Housing Situation Reaches Crisis Proportions
We’ve shied away from using the term in the past, but we are now prepared to call the student housing situation a full out crisis. According to the Diamondback today, UMD’s Dept. of Resident Life dropped 639 rising seniors from on-campus housing, leaving public-private partnerships like South Campus Commons and the University Courtyards as the last vestiges of campus housing for that subset of undergrads. The move comes just a few months after spring freshman admits were denied guaranteed university housing for the first time ever.
This most recent move leaves many students shocked as they are thrown into an extremely tight off-campus housing market (2.8% vacancy rate if not lower) late in the leasing game. These students are victims of the university’s continued and rapid shift from a commuter to residential school. Apparently the student housing boom over the last 6 years just wasn’t enough:
-South Campus Commons (1,825 beds)
-Courtyards (700 beds),
-University View (1,056 beds)
-Towers at University Town Center (about 230 UMD beds in the 910 bed complex)
Add this recent construction to the existing 8,250 beds spread over the 34 campus residence halls/apartments and it’s a formula for disaster if just a small fraction of the university’s 25,000 undergrads decide to break from past trends and seek housing. The last residence hall (suites) the university built by itself was New Leonardtown in 1982. The last traditional dormitory they built was La Plata Hall in 1968. Much of the demand can be attributed to UMD’s freshman who more and more are vying to live on-campus their first year (In the mid-90’s, 50% of freshmen sought on-campus housing. Now it’s approaching 100%). It’s causing a trickle down effect felt all over College Park, which despite the city’s best efforts, will surely push more students into single-family home communities.
And what, you might ask, is anyone doing about this impending disaster? The university’s hand’s are tied by state debt policy and plans no new dorms on campus as of yet, not one major private undergraduate housing complex is anywhere beyond the speculation phase, the city is cementing its rent control policy, the city continues to insist on owner-occupancy requirements for new condo projects, and the state is poised to reduce the scope of the only private student housing incentive in College Park this month.
It’s time, as many are realizing after the Impact Fee Waiver controversy, to revisit the Route 1 Sector plan and account for student housing needs in College Park (imagine that). Let’s start talking about allowing for “density bonuses” near campus and slashing parking requirements (as has been enormously successful in other college towns). Let’s stop banking on a Knox Box miracle and start talking about the reality. This housing crunch is not going away and we need to harness it to build in a common sense way - dense buildings with street-level retail and ample sidewalks just as everyone has envisioned for College Park. The talks can’t start a minute too soon.
Diamondback Housing Series Last Semester:
Part 1: Squeezed in Squalor
Part 2: Access Denied
Part 3: Graduate Gripes
>>City Hall Shenanigans, by David Daddio
>>No End in Sight, by David Daddio
Click here to view our interactive project map
April 5th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
In my opinion, the responsibility for student housing lies with the University. This site likes to tout ’smart growth’.
What could be smarter than student housing on campus?
Mote and his minions have influence in Annapolis especially now that the Democrats are back. Has Mote lobbied for a change in the laws governing the building of dorms?
April 5th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
You miss the point completely. First of all, the university is supposed to be an educational institution, not the biggest landlord in MD. Would you prefer that university view be located a few hundred feet to the west (on-campus) and then CP and the county could get all of the negatives of the development (namely traffic) and not $1 of the millions the city and county reap from the project? We aren’t talking about housing far away of the campus. We are talking housing at walkable distances. Even far away stuff like University Town Center has abut 90% of students riding the Shuttle-UM bus. There is no room on campus for all of this housing and even if there was, CP would miss out on a massive economic development opportunity.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Is there someone who could tell us exactly how many millions of dollars College Park has reaped from University View so far?
April 5th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
No one is opposed to additional (though perhaps smaller) University Views. A worse housing shortage should provide an added incentive for the construction of private student housing, which will not however help students in 2007 or 2008.
University View pays a lot of tax. When it opened its tax bill was just over $1 million (including $180,000 to the City). In 2009 its property tax bill will rise to about $1.4 million (including about $250,000) to the City. In addition, the View pays about $35,000 a year in occupancy fees to the City.
