Posts about Campuses

There's also what appears to be a basketball court and baseball diamond. (In case you're as unfamiliar with the site as I was, the campus does not include Holly Hall, a retirement community whose red-brick buildings make it look like part of the college.)

What can one do with a former college? Naturally, the campus would lend itself to another school, but we shouldn't be limited by that. The campus might be a nice place for a security-minded government tenant to locate, but judging from the stalled progress at St. Elizabeth's in the District, it's unlikely that any federal agencies will be poking around here.

Besides, we probably don't want that anyway. When the Food and Drug Administration relocated their headquarters to the former Naval Ordnance Laboratory farther up New Hampshire Avenue, there was an opportunity to use its 710-acre property for a mix of uses, including retail, housing or parkland.

But neighbors in Hillandale "[were] going to have none of that," as one resident told the Washington Post. Instead, we got an isolated office campus whose 7,000 workers barely venture out for lunch, much to the chagrin of local restaurants.

The National Labor College land is far too valuable to make that mistake again. It's next to the Beltway and just one exit away from I-95. It's also part of the White Oak Science Gateway, which is what county planners call the research and development center they'd like to create in the area. There are a lot of possibilities here, and we shouldn't be so quick to shut them off.

It's not every day that 47 acres suddenly appears in the middle of an established community. This is a great opportunity and we'd do well to seize it.

It seems clear at this point that there are probably no concessions the university could make that would satisfy the Citizens Association of Georgetown (CAG), the Burleith Citizens Association (BCA), or ANC leadership, short of building enough housing for 100% of undergraduate students. That would be an extremely difficult and expensive proposition for the university, and it's not clear where this housing could go.

The opponents' position suggests that the very presence of students in the neighborhood is an insurmountable problem. This ignores the many positives that students bring to the community, and the fact that many non-student residents choose to live in Georgetown because of its liveliness and urban density. My wife and I feel safe walking home at night knowing there are other people walking about. Without the presence of so many students in the neighborhood the streets would be emptier, and would feel darker and less safe.

Students in the neighborhood are not inherently a problem. The real issue is bad behavior from some students, and what steps the university should take to mitigate those specific negative impacts. That is the sort of conversation that could happen, and that the planning process should encourage. Unfortunately, it hasn't.

Instead, positions have become entrenched and opposing sides treat each other as enemies. For example, the university established the Student Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP) to respond to neighborhood issues, but residents have encouraged neighbors to avoid SNAP and call 911 for any student-related problem, then say that SNAP is ineffective and cite the rising number of 911 calls as evidence of worsening behavior.

As a Georgetown resident and a Hoya alum, I think we deserve a better dialogue. But how do we get to a more meaningful conversation?

Structural changes may be necessary.

Campus plans are reviewed every 10 years. The very nature this 10-year cycle leads to brinkmanship and negativity. Some people feel that they have no leverage with the university in the intervening 9 years, and that they must obtain a decade's worth of concessions all at once. Universities think the same way. They increase their focus on town-gown issues in the years leading up to a campus plan hearing, and sometimes don't treat intervening years as seriously.

Also, like in many local political issues, the loudest voices have the most impact. People with extra time, or who feel particularly aggrieved, become the main voices of the neighborhood, while the larger number of everyday people goes unheard. I have spoken personally to many neighbors, and while many have specific concerns about student behavior or Georgetown, none of them suggest the extreme position of the opposition groups (and the DC Office of Planning) of pushing 100% of students onto campus.

This is a difficult problem. It may take some experimentation on the part of the city to determine if a better process is possible. Here are a few ides.

Option #1: Abolish the 10-year campus plan process entirely.

With the rewrite of the city's zoning plan, DC could determine which development projects or campus issues should be subject to zoning review, and use the regular public hearing process for them. While doing this would remove some of the long-term planning conversations, it would also remove some of the once-a-decade brinkmanship, which would ensure more frequent conversations between universities and neighborhoods.

Option #2: Create a college and university category in the zoning code.

