Public Open Space in the City of College Park, Maryland:

Public Open Space in the City of 

College Park, Maryland: 

Analysis of Three Potential Locations 

University of Maryland 

Department of Urban Studies and Planning

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PREFACE................................................................................................................................................... 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................ 3 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 4 

LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................................................. 6 

Social Benefits.......................................................................................................................................... 6 

Crime and Parks....................................................................................................................................... 6 

Mental Health ........................................................................................................................................... 6 

Physical Health......................................................................................................................................... 6 

Community Quality................................................................................................................................... 7 

Economic Benefits.................................................................................................................................... 7 

Environmental Quality .............................................................................................................................. 8 

METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 10 

Secondary and Reference Data............................................................................................................. 10 

Field Observations ................................................................................................................................. 10 

E-mail Surveys ....................................................................................................................................... 10 

Personal Interviews ................................................................................................................................ 11 

Meetings................................................................................................................................................. 11 

Suitability Table ...................................................................................................................................... 11 

ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................................ 12 

Existing Conditions................................................................................................................................. 12 

Existing Plans......................................................................................................................................... 13 

Issues of Public Space in Downtown College Park ............................................................................... 14 

Suitability Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 17 

COLLEGE PARK SHOPPING CENTER ................................................................................................. 18 

History and Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 18 

Identified Problems................................................................................................................................. 19 

Suitability ................................................................................................................................................ 20 

Recommendations/Guidelines ............................................................................................................... 21 

Implementation/Maintenance ................................................................................................................. 25 

MARYLAND BOOK EXCHANGE............................................................................................................ 26 



Suitability ................................................................................................................................................ 27 



SOUTH GATE PARK............................................................................................................................... 32 



Suitability ................................................................................................................................................ 33 



CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................... 37 

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................... 38 

APPENDIX 1: SUMMARIES ON EXISTING PLANS AND PUBLIC SPACE.......................................... 39 

College Park Comprehensive Plan of 1995 and Update of 2001 .......................................................... 39 

Preliminary College Park US 1 Corridor Sector Plan............................................................................. 39 

Langley Park–College Park–Greenbelt Approved Master Plan of 1989............................................ 40 

University of Maryland College Park, Facilities Master Plan 2002......................................................... 42 

APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF SITE OBSERVATIONS .......................................................................... 43 

APPENDIX 3: COLLEGE PARK LOCAL ASSN. SURVEY RESULTS .................................................. 46 

APPENDIX 4: LIST OF PROFESSIONALS INTERVIEWED .................................................................. 48 

APPENDIX 5: SUITABILITY TABLES .................................................................................................... 49 

APPENDIX 6: ADDITIONAL DESIGN GUIDELINES.............................................................................. 51

PREFACE 

Picture 1: Potential Public Space in College Park 

Source: Team Photo 

Urban public spaces will become increasingly 

important as cities in this region continue to 

grow. In particular, officials in small cities with 

little room for expansion have realized the need 

for such places. In the past, the City of College 

Park (City) has taken steps to develop public 

spaces in the downtown area. However, the 

issue of parking, among others, has made it 

virtually impossible to act. In the Fall of 2002, 

Roberto De Necochea, Executive Director of the 

College Park City-University Partnership, Inc., 

enlisted the assistance of the members of the 

University of Maryland (University), Urban 

Studies and Planning Studio (Team). The Team 

functioned under the direction of Dr. William 

Hanna, Urban Studies and Planning Professor, 

and worked in conjunction with a Team of 

students examining the issue of public space in 

Langley Park’s International Coridor. 

This Report outlines the benefits of public space, identifies the need for public space in College Park, and 

presents a strategy for the creation of public space. The Team believes that the presence of public space 

in Colege Park wil contribute to the creation of a true “colege town” atmosphere. The creation of such 

an atmosphere, mutually beneficial to the University and the City, is an attainable goal and one that 

should be actively pursued. The University and City Administrators will be instrumental in bringing about 

meaningful change to the current configuration of open space. 

The Team’s research included interviews with City and University oficials; the Downtown Colege Park 

Merchants’ Association (Merchants’ Association); property owners and managers; professionals in 

landscape architecture; and site surveys, resident association input, and the Team’s understanding of 

planning and design principles. Based on this research, the Team presents recommendations for the 

creation of three public spaces in downtown College Park immediately adjacent to the University along 

Route 1. 

This Report represents an action-oriented plan, including implementation guidelines. The plan can only 

be implemented with cooperation between University and City officials, because issues of parking and 

maintenance present a major challenge. Change, however, must occur if the City of College Park is to 

meet its ful potential and function as a thriving colege town. The Team’s recommendations provide for 

outdoor seating, performance areas, and public art, all of which help to create a sense of place and 

environmental sensitivity in the downtown area. In addition, the Team carefully considered the issues of 

safety, parking, and maintenance in making its recommendations. 

The Report begins with an overview of College Park and its existing open space. The Team then 

explores the positive social and economic impacts of public open space. After justifying the need for such 

space in College Park, the Team presents its methodology and analysis of results. The analysis includes 

a review of socio-economic data, a discussion of stakeholders and their perspectives, and identification of 

the most appropriate sites in College Park for open space. Following the analysis, the suitability of each 

site for specific uses is determined. The latter half of the Report presents guidelines and 

recommendations for each of the spaces. Each Recommendation section includes the history and 

existing conditions; problems; suitability; design, walkability, community and safety guidelines; and 

implementation/maintenance directives for each site. Extensive appendices, figures, maps and tables are 

included following the conclusion of the Report. The Team hopes that this document will serve as a 

catalyst for the creation of successful, shared public spaces in downtown College Park. This Report 

serves as a blueprint for action. 

1

Team Members 

Graduate Students: 

Michelle Bowman 

Rachael Coleman-Gibson 

Gabrielle Collard 

Jeff Davis 

Rebecca Inge 

Elizabeth Norton 

Elisa Vitale 

Faculty: 

Dr. William Hanna, Professor of Urban Studies and Planning 

Special Thanks To: 

Brenda Alexander, Horticulturalist, City of College Park 

Shenglin Chang, Assistant Professor, University of Maryland Landscape Architecture 

Roberto De Necochea, Executive Director, College Park City-University Partnership 

Sam Finz, City Manager, City of College Park 

Terri Schum, Director of Planning, City of College Park 

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The role of public open space in urban areas has long been valued as integral to establishing a sense of 

community as well as providing recreational and aesthetically pleasing environments. The City of College 

Park faces unique challenges in establishing environments that are conducive to community gatherings. 

The existence of a large university often impedes this challenge due to conflicting interests between the 

university population and long time residents. In order to foster the development of College Park as a city 

with a strong identity and a sense of community it is necessary to implement plans that focus on 

developing shared spaces. 

In order to create an action plan for the inclusion of open spaces in College Park, the research conducted 

employed numerous mechanisms. The review of secondary and reference data provided the Team with 

background information pertaining to the City’s land use goals and regulations, as wel as population 

characteristics. Primary data was also collected through the use of field observations, surveys, and 

suitability analysis. 

The review of data highlighted several issues that present challenges to implementing open space plans. 

The identification of numerous concerns by residents and public officials, including the provision of 

parking, the responsibility of park maintenance, loitering, concurrent development, as well as university 

and neighborhood relations, received special considerations in the development of the plan. 

