Much to talk about, little time to do it

Two issues are on many minds this morning: The CA Board of Directors deliberations on Symphony Woods (I stayed until 10:30 PM last night, and still no decision had been made) and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals decision that Joel Broida has standing in his appeal of the Plaza Tower.

I have a big day today (cooling tower inspections, yea!!), so I will be putting something together on each subject this weekend. In the interim, maybe some of the anonymob can vent on either subject...

Last Night, the Columbia Community Changed

Last night the Wilde Lake Village Board, serving as the Wilde Lake Architectural Committee, reversed an earlier resident committee’s recommendation and approved the architectural style of a 48-foot tall church (that’s almost five floors high) with a 16-foot cross facing Wilde Lake residents and traffic on Twin Rivers Road.

Up until last night, it was the practice in Columbia (for more than 35 years) that Interfaith Centers did not have any religious symbols on the exterior of the buildings on New Town property. Promotional material from the early days of Columbia stated “You will be glad to know that people come before buildings in our Columbia Religious efforts.”

The evening featured a powerpoint presentation demonstrating the prominence of many corporate logos that are visible in the vicinity, to include the Columbia Association logo in downtown, the Exxon gas station at Banneker Road, and the Melting Pot restaurant in the Wilde Lake Village Center. The presentation concluded with the picture zooming in on the Wilde Lake logo on the Slayton House building.

This was followed by many people speaking out, in 3-minute bites, and relating their difficulty in finding the church in the current interfaith center. Some stated it took hours to find the church, others weeks, and one who stated months. Another participant stated that having churches without religious symbols was akin to taking the names of schools off the exterior of the surrounding school buildings.

After the decision was rendered, I heard many people quietly saying, “It’s not an Interfaith Center anymore, it’s a Christian Center,” as they departed the meeting room.

Regardless, in the near future, Columbia will be a different place. The magnitude of this difference will be hard to measure. Is this “new street sign” different? 22-story condo tower different? I believe it probably depends on who you are and what your perception of interfaith was. In the end, it is a difference, and it should be noted.

Espera

The title of this blog post came to me last night as my family was grocery shopping. My son and I were at one end of the store, and we caught site of my wife halfway towards the other end. Being four, my son was proud to be pushing the shopping cart (with a little guidance from his dad) through the store. When he saw my wife, he took off with the shopping cart and started shouting “mommy, espera!” It took hearing it a second time for it to register, but yes, my son was shouting in Spanish for his mom to wait for us. It brought a HUGE smile to my face.

With that thought logged fresh in my mind this morning, I began the review of the local papers. Susan DeFord writes in the Washington Post Metro section (Council Member Tables Legislation in Push to Compromise):

The Howard County Council member who sought height restrictions for a controversial high-rise project in Columbia said she'll table her legislation in the hopes of forging a compromise.
The announcement from Mary Kay Sigaty (D-West Columbia) came after a closed Friday session attended by county leaders, community activists and representatives of the developer that plans to build the Plaza Residences, a 22-story condominium tower that would rise 275 feet along Little Patuxent Parkway.

[A]fter Friday's discussion, Sigaty said that "people wanted to come back to the table and keep talking. I was always in support of a compromise.
"I will be tabling my legislation for a month to allow the conversation to continue," she said.
Details of Friday's meeting, according to participants and those following the matter, dealt with lowering the height of the tower and possibly offering additional incentives, such as money for affordable housing.

Over at the Baltimore Sun (Talks on tower advance), reporter June Arney writes today:

The sponsor of legislation intended to block construction of a 23-story tower in downtown Columbia plans to ask the County Council to table her bills for 30 days in hopes that a compromise can be reached, after a lengthy, closed-door meeting of interested parties.
"There was agreement in the room that it had been a productive day and we needed to talk some more," Councilwoman Mary Kay Sigaty said after Friday's meeting. Sigaty represents the district where the 160-unit Plaza Residences is being built and is the sponsor of the two bills.
Another meeting of all parties is planned for Friday, she said.

[C]ouncilwoman Courtney Watson, who did not attend the meeting, said Friday that she had reservations about delaying a decision.
"I would be opposed to tabling it without some reassurance that there was a serious effort on the part of the parties to reach a compromise," she said. Watson said she planned to talk with people over the weekend to determine how close a compromise might be.
Among the key players not at the table Friday were four plaintiffs who had filed a court action trying to stop the project. But their attorney was able to attend the latter part of the meeting.
In a letter sent to Ulman, E. Alexander Adams, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said he could not be at the meeting because of a court commitment and that he had recommended his clients not attend without counsel.
"My clients, as always, have been receptive to a resolution that addresses this problem of the illegal land use classification, while being cognizant of the overall community interest in the long overdue re-zoning of Town Center," Adams wrote in his letter. "There are important issues in this case and important processes critical to the future of New Town realizing its rightful integral place in this County's social, cultural, community and economic mosaic."

I have to say, I believe Mr. Adams statement “My clients, as always, have been receptive to a resolution that addresses this problem of the illegal land use classification…” missed the point. The zoning amendments before the County Council deal specifically with building height, not the construction of apartments. The legislation makes no distinction between residential (i.e. apartments) or commercial buildings. In fact, it has been stated that the arbitrary limit of 150 feet is derived from a commercial building that contains no apartments. If Mr. Adams is at the table to discuss a compromise, he should be focused on the issue of building height.

So it appears with respect to zoning amendments restricting building heights in downtown, we will all have to wait. Espera. But there is something more to this wonderful Spanish verb, esperar. The verb not only means “to wait,” but it equally means “to hope for.” Through one of those idiomatic quirks, both meanings of Espera can be applied to our current situation.

Hasta Noviembre!

