Rethink College Park

It has been about 6 months since the issue of student housing really exploded in College Park and anyone (ourselves included) would have had a hard time predicting what has taken place since that time. What started off with hundreds of rising seniors losing their on-campus housing in April has progressed - or regressed rather - to over a thousand students potentially losing housing next school year (now with rising juniors thrown into the mix).

During the school facilities fee waiver controversy last year, when local leaders were proposing a massive cut to an incentive for the construction of privately owned student housing projects in the city, we proclaimed that there was “No End in Sight” to the housing crunch. At the same time we harshly criticized leaders for trying to limit the incentive to the Knox Box and Northgate Area - areas of the city which development seemed like a distant dream and non-student housing free-for-all respectively. These days, the Knox Box redevelopment is moving along ever so slowly, but Janet Firth has made a couple big moves since April. The Northgate area at the time was already almost completely proposed for luxury hotels and high end condominiums. The condo market flopped, the support for a TIF for Mark Vogel’s Hilton Hotel project evaporated, and nearly every other project in the area is now marred by financial/regulatory difficulties that make low and mid-rise rental/designated student housing a nearly forgone conclusion. Developers are literally falling over themselves to propose student housing after all the fuss last spring. Many of these projects we are compelled to keep under our hat for the time being, but we count 7 potential or proposed projects without even including East Campus, a Knox Box redevelopment, or any on-campus housing.

The University is proposing some token student housing on South Campus, but we think the importance of on-campus housing is being far overplayed by the Diamondback. Indeed, public-private partnerships like South Campus Commons are riddled with problems and make for especially poor forms of urbanism because they seperate students from present and future activity centers. We aren’t denying the need more traditional dormitories for underclassmen. One hasn’t been built in decades. That being said, a substantial increase in private off-campus housing could bring vacancy rates up from abysmally low levels and bring rents all over College Park back within reach. All this could be achieved without any financial contribution from UMD.

The Diamondback should stop perpetuating the myth that the root cause of the housing crunch is an increase in the UMD’s enrollment. To do so is the most inaccurate, simplistic, and irresponsible form of journalism that they have yet bestowed upon College Park. The housing crunch is fundamentally driven by a change in preferences among students (especially freshmen). People are opting for on-campus housing only because they are increasingly choosing to live closer to campus and the only decent, affordable housing is on-campus. How can enrollment be the deciding factor in the housing crunch if it has stayed roughly constant for the past 20 years?

Senator Rosapepe’s continuing bull in a china shop politics in regards to this matter is only damaging relationships, causing confusion, and accomplishing nothing. The University cannot fully build its way out of this problem and have enough land to achieve its academic mission for the next 150 years. Despite the senator’s continued insistence that land is the limiting factor for private student housing projects, the city is awash in developable land and developers are finally stepping forward knowing student housing projects can succeed off campus. To legislate our way out of this mess without careful consideration of the situation is to legislate Route 1 into another 15 years of big plans and no action.

As the East Campus Redevelopment Project moves through the public participation process, it is valuable to look at how other universities have integrated mixed-use facilities into their campuses. Over the next week and months we hope to profile many similar projects.

The University of Central Florida (UCF) recently put the finishing touches on a $300 million mixed-use athletic village, located on its Orlando campus.

UCF, with an enrollment of over 48,000, has long struggled to create a pedestrian-oriented collegiate experience for its students due to its unfavorable location on major state highway. Because of this, the university became interested in creating a destination for students, alumni and local-area residents that would serve as a hub of activity for the campus and surrounding area. The result of the university’s effort is a mixed-use project that features 2,000 student beds, 83,000 square feet of retail, 3 parking garages, a 10,000-seat arena and a 45,000-seat football stadium. Dining options alone include Maggiemoo’s Ice Cream, Subway, Papa John’s, and Nature’s Table Cafe.

Design Principles
Founded in the late 1960’s, UCF features a radial campus with its student union acting as the central hub of activity. Paths radiate out from the union to connect academic buildings and residential nodes. Unlike East Campus, UCF did not have to deal with a state highway separating its project site from its existing campus.

1. Connectivity: UCF made it a point to connect this district to the existing campus by removing an unimproved parking lot between the project site and the student union. The parking lot was converted to a pedestrian mall with the new arena as its terminus.
2. Adaptive Reuse: Although significantly larger in scale than the Pocomoke Building, UCF retrofitted its old arena to house locker rooms and athletic offices.
3. Strong edges: The retail portion of this project clearly defines the public space on the street and creates a pedestrian-friendly environment.
4. Unique district: The village has a different character than the existing campus, which creates psychological transition from academia to residential life. The parking garages retain the character of the residential buildings and blend in well.

Missed Opportunities
1. Green building: The athletic village was designed before UCF adopted standards requiring LEED certification for all new construction.
2. Transit: Orlando is at least 50 years behind D.C. in terms of mass transit. Because of the lack of rail, the athletic village is served by automobiles and shuttle buses. This may be an opportunity realized sometime in the future.

Although the UCF athletic village houses different uses than the proposed East Campus project, the underlying ideas and goals are the same. UCF created a pedestrian environment to provide a destination for students, faculty, alumni and neighbors alike. UCF has finished its district, and Maryland can learn from its success.

> UCF Stadium Master Plan Amendment

UMD’s planned south mall is slowly unfolding. When complete it will provide a pedestrian axis all the way from Anne Arundel Hall down to the southern end of Van Munching Hall, through Commons 1,2,5, and 6 and across to Hartford Hall in the Washington Quad. Two portions of the phased project are underway right now.

