Paul's comments are so important. Why should we be caught in the binary
"smart growth vs. sprawl" paradigm that proponents are pushing? True
environmentalism requires a much wider perspective. The new urbanist model
has greater power right now than more environmentally sound approaches, but
they have won out politically over the landscape architect philospy for the
time being. See below, though, comments from a PhD engineer in the
neighborhoods who works with MIT and Harvard on transporation issues:
*The urban planners, especially the urbanists dogmatically believe that
densification is the answer, and predicate this narrative on a narrow set
of system factors. Cities however, do not exist in a vacuum. Ecosystem
services are critical to a healthy planet and metropolitan area and this is
the landscape architects approach. One in which the varying levels of
density and transects are important and necessary. The idea of sprawl
occurs when land is not used efficiently, but this does not mean high
density. Extending radially can be done well and effectively and offer
better use of land than simply vertical development (densification) or over
paving. Part of the flaw in the hyperdensification narrative is an
incorrect assumption and requisite that the jobs be located in a dense city
downtown and everyone needs to live as close to that down town as possible
(a model that always drives prices upwards). Rather, healthy density which
includes single family detached homes in conjunction with other types of
residential zones from middle density (sorry its not "Missing") and
mid-high rises can achieve better efficiency and shorter or quicker
commutes with lower density and healthier communities (and more attainable
prices). *
over we're mewOur county residents are highly educated and well informed,
but we keep being forced to respond to PR put out by lobbyists with an
agenda most of us might question, regardless of where we come down on these
issues. And if the County succeeded in building genuine "complete
communities" in areas throughout the County, we might have less emphasis on
burdening our particular area with the latest faux affordable complex for
the upper middle class.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 3:23 PM Paul Chrostowski <paul.chrostowski@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Jonathan
This is not a choice between “smart growth” and “ sprawl”. It is also not
a choice between accepting or rejecting development. This is a choice
between doing it right and business as usual. Neither DC nor MOCO require
green construction methods, only green buildings ( to a greater or lesser
extent ). Requiring green construction could cut down on a lot of GHG
emissions. Many other things could be done to mitigate impact like banning
new natural gas hookups and requiring rooftop solar on all these buildings.
I have not been advocating for or against any of these projects, per se,
but if we don’t get it right, we might as well resign ourselves to a
basically unloveable future. All I am asking for here is an EIA so that the
community can embark on a rational planning process. I, for one, want a
good future for my grandkids and, indeed, all living beings. We should
settle for nothing less
Paul C
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 27, 2022, at 1:57 PM, Jonathan Cook <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Paul - we badly need more housing in this country. Is it not
preferable to infill urban areas near mass transit rather than to push
development further out and generate more sprawl and land conversion? Your
GHG accounting is not taking this alternative scenario into account, just
comparing apples to nothing as if the housing won’t get built
elsewhere anyways. John raises good questions about affordability and
equity but assuming those are adequately addressed, I think we need to
accept some development nearby rather than always find reasons to oppose it.
Jonathan (Takoma Ave)
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
<https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/?.src=iOS>
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022, 12:27 PM, John Seelke <jseelke@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Mike - I understand addressing climate change and having resources closer
by. What I am ALSO saying are what the possible ramifications could be -
for example, could my wife CHOOSE to drive FURTHER (to Ft. Totten, where
spots are very hard to come by) as opposed to to Takoma - if the goal is to
eliminate emissions, then at least her action would NOT do that. Too often
decisions are made without looking at the potential downsides...until it's
too late.