The Tower of Babble

Well its been one Plaza-riffic week! I will save my impression of the whole thing until the end, but first, lets take a look at how the two days of testimony was reported. Dave Wissing at the Hedgehog Report was first out the gate with some great impressions of Monday night. The Baltimore Sun led off with a report by Larry Carson on September 19, 2007 (Tower fans, critics heard). Mr. Carson’s leadoff paragraph pretty much set the stage:

Like practiced players in a long-running drama, scores of people trying to block or defend a proposed 23-story condominium tower in Columbia descended on a Howard County Council public hearing Monday night for what turned out to be two days of testimony about two bills that could derail the project.

The report in the Baltimore Sun was followed by articles published in the Washington Post, Baltimore Examiner and Columbia Flier on September 20, 2007. Both the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun quoted testimony from CoFoCoDo’s Alan Klein.

The Washington Post reported:

Community activist Alan Klein said he wouldn't respond to comments from "special interests," but, his voice rising, he called to task each of the five council members.
"The council candidates announced their support for height limits. You said so publicly," he said, reciting statements attributed to members during their election campaigns. "You know why you should pass these bills."

And the Baltimore Sun:

But Alan Klein of the Coalition for Columbia's Downtown, a group trying to block the tower, which they see as large building that will dwarf the rest of Town Center, said his group has "almost 400 supporters" who "have no vested interest in the decision other than the quality of life."
He urged the council members to "protect the human scale of Columbia" and not "bow to special interests." He quoted each council member expressing doubt or opposition to the tower's height during last year's election campaigns.

In my opinion, I thought Alan’s testimony was particularly damaging to his cause. I was in the audience, sitting about fifty feet from Alan when he gave his testimony, and I was shocked. As stated by both the Sun and the Post, Alan did provide quotes from each of the council members and read them back to them. It seemed that with each quote, Alan’s voice got louder and more shrill. Alan’s verbal escalation peaked as he stated that many of the Council were in fact members of CoFoCoDo and quoted from their white paper regarding building height. After which, and I’m paraphrasing here, it appeared he commanded the council to adhere to the CoFoCoDo white paper and pass the building height bills. The room got noticeably quiet after Alan completed his testimony.

I suppose a lesson learned here is that if you are a supporter of CoFoCoDo, keep in mind your signing on may be viewed more as an oath, rather than an affirmation of their broad recommendations.

From the side opposing the legislation, Attorney Richard Talkin was widely quoted:

From the Baltimore Examiner:

“There is a rift in the community, and it’s getting wider. We need to resolve this case,” said Richard Talkin, attorney representing the developer of the Plaza Residences, WCI Communities Inc. “We have been willing to compromise.”

From the Columbia Flier:

Richard Talkin, an attorney representing Florida-based WCI Communities Inc., the developer of the planned 22-story condominium on Wincopin Circle, said the company is willing to compromise on the building's height and make other concessions to speed the project along.

[T]here is a rift in the community (over the project) and it's getting wider as the case goes on ... we have to move forward together," Talkin told the County Council at a Sept. 18 hearing on a pair of zoning amendments introduced by Council member Mary Kay Sigaty, a Columbia Democrat.

In contrast to Alan Klein, Mr. Talkin appeared calm both during his testimony and during a short Q&A with Council members.

Compromise?

Both the Baltimore Examiner and the Columbia Flier touched on the issue of a possible compromise. I think all parties involved would like to see some compromise worked out rather than continuing with the high stakes rhetoric. However, as I see it, hope on this front is somewhat bleak. It appears that WCI is willing to talk about at least changing the building height as part of a compromise, and may even be willing to do other things. However, they are committed to building on the site in downtown. In some respects, I can’t blame them for holding to their particular site. They received Planning Board approval for their site plan and also received building permits for that particular site. They played by all the rules and met all the requirements. Now they are talking about compromising even further. They may want to drop the height to 150 feet, but they are at least talking about some reduction in height.

On the other side, State Delegate Liz Bobo believes the first step in compromise is to build no building at all. The honorable former County Executive believes WCI should be compensated, and no building erected. Depending on who you are, this might appear to be a buyout or a property taking.

From my point of view, I believe that a buyout of WCI is a non-starter. By analogy, my neighbor and I have been talking about how to reduce our carbon footprints. One of the topics we have discussed is our vehicles. We both recognize that there are more fuel efficient vehicles on the market, and we are each considering purchasing one in the future. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that my neighbor decides that to reduce his carbon footprint, he decides to buy a motorcycle. I talk to my neighbor and say that the motorcycle will be loud and disruptive in the neighborhood. He states that the motorcycle is on order and offers to not start the motorcycle early in the morning, or drive at low throttle to minimize the noise (ostensibly the WCI position). I reply to him that I believe the motorcycle dealership should buy the motorcycle from him (after all, the dealership can afford to do that, right?), and he explore another, fuel efficient means of getting around town.

Does that make sense?

My Two Cents

With regard to the building height legislation, I am in opposition to both bills. Generally stated, Council Bill 64 is the one that applies building height legislation to those projects under appeal. I believe that the County would be in legal jeopardy if this bill is passed. Primarily because, as stated in the May 2007 Howard Business Monthly (Planning Board Hearing on Plaza Residences Tower Sparks Debate),

Two zoning regulation amendments targeting a controversial 23-story mixed-use high-rise approved for Columbia Town Center sparked a large turnout and lively debate at the Howard County Planning Board's late April hearing.
County Councilwoman Mary Kay Sigaty (D-Dist. 4), who introduced the amendments, said she did so to respond to significant community concern about height limits triggered by the board's approval of The Plaza Residences at Columbia Town Center, a 275-foot-tall tower planned by Florida developer WCI Communities. The project would include ground level retail shops and 160 luxury condominiums.
"As the planning process went forward there was a real concern [in the community] that other buildings might slip in during the planning process," Sigaty told the board. "There was concern that this building would set a precedent that would be a negative precedent. ... In addition, though, there is also a very strong desire for real change in downtown."
According to a review of county regulations, Sigaty said, all districts have height limits except for New Town and those with MXT zoning. "I feel it is in the community's best interest for us to introduce an interim height limit of 150 feet [in New Town]," she said, noting that the limit reflects the height of the Merrill Lynch building, the county's tallest.
Her intent, Sigaty added, is to "calm fears about what could happen ... and hopefully engage people in the appropriate conversation necessary to help create a vibrant, exciting downtown."


