Posts about Campuses

Georgetown would use the property to consolidate its sports programs in one location and to use the Lane Kirkland Center, a conference facility completed in 2006, for meeting space. Meanwhile, growing Montgomery College may want it for an entire new campus, though they haven't submitted a formal bid yet. While both schools would make a great use for the property, having Georgetown at the National Labor College is particularly interesting.

Last week, county planners submitted preliminary recommendations (PDF) for the White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan, which envisions creating a new center for research and technology around the Food and Drug Administration's new campus on New Hampshire Avenue, a half-mile from the National Labor College. Under the plan, which is similar to the proposed Great Seneca Science Corridor in Gaithersburg, the area could have as many as 40,000 new jobs and 8,000 new homes.

The county's already picked a developer for what would be the plan's largest component, a massive mixed-use development called LifeSci Village. However, a county-funded study by consulting firm Partners for Economic Solutions last year found that the Science Gateway won't work without an affiliated research institution.

Georgetown could potentially fill that void. The university conducts a lot of research, and while much of it is not in science or technology-related fields, they are looking to expand. Georgetown is looking for up to 100 acres for a satellite campus somewhere in the District of Columbia to accommodate their future growth needs.

While a few potential sites exist, many of them would require building a school from scratch. The National Labor College, with dorms, classrooms, a library and an auditorium, would allow Georgetown to hit the ground running. That is, if they sought to use the campus for more than athletic fields and conference rooms.

With a new campus, Georgetown could expand into new fields of study and scientific research. Meanwhile, the White Oak Science Gateway would have a prestigious anchor that could draw scientists and companies from around the world. In turn, they would attract investment in the kind of amenities that East County residents are clamoring for, like more jobs and better shopping.

Of course, one advantage to sites in the District is proximity to Georgetown's main campus, while the National Labor College is over 10 miles away. If built, Montgomery County's proposed Rapid Transit Vehicle system would have three routes serving the White Oak Science Gateway and a stop serving the National Labor College, improving its accessibility to the main campus and the rest of the region.

As I've written before, the National Labor College campus is a big opportunity for East County to reinvent itself. However, it also gives Georgetown University a chance to grow and become an even stronger research institution. Meeting the school's athletic needs is important, but there's potential for much more on this site.

The Washington area is near the top of the pack for most of the graduate programs. In law, perhaps not surprisingly, we've got four top-50 schools. But in medicine, Washington's best are ranked farther down; we're more comparable to Miami, a city in a state which places very little emphasis on quality education.

The number two medical school in the nation is, of course, not far at all. Baltimore is even part of the same Combined Statistical Area as Washington. UVA's is number 25, but it's far enough away as not to be part of the Washington region.

Does this matter? The link between medical education and medical care

Who cares if our medical schools aren't the best in the nation, especially with Johns Hopkins around?

Doctors have the ability to live in many parts of the country, and residency already takes them to areas they might not otherwise have lived in. When choosing a long-term place to live, many want to either work where they can get the most interesting cases, or make the most money.

Specialists who have the most knowledge often want to work in the best academic or research hospitals. Patients needing the most unusual and expert care will go to those hospitals, making the work more interesting for doctors. Plus, a doctor's reputation comes partly from the quality of the school and hospital where he or she works. That draws many of the best doctors to want to work at the best schools and their hospitals.

Doctors primarily concerned with money are attracted to areas with a lower cost of living and higher Medicare reimbursement rates, which vary by state. For a doctor in a hospital, like a surgeon, Medicare rates govern payments for many procedures and therefore strongly influence physician pay. Meanwhile, the cost of living also varies greatly, but often not in lockstep. A higher cost of living in the Washington area might deter doctors from choosing to practice here.

Certainly people in Washington can go to Baltimore for the occasional, very serious medical issue. But in a metropolitan area of almost 6 million people, shouldn't we want to have great specialists too? And while there are plenty of great primary care doctors in Washington, there often don't seem to be enough. If our medical schools were even better, it might attract even more of the best and brightest in the medical profession, just as the region attracts much of the best and brightest in the legal field.

Help medical schools thrive

Georgetown has expressed a long-term interest in moving its medical school, Washington's best ranked. DC should work hard to keep it here, and discourage it from moving to a distant exurban part of the region. It should also take an interest in helping the other medical schools grow and thrive.

Sometimes it seems DC takes its universities for granted. While certain officials entice sports teams to move here no matter what the cost, the District government is placing severe limitations on its universities. These limitations aim to satisfy residents who don't want to see an increase in undergraduate or graduate students or more institutional use of buildings in their neighborhoods.

DC won't collapse without better medical education or care, but as residents and leaders think about the future, we should consider helping DC and the Washington area be as competitive in medicine as it is in other fields.

St. Elizabeths

St. Elizabeths is a historic psychiatric hospital located across MLK Ave. in Ward 8. It has 350 acres spread over its west and east campuses. At one point the hospital served 8,000 patients. Nowadays it serves only a very small group of patients, primarily those determined mentally incompetent to face trial (including Albrecht Muth).