The current zoning code classifies colleges and universities as residential areas and requires a "special exception" for any non-residential use. This is despite the fact that many of these institutions were established decades or centuries before the zoning laws, and have never been primarily residential. Undergraduate students represent around 10% of the city's total population, but the zoning code treats them as abnormal, and frames discussions of university expansion as having an inherently adverse impact.

The creation of a specific zoning category for colleges and universities would allow a larger discussion of the positives these institutions bring to the city, what negative impacts they may create, and the proper roles and responsibilities of universities in 21st century Washington.

A new category would be particularly helpful given the number of universities that have been opening buildings in the District lately, whether for "semester-in-DC" or more comprehensive educational programs.

Option #3: Broaden the conversation about the campus plan.

Several meetings were held in the run-up to the zoning commission hearings, but a small number of people have controlled the debate. Ideally more people should be brought into the conversation. Rather than allowing public opinion to be filtered through the parties directly in support or opposition, perhaps a citywide body such as the Office of Planning should be holding town halls to get more broad public input.

Option #4: Broaden the involved parties.

Universities are integral parts of their communities in many ways. They may offer library or gym memberships, allow for auditing of classes, or open some lectures to the general public. More such efforts by the university to directly connect students with non-student neighbors would begin to build the relationships and trust that are necessary for more positive outcomes. Rather than thinking of universities as an "other" to be opposed, neighbors might be more inclined to look for mutually beneficial solutions.

I have lived in Georgetown for the better part of the past 15 years. I hold undergraduate and graduate degrees from Georgetown University. We can do better. We deserve better. Let's make it happen.

ANC 2E first became publicly involved in the campus plan discussion in January, when it hosted a town hall at the Duke Ellington School. Representatives from the ANC, the local neighborhood associations, and the university were present to discuss the plan and to solicit feedback and comments from community members.

Following this town hall, select members of ANC 2E drafted a 16-page resolution on the campus plan. After discussion at the ANC's March meeting, the resolution passed. It has subsequently had significant impact on the Office of Planning's review of the campus plan, which surprised many by recommending cuts in Georgetown enrollment if it doesn't house 100% of students on campus by 2016.

As an elected representative to ANC 2E I opposed that resolution, but nonetheless felt satisfied with the process. All voices on the matter were heard, and I was able to make the views of my constituents clear via my vote in opposition.

The same cannot be said of the supplementary report that was released last week, and which goes before the Zoning Commission today.

The supplementary report never appeared on a public agenda nor was it ever put to a vote. Despite being very engaged with the campus plan, and despite being a member of ANC 2E's town-gown committee, I only became aware of the existence of this report when it appeared on The Georgetown Metropolitan.

I asked ANC 2E chair Ron Lewis how it was that this report carried the full letterhead and endorsement of ANC 2E despite not having been voted upon. He referred me to a resolution passed in October 2010 (before my election) that reads:

Be it resolved by Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2E, that whenever a resolution or recommendation is adopted by the Commission that relates to a particular matter that is or will be before an agency, entity or instrumentality of the District of Columbia Government or of the United States Government, any Commissioner, or any one or more of them, or any successor thereto, who in each case has voted in favor of the resolution or recommendation so adopted, may represent the Commission before such agency, entity or instrumentality with respect to such matter. Further, any such Commissioner, with the approval of the Chair or in the Chair's absence, the Vice Chair, of the Commission, may authorize any other person to represent, assist in representing, or temporarily represent the Commission, in each case on a pro bono basis without fee, before such agency, entity or instrumentality with respect to such matter.

This resolution as usually applied has many positive and practical applications. The ability to have commissioners present before other government bodies on the thinking of the commission ensures that those bodies understand the ANC's position. It allows for clarifying questions that might otherwise be missed.

However, Lewis has clearly gone beyond the the intent of the resolution by creating a supplemental report over twice the size of the resolution it is augmenting, and which covers several new issues.

The report primarily attempts to discredit new initiatives Georgetown University instituted in response to community concerns. These programs include a late-night shuttle between campus and M Street, a daily trash collection service, and a significant increase in the number of reimbursable police details in the community. The report also addresses several of the points that GU made in its rebuttal statement, filed in July.