Through the analysis of information, the Team worked closely with stakeholders to identify three sites for 

the development of public open space. Each area received an in-depth analysis including the 

identification of existing problems and suitability. Recommendations and design guidelines were 

developed accordingly: 

College Park Shopping Center 

Improve parking, traffic circulation, and pedestrian thoroughfares in order to improve access 

Improve landscaping elements such as lighting and plantings for aesthetic and safety purposes 

Provide street furniture along retail and restaurant storefronts to encourage outdoor dining 

Create a mural capturing the history of the College Park community 

Maryland Book Exchange 

Increase pedestrian access to the green space next to the Book Exchange by creating 

meandering paved pathways throughout the area 

Introduce low plantings along newly created pathways and street trees to act as buffers to traffic 

Create an outdoor dining space including tables and informal seating, capitalizing on neighboring 

restaurants along Route 1 and College Road 

Create an outdoor performance space to accommodate local and University talent 

Southgate Park 

Improve pedestrian linkages throughout the open space as well as to neighboring retail and 

restaurants along Lehigh Road 

Remove bushes and shrubbery, which impede access and safety and replace with seasonally 

diverse plantings throughout the area. 

Create a paved patio surface along the Lehigh Road side of the park to accommodate outdoor 

seating as well as permanent chess tables to offer recreational opportunities 

Provide a defining focal point for the space in the form of public art 

The success of these plans depends on practical and realistic implementation recommendations. The 

Team has proposed funding sources as well as potential maintenance opportunities unique to each of the 

sites. Utilizing the resources of the City as well as organizations such as the Merchant’s Association and 

the University of Maryland will form valuable partnerships for the creation of the physical infrastructure 

necessary to foster civic participation and community spirit. 

3

INTRODUCTION 

In a world increasingly concerned with the problems of a deteriorating environment -- including pollution, 

climate change, threatened and endangered plant and animal species, reliance on fossil fuels, and the 

inappropriate development of natural and productive landscapes -- there is a marked tendency to bypass 

the urban environment. Approximately 220 million Americans live in metropolitan areas. 1 When seen in 

the context of the impact of humans on world ecosystems, it is clear that the links between cities, nature, 

and sustainability have profound impacts on the global environment. Urban green space, in the form of 

small public parks, provides a range of tangible benefits, such as mitigating air and water pollution, 

combating suburban sprawl, providing opportunities for recreation, reducing crime and fostering cohesive 

neighborhoods, attracting businesses, and stabilizing property values. As part of a broader urban 

agenda, investing in green space can serve as an anchor for revitalizing neighborhoods and building 

healthy communities. 2 

Although Colege Park is not a major metropolitan area, it is less than 10 miles from the Nation’s capital. 

Unlike Washington, D.C., with its expansive network of public green space including the National Mall and 

Rock Creek Park, College Park has suffered from a disinvestment in urban green space. In turn, the 

residents of College Park and other visitors to the area could profit from the above-mentioned benefits of 

urban green space. 

Further, considering that urban green space fosters a sense of community, the University and the City 

should work together to address this issue. The lack of sense of community among students, faculty, 

non-faculty employees, and community residents in College Park is a problem that severely inhibits the 

creation of an optimum living and learning environment. A sense of community in a university derives in 

large part from opportunities for people to come together informally and to participate voluntarily in shared 

experiences. Opportunities of this kind depend on the existence of a general setting for spontaneous gettogethers. 

Unfortunately, such opportunities are largely missing in College Park. 

Picture 2: Good Public Space Example 

Picture 3: Poor Public Space Example 



The City of College Park encompasses a land area of over five square miles (approximately 3,200 acres). 

The University of Maryland campus accounts for 1,350 square miles, or 42 percent of the City’s total land 

area. Parkland owned by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC), 

accounts for an additional 660 acres, or 21 percent of total land area. M-NCPPC also owns 15 acres of 

county public school property in College Park. There are another 471 acres of passive open space 

contained in the areas surrounding the Indian Creek and Paint Branch stream valleys. The remainder of 

1 U.S. Census http://eire.census.gov/popest/archives/metro/ma99-01.txt 

2 Benefits of Urban Open Space, http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cdl.cfm?content_item_id=1242&folder_id=905 

4

College Park (roughly 22%) is primarily residential. 3 The City of College Park owns and maintains 14 

acres of parkland with City parks at the following locations: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends Community School playground on Calvert Road; 

Old Town playground at College and Columbia Avenues; 

James Adams Park at Berwyn House Road and Rhode Island Avenue; 

The hiker-biker trail running north from James Adams Park to Greenbelt Road; 

Branchville playground, on Branchville Road near the fire house; 

Crystal Springs playground on 37th Avenue, off Metzerott Road; 

Duvall playground and athletic field complex on Rhode Island Avenue; 

Hollywood playground on Hollywood Road and 48th Place; 

Davis playground and adjacent open space; and 

Muskogee playground at Muskogee Street and Narragansett Parkway. 

College Park, however, falls short of the standard 15 acres of local parkland for every 1,000 persons by 

approximately 90 acres. 4 In addition, all of the existing parkland lies outside the downtown area. 

The first question to be answered in this report is -- does College Park need or even want green space in 

the downtown area? If such a space is desired, for what purpose should it be designed? To answer 

these questions, the Team conducted research, reviewed previous documents, and conducted interviews 

and surveys of key stakeholders. This report begins with a literature review, and then follows with a 

discussion of methodology. The following section provides our analysis. The report concludes with 

design guidelines and specific recommendations for the three sites selected by the Team. 

Looking to the future, the Department of Natural Resource Sciences and the Landscape Architecture 

Program at the University of Maryland has indicated a willingness and desire to help create concrete 

designs based on the recommendations included in this report. 

3 Ibid. Page 8 

4 The 1995 City of College Park Comprehensive Plan 

5

LITERATURE REVIEW 

To evaluate the need for public open space in the downtown College Park area, the Team conducted a 

review of literature pertaining to the need for and benefits of open space in urban areas. Through a 

review of relevant research, the Team found that public open space, particularly in urban areas, provides 

many benefits to a community, including positive impacts on the economy as well as the physical and 

social environments. 

Social Benefits 

The existence of public open space, such as parks, has been linked to a variety of attributes associated 

with the social environment. The inclusion of parks provides potential benefits at the community level as 

well as for the individual. 

Crime and Parks 

General opinion seems to associate vegetation and areas of open space with an increase in the 

occurrence (as well as the possibility) of criminal activities due to decreased visibility. Large shrubberies 

and trees are believed to provide hiding places for criminals, increase the likelihood of crime, and 

sometimes heighten residents’ fear of crime. 5 However, current research conducted by Kou and Sullivan 

points to the potential benefits that vegetated areas may have on the incidence of crime. Properly 

positioned and landscaped vegetation not only fails to promote crime and decrease visibility, but may also 

reduce criminal activity. Kuo and Sullivan propose that vegetation can inhibit crime through two 

mechanisms: by increasing surveillance, and by mitigating some of the psychological precursors to 

violence. Creating a vegetated space, such as a community park, increases the number of visitors to the 

area and therefore increases the level of surveilance, similar to Jane Jacob’s suggestion tha the simple 

presence of “eyes on the street” can deter crime. 6 Other research has found that even when no 

observers are present, criminals might be deterred by environmental cues projecting the feeling of 

surveillance, such as proper maintenance and lighting. 7 

Mental Health 

The second mechanism that Kuo and Sullivan point to is the effect of natural landscapes on the mental 

and cognitive states of individuals. Vegetated open spaces provide a release from stress and a source of 

mental rejuvenation. Research, in fact, has found that contact with nature in a variety of forms, whether 

wilderness areas, prairies, community parks, window views, or interior plants, is systematically linked with 

enhanced cognitive functioning as measured by both self-report and performance on objective tests. 8 

Kuo and Sullivan also predict that the rejuvenating and soothing effects of nature relieve the types of 

stress that are the precursors to criminal activity including irritability, inattentiveness, and impulsivity. 