As David (sort of) notes above, University Town Center is largely (75%) populated by students from Washington, D.C. private schools. Washington, D.C.’s attitude is “if your students can not live on campus, they should not live in the District.” College Park’s attitude is far more accomodating than that!
April 5th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Unfortunately there is a long wait ahead on the public, the private, and the public-private fronts. If purely private projects face the same kind of ridiculous delays as Mazza Grandmarc (going on 6 years and largely not the city’s fault), I predict that the CP rental market will never be sufficiently balanced. At least purchasing a car will be convenient to the citizens of college park although they may never be able to get down Route 1 to buy it because so many students will be commuting to and from their distant residences to campus.
April 5th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Great story and even better comments thread - I just love nameless posters - especially ones who refer to staff as “minions”…..they rank just behind nameless posters who take shots at other posters
Thanks for the tax info / insight. Such a shame that we have low density strip centers, tatoo parlors, dinette shops (did Showcase Furniture close down? Anything percolating on that parcel - East side/northbound 1 - north of Guilfrod up to Calvert?) and a shame we have so much trouble getting folks to understand that the housing crisis could and should be leveraged to bring about a better more desirable College Park via redevelopment and all of the positive economic development it would bring.
April 5th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Showcase Furniture will be torn down and become a Commerce Bank. The project was delayed about 8 months because we fought with them over waivers they wanted (and initially received) from the Sector Plan to build. We eventually won on almost all points and instead of walking away they apparently have decided to build largely in accordance with our wishes.
With respect to David’s last posting, I don’t know how we can solve a worsening housing shortage overnight or even in two or three years. County Councilman Eric Olson (from College Park) will generally control the County’s reaction to student housing projects in the City (not the case with Mazza - as you know). I expect that his position will much more accomodating than others’ positions might be.
April 5th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Didnt they (Commerce) want to build one of their “branded” buildings which clearly are not - colonial - georgian - red brick - white columned buildings in anyway…..they are ultra modern white with lots of class and sloped brown metal roofs - I thought we were fighting them on the architecture. Will they take up the whole stretch from Guilford to Calvert - or just the showcase property? Will they conform architecturally?
April 5th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Commerce will only be taking down the Showcase Furiture Building and not another building to the north, too.
I have not yet seen the revised plans (but our Staff recently received them), but Showcase told us that the building they designed for us is the model they are using for, I believe, an Annapolis Bank they are now proposing.
April 5th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
I’m inclined to agree with Jane Doe that the responsibility for housing students lies with the University. Back in the late 60’s and early 70’s there was a housing crunch on campus and students attending the University were not allowed to live on campus if their home was in a certain radius of the University, I think 15 or 20 miles. I realize with the traffic problems on Route 1 and the other roads around the University this would not be a great solution unless the University or City or County or State offered commuter lots with buses that would bus students in from outside the congested area. I suppose David will tell us that the University is an educational institution and should not be responsible for transporting students to the University. However, the University has invested a lot of time and energy trying to promote a connector road (let’s not even go there). Do you think the University should help resolve any of the problems it’s creating? How about cutting the number of students admitted and cover costs by reducing expenses or raising tuition and on-campus housing costs? I’m sure that suggestion will have a negative reaction. My nephew will be an out of state student attending the University in the fall he will live with me. I’d be willing to house another student or two but this opens up too many issues with all the regulations PG County and the City have.
April 5th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I believe the Showcase furniture building was once a gas station and Hudson (or was it Pierce Arrow?) car dealership. I hope Commerce bank is tastefully designed and brings a fair number of jobs to the area.
I also hear College Park Auto Parts (which was once a family-style restaurant!) is planning to close as well. Any validity to that?
April 5th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I haven’t heard anything about CP Auto Parts leaving. It has had its store (used as warehouse) space on Berwyn Road for sale for the past few months. I noticed a locksmith there the other day, so perhaps a buyer will soon emerge for that property.