The original ANC 2E resolution does not address these programs or the the rebuttal statement because they did not exist at the time it was drafted. It is clear that the November 8th report is not in fact supplementary to anything, but is rather its own, original report. It does not clarify established positions, but rather establishes new positions about new issues.

Considering this fact, it is disappointing that the leadership of ANC 2E did not feel as though a public vote was justified. One of the best aspects of the ANC system is that it supports direct connection to the community. Constituents should always feel as though they have viewpoints heard. In the case of this supplementary report, that clearly isn't what happened. Instead, this report has been created in a completely non-transparent manner that undermines its authority.

It is my hope that Zoning Commission will consider the non-democratic drafting process behind the supplementary report as it reviews this case. Going forward, it is also my hope that ANC 2E will uphold the promise of the ANC system, and be more transparent and open in its proceedings.

But in 1977, it was the threat of Westover Place that was vexing locals. According to a September 25th, 1977 Washington Post article:

And to the north of this, adjacent to the 5-acre university parking lot, Kettler Brothers Inc., the giant development company that built Montgomery Village, has already cleared more than eight acres where 149 town houses will be constructed. Houses in this development, Westover Place, will sell from about $135,000.

In the article, entitled "Bulldozers at the Estates," Phil McCombs reports on arguments and characters not unlike the current fights over American University's expansion and other developments in the area. Just as before, opponents are appealing to a right of first arrival, but the article lays bare the hypocrisy in living in a development while fighting a development because it will have the same effects your house did. The rowhouses of Westover Place and similar developments paved over Northwest's last open spaces that seemed so essential to the "rural" character of piedmont Washington.

Similar to the opposition to the 1960 Tenley Library and the 1941 Sears Roebuck, an enormous to-do was made over the development and yet both became established elements of the community. At that time, however, the changes seemed signified the end of something unique. McCombs quotes the ANC3 Commissioner Polly Shackelton bemoaning the change:

"Here you have these fine established residential neighborhoods, which will be impacted with increased density and traffic and all kinds of things that really could be very damaging," she said. "I think in a way it's too bad we don't have a comprehensive plan."

She said that development of the Rockefeller estate, for example, "will be devastating because Foxhall Road is already crowded. With 100 new houses there, I don't know how we'll deal with it."

The problematic idea here is "establishment": that because a neighborhood has reached any level of development at all, it should be maintained as it is. Are the current residents who now enjoy this property more justified than their neighbors who lived there in 1977, or estate owners who lived there in 1917?

No, these developments were part of the gradual urbanization of rural estates with density that is more appropriate to a close-in area. In 1977, it was the end of estates, and now it is a shift away from suburban design. Planning should manage change, but we cannot presume to think that any section of a city is in its final state. This flux, and its resistance are the same as today as they were a generation ago.

The objections seem as new (and as stale) as ones thrown up on the Tenleytown listerv yesterday. Just as opponents of Douglas Development's proposal for the former Babe's Billiards site have argued, in 1977 "Area residents said they are concerned that students from the nearby university will team up in the apartment buildings—creating what one person called 'rabbit warrens.' There is also concern that parking space will be insufficient, or that residents of new developments will park in the streets rather than pay to park in areas provided by the developers."

But the city and its infrastructure have been able to adapt to the new houses and the new apartments. The Metro arrived at Tenleytown and Friendship Heights. Both of those neighborhoods have survived significant growth, and quality of life and environment has improved. Friendship Heights, in particular, remains extremely popular as a place to raise a family, even has it has grown more popular as a retail destination and apartment community.

Long-term residents recall the fight of the development of the Glover estate as quite heated, yet the predicted cataclysms never came to pass. Residents of newer developments have integrated into the community, enough to fight changes, at least. Why should we expect any of the dire predictions about AU's expansion to come to fruition?

Cross-posted at цarьchitect. A version of this post appeared in the November 15th, 2011 issue of the Northwest Current.

