At Monday’s East Campus forum, Brenda Testa (center), a member of the East Campus development team, answered students’ questions regarding transportation around East Campus.
Though university officials created a slew of colorful diagrams outlining their plans for East Campus Development and attracted interest from various developers, they will scrap the project if it doesn’t garner upscale development, officials said at a forum yesterday.
Administrators announced that 30 developers have already expressed interest in developing the 38 acres of university-owned land that they hope will contain vibrant commercial, entertainment and residential facilities by 2010 – and they expect that even more will apply by the Sept. 14 application deadline. Yet despite interest, university officials say there is a chance the project will be abandoned or postponed if they don’t get the right kind of offers.
“We’ll have a high degree of control. We’re only interested in doing this if it’s really high quality,” said John Porcari, vice president of administrative affairs, adding they are more concerned with providing desirable amenities than meeting a specific timetable. “It’s not urgent, it is not a do or die to develop this site.”
Officials say it is likely, though, that the plan will come to fruition. Officials did not reveal specific plans for the land to the audience of about 40 university employees and a handful of students at the meeting yesterday.
At a Student Government Association-sponsored forum in March, students said they want movie theaters and sit-down restaurants. Porcari said in a previous interview that university officials were likely to consider those requests after a developer is chosen.
The land slated for development is located on the eastside of the campus, bordered by Route 1 and Paint Branch Parkway. Buildings such as the university’s motorpool, Shuttle UM and Old and New Leonardtown are all housed on the land.
Some of the facilities could be relocated to the Metzerott Landfill and Lot 4i. The fate of the Leondardtown apartments is still uncertain as the chosen developer may choose to retain or remove the complex.
The university’s extensive two-round process evaluates whether companies that have expressed interest are equipped to handle such a large, complex developments based on their previous projects, James Stirling, director of procurement and supply, said. Later the list of companies is narrowed and the remaining companies give oral presentations about their proposals, he said.
“We are patient, and by that I mean … we will shut it down,” said Frank Brewer, associate vice president of facilities management, explaining to a student who asked if they would allow developers to build things like used car lots that the university will be very picky with the types of development it allows.
And while officials said they hope to get students and College Park community members involved in discussions about the East Campus project, Porcari said it’s difficult to develop a forum that’s appealing and convenient for everyone.
“I think that they’re genuine in their desire to include the community but they’re at a loss to how to do it,” said Robert Goodspeed, the graduate student founder of the Rethink College Park development website. Goodspeed, along with two other students, run a blog on the website “to generate an ongoing dialogue about what kind of community we want to live in,” Goodspeed said.
As of yesterday’s meeting, officials did not plan to make public the majority of developers’ proposals or how the companies compare under the evaluation process the university subjects them to. However, Brewer said he would look into publicizing the proposals to some extent when they are submitted later this year.
Initial designs for the East Campus project were created in 1999 by university architecture students, but the university only started seeking developers last July. When a development company is chosen it will hold the responsibility of building, leasing and operating the East Campus facilities, Brewer said. According to the project’s timetable, architectural plans will be finalized and contracts negotiated by May 2007, but it will take at least three years for the project to be completed, Porcari said in an earlier interview.
A forum similar to yesterday’s is set for Sept. 14 at 9:30 a.m. Officials said the meeting is geared toward interested developers, who will likely pose more specific questions about the approval process and the timetable for the project.
Contact reporter Sara Murray at murraydbk@gmail.com.
