Second JPI Project Approved

College Park West - The Jefferson

“The Jefferson” (pictured above), a proposed 220-unit mixed-use project was approved by the PG County Planning Board late last week. The project site is just north of 193 at the former location of Hillcrest Hotel and Lasiks and across Route 1 from JPI’s already approved “Jefferson Square” project (pictured below). The newly approved project will contain 25,000 square feet of retail on the ground floor that will be spread out among three separate spaces. Both JPI projects will include underground parking. Councilman Dernoga is widely expected to “pull” the newly approved project for review (if he hasn’t already) just as he did for Jefferson Square. Taken together, these projects will bring a huge boost to Route 1 and they are the two projects in the corridor that we expect to come to fruition the soonest.

—> Read the Detailed Site Plan

Jefferson Square Condominiums

8 thoughts on “Second JPI Project Approved”

  1. I hope “Jefferson” and “Jefferson Square” won’t be the actual names of these projects as it’ll be a detriment to creating a unique identity for the neighborhood and for CP as a whole. “Jefferson” is a name JPI uses for branding (take, for example, Jefferson at Inigo’s Crossing in Bethesda and Jefferson at Sullivan Place in Alexandria.) Before they were sold to another management company, the Wynfield Park apartments (across from IKEA) were originally developed by JPI and named “Jefferson at College Park” or something like that.

  2. In response to Route 1 Growth:

    I’m a little baffled by some of the concerns you constantly express here and elsewhere about this and other developments.

    Do you or do you not want Route 1 to evolve into something that resembles Connecticut Avenue, with its block after block of brick middle-rise apartment buildings, more than the decaying 5-mile strip mall that we have currently?

    Regarding traffic: A better environment in and around College Park may bring in a few more local residents, but that doesn’t mean that traffic is necessarily going to increase much if at all; in fact, it could decrese. Wouldn’t you prefer for thousands of UM students to be able to walk or take a shuttle to campus every day instead of driving here? Wouldn’t you prefer for your neighbors and you to be able to walk or bike or even drive to a decent restaurant on the Cafritz property or East Campus or elsehwere instead of having to endure 30 minutes of traffic-plagued driving to DC or Montgomery County just to go out to eat?

    Regarding schools: Most of the new housing currently being proposed on Route 1 is targeted at students, who will have few if any children. In any case, developers and the planning board have ZERO affect on school spending decisions; in deed, local politicians, who often participate in development debates, often don’t have that much power either. I agree that we need more schools in the area, big time, but I think the answer to that problem is to convince the school board to build them. Holding up unrelated development projects with very little impact on enrollment seems like a very indirect and minimally useful route to that objective (assuming that talk about schools isn’t just a red herring that some people are throwing up to oppose development for other reasons).

    With several thousand more UM students, faculty and staff living in and around campus, rather than driving here everyday, local businesses will grow and improve, traffic may actually decrease (as the number of student commuters decreases) and our community will benefit.

    Students, particularly, want and need such housing and related amenities. I hope they and others won’t let a small but vocal group of not-in-my-backyard chicken littles frighten the powers that be into standing the way of this and other worthy proposed developments in our community.

  3. Wow College Heights, what a great post. In addition to all of the great points you make, Id like to add another: crime.

    A more vibrant College Park with a higher student population (think more eyes and ears) could actually help control crime.

    Its good to see there are some folks who embrace these positive changes as opposed to those that seem to fear all / any change.

  4. Would not an increased population bring more crime?
    Like the armed car-jacking near Easton hall a few evenings ago.

  5. An increased number in absolute terms or an increase per capita? Crime rates seem to be independent of population numbers. For instance, the murder rate in the U.S. declined steadily in the 1990s, even as the U.S. population increased. Even as P.G.’s population continues to increase every year, the total number of homicides has fluctuated independently: the county had 164 homicides in 2005, but the number declined to 134 in 2006. This could be due to a few key arrest and the fact the the county police department faced intense pressure to halt the bloodshed.

    Furthermore, the increased property tax revenue from more development could finance the creation of a city police force, as a few neighboring towns have.

  6. It is a lot safer walking around midtown Manhattan at 3 am than it is walking around downtown Baltimore at 3 am. Why? There are more people around and that in and of itself increase the security. A criminal is more likely to attack when no one is looking.

  7. I too would welcome a better growth plan and a vibrant student/resident area in College Park. As a up and coming research university, the only way UMd is going to compete with other universities for students is to have the amenities that students would like to see. And I am looking forward to having a place to take people for dinner that is not a chain! I look at Charlottesville and long for even some of the same feeling. I believe crime will go down and pride in our area will go up as will the property values. What am I not seeing when I read the posts from people who are so against the projects? I really don’t get it.

Comments are closed.