Beer, Crime, and Urban Design
October 17th, 2006 | by David Daddio | Published in Downtown, General College Park, On Campus Development | 2 Comments
Student Government leaders lead university and government officials around campus last night during their annual safety walk. They considered lighting, camera coverage, and overgrown shrubbery that could aid criminals (all topics that we explored briefly a couple weeks ago). Officials repeatedly swayed the conversation on crime to one of its root causes – drinking. A brief jaunt through CP’s crime alerts will confirm their arguments in case you have any reservations about them.
Still, we think a more vibrant and dynamic College Park, with new economic and residential diversity, can vastly alleviate the dire crime situation we find ourselves in. More activity, more people, more eyes on the street can, does, and will stop crime. A police officer on every corner is not a feasible nor a desireable goal.
We’ll defer to the Diamondback opinion staff’s brilliant editorial on “Fixing College Park’s afflictions” through development. Here’s our favorite part:
Until the city and developers can get on the same page, College Park will continue to hemorrhage opportunity with each passing day. And as a result, the city will continue to suffer from heightened levels of crime, underappreciated businesses and worrisome housing conditions – all negative effects of a downtown nowhere near its potential.
October 21st, 2006 at 2:17 pm (#)
The editorial might be brilliant if it were true. The Diamondhack says a lot of things about College Park that it utterly fails to support (because it doesn’t dare try).
Since the County controls what get approved and built and what doesn’t, it would be interesting to know what specific opportunities the Diamondhack would suggest have been lost because of any City action or inaction. The truth is developers can bypass the City and go to the County. However, the County is much more of a wildcard than is the City.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 22nd, 2006 at 8:11 pm (#)
I agree, the failure to mention the county (which yields zoning authority as some of our readers may have picked up earlier) is a major oversight of their analysis. Still, I think their streamlining point (for the city and county) is a good one. The upcoming approval of the form-based code seems to be a great first step towards that end.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0