Is New Planning Board Commissioner Eugene Lynch Against Smart Growth?
By Silver Springer • Aug 3rd, 2007 • Category: Government and Politics, Real Estate
This past Wednesday the Gazette released an article about the approval of the
Commissioner Eugene Lynch expressed concern with the added height and square footage of the project and said he would be tougher on the developer if it were not the need for the development in Silver Spring.
‘‘The history [of the project] weighs heavily on my judgment,†Lynch said.
After Lynch made a case for an increased amount of funding by the developer for public use space, the developer, City Place Air Rights LLC, agreed to increase its amenities fund by $150,000 to $250,000, which would be used by the county for a future public-use project. The specifics and the location of the project were not determined during the hearing.
Reading that quote I was quite perplexed, what does Commissioner Eugene Lynch have against tall buildings and jobs in an urban downtown?
Why does Mr. Lynch have such a great fear of heights?
What was the offense? Especially coming from someone who is part of an organization called the Smart Growth Initiative LLC.
Was the office building planned in an area surrounded by single family homes? No.
Was it replacing a significant historic structure? No.
Was it displacing an array of small businesses? No.
All I could think of were the positive aspects. The benefits far outweighed any costs. It would bring jobs to Silver Spring and invigorate an old mall all in a well dressed package that reuses existing space as an infill project.Â
But even so the office building is a drop in the bucket in mitigating the 6,625 residential units that are completed, under construction or planned in the Silver Spring Central Business District. Many residents will take the metro to work but many more will take their car. Point being we still need more office space, a lot more.
And 192’ feet is nothing to cry about if you know what’s going on in this County and region.
Just for arguments sake, where would one place nearly 300,000 square feet of office space in downtown without building taller? Or perhaps Commissioner Lynch would have us forgo the desperately needed jobs in a County that has underperformed in the last decade, relative to its peers in the region?
Perhaps the developer should petition for a rezoning of Woodside or
The building would be allowed no more than two stories or 40’feet and instead of stacking the density on a less than once acre parcel, that would sit ontop an existing building with most of infrastructure in place, we can aim for low density. This would be accomplished by spreading the square footage of nearly 300,000 over 30+ acres of land and would require demolishing 50+ homes in the Woodside or
Problem solved; no more tall buildings and we can keep dreaming that Silver Spring is still just a suburb!
Silver Springer is
Email this author | All posts by Silver Springer
preach on! Couldn’t agree more… We shouldn’t be hesitating for a second about high density development in the county’s urban areas. It’s more environmentally sound (places jobs/people by mass transit), it helps traffic(transit again), provides better public safety (more density means more likely someone walks by if you’re being mugged at 1am or whatever… just safety in numbers in general)…. Anywho… I for one say there should be no density limitations within a 1 mile radius of ANY metrorail station. The US population grows by a couple people every few seconds, if ya watch the census department’s population clock, personally I think the more of their jobs and condos are near mass transit the better. Anywho… I;m done rambling.
I was confused about this, as well. I was at the meeting taking a short break from where I work down the street. The location is obviously perfect for this type of development, and it is zoned CBD-3. Height shouldn’t even be an issue because there are buildings that tall (the Hilton and neighboring office building) down the street that are closer to single-family homes). I couldn’t believe it when I heard him saying that height and density were issues for him, and I also couldn’t believe that the other commissioners didn’t call him out on his ridiculously antiquated statements.
I agree that the City Place Office Tower is probably a good project, but to say there should be no limitations on density within a mile of any Metro station is the kind of nonsense that is increasingly giving “smart growth” a bad name as code words for allowing developers to maximize density and profits at the expense of all other values and the public good. Real smart growth involves intelligent decision-making, not blindly approving ever-higher densities. For example, one of the best features of downtown Washington DC is the height limit that keeps the city at a more human scale. Contrast downtown DC to Rosslyn, VA. There is no question that downtown is the more people friendly and vibrant place. In making our Montgomery County CBDs great, we have to be careful to not over-do height and density. We need to keep our CBDs people friendly. So far the planners have done a pretty good job in balancing the various competing factors and not seeing high density as the only factor that matters. It looks like Gene Lynch will probably help keep that needed balance in mind on the Planning Board.
