The Moda Vista Residences
By Silver Springer • Jul 9th, 2007 • Category: Real Estate
Bucking the regional trend of declining condo construction or perhaps just a case of the lemming syndrome, developers still find Silver Spring lucrative enough to push forward with their projects.
A little research reveals that the Fenton Group, LLC are responsible for this project, they are a smaller development firm with their headquarters directly adjacent to this project. Looking at their portfolio this may be their largest ground up project yet.
Located on the eatsern side of the CBD at the corner of Silver Spring Avenue and Fenton Street, the project straddles CBD-0.5 and CBD-1 zones, making it a multi-zone project, protruding into a couple single family homes.
Before adjacent neighborhoods get their panties twisted, just remember that a
“To foster and promote the orderly development of the fringes of the Central Business Districts of the County so that these areas will provide land uses at a density and intensity which will encourage small business enterprises and diverse living accommodations, while complimenting the uses in the interior portions of these districtsâ€
Moda Vista certainly fits the bill with 3500 square feet of ground floor retail plus it doesn’t look half bad doing it either, with a two tone color scheme and what looks to be a metallic finish on the upper portions and main facade of the structure.
The building is only 5 stories or 60’ feet. Some townhomes are that high.
Unfortunately the public use space is another pocket and in this case it looks to take a significant chunk out the building’s foot print, that could have been additional units and more MPDUs. Environmentally unfriendly, the pocket park has a vast impervious surface that will contribute to extreme flooding situations overwhelming the sewer systems; not to mention that this will increase condo fees so that associations are able to maintain the “groundsâ€. This doesn’t look like the ‘Green’ downtown that the sector plan called for.
Developer: Fenton Group, LLC
Project Specifications
Gross Building Space: Approx 92,762 square feet
Site: Approx 1.27 acres
Height: 60′ feet
Dwelling Units: 94 residential dwelling units including 12 MPDUs
Retail: 3500 square feet
Public Use Space: Pocket Park w/ Impervious surfaces
Silver Springer is
Email this author | All posts by Silver Springer
No mention of location — an intersection would be helpful!
Well put.
Done.
Where do you see a “vast impervious surface”? Looks like mostly street-adjacent grass and brick to me. Along with the trees, this will not contribute to run-off and should actually contribute to effective stormwater filtration and management in the area. I’ll have a personal look at the project plan submission this afternoon.
One Penguin’s pocket park is another Pennster’s public space.
Personally, I’m not digging the look. It’s very suburban in design — set back from the street, divorced from what could be the hustle and bustle of Fenton Street.
The developer originally thought of bringing in Barry’s Magic Shop to the Moda Vista’s corner retail space, in an attempt to activate the space.
But it’s kinda hard to activate a space when it’s sequestered from the rest of society. And with Highland Organic across the street, can Fenton really use another coffeehouse?
“Comment by Pennster
Made Monday, 9 of July , 2007 at 10:25 am
Where do you see a “vast impervious surfaceâ€? Looks like mostly street-adjacent grass and brick to me. Along with the trees, this will not contribute to run-off and should actually contribute to effective stormwater filtration and management in the area. I’ll have a personal look at the project plan submission this afternoon.”
You may be right but all I see from the renderings is one of those bricked plazas and a few trees sprinkled and half the building gone. Kind of like 8045 Newell. I think a grassy patch would be nicer and more environmentally friendly than brick pavers.
What have we gained from decades of pocket parks but dead space? The paved “wind swept” plazas are so 1960’s
“Comment by Silver Spring Penguin
Made Monday, 9 of July , 2007 at 10:47 am
One Penguin’s pocket park is another Pennster’s public space.
Personally, I’m not digging the look. It’s very suburban in design — set back from the street, divorced from what could be the hustle and bustle of Fenton Street.
The developer originally thought of bringing in Barry’s Magic Shop to the Moda Vista’s corner retail space, in an attempt to activate the space.
But it’s kinda hard to activate a space when it’s sequestered from the rest of society. And with Highland Organic across the street, can Fenton really use another coffeehouse?”
I don’t think it’s the best design in the world but compared to what we’ve been getting…
After reviewing the project here, it is clear that the building is NOT set back from Fenton (or “divorced” as Penguin put it). It will be consistent with (in fact, probably closer to Fenton than) many other buildings along the street. The setback is located along Silver Spring Avenue (to better make the transition from the downtown to the adjacent neighborhood), which is what creates the plaza and public use space. I was right in saying that the public space will be brick (a plaza of which is generally pervious) and grass, and that the project will better the natural and physical environment on the site. From my perspective, the way this public space is situated, and with further development along Fenton, this could actually be a very well-used plaza once finished.
