The next level of discussions are finally taking place between the operators of the Laurel Commons mall and the city of Laurel, prior to the redevelopment process getting started. According to the local newspapers, there are couple of issues where the city and the developers disagree. Have to believe it's all part of the negotiation process and it'll all be worked out...but who knows?
The city is rightly worried about the traffic impact on little old Fourth Street, so they'd rather not have the bus stops along that street. Commons, not surprisingly, isn't too thrilled about the idea of putting the bus stops within their property. (I've read a little more since writing this, so...) Apparently the city would like the bus stops to be on the Route 1 side of the mall. I have to agree with the Commons guys on this one: it's a very bad idea. The planned open-air restaurants and stores on the Route 1 side are the first step towards a major transformation of Route 1. Having idling buses parked along Route 1 would destroy the "walkability" of that stretch of the road. I can understand the desire to minimize impact to 4th Street, but allowing the Commons the option of bringing the bus stops onto their property (but on the Fourth Street side) would be the best way of proceeding.
For reasons that weren't explained in anything I read, the city is interested in having a skating rink added to the property as part of the "public amenities" requirements. While there's something rather romantic about having a lively spot for outdoor wintertime activity, it's not like we have a shortage of ice in the area (The Gardens Ice Rink is only a couple of miles away). It's a pretty significant expense, so you can understand why Commons isn't thrilled with this idea either. The city would be better served by requesting something that would have something closer to year-round usefulness - a nice chunk of greenspace for performances, festivals?
And finally, and not surprisingly, we have another battle over the question of the relative desirability of renters versus condo owners. The city would like "Phase 2" of the project to include 400 condo units versus the current plan to build 440 rental apartments. As I discussed in an earlier blog entry, I'm not convinced that this is as big of a deal as those on the pro-condo side make it out to be. I still haven't seen any real evidence indicating that mid- to high-level rental units (and that's what we're talking about here) bring residents that are less economically beneficial to the community. Given the expected age of renters, I can actually see them spending more in a complex like the new Commons development. It would be nice if the city could provide some studies behind their position. At the moment it looks more like this is being driven by public perception: "During the last year, the city government has been criticized for allowing too many rental apartments", said Karl Brendle of the city planning commission. Listening to public complaints is always a good idea, but educating the public is also a valuable part of leadership.
The next public hearing regarding Laurel Commons is scheduled for Monday, November 26th.
In a semi-related development, the Hawthorne Place project passed it's first of many hurdles with the city. The maximum building height has been lowered to 16 stores. Many, many more meetings to be conducted on this project in the future. Still several years until we see any results.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Keith,
I'd be happy to send you the powerpoint I did on the ice rink. I think when you see the justifications presented in the document, you'll see the merit in the proposal. (BTW, it was the Council President's idea, one I fully support, & one that I think most in the community will come to treasure.)
Mike Sarich
Ward II Councilman
Thanks for the comment, Councilman. I'd be interested in seeing your presentation.
I'm certain that having an ice rink would be very nice (I lived in Northern Virginia when Reston Town Center opened and I've been to Rockefeller Center), but it was an unexpected idea.
As I wrote in the initial post, I can understand the Commons concern about long-term costs. I assume that size would also be a concern, as a rink would have to fit in with the rest of their plans for the site. Location would be important. Ideally, it would be located adjacent to one or more restaurants, so that it could be used for outdoor eating space in the off-season.
Keith
The ideas behind the bus stop and the ice rink have a common thread: Perception. I think it is a very underrated quality. Both items have to do with the perception of safety. To compete with the Bowies and the Bethesdas and the Columbias, it is not enough for Laurel Mall to just be a safe place to shop for nice things. It also has to LOOK like a safe place to be. Hence, the ice rink. Which is connoted with safety and beauty and apple pie and such. Conversely, bus stops are where those evil poor people go to, and they just "ruin" everything. I say this tongue-in-cheek, but the perception of niceness (as well as simply being nice) is imperative for the redevelopment of the Mall to be a success. I certainly hope the city can come to agreement on both issues. I also hope the city holds fast on the issue of condos vs apartments, and maybe even tries to reduce the number a bit. The way I look at it, the Mall owners got a gift when Hawthorne place was announced. Now, there will be more close-by residents with money to spend, and thus, they can draw higher-quality retail tenants. Which is what Laurel has been looking for all along. The biggest issue may be how to get people out of the car and walk to their job/restaurant/store. At a bare minimum, there will have to major driveway consolidation on Route 1, which will be tough to do, politically. But also, MD SHA might have to start considering Route 1 to be Laurel's other main street - a true local road, not an arterial. In other words, Route 1's function should have less emphasis on getting cars to move through the corridor, and more emphasis on getting cars from one part of Laurel to another.
