Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

New Plan To Face Old Problems

New Plan To Face Old Problems

By Tom Johnson Hoya Staff Writer

Georgetown administrators presented a rough draft of the university’s vision for the future to the Community Working Group last night. The group, which includes members of the Advisory Neighborhood Commission and other area residents, must approve the master plan before Georgetown can make further plans for development for any of Georgetown’s proposed projects, such as a science center, a performing arts center and the much-awaited Southwest Quadrangle residence hall.

However, in the long run, the issue that will determine the viability of Georgetown’s vision will not be the approval or disapproval of area residents. The true testing ground for the university will be whether or not it can overcome financial difficulties and bureaucracy to make its ambitious dreams a reality.

In several ways, Georgetown has already taken steps to quiet potential critics. The Third Century Campaign, the university’s $750 million fundraising drive, has already amassed $452 million. This money will cover the cost of the performing arts center, a new graduate business school building and part of the science center. Also, the Medical Center, which suffers from debt due to competitive clinical facilities in the neighboring area, is now very close to a partnership with the independent health-care provider MedStar, which means much-needed financial relief for Georgetown in the long run.

However, the university has often fallen short of its own expectations. The story of the Southwest Quadrangle is one example. According to former ANC Commissioner Westy Byrd, it was 10 years ago that the university first talked of removing 750 students from the neighborhood and housing them on campus. Since 1996, the university has been planning the construction of a residence hall in Parking Lot 3 behind Village C. University Provost Dorothy Brown said that construction would begin in May 2000.

Throughout this process, Georgetown administrators have maintained that the purpose of the new residence hall was not to increase enrollment but, rather, to bring upper-class students out of the residential areas of Georgetown and Burleith and into Alumni Square and Henle apartments. Sophomores living in those apartments would then move into the new residence hall (“ANC Views New Dorm Plans,” Feb. 5, 1999, page 1).

In March 1998, Dean of Students James A. Donahue vocalized the university’s position.

“Admission has been capped and stabilized to meet current needs,” Donahue said. (“New Dorm to Be Built By 2002,” March 3, 1998, page 1). Last year, at a meeting to propose preliminary Southwest Quadrangle plans to the ANC, University Architect Alan Brangman stressed the same thing.

However, last night, Brown announced Georgetown’s plan to increase enrollment by 50 students a year for the next 10 years, or 500 students overall. She said this increase was necessary as a potential source of funds for the new construction projects. Then, during a question and answer period, Brangman assured residents that this gradual increase was not going to be overwhelming.

Although the university’s reasons for wishing to increase the enrollment cap may be well founded, the move nevertheless represents a distinct policy change on the issue.

The reality is that, given the many different factors that affect any major campus project, it is almost impossible for any plan, however well thought out, to remain intact. Perhaps nowhere is this more apparent than in the 1983 master plan, in which the university presented its vision for Georgetown 2000 to the community. Local groups similar to the Community Working Group voiced approval for the proposals at the time (“Georgetown Citizens Give Support to Master Plan for University,” Sept. 16, 1983). Subsequently, however, many of the plan’s proposals were either modified or dropped entirely, in spite of the plan’s contention that the proposals are “a long- range guide – firm in outline, flexible in detail.”

For instance, the original plan for Alumni Square, written in 1983, was that it would be composed of Victorian-Italian-style townhouses placed in clusters to house upperclassmen and graduate students. After deliberation by the Georgetown Fine Arts Commission, which at the time approved design changes at Georgetown, and the ANC, the university decided on simpler, level brick apartments.

The plan also proposed three “socioenergy podiums” that would be multi-level buildings located between Yates Field House and ICC. These “podiums” were to have an energy-producing system on the lower level, one to three levels of parking facilities, upper levels for educational purposes and a top-level green for recreational space and sporting events. The plan also called for the baseball field to be moved to the parking lot near McDonough Arena.

The Leavey Center is the vestige of these plans. It features the parking lots, upper-level student space and an esplanade that mimics the original plan for the roofs. The plans for the other two socioenergy podiums were scrapped.

Then, in 1989, the university drafted plans to build six buildings shoulder-to-shoulder from the Leavey Center to Prospect Street. Again, the plans fell through, and the baseball field remains where it has always been.

Yesterday, the university announced that the new science center and proposed new building for the Graduate School of Business are planned to be built in the same area and that the Georgetown baseball team will play at Montgomery County Field in Maryland. Whether or not these new plans will be realized remains to be seen.

Nevertheless, the university has made some significant headway since 1983, albeit in modified form. The construction of Village C was unforeseen; the area was formerly designated as a university center for student social gatherings – a kind of Georgetown “living room.” The university also added to its existing Medical Center buildings and clinical facilities, including the Bles Building and Lombardi Cancer Center.

Although precedent has proven that progress is indeed possible, it also shows that as time passes, finances are assessed and students, faculty and residents voice opinions and concerns, plans are very easily changed or overhauled entirely. Last night was only the first of several meetings set aside to discuss the latest incarnation of Georgetown’s master plan. Last night’s meeting marked the first step in a process certain to be characterized by change and uncertainty.

-Additional reporting done by Ian Palko

Donate to The Hoya

Your donation will support the student journalists of Georgetown University. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs.

More to Discover
Donate to The Hoya