Physical Health 

Obesity has dramatically increased in the United States in recent years. In 2001, twenty states had 

obesity prevalence rates of 15% to 19%, twenty-nine between 20% and 24%, and one in excess of 25%. 9 

With health consequences such as stroke, high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, osteoarthritis, 

and even some types of cancer, obesity poses severe problems for the health of the nation’s citizens. 

Inactivity and poor diet are often to blame for the epidemic that contributes to at least 300,000 

preventable deaths each year. 10 Research is now beginning to acknowledge and explore the effects of 

environmental design on activity levels of individuals. Most communities today were designed in a time 

when emphasis was placed on the automobile as the most efficient and effective mode of transportation, 

5 Environment and Crime in the Inner City, Does Vegetation Reduce Crime, pages 343-353 

6 Environment and Crime in the Inner City, Does Vegetation Reduce Crime, pages 343-353 

7 Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Planning 

8 Psychological Restoration among AIDS Caregivers: Maintaining Self-Care 

9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/ 

10 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/ 

6

ignoring the roles which connectivity of places, open space, and walkability play in an urban environment. 

Today, one-fourth of all trips people make are one mile or less, but three-fourths of these trips are made 

by car. A physical landscape lacking walkable destination points and dominated by pavement deters 

walking as a mode of transport and contributes to the health issues plaguing Americans. Parks and 

recreation areas can provide much needed opportunities for increased physical activity. 

Community Quality 

The health and quality of a community is reliant on the ability of the community to support the needs and 

desires of its population. Any community unable to provide opportunities for health care services, 

employment, and education, as well as recreation, open space, and vegetation, falls short of satisfying 

the needs of its community members. In a recent study conducted at the University of Guelph in Ontario, 

Canada, researchers studied the relationship between the quality of an urban community and its physical 

form. By studying six physical elements that contribute to the quality of the community including livability, 

character, connection, mobility, personal freedom, and diversity, researchers worked to expand the 

standard of the designed environment to one that successfully meets the complex levels of human needs. 

Through matrix analysis, researchers found that ‘connection’ and ‘character’ were the most important 

qualities with respect to physical form. Top priorities included developing walkable, barrier-free 

communities, outdoor amenities, plentiful seating, and opportunities for open space in residential areas. 11 

Economic Benefits 

In recent years, studies have indicated that people in communities with less open space are paying 

higher taxes than they would in communities with more open space. Kathleen Caren and Karin Westdyk 

in their article “The Economics of Open Space” note that in the past, taxes from housing developments 

assisted communities in financing initial infrastructure and other community costs. Caren and Westdyk 

note that since this time, studies have increasingly shown that for “every $1.00 colected in taxes, 

residential development costs their host communities between $1.04 and $1.67 in services.” 12 Thus, a 

deficit is created due to infrastructure costs, which increase rather than decrease property taxes for all 

residents. For example, the New Jersey Pinelands Commission discovered that within the Pinelands 

Protection Area in New Jersey, it cost residents less to live in areas with substantial open space. 13 

As another example, a company located an office building in downtown Spartanburg, SC as part of a 

revitalization effort in the early 1980s. A park was added, in accordance with this effort, as a magnet for 

downtown renewal. As a result of the park, property values in the area increased 325 percent over 

previous values and retail sales rose as much as 100 percent. 14 

Many property owners look to purchase and live in environments with trees and clean water. When this 

type of environment surrounds residential property, real estate values are likely to increase. In the article 

“An Empirical Study of the Role of Recreation, Parks, and Open Space in Companies’ (Re) Location 

Decisions,” owners of smal companies ranked ‘recreation, parks, and open space’ as the highest priority 

in choosing a new location for their business. 15 The article “Real Estate Impacts of Urban Parks” by 

Patrick Phillips discusses studies of areas where this holds true. For instance, he notes that in a 1980 

Park Impact Study in Worchester, Massachusets, it was discovered that a “house within 20 feet of a park 

was worth about $2,675 more than a similar house 2,000 feet away.” 16 Additional studies state that when 

a home is located in close proximity to a park or open space, its value is five to seven percent greater 

than the average selling price. 

11 Quality of an Urban Community: A Framework for Understanding the Relationship Between Quality and Physical Form, pages 

229-335 

12 Economic Benefit of Public Space, http://www.ourenvironmentweb.org/economicsopenspace.html 

13 New Jersey Pinelands Commission, http://www.state.nj.us/pinelands/ 

14 Flagstar Corporate Plaza and Jerome Richardson Park, Spartanburg, South Carolina, page 101-107. 

15 Real Estate Impacts of Urban Parks, http://www.econres.com/documents/issue_papers/urban_parks.html 


7

In one study conducted in Portland, Oregon, researchers estimated that homes located within 1,500 feet 

of a public park sell for $2,262 more than homes located more than 1,500 feet from any open space. 17 A 

subsequent study also focusing on Portland increased the accuracy of the effects of open space on home 

values by categorizing types of parks and studying the individual effects that each type has on home 

values. Open spaces were divided into one of five categories: urban park, natural area parks, specialty 

parks/facilities, golf courses, and cemeteries. Through regression analysis, it was concluded that natural 

area parks have the largest efect on a home’s sale price ($10,648), folowed by golf courses ($8,849), 

specialty parks/facilities ($5,657), and urban parks ($1,214). 18 Even a small urban park provides 

amenities that have a positive effect on the value of a home. 

Although larger in scale than anything College Park could support, the following examples demonstrate 

the potential economic benefits of open space: 

 

 

 

Boston’s Post Ofice Square is a 1.7-acre park located above a parking garage in Boston. The 

park is primarily open lawn, but has the capacity to seat up to 1,000 people. Surrounding the 

park is office space and the Meridian, a four-star, 326-room hotel. Folowing the park’s 

development, lease rates for office space overlooking the area have increased to approximately 

ten percent higher than lease rates for office space without a park view. In addition, since the 

establishment of the park the hotel has experienced an increase in its number of guests. 19 

The rehabilitation of Union Square in San Francisco created a plaza with a new park, center lawn, 

and restored park statues. Ten years later an outdoor restaurant opened. Municipal investments 

in the park stimulated private investment, including new residential development, in which units 

with a view of the plaza sold for 20 percent more than units without a view. 20 

New York City’s Bryant Parkhas six acres of perennial gardens, movable chairs, seating for 

5,000, and a restaurant. Surrounding the park, there is seven million square feet of office and 

retail space. Leasing activity increased 60 percent within the first eight months of the park’s 

restoration, and rents for office space have increased by 40 percent. 21 

Picture 4: Bryant Park 

Picture 5: Boston Post Office Square 

Source: Internet 

Source: Internet 

Environmental Quality 

The inclusion of open space and vegetation has many positive effects on the local environmental quality 

of urban areas. Plants and trees help to mitigate the effects of air and water pollution, control climate, 

and provide habitat for urban animals and wildlife. Urban areas are most susceptible to the effects of air 

pollution due to a high concentration of automobiles and pollution-emitting industries. Trees and 

17 The Impact of Open Spaces on Property Values in Portland, Oregon, pages 185-193 

18 The Efect of Open Spaces on A Home’s Sale Price, pages 291-298 




8

vegetation help to reduce dangerous emissions by filtering fine particles and exhaust. According to the 

Environmental Protection Agency, one acre of trees absorbs as much carbon dioxide as a car produces 

in 26,000 miles. Water pollution is also reduced greatly by the addition of permeable surfaces in urban 

areas. Parks and trees help to reduce storm water runoff by 10% to 20% during peak times 22 , thus 

preventing hazardous substances from reaching major bodies of water. Evidence also suggests that 

trees and green space aid in the stabilization of temperatures in urban areas. Buildings and paved 

surfaces absorb solar energy throughout the day; this energy is then released as heat radiation, which 

can increase temperatures in urban areas by two to four degrees. Trees and green spaces help to 

mitigate this effect and cool urban areas. According to American Forests, a non-profit conservation 

organization, three well-placed trees can cut a home's summer air conditioning bill in half. 