The DC height limit is because of the monuments and the white house. So you really can’t use that as an example. I do agree that you do have to think/choose wisely. Majority of these buildings won’t be coming down anytime soon.
Smart growth has resulted in too many apartments and condos in a small space.
grantd the idea of people living near their place of work sounds good, but the reality of the situation is a whole different story.
You build office buildings within a certain distance of public transportaion and or residential areas–hoping that everyone will ride a bus or take the Metro to work–yet….
many people in this area already have jobs, and they commute by car or public transportaion from their established homes.
These new businesses are going to attract who– high paid professionals, or low paid service workers–
Apartments and condos are built that no one can afford–and to top it off– you have commuters who want to shop, or have business with the area and need a car to conduct their business instead of public transportaion.- so you have to provide parking- short term and long term–.
One need only to look at Tyson Corner– If you worked in that area, and lived in Maryland- do you really want to rely on public transportaion with will take longer and entail walking in the heat or cold or wet weather..
I do not have all the answers, but I do not think the concept of “Smart Growth” is based on sound logic.
Bob, smart growth is all about building offices and homes in a small place– near the metro.
People can’t complain about having too many cars clog their streets and then complain about development by metrorail stations designed to specifically limit the need for cars on the street.
What this country is losing are the communites of backyards, single homes, affordable homes,and homes away from the crowds.
Many people want to leave work and go home, away from the crowded cities , they don’t want to be so close to their work.. They want to go home to backyard cookouts, and backyards where their children can play safely.
Besides public transportaion is not for everyone.I suffer from COPD. I can not take the Metro to Wheaton or Silver Spring bbecause the walk to the mall is to far.
I would have to walk almost 1/2 a mile to Target or Giant, and then what–walk the 1/2 mile back to the Metro ladened with packages. I do not think so.
But even healthy people don’t want to shop and walk great distance carrying heavy loads.
Smarter growth would be to bulild business away from the “beltway corridor: divert some of this traffic in the opposite direction , this would free up some traffic from the beltway and have it going toward less crowded areas.
Perhaps what is needed is a situation in which single homes are designated to a certain area, and commercial property to another.
Note the there are two Bobs leaving comments here. The first one contrasting downtown DC and Rosslyn was by me. The later ones before this note were written by someone else. Having said that, I agree with much of what he says.
Concerning the comment that the DC height limit was because of the White House and the monuments and therefore doesn’t apply to our situation. My comment concerned the beneficial effects of the height limit. Those effects apply anywhere. The reasons the height limit was adopted in DC is beside the point.
Bob (the original Bob)
Regarding the DC heights limit… I read something recently claiming that the “no taller than White House/Capitol/Washington Monument” is a myth - that when a builder put up a tall (maybe 8 story?) building in the District in the late 1800’s, everyone was unhappy that it towered over the streets and blocked light for the smaller buildings across the street, in which some Congressmen lived.. and that’s why the law restricting building height was passed. Does anyone else recall hearing something along those lines?
I will now write my comments as Bob 2. I am not the one who wrote about tall buildings. I am the one who wrote about lost backyards.
If you want to live close to the city or to work, then don’t complain about the traffic getting to work from your oasis getaway.
The problem with this country is not that we are losing homes with backyards, but that people are moving farther away from cities and not expecting traffic and other complications.
The DC law is easy to find. It is that no building can be taller than the street it faces+20′.
Bob, there are hundreds of thousands of single family homes and hundreds of neighborhoods in MoCo with backyards away from the crowds. We’re not losing any of them to this kind of development (not even the ones close to the development). In fact, those neighborhoods–the single-family home, 20 miles from any public transit, ruining nearby environmental features–are continuing to thrive in areas of the county that haven’t been developed yet. Unfortauntely, their numbers are growing at a faster rate than any numbers of urban developments.
Unlimited growth within 1 mile of a Metro station is definitely taking it a bit far, but (taking it back to this particular building) in this case, there should be no fundamental argument about its insignificant height considering there are more than 5 other buildings nearby that are taller.
Unfortunately** Excuse my bad spelling.
Perhaps if businesses would stagger their work hours so employess have to work different shifts, there would be less traffic .
