If you build it, they will come. If you build it too much, you won't have anyplace to put their cars.

The Columbia Association has offered up its version of the future of Symphony Woods. It differs from that of General Growth Properties Inc., which has laid out a 30-year plan for the redevelopment of all of Columbia's Town Center.

General Growth would like to turn Symphony Woods into a "cultural park, " complete with a new "experience" library, a museum, a children's theater and a new CA headquarters, all of which could be four stories high.

The CA proposal -- which features a fountain and a small café -- is a lot less ambitious, and is also more realistic in the sense that it is the association that owns this particular Town Center property.

General Growth -- and indeed the citizenry of Columbia and Howard County -- has more than a passing interest in this undulating 38 acres of wooded ground. Symphony Woods constitutes a key piece of the puzzle that is the redevelopment of Columbia's downtown, to which the company, the chief land-holder in Town Center, has devoted much planning and public-relations effort.

Under either plan, Symphony Woods figures to be more of an attraction than it is now, if only because there will be more people around as redevelopment makes downtown a livelier place. The question is this: How much is too much?

Symphony Woods now is mainly a buffer between Merriweather Post Pavilion and Little Patuxent Parkway. Except for a couple of annual outdoor events, virtually no one comes to enjoy this green space and that's a shame and a waste.

But heavy construction and cultural-experience destinations will -- if they're done right, at least -- draw auto traffic and create new parking needs that would run counter to General Growth's stated desire for a pedestrian-friendly downtown.

A middle ground between completely passive parkland and a cultural campus makes the most sense for all concerned. Of the two visions offered, the CA plan comes closer to that ideal.

user comments (20)

user wildelakemike says...

While both CA's vision and GGP's suggestion are both compatible with the use of the land in Symphony Woods, there are several other questions that should be asked before an answer can be found. For example, which plan will really get more people to enjoy the park? Most parks that truly are enjoyed by people are surrounded by density - residences and places of business. The CA plan is still very passive in nature. Will that attract people? A small restaurant will hardly serve as a destintation, except on those rare occurences when something else is scheduled at Symphony Woods. In other words, are we just wishful thinking that a relatively less intense use of Symphony Woods will really attract people? And without people, no one will ever feel safe using Symphony Woods, and that is a real concern. Regarding traffic, I would suggest that this issue being continually raised as an argument against development reflects a misunderstanding of the future of downtown. The whole point is to get people to walk more! Downtown's amenities are going to be primarily for those who live in or near the downtown. Visitors will have many opportunities to park, but then walking or some other form of transportation will be needed to get around town. In any case, I would suggest that downtown Columbia will not reach its full potential with small, incremental changes. And those small incremental changes, I am afraid, are what you are suggesting in your editorial. That's too bad.

Posted 7:06 AM, 09.25.09 | Permalink

user commonsenseplease says...

This is yet another wake-up call for the people of Columbia. CA neglected our park for a decade and only woke up to save face and preserve its grip over Columbia. Had GGP never proposed anything for Symphony Woods, CA wouldn't have done a thing. The plan itself is nice but a cafe isn't going to get anybody to go there. I keep hearing about a vibrant downtown and this plan doesn't seem to create much to get excited about.

Posted 9:27 AM, 09.25.09 | Permalink

user says...

What books on urban planning are you folks reading? You say you are in favor of a vibrant attraction downtown but not if it brings more traffic and people. Vibracy requires people. People go to the centers of cities because there are other people there. Cafes and other venues require people to succeed. This is not rocket science. Great parks were never built by seeking the "middle ground". They require the same kind of bold thinking that created Columbia in the first place. Folks are not going to flock to Symphony Woods to experience the middle ground. You reason that we don't want anything too exciting or attractive because might create new parking needs. Wouldn't a more walkable downtown and a more connected Columbia address some of those needs? Some cities are already limiting parking options so that people have to start using alternative ways of getting around. What you are saying is that we should limit our vison so that we will have enough parking. This is backwards thinking. Shouldn't we in Columbia begin to look beyond the needs of the automobile as we plan for the future? I am once again disappointed by the Fliers knee-jerk reaction to any change. It seems to me that your comments are straight out of the local no-growth playbook.