The store had long been a competing auto parts store, so CP Auto Parts bought it about 8 years ago to get rid of the competition.
Showcase Furiture is an old business in the City, but I am sure that t5he site’s history includes other uses.
Commerce Bank should be an asset to the City. A Wachovia Bank is pending County Approval in Riverdale Park, too (southeast corner of Route 1 and East-West Highway).
April 6th, 2007 at 1:03 am
This is the essence of NIMBY. Making educations even less affordable? Where will the rejected/poorer students go, anyway? To cause problems somewhere else? I think that the university probably has a role in solving the problem, but College Park is destined to overflow with students, residential neighbourhoods or no residential neighbourhoods.
If you wanted *that* kind of a solution, you should have told people to stop reproducing 16-17 years ago, if not earlier. Might not have been a bad idea.
But yeah. The choice for College Park is more traffic congestion or more housing, because the university ain’t shrinking.
April 6th, 2007 at 2:13 am
Again, some folks seem to be missing the point. This housing crunch is not from an increase in admission. It’s from a different and better caliber of student applying and attending the university. Gone are the commuter school days of UMD. If the university doesn’t build more housing and if the private sector doesn’t build more, then surely the conversion of owner occupied houses to rental properties will continue unabated until nearly every neighborhood is overrun by transient renter populations and every house is degraded to such a miserable state that no adult could stand to live next to them. I can’t think of one legitimate policy that could practically prevent this other than building more housing and shoring up the retail market with highrises. The university has a limited amount of land. It cannot build the 5000-7000 beds necessary over the next 15 years. I would be amazed if student projects aren’t proposed over the next year or two. Unfortunately it takes at least (and I emphasize at least) two years to get through the planning process and another two for construction.
April 6th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Can anyone give any data about how rent control has impacted the number of rentals in College Park?
This morning ABC reported on the housing crunch at UM. The reporter said that the University would like to build more housing but they don’t have the funding. The University has had to know for many years that a housing crunch was coming…no planning on their part?
Asad not sure what you mean by “this is the essence of NIMBY”. I’ve lived in College Park/Adelphi all of my life. My father bought his home in Adelphi in 1951 so he could afford to send his children to college. I am a UM alumni, 2 brothers alumni, 3 sisters alumni. One of my sons graduated in 2002. I love College Park because of the University and the students. However, I feel the University has to HELP solve problems it creates. They’ve known for a long time that housing is an issue…what do they suggest students do? Because I think the University should help solve problems I’m immediately thought of as NIMBY (just not true).
April 6th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Hey folks: anyone studying birth rates? The all time peak in birth rates (the height of the babyboom) was 1957. Look at what the boomers did all throughout their lives: the sudden expansion in suburbia, followed by schools, followed by colleges…and now look at the explosion in retirement communities, so wise investor thinks what next? assisted living, then - hate to be so blunt - but services related to funerals and the burial process. Lawyers and accountants look ahead ans see all the trust and estate planning issues coming with all of the welath transfer that is about to take place. So whats my point?
GUESS WHAT: In 1991 the birth rate WAS HIGHER! Baby Boom Part Deux. Those kids head off to college in 2009.
Crisis - Schmisis - we aint see nothin yet. And we cant slop up a bunch of dorms in 2 years.
April 6th, 2007 at 10:36 am
With respect to Kevin’s comment see the front page of today’s (Friday’s) Washington Post on the increasing difficulty students have at getting accepted at top tier schools.
With respect to rent stabilization, the cast of about 50-70 absentee landlords who control 100’s of student rental properties are all alive and well and doing business in College Park. No one is or has been selling off their properties. Of the almost 50 homes that have been sold in College Park this year (January through late March) it appears that slightly over one-half have been sold to investors.
When someone suggests that rent stabilization is part of the problem, the simple three-letter response is “LIE”.
April 6th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Your specific suggestions—cutting students, raising tuition, etc—have the effect of moving the problem elsewhere. Well: it has to go somewhere, doesn’t it?
