Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Crc topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EDA discusses Corporate Research Center future, including possible 'virtual shell' buildings for quicker tenant occupancy
Summary
Montgomery County Economic Development Authority members discussed options to increase return on investment at the Corporate Research Center (CRC), including mixed-use redevelopment, multi-family or commercial uses in phase 2 and exploring a virtual shell building approach to speed tenant occupancy; no formal action was taken.
Montgomery County Economic Development Authority members reviewed options for the Corporate Research Center (CRC) and discussed using a "virtual shell building" approach and other development strategies to increase returns on county-owned property.
Staff reported the CRC’s first phase is currently fully occupied and that phase two still has multiple pads available for development. "They are trying to determine what way they want to go," a staff member said, describing options ranging from more local-serving retail or restaurants to flexible commercial or residential uses. The staff presentation noted that some CRC buildings show low-density occupancy—"the 1901 Group Building may only have 30 or 40 people in 40,000 square feet"—and that overall occupancy in the park is approximately 92 percent.
Board members and staff discussed a "virtual shell building" concept: finish architectural and civil plans and obtain permits so a site can move more quickly to construction and occupancy when a tenant is identified. Staff explained shell-building permits are typically valid for up to two years and that a virtual shell reduces lead time by pre-clearing design and permits. "The concept would be this is just a stage beyond prepared pay. Pay. Correct. That much closer to being on the line," one board member said.
Why it matters: the CRC is county-involved economic-development real estate; decisions about the park’s future use affect how the county markets property and competes with nearby research and industrial parks. Staff noted prior efforts to attract developers stalled during an economic downturn and that market needs have shifted since COVID.
Board members suggested further study. Staff proposed returning with developer conversations, cost estimates for renderings and plans, and additional analysis at a future meeting. No zoning changes or formal commitments were made at this meeting.
Additional context: staff noted the CRC recently had an executive leave for a university position and the CRC leadership is reassessing strategy, including whether mixed-use or residential options might raise returns. Board members debated whether the EDA should compete with the CRC for certain tenant types or focus on complementary offerings such as temporary tenant space for growing local firms.