In 2007, the Department of Homeland Security announced plans to consolidate its many offices around the DC area onto the west campus of St. Elizabeths. The District kept the east campus, and is planning to redevelop it. The east campus is 170 acres itself. So there's definitely room if GU wanted to be an "anchor tenant" of the development. The city would probably be happy to make a deal with GU if it meant the construction of a top notch hospital square in the middle of the city's poorest ward.

Alternatively, DHS has dragged its feet actually moving to the west campus. A senior DHS official said that they doubted the move would ever happen. It's remotely possible that DHS might be looking to back out of the deal, and GU could step in.

Old Soldiers Home

The Old Soldiers Home is a massive 250-acre plot of land in Ward 5 that contains the historic Lincoln cottage, where Abraham Lincoln escaped the summer heat. Right now the campus still houses a small population of retired veterans, but about half of the property is a golf course.

In 2005, the administrators of the home proposed to develop the southern section of the property. After some pushback from the surrounding neighborhood (and, as I hear it, from retired generals who like to golf) the plans seem to have been shelved.

It's a lot less likely an option for GU than St. Elizabeths, but you never know.

Reservation 13

Reservation 13 is the location of the old DC General hospital. The city has been working on plans to redevelop the parcel for years. Despite having issued an RFP several years ago, the city recently went back to square one on the project.

If building a hospital is part of plans, rebuilding a hospital on the site of the old DC General could make GU's pitch appealing to the city. But I doubt this would happen.

For one, the whole Reservation 13 is only 67 acres. And the city doesn't want to go from one single use to another for the property. Second, even if the city thinks it's a good idea, the neighbors really don't want one large institutional use for the property.

Those are the only properties I can think of in the District proper. GU, of course, could explore site in Virginia or Maryland, but I suspects they want to remain more central.

So if I had to bet, I'd say St. Elizabeths.

The campus plan will now last for a 7-year term, beginning January 1, 2011 and ending December 31, 2017, instead of a 10-year-term. During this time, community and university leaders will work on a 20-year-plan.

The ten-year campus planning process is broken, as GGW contributor Jacques Arsenault explained last year. It sets neighbors and Universities up to push as hard as they can once a decade because they know they won't get another chance at talks for 10 years.

Georgetown and its neighbors have recognized this and are defining their own process, to be approved by the Zoning Commission, which is more collaborative. It makes a lot of sense.

The University and neighbors will create joint committees to design programs to bring the University and neighborhood communities together, and address issues when they arise.

Only 3-4 decades ago, the University and the neighbors formed a single community with extensive interactions and relationships. Just watch the film The Exorcist to get an idea of what Georgetown was like in the early 70s - neighbors, priests, faculty and students interacted often.

There is significant desire among Georgetowners to return to this period of community and shared purpose. Most neighbors actually care deeply about the intellectual and character formation of Georgetown students, and most students and professors care deeply about the families outside the university gates. These committees reflect that shared feeling.

Students in "Magis Row" student townhouses on 36th Street NW will be housed on campus by Fall 2013 so that the "Magis Row" townhouses can transitioned to faculty and staff housing.

Central to the residential college model is faculty who live on or near campus, and thus interact with students in their residential life. The high cost of housing in DC makes it hard to do this, but Georgetown University is making a commitment to house professors and staff in what is currently student group housing.

New emphasis on a living and learning campus that centralizes student social life on campus.

Two GGW contributors, Jake Sticka and Kara Brandeisky, penned an excellent appeal to improve social life on campus as a solution to the campus plan dispute.

Georgetown leaders are committed to improving social spaces on campus in order to create a true residential college atmosphere in which living and learning are not physically separated.

Living off campus will be treated as a privilege, not a right, and granted based on one's disciplinary record.

In the 60s, priests walked the streets of Georgetown enforcing a curfew for students living off-campus. Most universities now isolate students into large dorm complexes or off-campus quarters.

Part of the residential college model is avoiding the wall that many universities erect between residential life and a student's intellectual and character formation. Georgetown University is taking more responsibility for the formation of students living off-campus with this measure.

450 additional beds will be created on campus.

As part of the commitment to the residential college model, University leaders will add 450 more beds to accommodate students moving on-campus. Along with measures to improve social spaces and liberalize alcohol policies on campus, the addition of 450 beds will help shift the locus of students' social life onto campus, where it is more integrated with the intellectual life of the University.

The University will propose significantly improved measures for relieving parking and traffic congestion in Georgetown. Their first proposal is to not allow off-campus undergraduates to bring cars into Georgetown.

Topher Mathews, Kara and I posted a plea last year to the University to find innovative, progressive ways to better manage transportation demand on the campus of the largest employer in the city.

Georgetown University has a serious commitment to environmental sustainability and is serious about joining the discourse over smart growth and planning.

There's more to the plan, and you can read about it on ANC2E's web site. Leaders on all sides of the Georgetown campus plan dialogue are to be congratulated for this accord and the spirit it embodies.

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.