So Councilperson Sigaty’s own words clearly place the zoning amendments (now Council Bills) as a response to one project. In addition, both the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning and the Howard County Planning Board have recommended against the retroactive nature of CB 64. So to enact legislation against a single project and willfully ignore both the recommendations of DPZ and the Planning Board puts the Council, and the County, in a bad position.

With respect to CB 63, which sets a 150 foot height limit in New Town I have two concerns with this bill. First, passing this bill elevates (pardon the pun) 150 feet above any other height to be considered in the future. As the discussion and debate about downtown Columbia evolves, if 150 feet is passed by the County Council, someone will most likely defend the 150 feet by stating that the Council must have passed it for some reason. Passage of CB 63 sets an arbitrary standard. Moreover, by passing a height limit now, limits further creativity as we discuss downtown. In my opinion, what should be held constant at the outset is the amount of developable square footage in downtown. From that constant value, a robust discussion of traffic volumes, building heights, and density can occur. To the County’s credit, this is precisely what they have done since the charrette.

Suggestions:

As we move into the final week before these bills are decided, there need to be some solutions offered. I only have a few, but would welcome any that are pinging around the blogosphere.

The first suggestion I have is to add the word “arbitrary” to CB 63. Clearly, most people believe that this height limit was not arrived at by any empirical, historical, or even sentimental means. It is in fact an arbitrary limit, so why not say so in the bill?

Secondly, I have heard some say “since CB 63 is temporary, what would it hurt to pass it?” Well, if this is true, that no harm will come from passing a temporary building height, why not limit the height to ten (10) feet? I mean, it’s only temporary, so what could it hurt? Right?

Back Off

Mary Kay Sigaty, you are doing a good job. It is about time that it was said. Since being elected, I have seen you honor your campaign promises, but more importantly, serve your community. Beyond the fashionable fear campaign waged by some in the community, you have been a steady voice in neighborhood revitalization and demonstrated strong leadership during the brutal murders that occurred in Running Brook this spring. Thank you.

I say this because of an August, 26, 2007 article in the Baltimore Sun. This article (page 2) attempts to paint Mary Kay Sigaty as out of touch.

The councilwoman has been known to take two or three days to return phone calls, according to county officials who refused to be quoted, but who said it can be "frustrating" to attempt to contact her.

Even an issue of prime importance to her sometimes does not draw a return call. For example, Sigaty is preparing to introduce legislation next month to limit the height of buildings in Columbia -- an attempt to stop plans for a 23-story residential tower on the lakefront or any similar buildings.

Recently, a Sun reporter trying to speak to her about construction starting on the tower was not able to reach her despite sending two e-mails, leaving two messages at her council office and another message live with someone at Sigaty's home.

This article spurred the following comment from Freemarket:

I question how interested Mary Kay is in being a council member. I wonder if this issue has burnt out her interest in the political process.

I am not sure if Freemarket is just responding to the article or if he has first hand knowledge, but my experience with Mary Kay has been that she is a very dedicated Howard County Council member. I do not agree with her on every issue, but I believe her commitment to District 4 and the County as a whole is exemplary.

The article, written by Larry Carson, can only provide unnamed county government sources and Baltimore Sun staff as people that have not received a prompt reply from Mary Kay. So who is Mary Kay talking to? My guess would be the people that live in District 4.

Flattery is the Sincerest form of Flattery

With respect to the downtown height issue, Hayduke does the debate justice here and here.

Mythical Heights

As the downtown Columbia discussion continues, one of the constants has been the polarization of the community over building height. Today’s Columbia Flier includes two letters to the editor that address the building height issue. Over the last year and a half, I have heard people mention Washington DC and Paris as good models regarding building height. I addressed these models in the following post. Recently, I came across this website, which catalogs buildings all over the world. From this database, I have compiled a list of buildings in Washington DC that would violate “the coalition” recommended (Stated? Suggested? Wished?) height limit of 140 feet:

Old Post Office Building, 12 floors, 315 ft
One Franklin Square, 12 floors, 210 ft
Healy Building, 4 floors, 200 ft (on U Georgetown Campus)
700 Eleventh Street, 13 floors, 199 ft
Renaissance Washington DC Hotel, 15, floors, 188 ft
1090 Vermont Avenue, 12 floors, 187 ft
The Tower Building, 14 floors, 177 ft
National Archives Building, 8 floors, 166 ft
Cairo Hotel Condominiums, 14 floors, 164 ft
1625 Eye Street, 12 floors, 162 ft
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, 14 floors, 160 ft
World Bank Headquarters, 13 floors, 160 ft
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, 13 floors, 160 ft
1000 Connecticut Avenue, 13 floors, 156 ft
Capital Hilton, 13 floors, 155 ft
1875 K Street, 12 floors, 155 ft
Wyndham Washington DC, 14 floors, 153 ft
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, 13 floors, 153 ft
Washington Gas Building, 15 floors, 152 ft
William T. Golden Center for Science and Engineering, 12 floors, 151 ft
Connecticut Connection, 12 floors, 150 ft
1225 Eye Street, 12 floors, 149 ft
1201 Eye Street, 12 floors, 148 ft
Columbia Square, 13 floors, 148 ft
Madison Hotel, 14 floors, 144 ft
1100 17th Street, 12 floors, 144 ft
Potomac Electric Company Building, 10 floors, 143 ft
1000 Connecticut Avenue, 13 floors, 156 ft
National Press Building, 13 floors, 141 ft

