A project that would have stacked two high-rise apartment buildings in South Silver Spring is reacting to the crappy housing market with a complete redesign.
RST Development, which got the green light two years ago to build The Galaxy apartments on 13th Street, is shrinking the overall project, a company big wig announced.
Two 12-story buildings and one 4-story shorty, approved by the planning board in 2005, have been scratched. Instead, two shorter buildings — five and four stories (below) — could be built, Scott Copeland, principle with RST, explained to Silver Spring’s economic development committee Wednesday night.
The limp housing market, the cost of construction, and community input steered the developer to this decision, Copeland said.
The two proposed buildings would have 240 units, down from 321 originally planned for the site. More than 1,200 parking spaces would be reserved for Galaxy residents, as well as residents of the adjacent Aurora condominiums.
The Aurora, former office buildings that RST rehabbed into housing, offers no parking. Currently, residents park their cars on the street or in a county-owned garage on Kennett Street.
The redesigned Galaxy also would have two retail spaces along 13th Street, though no potential tenants have been identified yet. The project’s former design offered no retail space.
Copeland didn’t know if the residential units would be rentals or condos, nor could he guess when construction would start. The revised project plan could go before the planning board in January, he said.
Image courtesy of RST Development.
Read 
What the hell are they building now? Learn more from 
Boxed wines and rosés are back in vogue. Just ask The Penguin's sommeliers.
I’m not sure I like the trend. I’d prefer the county to force minimum density levels to prevent a repeat of the previous housing bubble from happening in the future.
I agree… The county is supposed to have a vision for downtown… they did, and they zoned it CBD to meet that vision. 4-5 stories seems like a giant waste of precious downtown land to me. This is how, when the market turns around, you end up with $0.75M townhomes in the middle of an urban district. (i.e. cameron hills – although not selling for quite that these days, that was the peak, still outrageous) Density means better use of mass transit = better environmentally… Density means that if 0.01% happens to be coming home at 2am, doubling the population means it’s twice as likely someone will be nearby and that shady character will think twice about mugging you – i.e. density yields lower crime rates (particularly in transit/pedestrian oriented communities). Density means more convenience – if that same 0.01% of the population wants to do their shopping at 3am thats twice as much business to support a business staying open. Density means more people to keep the movie theaters, stage theaters, new concert halls perhaps, etc.. in business. We shouldn’t sacrafice our urban environment just because a developer can only make 200% ROI instead of 300% in the current environment.
DMZ, increased housing supply doesn’t “cause” a bubble. So, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. In fact, an increased number of homes aleviates pressure *against* a bubble effect, since pricing pressures remain low with greater supply. Get it?
But let’s be clear here. There’s nothing county officials could’ve done to prevent (or “cause”) a national phenomenon like the housing bubble/bust we’ve seen in the last 7 or so years. In my opinion, the home-price inflation we’ve seen in Silver Spring, while somewhat effected by the national housing hype, is largely justified by all the additional attractions in DTSS.
“DMZ, increased housing supply doesn’t “cause” a bubble. So, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. In fact, an increased number of homes aleviates pressure *against* a bubble effect, since pricing pressures remain low with greater supply. Get it?”
Sure, except you seem to have not only put words in my mouth (the worse “cause” doesn’t appear in my post at all), but you completely misread what I wrote. I said “minimum”, not “minimal”. I want to enforce a “minimum” level of density, not a “minimal” level of density. paul_silver_spring read it exactly right, so I’m pretty sure I’m not the one who’s having reading and writing problems. Besides, I have a BS in economics. I think I understand supply and demand just fine.
Could Silver Spring have stopped the crazy rise in real estate prices? No, of course not. But could they head off the worst effects in the future by ensuring adequate, plentiful housing? Maybe. They could at least try. Allowing small developments to get set up and use downtown space inefficiently isn’t the right way to go. Either the developers fully exploit a DTSS site, or it shouldn’t be exploited. We’ve already seen the problems with not exploiting our land correctly – let’s not repeat them.
I think DMZ’s point was the opposite of what you’re saying it was.
“I’d prefer the county to force minimum density levels to prevent a repeat of the previous housing bubble from happening in the future.”
Minimum Density => more housing stock => downward pressure
Or as you put it
“In fact, an increased number of homes aleviates pressure *against* a bubble effect, since pricing pressures remain low with greater supply. Get it?”
Sounds like the same argument.
And while the pricing effects of the national housing phenomenon are unpreventable by actions of local govt, the effects of DTSS becoming a very desirable place (the largely justified reason) certainly is *to some degree* controllable by allowing for a greater supply to meet said demand (or at least come CLOSER to meeting it). This can be done by increasing height restrictions and even enacting height minimums (i.e. a minimum density).
Former econ majors unite!
My bad, DMZ. I misunderstood your comment. We’re all on the same page here…