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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The DMV is a huge area that provides lots of housing choices for everyone who has lots of money.

More money buys more choices in education, housing, healthcare, food for everyone. The is not a MoCo issue. I have family in SF. I would like to live there but I can not afford it. I had a find a place to live a could afford.

Have you ever wondered WHY there is so little affordable housing in San Francisco? Have you ever wondered why people are commuting to San Francisco from Stockton or Modesto? Have you ever wondered, "What if the government made different policy choices about housing and transportation, then maybe could people who work in San Francisco live closer to their jobs and spend less of their lives commuting?"

No I have not. I hope most people understand that higher demand raises prices. SF can not get larger so the prices go up. I learned that in high school.

I recommend you start.

The physical area of San Francisco can't get larger (without further filling in of land, which there has already been plenty of), but the number of housing units in San Francisco certainly can get larger. I.e., it's possible to increase the supply of housing in San Francisco. So, why isn't that happening?

I guess the market has never provided incentive to knock down the existing housing, rebuild the infrastructure and public facilities to support what you are talking about. People are willing to just keep paying more for what is available.

Guess again. The market has certainly provided the incentives. But the zoning laws don't allow it.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The DMV is a huge area that provides lots of housing choices for everyone who has lots of money.

More money buys more choices in education, housing, healthcare, food for everyone. The is not a MoCo issue. I have family in SF. I would like to live there but I can not afford it. I had a find a place to live a could afford.

Have you ever wondered WHY there is so little affordable housing in San Francisco? Have you ever wondered why people are commuting to San Francisco from Stockton or Modesto? Have you ever wondered, "What if the government made different policy choices about housing and transportation, then maybe could people who work in San Francisco live closer to their jobs and spend less of their lives commuting?"

No I have not. I hope most people understand that higher demand raises prices. SF can not get larger so the prices go up. I learned that in high school.

I recommend you start.

The physical area of San Francisco can't get larger (without further filling in of land, which there has already been plenty of), but the number of housing units in San Francisco certainly can get larger. I.e., it's possible to increase the supply of housing in San Francisco. So, why isn't that happening?

I guess the market has never provided incentive to knock down the existing housing, rebuild the infrastructure and public facilities to support what you are talking about. People are willing to just keep paying more for what is available.

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you were knowledge, you would know that the county has been promising for decades in the master plan to construct a transit corridor from the Grosvenor Metro to Rockledge and Montgomery Mall. It never did.

But the real reason everyone knows why they moved to downtown Bethesda is because the CEO of Marriott lives in Somerset.

I don't know what you're arguing about? People can't use an unbuilt transit corridor to get around. I mean, yes, if there were the equivalent of a Metro station at Rockledge, then there would be the equivalent of a Metro station at Rockledge, but the point is that there isn't - and there are no real plans to build anything of the sort anytime soon.

One of the reasons Marriott cited for the move was the unfulfilled promise to build the transit corridor. Does that help you understand better?

It is funny that you think I am presenting an argument rather than presenting data and facts against your fact free assertions.

Me: Marriott moved from Rockledge because Rockledge isn't near anything!
You: No, you're wrong! Marriott moved from Rockledge because Rockledge isn't near anything!

This is a weird dialogue.

Do you care to address your evidence free assertions regarding opposition to townhomes in Montgomery County? It's kind of weird that you like to make things up and then try to change the subject when confronted with the fact that you are wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you were knowledge, you would know that the county has been promising for decades in the master plan to construct a transit corridor from the Grosvenor Metro to Rockledge and Montgomery Mall. It never did.

But the real reason everyone knows why they moved to downtown Bethesda is because the CEO of Marriott lives in Somerset.

I don't know what you're arguing about? People can't use an unbuilt transit corridor to get around. I mean, yes, if there were the equivalent of a Metro station at Rockledge, then there would be the equivalent of a Metro station at Rockledge, but the point is that there isn't - and there are no real plans to build anything of the sort anytime soon.

One of the reasons Marriott cited for the move was the unfulfilled promise to build the transit corridor. Does that help you understand better?