The letter's first request is for UDC to add additional parking. During the campus plan process, the Zoning Commission and DDOT already decided that more parking was not necessary. And even the ANC voted to approve the plan without asking for more parking. The letter reads:

Traffic and parking are already a problem, and no new parking is envisioned in the University's campus plan. Notwithstanding the fact that the Zoning Commission and the District Department of Transportation concluded that additional parking is not required, the residents request that the University consider providing more parking in the ratios suggested by the Zoning Regulations, which is I space for every 5 beds. This additional parking would serve not only students but also those visiting the campus.

As Lydia DePillis explained, UDC is serious about getting students not to bring cars. They will use market pricing on their parking lots, push Zipcar and transit, and more.

The councilmembers seem oblivious to this in their letter, however. I spoke to Cheh, who pointed out that UDC will continue to have large numbers of commuters, some of whom will drive. Surely some will, but surrounding residential streets are already restricted by Residential Permit Parking (RPP), so it shouldn't harm neighbors. The councilmembers seem to have bought into the residents' assumption that, a priori, more people requires more parking.

There are many policy tools to manage transportation demand that encourage more use of walking, biking, transit, and carpooling. Meanwhile, building parking is expensive, and it will surely induce more car trips. It's disappointing that the members chose to ask UDC to spend scarce public dollars on parking rather than any other, better measures.

Or, perhaps many of them simply didn't think very hard about it. Some of the at-large councilmembers, in particular, seem willing to sign on to virtually any letter by angry neighbors asking for restrictions on a local institution. Given the many benefits universities bring to DC, they should apply more of the careful scrutiny they bring to legislation to cases like this as well.

Some of the provisions of the letter make sense. Asking UDC to work with the community on construction impacts is a good idea. Also, the letter refers to a door from the new student center to the Metro which will let nearby residents pass through to get to and from trains.

The councilmembers ask UDC to consider both reducing the size of the dormitory and also signing no new leases for off-campus student housing. This is contradictory, unless the real goal is to keep the numbers of students low. UDC could build more dorms, or have more off-campus housing, but if it adds a certain number of residential students, it has to be one or the other.

Cheh said she strongly supports making DC universities more like many others around the country where most or all students live on campus. I went to such a school, and the residential experience was indeed a valuable part of college, though many who go to schools with more off-campus housing praise elements of that experience as well.

If DC's public policy is to promote on-campus living, however, we need to realistically provide a path for these campuses to increase on-campus living options. Residents near campuses, and their councilmembers, seem to simultaneously want no students living near campus, no buses traveling to and from campus, no new large buildings, and no expansion of the bounds of the campus.

That is just a recipe for stagnation in a city whose educational options are already more limited than in most other large northeast cities. It'll also just push educational institutions to build sprawling suburban campuses that take intellectual and cultural capital away from the walkable core of the region and induce far more driving.

All of the work the architects have done so far is difficult to judge because the documentation provided by the university is limited and filled with inconsistencies.

Take, for example, the main dormitory building on Nebraska Avenue, Building 1. In site plans presented to the Zoning Commission, the protrusion containing the stairs and common spaces is to the north of the building, but in the floor plans, those spaces are to the south. I can't tell which is accurate. Frustratingly, nearly all drawings are rendered in a faux-sketch style that fudges important details.

But there is enough content to see that the current design is flawed at a scale below the site. That same building along Nebraska Avenue (#1) runs as an extruded block - a slab - lengthwise against the street, routing pedestrians to the corner crosswalks.

To break up the monotony of the building, the architects jagged the building about halfway. This shift, however, has no relation to the rhythms of the main campus across the road. Instead, the design relates only to the driveway AU is trying to retain from the current parking lot.

Loosely tied to the streets, the slabs and boxes float in the site plan, generally aligned to each other but without any juxtaposition or inflection. They are only linked together along the southern edge of the campus, where buildings are used to hide students from Westover Place.

Elsewhere, gaps between buildings form simple cuts without any compression or release. Where the odd angles of Buildings 2 and 5 come close, the architects simply sliced off part of Building 5 to keep the distance from wall to wall consistent.