22 National Forest Service, http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

9

METHODOLOGY 

To gain the greatest amount of information on the selected sites within the City of College Park, the Team 

employed numerous research techniques and consulted a wide variety of sources. The methodologies 

employed included the use of secondary and reference data, field observations, interviews, meetings, 

surveys, and a suitability analysis. By analyzing the resulting data, the Team developed a needs 

assessment and formulated recommendations for several sites in College Park. The following section of 

the report will describe each of these methodologies. 

Secondary and Reference Data 

The primary purpose of the secondary data was to provide some basic understanding of the context in 

which the Team’s proposed recommendations would take place. The research process began by 

reviewing previous and current master plans for College Park, current zoning codes, and other relevant 

planning documents (See Appendix 1). This enabled the Team to determine land use restrictions for 

potential sites and whether the creation of public space in downtown College Park was in accordance 

with the Master Plan. These documents also shed light on previous attempts made by the City to 

incorporate parks and other public spaces in the downtown area. 

In addition, the Team gathered relevant census data to help identify population trends within College 

Park. Using data from the 1990 and 2000 Census, the Team was able to assess the age, race, and 

income distribution of College Park residents. The Team was careful to note that Census data included 

all University of Maryland students that reside off campus. 

Field Observations 

Field observations provided the Team with information regarding the frequency of use for the sites in 

question. Each member of the Team conducted individual, non-obtrusive observations of potential sites 

and recorded their findings. These findings were aggregated by site (See Appendix 2). Observations 

included counting the number of people walking through the site, noting the level of cleanliness, and 

watching the behavior of loiterers. Team members conducted these observations at different times of the 

day and on different days of the week to gain a comprehensive understanding of site usage. In total, the 

Team spent approximately 10-12 hours observing each site. 

The Team also conducted numerous site visits, during which time photographs were taken, areas were 

measured, and rough sketches were drawn. The purpose of these visits was to take inventory of all 

things contained within the site and to help visualize new uses within those spaces. 

E-mail Surveys 

To gather input from College Park residents, the Team conducted an on-line survey of Civic Association 

leaders (See Appendix 3). Due to time constraints, the Team was unable to conduct formal surveys with 

the community at large. Thus, given this constraint, the Team assumed that the leaders of the various 

Civic Associations would provide representative answers. The survey was e-mailed to each president of 

the eight civic associations in College Park, and answers were submitted via the Internet. 

The questions assessed the public space needs within the community and were largely a follow-up to a 

quality of life survey that was conducted by the City of College Park in 1995. In addition to public space 

needs, respondents were asked to identify items or events that they thought would draw residents out of 

their homes and create vibrant places. Of the nine questionnaires sent out, the Team received four 

responses. 23 

23 Several reminders were sent asking for the completed surveys 

10

Personal Interviews 

A series of personal interviews were conducted with officials from the City of College Park, business 

owners, university officials, and landscape architects (See Appendix 4). The objective of these interviews 

was to gain information that would help identify opportunities and limitations for public space in the 

downtown College Park area. It was important to get the business community, University, and City 

perspective on specific sites because the land in question was regulated by the City and owned by either 

various businesses or the University. Further, all parties would play a critical role in the implementation of 

any recommendations put forth by the Team. 

Questions were designed to gather background information on the sites in question and to determine 

whether attempts had been made in the past to create public spaces in the downtown area. In addition, 

landscape architects and horticulturists were interviewed to gain insight into the elements that make good 

public spaces and seek guidance regarding design recommendations. 

Meetings 

Beyond personal interviews, a member of the Team atended a Merchant’s Association meeting 24 where 

the current studio project on public space in College Park was discussed at length with City Council 

members, business owners, and City officials. Informal meetings were also held with other City officials 

and design professionals to gather feedback and guidance. 

Suitability Table 

The process of site selection and site usage was aided through a suitability analysis (See Appendix 5). 

Members of the Team went to each potential site and on a scale of N/A-5, rated each site according to its 

“suitability” for certain uses. The suitability table was taken from a report conducted in Langley Park that 

helped identify areas in the community well-suited for particular uses. This analysis helped guide the 

Team when deciding which sites to work on and which uses to incorporate into those selected sites. 

24 The meeting was held Oct 24, at R.J. Bentley’s in Downtown College Park. 

11

ANALYSIS 

This section presents the results of extensive research and fieldwork carried out by the Team and 

combines the information into a cohesive argument for small public spaces in downtown College Park. It 

briefly introduces our selected sites and defines the most appropriate uses for those sites. 

Existing Conditions 

The Team’s study area is the City of Colege Park, Maryland. In general, the Team focused on the 

downtown commercial area, though the Report addresses three sites in particular. These sites are 

identified and outlined in yellow on the aerial map below: 

 

 

 

South Gate Park: on University property adjacent to Lehigh Road. 

Maryland Book Exchange: between the store’s parking lot and Colege Avenue. 

College Park Shopping Center: along Route 1 between Hartwick and Knox Roads. 

Picture 6: Aerial View of College Park with Proposed Public Space Sites 

Site 

1 


Site 

3 

Source: Mapquest 

12

The downtown commercial district has a great deal of pedestrian and automobile traffic. The Route 1 

corridor is a major commuter thoroughfare, presenting an opportunity to capture patrons on their way to 

and from work. The high volume of traffic also presents a challenge to pedestrians, especially during 

rush hours. The redesign of this area will have to take into account the separation of the pedestrian from 

the automobile. 

The area is currently a mixed-use infill zone. The purpose of the zone is to promote Smart Growth 

principles by encouraging the efficient use of land, facilities, and services in a substantially developed 

area. The regulations governing the zone are intended to create community environments, which are 

enhanced by a mix of residential, commercial, recreational, open space, employment, and institutional 

uses that are in line with approved plans. 25 Therefore, the creation of public space in the downtown 

commercial district is in line with the existing zoning. 

After considering the physical conditions, the Team considered other conditions, including population, 

age, and housing. The 2000 population of College Park was 24,567, with the greatest percentage of the 

population between the ages of 20 and 24. Population rose by 853 individuals between 1990 and 2000. 

Median age fell from 23 in 1990 to 21.7 in 2000. A very small percentage of the population is 14 years 

old or younger. The City is well served by playgrounds and, given the small population of young children, 

is not in need of any new ones. Approximately seven percent of the population is 65 years of age or 

older. The racial composition of the City is much diferent than that of Prince George’s County as a 

whole. Sixty-nine percent of the population in the City is white, compared to 27 percent in Prince 

George’s County. 26 Population in the City is projected to remain relatively stable while the County is 

projected to continue its intense growth. Based on this information, the Team focused its efforts on 

creating public space that would serve the University population and other adult City residents. 

Housing unit data shows an almost even split between owner-occupied and renter-occupied; 57.2 percent 

and 42.8 percent respectively. The homeownership rate of 57 percent is similar to that of the County and 

State but has fallen from a rate of 62 percent in 1990 and 67 percent in 1980. This data presents one of 

the community’s concerns of conversion of single-family homes into student rentals. This trend is 

expected to continue. Average household size is 2.65 persons. Almost 97 percent of housing units are 

occupied. Twenty-two percent of workers in the City walk to work. This indicates that not all residents of 

College Park are auto dependent. In turn, residents who walk to work may benefit from the presence of 

open space in the downtown area. 27 

In summary, the City of College Park has a young adult to middle-age dominated population that is 

predominantly white. The City has a very low housing vacancy rate and a relatively equal number of 

owners and renters. This indicates that both students and permanent residents would benefit from public 

space in the downtown area. 