April 6th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
If so, I think this is quite a significant fact. It suggests that even with these kinds of measures in place, College Park is going to be overrun with student tenants anyway.
April 10th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
University View pays a lot of tax. When it opened its tax bill was just over $1 million (including $180,000 to the City). In 2009 its property tax bill will rise to about $1.4 million (including about $250,000) to the City. In addition, the View pays about $35,000 a year in occupancy fees to the City.
================================================================
Thanks to Mr Catlin for the tax info. The View pays a lot of tax but almost all of it goes to the county so I don’t see how the city is reaping millions from this instance of development.
April 10th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
The county money trickles down to the city (in theory). Again the city government is relatively toothless and has no budget (nor many responsibilities). Indeed the city’s annual budget barely surpases the university’s annual collection of parking fines. The city would get no money from the the parking lot which the university view replaced….
April 10th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Anonymous said…
I find the coverage of this laughable. One article in the Diamondback reports 639 students displaced another 556 students displaced, which is it? It’s up to the University to fix this problem NOT the City of College Park. The students want to live on campus it’s more affordable! Look at the poll the Diamondback did online…more ON CAMPUS housing is what is wanted not off campus housing. Catholic University is NOT renewing it’s lease agreement with University Towers for next year, that should free up some rooms. Especially since Catholic will not be providing shuttle service to their campus from University Towers. This still does not solve the problem…ON CAMPUS housing is what the students want. THIS IS A UNIVERSITY PROBLEM!!!!!
April 10th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Once again another nameless poster joins the party. Welcome “VeryAmusing”
Think big picture for a second. What many of us (who choose to put our names on our posts) on this site are advocating is how we can leverage (thats a fancy word for “use”) the housing situation to bring about positive change to the condition of the City of College Park.
Simply put, we think that the U of Md is a fantastic school in a crappy area. The school could easily be as prestigous as the other top state schools if it was in a better area (could you imagine if it was located on the banks of the Severn River near Annapolis?!!!)
We are proud of our alma mater and want to see it reach its full potential. To do so, the redevelopment of College Park is critical and we use this site to point to the business case for the revitalization of the Rte 1 corridor and the town of College Park.
We think win-win-win on this site. We want to foster an “everybody wins” scenario and put an end to the “us versus them” antagonist culture that has come to symbolize town-gown relations in CP.
Everyone will benefit if College Park improves. Days are numbered for the roadblocks (who shall remain nameless but we all know who they are)
I disagree that it is purely a University problem - and could even make a case as to why its the state’s problem (not just the Univ, not just the city, and not just the county) …..and its not a stretch to say so.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
“Once again another nameless poster joins the party. Welcome “VeryAmusing” ”
Kevin, what difference does it make if a poster uses their name or not? You don’t live in CP so you can say what you want, call people names, ie Perry. Good luck changing CP, maybe you should have attended the Naval Academy.
Read the articles in the Diamondback, it’s very clear that students want to live ON CAMPUS! It’s more affordable, changing CP is not going to make housing off campus more affordable, probably more expensive!!
Who are the roadblocks? Name them.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
David is mostly right. The City has limited powers and limited money to create change. That is what makes the job hard/interesting. If we had money and power it would be fairly easy to piggyback on the University’s poweer and prestige to be a major player in the revitalization of the City. But if the City was not an advocate for change the County would hardly pay any attention to the University and it students, and the City would face an even more murky future.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Simply put, we think that the U of Md is a fantastic school in a crappy area.
==================================================
This is your idea of how to end an antagonistic culture?
April 10th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Look: Colored Background!
Wow Kevin! Now College Park is crappy because it’s not on a river. Which river do you plan on rerouting through College Park?
April 10th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
It was a crude way of putting it, and CP has its merits, but it’s not 100% false. UConn is in Stors, CT, and I am told that there is practically nothing there by transfer students and others. On the other hand, Ann Arbor, Michigan, which has UMich’s main campus is a beautiful college town, and, objectively speaking, CP does not even rank compared to Ann Arbor. I’d hope that CP is looking to be more like Ann Arbor.