Taken from the staff report:
“As conditioned, the proposal satisfies any applicable requirements for water quality resources protection under Chapter 19.
The applicant has submitted a stormwater management concept plan to the Department of Permitting Services. The concept plan remains under review.”
Silver Springer, maybe you should make clear in your entry that the building’s length (park, and portion of the building with the “rowhouse” design) is actually along Silver Spring Avenue, and the width (the glass and steel portion of the building closest to the street) is actually along Fenton. This may have confused some readers looking at the renderings.
Architecturally, it is not groundbreaking, but in the area where it will be situated, the best thing to do would be create a building that can fit in with the (very suburban) neighborhood directly behind the lot. I think the design is actually quite brilliant to this effect. As the staff report puts it, the setback and “rowhouse” design along Silver Spring Ave will help not only to blend in with the existing neighborhood, but will allay fears that single-family homeowners may have about its impact. The fact that the Fenton Street facade is glass and steel (and not brick) will give it a modern look, something severely lacking in downtown Silver Spring.
This is probably my favorite new building under development in Silver Spring. Even the neighborhoods seem pleased with it - I spoke to some from the East Silver Spring Civic Association last week who said his only complaint was with the brick sidewalks that will be continued down Silver Spring Avenue. It’s a solid design - one that relates the urban context of Fenton Street and one that respects the residential character of Silver Spring Avenue with the so-called “rowhouse facades.”
I don’t know what to make of the plaza/pocket park/whatever at the corner, however, because I don’t think it’s defined well enough to read as a space of its own. It just feels like an extension of the yards down the street, which is what Park and Planning (hey, there’s that word again!) wants, but people may not think it’s a public space as a result.
“Comment by Pennster
Made Monday, 9 of July , 2007 at 11:25 am
Silver Springer, maybe you should make clear in your entry that the building’s length (park, and portion of the building with the “rowhouse†design) is actually along Silver Spring Avenue, and the width (the glass and steel portion of the building closest to the street) is actually along Fenton. This may have confused some readers looking at the renderings.
”
Hopefully the updated images makes things clear now.
Without knowing the exact dimensions, I’m still not digging the Fenton Street side of the building. The ground-floor retail appears divorced from the street, sitting beneath an overhang.
It reminds me of the retail spaces along Georgia Avenue north of Colesville (specifically, the spaces at the Twin Towers building).
“Comment by Silver Spring Penguin
Made Monday, 9 of July , 2007 at 11:56 am
Without knowing the exact dimensions, I’m still not digging the Fenton Street side of the building. The ground-floor retail appears divorced from the street, sitting beneath an overhang.
It reminds me of the retail spaces along Georgia Avenue north of Colesville (specifically, the spaces at the Twin Towers building).”
Tell us how it’s done NY!
The retail portion looks fine to me. It is at the same level as the sidewalk and essentially the same distance along the sidewalk to the entrance. My guess is that any store name(s) would be hung from the awning marrying (that was for you, Penguin) the retail portion to the sidewalk. If you’d like I can send you some better quality pictures, Silver Springer.
I know this next comment is off topic, but it is relevant for blogs such as this where information is being “published”, per say, with very little professional fact-checking or editing…When referring to M-NCPPC, it is the “Commission”, which encompasses both P.G. and Mont. counties’ planning boards. When referring to the Montgomery County Department of Planning, it is simply “Planning” or “the Planning Dept”, not “Parks and Planning”, just “Planning”. Not only are the Parks Dept and Planning Dept separate in name, but they are in entirely different buildings, with entirely different (and new) organizational hierarchies…spread accurate information and we’ll all be a little bit happier.
Anyway, all that said, I definitely don’t see why there couldn’t be a bit of a green roof on the building. Of course, those can always be installed later as long as the infrastructure can handle it.
”
Comment by Pennster
Made Monday, 9 of July , 2007 at 12:42 pm
The retail portion looks fine to me. It is at the same level as the sidewalk and essentially the same distance along the sidewalk to the entrance. My guess is that any store name(s) would be hung from the awning marrying (that was for you, Penguin) the retail portion to the sidewalk. If you’d like I can send you some better quality pictures, Silver Springer.”
