Comments on: No deals sealed at Silver Place, planning commish writes

By: paul_silver_spring

paul_silver_spring — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:48:44 +0000

As I’ve argued in these comments sections before… either we have a CBD or we don’t. The CBD is only 360 acres, which comes to a little over half a square mile. If you want the exact calculations for my forthcoming argument here, look back to previous postings on this blog it’s in detail there. But the short of it, is that if you take a half block around the entire perimeter of the CBD you come up with over a third of the land area of the CBD. So if we’re going to place some “transitional area” requirement around the perimeter of the CBD, then we might as well have never zoned 1/3 of it CBD in the first place. The townhouses across the street are set back significatly, through a wooded park as it is. Requiring that we place ANOTHER land-wasting development like Cameron Hills inside the CBD will only further drive up the exponentially increasing cost of living in downtown. Populations are growing and people are moving back into cities, we can’t fight that. High population densities improve crime rates by increasing pedestrian traffic – particularly important during late night hours.. take a look at manhattan if you don’t believe me, not to mention the environmentally responsible stand of housing as many people as possible within walking distance to a city subway. Not and environmentalist? OK then take the fiscal stand. The more people commuting on the subway, the fewer of your tax dollars will need to subsidize it – The public subsidy for the NYC subway is HALF of Metro’s and the fares are STILL lower. Do we seriously need to make anymore arguments why the merits of population density in urban districts near mass transit FAR outweigh a tall building through a half a block of trees, 4 lanes of traffic and a wide center median across from someone’s townhouse.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 21:20:14 +0000

Borderline says: “Getting back to my original point, Woodsiders simply don’t want the new development across the street from them. Sure, they wanted the revitalization to occur half a mile from their homes, but not across the street.” This is uninformed nonsense. As I said earlier, I haven’t heard even one Woodside Park resident oppose development of the M-MCPPC headquarters site and parking lot. We are saying that development should be compatible with the site’s location at the very edge of the CBD and next to a residential neighborhood. In this regard, the M-NCPPC should simply apply the same standards it applies at the edge of all other CBDs to its own development project.

By: Borderline

Borderline — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 21:22:30 +0000

Getting back to my original point, Woodsiders simply don’t want the new development across the street from them. Sure, they wanted the revitalization to occur half a mile from their homes, but not across the street.

The suggestion of duplicating the townhouses by the Metro station is comparing apples and oranges. Those townhouses were the first residential structures in the CBD for the new revitalization. They were simply a test case.

If Woodsiders are truly the limousine liberals I think they are, they should embrace smart growth, which begins in their backyard.

By: DMZ

DMZ — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:35:00 +0000

I was more exaggerating for effect. Being Jewish myself, I am quite well-aware of the original meaning of the word, thanks.

Let me restate what I meant: downtown Silver Spring has had a checkered past, and most Woodside residents are glad that it’s become a safe, friendly, upper-class place.

By: Averagebro

Averagebro — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 02:17:49 +0000

Joe, I’m well aware of the origins of the word ghetto. The Venice ghettos you speak of were segregated from the rest of the city by gates, but were ecomonically self sufficient and in fact, quite prosperous. I seriously doubt that this is the definition the original poster alluded to. Judging by followup comments like the one about DC “spilling over” I’m pretty sure my assertion is correct.

Relax guys, SS won’t be turning into Barry Farms anytime soon. Exhale.

By: Part3

Part3 — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:33:12 +0000

OK, let’s try again:

Origin: 1605–15; It, orig. the name of an island near Venice where Jews were forced to reside in the 16th century Venetian, lit., foundry for artillery (giving the island its name), n. deriv. of ghettare to throw VL *jectāre; see jet1

By: AverageJoePart2

AverageJoePart2 — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:32:19 +0000

The first use seems the harshest:

[Origin: 1605–15;

By: AverageJoe

AverageJoe — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:29:49 +0000

AverageBro…since you want to talk about broad cultural generalizations, the communities you bring up might not quite fit the actual definition of ghetto either. Seems we all want to use the word to overemphasize what we believe to be less than desireable.

The first use seems the harshest:
[Origin: 1605–15;

By: b

Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:12:32 +0000

Life was simple in the 50’s, but the US population has doubled since then and growth is inevitable. We are inside the beltway, and we have 2 choices. We can become a first class entity through our own development, or DC’s doormat. DC will keep growing, and no matter what happens with the projected Silver Place, that area will be totally different in 20 years. We can mark our territory now, or wait till DC sprawls over and through our fair city.

By: AverageBro

AverageBro — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:15:13 +0000

I lived in downtown SS for a few years before buying.a home in the burbs. Its many things, but ghetto isn’t one of them. Cabrini Green, Robert Taylor Homes and Liberty City are ghettos. Woodside? Not so much.

Let’s stick to basic NIMBY arguements and leave broad cultural generalizations out here, please.