on in-migration of affluent households who work elsewhere. What’s the value proposition that this county offers instead of living closer to your job? High taxes and a horrible commute.

What’s worse is that while Planning is targeting housing growth towards “affordable” or “attainable” housing to low-AMI households which induced more in-migration of low income households, they put up huge obstacles to build housing that would be attractive to wealthy households moving here. The outcome is that the poor population is growing and the rich population is aging out to retirement.

Anyone that thinks a tax base for a county that is growing increasingly poor can be sustained by a static number of about 100k people who either work outside of the county or are retired are fooling themselves.

If Planning was smart, they would get rid of MPDUs and require a 1-to-1 offset of housing new production targeting the top of the market for every regulated affordable or attainable unit approved.

Thrive allows for new housing types, including housing that is not street facing. It’s past time that lot splitting gets approved so that there can be a big rush of new housing production on those massive lots in Bethesda and Potomac.

Yet, unsurprisingly, those properties that could be so divided are not in the area defined in the suggested policy change. The truly wealthy are not (or not terribly) affected.

It's more modest areas like that along University Blvd that are the targets. That is both because the cheaper acquisition cost accrues to the developers' bottom lines and because the reisistance (and resilience of resistance) afforded by high affluence makes success of such an area plan less likely. Not to mention the political influence that comes with that high affluence, of course.

There are $2 million houses sitting on 1 acre lots that could be two- $2 million houses on separate half acre lots. You could further divide that down to 12k or 6k sq ft SFH lots. But these new affluent people would drive, so cannot have that.

Who is saying we cannot have that? You? I am all in favor.

Do you work for Planning? If you do then tell your buddies to approve it then. Right now Planning won’t approve any lot splitting unless the two resulting lots are both street facing. Aesthetics over housing.

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:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

There's a demand for housing in this county. It does make sense to work to meet that demand, and to now have the tax revenue from those people in the county. There's a lot of office vacancies in this county. Not sure what you want planners to do with those vacancies.

That DP again. From a strictly financial standpoint, it does not make a lot of sense to have the tax revenue if the associated public expense associated with those households would be greater than the tax revenue. From a demand standpoint, again, neither the already-developed older detached SFH neighborhoods most affected, here, nor MoCo, itself, exist in a vacuum.

There is a lot of under-utilized existing residential-inclusive zoning with greater concentration around/access to Metro. It may not be the type that smaller developers pushing for "missing middle" might be able to build, but it would be far more efficient. Continued greenfield development farther out might efficiently support demand associated with employment in the 270 corridor, which, itself, might produce many of the higher-end jobs that would make a more net positive impact on the county's bottom line if better encouraged.

MoCo does not need to absorb all of this demand, either -- there are neighboring jusrisdictions where that demand might be met at lower cost.

I was not the recent poster suggesting office conversion, and I don't know the relative cost (and cost-benefit), there. Do planners need to do something directly with those properties (from a regulatory perspective)? I don't know. However, if we have a lot of vacant office space (and it seems that we do), we might want to address that before seeking to add population without associated higher-end jobs that might fill those empty offices.

What drives me crazy is that instead of promoting policies that work and encourage private sector job growth, like promoting development along the 270 corridor. The country instead seems intent to continue with policies that discourage greenfield investment while simultaneously promoting job creation through commercial rent subsidies. It’s the most unfashionably dumb and unsustainable thing you can imagine.

Good.

Thanks for clarifying that you’re in favor of a company like AstraZeneca building new wet labs in Frederick or Loudon instead of next to 270 in this county. And unfortunately this is the same attitude that’s prevalent in Planning and why this county is falling behind economically.

In Fairfax they got the global headquarters for one of the largest Banks in the world and all of the world’s leading tech companies lining their freeways. In Montgomery County, we’ve got a prison and a bus barn. Makes total sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

Without job growth, the county is solely reliant on in-migration of affluent households who work elsewhere. What’s the value proposition that this county offers instead of living closer to your job? High taxes and a horrible commute.

What’s worse is that while Planning is targeting housing growth towards “affordable” or “attainable” housing to low-AMI households which induced more in-migration of low income households, they put up huge obstacles to build housing that would be attractive to wealthy households moving here. The outcome is that the poor population is growing and the rich population is aging out to retirement.

Anyone that thinks a tax base for a county that is growing increasingly poor can be sustained by a static number of about 100k people who either work outside of the county or are retired are fooling themselves.

If Planning was smart, they would get rid of MPDUs and require a 1-to-1 offset of housing new production targeting the top of the market for every regulated affordable or attainable unit approved.

Thrive allows for new housing types, including housing that is not street facing. It’s past time that lot splitting gets approved so that there can be a big rush of new housing production on those massive lots in Bethesda and Potomac.

Yet, unsurprisingly, those properties that could be so divided are not in the area defined in the suggested policy change. The truly wealthy are not (or not terribly) affected.