Thanks, you know the address!
Springer wrote:
Glad you asked, Springer!
If you want to activate the sidewalk, you put that store front right there, without any overhang or permanent awning.
If the public right of way is a hypothetical 15 feet wide, the store front starts at 15 feet and 0.01 inches. That’s assuming that the business doesn’t set up displays or seating within the public right of way.
Also, the store is at street level and has big windows that are parallel to the street (ie, not angled).
The idea is to shove life in your face, not contain it.
And I am well aware that brick is still considered hardscape which does not have the same water quality impacts as a grass surface, or better yet a raingarden. I live very close to this project and I am happy to see the project set back from Silver Spring Ave with the plaza out front, it fits in beautifully. I just wished it would look more like a green lawn and that they would plant some larger caliper trees. No more Silver Spring hardscape.
…The fact is that the Department of Parks and Department of Planning are part of MNCPPC, not the County government. MNCPPC is a independent agency, even if the County Council appoints members of the Planning Board. It is perfectly fine (even if not completely accurate) to call it “Park and Planning,†in fact I have heard county councilmen call it such just recently.
I like the glass look. I wish the building was closer to the street curb. I don’t mind the hardscapes as much. Nonetheless, a refreshing change from the underwhelming design projects hitting the Silver Spring condo market lately.
…The Departments of Park and Planning ARE indeed part of Montgomery County government. “The Department functions within the context of a budget and work program annually recommended by the County Executive and approved by the County Council.†M-NCPPC is a joint commission between two counties but the respective planning agencies of each county are paid by and work directly for the individual counties themselves. The planning board members themselves (5 in each county) are the only ones who actually “work for†the commission, though their salaries are paid by each respective county. The reason the commission is a joint effort is so that information sharing and regional planning can become less complicated. It would be fantastic if DC were to join, as well, but that may presently be a pipe dream at best.
To Penguin: the storefront windows of the Moda Vista will be parallel to the street even if the entrance is slightly angled on the corner. I’m absolutely 100% certain that if a retail establishment sets up a shop there that is of high quality and appeals to a relatively broad collection of consumers it will be successful.
P.S. Sorry for the italics, I must have accidentally used the XHTML incorrectly.
Oh yeah, and “anal” doesn’t even begin to describe me. If I’m adamant about an issue even as small as this, I will see it through to the end. I’m somewhat of a perfectionist and you should be happy I work at the Planning Dept for that reason.
http://www.mcparkandplanning.org/department/news_releases/documents/ParksPlanningSeparate8-9-06.doc
Oh, you are too much, Pennster.
Pennster: “I’m somewhat of a perfectionist and you should be happy I work at the Planning Dept for that reason.”
Let’s bow down and kiss your ass for providing such wonderful service to Montgomery County and Silver Spring. Oh Mighty Planning Assistant Level I God!
Rolling Eyes…
Like HOC, WSSC, MCPS, and a host of other INDEPENDENT agencies, they ARE NOT part of the “Montgomery County Government†and their employees are not “County†employees per se. In fact I guess they are legally state employees even if the Montgomery County pension system covers them as county workers. MNCPPC is an agency, as is the Washington Suburban Sanitary “Commission,†both are state-created independent bi-county agencies. There is a big operational difference between the two but just because they have the word “commission†does not just refer to a meeting between the two counties as you suggest. The MNCPPC budget is approved by the County Council but the Executive and Council do not formulate that budget. Both the Planning and Parks Departments (yes we all know that they are separated) are under the auspices of the Planning Board and have their own Directors and organizational hierarchies. The two Departments are not under the control of the Council nor the Executive, they are NOT part of the “Montgomery County Government.†Any citizen is well within their rights to call it “Park and Planningâ€.
I post a few links that I think that…should take a look at to clear things up:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/govtmpl.asp?url=/content/government/AboutGovt/orgchart.asp
http://www.mncppc.org/index.cfm?id=1ab
http://mcparkandplanning.org/department/images/org_chart.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MNCPPC
To keep things civil I’ve removed the personal attacks and edited some of the comments. Pennster and thecourtyard, I thought you two were good friends?
Wow James, you are so grossly misinformed and do not seem to know how to interpret Pennster’s accurate comments that it’s sickening. Even as a new blogger here I won’t even dignify your comments with a response.
I don’t know what to say to you “wee”