Similarly, a list of the ten tallest buildings in Paris reveal a higher than expected skyline:

Paris' 10 tallest skyscrapers:

Tour Montparnasse, 59 stories, 689 ft.
Total Fina Elf, 48 stories, 614 ft.
Tour Gan, 42 stories, 604 ft.
Societe Generale I, 38 stories, 548 ft.
Societe Generale II, 37 stories, 548 ft
Coeur Defense, 40 stories, 528 ft.
Tour Axa, 41 stories, 521 ft.
Tour Egee, 40 stories, 509 ft.
Tour Adria, 40 stories, 509 ft.

So what do you think? Is the longing for a DC or Parisian skyline in keeping with the reality on the ground?

A Pro-City Rouse

There has been a lot of discussion of late about what James Rouse had envisioned for this community. Recently, I came across a 1977 interview of James Rouse in the Columbia Flier. In this article, Mr. Rouse states:

“What Columbia stands for, he observes, is that “the accommodation of urban growth can be a rational process.”

Later in the article, reporter Len Lazarick writes:

“The planning began in 1963, and according to a speech by Rouse in 1967, four main objectives were set: (1) to build a better city – not just a better suburb, but a complete new city; (2) to respect the land; (3) to provide the best possible environment for the growth of people; (4) to make a profit.”

“From his work, he [Rouse] concluded that ‘the problem of the city and the problem of the suburbs was one of scale, of absence of place, of absence of physical for of community which could allow community to unfold among people.’ ”

At this time in Columbia’s history, Mr. Rouse was not the only official in the Rouse Company speaking about downtown Columbia. In a 1978 Columbia Flier article, then General Manager of Howard Research and Development Corporation, Michael D. Spear (as in the Spear Center) said:

“He [Spear] noted that in Columbia’s town center, which includes all the land east of Governor Warfield Parkway to Route 29, only about 1.5 million square feet of office and commercial space has been built, and 6 or 7 million square feet is planned. “You’re not even a quarter developed,” he pointed out.”

Just a few months later, Alton Scavo, the Director of Design for Howard Research and Development Corporation, was quoted in the same paper saying:

“Downtown Columbia is meant to be a true downtown – not just the heart of Columbia, but the urban hub for a real city between Washington and Baltimore.”

A few years later, Morton Hoppenfeld, the man for whom “the hug” statue is dedicated, reflected on Columbia Town Center in the publication Little Patuxent Review. In this article, Mr. Hoppenfeld states:

“Allow me to list for you some of the ingredients necessary to attain the downtown we would all enjoy in Columbia:

…Downtown needs apartments and condos: At high density within walking distance – on top of things like shops and offices. This is hard to accomplish, but HRD knows how. They may need help with zoning.”

Having grown up in Columbia, I know that not all these men were held in the same high regard as Mr. Rouse, but in this relatively short period of time, we find all of them describing downtown in the same way: An accommodation of urban growth, a city – not just a suburb, at high density, an urban hub.

Keep in mind, I am not advocating for downtown Columbia to become Shanghai, but we should look a little harder at what Rouse, and those employed by Rouse, had to say about downtown.

Serendipitous Placeholder

I intend to write more about this later, but I wanted to put this out there for initial comment.

I attended the final General Growth Properties sponsored “Voices of Vision”. The guest lecturer was Adam Lerner, Executive Director of The Laboratory of Art and Ideas at Belmar. His presentation began with a brief discussion of how Belmar was developed in the city of Lakewood, Colorado (Belmar is Lakewood, Colorado’s downtown district). The second half of his lecture focused on the arts activities going on in Belmar. Mr. Lerner is certainly a very creative person and presented some programs that I (without a doubt) would like to attend. What I found particularly interesting was the Q&A after the lecture. One exchange I would like to share (and I transcribed this as best I could, so please forgive any inaccuracies) was the following:

Mr. Lerner was asked if tall buildings are appropriate in a downtown and what was the definition of human scale. Mr. Lerner responded that there was no hard and fast rule regarding human scale, that towers (tall buildings) were not necessarily out of hand, and it really depends on the context. He also remarked that he had not seen the plans for the proposed Plaza Tower for downtown Columbia, and wondered if the tower brought life to the area or did it suck? After a brief pause, he amended his remark to ask if the tower sucked life out of the area. Would people who lived in the tower be brought to the street level, or would they just drive their cars to and from the tower and not interact with the city? I had a chance to chat briefly with my social acquaintance, Guilford, after the lecture. When I asked him what he thought, he remarked, “I know what the headline will be tomorrow, ‘Plaza Tower Sucks’.” Regrettably, I don’t think he got the full meaning of Mr. Lerner’s statement.

And on This Side of the Mississippi

As fate would have it, the regionally located (Washington, DC) Urban Places and Spaces blog had a post yesterday about arts-based revitalization. The blog post relates some regional arts revitalization efforts going on and provides plenty of links to other arts-based efforts. It is certainly worth reading.

As I said, I will post more on this later. It was a really great lecture. Anyone else that attended, please post your thoughts. In addition, I would like to hear what people thought of the entire lecture series.