Within the campus, the internal courtyards do not relate too well the buildings that define them, particularly on the interior organization. In the dormitories, the bedrooms line hallways of varying lengths. The circulation and social spaces in each building cross the grain, protruding as glass boxes at arbitrary points. Considering that these volumes mark the dormitories' front doors, it's baffling that they have no relation to one another.

Along the perimeter, the slabs meet the streets unsuccessfully. At the café spot, a slim, continuous canopy is meant to add a human scale to a Starbucks. Instead, the uninterrupted ribbon just heightens the sensation of flatness.

Because the sidewalks are separated by a buffer, there is no experience of approaching the building head on, again exacerbating the flatness. The only relief from the slab is some halting ornamentation thrown around the buildings, and even that is still maddeningly flat.

The aesthetics are modernistic in their slipping proportional relationships, and they're traditionalistic in the formal quotations. However, it has neither the clear proportions of a good modernist building, nor the interconnected part-to-whole relationship of a building of Greco-roman classicism. You can see the design as a series of layers meant to soften the impact of the building: a "contextual" brick facade on a precast one on a glass volume.

The word is overused, but these buildings are pastiches: a jumble of appliqués to a mass designed in a fundamentally different way, like a Soviet housing block lovingly rendered in loose watercolor. None of the wit or polemic of Venturi's paper facades exissts when the only reason to so explicitly drape the building is to make it blend in halfheartedly.

At East Campus, style is window dressing, another kind of buffer against undesired effects. Hiding a poster of Bruce Lee with an errant molding. The students in the dorms seem to understand that the administration does not: that the best style is no style. The best design manifests itself as useful spaces and memorable buildings that stimulate the students as much as the curriculum does.

The design of public and communal spaces is part of the culture of AU, and they embody the values of the university.

American has been successful architecturally in its sustainable design. The school has maintained and grown its campus greenery and a significant arboretum, and has eliminated car traffic from the heart of campus. Hartman-Cox's Business School addition and William McDonough's SIS building are both exemplary in their design for energy use and environmentally friendly materials.

Additionally, the 2011 Plan goes further with its commitment to LEED Gold certification for all of the buildings on east campus and LEED Silver on the main campus buildings. By 2021, this level of sustainability will be standard, if not a necessary. Whether a building still has an endearing affect and whether it works well will remain an asset.

In the end, the main issue may not be the result of poor architects, but of a poor client. In meetings, AU's representatives have not expressed the cultural or political relevance of their building projects. Again and again, the emphasis is that nothing is changing, or at least, no one will notice it. The design reflects this attitude, and East Campus's proposed architecture is an architecture of desperate stasis at the expense of good design.

As part of a larger strategy for growth and consolidation of its school, American will replace a parking lot with six buildings of two to six stories, including 590 beds, a bookstore, admissions offices, classrooms, administrative spaces, as well as some retail. The benefits for AU have been argued over many times; I'll let AU speak for itself. But the benefits of the expansion to the neighborhood and the city are public business.

The new facilities will bring students out of neighborhoods. Currently, AU undergrads are spread out, with roughly 2,000 of 6,000 living off-campus. Some of those students do so by choice, but AU only has room to house 67% of its students. Many juniors and seniors have to look to the neighborhood for a place to live.

The East Campus would pull students from the neighborhood and the Tenley Campus. Better residential facilities would mean fewer students spread out in the neighborhood, fewer noise disruptions, and less of a demand for vehicular commuting.

That reduction in traffic is no small thing. The new facilities adjacent to the central campus mean fewer trips for students and faculty alike. AU is also reducing the total number of parking spaces on campus, and has promised to expand its existing transportation demand management program. Even so, AU's transportation study found that its users never contributed more than 12% of all traffic during rush hour.

The rest of the vehicles are commuters passing through the Ward Circle area. The three avenues in the area, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Massachusetts currently serve primarily as automobile routes. The new buildings offer the potential to reorient the circle for those who live and work in the area.

