Comments on: Form-based Codes Debate Hits Email http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/2204/ Helping imagine a great college town for a great university Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:03:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: David Daddio http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/2204/comment-page-1/#comment-185140 David Daddio Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:18:39 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/?p=2204#comment-185140 Yes, I guess I'm saying that there isn't much demand for regular office space downtown. Developers are bulldozing buildings like 8400 Baltimore Ave in favor of student housing. M-Square is both creating and sucking up all the demand for office space in the area into a single-use suburban-style office park. So I'd rather ensure a true mix of uses on East Campus with building tenants utilizing adjacent retail and public spaces during lunch hours than risk not having any office space at all on East Campus. Basically put the east campus office building out to RFP separately (rescind it from the RFP just released), UMD's M-Square partner will probably have the most compelling proposal, and then we might see something else besides student housing move on the site in the next 5 years... Yes, I guess I’m saying that there isn’t much demand for regular office space downtown. Developers are bulldozing buildings like 8400 Baltimore Ave in favor of student housing. M-Square is both creating and sucking up all the demand for office space in the area into a single-use suburban-style office park.

So I’d rather ensure a true mix of uses on East Campus with building tenants utilizing adjacent retail and public spaces during lunch hours than risk not having any office space at all on East Campus. Basically put the east campus office building out to RFP separately (rescind it from the RFP just released), UMD’s M-Square partner will probably have the most compelling proposal, and then we might see something else besides student housing move on the site in the next 5 years…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Ari http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/2204/comment-page-1/#comment-185137 Ari Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:58:15 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/?p=2204#comment-185137 M Square is a research park; the buildings being built there are of a different nature than what is envisioned for East campus, which would be more traditional types of office tenants. Also, there are significantly different timelines for these two locations. So I don't think this needs to be an either-or situation; hopefully there is room for quality office space in both places. M Square is a research park; the buildings being built there are of a different nature than what is envisioned for East campus, which would be more traditional types of office tenants. Also, there are significantly different timelines for these two locations. So I don’t think this needs to be an either-or situation; hopefully there is room for quality office space in both places.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: David Daddio http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/2204/comment-page-1/#comment-185076 David Daddio Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:53:57 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/?p=2204#comment-185076 Interesting Ari. I've heard many different accounts of what led to the situation down there. My understanding is that the airport limits things to pretty low densities, so I'm not sure that large amount of ground floor retail could really ever survive over there anyway. My personal view is that the University should use the efforts it's putting into building 3 more office buildings at M-Square into building the 10-story office building proposed for East Campus. What do you think? Interesting Ari. I’ve heard many different accounts of what led to the situation down there. My understanding is that the airport limits things to pretty low densities, so I’m not sure that large amount of ground floor retail could really ever survive over there anyway.

My personal view is that the University should use the efforts it’s putting into building 3 more office buildings at M-Square into building the 10-story office building proposed for East Campus. What do you think?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Ari http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/2204/comment-page-1/#comment-185063 Ari Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:36:02 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/?p=2204#comment-185063 There are a lot of interesting (and highly emotional) issues in this exchange; thank you for posting this. However, I’m going to limit my comments to the issue of the College Park Metro Station area. Unfortunately, on the one issue that David and Tom agree on, they are both ill-informed. They blame the University for the low-density, single-use character of M Square. While the University did in fact play a major role in the development of the Transit District Development Plan for the College Park – Riverdale Transit District Overlay Zone, it was the University that pushed to zone this area for mixed-use and it was the County that opposed this. There are a lot of interesting (and highly emotional) issues in this exchange; thank you for posting this.

However, I’m going to limit my comments to the issue of the College Park Metro Station area. Unfortunately, on the one issue that David and Tom agree on, they are both ill-informed. They blame the University for the low-density, single-use character of M Square. While the University did in fact play a major role in the development of the Transit District Development Plan for the College Park – Riverdale Transit District Overlay Zone, it was the University that pushed to zone this area for mixed-use and it was the County that opposed this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Ben http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/2204/comment-page-1/#comment-184892 Ben Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:54:41 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/?p=2204#comment-184892 My wife and I bought a house just off of Cherokee St back in 2006, and although this is my first comment on this blog, I have been reading it weekly since that time. My thoughts very closely echo those of John Euill above. Simply put, RT. 1 north of 193 (where I live) is a sad place to drive through. Like most people that live in the area, traffic is a concern to me; however, the lack of development is a far greater concern. I long for the day when My wife and I can converse about which restaurant we want to walk to for dinner, and where we should go shopping afterwords. If form-based codes can help get us closer to that day, I'm 100% for it. I'm tired of having to drive to Silver Spring, or the like, for the amenities I desire. @Diana I live here, and I stand behind the vast majority of the opinions that David presents on this blog. I firmly believe that smart development will lead to a significant increase in the quality of life for College Park residents. I know that there are people in my neighborhood with the same sentiment as you, but upon talking to them I find them to be largely uninformed of possible the upside to development. I think it's time to progress College Park, and I know that there are many, in my neighborhood at least, that think the same and are looking for a change. @David Thank you for sharing this email correspondence with us. To quote you: "In the long term I’d much prefer a system of bureaucrats, developers, and (still significant) public involvement via the 27A process than the current system which puts nearly all the control in the hands of one person and fails the city time after time." For me, that hits the nail on the head. My wife and I bought a house just off of Cherokee St back in 2006, and although this is my first comment on this blog, I have been reading it weekly since that time.

My thoughts very closely echo those of John Euill above. Simply put, RT. 1 north of 193 (where I live) is a sad place to drive through. Like most people that live in the area, traffic is a concern to me; however, the lack of development is a far greater concern. I long for the day when My wife and I can converse about which restaurant we want to walk to for dinner, and where we should go shopping afterwords. If form-based codes can help get us closer to that day, I’m 100% for it. I’m tired of having to drive to Silver Spring, or the like, for the amenities I desire.

@Diana
I live here, and I stand behind the vast majority of the opinions that David presents on this blog. I firmly believe that smart development will lead to a significant increase in the quality of life for College Park residents. I know that there are people in my neighborhood with the same sentiment as you, but upon talking to them I find them to be largely uninformed of possible the upside to development. I think it’s time to progress College Park, and I know that there are many, in my neighborhood at least, that think the same and are looking for a change.

@David
Thank you for sharing this email correspondence with us. To quote you: “In the long term I’d much prefer a system of bureaucrats, developers, and (still significant) public involvement via the 27A process than the current system which puts nearly all the control in the hands of one person and fails the city time after time.” For me, that hits the nail on the head.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>