The Montgomery County division of the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission has solicited proposals for a new headquarters. The current facility is very dated and has limited capacity. Out of all the applicants three groups were selected to present their conceptual plans on October 26th, 2006. A minimum 30% affordable housing was required. You can find the presentation packets at mcparkandplanning.org or use the link directly to the PDF below, Silver Place PDF

Here are my observations on each presentation and the overall plan.

Silver Place Joint-Venture, LLC

This partnership involved Donohoe Companies, Otis Warren & Company, MCF Investment Company and good old WDG Architects who seems to be designing every single building proposed for the Silver Spring CBD. Are they the only guys in town?

Positive aspects of this proposal were that they left the old garage two alone instead of trying to dissect it. The headquarters building is middling in fact I think it looks strikingly similar to the SG-III building at the Universities at Shady Grove in Rockville now under construction. This is not necessarily a bad thing as you might agree with when you see one other proposal. The proposal also includes some office space in another building although I’m not sure how much.

Negative aspects, they pushed the headquarters building to the back of the line, out of view and out of mind apparently to the designers. The overall look is institutional, like a hospital to be precise, that’s fine save for the fact that the proposal is predominantly residential with some retail.

SilverPlace, LLC

This partnership involved Bozutto Group, Spaulding & Slye and Harrison Development. Our own Torti Gallas designed the residential and retail components while the Smith Group was put in charge of the Office component. Let’s just get the bad out of the way shall we?

Not again I thought! Yet another ugly building for Silver Spring! It felt like I went through a time warp looking at that thing. It looked more dated than the current facility, making me believe it was 1966 and not 2006. I’m not sure how the planning board felt about it but they ddn’t go out thier way to give it compliments. I also asked others who thought it was very ugly as well.

I really don’t know what the Smith Group was thinking, maybe a joke or some kind of vendetta against Silver Spring but I’ve never seen anything so polarized and out of sync proposed in the D.C. area, not in the last 40 years. Perhaps some retro theme was involved?

Outside the ghastly building and the fact that they too did not place the headquarters building where it needs to be, the proposal had an abundance of amenities’, some might say an overabundance.

47,000 square feet of retail with a Harris Teeter or Trader Joes anchoring it, a biological green fountain with walk ways criss-crossing it, and 150,000 square feet of speculative office space. This is in addition to the residential. Some worried including some members of the planning board about the economic viability of all this retail and whether it would step on the toes of the Downtown Silver Spring retail district.

Portions of garage two would be incorporated with the speculative office space on the opposite end of park and planning’s building.

This group did a great job of merging the public space with Fairview park.

PN Hoffman / Stonebridge Associates

This partnership involved PN Hoffman, Stonebridge Associates, Harrison Development, and SK&I architects. This was the final presentation and the most “out the box” development as far as configuration of the site. While the presentation wasn’t the most professional, this group added a twist to their proposal. A little more focus was put on the headquarters building than others. Instead of pushing it behind the residential and retail components they offered to replace the proposed office building at 8711 Georgia with the new Park and Planning headquarters, this would keep it visible on Georgia Ave. It would be 143 ft (it would be slightly taller from what I could see) and 13 stories making it the tallest office building out of all those proposed while giving park and planning more space. Since the 8711 has already received site plan approval construction could begin much sooner.

I thought this was quite clever but there are several problems I have with it. For one this would have been better if they included another office component on the original site like the other proposals did instead of just retail and residential. Also, something doesn’t sit right with me about Park and planning giving their entire site away while being forced to move to another location. Third, downtown needs more office space than residential space and what could have been new jobs at 8711 are now out the window.

The townhouses\Condos along Spring Street would be comprised of stick instead of concrete cement to keep the costs down. PN Hoffman / Stonebridge Associates says this would be the only way to build moderately priced units (although the other groups didn’t have this problem) but they were offering more moderate income housing than the others. The retail component would include a Trader Joes anchoring that portion of the development where Park and Planning headquarters currently sits. This group as well played with the garage, which I thought in their case was an unnecessary cost. They would remove a portion of it that would include 120 spaces and add some ground floor retail. I don’t think that really makes sense to do to a dilapidated garage that has seen better days.

PN Hoffman / Stonebridge Associates claims that they can make Park and Planning’s headquarters a Gold Certified LEED building or “even Platinum”- which would be wonderful but I will believe it when I see it.

I’m torn between all of the proposals, none of them were exemplary. The single common problem with all of them was that the Park and Planning headquarters building was a secondary after thought and I’m glad the planning board pointed that out over and over again. This is after all the main reason for all of this. Out of fear of the economics involved, the developers said that moving planning personnel twice would be too costly. Understood, but at the same time the Park and Planning headquarters needs to be at the corner of Georgia and Spring visible for all to see. It is the perfect gateway building for the Silver Spring CBD much more so than your dime a dozen residential building.

Couldn’t a better compromise be made? How about building the headquarters in phases? Construction could begin on the tower portion somewhere in the middle of the parking lot as close to Georgia as possible. This building would reach your typical 143’ft (or more if we are lucky) the set back would be far away enough that it doesn’t encroach on the residential neighborhoods along Spring Street. Personnel would move in their once completed then the second phase reaching to the allowed 60-90’ft would be at the corner of Georgia and spring, this would house the new auditorium, open lobbies and other meeting space. Both buildings would be connected by a mid-rise structure of office space or a walkway. The additional 150,000 square feet of speculative office space proposed by SilverPlace, LLC could be integrated somehow to be easily accessible to park and planning if they plan on growing in the future (this is most likely so).

I liked how Silver Place Joint-Venture, LLC neglected the parking garage while SilverPlace, LLC and PN Hoffman / Stonebridge Associates analyzed to death short of demolishing it. Either leave the garage alone in its entirety for future development or completely redevelop it, but don’t nibble at it and leave the rest to rot. That garage is at the end of its life cycle, it needs to be completely demolished and replaced with a new one that doesn’t sprawl and create unwelcoming alleys. PN Hoffman / Stonebridge Associates proposal of slicing a portion off and adding retail doesn’t seem economically justified.

I hope Park and Planning finds a solution to stay at the corner of Georgia and Spring. I understand Park and Planning’s concern to give to the needy and show good face, but it seems irresponsible to give up such a lucrative site and prominent corner for residential use in a national market that is on the decline. Residential proposals are also well passed excessive in the CBD. There isn’t a housing crisis in Silver Spring outside the ridiculous market prices. Perhaps a second thought should be given to residential and retail portion and have them consolidated on less acreage of land?