Rather than gnarling traffic, as opponents have insisted, the slight uptick in pedestrian activity caused by the new buildings will force drivers to pay better attention to their presence on this urban street. The potential for more stoplights and a redesigned circle opens the opportunity to reduce speeds and dangerous behavior, likewise making the area safer for residents of all ages.

Through commercial frontage and foot traffic, Nebraska Avenue would become a pleasant place for locals to enjoy. Leaving the interior of the campus for students, a commercial perimeter would become another node in the geography of Upper Northwest. It would never become as dense and vibrant as Bethesda, let alone Tenleytown, but as a tertiary urban center, it can merge into the neighborhood.

Finally, the scheme laid out in the university's plan continues to facilitate the economic activity of American and its affiliates, estimated at $415 million. Although academic institutions do not pay taxes for noncommercial properties, the Examiner reported last week that students and faculty bring money and talent to the area when they come to the region's universities. By building on its land efficiently, AU will be making an optimal contribution to the city and enlivening the streetscape through the benefits of density.

There are potential negatives, which AU needs to mitigate. However, in its effort to compromise on objections, AU has layered the new buildings in greenery and minimized certain urban features, compromising potential, while still not satisfying opponents' demands.

For example, a 40' buffer of greenery adjacent to Westover Place feathers the campus into the neighborhood, but it's not good on all four sides. Adding a similar barrier of impenetrable greenery along Nebraska Avenue will separate the campus and retail from the sidewalk. It requires creating a second, separated walkway that will reduce the very urban characteristic of unplanned interactions. It is no small leap to see this buffer as segregating the school from the city.

Worsening the Nebraska Avenue elevation, the most recent plans call for a roadway to be punched through building #1 to the interior campus. A roadway in that place would disrupt the crucial urban space at the sidewalk. Instead, the plans should return to the right-in, right-out entrance on Massachusetts Avenue presented in the March 18th Final Plan. This is similar to the one at Westover Place, the Berkshire, and other nearby driveways.

At the least, the university could build on their plans for the Mary Graydon Tunnel and design the proposed road as a woonerf, prioritizing pedestrians in a roadway that runs through what is the students' front yard.

Likewise, AU should not be advocating for a new actuated signal on Nebraska Avenue. Instead, it should build timed signals that guarantee AU students the opportunity to cross as frequently and in rhythm with the city's traffic.

A new stoplight, combined with the recommended changes to Ward Circle, would make the area safer than any phystical barrier by limiting the incentive to jaywalk. If a physical deterrent is necessary, planters between the street and the sidewalk should be sufficient, as at Bethesda Row.

Finally, the project should serve as a catalyst for alternative transportation in the area. Bike lanes on New Mexico Avenue would mean better safety and better quality of life for students and neighbors alike. On campus, the administration already promotes a progressive Transport Demand Management plan, with dedicated ZipCar spaces, Capitol Bikeshare, carpooling assistance, shuttles, and SmartBenefits. But without adequate facilities, the full benefits of cycling and bus transit will not be realized.

Smart Growth refers to planning that is appropriate not only at the local level, but across multiple scales: architectural, local, metropolitan, and regional. AU's expansion plan, which would consolidate students, tame traffic, and create a new node of community, works at the larger three scales. Where it fails is in the way that it addresses the street and human scale, compromising enormous potential for solutions that will please no one and will require remediation in the future.

The Zoning commission should endorse AU's 2011 Campus Plan with alterations at the architectural scale.

Freshmen should not be forced to live in 170-square-feet triples while paying for some of the most expensive University housing in the country. Reducing enrollment by nearly 25 percent would represent a huge blow to the University's already constrained financial resources. These losses could lead to layoffs at the District's largest private employer.

Additionally, requiring all students to live on-campus would reduce the vibrancy and diversity of the already fairly staid surrounding community. Students live off-campus so that they can assert their independence and learn what it is like to live on their own. This arrangement, which furthers student ties to their community, should be encouraged, especially by a city hoping to expand its tax base.

