It has been five years since the now-empty Olmsted lot had first been cleared to make way for a high-rise condominium project. It has been nearly two years since the Hopkins administration purchased the lot with possible ideas of one day building upperclassmen housing.
To date, these plans are still in the discussion phase.
It was in April of 2009 that the University had purchased the 1.13 acre lot on the corner of 33rd Street and St. Paul Street, across from Charles Commons, for $12.5 million.
The purchase had been called a “strategic acquisition,” one meant to allow the University to develop the property as necessary in the coming years. Currently, the task remains very much within the planning stages.
Previously, the lot had been owned by the development firm Struever Bros. Eccles & Rouse who had planned on building a high-rise, high-quality condominium complex on the property.
Currently, school administrators foresee a university-owned complex offering substantial room for upperclassmen housing, ground level retail space, and options for public parking.
Larry Kilduff, Executive Director of Facilities for the University, acknowledged that these elements of the final project were all being discussed, but specifics would be “a function of the design process when that time comes.” There is no set timeline for such a project.
According to Kilduff, a university complex could house up to 1000 upperclassmen under ideal circumstances. For comparison, Charles Commons across the street offers rooms to just over 600 Hopkins students.
By and large, students are excited at the ideas offered for the new project.
“I think it would be very worthwhile for the University to look into using the space to expand student housing,” junior Tara Brailey said. “There are many upperclassmen who would take advantage of on-campus housing beyond the required two years.”
Some see the need for a student union on campus, one offering common spaces, game or recreation spots and study areas.
“It’d be nice for upperclassmen to have a spot of their own. Nolan’s is more situated for sophomores, and very few make use of Levering. Our campus simply needs more social spaces,” sophomore Kristina Kelvy said.
As discussion moves forward on the site, the ideas of many will be heard.
“As any project on this site is of major consequence in a variety of ways, the decisions about it will involve a host of members of the senior leadership team of the University,” Kilduff said.
Dennis O’Shea, the University’s Executive Director of Communications and Public Affairs added that the school will dutifully consider the concerns of neighbors.
“We will involve the community in the planning process, as we have with other projects in Charles Village,” O’Shea said. “The goal is a mixed-use project that improves the quality of life for the Johns Hopkins community and for the neighborhood.”
Uncertain throughout the debate are the university’s long-term housing priorities.
Whether to push for four-year guaranteed university housing for those students who would want it is often at the crux of the debate.
Carol Mohr, Senior Director of Housing and Dining Services, is unequivocal in regards to upperclassmen housing. “Guaranteeing housing for all undergraduates is our long term goal.”
There are many options for how to make that goal a reality. “The University is examining all the possibilities for expanding University housing options. The Charles and Blackstone have been discussed in that context,” Morh added.
It was in February of 2006 that the university had purchased the Charles and the Blackstone apartment buildings situated on North Charles Street. In much the same way as the Olmsted acquisition three years later, school administrators were seeking to give the university all available options when student housing decisions were made in the future.
“I think that at-least 3-year guaranteed housing is something we should pursue. Ensuring students live in very close proximity to or on campus is the strongest force we can employ to build campus unity, and this also helps address security concerns,” SGA President Mark Dirzulaitis said.
Despite discussion, no timeline exists for any such change to be made.
On whether to renovate these apartments or concentrate on building a lot on Olmsted, students agree, the University should not make decisions lightly. However, some are frustrated by the delay.
“The Olmsted may be a blight, and we certainly need something there, perhaps housing or a student union,” said sophomore Amanda Levine. “But it must be built without taking away from the view or the feel of the neighborhood community.”
Senior Woody Campbell feels that more open dialogue is necessary.
“The administration needs to have some well-publicized discussion sessions with students about what they would want out of the space; they should also certainly consult with community members, Campbell said. “I think they should at least begin that process if they have not done so already.”
