Comments on: Talks of Proposed Housing Split City Council http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/3352/ 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: JC http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/3352/comment-page-1/#comment-188796 JC Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:31:52 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/3352/#comment-188796 A development at this site has all the potential to serve many aspects that are being discussed. The first floor could contain a Trader Joe's type green-grocer, a modified Book Exchange, a coffee shop, perhaps (WOW!) a small branch of public library. Or another mix, including a restaurant. It is a large property. The argument that student housing should be "on UM campus" is widely off the mark. That "argument" was lost about 20 yrs ago, first w/Univ. Commons on Rt. 193, and more recently with huge projects north of UM on US-1. So, let's not be distracted by public vs. private property anymore... The current Exchange property is surrounded on three sides by UM student structures: Frat Row to north, Greek houses to the east, and UM campus to the west. So, why not a middle ground here? Why not consider first floor commercial (isn't that the Planners' mantra?) and then give three or four floors to student housing, and reserve the top floor or two for penthouse apartments for professors? As long as appropriate construction techniques are utilized, this could work beautifully. True MUI. Who knows, perhaps even "ordinary people" would enjoy living with a vista of the UM campus. But to say this isn't an appropriate location for students is ludicrous. It's called the "South Gate," isn't it?

A development at this site has all the potential to serve many aspects that are being discussed. The first floor could contain a Trader Joe’s type green-grocer, a modified Book Exchange, a coffee shop, perhaps (WOW!) a small branch of public library. Or another mix, including a restaurant. It is a large property.

The argument that student housing should be “on UM campus” is widely off the mark. That “argument” was lost about 20 yrs ago, first w/Univ. Commons on Rt. 193, and more recently with huge projects north of UM on US-1. So, let’s not be distracted by public vs. private property anymore…

The current Exchange property is surrounded on three sides by UM student structures: Frat Row to north, Greek houses to the east, and UM campus to the west. So, why not a middle ground here?

Why not consider first floor commercial (isn’t that the Planners’ mantra?) and then give three or four floors to student housing, and reserve the top floor or two for penthouse apartments for professors? As long as appropriate construction techniques are utilized, this could work beautifully. True MUI. Who knows, perhaps even “ordinary people” would enjoy living with a vista of the UM campus.

But to say this isn’t an appropriate location for students is ludicrous. It’s called the “South Gate,” isn’t it?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

]]> By: rent control http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/3352/comment-page-1/#comment-188789 rent control Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:28:58 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/3352/#comment-188789 if there is too much housing why did the councilmembers pass a rent control law? my feeling is that certain council members flip flop at their own convenience without actual knowledge of the supply or demand. and for the residents of old town.... the best way for you to keep your neighborhood single family homes filled with students is to contrain the supply of new housing being built in downtown. this project would create an additional option that doesnt currently exist for students and may draw some out of the neighborhood. if there is too much housing why did the councilmembers pass a rent control law?

my feeling is that certain council members flip flop at their own convenience without actual knowledge of the supply or demand.

and for the residents of old town…. the best way for you to keep your neighborhood single family homes filled with students is to contrain the supply of new housing being built in downtown. this project would create an additional option that doesnt currently exist for students and may draw some out of the neighborhood.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

]]> By: Shawn http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/3352/comment-page-1/#comment-188783 Shawn Tue, 28 Sep 2010 03:24:02 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/3352/#comment-188783 Thanks. I am going to bookmark this post so I can remember these positions when elections come around... Thanks. I am going to bookmark this post so I can remember these positions when elections come around…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Lauren Evans http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/3352/comment-page-1/#comment-188782 Lauren Evans Tue, 28 Sep 2010 02:02:56 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/3352/#comment-188782 I'd like to point out that the article published in the College Park Patch did not endeavor to express the opinions of any city officials regarding the proposed development. The scope of the article was limited to the sentiments of residents of Old Town and Calvert Hills. No council members were quoted in the article, nor was any disapproval implied. Eric Olson did express his disapproval of the proposed plan, but he spoke as a member of the county council, not the city council. Just wanted to clarify. I’d like to point out that the article published in the College Park Patch did not endeavor to express the opinions of any city officials regarding the proposed development. The scope of the article was limited to the sentiments of residents of Old Town and Calvert Hills. No council members were quoted in the article, nor was any disapproval implied. Eric Olson did express his disapproval of the proposed plan, but he spoke as a member of the county council, not the city council. Just wanted to clarify.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

]]> By: Sean O'Donnell http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/3352/comment-page-1/#comment-188778 Sean O'Donnell Mon, 27 Sep 2010 23:20:30 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2010/3352/#comment-188778 "The other District 1 council member Patrick Wojahn sits completely on the other side of the isle on this. He is with the city residents – those living in the south and also in the north in his district." Putting aside the odd reference to being on the other side of an isle, this is an exceedingly broad statement. Do you really think all of the city residents are opposed to this project? And, by city residents, I am including the growing number of students who choose to reside in this city. There is a mindset here that I am having some difficulty understanding. The primary objection, as far as I can discern, is that there will be enough student housing. If this were correct, why would someone be willing to spend millions dollars of their own money on this project? Is the developer somehow less rational than the opposition to this project? I just can't see how that is the case.

“The other District 1 council member Patrick Wojahn sits completely on the other side of the isle on this. He is with the city residents – those living in the south and also in the north in his district.”

Putting aside the odd reference to being on the other side of an isle, this is an exceedingly broad statement. Do you really think all of the city residents are opposed to this project? And, by city residents, I am including the growing number of students who choose to reside in this city.

There is a mindset here that I am having some difficulty understanding. The primary objection, as far as I can discern, is that there will be enough student housing. If this were correct, why would someone be willing to spend millions dollars of their own money on this project? Is the developer somehow less rational than the opposition to this project? I just can’t see how that is the case.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

]]>