Fortunately, the OP seems to recognize that their recommendations are not the only way forward. At the May 12 Zoning Commission hearing, OP representative Jennifer Steingasser repeatedly said that she was open to other solutions, so long as they brought students back on-campus and mitigated objectionable impacts in the community.

These solutions are possible. Today, Georgetown students spend time off-campus because they are frustrated by a lack of on-campus space that meets their needs. There's no real reason to live close to the center of student life, because there isn't one.

As long that is true, students will continue to socialize in the community and frequent bars on M Street, even if they are barred from living off-campus. A more holistic plan to remedying the objectionable impacts that OP sees is needed. Such a plan, which both recognizes the need to draw students back on-campus and their right to live off-campus, is laid out below.

Increase student space

For years, students have been advocating for more student space on campus. In 1999, a group of student leaders compiled the Report on Student Life, which recommended that the University reorganize Leavey Center and invest in a real student union. Plans for a New South Student Center were included in the 2000 Campus Plan but never came to fruition, and the proposal is again part of the 2010 Campus Plan.

Last year, the Student Space Working Group released a report that found that the same problems still exist a decade later. When surveyed, 64 percent of students said they desired more study space, 56 percent desired more social space, 49 percent desired more space for eating, 41 percent desired more meeting space, and 32 percent desired more student club space. The longer the students had been at Georgetown, and the more involved they were in extracurricular activities, the more frustrated they were with the space available.

What's more, when asked to identify the center of student life on campus, a plurality of students (33 percent) said it was Lauinger Library. This perception demonstrates a core problem. The spaces available do not meet the full variety of student needs, which means students need to use space in a way that conflicts with its intended purpose—for example, we socialize in an area where other people are trying to study—which renders the space ineffective.

As a result, a full 17 percent of those surveyed answered that there was no center of student life at all.

The closest thing we have to a student union—Sellinger Lounge in the Leavey Center—has not become the student-centered space it was envisioned as because of the presence of hotel guests and Georgetown Hospital staff.

If the campus were the real center of student life, more students would choose to live on-campus. The University can and should create spaces and opportunities for a healthy social scene to thrive.

Bring back Healy Pub

Many alumni still wistfully remember Healy Pub, the bar located in the basement of Georgetown's signature building. In 1987, responding to the higher drinking age, the University ordered the pub to shut down. Town-gown struggles began in full-force in the early 1990s, as student social life began to shift to private parties in Burleith and West Georgetown.

Now, a group of students are trying to bring the pub back. Since 2001, the student body has been paying into a Georgetown University Student Association Endowment Fund. The interest from the fund was supposed to finance student activities once the fund reached $10 million by 2011, but the University reneged on its promised $3 million contribution, so the fund has only reached $3.4 million. The student association leaders now consider the endowment a failure and plan to re-appropriate the money. We have $3.4 million to spend, and the Endowment Commission, identifying the same lack of student space we have, voted last month to put $3.23 million towards the pub.

The proposal is to model the pub after Queen's Head Pub at Harvard. On weekend nights, the area would function as a bar. Those under 21 would be allowed to enter, but they would not be allowed to drink. The rest of the time, the space would function as a lounge, where students could meet, socialize, work, eat snacks and reserve private rooms for meetings.

There are obvious obstacles. Once running, the pub will need an alcohol license, which obviously requires support from the Georgetown Advisory Neighborhood Commission.

Also, the Financial Aid Office and other administrators currently occupy Healy basement, so students need the University's assistance—and blessing—in relocating the people already there to space that will be opened up with the completion of the new science center.

Although the New South Student Center is a necessity and a part of the plan that students welcome, it is not enough. A student-designed, student-run, student-financed space in the heart of Georgetown's historic campus would go a very long way to creating a stronger sense of on-campus community and toward bringing socialization back on-campus.

Reduce on-campus party restrictions

During finals week in 2007, Vice President of Student Affairs Todd Olson surprised students with the announcement of a new alcohol policy. Administrators had decided to institute a one-keg limit, require host training for parties, require students to register parties by Thursday morning, limit the number of students, and increase sanctions for violations, with a third violation leading to suspension. At the time, the Georgetown Voice termed the changes "draconian."

