|
Figures from the University's Office of the Director for Resident Life show that seven hundred and fifty-five freshmen are currently housed in overcrowded conditions. Double rooms have been converted to triples, triples made into quads, and dormitory lounge rooms modified to serve as sleeping quarters. Students in these rooms often consider themselves the lucky ones: Campus newspaper stories speak of students "begging" for converted triples. What's worse than three adults living in a fourteen-foot-square bedroom? Those "begging" students were struggling to avoid placement in off-campus hotels. One hundred and sixty-three new freshmen were housed in the Quality Inn and Best Western hotels on Route One. All of these students requested on-campus housing; instead they were placed amidst an ugly commercial strip that lines a busy state highway. The hotels themselves are not equipped for long term inhabitation by students. Unlike on-campus dorms, the hotels' main entrances are not locked. Shuttle bus service ends at 10 p.m., forcing students with late night studies or activities to walk. Phone systems have been overwhelmed by student use; 911 emergency service, e-mail accounts and the MARS registration system have been unavailable at times. To relieve the overloaded phones, the students' service was curtailed even though they paid monthly and per-call charges. The worst part of hotel living is isolation from campus life. Friends, classes, extracurricular activities and eating halls are distant. Several interviewed students regretted missing an essential part of the collegiate experience, the immersion in campus activities. On the other hand, many of those assigned to the hotels tried to find positive aspects of the arrangement. The air conditioning and cable TV were frequently cited as amenities. Upperclassmen who wish to live on campus are also being turned away. Three hundred and nineteen upperclassmen were housed on campus in the fall of 1998 while nine hundred and one were denied placement. These numbers include only those upperclassmen who participated in the lottery process. A major survey was prepared by Kramer Associates for the Maryland General Assembly in 1988. It found that one-quarter to one-third of all upperclassmen would live on campus if space was available. Applied to 1998 enrollment figures, this proportion is approximately equal to 1,700 persons. Demand for campus housing is at its highest level since 1985. The number of upperclassmen put on waiting lists for campus housing has doubled, on average, every year since 1994. Administration officials expect the demand to match or exceed current levels for at least the next several years. The availability of dorm rooms is directly impacted by the lack of convenient off-campus housing. The Kramer study found in 1988 that the local housing market was inadequate to meet existing and projected student needs, and there have been no apartments constructed in College Park since then. Students who wish to live near campus find a dearth of alternatives to dorm housing. Since the market is limited and difficult, upperclassmen hang on to the dorm spaces they are able to obtain. As an undergraduate who sought an apartment in the fall of 1997, I can attest to the difficulty of locating decent, convenient housing. Many rooms in Old Town College Park are deteriorated. The City's Comprehensive Plan notes that "Poor maintenance and even condemnation of housing units are not uncommon in Old Town…" Some rooms are located on busy streets and have intolerable levels of traffic noise. Others simply have enormous waiting lists: At the Knox Road condominiums, I was told to check back in six months. Even though I preferred to live within walking distance of campus, I decided to look farther afield because the local market was so frustrating. Within a 15-20 minute drive of campus there are several apartments but most are in noisy locations or areas where muggings and assaults occur several times a month. As a commuting student, I encounter some of the same difficulties as freshmen hotel residents. Campus life and activities are distant and poorly accessible. Some days I race from campus, across the city, back home and then to class again. After a certain amount of driving I run out of time and energy. It becomes unfeasible to battle rush-hour traffic a second or third time simply to attend a club meeting or evening concert. When much of the student body faces this predicament, the result is an impoverished cultural environment. Some commuting students would prefer to keep the arrangement they currently have. This includes students who live at home or who are especially attached to particular homes or neighborhoods. For them, the housing shortage is of no immediate consequence. For others who would prefer to walk to campus, the daily commute and search for parking is a time-wasting hassle. The housing shortage does have consequences beyond everyday inconveniences. No one is pleased that freshmen are lodged in hotels. Recently, a University junior was quoted in the Washington Post expressing his dissatisfaction with the situation. Some parents of the affected freshmen are particularly upset, and their outrage also has been written up in the Post. Administration officials are scrambling to find a remedy. As an aspiring flagship school that strives to compete with the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor or the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Maryland gets a close examination from many sources. Some of these include: High school counselors; guidebooks like the Princeton Review and The Insider's Guide to