rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Jan 18, 2011 8:23:26 GMT -5
Yes, one of my alumni-profs made it very clear that during the early and mid 1980s (i.e., prior to the construction of the Villages), only freshmen and sophomores were able to live on campus. During the late '90s (post-StMary's/pre-SWQuad), there seemed to be a game involved, in which the Housing Office would make dire threats about the lack of guaranteed on-campus housing in order to scare some segment of the population into voluntarily going off campus so that they wouldn't have to turn down anyone who really wanted to stay in university housing.
|
|
hoya4ever
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 805
|
Post by hoya4ever on Jan 18, 2011 12:05:52 GMT -5
That continued until 2003 the year of the SW Quad. I lived on campus 4.5 years starting fall 2003. If you want housing, you will get it. There is a waiting list and "no guarantee" and you will not live with people you know or like, but housing is there.
The issue is that most people want to live off campus because a house affords an opportunity to have more living space. Having walked up and down Burleith on Friday and Saturday nights, partying is not everywhere. In fact, even houses that have parties take care to close the door and use the basement.
I would challenge these grown ups that want peace and quiet never to throw a party again. 20 adults plus wine and politics does make an intense sound.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,733
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jan 18, 2011 14:13:50 GMT -5
Yes, one of my alumni-profs made it very clear that during the early and mid 1980s (i.e., prior to the construction of the Villages), only freshmen and sophomores were able to live on campus. Yes and no. You could certainly live on campus all four years (I did) but only freshman year was guaranteed. The evolution of housing at Georgetown is an interesting one, and one with two factors that have all but disappeared today: commuters and neighborliness. 1. Up until New South was built in the mid-50's (not, as per the urban legend, designed after a penitentiary), GU had not built a dorm in 30 years--the campus was under 3,000, all male, many students, particularly in the SFS, studied off campus, there was no MSB, and there was a large number of what were then called "day-hops", or students who lived at home and drove to school or took DC Transit. In the 1960's, GU added two new dorms, Harbin (originally male only) and Darnall (women only), but commuters were still a share of the population. In the 1970's, GU (and other schools) began to see residential life as a revenue generator, and began a run of functional but poorly planned housing: Henle (1976), Village A (1980), Nevils (1982), Village B (1983), and Village C (1987), and turned old dorm space into offices (Old North, New North, 4th Healy, upper floors of Loyola). It also began to enforce residency for students. About the same time, the DC commuter population began to disappear altoghether. There is probably enough space on campus to accomodate many more students, but try telling faculty they'll have to move out to do so. 2. There was a time in the 1970's when neighbors saw students as a source of extra revenue and an opportunity by some to maintain the surrounding neighborhoods in the midst of "white flight" and a declining population base in the District. Many students sought rent in basement apartments owned by residents and not to rent entire homes, which maintained a certain respect for both parties when you lived together. When the real estate market took off, the same residents who were more than happy to lend out their basement now were told students were the impediment to add another digit to the price of their overvalued homes.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 18, 2011 14:23:26 GMT -5
If we had just elected Lev Babiev back in late nineties as GUSA president, we'd have attacked Burlieth with a giant catapult and given it back to the wolves, and we wouldn't be having this issue.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jan 18, 2011 15:58:03 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 18, 2011 17:22:01 GMT -5
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,733
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jan 18, 2011 19:58:30 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 18, 2011 20:04:11 GMT -5
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jan 18, 2011 21:27:01 GMT -5
God yes. This is similar too, but better than, all the new housing/apartments that have been going up in college park. The View is the biggest and a View 2 i think opened this year (was supposed to). A bunch more Apartment buildings only open to students are being built now too. They arent on campus like this Camino Del Sol is, but they are of similar quality. What would peoples thoughts being on letting an outside developer build an apartment complex on campus? They lease the land from the university but collect all the rent (set with university input to be inline with the rest of campus), but they pay for all the construction.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jan 19, 2011 1:46:00 GMT -5
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Jan 19, 2011 10:30:43 GMT -5
Harder to fundraise for mixed use, I suspect.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 19, 2011 12:30:45 GMT -5
Aside from the factual and logical problems, that's a very poorly written piece that's hard to follow. For all the supposedly intelligent people that live near the University, all of their blogs and posts are surprisingly incoherent. Also, when reading this blog, why do I keep picturing this in my head (thanks Penn Central v. NYC): wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3424&page=1
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jan 19, 2011 13:38:04 GMT -5
Aside from the factual and logical problems, that's a very poorly written piece that's hard to follow. For all the supposedly intelligent people that live near the University, all of their blogs and posts are surprisingly incoherent. Also, when reading this blog, why do I keep picturing this in my head (thanks Penn Central v. NYC): wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3424&page=1GGW is a pretty quality and useful site, albeit one that is produced by folks who have bought into a certain philosophy/ideology/worldview. I'm sympathetic to many of those viewpoints, although the authors sometimes veer away from pragmatism and toward dogma. The post in question was very much a ham-handed and water-carrying piece, though, part of a campaign on the neighbors part. I was happy to see most of the GGW commentariat Dikembe it so authoritatively - they usually know a NIMBY argument when they see one, even when it's dressed up in urbanist-skin clothing. Ken Archer also has some pretty goofy ideas, e.g. he was widely mocked for his argument that people who move to gentrifying neighborhoods should not eat out, because fancy restaurants are a main driver of gentrification and pricing established residents out.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jan 19, 2011 22:14:38 GMT -5
I didnt know the Students are a protected class under DC law; thats got to be a helpful point in this debate- at the very least the residents cant legislate students out of the neighborhood.