The following September, the student association president led administrators on a tour through campus on a Saturday night. To their surprise, "There were about eight people standing around [on the rooftops] … and when they moved on to Henle, they could hear crickets in the courtyards." Before, it had been one of the biggest party weekends of the year.

Neighbors complained that they noticed an increase in off-campus parties and student noise. Students expressed fear of throwing parties on-campus, citing the new increased sanctions and party registration requirements.

Now, the dynamic has shifted somewhat. Many students express similar fears of 61-Ds for noise violations or Office of Off-Campus Student Life sanctions for off-campus parties.

Students know that despite their best efforts, parties often take on a life of their own, especially at the beginning of the year when groups of freshmen search high and low for a party to crash. Therefore, students decide to throw their parties on- or off- campus depending on where they perceive they'll attract the least trouble.

If we want students to socialize on-campus, we should consider this constant calculus. To an extent, we can shift the party culture by simply shifting the incentives. As we have seen in the last few years, it's not enough to increase the punishments for out-of-control off-campus parties. We need to also loosen the restrictions on on-campus parties.

Meet all undergrad demand for on-campus housing, starting with hotel and 1789 Block

The University maintains that it has provided housing for all undergraduates who have requested it. However, should the above measures be implemented, more upperclassmen will want to live on-campus so that they can be closer to the center to student activity. This is especially true if the expansion locations are well-integrated with existing student patterns.

Considering the existing campus, the two sites for additional housing that seem most sensible are the Leavey Center hotel and the block bounded by Prospect, N, 36^th, and 37^th, known informally as the "1789 block."

Although the Leavey Center has many flaws as a student center and should ultimately be replaced, it has recently become more student-friendly with the opening of the Hariri Business Building, which connects to Leavey. This trend will continue when the new science center opens in fall 2012 (plans call for the science center to connect to Leavey via open lounge spaces). The addition of student housing to Leavey will help ensure that foot traffic in the building returns to being predominantly student-driven, as opposed to hotel guest- or hospital staff-driven.

The "1789 block" which was once a part of the 2010 Campus Plan, would add up to 250 beds and 8,500 square feet of neighborhood servicing retail in the middle of a university-owned block right outside the university's gates. This project would be within a block of three other university dormitories and two university academic buildings. The "1789 block" would be closer to the front gates than the preexisting Nevils apartment complex and LXR dorm. This space is already a center of student activity, and additional commercial areas so close to campus would entice more students to the area.

The University estimates that these two projects could house approximately 500 undergraduates. This would bring the total number housed on-campus to 5,553, which represents about 92 percent of Georgetown's traditional undergraduate enrollment. This figure compares favorably to every university in Washington and is in line with schools like Harvard, Princeton and MIT, which OP praises in their report as models.

Rate My Landlord

Even if these measures are successful, approximately 8 percent of undergraduates will still have the ability to live off-campus.

However, those students who choose to move out of University housing often pay high rents for low-quality neighborhood housing. Slum landlords regularly fail to maintain their property or respect tenant rights. Students are blamed for the unsightly rental houses, when it is the landlord's responsibility to pay for upkeep.

Theoretically, the Georgetown Office of Off-Campus Life is there to "address the needs and concerns of off campus students." In practice, the office spends as least as much time serving its secondary function: acting "as a liaison between the university and our neighbors, encouraging dialogue about issues of mutual concern."

Lost in the shuffle are the students, who need a stronger advocate in their negotiations with landlords.

One service that would make a big impact would be a "rate my landlord"-type website, where students and other subletters could share information about rental rates, housing quality, upkeep and landlord responsiveness.

Students don't want to live under poor conditions. With more transparent information, students can demand better treatment and drive the slumlords out of business.

The takeaway

In the long run, holistic solutions that aim to improve campus and community life will be far more effective than draconian mandates, which will mire us in legal battles for years to come. We ask that the Zoning Commission, University, and community rethink their approach. The only solutions that can truly address persistent town-gown tensions will be the ones that also take student interests into account.