It is funny that you think I am presenting an argument rather than presenting data and facts against your fact free assertions.

Me: Marriott moved from Rockledge because Rockledge isn't near anything!
You: No, you're wrong! Marriott moved from Rockledge because Rockledge isn't near anything!

This is a weird dialogue.

Anonymous wrote:
It is pretty clear to me that you do not live in Montgomery County or you are a recent arrival and don't know the county at all. Can you point to any opposition to any recent new build townhomes? In addition to the established townhome communities in downtown Bethesda I already posted links to, just in the past few years - in addition to Rockledge - there have been the following new build that I am aware of:

And this is in addition to all of the established townhome communities around the area that I am just not going to bother pointed out to you. I am sorry that you are so deeply uninformed about our community. You may want to educate yourself.

I would also point out that the Rockledge is perfect for density precisely because of the location a lot could have been done. Super high rise towers with ground level shopping and dining, which would have brought some life to the neighborhood. If there was an area that the county should be looking to view with Tysons, it would be there. And yet....

Like the Chelsea Court townhouses, for example? Every time there's a proposal to build attached houses in or even near a neighborhood with detached houses, the neighbors are up in arms about it. It's a longstanding and well-known cliche of Montgomery County development. There are even civic associations that exclude townhouse residents from membership.

And no, Montgomery County is not going to allow "super high rise towers" to be built in a remote, car-dependent location, nor would anybody be interested in building them even if they were allowed, because it wouldn't work out financially.

Tysons has the Silver Line. Rockledge has RideOn 47, RideOn 96, and the J1 Metrobus which willl almost certainly go away when the Purple Line opens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you were knowledge, you would know that the county has been promising for decades in the master plan to construct a transit corridor from the Grosvenor Metro to Rockledge and Montgomery Mall. It never did.

But the real reason everyone knows why they moved to downtown Bethesda is because the CEO of Marriott lives in Somerset.

I don't know what you're arguing about? People can't use an unbuilt transit corridor to get around. I mean, yes, if there were the equivalent of a Metro station at Rockledge, then there would be the equivalent of a Metro station at Rockledge, but the point is that there isn't - and there are no real plans to build anything of the sort anytime soon.

One of the reasons Marriott cited for the move was the unfulfilled promise to build the transit corridor. Does that help you understand better?

It is funny that you think I am presenting an argument rather than presenting data and facts against your fact free assertions.

Anonymous wrote:
If you were knowledge, you would know that the county has been promising for decades in the master plan to construct a transit corridor from the Grosvenor Metro to Rockledge and Montgomery Mall. It never did.

But the real reason everyone knows why they moved to downtown Bethesda is because the CEO of Marriott lives in Somerset.

I don't know what you're arguing about? People can't use an unbuilt transit corridor to get around. I mean, yes, if there were the equivalent of a Metro station at Rockledge, then there would be the equivalent of a Metro station at Rockledge, but the point is that there isn't - and there are no real plans to build anything of the sort anytime soon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The DMV is a huge area that provides lots of housing choices for everyone who has lots of money.

More money buys more choices in education, housing, healthcare, food for everyone. The is not a MoCo issue. I have family in SF. I would like to live there but I can not afford it. I had a find a place to live a could afford.

Have you ever wondered WHY there is so little affordable housing in San Francisco? Have you ever wondered why people are commuting to San Francisco from Stockton or Modesto? Have you ever wondered, "What if the government made different policy choices about housing and transportation, then maybe could people who work in San Francisco live closer to their jobs and spend less of their lives commuting?"

No I have not. I hope most people understand that higher demand raises prices. SF can not get larger so the prices go up. I learned that in high school.

I recommend you start.

The physical area of San Francisco can't get larger (without further filling in of land, which there has already been plenty of), but the number of housing units in San Francisco certainly can get larger. I.e., it's possible to increase the supply of housing in San Francisco. So, why isn't that happening?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The DMV is a huge area that provides lots of housing choices for everyone who has lots of money.

More money buys more choices in education, housing, healthcare, food for everyone. The is not a MoCo issue. I have family in SF. I would like to live there but I can not afford it. I had a find a place to live a could afford.