In terms of housing, I also wonder about the number of houses that are
considered affordable - and the comment that it is up to 60% of the market
rate. Seth mentioned 50-80 would be in that category - I am curious how
many two or three bedrooms are in that category, of it is only one bedroom
or studios, which would not help many immigrant families searching
desperately for housing.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 12:18 PM Mike's Email <mjohnsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
What, no GHG emissions from suburban sprawl, miles of road and additional
infrastructure and auto use? HUD, DOT, EPA and DOE point to out suburban
sprawl development pattern as a primary reason Americans drive 3-4 times as
much as other developed countries. and one of the biggest challenges to
addressing climate change unique to the U.S.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 27, 2022, at 12:05 PM, Paul Chrostowski <paul.chrostowski@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Have to disagree on this. Construction greenhouse gas emissions are a
significant source here. I have run the math on several of these large
developments—amounts of GHG from the construction process and embodied in
materials are truly staggering. We don’t benefit climate by ignoring these
emissions. There is also the urban heat island that will be exacerbated by
these projects, not to mention hundreds of additional cars pouring out into
the streets. There are also questions about stormwater runoff and
management (most of which will be done by Takoma Park MD) and emission of
criteria air pollutants. Note that the Blairs in SS are a good example of
the failure of transit oriented development to mitigate car pollution.
None of these projects even have an environmental impact assessment so that
people can decide if they fit in with climate action plans. My testimony
on the previous development compelled an environmental impact assessment
but I don’t have the time or inclination to go through that again.
Paul C
Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
Windows
*From: *Mike's Email <mjohnsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent: *Wednesday, April 27, 2022 11:55 AM
*To: *north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject: *[north-takoma] Re: Fwd: Takoma Metro site development plans:
350-380 apartments + retail
I think the proposal looks much better than the last. If you are going to
say we need to address climate change and resource issues, mixed use
development next to transit it how you assess those issues.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 27, 2022, at 10:10 AM, Paul Chrostowski <paul.chrostowski@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Nope—still alive. This is 350 units, much bigger than previous. If you
add up all thedevelopment under construction, pro[posed, or planned for
Takoma DC, we are facing well over 1,000 new housing units in this tiny
corner of the world.
Paul C
Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
Windows
*From: *Dvidutis <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent: *Wednesday, April 27, 2022 9:59 AM
*To: *north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; hodgesheights@xxxxxxxxx
*Subject: *[north-takoma] Re: Fwd: Takoma Metro site development plans:
350-380 apartments + retail
I thought we killed this.
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/aol-news-email-weather-video/id646100661>
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022, 8:22 AM, Seth Grimes <seth.grimes@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Developer EYA's plans for the Takoma Metro site include "studio to
three-bedroom units and 10,000-20,000 square feet of retail," reports DC
Urban Turf
<https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/a-glimpse-of-the-350-unit-proposed-at-takoma-metro-station/19571>.
"Roughly 50-80 units would be affordable to households earning up to 60% of
area median income (AMI)..
"There would be 184 residential and retail parking spaces and
a pick-up/drop-off/loading turnaround area under the building off Cedar
Street. The site will also be reconfigured, which will eliminate WMATA's
existing short-term parking and convert the Kiss & Ride drop-off to a
driveway loop. Two acres of open space will be split across a passive park
along Eastern Avenue and an activated retail plaza with terraced steps at
the Metro entrance along Carroll Street."
Visit EYA's project Web site at https://takomastationdevelopment.com/ ;.
Seth
Welcome to the North Takoma Park Listserve! (For NTP residents and special
invitees only) To Subscribe: Go to
https://www.freelists.org/list/north-takoma and enter your email. You
will need to confirm by clicking the link sent to your email, and then be
confirmed by an administrator. To Unsubscribe (we are sad to see you go):
Send an email to north-takoma-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the subject
"unsubscribe" Questions/Comments/Problems? Email the administrators at
north-takoma-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Welcome to the North Takoma Park Listserve! (For NTP residents and special
invitees only) To Subscribe: Go to
https://www.freelists.org/list/north-takoma and enter your email. You
will need to confirm by clicking the link sent to your email, and then be
confirmed by an administrator. To Unsubscribe (we are sad to see you go):
Send an email to north-takoma-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the subject
"unsubscribe" Questions/Comments/Problems? Email the administrators at
north-takoma-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