Colleges; national media sources like U.S. News & World Report and the Washington Post. Reports of chronic shortages and impossible housing markets can dissuade applicants from considering Maryland--applicants who might have become great assets to the University. Such reports will degrade Maryland's reputation and standing in comparison to other universities. People remember their experiences with college housing and social arrangements long after they graduate. The quality of one's living conditions is a primary factor affecting overall satisfaction with one's college years. That's why the misfortunes borne by the freshmen of 1998 threaten the public perception of this institution. If it continues unabated, the shortfall will be a source of vexation and ill will for students, alumni, and all who support the vision of a nationally-ranked campus. Many people have wondered how the University could allow such a situation to arise. Just before classes began this fall, the Washington Post reported "Some students and parents complain that the university failed to plan appropriately…" Was it merely a planning snafu that caused this shortage? Actually, the roots of the problem lie in more systemic, long-term trends. The University of Maryland was originally chartered as an agricultural college. According to T. Raymond Burch's historical account, the University retained its rural character for a surprisingly long time. Photographs taken as late as 1926 show the campus surrounded by rolling farmland and dense forests. When the City of College Park was incorporated in 1945, most of its roads were dirt or gravel. Many of them flooded regularly, and were impassable during the winter months. It wasn't until the post-World War II era that development of the city and campus began in earnest. The nearby planned town of Greenbelt provided a model of suburban progress that College Park applied to the land within its borders. The passage of county zoning codes sealed the fate of the City by mandating suburban development patterns. Residential areas were built as auto-dependent bedroom communities for nuclear families. Instead of a walkable college town with a mixture of apartments and businesses, the City developed with detached single family homes, a commercial strip along Route One and plenty of new streets and parking lots. Little space was provided for apartments because there simply wasn't much of a market for them. On campus, University President Harry "Curly" Byrd had parlayed the school's athletic prowess into a massive building binge. The essential features of today's campus were put into place, including the North Campus high-rise dorms. This increase in housing capacity allowed all students who wished to live in dorms to be accommodated. The majority of students continued to commute. The University had been a commuter college from its inception, and it was popularly known as a "suitcase college" because so many students returned home on weekends with suitcases in hand. Because of the school's poor academic reputation and single minded devotion to athletics, many students were uninterested in a close involvement with campus activities. By the mid-sixties the student population of 22,000 was expanding and creating new markets for apartments. Many of the area's complexes such as Springhill Lake and Seven Springs Village were built then; almost all were beyond walking range. As the baby boom generation reached college age, enrollment at Maryland skyrocketed to 38,679 in 1985. That year, on- and off campus facilities were so overtaxed that freshmen had to be placed in hotels. In the immediate off-campus neighborhoods, construction had not kept pace with the population increase because there were no more sites where apartments were allowed. Part of the enrollment increase in the 1980's may have been due to steadily improving academic standards. A Carnegie Foundation study had recommended upgrading science departments, increasing state funding and cutting admissions by ten percent. University President John Toll used the report to secure funding for faculty raises and federal research contracts. Campaigning for higher standards, Toll popularized the idea of Maryland ranking among the top ten public universities in the nation. The recommended admissions cuts were delayed for nearly a decade. The administration was distracted by several scandals including a faculty bribe and the death of basketball star Len Bias, and the resulting bad press did not help Maryland's self-improvement effort. A major shake-up of university governance at the state level caused a change in leadership and further delays of reform. At the same time, disputes over the allocation of state funds ensured that no money was available for new dormitories. President William "Brit" Kirwan was appointed in 1989. As an administrator with a long teaching record, he was well aware of the crucial need for curtailing enrollment. Within three years he implemented the cuts in admissions that were outlined in the University's Facilities Master Plan. Enrollment declined to 32,441 in 1993, a decrease of twenty percent (about 6,200 students) from the peak enrollments of the 1980's. The numbers for total enrollment were lower than the Master Plan's specifications although the numbers for full-time undergraduates were 500-600 greater than the stated goals. That excess continues through the current year. But the fact remains that substantial cuts--equaling thousands of students--were made. Why then is the University experiencing housing shortages? The crux of the matter is that more and more freshmen and upperclassmen are choosing to live