I agree with Frances that the new EYA design for the apartment building at
the Takoma Metro Station is an improvement in a number of ways over the
versions that we saw previously.
I'd also like to see more clarity around anticipated pedestrian movement at
the site, so I hope EYA will provide more specifics on that issue. And
overall I do wish the height was closer to that of the other higher
apartment buildings right around the station, which are generally four
stories tall. Though the design does show some stepping back from the
Eastern Avenue area, with the highest parts closest to the tracks, which is
helpful. It's conceivable EYA could be open to more stepping back of that
sort. I did ask them to provide information on the impact of the proposed
structure on sunlight in the close-by area, and I hope we'll see some
details soon on that point.
As several others have noted, there will be a virtual forum for Takoma Park
residents on the proposal on Monday, May 9 starting at 7:00 PM. Here's the
zoom link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86342327213?pwd=ZDl4cm93Y0ZReER3UEtNTjlOSGhQZz09
-- Peter Kovar, Takoma Park City Council, Ward One
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 3:34 PM Frances Phipps via PEN <pen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
*THE GOOD:* EYA has had about 20 + years to come up with this design,
after the two earlier ones, first of 67 townhouses, and the 2015 one of 193
units were withdrawn due to controversy. I urge everyone to click through
the power point presentation to the ANC 4B of April 25, 2022 :
https://takomastationdevelopment.com/s/ANC-4B-Presentation-April-25-2022. The
following is my interpretation as an experienced planning consultant and a
52 year resident of Takoma Park.
A. The functional division of uses is good and a great improvement
over 2015.
1. The transit zone is located directly adjacent and parallel to
the metro tracks with the primary bus entrance on Carroll near the
overpass. There will be secondary bus access from Eastern.
2. The residential/retail building is centered adjacent to the
transit zone and is separated from Eastern Avenue.
3. The l.5 to 2 acres of passive park land is located across from
the residences on Cedar and on Eastern which will act as a buffer to the
Maryland residents and those District residents in the existing
apartments on Eastern. This is a great improvement over earlier
iterations and acknowledges the consistent objections that were raised to
the 2015 edition.
B. A great deal of thought went into safe and efficient circulation
of pedestrians, bikes and buses. On the whole, it looks as though it may
work well, with the exception of pedestrian access from Carroll near the
overpass which requires pedestrians to cross the bus lanes. This is
equally true of pedestrians arriving from all other access points.
C. Between 10,000 and 20,000 gsf. of retail is proposed for the
building’s ground floor facing Carroll and a bit of Cedar – which is
exactly where retail on this site should be.
D. There is the possibility of adding 50 -80 affordable units,
stimulated by new D.C. tax credits. However, the greatest need for
affordable units is for families with one or more children. We will have
to see if the proposed two and three unit apartments will be affordable or
if they are limited to the one unit apartment.
*THE BAD:*
A. The architecture of the residential/retail building is primarily
functional and massive – with long unbroken volumes, no structural
variations or setbacks, only varying façade applications – about which more
later.
B. It is extremely difficult to squeeze 380 residential units –
double the number of 2015’s 193 units – in a limited footprint structure in
an attractive manner. Actually, we do not know what the footprint or
square footage is as the only indication provided is a “height of seven
stories”. Total height will depend upon how high the ceilings are on each
floor. Typically, retail tends to have a height of 12’, while residential
is more frequently given as 10’ between floors. There is no mention of a
utility penthouse on what is shown to be a flat roof. The residential
facing Cedar and Eastern shows as only 6 stories(slide 26), but J. Landman
notes that the presentation stated five stories. Developers are a
slippery tribe. We’ll have to see what is finally proposed.
C. Density is not a moral good. Depending on circumstances, it may
be a benefit or a detriment. We must keep in mind that these proposed 380
units are in addition to the all the apartment units which have been
recently constructed within walking distance of the Metro within the past
few years. I apologize that I have not kept track of this rapidly growing
number, but I think the total is already in the thousands. We must also
acknowledge that just because you live next to Metro does not guarantee
that your primary mode of travel is transit. There are few residents who do
not own, or use a car at least some of the time. And we must also
acknowledge the impact of the pandemic which has changed the location of
work from an office to home.
D. Parking. There will be 184 parking spaces for 380 residential
units and +/- 20,000 s.f. of retail. There will be only 1 parking space per
6 units. Where will the other cars park? Where will their visitors park?
Where
will their contractors/cleaners park? When those who oppose parking at
the Metro site come up with a workable solution to this issue, then we can
all rejoice. Until then, this is something Takoma Park must carefully
analyze for impact on its neighborhoods.
E. All impacts – visual, traffic, parking and density will be on
Maryland residents. The overwhelming majority of Takoma District residents
will experience none of these impacts. The singular exception may be those
in the three apartments on Eastern between the Cady Lee and the Metro All
the tax review benefits will accrue to the District. It is no wonder
that those District residents who do comment on the Metro development
support whatever is proposed. It is equally no wonder that the Maryland
residents who do comment on the Metro legitimately raise multiple concerns.
*THE UGLY:*
A. Have you seen the elevation?! Oh, go ahead - look. It’s slide 26
in the link above. Surly no one could call the building beautiful. It’s
not even attractive. It is shockingly, creatively ugly. And, in what way
does this building respond to the culture, history and community of Takoma
Park Maryland or Takoma D.C.? It is in the D.C. Historic District for
heaven’s sake. Poor Carroll Street and upper Cedar. The massive building wall
with its courses of large, repetitive rust colored bars on two major sides
looks like a modern high-rise prison. Nina Perry-Brown, in her article in
the D.C.UrbanTurf, quotes the presenters stating: “The design of this
façade is meant to evoke the movement train.” Huh? What did he say?
Everyone knows that when an architect has to tell you what his design
means, the design has spectacularly failed. No wonder we’re not
presented this image until almost the end of the slide show.
B. On the other hand, compared to this hideous example, the skin of
the residential wall facing Eastern is almost pleasant. Massive, but
otherwise, not too offensive. For this, we should be thankful.
*FINALLY* , there is an end note to the D.C.UrbanTurf article in italics
which states: *“Note: All renderings are preliminary, do not reflect
proposed landscaping/open space, and may not reflect materials and final
design details.”* So what does this mean? Does it give us hope that
maybe the bars will be removed? Or, does it make us fear that the
parkland, landscaping isn’t real?
Please take a look at this proposal. Please remember that its final form
will be written in concrete and it will dominate the Metro landscape for
our lifetimes. Please comment publicly when EYA comes soon to present to
Takoma Park – date and time to be announced.
Frances on Holly.
*From:* PEN [mailto:pen-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx ;<pen-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>] *On
Behalf Of *Robin Broad
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 27, 2022 9:39 AM
*To:* Philadelphia-Eastern Neighborhood list <pen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Cc:* Priscilla Labovitz <plabovitz@xxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* Re: [PEN] Takoma Metro site development plans: 350-380
apartments + retail
Anyone find the height vs that of the prior proposal? As some of you will
recall, the height as well as the traffic impact studies have been among
the contentious issues in the past.
While there appear to be some positive changes, the overall building (as
shown in the views from various streets) looks pretty massive and not
particularly attractive. Perhaps the passive park (whatever that is) hides
at least some of the building from sight from Cedar.
Robin / Tulip
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
<#m_-8916177664709537874_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_______________________________________________
PEN mailing list
PEN@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://mail.penhood.net/mailman/listinfo/pen
