Half right

I agree with the writers of an op-ed that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post, "Metro Opens Doors (To Automobiles)," that the proposed development of 85 rowhouses isn't the right development for land on the Takoma Metro site.

I think EYA does excellent work, but that particular site demands a denser project. But there is no reason that EYA couldn't produce such a product. See my testimony on the subject here: Comments on Proposed EYA Development at Takoma Metro Station, Washington DC. That entry discusses the idea of a "Transit First" land use and transportation planning paradigm for DC--and for WMATA.

So a denser project is at odds with the op-ed's assertion that because there are other multiunit buildings around, this site should stay park like. I don't agree and not just because that's not how they develop around transit sites in NYC.

The multibillion dollar investment in transit in the DC region must be leveraged. DC needs more tax paying residents. DC needs more living arrangements that discourage, or at the very least encourage, non-automobile centric ways of mobility.

My testimony proposed a multiunit building with no dedicated parking for residents, shared parking only a la Flexcar and Zipcar, only with short term parking designed to support the commercial district in Takoma DC/Takoma Park.

Frankly, if people want a decent commercial district there--they complain about not having basic retail such as groceries (which are available a few blocks away at the Takoma Park Silver Spring Co-op) or a hardware store--they need more population, and to be able to provide more reasons for people to frequent the commercial district, which they would, if they lived by foot, bicycle and transit.