on campus. Seventy percent of freshmen chose to live on campus in 1991; this year the figure rose to eighty-five percent. These 3,394 students represent the largest group of freshmen ever to be housed on campus. Sixty percent of last year's dorm residents chose to stay on campus; that's up from forty-six percent in 1993. This group of returning residents totals 4,542 and is the largest since 1981. Overall, thirty-eight percent of full-time undergraduates are housed on campus compared to thirty-two percent in 1992. Rising tuition fees nationwide may play a role in the increases; opinions are conflicting. U.S. News and World Report figured that (as of August 1998) private colleges cost $20,000-30,000 per year while annual costs for public universities start at $8,000. One out-of-state Maryland student said, "My sister was also in college, Penn would have cost 30,000 a year, and my parents want to eat." Conversely, administration officials have speculated that the prosperous economy may provide more students with funds to live away from home. The most compelling reason for the increase in campus living was given by Director of Resident Life Patricia Mielke. "Those students want to be more involved, they want the traditional college experience, they want closer access to libraries and professors," she told the Washington Post. The academic standards are rising with each freshman class; the freshmen of 1998 have the highest-ever GPA and test score averages. Serious students are attracted and excited by intensive learning programs. The Gemstone, Honors and College Park Scholars programs feature advanced seminars, original research and exclusive dormitories. Students in these programs want to be engaged with their studies and make a contribution to their school. The commuter's lifestyle fails to provide the environment these students seek. In addition there are more reasons for all students, not just the academic front-runners, to live near campus. The University has been upgrading scheduled activities with concerts, lecture series and midnight basketball. The new Recreation Center is a major draw and the Performing Arts Center will pull in a huge group of gifted performers when it is completed. Soon the Student Center will be renovated to furnish more meeting rooms and work spaces for student clubs and associations. With improved facilities, activities, opportunities and rising academic standards, it is clear that demand for housing on and near campus is bound to increase in the coming years. It is also clear that the housing stock of College Park as it currently exists will be unable to meet the demand. The campus neighborhood must accept change if the University is to avoid future crises like the housing crunch of 1998. How can the shortfall be alleviated? The solution that springs to most people's minds is construction of new dorms. Indeed, the administration announced last spring that it plans to build a 400-bed facility. There's just one catch--someone else has to pay for it. The Department of Residential Facilities is overtaxed already with the maintenance and renovation of existing aged dormitories. New construction bonds can't be issued because they would compete against bonds earmarked for current projects. Further enrollment cuts might help, but they aren't politically feasible. Many in-state families (including families of alumni) complain that standards are too restrictive already. In addition, enrollment cuts would shrink tuition income. The best option is to build apartments in the immediate campus vicinity. This option will serve students who want private rooms and kitchen facilities, but still want to live near campus. It also serves graduate students with and without families, as well as researchers, faculty and staff who prize convenience and close connections with the campus neighborhood. A County-sponsored study found in 1992 that County zoning regulations were obsolete and in need of complete revision. The regulations enforce low-density, segregated arrangements of buildings, lots, streets and parking. Any variation from that outmoded suburban pattern requires a landowner to undertake a complex, multiyear process of expensive studies and public hearings. Mixed use zones which allow a broader spectrum of building types were added to the County code in 1994. Those zones should be put to use in College Park. The zoning ordinances must be changed to allow developers, University administrators and City officials the flexibility to create badly needed rental apartments. Three areas are most suitable for high-density units: the College Park Town Center, the east side of the College Park Metro and University Boulevard. The Old Town commercial center is a patchwork of commercial and residential zones. The entire area should be rezoned to M-U-TC (Mixed-Use Town Center) and declared a Revitalization Overlay District. These two actions are recommended in the City's Comprehensive Plan and will enable the creation of an integrated, walkable town as vital and attractive as Ann Arbor, MI or Berkeley, CA. Apartment buildings will be mixed with some offices and possibly a market hall or hotel. Most structures will have ground-level retail--restaurants, boutiques, music stores, barbers, sundries, etc.