Alternate View of the Charrette

Since mid-October, the Co Fo Co Do noise machine has been pushing their agenda, and I think it is time to start discussing alternative points of view. To be certain, their message discipline must be admired. I think we can all at least stumble through their mantra…Ken Ulman endorsed a similar plan…values from the first day of the Charrette…14 floor limit (with mandatory 20% green space allotment)…1600 residential units…etc.

Having read the Co Fo Co Do Executive Summary, the overall impression I get is that if downtown Columbia development were like a wish list for purchasing a car, Co Fo Co Do seems to want a car that gets the gas mileage of a Toyota Prius, the performance of a Dodge Magnum (with the SRT-6.1L Hemi engine), the people carrying capacity of a school bus, and the load hauling capacity of a Ford F-150 truck. This would of course be the ideal vehicle, but it does not exist.

Today, I would like to focus on the Charrette. Since the Charrette ended, there have been (for the most part) two groups talking about the Charrette: candidates for Howard County elected office (some won, some lost), and the folks at Co Fo Co Do.

Co Fo Co Do states in their Executive Summary:

On Saturday, October 15, 2005, a group of over 300 community members participated in the first day of a week-long Charrette process to discuss their needs, hopes, and dreams for the completion of Columbia’s Downtown. Their initial excitement and optimism were tempered, however, when it became clear that much of the citizens’ input was dismissed or ignored by County officials. Attention was instead steered into a plan many saw as pre-determined by the Charrette organizers. Participants who were without ties to the development community began to drop out. Not surprisingly, the plan that eventually emerged differed significantly from that envisioned by the original 300+ citizens on October 15th.

I find this description problematic on many levels. Yes, on a warm October afternoon, more than 300 people gathered at Wilde Lake High School. Many ideas were put forward, and a schedule for three more meetings was clearly communicated.

What I believe happened after that initial meeting differs dramatically from the Co Fo Co Do version. Rather than a conspiracy of pre-determined outcomes, I believe the folks running the Charrette looked at what people wanted, and tried their best to incorporate everything. The final plans showed increased density, but also more green space, and more public sculpture and art. Most of the problems with the Charrette outcome was in the conflicts between desires. An example would be that (in my opinion) most groups expressed a desire for more mass transit. One does not have to look very hard to determine that for mass transit (and funding for mass transit from the state and federal governments), medium to high density residency is required, and that is what subsequent Charrette plan reflected. Low density development does not allow for mass transit.

Said another way, you can’t tow a boat with a Prius, you are going to need a truck. It is my hope that Co Fo Co Do can come forward with an alternate funding program such that mass transit can be part of downtown Columbia. Otherwise, I would hope that they would reconsider their downtown density position; or in a worst case scenario, embrace low density as a priority and renounce mass transit.

As for citizens dropping out because of disenchantment, I would like to know where Co Fo Co Do found that data. I was at all four meetings, and I can say with certainty that the second meeting (which I like to call “open mike” night) was filled with people speaking out against the plan, including a passion-filled Barbara Russell (a Co Fo Co Do member) stating that amenities should be put in before other construction begins. During the third meeting (“break up in small groups” night), I was in a group with at least three people that became members of Co Fo Co Do. It seems to me that there were plenty people from all sides at all of the meetings.

I also wanted to address the idea put forth by Co Fo Co Do that people became disenchanted and dropped out, and that the voices of those that dropped out should have their idea reconsidered. I could be wrong here, but it seems to me that Co Fo Co Do is coming pretty close to saying that people that contributed less should have their voices heard more. To test the validity of this, let’s turn the argument on its head: if there were a group of people (and I am not sure there is) that were for the Bethesdification of Columbia, should the process be stopped to incorporate their views?

In closing, I do not think the Charrette was perfect. It laid out a framework to incorporate a lot of conflicting ideas. It laid out a means to increase density such that mass transit would be possible. It increased the amount of green space in downtown. It advocated for more public statues and art. For all the admirable work, it still had problems. So maybe we need to start discussing the tradeoffs. Do you want Metro coming to downtown, or do you want to drive out of the city (and possibly out of the county) for mass transit?

Visual Preference

Thumbing through the Washington Post this morning, I came across Steven Pearlstein’s business column, “Suburban Soul.” The column compares and contrasts Tysons Corner and Reston Town Center. Obviously, there is plenty to like and dislike about both areas.

Reston:

Walking around Reston, you can't help but marvel at how well it's been done: The quality and variety of the architecture, the careful attention to creating public spaces and inviting streetscapes, the clever ways in which cars and roadways are integrated into the project, the density that's been achieved without sacrificing human scale.
And yet you can't shake the feeling that this is really a Potemkin village.

It's just too neat, too homogenized. The stores are all outlets of national chains. There are no churches, no schools, no liquor stores, no bums or graffiti. Reston Town Center lacks what architect and urban planner Alan Ward, who was involved in the center's planning, calls the "messy vitality of older towns and cities that grew over time like natural phenomena."

This is not a criticism so much as a statement of the obvious.

After all, what else would you expect from a "downtown" created out of nothing in less than 20 years?

Tysons Corner:

Suddenly, the suburban experience epitomized by Tysons had fallen out of favor -- not just with urban snobs who never liked office parks and enclosed malls but even with high-priced consultants and government contracting executives who, only years before, had boasted of the star chef at the Ritz-Carlton, the number of dot-com millionaires who could be found lunching at the Palm and the new Hermes store in Fairfax Square. At conferences and community meetings, Tysons was Exhibit A for everything that was wrong with the suburbs -- a traffic nightmare, aesthetically and environmentally offensive, a mistake to be rectified, a problem to be solved.

And:

You can't help but feel, as you drive from Reston down the Dulles Toll Road and turn onto lovely Route 7 in Tysons Corner, that you've arrived at a place that is bigger, more dynamic, more real. Sure, Tysons is one traffic jam after another -- but when was the last time you tried to get across Midtown Manhattan? It's ugly, but so are some of the hippest neighborhoods in San Francisco. Like people in Chicago, people in Tysons don't amble or poke along -- they've got things to do.