I had shifts that use to start at 6 Am in the morning– no traffic on the road -I left the house at 5Am, and I had shift that started out either 2Pm and sometimes later- I even had to work a few Saturdays.
The problem appears to be that many corporations are of the mindset that everyone works a 9-5 shift–and are off on weekends.
This is obviously not true- as someone has to run the malls on weekends and the grocery stores- look how crowded malls are on weekends–but, if some of the M-Fri crowd had to work Saturdays- they could be of the road during the early mornings, and be at the malls on days with less people., and less traffic. There are a number of ideas that can be implemented that will alleviate traffic with building more roads or more congested living areas.
If you think companies can suddenly change their workdays to include weekends, you would be very wrong. Not only would this be a logistical nightmare, but would make zero economic sense considering most companies must operate when banks do, when Wall Street does, when companies they’re collaborating with do, etc, etc. Perhaps portions of companies could operate on weekends, but these would probably be too small to make a dent in traffic patterns. Point is, the M-F 9-5 culture is what it is because everyone working those type of white collar jobs generally must work at the same time because it makes business sense.
That said, I didn’t mean to come off as dismissive of your argument, and I think it would be nice if we could spread out traffic more, but I just don’t think it’s going to happen in the manner you described.
bob2- if you want roads to be less congested during regular work hours, then stay off the roads and don’t drive. you can’t expect everyone else to change just for you.
Bob3- what is your problem– I am not asking anyone to change the traffic patterns for me– I am retired- so I can drive where ever I have to go at my convience., and not woory about traffic.
I would suggest you get off your high horse and read what I wrote and not what you imagine I wrote.
There are many legitimate reasons to limit the heights of buildings . . . many more than those indicated in the questions in the original posting. As a resident of SS, my big concern (which seems pervasive from the other responses) would be increased road traffic. A good question may be: Can SS’s existing road & parking infrastructure support the additional square footage on this site? For the City Place Office Tower and others, it seems that it can (there’s plenty of parking garages, the adjacent roads are wide, access to major thoroughfares is relatively easy). For other projects, such as the proposed development at Falkland Chase, the answer isn’t as clear (parking may be resolved by the project itself, but the adjacent roads seem no where near capable of the necessary expansion required for such an ambitious plan).
Besides, aren’t you making a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill? In the end, Lynch supported the project, did he not? Perhaps he only “expressed concerns” so as to provide some cover against the attacks (which seem to be more and more common) from residents who are either A) anti-growth, or B) concerned about coziness between developers and government officials. To me, it seems to be just part of the game to get the developer to cough up the additional $100,000 for the amenities fund.
Bob2- my problem is that people like you say that smart growth is building outside the beltway to create reverse commutes and ease vehicular traffic. this is DUMB GROWTH! building homes and businesses farther away creates more sprawl and that is not smart.
Den, there was virtually no community opposition to this project. The only thing one person spoke about at the Planning Board meeting (and excuse me for saying this, but he seemed like one of those rather *dumb* guys–reminiscent of the comic book guy from The Simpsons–and he didn’t even live in Silver Spring), was that he wanted the developer to provide more public amenities than were required of them. In fact, even though I’m glad that the developer is giving more for “public amenities”, by which Lynch and one other commissioner meant a daycare, I don’t think it was necessary–they only offered more in good faith. The project would have passed without Lynch’s 100% approval–everyone else in the room and on the board were very happy with the project. I’m just very concerned about where Lynch will be trying to take the Board in the future. As we all know, a lot of damage can be done in just a few short years.
In regards to your other statement, MoCo officials definitely do not “cozy up” with developers. We all know that the County has lagged behind its peers in development growth in the past few years, and its potential is much higher than many of the surrounding counties. This is indicative of the fact that developers do not get the upper hand in this county. The public, led by a (reasonably) sensible Planning Board (though less so since Lynch joined in) has a big say. There’s nothing wrong with the gov’t and developers being friends–in fact, it can provide a good basis for being able to ask more of developers than would otherwise be the case. It’s funny because in this case the developers were more than willing to give more to get their project approved, yet Lynch was still hesitant. I’ll need to go to more Board meetings in the future to see how his opinions progress, but so far, I am sincerely unimpressed.