--creating a lively pedestrian-oriented area. The land east of the Metro station is also a patchwork of zoning categories, mostly industrial and R-R (Rural-Residential). This largely undeveloped area should be rezoned to M-X-T (Mixed Use Transportation-Oriented). Also, the Transit District Development Plan (TDDP) that is currently underway in County offices must be completed as quickly as possible. Several office projects have been approved and built which are not suited to the Metro site but belong instead in the sprawling office parks along I-95. As both City and County planners have pointed out, the ideal pattern is compact, pedestrian-friendly and composed of a mixture of uses. Release of the TDDP will allow planners to reestablish this more appropriate pattern. Under M-X-T zoning, an abundance of high-density residential buildings can be mixed with offices and research facilities. Hotels, a museum complex and a sports center are also possibilities. Buildings will have ground-level retail and the plan of streets should be designed for convenient pedestrian access to the Metro station and UM shuttle. There are many vacant parcels along University Boulevard and all are zoned for low-density single family homes. The sites nearest the campus, particularly the University golf course, should be rezoned R-10 (Multiple Family, High-Density). Paint Branch golf course is one mile away; College Park doesn't need two golf courses in close proximity. With the new Performing Arts Center across the street, this will be a highly desirable address. Although the State of Maryland has direct jurisdiction over University lands, the County's opinion certainly carries great significance. An R-10 designation will make the County's position clear when the proposal is considered at the state level. Large-scale changes in land use regulations usually provoke opposition from citizen activists. The main objections raised against high density development proposals are traffic congestion, environmental damage and school crowding. For example, a new shopping center at the intersection of Route 1 and the Beltway was opposed on the grounds that it would generate excessive evening traffic. A proposed development next to the Greenbelt Metro was criticized as harmful to a forest and streambed. In regard to traffic, it is important to remember the rationale for building near campus: When people are able to walk and bicycle to campus, they don't need to drive. The more students can walk to campus the less they will contribute to rush hour overloads; rush hour congestion may actually decrease. Of course, full traffic studies will be required to confirm this assumption. Apartment residents will inevitably bring their cars to College Park, but those cars will be used less than usual. The mixed-use development that is recommended will allow residents to walk to local shops for many of their everyday needs. Kenilworth Avenue has recently been improved and signs directing through traffic to that road would help relieve Route 1. Reduced traffic flows on Route 1 will make a more pleasant living and working environment. Also, the development of the Metro station district will create a market for more frequent shuttle bus service, which will induce more people to commute to campus by rail. The completion of the Green Line to downtown D.C. next year will accelerate this trend. The no-growth stance which some activists take is counterproductive from an environmental point of view. The state's "smart growth" law targets urbanized areas for infill construction to relieve development pressure on the outer suburbs. All land inside the Washington Beltway is considered urbanized; this allows the preservation of agriculture and parkland at the metropolitan fringe. College Park Town Center is already urbanized and high quality architecture and landscaping would improve its environment. Some areas near the Metro are already protected as wetland and forest but there is an additional streambed that should be preserved and assembled with residential blocks. On University Boulevard, sensitive design can integrate parkland with pedestrian-oriented high-density apartments. At the University golf course, the lawns that are now used by golfers will be enjoyed by a larger population. The existing clubhouse and tennis courts should continue to serve the community as a tennis-only club. Overcrowding in schools is a contentious issue in the county. A law was signed last year that prohibited new housing in neighborhoods where schools are severely overcrowded. None of the public schools serving College Park are severely crowded but some are moderately crowded. In those cases, developers building nearby are required to pay $9,000-12,000 per anticipated child to supplement school facilities. The Board of Education owns four vacant school sites in the area, so there is adequate space for growth. The majority of near-campus apartment residents will be students (the Kramer report found that Berwyn House Apartments had 100% and Berkely Apartments had 50% student occupancy). Few students have children and some may assist with teaching duties in local schools. Graduate students, researchers and University staff will bring their children to the city, but overall the new apartments will have a much lower percentage of school-age children than the county standard. The fortunes of Prince George's County are strongly affected by the fate of the University of Maryland. The school is a major employer, a generator of business and tax revenue, and a valuable cultural asset. The County should approve the zoning amendments outlined above to give City and University officials maximum flexibility in pursuit of their planning goals. The City and University will work with the County to address essential concerns before initiating projects. These changes are necessary to ensure continued improvement in the campus and its environs. In the long run, the County will enjoy immense benefits from the transformation of the campus neighborhood.
|