If you work on campus the University of Maryland wants you to live here. The Gazette is reporting on a study being performed by UMD to determine what folks are looking for in a neighborhood to better market the surrounding area to faculty and staff.

We’ve profiled Live Near Your Work programs before which have a marginal success rate at best.  Currently only 33% of faculty/staff live in Prince Georges county. What is really needed is a radical change in the perception of the area among potential homeowners. Although College Park was voted the Best Place to Raise a Family in 2011 by Bussinessweek, there are still several factors that push people to Montgomery, Howard, and even farther out in Prince Georges county. Concerns about public safety, the consistently low performing public schools, and high taxes are high on potential homeowners minds when they look to settle in the area.

So why is it that more faculty/staff do not  live near campus?

For Dan Thomas it was affordable housing in the 1970′s:

Dan Thomas would have liked to live closer to the University of Maryland, College Park, where he works as a research analyst. He and his family tried, in the 1970s, to find a home in College Park. “Unfortunately, there seems to be a limited supply of affordable quality housing in the College Park area,” Thomas said, adding that he has been in his Bowie home since 1978, a commute that takes him about a half-hour five days a week*. “It could just as easily have been College Park. We really tried back then.”

However, from the University perspective, the benefits of having more Faculty/Staff living in College Park are obvious. University Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Robert Specter:

For the university, keeping faculty close to campus means a more engaged and cohesive community. It also means a smaller carbon footprint if employees are close enough to walk, bike or use public transportation.

This is a topic that is near to this authors heart. In 1999 my wife and I made a decision to move into College Park. Since we both worked for the University it was important to us from a quality of life perspective to have a short commute. We also felt that although the area had a overall poor reputation there was enough positives that pointed to a turn around for the area. In the 13 years since I have seen positive changes as well as some serious setbacks. However I continue to believe this area has more upside potential than those who only see the sketchy parts of Route 1.

For me personally now that I have children (age 5 and 2) staying in the area or not will all come down to schools. The public middle and high schools in the area have challenges to overcome. The upcoming College Park Academy charter school should be a large step in the right direction.

Another issue is the availability of family friendly housing nearby. This is something that current development hasn’t directly addressed.  Here are thought from Mr. Thomas again:

I may be wrong, but other than the new student apartment buildings, I’m not aware of any significant addition of nearby family housing in many years.  Perhaps the relocation of students away from the residential neighborhoods of College Park and into apartment buildings designed for them will be a good thing in the long-run — making those neighborhoods more desirable for campus employees.  Hopefully, the efforts currently being made will help College Park to invite employees closer.  By the way, put me down for a new 2 bedroom, 2 bath condo within a couple miles of the campus.

It is empty-nesters like Dan Thomas, and myself in about 16 years but who’s counting, with a long affiliation with the University that can really help a college town thrive.

What are your thoughts? Do you work for the University? Where do you live and why did you choose that location? Did you consider living locally? Why or why not?

Sound off in the comments section.

* For the past 5 years Mr. Thomas has been using the Shuttle-UM service from Bowie for his now twice weekly commute.

The on-again/off-again East Campus project that was stalled after the original developer pulled out is heating up again. The Diamondback reported on Thursday that plans for phase I of the East Campus project are being released. The City Council recently voted gave the approval for $3.3 million in state funds to be released to the University to clear off the old facilities on the site.

The first part of the plan is to include a hotel with ample conference space, grad housing and almost 60,000 square feet of retail. Stay tuned for upcoming public forums to discuss the types of retail should inhabit this new location. We seem to remember already having a series of public forums on this very topic.

Taking cues from 1980s-style office parks, UMD is forging ahead with the next phase of M-Square (see interactive map) – its suburban office complex steps from College Park’s metrorail Green Line station. Not only does the proposed three 150,000 square foot building, 1,114 parking space development ignore its relationship to the Green Line, it fails to acknowledge a planned Purple Line light rail station directly at its front door. The plan misses or puts off indefinitely several opportunities to make critical pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle connections in the area. The College Park City Council will discuss the plan in Tuesday’s work session and the Prince George’s County Planning Board will hear the application March 8th.

While the proposal conforms to the 1997 College Park-Riverdale Transit District Development Plan (TDDP), it stands in direct contradiction to the University’s sustainability goals. The design is completely legal and within the bounds of current zoning, but it abandon’s UMD’s moral obligation to Prince George’s County, College Park, and Riverdale. UMD should immediately remove this detailed site plan from consideration and wait for the completion of TDDP update (which will begin this summer) and M-NCPPC Purple Line TOD Study. According to M-NCPPC, these studies seek to address several issues confronting this area of town:

• Most of the properties near the station are within the Aviation Policy Area (APA) 6 portion of the College Park Airport, and are subject to certain height and notification requirements.
• Existing and proposed development in the M Square research park is not transit oriented or supportive, and lacks cohesive pedestrian- and transit-friendly design.
• Federal tenants (FDA, NOAA, Center for Advanced Study of Language) require secure compounds detrimental to pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.

See the current M-Square Master Plan HERE.

The Prince George’s County Planning Board approved the Cafritz rezoning by a 4-0 vote yesterday evening. Board Chairman Elizabeth Hewlett had recused herself from the matter because in her work as a

Cafritz Site against the larger area. From Cafritz Tract, LLC

land use attorney she had consulted with Cafritz (She also recused herself from board proceedings in January). The Patch’s John Davisson posted a thorough blow by blow of Thursday’s hearing which can be found here. The proposal will next go to the District Council, which is made of up the members of (but not the same as) the Prince George’s County Council. The date for that hearing has yet to be set.

The conditions for the rezoning did go through additoonal changes since the previous hearing – the full changes are available here. Most changes were gramatical or technical. Notable changes include

• Requiring plans for Baltimore Ave/Van Buren signalization, crosswalks and bicycle parking with the Detailed Site Plan, rather than the building permit applications
• A requirement to put all utilities underground
• An explicit requirement to send plans for the Baltimore Avenue buffer to University Park
• More explicit process for turning over roads to the Town of Riverdale Park
• Requirement for SHA preliminary approval for Baltimore Ave/Van Buren signalization before issuing a grading permit.
• More explicit requirements for the staging of the Van Buren and Maryland Avenue extensions
• Inclusion of Riverdale and University Parks in working to create a Transportation Demand Management District

In many ways, the Planning Board stage served as the appetizer. I’m sure we’ll get a big full meal of debate when the project moves to the District Council.