Washington Quad

Residents of Washington Quad must have been rather shocked to find last weekend that their entire courtyard/load unload area had been torn up (the project was rather foolishly begun just before opening weekend) to make way for a new $3 million greenspace. The project was funded in part by the Commons 5 & 6 developer and is expected to be completed in November. The project has rather dubious environmental benefit, but it will store and recirculate rainwater in the planting beds. Read more and see other schematics here.

Van Munching Mall

Work has begun on the 2nd phase of the new Van Munching mall. It will serve as a gateway on the southern end of the mall next to the Mowatt Lane parking garage and the road. The project includes adding more plantings to what was already there as well as a clocktower and more brickwork. Read more and see other schematics here.

Yesterday University Vice President for Administrative Affairs Doug Duncan released the list of members of of the East Campus community steering committee that will be participating in a series of topical public meetings this fall. Three of the 40 members are students, and 17 are affiliated with the University of Maryland. The newly update schedule has been added to the sidebar to the right.

For the truly curious, the complete schedule and all 40 committee members are after the jump. This information and other data to support the public process will be posted to the university’s East Campus website.

(more…)

Last night, university officials and their development partner Foulger-Pratt/Argo Investment launched what will be a comprehensive public input process for the East Campus project, the University’s plan to create 2,000 units of student market rate housing (Including designated graduate student housing), 400,000 square feet of retail including a grocery store, hotel, and office building along Route One. Here’s how the process has been organized:

• An East Campus Community Steering Committee has been created. Although we do not have a list of the steering committee members, they include representatives from College Park’s civic associations, the city, county government, and elected officials. To our knowledge there are only three students on the committee.
• In a series of 4 (possibly 5) Steering Committee public meetings, community members will hear and have a chance to comment on almost all facets of the project.
• Separately, SGA President Andrew Friedson has organized a Student Advisory Committee with a variety of student representatives. They will meet with University officials on the same days as the steering committee.

Here is the schedule of Steering Committee public meetings. All meetings will take place from 7:30 to 9:00 p.m. in Marie Mount Room 0100. The topics discussed will include Uses and Market Feasibility, Transportation and Parking, Financing and Land Use, Discussion and Conclusion. We are awaiting the exact schedule.

September 4 - Existing Site, Relocations, Environmental Stewardship
September 20 - Uses and Market Feasibility
October 8 - Transportation and parking
October 22 - Economic Impact, Financing, Land Use and Design
October 29 - Overall consensus building and conclusion

Several additional details about the project were revealed yesterday. The plans revealed last spring have remained largely unchanged, however it seems the university will need extensive cooperation from city officials (including possibly financing). The moderator of the meeting was noted Washington attorney Robert Peck, who admitted he had been retained by the university to craft last year’s Request for Proposals. Peck’s long resume includes stints as Sen. Patrick Moynihan’s chief of staff, heading the General Service Administration’s Public Buildings Service under President Clinton, and time as president of the Washington Board of Trade. Also, University officials hope to stick to the schedule discussed last year: finalize the project design by the end of the year, break ground on relocating existing facilities next spring, and open the first housing by Fall 2010.

The images come from the presentation Foulger-Pratt/Argo Investment has been giving at community meetings. Over the summer they have posted several slides including a list of the retail tenants already contacted about coming to the project. We strongly encourage community members to review the slides closely.

Check out the article

In an April 25 letter, eight students urged university President C.D. Mote Jr. to “become an outright champion” of the proposed Purple Line, saying the school’s “relative silence on the project is casting an unneeded shadow of uncertainty on the planning process.” Tunneling a train beneath the College Park campus, as administration officials have urged, could make it prohibitively expensive, the students said.

On March 30th, 2007 Interim University Vice President of Administrative Affairs Frank Brewer sent a letter to the Maryland Transit Administrations stating the University’s opposition to an “at-grade” light rail crossing of campus:

“we stress that the University does not see “at-grade” LRT as an option in the center of our campus.”

On April 25th, RTCP joined with every major student leader in writing a letter to President Mote voicing our strong opposition to this new (and until now not public) position. Simply put: UMD needs to support the Purple Line unconditionally:

“we urge that your administration reconsider its position on the potential for an at-grade alignment and make every effort to assist MTA in the development of the best possible options for the Purple Line. “

For more details on our position read the original University letter and the student response:

—> Student Letter to Dr. Mote

—> Original Frank Brewer Letter

GSG Resolution in Support of the Purple Line

SGA Resolution in Support of the Purple Line

The University of Maryland recently launched a new website detailing environmental stewardship efforts on campus. The website, www.sustainability.umd.edu, outlines Maryland’s approach to sustainability, offers ways to get involved with preserving the local environment, and provides a medium for students to be engaged with sustainable efforts. In addition, the website details a snapshot of eco-friendly events and sustainable initiatives that have occurred on campus. Although some of the links have yet to be completed on the website, we hope is to be a new resource on sustainability for students, faculty, alumni, and others in the university family.

Although this is a positive step, colleges and have long been leading examples of sustainable communities. Schools such as Harvard University, Cornell University, Michigan State University, and the University of British Columbia are all leading successful sustainable initiatives. With any hope, the University of Maryland’s Campus Sustainability website can follow in the footsteps of these precedents and help to foster a local sustainable environment.

At a time when the campus is growing rapidly, talks of sustainability should be at the forefront of new construction and design. According to websites dealing with sustainable architecture, such as www.architecture2030.org, almost 50% of greenhouse gas emissions are emitted from built construction. Although Maryland’s website is a positive step in “talk” of sustainability, the University now has to take action in continuing to make eco-friendly decisions. One of our contributors, Sam Snelling, evaluated some of the claims made by President Mote and offered his own opinion of past University efforts as well as suggestions for the future in a Diamondback column published yesterday.

> Campus Sustainability at UMD
> Diamondback - Sam Snelling Op-Ed: “Focus on the Future”
> Read more about “Student Action on Clean Energy“