I could argue that if “everyone else in the room and on the board were very happy with the project,” then why make a big deal out of Lynch’s demonstration of hesitance? Especially since it was just that, hesitance, and not open hostility.
It’s a good thing for public officials to show judiciousness. It’s even better for them to actually be judicious, but that can sometimes be asking to much.
Only in the D.C. area would we have concern over a building that’s just shy of 200’feet and less than 15 stories. Other jurisdiction reading comments like Lynch’s must be rolling on the ground laughing. Can you imagine an out cry in Manhattan or Brooklyn over a building that’s 192’ feet?
As a matter of fact it would be laughable in just about any other major metropolitan inner beltway area outside D.C.’s.
In Rosslyn they (fortunately for them) have a planning board and gov council that isn’t afraid of heights, building a great urban downtown, and isn’t on the fence on whether their area is suburban or urban, they know it’s urban. Yet even still, an observation on the 30th floor of a 381’ foot planned highrise is laughed at as the lowest observation deck in the country by other major metropolitan areas.
Last time I checked Silver Spring was outside the D.C. line so why are we being influenced by laws that don’t apply to us? When is too tall too tall? We certainly haven’t reached that yet and in fact we are falling far behind because of erroneous zoning laws, even in this County.
Planning board has admitted before that the zoning laws played a significant role in stifling Silver Spring’s growth, so in reaction to this, guess what? They increased the building height maximums, amazing huh? Height actually helped revitalize Silver Spring because it was finally economically feasible for developers! Now once again Silver Spring is on the verge of being “built out” which is a silly word in itself, because you gotta be delusional if you think you can shut the door on development and say “there’s no more roomâ€. If this happens you have a very big problem on your hands, 1) it either means your city is stagnant and that is definitely not good in the long-term 2) your city is going back into a major decline.
There are lots of areas that would kill for this kind of growth and Silver Spring was in it not too long ago, yet people don’t learn from their mistakes or the past.
It also should be very concerning the obstacles and negative stigma that Montgomery County has toward office buildings which equates to jobs, there is a common thinking that office buildings are unimportant which couldn’t be further from the truth. Word to the wise, it’s time to step out of D.C.’s shadow.
I will continue this triad in the future…
Well, there are a number of problems with the attitude that ’smart growth’ is fast, dense growth, but I won’t touch on them here right now. However, I don’t think that people realize the most important aspect here, Lynch raised the amenities fund by $150,000 to $250,000; thats $100,000 out of nothing. It would have been sent through with only the $150,000, however Lynch’s “hesitance” if you can call it that just earned the county one hundred thousand dollars. No matter how you spin it that is a lot of money, and seeing as his salary is probably only about a third of that, I would say that he did some good. Also, I don’t understand where all these reservations about Mr. Lynch are coming from, if you look back a couple of years you will realize that Mr. Lynch himself, then working for the county, was one of the main initiators of what has become “silver sprung”. To say that he is against development only shows how short-sighted and or ignorant you are.
Oh, and the author of this article needs to do some more research before blatantly assaulting people’s character. It is “Smart Growth Investments” not “Smart Growth Initiative”. Oh and, “afraid of heights” … give me a break!
^^^How about this scenario the office market gets soft and the developers considers the variables factoring the $100,000 increase in amenity fund requirements that makes him have to pony up a total $250,000 in the end. The developer says “forget about it, not worth the trouble”, no more office building, no more jobs.
My point is that this was not the project to try to jeopardize. The most important thing was not the amenity fund but this office building and bringing in jobs that are severely lacking in Montgomery County.
I question why this strategy wasn’t used towards the developers that are building the overly abundant amount of residential condos that are going up all over downtown Silver Spring. These are the kind of demands the planning board should have made on JBG for the Silver Spring Gateway project. The County Abandoned Blair Mill and the old historic train station was demolished for that project, JBG cut the office and grocery store and significantly reduced retail space. What did planning and County residents get in return? Where was the bitter attitude and demand for $100,000 then?
I’ve never read such a elaborate demand made for any of the new condos going up. Why the cold shoulder to the office building?
Why do some at Montgomery County Gov and the Planning board create major obstacles when we are on the cusp of obtaining jobs? Just look at Studio Plaza and now this?