And everywhere there is variety, ordered chaos and an urban-like intensity that puts you on edge.

In the end, Mr. Pearlstein wraps up with:

My point is that when talking about creating an "urban" experience in the suburbs or the exurbs, there is more to it than road grids, streetscapes and walkability. By those criteria, Tysons will never become a city in the way we think of Baltimore or Boston, even with a subway line running through it. To think otherwise is fantasy.

But that doesn't mean Tysons can't have the density and variety and energy normally associated with cities, or that its next incarnation can't include attractive and inviting neighborhoods that do a better job of mixing housing, retail space, offices and public amenities.

The challenge will be to find a way for people to get from one of these neighborhoods to another without a car. Some sort of circulator bus or trolley seems inevitable.

And, just as importantly, Fairfax County will have to become more aggressive in securing choice parcels of land in Tysons for public uses -- schools, parks, theaters, museums, churches. Landowners, developers and private-property vigilantes will howl, and the cost will be high. But these will represent better uses of public money (or money extracted from developers) than spending hundreds of millions of dollars to put the Metro underground.

Tysons vs. Reston? In the long run, there's no reason both can't succeed. But for the
real urban experience, I'll put my money on Tysons.

I believe that neither city is directly attributable to Columbia. That is, what was done in either case does not have a direct influence on what changes come to downtown Columbia. But there are some lessons to be learned here.

I strongly encourage comment on this article, but not so much on what was written. If you pick up the print edition of the Washington Post, there are two photos on page 1 of the Business section: one of Tysons Corner and one of Reston Town Center (I cannot find the Reston Town Center photos on the Washington Post website). Take a look at these two photos, and tell me which you think is a friendly, vibrant downtown.

Ghost of the Charrette

As some will recall, the Clarendon section of Arlington County, Virginia was referenced with Bethesda, Maryland as examples of urban design during the Charrette. Although I have not seen it mentioned on any of our local blogs (and I could be wrong about that), Clarendon, and its associated development was featured in the Monday edition of the Washington Post Business section.

The Washington Post published two articles (More Urban, Less Village and Remade City Centers Find Mass Appeal), both authored by reporter Kim Hart. In addition, the www.washingtonpost.com has an online chat with the reporter, panoramic views of the new development, and satellite imagery of Clarendon from 1962 to present day.

In summary, there is plenty there for everybody. An analysis of urban centers, concerns about the loss of local businesses, traffic, etc…

What I took away from the published articles and online content is as follows:

Bethesda always finds its way into every story. The following quote appears in the Remade City Centers Find Mass Appeal article:

Instead, people amble along pedestrian-friendly streets in places like Bethesda, Takoma Park and Silver Spring. Downtown Alexandria and Annapolis epitomize the model, experts say, weaving together the threads of an old-fashioned main street in a modern setting.

It is unclear to me who these experts are, but they are most likely at odds with the Co Fo Co Do (Coalition for Columbia’s Downtown) crowd. As stated in their executive summary, they too look to Annapolis as a model for downtown Columbia. Could Clarendon fit their model too? I am unsure.

The Remade City Centers Find Mass Appeal article also provided some numbers behind the Urban Village trend:

Businesses in urban villages generate more revenue than those in traditional shopping centers and strip malls, planners say. Shoppers spend $84 an hour in an urban village's street-side stores; in a typical enclosed mall, they spend $57.50 an hour, according to the Urban Land Institute. Some large retailers bring in almost 20 percent more revenue per square foot in a village setting.
"Retailers know the power of the place-making dividend. People stay longer, come back more often and spend more money in places that attract their affection," said Ed McMahon, a senior fellow at the Urban Land Institute. "No one wants to go to a strip mall to hang out."

What I find most revealing about both articles is how each piece closes:

The concluding paragraphs of the More Urban, Less Village piece state:

David DeCamp, one of the forces behind the new Station Square, said the density incentive is a good compromise to preserve some of the art-deco architecture and old-fashioned main-street style. "I don't think anyone wants to overdo it and turn Clarendon into a soulless suburb," he said.

Nick Langman, co-owner of the Clarendon Ballroom, said businesses benefit from working with the neighborhood's idiosyncratic feeling, not against it. He and his partner preserved the hall's tin ceiling and ornate molding. The ballroom often has a line wrapping around the corner on weekend nights.

"You can't buy charm," he said. "You can't rebuild the sense of place that's already here."

While the Remade City Centers Find Mass Appeal closes with this:

To keep a neighborhood from turning into a shopping mall -- or a carbon copy of another town -- experts say developers should concentrate on retaining local character.

"The historical and social fabric has to be retained in the place to keep it from becoming another Ballston or Bethesda," Nelson said. "Use the market revenue to sustain a piece of that memory."

The emphasis of developing while maintaining the existing character of place, coming from local business owners, experts, and others shows at least a little shared vision among all stakeholders, something we are lacking here in Howard County.

Lastly, Clarendon decided to use a height limitation similar to that proposed by Howard County DPZ. As part of the www.washingtonpost.com online chat with reporter Kim Hart, the following exchange can be found:

Questioner from Arlington, VA:

What is the county board doing to keep the independent retailers in Clarendon? Do they get tax breaks, lower rents?

K.Hart

Arlington County has been proactive in keeping smaller businesses in the neighborhood, especially in Clarendon. Developers who promise to rent to small businesses get the chance to add an extra floor or two to their new buildings, which can help offset the lower rent they charge the independents. Many local business owners do think the county could do more, however.

So maybe a hard cap on building heights could endanger local atmosphere here in Howard County. We should all think long and hard about this.

