Another crane rises; this one after a long battle
By Silver Springer • Oct 31st, 2007 • Category: Government and Politics, Real Estate
The controversial Portico residential high-rise is the first crane of this height in the north core seen in the last 15 years. The developer the Patriot Group is also responsible for the Crescent Condo and 8045 Newell Street.
It hovers over the EYA project (then formally Eakin/Youngentob) Cameron Hills. Completed in 1998, the townhome project is often looked to as the project that kicked off the downtown Silver Spring revitalization.
The Portico was first proposed as a 6 story building with ground floor retail but when the Portico revised as a 13 story high-rise , the Cameron Hill HOA was highly disturbed by the height of the 139’ foot structure.
A battle quickly ensued between the Patriot Group, Cameron Hill HOA and the Planning Dept. Every argument from “Silver Spring not being New York†to shadow modeling was used to try to prove each sides case.
In the end the Planning Board approved the structure against the wishes of the Cameron Hill HOA, citing current zoning laws as CBD-2 for that area, which means the developer could build as high as 143’ feet under optional method development.
The decision to allow the Portico to proceed wasn’t taken lightly by the Cameron Hills HOA, suggesting that perhaps townhomes were a mistake in desperate times in the eyes of the Planning department.
Silver Springer is
Email this author | All posts by Silver Springer
The townhomes have a mixed-blessing with the locaton. Nothing like the smell of greasy food coming from McDonalds and Tasty Diner each morning. Not to mention homeless guys pissing in the alleys and bushes nearby.
Anyway, I am playing a very small violin for the homeowners of Cameron Hill; the value of their properties have more than doubled since 2001. The HOA fought a losing battle from the beginning.
I don’t blame the Planning Department for giving the green light to the Cameron Hill town home development back in what 1998? 1999? Back then, downtown Silver Spring was still an empty shell with struggling Mom&Pop shops, high-vacancy rates of office space, and no people on the sidewalks. The county took a gamble by developing higher-scale town houses as a way to attract BOLD, higher-income residents. It worked for Cameron Hills! It worked for the County.
When NPR locates its new headquarters in the Ripley District Silver Spring will really take off.
Also, the St. Charles Apartments are well into the demolition phase…at least four of the buildings are rubble. Coming soon: Cameron House Apartments (and I’m sure a report by the Silver Spring Scene)
Cameron Hills residents have seen their home prices double. They live in townhouses, that really shouldn’t exist outside of columbia MD but yet somehow ended up spitting distance from the metro… that kine of friggin luxery comes with a price… such as having tall buildings next to you.. because it;s i dunno… an urban district perhaps? I have no sympathy… it was poor planning and foresight that allowed such a waste of precious land in the first place - and the people who jumped on that back then made out great because of that poor planning… he’s the flip side of living in a city, deal with it.
I live in the Twin Towers, and drive by the crane every day. It is quite huge. However, the effect is has on traffic is minimal, considering Fidler dead-ends right past it.
I also don’t envy the people living there. It’s bad enough to have Mi Rancho wafting through my open windows. The folks at the Portico will need to deal with the nauseating stench coming from McDonald’s.
I generally agree that the townhouses were a huge mistake, although maybe that’s 20/20 hindsight. They could have put in at least two more high-rises or more, and that would have really helped bring down the rents.
(Speaking of which, 4.5% rent increase, starting Jan 1. Ah well.)
HA-HA DMZ, Summit Hills raises rents by 10 percent on its tenants. Greedy f’ing bastards.
It’s great to hear that falling home prices are screwing everyone.
Well, the rent increase guidance by the county is 5.8%, so we came in under that. Not much consolation, I agree, but it is something. If they wanted to protect us more, they’d pass a law requiring that multi-year leases NOT be allowed to raise rents during the term of the lease. Not sure if we’d go for it, liking month-to-month, but that is another option.
The construction of a high rise next door shouldn’t have come as a surprise to the Cameron Hill residents. While the townhouses were being sold there was a big sign posted on the old private parking lot that is now the Portico construction site saying the site was zoned for a high rise apartment building.