Existing Plans 

After studying the demographic profile, the Team conducted a literature review–the results of which are 

summarized and presented in the preceding section of this report. The Team then researched previous 

attempts to develop public space in downtown College Park, and reviewed the following existing plans 

(See Appendix 1): 

College Park Comprehensive Plan of 1995; 

College Park Comprehensive Plan Update of 2001; 

Preliminary College Park US 1 Corridor Sector Plan and Proposed Sectional Map Amendment; 

and 

Langley Park –College Park –Greenbelt Approved Master Plan of 1989 and the Adopted 

Sectional Map Amendment of 1990. 

25 Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission, http://www.mncppc.org/ 

26 U.S. Census, http://www.census.gov 

27 U.S. Census, http://www.census.gov 

13

Issues of Public Space in Downtown College Park 

After reviewing the goals of existing plans, the Team interviewed key individuals and surveyed local 

resident associations. The Team began its discussions with City officials in the College Park Planning 

Department and the City Administration. The Team’s interview with the Planning Director provided insight 

into previous attempts to develop public space in the downtown area, including information about the 

chalenges and opportunities of such development. The issue of public space has been on the City’s 

agenda for more than a decade. The City drafted its own Comprehensive Plan in 1995 (referenced 

above), which included a section focusing on the creation of a town center. The City conducted a 

charete to obtain input from local residents and business owners. A goal noted in the Plan’s vision 

statement is the creation of better connections between the University of Maryland campus and local 

neighborhoods. To create connections like this, the Planning Director suggested that our Team consider 

locations adjacent to Route 1 that could serve both University students and local residents. The City 

manager supports this suggestion. 

The City has existing assets that include several public spaces that meet basic needs of public open 

space- for example, some seating and planter boxes. These sites include the corner of Knox Road and 

Route 1 and the corner of Lehigh Road and Route 1. These sites are used but do not hold the 

characteristics of good open spaces as discussed in the literature review. One of the City’s biggest 

assets is its active Merchants’ Association. This Association wil play a key role in the successful design 

and implementation of our recommendations, and is already involved in some small-scale streetscape 

projects. 

Picture 7: Outdoor Seating Option in College Park 

Picture 8: Outdoor Seating Option in College Park 



The Colege Park Shopping Center owner and the Merchants’ Association provided input and voiced their 

support for downtown public space. Specifically, the shopping center management stated that it is 

working with an architect to select new paint for the awning above the stores and is working to improve 

lighting. Some landscaping has been done, but the management is open to suggestions for more 

landscaping and seating. Leveraging the current improvement efforts, the College Park Shopping Center 

is a prime location for a redesigned public space. 

It is clear from our evaluation of the issues that the City and the downtown business owners and 

operators share the same basic concerns when it comes to the creation of public open spaces in the 

downtown area. 

14

Parking 

One major concern is the traffic along Route 1 and the perceived lack of parking. The Planning Director 

cautioned that the City owns very little land and has focused its efforts on revitalizing the parcel of land 

that it does own–the current location of City Hall and its surrounding parking lot, along with the parking 

lot across Knox Road. In fact, the City has a plan to create a “City Hal Plaza.” However, the lack of 

required parking has proven a continual challenge to this plan. Through interviews, the Team has 

consistently found that parking is an issue and continues to interfere with any plans for downtown 

revitalization efforts, including the creation of public space. 

Picture 9: Traffic Congestion in College 

The business owners and operators in the 

downtown area echo the same concerns regarding 

parking. The shopping center management has 

expressed great interest in redeveloping available 

open space within its boundaries; however, they 

would not be willing to lose parking spaces to create 

more seating and landscaping opportunities. The 

shopping center stores are successful, and 

attracting new customers is not a concern during the 

academic year. On the other hand, if a successful 

public space could draw new customers, including 

residents and students, during the summer months, 

it would help increase sales. 

The Merchants’ Association identified two key issues 

in the proposal for public space in downtown College 

Park –parking and maintenance. Most business 


owners who attended the meeting stated that 

sufficient new parking must accompany any new 

development downtown. City officials have discussed the option of developing a new parking garage to 

accommodate downtown parking needs. As a group, the Association has written a letter for the public 

record requesting that if any new business cannot provide sufficient parking, it must pay a surcharge to 

help finance the new garage. 

Maintenance 

Ongoing maintenance of any new public open space is a concern for the City and business owners and 

operators. Maintenance of new public spaces would require either monetary or physical commitments. 

The City curently is working with students in the University of Maryland’s LandscapeArchitecture 

Program and staff at the M-NCPPC to create a formal open space on the North end of campus known as 

Northgate Park. The City is seeking a commitment from the University to fund this park and assume 

maintenance responsibilities. More partnerships like this may be necessary to care for new public open 

spaces. 

Private entities may also have to take responsibility for maintenance on their own properties. The 

management company of the College Park Shopping Center indicated that it would take responsibility for 

maintenance within the center. The Merchants’ Association presently contributes monetarily to 

maintenance in the downtown area, and members indicated that they could increase this contribution in 

the event that funding was needed for maintenance of new public space. 

An alternative solution for maintenance requirements includes Communiversity; the University Student 

Government Association’s recently created partnership with campus fraternities and sororities. This 

group hopes to spend several hours every Sunday, beginning November 10, 2002, picking up litter and 

otherwise beautifying the downtown area. 

Loitering 

City officials did not state that loitering was a concern. 

owners in the downtown area. 

However, loitering is a concern for business 

15

New Development 

Another area of concern is the shifting focus by the University with regard to recent development efforts. 

New facilities, including the Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center and the new Alumni Center, are being 

constructed at locations on campus that are far away from Route 1. The location of the Clarice Smith 

Performing Arts Center does not encourage visitors to park their cars and walk to Route 1 for dinner. 

University and Neighborhood Relations 

An added concern for business owners and local residents is the University of Maryland athletic victory 

celebrations and their potential impact on any improvements in the downtown area. There is a growing 

rift between the University and residential areas adjacent to it. Incidents like the National Championship 

celebration and the growing problems with rental housing have led to an adversarial relationship between 

residents and students and thus the University itself. It has been suggested that the University do more 

to help the local community. Physical separation can not foster healthy relationships. South Gate Park, 

immediately adjacent to Route 1, offers recreational opportunities for students and residents alike, 

thereby supporting the intermingling of the two groups. 

Picture 10: Student Riot in College Park 

Picture 11: Police Reaction to Student Riot 

Source: Diamondback Newspaper College 

Source: Diamondback Newspaper College 

The residents of College Park have different needs and concerns than those of the City and business 

owners. The Team surveyed College Park Civic Association leaders to determine the sentiment of local 

residents. The associations represented neighborhoods with populations ranging from 700 to 6000. All 

four associations hold regular community meetings, generally once a month. Resident participation in 

these meetings is relatively low, ranging from 15 to 38 residents each. All four associations sponsor 

community events including block parties, yard sales, picnics, holiday events, community days, and even 

a Deffeati Graffiti Brigade. These events are held within the neighborhoods and in local parks. 

One of the association heads did not believe that downtown College Park serves as a focal point for the 

whole city. Two strongly believe it does and one somewhat agrees. When asked what would be most 

influential in drawing people from the neighborhood into the downtown area, the answers varied. Public 

Art and outdoor eating areas both received positive responses and are considered effective at drawing 

residents to the downtown area. None of the respondents were aware of neighborhood activities that 

might benefit from a downtown public space. The associations did not indicate that they would actively 

participate in maintenance activities. Overall, the resident associations that responded do not feel a 

connection to the downtown area. 