Posted 10:33 AM, 09.25.09 | Permalink

user tom3 says...

So after five years and $5 million of lien payer monies you get a water play pad, some more paths and a cafe. Wow! Not much bang for the buck. Work with other stakeholders in the downtown development you get a linked park plus more amenities and the CA lien payers don't have to pay for it. What am I missing?

Posted 9:32 PM, 09.26.09 | Permalink

user commonsenseplease says...

USER, I agree the Flier has become remarkably on-sided in recent months. Completely ignored the Planning Board delays on the downtown GPA and ran inaccurate, on-sided news stories and Editorials on the Oakland Mills Walgreens and the Village Center ZRA. While they try to interview someone from both sides, they appear to be listening to only one resulting in some spin and misinformation. Maybe they're interviewing for a job as the official propoganda machine for CA and the no-growth anti-change crowd.

Posted 7:38 PM, 09.30.09 | Permalink

user citizentaxpayerjane says...

That's right, it's all propaganda and conspiracy when Patuxent does a good job reporting details.

Posted 7:48 AM, 10.01.09 | Permalink

user commonsenseplease says...

Citizen Taxpayer, I agree 100% that the Flier must stick to the "facts" when they write news and they generally do a good job at that. But, the Editorials are supposed to present their "opinion" and those "opinions" have been slanted to the anti-change agruments recently. Lots of people in Howard Co don't know these matters in detail so they are heavily swayed by what these papers write. If we are to save Howard Co, especially some of the declining parts of Columbia, we need some courage and change. This paper just seems to be favoring the anti-change agruments, which just makes it harder for us to enact the positive changes.

Posted 8:08 AM, 10.01.09 | Permalink

user independent says...

Howard County is already changing. Approvals for huge shopping districts in Columbia started the commercial village center exodus, and more approvals like Walgreens will hasten the demise. In Europe the village center concept is alive and well. People walk to neighborhood pubs instead of driving. They meet neighbors in small shops and have conversations. The Village Center concept was not faulty, the decisions subsequently made were faulty. When folks want to put the brakes on and think about the future, it's because of these faulty past decisions that we're now living with. Residential real estate taxes never cover the cost of infrastructure required, but we're still heading toward massive increases in residential density. All of Howard will pay for 5,500 new residence in Towne Center and more in the other 9 villages.

Posted 8:37 AM, 10.01.09 | Permalink

user says...

Independent, the fact that village centers work in Europe is totally irrelevant. Unlike many other countries, and despite recent events here, American consumers get to decide what they want to buy and where they want to shop. The village centers broke down because the owners and communities haven't adapted to new retail trends. I'm sure you'd prefer a Walgreens in the village center, but, unless you're going to build it yourself, it's not going to happen. It is a fact that the business needs more volume than it can get in a village center so, if they can't build it where they want in Oakland Mills, they'll go somewhere else. Neither you, the community or the government are going to change that. So the residents of Oakland Mills get nothing. A resonable thinker wouldn't let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good." But, the truly bizzare part of your post is, after talking about walkability, you want a new downtown with nobody living there. Independent, I've read the plan for downtown and astories about dozens of other American suburbs who are reinventing themselves in the Smary Growth model. Residential density is a must to make the mixed use, walkability and sustainability come together. Referring to 5,500 condos over 30 YEARS as "massive" is ridiculous. Mixed use doesn't work without the residential and you know it. what's your preference - that Howard County bulldoze more farms to expand the suburbs or build nothing at all?

Posted 10:10 AM, 10.02.09 | Permalink

user independent says...