Petition Update

Last winter, I attended the Liz Bobo downtown meeting and signed a petition. The petition stated the following:

We the undersigned concerned citizens request:
that specific, hard data relating to housing, schools, traffic, roads, water and sewer, environment, fiscal responsibility, as well as phasing and monitoring of the proposed
development be studied and made available to the public BEFORE the Draft Master
Plan for Downtown Columbia is presented to the Planning Board and the County
Council.

I have been to the Howard County Charrette/Focus Group website and it seems the county has authored reports that address most (if not all) of these issues. So are we done? Have the terms of the petition been met? Can we move on? I’m not sure, but I was hoping to get input from y’all on this one. Please comment.

Downtown Building Heights

With all the discussion yesterday, I have not had the chance to address an issue raised in the Wednesday edition of the Baltimore Examiner. The article, entitled “Leader says high-rises conflict with vision for Columbia,” amplifies the opinions of Barbara Russell and Mary Pivar. Although the article in Wednesday’s paper did elevate the issue of downtown building heights, the quotes from Ms. Pivar and Ms. Russell are only opinions. I would hope that the Examiner, when researching issues for publication would seek to find a diversity of opinions and a diversity in demographics. In general, Mary and Barbara are part of the same demographic and represent only one side of the discussion. Let’s try to find other voices, especially when dealing in opinion, such that the presentation of the issues is balanced.

I have known both ladies for years. Barbara Russell is a community treasure and on the occasions that I have had the chance to chat with her, I have always found her to be knowledgeable, insightful and passionate about this town. Mary Pivar and I served on the Wilde Lake Village Board together, and although I have disagreed with her on some topics, I am impressed with her energy and she has maintained her brown Toyota well.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with both on the subject of downtown building height. As I describe in this post, regulating building height in downtown to a single arbitrary limit will decrease affordable housing, reduce downtown vibrancy, reduce retail options, and encourage mediocre architectural design.

Barbara Russell starts off with a generalization stating that “Practically everyone wants a height limitation,” and that people are appalled at the 22-story Plaza. Fair enough, although the height limitations Ms. Russell may have in mind may be different from other people’s ideas, and those folks who have put a down payment on the condos in the Plaza certainly are not opposed to it. For the record, I object to the Plaza height.

Further on, the article states:

She [Barbara Russell] also referred to Columbia founder James Rouse, who said in
his 1963 speech titled “It Can Happen Here” that serious problems in society
stem from “the fact that the city is out of scale with people.”

Now I know that Ms. Russell had knew Mr. Rouse, and I believe she may have specific insight into what Mr. Rouse was talking about in the “It Can Happen Here” speech. However, I took out my copy of the speech and read it carefully, and more than once. It is my belief that Mr. Rouse was referring to the bulk size of cities and how people relate to the scale of the entire city, not just to building heights. (In fact, the whole thrust of the Rouse “It Can Happen Here” speech was to say that planning should be people focused before we start discussing building heights, traffic flows, etc. I think we are doing the opposite of what Rouse spoke of in the “It Can Happen Here” speech. I plan to write a post dedicated to that topic in the near future.)

There are other quotes from James Rouse and other Columbia luminaries that portray a different view of downtown. In an April 19,1996 speech to the Council of Shopping Centers Annual Convention in Los Angeles, CA, James Rouse stated:

“Urban growth is our opportunity, not our enemy. It invites us to correct the
past, to build places that are productive for business and for the people who
live there, places that are infused with nature and stimulating to man’s
creative sense of beauty — places that are in scale with people … which will
enrich life; build character and personality; promote concern, friendship,
brotherhood.”

This quote also appears (with attribution) on page 6 of the current, unfortunate file name, Columbia Association Public Information Guide (PIG.pdf).

Fifteen years later Mort Hoppenfeld, a Director of Planning and Design at the Rouse Company and a man whose name appears on the dedication of two statues in downtown Columbia, stated in the article “A Critique of Town Center Options” (Little Patuxent Review, 1981, p. 110):

“Downtown needs apartments and condos: At high density within walking distance –
on top of things like shops and offices.”

Now I don’t want to get into a war of quotes, because I believe I am outgunned in this arena. However, the above quotes do suggest that there was a perception that Columbia would evolve into a city and would be urban in character (not a suburb, not a bedroom community). In addition, high density was discussed and (at some level) advocated by those who founded Columbia.

Finally, Barbara Russell states that higher building heights would allow more development. It seems that Ms. Russell’s logic mirrors that of former baseball player Yogi Berra . Famously, Yogi Berra ordered a pizza and was asked whether he would like it cut into four or eight pieces. "Better make it four. I don't think I could eat eight." Like Mr. Berra (who was focused on slices and not realizing the pizza size was fixed), Ms. Russell has focused on building height, not realizing the amount of development is fixed.

Howard County Director of Planning and Zoning Marsha McLaughlin provides the following clarifying information in the article:

“It’s like playing with Legos. There is a certain amount of development that can
occur, and a certain amount of Legos. You can stack the Legos taller, and there
would probably be more open space on the ground,” McLaughlin said.
“But you don’t get more legos.”

With respect to Focus Group member Mary Pivar’s remarks, I wish she had chosen her words better (granted, what is said by someone is sometimes not what gets in the paper).

If tradeoffs are going to be considered, the limit should be at six stories, and
no buildings should be taller than 12 to 14 stories, said Mary Pivar, a member
of the Downtown Columbia focus group, in which residents meet with the planning
and zoning department to discuss the redevelopment of Town Center.

With the dramatically diminished skyline envisioned by Ms. Pivar, these low slung buildings will have to be very long and very wide to accommodate the proposed development. Buildings will more than likely be built to their setback limits and would reduce the opportunity for trees, sculpture, plazas or fountains. I cannot think of a more soul-less streetscape.