The University does not appear to be greatly concerned with the development of public spaces in College 

Park, though this concern does appear to be growing. The Team attempted to contact stakeholders 

within the University to determine its perspective. Contacts included Brenda Testa, Director of Facilities 

Planning, Bill Malari, Office of Facilities Management, and John Hilly, Manager of Facilities Planning. 

There is support for a revitalization effort in South Gate Park, according to the Office of Facilities 

16

Management, and in fact, unsuccessful attempts have been made in the past to transform the area into a 

functioning public space. Previous activities indicate that there are individuals at the University who 

recognize the lack of identifying spaces in College Park. In 1995, the Dean of the School of Architecture 

conducted a study of Chapel Hill, NC and Princeton, NJ to gain a better understanding of how College 

Park can be a more vibrant college town. 

Suitability Analysis 

The Team presents recommendations for all three sites identified as potential public spaces, having 

determined that each site can serve a unique purpose, including an outdoor eating area, an open air 

performance space, and a venue for public art. The Team determined suitability through field 

observations and the use of a chart ranking each site as ‘most suitable’, ‘somewhat suitable’, or ‘least 

suitable’. The chart did not address issues such as accessibility and parking (See Appendix 5). The 

Team found that the Book Exchange site is the most suitable for an outdoor performance area given its 

size and location. The focus in this area will be on permanent seating; pathways and landscaping; and 

the creation of an area suitable for outdoor performances. The College Park Shopping Center is home to 

many restaurants and, in turn, would benefit from the addition of café seating. The Shopping Center is 

automobile oriented and patrons may have a more positive experience if landscaping is used to separate 

the parking area from the sidewalk and seating areas. The South Gate site, given its size, is most 

appropriate for a public art display and seating area, and will function best as a plaza space with seating 

for restaurant patrons and visual improvements. 

The Team also discussed these areas with two different landscape architects: Janet Townshend, 

Suburban Maryland office of the Neighborhood Design Center; and Shenglin Chang, Assistant Professor 

of Landscape Architecture at the University. They found the sites to be suitable for the uses we 

suggested. There was, however, disagreement over the suitability of South Gate Park for any use, as 

physical constraints in that area are quite challenging. The Team identifies specific problems in the 

recommendation section of this report. 

The following section presents each site individually, listing existing conditions and guidelines for 

development. Our recommendations are based on the analysis above and are meant to be conceptual 

strategies. The physical development of these spaces can only occur after a strong commitment is made 

to the development of public open spaces in College Park. 

17

COLLEGE PARK SHOPPING CENTER 

History and Existing Conditions 

At 90,528 square feet, the College Park Shopping Center is the single largest commercial property in 

downtown College Park. Located on the west side of Route 1 between Hartwick and Knox Roads, it is 

arguably the most visibly prominent structure downtown (with the exception of the University) for drivers 

and pedestrians alike. 

Picture 12: College Park Shopping Center 

The center was built in 1949 at the start of 

the automobile age, and is one of the 

earliest “strip mal” examples in the 

greater Washington, D.C. area. The 

ideals of the time promoted efficiency and 

convenience, which for many planners 

and designers meant easy access for 

automobiles. The design for the College 

Park Shopping Center was likely 

considered progressive and unique at the 

time of its construction, but its form has 

since become highly recognizable and 

familiar for Americans in every part of the 

country. It is laid out in a large ‘L’ shape 

surrounding a surface parking lot. 

Automobiles may enter from either Route 

1 or Knox Road, and park for a small 

meter fee. The storefronts that line the ‘L’ 


shape are protected by a covered 

walkway that extends from the public 

sidewalk on Route 1 to that of Knox Road. The store level façade is simple, smooth, beige-painted brick. 

Above the walkway, a newer façade, originally completed during center-wide renovations in 1989, runs 

the entire length of the ‘L.’ It consists of a solid, bright blue corugated metal “awning,” beneath which has 

been addeda strip of green plastic and bright yelow metal “girders.” It is unclear whether these girders 

serve an architectural function or are simply decorative. Fixed to the blue awning are signs for each of 

the stores beneath. It is notable that the City of College Park seems to have adopted the color blue as its 

theme hue for downtown. Street signs, garbage cans and other public features have been redone in blue 

over the last several years, and in this respect the design of the shopping center cooperates with the 

overall character of the area. However, while most buildings downtown use blue as no more than an 

accent, the shopping center is dominated by the color. 

The ‘L’ shaped portion of the center contains 14 stores. The sizes of these stores vary widely from the 

1,200 square foot yogurt shop to the nearly 12,000 square foot-clothing store. The varying store sizes 

lead to a somewhat interesting variance in sidewalk widths. The western leg of the ‘L’ is especialy 

varied, jutting out at right angles along a diagonal, creating some very wide sidewalk areas. The sidewalk 

along the length of the ‘L’ ranges from 8 feet in width to 14 feet, and represents the only space in the 

center that could potentially be used as quasi-public space. It is paved with standard 4-foot square 

concrete paving blocks. There is no usable space between the sidewalk and the parking lot, as cars park 

essentially up against the pavement. For the most part, the sidewalk is wide open and devoid of many 

structures. However, there are many trashcans lining the ‘L’ and two of the food establishments place 

small dining tables outside when the whether is nice. The bookstore also keeps a couple of sale racks 

outside for sidewalk browsing. The only formal, public sitting space is located at the crook of the ‘L,’ and 

is provided by two lone benches on top of a square outcrop of the sidewalk covering the service vents. 

The center offers space for 17 businesses in total, including a stand-alone bank at the corner of Route 1 

and Knox Road and a neighboring copy center and family restaurant on the adjacent parcel to the south 

18

of Hartwick Road. One of the 14 stores in the ‘L’ shaped portion is curently being renovated to house a 

fast food restaurant, and once that is finished the main ‘L’ of the center will house the following: 

6 dining establishments; 

1 pharmacy; 

1 convenience store; 

1 clothing store; 

1 book store; 

1 barber shop; 

1 video rental store; 

1 electronics store; and 

1 educational center. 

The second floor of the western side of the 

building is office space. Overall, this represents a 

healthy mix of retail and services, and each 

business seems to do very well for itself. The 

center is part of the City’s new M-U-I (Multiple- 

Use-Infill) overlay zoning area. It is privately 

owned by JBG Rosenfeld Retail Properties of 

Bethesda, Maryland. 

Picture 13: Outdoor Seating in College Park Shopping Center 


Identified Problems 

One obstacle to the creation of public space at the shopping center is its almost complete automobile 

orientation in an area that otherwise strives to be pedestrian oriented. This fact contributes to two related 

though separate concerns. First, a vast majority of the property is taken up by the surface parking lot, 

leaving only the small covered walkways and store interiors for meaningful social interaction. This is not 

the sort of place where one would be tempted to dine or otherwise linger outdoors. Second, pedestrian 

connections leading to and from the shopping center are lacking, especially when it comes to crossing 

Knox Road. The current design is focused on getting automobiles in and out, making it unattractive and 

sometimes treacherous for the many customers who walk to the shopping center from elsewhere. 

Picture 14: College Park Shopping Center Façade 


Another problem is the center’s lack of trees 

and greenery. Beyond some low shrubs along 

Route 1 and around the bank building, there is 

no greenery, neither in the parking lot nor 

along the covered walkway. This gives the 

site a stark, exposed feeling, quite in contrast 

to the otherwise very green City of College 

Park. In addition, the center’s blue façade, 

while quite colorful, conflicts with the more 

subdued brick, stone, and wood façades of 

neighboring buildings. Despite the façade, 

there is a lot of blank space in the center. The 

northernmost wall is completely blank with the 

exception of a sign for the store at that 

location, while the clothing store has a long, 

blank wall facing the walkway. There are also 

the blank walls of the passageway in the crook 

or the ‘L’ and the uninterupted blacktop of the 

central parking lot. 