Anyway the GGW article was a travesty, just really poorly written. More detractors (GU supporters) in the comments then supports, which is good i guess.
Ill try to make it to the meeting tomorrow, hopefully it will be a "lively" debate
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jan 20, 2011 0:58:42 GMT -5
There were some good points in Ken Archer's GGW post (mixed use buildings, more competitive on-campus housing), but I agree with y'all, there was a lot of standard neighborhood bullcrap and eliding over the anti-urban sentiment of the neighbors ("I know what will encourage students taking transit: let's make the GUTS bus take 45 minutes to get to the Metro!).
Anyone read the Market Urbanism post? I believe he's an alum, and he even got in an extended dig at Villanova.
|
|
|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Jan 20, 2011 8:49:32 GMT -5
I agree that there were a few good points in Ken's post at GGW, but it was based on an entirely flawed premise (that undergraduate students have been taking over the neighborhood since the 1980's, and I took issue with several of his assertions in the comments.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Jan 20, 2011 13:49:36 GMT -5
See you all at the meeting tonight. Thanks for showing up.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jan 20, 2011 13:51:34 GMT -5
I don't understand how mixed use buildings are more attractive to upperclassman? Juniors and Seniors are going to want to live in an on campus dorm because there's a cafeteria in the building? I feel like most seniors and juniors aren't on meal plans anyway.
Clearly mixed use buildings are a better use of space and smart, but I don't think that solves the problem of the fact that people would rather live off campus than on campus. There will always be a large % of students who want to live off campus, because they don't have meal plans and would prefer the freedom afforded by living off campus.
I still think it's incredibly hypocritical that the neighbors blocked us building a dorm on our own land yet complain that we're not building on campus housing. I know they claim that's not on campus, but it is part of our campus. They also claim LXR isn't on campus either.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Jan 20, 2011 14:07:48 GMT -5
I don't understand how mixed use buildings are more attractive to upperclassman? Juniors and Seniors are going to want to live in an on campus dorm because there's a cafeteria in the building? I feel like most seniors and juniors aren't on meal plans anyway. Clearly mixed use buildings are a better use of space and smart, but I don't think that solves the problem of the fact that people would rather live off campus than on campus. There will always be a large % of students who want to live off campus, because they don't have meal plans and would prefer the freedom afforded by living off campus. I still think it's incredibly hypocritical that the neighbors blocked us building a dorm on our own land yet complain that we're not building on campus housing. I know they claim that's not on campus, but it is part of our campus. They also claim LXR isn't on campus either. 1) 1789 bloack would have been a mixed use project -- ground floor retail and housing above. 2) SWQ is mixed use -- dining hall plus Vittles outpost plus housing. Mixed housing, too, if you think about it, given the Jes Res presence there. 3) I see Bando's point -- wouldn't it be great to put the bookstore on the ground floor of a new dorm in one location. Vittles on the ground floor of another. And yeah, there's something to be said for that. But two corollary considerations -- first, there's something to be said for putting all of your heavy service/loading uses in a single place, so they can share loading dock space. And second, Georgetown is so compact that even if buildings are single use, they are so close to other mixes of uses that the overall campus feels and acts pretty mixed use. 4) Most of Georgetown's campus is mixed use, even within buildings. New South has staff offices as well as housing, and practice rooms, and will soon have a student center. That's pretty mixed use. Harbin has facilities on the lower floors and housing above. Village C has DPS in the lower floors as well as a meeting room space and housing above. Darnall has Epicurean.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jan 20, 2011 14:18:55 GMT -5
|
|