It's more modest areas like that along University Blvd that are the targets. That is both because the cheaper acquisition cost accrues to the developers' bottom lines and because the reisistance (and resilience of resistance) afforded by high affluence makes success of such an area plan less likely. Not to mention the political influence that comes with that high affluence, of course.

There are $2 million houses sitting on 1 acre lots that could be two- $2 million houses on separate half acre lots. You could further divide that down to 12k or 6k sq ft SFH lots. But these new affluent people would drive, so cannot have that.

Who is saying we cannot have that? You? I am all in favor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3-5 story single stair walk up apartments (with or w/o elevator) are the next frontier in adding housing density to our low density suburbs.

Long outlawed by zoning and the fire code, British Columbia is taking the lead on rewriting the code to allow for these single stair apartments in order to provide much needed housing, due to the dire need for more affordable and diverse housing types in cities and suburbs alike.

There is a movement here in the U.S. to reintroduce this type of housing to our neighborhoods and communities.

Do you live in Montgomery County? The last thing that this county needs is to reduce fire codes for apartment buildings considering how many apartment fires there are on a regular basis. Doesn’t matter what they do in Canada. It’s important to do what makes the most sense this context. Unfortunately, this sort of internet meme, magic beans thinking is a big part of the problem with Planning. Since Royce Hanson, everyone wants to get famous doing something novel but inappropriate for our context instead of bread and butter hard work.

It's not just in Canada, it's also in the US, and it wouldn't be reducing the fire code. Although I don't understand why it wouldn't matter how they do things in Canada, as well as countries in Europe. If they can do it there, why can't we do it here? Are fires different there? Maybe fires are context-sensitive?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

Without job growth, the county is solely reliant on in-migration of affluent households who work elsewhere. What’s the value proposition that this county offers instead of living closer to your job? High taxes and a horrible commute.

What’s worse is that while Planning is targeting housing growth towards “affordable” or “attainable” housing to low-AMI households which induced more in-migration of low income households, they put up huge obstacles to build housing that would be attractive to wealthy households moving here. The outcome is that the poor population is growing and the rich population is aging out to retirement.

Anyone that thinks a tax base for a county that is growing increasingly poor can be sustained by a static number of about 100k people who either work outside of the county or are retired are fooling themselves.

If Planning was smart, they would get rid of MPDUs and require a 1-to-1 offset of housing new production targeting the top of the market for every regulated affordable or attainable unit approved.

Thrive allows for new housing types, including housing that is not street facing. It’s past time that lot splitting gets approved so that there can be a big rush of new housing production on those massive lots in Bethesda and Potomac.

Yet, unsurprisingly, those properties that could be so divided are not in the area defined in the suggested policy change. The truly wealthy are not (or not terribly) affected.

It's more modest areas like that along University Blvd that are the targets. That is both because the cheaper acquisition cost accrues to the developers' bottom lines and because the reisistance (and resilience of resistance) afforded by high affluence makes success of such an area plan less likely. Not to mention the political influence that comes with that high affluence, of course.

There are $2 million houses sitting on 1 acre lots that could be two- $2 million houses on separate half acre lots. You could further divide that down to 12k or 6k sq ft SFH lots. But these new affluent people would drive, so cannot have that.

Anonymous wrote:3-5 story single stair walk up apartments (with or w/o elevator) are the next frontier in adding housing density to our low density suburbs.

Long outlawed by zoning and the fire code, British Columbia is taking the lead on rewriting the code to allow for these single stair apartments in order to provide much needed housing, due to the dire need for more affordable and diverse housing types in cities and suburbs alike.

There is a movement here in the U.S. to reintroduce this type of housing to our neighborhoods and communities.

Do you live in Montgomery County? The last thing that this county needs is to reduce fire codes for apartment buildings considering how many apartment fires there are on a regular basis. Doesn’t matter what they do in Canada. It’s important to do what makes the most sense this context. Unfortunately, this sort of internet meme, magic beans thinking is a big part of the problem with Planning. Since Royce Hanson, everyone wants to get famous doing something novel but inappropriate for our context instead of bread and butter hard work.

Anonymous wrote:3-5 story single stair walk up apartments (with or w/o elevator) are the next frontier in adding housing density to our low density suburbs.

Long outlawed by zoning and the fire code, British Columbia is taking the lead on rewriting the code to allow for these single stair apartments in order to provide much needed housing, due to the dire need for more affordable and diverse housing types in cities and suburbs alike.

There is a movement here in the U.S. to reintroduce this type of housing to our neighborhoods and communities.

Which low density suburbs are you talking about? This thread is about the University Boulevard corridor plan, not Potomac.

More about single-stair buildings, aka point-access blocks, here: https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/16880-exit-strategy-the-case-for-single-stair-egress There is nothing revolutionary or second-best about them.