19

Maintenance of the center appears to be adequate. Upon 

observation, many of the walkway lights are broken or fading. 

Also, the ceiling of the walkway has sprung leaks in more than 

one spot, causing moldy growths on the wall. One particularly 

disturbing corner is a passageway leading from the crook of the 

‘L’ to the back of the center, a place reserved for garbage 

dumpsters and delivery trucks. Though cheery signs placed 

above both entries to the passage promote access to additional 

parking and the neighboring copy center and family restaurant, 

the passage itself is dim, damp, dirty and smelly, and leads 

directly to garbage and diesel fumes. Some of this is 

understandable given the age of the structure, but much could 

be done to improve the situation. 

Suitability 

Picture 15: Shopping Center Signage 


Picture 16: College Park Shopping Center Seating 

As mentioned in the methodology section, our 

studio group completed a series of field 

observations in College Park to discover how 

and how often certain downtown spaces are 

used, and by whom. Observers were sent to the 

shopping center at various times on various 

days: weekday and weekend mornings and 

afternoons, and a Friday evening. Though 

crowds tended to peak around lunch and dinner 

hours, there seemed to be a sturdy flow of traffic 

during most business hours. Observers noted 

that the parking lot remained mostly full during 

their visits, and that there was a good deal of 

foot traffic on the walkway. However, there were 

very few loiterers observed, and considering the 

options people have for informal outdoor 

gatherings, this was understandable. The few 


outdoor dining tables were consistently in use 

when the weather was nice, and the two benches at the crook of the ‘L’ were used occasionaly. 

However, the location and placement of the benches do not encourage people to sit and relax in this 

area. Many people observed, however, were forced to sit on the curbs or newspaper stands. Others 

leaned against pillars and parking meters, or squatted against outside walls. Since there were so few 

pleasant and convenient places to loiter, most people stayed only long enough to meet up with a friend 

and go elsewhere, or finish up a call on their cell phones and then leave. 

The types of people who frequent the center are surprisingly diverse. Although there were a great deal of 

students, even a majority in some cases, there were many local families, middle aged and senior 

residents, and, especially on the weekends, a crowd of diverse individuals who appeared to have driven 

to the area from outside College Park altogether. Many people came and walked around in groups, 

though it appears that many of the observed loiterers were alone or waiting to meet someone before 

going elsewhere. Some observers noted that males tend to outnumber female loiterers. One interesting 

addition to these observations came from casual conversations with students who use the center on a 

regular basis. Apparently, after the businesses close for the evening, the Center’s parking lot turns into a 

gathering spot for college students. One architecture student referred to the after-hours hot spot as the 

“Colege Park Piazza.” Once the cars disappear, the people amass in even greater numbers, suggesting 

that a need for public or quasi-public space exists there even beyond that of the daytime users. It 

appears that given the opportunity, many people would use and enjoy an attractive outdoor space at the 

Center. 

20

As mentioned above, the nature of this site leaves little room for public or quasi-public space, but the 

need exists. One major constraint is that JBG owns the site. Another constraint is the issue of parking. 

Again, parking is a concern in College Park and the Team attempted to work around this constraint. 

However, in making recommendations for this site, of the Team concluded that the issue of parking must 

be confronted. The overall appearance and atmosphere of the Center could benefit from the conversion 

of as few as two parking spaces to café seating. 

As it happens, some of the finest examples of successful strip mall renovations can be found very nearby 

in Rockville. Rockville Pike, the major commercial thoroughfare through the city, is lined with strip malls 

built in the years following World War II. Many of these strip malls have recently been renovated, and 

though their basic layout remains unchanged, their appearance and relationship to neighboring properties 

has improved greatly. Similarly, the College Park Shopping Center could be greatly improved by some 

simple façade changes, addition of plants, parking reconfiguration, better pedestrian access, and the 

inclusion of outdoor dining tables. 

Picture 17: Successful Public Space 

Picture 18: Successful Public Space 



Recommendations/Guidelines 

Design 

The most significant recommendation for the College Park Shopping Center would be the development 

and implementation of design guidelines. The urban design guidelines for commercial areas laid out in 

the Master Plan for College Park, Greenbelt and Langley Park in 1989 are an excellent starting point. It 

was extremely encouraging to find that the region already has a clear set of ideas regarding the creation 

and maintenance of public space in commercial areas. (for additional design guidelines, see Appendix 6). 

Parking and Circulation Improvement- The Team does not have recommendations for the 

reconfiguration of the center’s parking lot, but does recommend that the shopping center’s management 

consider consulting an expert to determine options for reconfiguring the on-site parking to improve 

access, efficiency, and safety. It appears that there is enough space in the parking lot to have it 

reconfigured for better traffic flow, safer pedestrian access, and the addition of landscaping, without 

jeopardizing the number of spaces available. The 1989 Master Plan recommends several guidelines for 

the improvement of parking facilities. First, it suggests that some existing parking spaces be modified into 

spots for compact cars. This frees up space for wider sidewalks and planters, while maintaining the same 

number of parking spaces. In addition, the Team recommends using angled parking spaces placed along 

one-way parking lanes. This too frees up space for other uses. The Master Plan also recommends that 

highly visible pavement markings be provided to indicate proper vehicular circulation and pedestrian 

movement. If one-way lanes are to be enforced, such indicators are immensely useful. The Team also 

recommends narrowing one-way lanes so that drivers are physically unable to drive on them in both 

directions. This will also reduce the space needed for parking and will help clarify circulation in the lot. 

Landscaping Additions- The Master Plan design guidelines also recommend maximizing landscaping to 

minimize a monotonous view of parking areas from the main road. As mentioned, the parking lot is 

21

currently devoid of plantings and could be improved with the addition of even a small amount of greenery. 

Not only is landscaping aesthetically pleasing, it acts as an important buffer between parking and 

shopping areas. The Master Plan also suggests providing a landscaped strip in front of stores, wherever 

feasible. If a reconfiguration of the parking lot frees up some space as expected, there should be room to 

place planter boxes along the perimeter of the pedestrian walkway, between the parked cars and the 

sidewalk, as well as in the parking lot itself. Another foot of space would be sufficient to replace the 

current parking bumpers with narrow planter boxes. Even this provides a needed buffer between parking 

and shopping areas and would make the walkway more pleasant. Trees are needed in the interior of the 

parking lot and can serve a variety of practical purposes. First, they provide a buffer, as mentioned 

above, between the street and the parking lot. Second, they provide shade for customers and their 

vehicles on hot, sunny days. Third, when planted strategically, they can be used to help direct the 

circulation of traffic, both automobile and pedestrian. 

Façade Changes- The Master Plan states that owners should create building façades and styles 

compatible with neighboring buildings whenever possible by unifying color schemes and building 

materials. As mentioned earlier, the Center’s façade respects the City’s apparent color scheme of blue; 

however, it does so to an extent that clashes with its neighbors’ simpler façades of brick, stone, and 

wood. The Master Plan goes on to suggest that care should be exercised in the remodeling of buildings 

to enhance, rather than weaken, the original character of the building façades. If the second-story offices 

above the center are any indication, the original façade was made of simple, beige brick with an accent 

row of red brick. The Team recommends that any future remodeling of the center should aim to simplify 

the awnings and expose more of the original façade. The Team believes that this will improve the 

Center’s compatibility with its neighbors. 