Have you ever wondered WHY there is so little affordable housing in San Francisco? Have you ever wondered why people are commuting to San Francisco from Stockton or Modesto? Have you ever wondered, "What if the government made different policy choices about housing and transportation, then maybe could people who work in San Francisco live closer to their jobs and spend less of their lives commuting?"

No I have not. I hope most people understand that higher demand raises prices. SF can not get larger so the prices go up. I learned that in high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The funny thing about Rockledge is that if there was an area that could deservedly be upzoned for greater density, it is there. And yet the county rezoned it to let EYA build townhomes instead.

No one is opposed to townhomes and they have been a part of development in our county for ever. There are tons of townhomes in downtown Bethesda for example. Middle housing is not in fact "missing" from their own defined "walkshed" of downtown Bethesda. Instead what we have is sloganeering. What people object to having their house abut a 4-plex. I think that is fair.

Not true at all. Plenty of people are opposed to townhomes. Also, why is it not fair to object to townhomes near you but it is fair to object to a fourplex near you? (What, specifically, is objectionable about a fourplex? How about a triplex, are they objectionable too? And duplexes?)

As for Rockledge itself, why would that be a good place for greater density? The reason Marriott left in the first place is that Rockledge isn't near anything.

Uh, no. Not in the first place.

Marriott's lease was ending and they wanted a modern building. They did want the new location to be close to a Metro stop, but the final decision was basically which governments were going to give them the most in $$$.

Downtown Bethesda it is!!

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-magazine/july-august-2018/why-marriott-stayed/

Yes, and Rockledge isn't.

If you were knowledge, you would know that the county has been promising for decades in the master plan to construct a transit corridor from the Grosvenor Metro to Rockledge and Montgomery Mall. It never did.

But the real reason everyone knows why they moved to downtown Bethesda is because the CEO of Marriott lives in Somerset.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The funny thing about Rockledge is that if there was an area that could deservedly be upzoned for greater density, it is there. And yet the county rezoned it to let EYA build townhomes instead.

No one is opposed to townhomes and they have been a part of development in our county for ever. There are tons of townhomes in downtown Bethesda for example. Middle housing is not in fact "missing" from their own defined "walkshed" of downtown Bethesda. Instead what we have is sloganeering. What people object to having their house abut a 4-plex. I think that is fair.

Not true at all. Plenty of people are opposed to townhomes. Also, why is it not fair to object to townhomes near you but it is fair to object to a fourplex near you? (What, specifically, is objectionable about a fourplex? How about a triplex, are they objectionable too? And duplexes?)

As for Rockledge itself, why would that be a good place for greater density? The reason Marriott left in the first place is that Rockledge isn't near anything.

It is pretty clear to me that you do not live in Montgomery County or you are a recent arrival and don't know the county at all. Can you point to any opposition to any recent new build townhomes? In addition to the established townhome communities in downtown Bethesda I already posted links to, just in the past few years - in addition to Rockledge - there have been the following new build that I am aware of:

- Willet Court: https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/real-estate/million-dollar-bethesda-townhomes-75-percent-leased-says-developer/
- Cabin John Village: https://www.eya.com/townhomes/potomac-md/cabin-john-village
- Quarry Springs: https://wormald.com/new-homes/quarry-springs/
- Symphony Park: https://www.koitzgroup.com/symphony-park-bethesda-real-estate/
- Park Potomac: https://www.eya.com/established-neighborhood-the-brownstones-at-park-potomac
- Grosvenor Heights: https://www.eya.com/community-summary-grosvenor-heights
- Brownstones at Chevy Chase Lake: https://www.eya.com/community-summary-the-brownstones-at-chevy-chase-lake

And this is in addition to all of the established townhome communities around the area that I am just not going to bother pointed out to you. I am sorry that you are so deeply uninformed about our community. You may want to educate yourself.

I would also point out that the Rockledge is perfect for density precisely because of the location a lot could have been done. Super high rise towers with ground level shopping and dining, which would have brought some life to the neighborhood. If there was an area that the county should be looking to view with Tysons, it would be there. And yet....