Infrastructure is not there to support this level of residential density. Taxpayers will clearly pay for the infrastructure, not paid by those who profit from increases in residential density. Note that I'm not responding with words and phrases like 'ridiculous', 'bizarre part of your..", "I'm sure you'd..". But sifting through the language, the argument presented is still lacking in persuasiveness.

Posted 12:46 PM, 10.02.09 | Permalink

user commonsenseplease says...

So all residential development is a loser for taxpayers? The economic benefits never outweigh the taxpayer costs? If that's true, then why would we build one more house in Howard Co? I would think that this residential development would be far more beneficial to taxpayers than any suburban or rural development. These units will require less land, less natural resources, less schools (they're condos, not 4 bedroom houses), etc. That's the whole concept of Smart Growth! The alternative is continued UNsmart growth and sprawl - unless you really think we should just stop building homes all together. From everything I've read, Smart Growth across ther country is a huge winner for taxpayers. It sounds like you're one of the folks who is just against everything that involveds development and a developer making some money (Downtown, Walgreens, Village Center redevelopment, Turf Valley project, etc.). Hopefully the rest of Howard County will educate themselves enough to know that 5,500 residential units over 30 years isn't "massive" as you suggest.

Posted 4:34 PM, 10.02.09 | Permalink

user independent says...

Land developers who finance political campaigns go back to the same elected official for decisions to increase profits by deciding in their favor. Profits are taken, and money flows back into political campaigns. Taxpayers foot the bill to increase profits for some as the candidate uses the funds to re-run into perpetuity. This is not theory, it occurs every day and it's no secret, though stating this way might seem new. There are well documented cases in our county that show decisions being made while extraordinary campaign money flows from the recipient of the favorable decision. Also, in other counties this activity is outlawed. Land developers are precluded from contributing within 3 years of any decision in at least one of our neighboring counties. Aside from that, your point is understood. Our population is ever increasing and housing is needed, so the question remains; where to build? Rural or upward in high density areas? Another fact (not theory), taxpayers most definitely pay for the increase in residential density. Real estate taxes do not ocver the costs of roads, schools, sewer and water. These permanent land use decisions would best be made without the presence of money from one side to the decision maker.

Posted 9:04 AM, 10.03.09 | Permalink

user wildelakemike says...

Good debate between Independent and Commonsenseplease. This discussion sharpens the distinctions that have been alluded to so often in the debate about downtown. In my post that began this discussion, I suggested a significant paradigm shift that would create a walkable downtown, where retail and residences and workplaces all came together. The original Rouse plan for Columbia envisioned just this sort of community. But, like a three-legged stool, all three components must be present or the stool falls over. In my visits to American cities, such as Houston and Albuquerque, residences were omitted - just retail and office spaces, with some cultural amenities, were built. Driving through each of these cities on a weekend was like driving through a ghost town. That is not what we want in Columbia. We want people. We want neighborhoods. We want a place where people really do live, work and recreate. Will all of this be paid for by the taxpayers rather than the developers? There are two answers. First, the net benefit, economicially, to the community should be substantial, even if the County contributes to the infrastructure costs. Second, however, even if there is some net cost, I would suggest that the cost would be far less than letting downtown Columbia deteriorate as it has been over the past 15 years. Office construction since 1995 involves one small building on Lake Kittimaquandi. Retail construction includes a few poorly placed restaurants near the Mall. If we take off our rose-colored glasses, we would see a Mall that is no longer a Class A mall, we would see deteriorating infrastructure, and we would not see people. Therefore, we, as a community, need to get behind efforts to rehabilitate and revitalize our village centers and our downtown. And, that is happening! So many people are now seeing this need. And that, my friends, is very exciting.

Posted 9:48 AM, 10.03.09 | Permalink

user citizentaxpayerjane says...