-Bryon
Thanks for the input, Bryon.
While I agree that the rink could have an impact on perception, I don't think the bus stops mean much in that respect (you'll find bus stops at the "Bowies, Bethesdas and Columbias", too).
I still haven't seen any convincing argument for condos over apartments - it's looking like this is mostly about perception, too. As a condo owner, I know that a significant number of condos end up being rental units, so...
Sign me up for the Route 1 "driveway consolidation" idea. Even now, traffic flow could be improved by eliminating one of the two lights/entrances to the Laurel Shopping Center. (Two stoplights about 100 feet apart???)
I think the best "amenity" that could be extracted from the Commons developers is the first phase of an improved Route 1 - wide sidewalks, wide island, wide crosswalks. But that's a dream that would have to happen in conjunction with whoever eventually redevelops the other side of the street.
Keith, Bryon here. Some more thoughts.
The more I think about it, the more I see potential for a problem on the horizon:
Over the long term, Laurel City is going to have to balance all the rentals and condos with something extra-nice in its downtown core to keep these new “mid-level” and “upper-level” people IN the city and milling about, or they will simply leave and the city will be in for an ugly couple of decades. The fact is that other places can afford to be overbuilt residentially – especially with large swaths of multi-unit housing. Bethesda can overbuild – they have a large downtown white-collar job base; Hyattsville can overbuild – they have two metro stations; Columbia can overbuild (by relying on a reputation of having a good school system). I love living in Laurel, but it has none of these things and cannot afford to overbuild residentially in its current state. Hence, it needs a Great Attractor. The ice rink is a nice idea, but it’s small potatoes (what about the other 8 months of the year?). One single 1000+ person professional firm located on Route 1 is worth 20 ice rinks. That would be the great attractor to keep the people that the Mall owners are trying to attract. Of course, every other locality wants the same thing…
In lieu of a 1000+ person professional firm locating on Route 1, Laurel is going to need another great attractor. This goes back to my perception argument: the Laurel commercial corridor needs to look stunning, top to bottom. Drive up and down Route 1 from Contee to H.C. line. The most prominent businesses include a cycle shop, a vitamin store, a check-cashing establishment, a mattress discounter, and an Arby’s. The best restaurant in the city is in the ugliest strip mall. This is the reason that Laurel needs to work harder than most other cities to attract higher-income residents and retail (also having a PG address makes it immediately off-limits to 20% of the region, I’m guessing). No matter how great I think Laurel is (and I do), the average Joe traveling though the city’s commercial heart would be less than impressed – especially in comparison to other suburban cities. For the City to look stunning (and attract and keep the newcomers) it has to do everything it can - bus stops in the rear of the mall; parking garages hidden by trees; buried utilities along route 1; tree-lined wide brick sidewalks; tree-lined medians; common street-scaping on BOTH sides of the route, if not common facades (Laurel has row after row after row of strip malls and none of them look similar); big fat inviting crosswalks across Route 1 and Cherry lanes. Can Laurel get all of these things overnight? No. But hopefully the powers that be hold the developers feet to the fire on some of these beautification issues. I want Laurel to present itself as the great town that I think it is. With Konterra coming, the competition is only going to get tougher.
And speaking of competition, as the ICC gets closer to being built there’s going to be a massive amount of residential building going on in the Laurel area (i.e. other cities and counties). You want proof – look what I-270 did to Frederick County. In addition to Konterra, Laurel City is going to have to compete with AA and HC, too. Is the average Joe going rent a brand new $1600/mo 1-BR apartment in Laurel City or just across the County Line in Russet or North Laurel? I want the City to make that decision a no-brainer.
-Bryon
I hope any of the local Pols reading this don’t think that I’m being offensive. Quite the contrary, I want them to be meaner and more selfish and hold out with developers in order to get the amenities that make a commercial core more attractive and inviting.
Post a Comment