Apparently, I am not the only critical of the staff report on Woodmont East. My councilman agrees; Councilman Roger Berliner has sent a letter to the Planning Board Chairman critical of the staff report on the proposed project at Woodmont East II. Here is an excerpt:
Intense controversy has been created by two distinct aspects of the applicant's proposal: (1) construction of a 132 foot tall so-called "floating" bar across, and on top of, the open space that exists today [footnote 1 here: Notwithstanding repeated requests, the project sponsors have never shared a drawing of what this structure would look like from street level nor does the staff report contain one. Instead, almost all the drawings show mere dotted lines that make it appear as though the building were made of plexiglass, which could account for the report's description of it as "floating."]; and (2) an eight story hotel that would form a Woodmont Avenue "street wall" and extend into and further diminish the amount of open space.One aspect of Councilman Berliner's letter which I especially like is that support for a park is not anti-development. Precisely because so much development is already approved near to that intersection is why more open space is needed there. A local landscape architect kindly produced drawings of a more attractive alternative to the current proposal (second drawing here).
The areas of controversy essentially define two competing visions of what is appropriate for this parcel:
* A Tokyo-like "Linear Park": The combination of the so-called "connector bar" and hotel would replace the currently under-optimized open space with the staff report describes as an "expansive" 75 foot wide, paved hardscape "linear park." This "linear park" must accommodate many uses, including 13 feet for the Capital Crescent Trail, up tot 38 feet for the Purple Line, retail users, and the public. The report acknowledges this poses a "difficult" challenge. Nonetheless, the report extols the virtues of this linear park, including what it describes as a "protected outdoor living room" (formed by the 30 foot ceiling of the building that would "float" on top of this space). [footnote 2 here: In discussions at a public forum that I hosted on this proposed development, the applicants described this "outdoor living room" as comparable to projects built in Tokyo, Japan. Community members were somewhat less charitable in their description--they argued it was closer to a "slot canyon."]
* A Green Commons: The other vision, as reflected in this numerous e-mails that your office (and mine) has received on this proposal, is to maximize this space for a "green public commons," a true gathering place in a natural setting. [footnote 3 here: Unfortunately, the report does not assess the loss of direct sunlight that would result from the construction of the "connector bar." Yet it adopts verbatim the following language from the applicants proposal: "the play of afternoon sun . . . will service to activate its facade."] . . . Contrary to your staff's suggestion that an urban paved "hardscape" is inevitable, these drawings depict the "garden" quality recognized as critical to Bethesda's character in the Sector Plan. [footnote 4 here: Staff points out that there are "green" areas within several blocks of this particular parcel, essentially arguing that a green open space here is not necessary. It is respectfully submitted that green spaces are not always fungible, and that the needs to this particular parcel are not satisfied by green space on the other side of Wisconsin Avenue.] Moreover, as the renderings make clear, this space is possible while still accommodating the construction of two state-of-the-art "green" buildings and is much more capable of ultimately accommodating the Purple Line.