Towne Center: 5500 more residences, 13,000 more people, 9 other villages: 500 new residences each 12,000 more people, Turf Valley, 2,500 more residences, 8,000 more people, Doughregan manor: 300 new residences with 1,000 more people, and those are just the ones that have been in the news. Ridiculous? Absolutely insane. Real estate taxes are heading to unsustainable levels to compensate. So if being against cramming as many people into Howard as can breathe here is anti growth, then YES, this type of growth will certainly bring the change everyone keeps talking about. We can't even fix the problems we have now, and still, decisions are being made to plow ahead incredibly irresponsibly. Bizarre? You bet. Bizarre that anyone would think our current infrastructure could handle this.

Posted 5:50 PM, 10.04.09 | Permalink

user commonsenseplease says...

Citizen Taxpayer is right. The cost of adding residents in many of those locations means wider roads, new schools, more trash services, etc. Very hard for the County to service. That's the whole premise around Smart Growth. Bringing the people close to the services in a connected walkable downtown is a far better option than Turf Valley, Doughregan, etc. We have our suburbs and rural communities which, while inefficient, give people viable existing housing options. The only missing piece is a real downtown in which we can focus the next generation of growth in an environmentally sustainable core. Let's also not forget that, even in downtown, this population will grow a mere 430 people year year. The new jobs and stemming the decline will more than pay for the publicly funded infrastructure.

Posted 6:39 PM, 10.04.09 | Permalink

user wildelakemike says...

Assuming, CTJ, that you are correct in your predictions. Adding the numbers, that would mean that there would be 28,500 people and 8800 new residences built, over a period as long as 30 years. Remembering that Howard County's current population is about 300,000, and there are about 100,000 residences in the County, this level of growth is hardly surprising. Indeed such growth is necessary if such amenities as public transportation, expanded restaurant and cultural choices, and increased types of housing options are ever to be possible in Howard County. As for the limitations of our infrastructure - well, changes in how we use are infrastructure are coming. That's what happens as our population continues to increase. Where else are our children and grandchildren supposed to live and prosper? We will need to work together to solve our infrastructure problems, not just always use lack of infrastructure as an excuse not to do anything.

Posted 7:00 AM, 10.05.09 | Permalink

user citizentaxpayerjane says...

The mere mention of public transportation is a deal breaking turn off. We don't protect people on public transport, we don't clean our existing public transport, and we don't monitor criminals who use it to expand their territory. Public transportation is dirty, disease ridden, crime ridden, dangerous, and did I mention, filthy? That 28k population increase is not over the time span of 30 years, who are you kidding. It's not near the total in any case, and represents a handful compared with the reality that many more residences are being approved and moving forward every week. I'm always skeptical when someone who tightly bound to an outcome starts talking about 'our grandchildren'. As if.

Posted 7:25 AM, 10.05.09 | Permalink

user commonsenseplease says...

I'm as skeptical as CTJ about the public transportation part. We've seen Owings Mills go south as soon as it was connected to the city via public transportation. Now, I think WLM is talking about an intra-city system that doesn't really connect downtown to the "outside world" so that might prevent the influx of the wrong element. However, even the transportation within Columbia/Howard Co must remain well maintained. Other communities are succeding where some are failing in this area, so we just need to do it better. As for the rest of WLM's argument, he's right on. This increase in population is tiny over a 30-year period and everything we know today about transportation and infrastruacture will change over that period. If the city is vibrant and attracts the best businesses and residents, investing in some infrastructure down the road will not be a concern. And that's coming from someone who will be here then to pay for it!

Posted 8:21 PM, 10.05.09 | Permalink

user independent says...

Transportation will link area major cities, not isolate Columbia. Also, Columbia will be an inner city with the kind of density being discussed. Residential growth of this magnitude is fiscally irresponsible, but proceeding nontheless. Also, the 30 year timespan is difficult to if not impossible to trust.

Posted 7:01 AM, 10.06.09 | Permalink

user commonsenseplease says...

183 new residences a year is irresponsible? I wish they'd get it built twice as fast!

Posted 5:50 PM, 10.07.09 | Permalink