The county sold the land for the townhouses (formerly used as public parking lots) at a bargain price to the Cameron Hills developer. It was questionable at the time and is even more questionable now.
The County sold the land for the Cameron Hill project at what was then Fair Market Value. Remember, back then there wasn’t any thing going on in downtown. The County’s intention was to get some residential ownership in downtown to help show that there was a market. Condos were just a dream back then and there were no owner occupied units in downtown. Just to make sure the County was getting to share in an untested market, the sales agreement required the developer to give a share of the profits back to the County if the units sold for more than a fixed price. The 57 units sold well and at a price higher than anticipated and at the end of the project the County got a check for an additional $500,000. Share the risk, share the rewards. There was a market that became even stronger and resulted in the condos on the market that we see today. The condos are selling in downtown.
DMZ said: If they wanted to protect us more, they’d pass a law requiring that multi-year leases NOT be allowed to raise rents during the term of the lease.
That law already exists…the landlord is never allowed to raise the rent during the term of the lease. That’s why the lease is a binding contract to protect both parties.
The “problem” (from the renter’s perspective) is that it is extremely rare in this region for a landlord to offer a lease much longer than 12 months…even in a down market. Maybe, if you are lucky you might get 14 or 15, but only a select few that have the latest pricing programs (like hotels, airlines & car rental companies) do that.
“That law already exists…the landlord is never allowed to raise the rent during the term of the lease. That’s why the lease is a binding contract to protect both parties.”
That would seem to be untrue, at least from my experience. Both the Georgian Towers and Twin Towers offered two year leases, but both were able to raise the rents after a year. Maybe there is some sort of legalese involved here that I don’t understand, but it seems that county/state law does allow this to happen. Renter protection laws here are mediocre.
If you think the renter protection laws in MD are mediocre, try living in Virginia as a renter. The leasing laws are medieval in my opinion. Tenants have ZERO rights. If you break a lease in VA, you have to pay the rest of the rent owed on that lease. In Maryland (MontCo specifically), you have more flexibility to get out of a lease.
Montgomery County requires leases be offered for two years. If your landlord first doesn’t offer you a two year term, show him the law.
Renter said: Montgomery County requires leases be offered for two years. If your landlord first doesn’t offer you a two year term, show him the law
This is true, but it is very rare for a renter to actually take a two year lease because in this transient area, few people will commit to that long. Either way, the entire purpose of a lease (for the tenant) is to have a legally binding guarantee that the landlord cannot raise the rent during the lease term.
DMZ: did you personally experience this or are you going on what you heard from other tenants? If the latter, I suspect that somebody is probably not telling the truth (your neighbors). A major player in the apartment business like Southern Management wouldn’t slip up on something so basic as this.
We never took two year leases because of this issue. Management was always very clear that they could do this. I’ll go into the TT leasing office and ask how it works tonight, if I get back in time.
MoCo law requires all tenants to be offered a two-year lease at time of signing. It does not require the landlord lock the rent in for the two-year time, that portion is at the landlord’s choice.
It’s meant to safegard you against random changes in the lease, but it protects you against everything but the most important part: the rent. For example, my landlord did her part and offered us the two-year lease. Since we live in a house that has utilities included, had we opted to sign this lease, then we would have safeguarded ourselves against her possibly deciding to tell us no more free utilties at next years lease signing.
Of course, she could have just jacked the rent up 10% in that case, so really its pointless.
I am a Cameron Hill homeowner who was glad to see soemthing being built in the vacant lot next to where we live. I did not have strong feelings about the height of the building, although it might have been nice to have a slightly smaller building so we could see a little more sky. Boy, was I stupid not caring more. This building is not only big, it is ugly. How do you define “ugly”? Well I would efine it this way: something is ugly if it does not fit the area and has nothing “nice” to offer. That’s the portico. The cladding, some sort of quasi-conderblock, looks like public housing projects from the 1970’s. Now let me please say that I did not expect the Taj mahal; but this building, yes, it fits in well with the McDonalds on the corner of Second and Colesville. Boy oh boy, Portico, what a letdown.