Her statement regarding a 3-story limit at the Lake Kittamaquandi waterfront is preposterous. I believe the south side of the Rouse Building has four exposed floors, as does the Teachers Building lakeside wall. The American Cities Building, the Lakeside Condos, the Sheraton Hotel tower, and that building where the Rusty Scupper used to be are all more than double the limit imposed by Ms. Pivar. Should we start the deconstruction?

Ms. Pivar’s further assertion that “There is nothing negotiable about the lakefront,” is completely out of place. On whose authority can she make statements like that? Is she speaking for the whole focus group? Did the Howard County Government cede special authority to the focus group to dictate terms? (I think not, but I felt the need to balance Mary’s hyperbole). Regardless, I wish Ms. Pivar would not resort to ultimatums when discussing downtown. She is in no position to dictate terms.

In closing, I invite the HoCo blogosphere to comment and provide any details as to what you might think building heights should be in downtown Columbia. As I linked before, my views are posted here. I also hope that we will get more balanced reporting on the downtown issue in the future

Limited Vision?

Much has been made recently about building height in downtown Columbia. The Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning has recently recommended that the downtown building height limit be restricted to 14 stories. A recent question of the week in the Baltimore Sun produced many responses and a variety of viewpoints. In my opinion, limiting downtown building height conscripts this town to a diminished vision of what could be. That being said, the 23-story Plaza condo building, currently being challenged in court, does not make sense.

Let’s first discuss the pros and cons of limiting building height. A smaller building will generate (comparatively) less traffic and allow more natural light to reach the street. I think everyone on earth (including me) is for less traffic and more natural light. But what is the tradeoff? Two articles in the Washington Post (here and here) provide insight into what a height restriction in the Nation’s Capital has cost. In summary, the costs are: mediocre architectural design, increased sprawl in the surrounding suburbs, less affordable housing, lowered vibrancy and diminished retail opportunities within the city.

Some within our community (including a few seeking election to the County Council) have cited Washington D.C., Paris, and London as examples. I believe this argument is false. Let us look beyond the romance and power of these cities and remember that all three are Capitals of their respective nations. In this unique status, large tax funds are utilized to construct parks, monuments, and other public good entities. Without this funding base (and the associated tourist dollars that follow), the monuments would never be constructed, and these cities would certainly succumb to pressures for taller buildings. It is interesting to note that these pressures are already afoot in Paris, France. Paris is an interesting study with respect to height limitations. With the building height restrictions, gentrification has virtually taken over the city. There is very little affordable housing. In fact much of the workforce jobs in Paris are held by people that live in affordable housing skyscrapers in the suburbs.

Caution: although I have tried to search for a discussion of the large buildings in the Parisian suburbs described only in terms of planning, most information on the subject has been tied to the riots in these areas over the past year. It is not my intention to link the riots to the building height issue, but current literature available lumps the two issues together.

In response to the lack of affordable housing, Paris’ mayor has introduced legislation to increase the height limits in some sections of the city to alleviate this housing imbalance.

Instead of arbitrarily capping building height, I believe building height should be regulated. 12 to 14 stories should be a limit, but not an absolute limit. If a developer wanted to build beyond a 12-story height, there should be increasing qualifications as the height limit increases. One interesting idea that I have been advocating for almost a year comes from Ann Arbor, Michigan (pages 23-24). They too are redeveloping their downtown area, and have proposed that if a building is intended to be greater than 10 stories, all floors above the 4th floor should be set back 20 feet and all floors above the 10th floor should be set back an additional 20 feet. This configuration provides for a slender building profile and increases the amount of light at the street level. In addition, as the building is set back, the effect at the street level is less pronounced; there is not a wall of windows and brick extending to the sky. In addition to the setbacks, there are also additional criteria that must be met on a floor-by-floor level. That is, if the building employs green building technology, an additional floor (above the 10-story threshold) is allotted. If a larger than minimum affordable housing component is included in the building design more floors are made available. What you get in the end is the possibility of a taller building, but if the building is taller, the project must give back to the community (in the form of increased affordable housing, energy saving technology, etc).

Sidebar: It is interesting to note that over the summer a group opposing to the building height scheme in Ann Arbor sought to limit building height to 4-stories. Check out the following link to a list serve discussing the issue. It is probably important to note that both Ann Arbor, Michigan and Boulder, Colorado are approximately the same size as Columbia, Maryland.

Building (no pun intended) on the Ann Arbor height regulation mentioned above, another component could include transportation demand management. This is employed extensively in the city of Victoria, BC, and could be employed here. (and by the way, take a while to explore the link, there is a lot of there, there) Victoria has performed studies and determined that if certain features are incorporated into building design, the traffic impact that the building has on the surrounding area can be reduced. Some of these ideas are grand in scale, such as including a bus station into the building. Some of the ideas are quite small, but have some impact, such as providing lockers and showers for business tenants to increase bicycle ridership. Each idea is assigned a coefficient as to how much it would reduce traffic. This could be incorporated into tall building design in Columbia such that if the building is greater than 12-stories, the building must have design features incorporated such that the traffic impact is mitigated by some percent for each additional floor. In closing, I believe that an arbitrary height restriction in downtown Columbia will result in less traffic than originally proposed and will let more light into downtown, but at a cost of less affordable housing, decreased vibrancy, and more sprawl, it is not a good deal. I believe that regulating height will provide downtown with the ability to evolve over time and will in the end give back to the community. It will prevent structures such as the Plaza from being built and also allow for the growth necessary to make downtown Columbia a destination place for downtown residents, residents of Columbia, and people throughout the region.