By the way, I’m using my real name here, but I’m a big fan of internet pseudonymity, even if it has a tendency to create trolly behaviour. There are valuable contributors who wouldn’t contribute to politics discussions if they weren’t pseudonymous.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:12 am
no name = no credibility. have a nice day.
as for CP - “truth hurts dont it?.” Cant make progress until you own up to reality. first step in change is acknowledging the problem. I wouldnt be down there every other week looking for a house to buy if I didnt feel good enough about the place. “Crappy” is not my choice but its the truth on how most view the place. Thats why the Smith MBA students live in Silver Spring and lots of faculty and staff live in Mont Co and Ho Co and clog up the roads getting to school / work. Thats why alums and others coming to sporting events stay in hotels, eat meals outside of CP
Venture out to the rivals.com blog and visit the opposing team’s page prior to a game at Md - you will see folks say stuff like “get in for the game and get out - that place is like Tikrit”
not my words but we all know “perception is reality”
April 11th, 2007 at 11:16 am
no name = no credibility = not worth responding to
;o)
April 11th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Let’s think about this name thing. Say somebody posts under the name ‘Bob
Nickless’. What has that string of characters added to your knowledge of the poster? How do we know, Kevin Fallon, that you are Kevin Fallon?
And what differnece does it make?
Perhaps you say ‘no name = no credibility = not worth responding to’
becuase you don’t wish to repsond to people who make good points that are counter to what you think.
April 11th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Oh Jane - I dont even know where to begin….
1. Why in the name of you-know-who would someone come on here under a fake name? That would indeed be kind of sad really. I dont post anything I would not say (or have not already said) directly to the individual. Id shake Perry’s hand and even buy him a beer (oh wait - is that corruption?….that would be a figure of speech - “buy him a beer” is the new “extend an olive branch”)
2. Did I not respond to the points? - oh wait I missed one - to Very Amusing: well we dont have a river to divert, lake Amnesia (try injecting some humor every now and then) I mean Artemesia is too far and not really leverageable (is that even a word?) in terms of development because of its location - but we could create a water feature (perhaps a canal type of feature with lighted aerators to improve the water quality) down the center of “Gilford Valley” (a.k.a. “The Knox Boxes”) with street level commerce on its banks with residences up above
3. Jane - its not the name issue per se, it is your propensity to come on here with your negativity and “stir the pot” so to speak - you have a tendency to douse gas on the flames without really adding intelligent debate or alternatives or other points of view. I love being challenged with an opposing point of view regarding development. Hey, I get blasted for my views on alternatives to the Campus Connector. And thats a great thing. You see, this is the good old U - S - of A and we can all disagree and speak our minds. I just like facts, data, and other ideas - Catlin is one of the best. He schools me regularly and thats why Im here everyday. Dont take this personally (I may even know you whoever you really are) but all I ever see from you is some nasty sarcastic pithy barb - usually a “shot” at someone. Are you one of those locals that fears all change and thinks the great big old U of Md is this evil empire looking to plow the community asunder? Or are you open to creative energy around creating a hip hot new inner beltway community? Are you open to building a coalition? No need to answer here - just give it some thought.
Ok, maybe the reference to crappy was not the best way to avoid the antagonism - and I apologize (it was a form of humor that elicited exactly the response that I sought to evoke) - but again: I WANT TO LIVE THERE and will by year’s end. I love CPW and Calvert Hills. “Crappy” is a word that the average passer by would use. This site wouldnt exist if CP was Ann Arbor or Chapel Hill.
April 11th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Name Less: its not a river or lack there of. Its crooked telephone poles, tatoo parlors, auto dealerships, fortune tellers, strip plazas with surface parking in front, dangerous sidewalks, too many cars moving too fast creating a “pedestrian hostile” environment………..
April 11th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Name Less: its not a river or lack there of. Its crooked telephone poles, tatoo parlors, auto dealerships, fortune tellers, strip plazas with surface parking in front, dangerous sidewalks, too many cars moving too fast creating a “pedestrian hostile” environment………..
and for the record: No - I dont think Starbuck’s, B & N / Borders, A&F are the answer either. I have been to Berkely, Ann Arbor, Chapel Hill, Madison and have seen what we could have. Its really a shame that we dont.
April 11th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Dear Councilman Catlin:
Thank you to you and the other City Councilmen for making the deal work with Commerce Bank. While not well known in this area, they are the primary bank for many of the university’s out-of-state students that hail from Philadelphia and South Jersey. More developments such as these are beneficial both to the city and to university students!
April 12th, 2007 at 12:37 am
I have to disagree with this. Commenting on housing issues in the area is just the job of an involved UMCP student and unremarkable, so I post under my real name. But I well understand why other people might be too timid to do so, on this and especially on other kinds of issues. A lot of people build up quite a bit of credibility on the Internet under a consistent pseudonym.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
this is the last I will say on this point (I think we have just about completely scrambled these eggs at this point): I see a pattern on this site: the nameless folks tend to be negative, tend to take shots at people /other posters (instead of adding to the debate) and tend to add little intelligent information / facts / data / creative thoughts and ideas to the topics reported and discussed. thats all.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Kevin, I used a name, but is it real??
I think this is a great site with lots of terrific information. The past week I get my daily kicks reading the posts on this thread. Kevin you are without a doubt the biggest name caller on this site and make some of the least intelligent comments (CP on a river??). I think some of the nameless people add the most logical/intelligent comments on this site. The problem is they disagree with what you and the editors, so you don’t respond.
Jane Doe’s comments are very intelligent. What Very Amusing said about Catholic University not renewing lease agreements is intelligent, no comment from you or the editors. Have you read the Diamondback? Students do want to live On Campus? Have you looked at the Diamondback online poll that Very Amusing mentioned? It’s clear that students want to live On Campus. But since this is NOT what YOU and the editors want you are frustrated and don’t comment.
Like I said I think this is a great site and agree downtown and Rte 1 need improvements, but different from you I LOVE College Park and do not think it is “crappy.” You have to be willing to hear what people with different views think. I’m going to post later on all the great things about living in College Park. I’ve lived here for 23 years.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I took great pride (before this week) in telling people that the comment strings on this site stay civil. If folks continue to attack eachother rather than deal with the issues at hand, we will be forced to start approving every comment again. This is getting absolutely ridiculous and I won’t let a handful of people harm the real focus of this site.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:21 am
On any public internet forum of significance, you always have a certain proportion of flamewars. It’s a sign of Internet success.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Asad Sayeed Says:
April 13th, 2007 at 9:21 am
On any public internet forum of significance, you always have a certain proportion of flamewars. It’s a sign of Internet success.
plus - as they say in TV and radio - “its good for ratings” - look how much activity and dialogue this thread generated (curious to know the number of hits)…..I still think the Rosie-Trump thing is completely engineered for ratings and exposure.
out of respect for David and company and the excellent work they are doing to help the community through this site/forum my demeanor will change. my views and over the top passion for improving the city will not. we have the opportunity to be one of the coolest inner beltway communities.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:56 am
“we have the opportunity to be one of the coolest inner beltway communities”
Well said Kevin, you are absolutely right! And three cheers to David and Robert for putting RTCP together and doing all they are doing to help make College Park a great town. Kevin, I also like your description of what you’d like to see Guilford Run become, I hope it happens. I LOVE College Park, but I agree there is certainly lots of room for improvement. Just hope Rte 1 doesn’t become another Rockville Pike and East Campus is not a duplicate of downtown Silver Spring, the University can do better than that.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Lynn - I couldnt agree with you more - in fact that exact point really lights my fire - I hope you saw the story ““East Campus Details Released, Potential Development Partner Chosen”” and its related comments thread
if you scroll all the way to the bottom of the main page to “Categories” and click on “On Campus Development” you will find it.