Picture 19: Façade Improvement 

Picture 20: Façade Improvement 



Outdoor Dining- Outdoor dining enlivens a public or quasi-public space. In a place like the Shopping 

Center, outdoor dining is enjoyable for customers, but also beneficial for businesses. Most people are 

naturally drawn to other people having a good time in public. Outdoor diners attract the interest of other 

potential customers who might then be more likely to patronize the restaurant. Even businesses that do 

not sell food can benefit from outdoor dining. If someone is waiting for a table outside, he might be more 

likely to explore the other stores nearby. 

Currently, two stores in the Shopping Center offer limited outdoor seating. Presently, adding more tables 

outside is not a viable solution for the problem of outdoor dining. First, the sidewalks tend to be the 

narrowest in front of stores that sell food. More tables in that space might lead to overcrowding which 

would impede the flow of pedestrian traffic. Therefore, we recommend that the sidewalk surrounding the 

crook of the ‘L’ be widened by at least four feet, or as much as parking will allow. The Team believes that 

this area would be an ideal spot for dining tables and chairs that could be shared by diners of all the 

Shopping Center’s eating establishments. Another issue is the lack of landscaping. Without a gren 

buffer between the parked cars and the sidewalk, sitting outdoors at the shopping center is simply not 

attractive for many people. Before outdoor dining can succeed, the center will need to incorporate a 

buffer between the parking lot and sidewalk. 

22

Orientation- As mentioned, this shopping center is oriented heavily towards the automobile. In an ideal 

world, it would be flipped to put its storefronts near the street and its parking lot to the rear. Since this is 

impossible short of razing the entire site and starting again from scratch, the Team has some suggestions 

to reorient at least one side of the center. Currently, the back wall of the shopping center along Hartwick 

Road is quite bleak and uninviting. It presents a blank wall, garbage dumpsters and loading docks to 

passersby. Though shopping center parking is available on the opposite side of Hartwick Road, fewer 

people park here than in the center’s main parking lot. A cheery sign beckons people to a walkway that 

leads to the shops, but this is the only inviting aspect of an otherwise inhospitable area. In an effort to 

bring some life to Hartwick Road and ease the pressure on the parking lot inside the shopping center, the 

Team recommends a complete makeover of this site. The walls should be painted with bright murals, 

perhaps depicting city history, or even just done in University of Maryland colors or other Marylandia 

(more about murals below). If possible, windows should be inserted in the wall, even if the glass is 

opaque. This will help soften the façade and make it more attractive to customers. The more this side of 

the shopping center can be redesigned to look like an entrance rather than “the back,” the more 

comfortable customers will be parking in the Hartwick Road lot and walking to the main shopping center. 

There wil be further discussion of this site under the “Walkability” section. 

Walkability 

Access to the Shopping Center is automobile-centered. This creates a difficult and dangerous situation 

for the many customers who park elsewhere and walk, or walk directly to the Center. Improvements can 

be made in the areas of pedestrian access points, circulation, and safety. 

Pedestrian Access Points- For most pedestrians, the most logical points of access to the shopping 

center are at either end of the ‘L’: Route 1 at Hartwick Road or Knox Road at Sterling Place. 

Unfortunately, neither access point is very convenient. First of all, there is no stop light on Route 1 at 

Hartwick Road. Anyone hoping to access the shopping center from this direction must dart across Route 

1 between the traffic. Otherwise, one must walk up to Knox Road to cross safely. For people trying to 

get to the businesses at this end of the shopping center, a light at Hartwick Road would be very useful. 

The second main point of access is not well positioned. It is not located at a signaled intersection and 

automobiles have no reason to stop for the many pedestrians who walk from the University and cross the 

street here at Knox Road. Again, pedestrians are forced to dart across the street. Further, vehicles 

parked along Knox Road impede pedestrian sightlines, making it difficult to know whether a car is 

approaching. The Team recommends that a clearly marked pedestrian crosswalk be installed at this 

location. If possible, it should be accompanied by a stop sign, or at the very least, a sign that instructs 

drivers to “yield to pedestrians.” 

A third pedestrian access point with great potential is the aforementioned passageway that leads from the 

crook of the ‘L’ to Hartwick Road and the additional parking across the street. Right now, the 

passageway is more foreboding than friendly, but if it were redesigned it could take a lot of pressure off 

the shopping center’s parking lot. According to the Team’s observations, the lot across Hartwick (also 

owned by JBG Rosenfeld) is rarely at capacity. If the link between that lot and the passageway could be 

made more appealing, the spot could become an active pedestrian access point. First of all, there should 

be a clearly marked pedestrian crosswalk from the lot across Hartwick to the passageway. Again, stop 

signs or “yield to pedestrians” signs should be placed at either end of the crosswalk for pedestrian safety. 

Second, every effort should be made to continue the path created by the crosswalk directly to the mouth 

of the passageway. Third, to the greatest extent possible, dumpsters and delivery bays should be 

screened from pedestrian view. This could be accomplished with landscaping or with fences and gates 

that could be opened only when access to the dumpsters or delivery bays is needed. 

Pedestrian Circulation- Pedestrian circulation within the Center is adequate shop to shop. As 

mentioned above, the addition of greenery and expanded sidewalks will, however, improve both the 

pedestrian flow of traffic and make the shopping experience more pleasant. Where pedestrian circulation 

breaks down is actually in the parking lot, because the parking lot is completely devoted to parking and 

there is no delineated space for pedestrians to walk. This affects people who drive to the shopping center 

and those who walk. Customers who arrive by car are forced to dodge other cars as they attempt to 

reach the nearest sidewalk. Likewise, customers who arrive on foot via the bank, for example, have no 

23

direct way to reach the shops other than by forging their own path through the parking lot. The Team 

suggests that pedestrian pathways be created inside the parking lot, perhaps delineated by trees and 

other plantings. Clear street markings should be made wherever these paths must cross automobile 

traffic. This should ease circulation for pedestrians and drivers alike. 

Pedestrian Safety- If implemented, the above recommendations for access and circulation should 

greatly improve pedestrian safety. 

Community 

Even in a privately owned commercial development, efforts can be made to involve the surrounding 

community in making that space special and unique. 

Murals–One way to bring a sense of community to a place 

is to incorporate local art, and one of the best ways to 

accommodate art in a space like the Shopping Center is 

through murals. Murals tell stories about the history, 

current society, and aspirations of a community. The 

northernmost wall and the wall outside the clothing store 

are both wide, blank expanses, and consequently are 

perfectly suited for murals. Also, as already mentioned, 

the long, blank wall along Hartwick Road could become 

much more attractive with the addition of a mural. College 

Park has a rich history from which to draw mural subjects. 

Possibilities include the history of the University of 

Maryland; homage to the College Park airport; or 

renditions of Jim Henson and the Muppets he created 

while a student in College Park. Local community artists 

or art students could work together to create a meaningful 

focal point for College Park. 

Picture 21: Mural Improvement 


Safety 

Safety is, of course, a major concern for any public or quasi-public space. Safety guidelines for a 

Shopping Center are, however, much different from those of a park or small open space. Overall, the 

shopping center is a safe place, and implementing the other guidelines listed thus far should not bring 

about new safety concerns. The issues of pedestrian safety and (to a lesser extent) automobile safety 

have already been explored above, but it is worth noting a few other safety guidelines here. 

Lighting–Generally speaking, the shopping center is well lit, both under the walkways and in the parking 

lot. However, as noted, the lights are not always in the best repair, and sometimes are dead or dim. 

Good lighting is crucial to public safety and every effort should be made to see that current lights are 

always in top repair. A spot of special concern is the walkway to the neighboring parking lot across 

Hartwick Road. It is unpleasant during the day and feels very unsafe at night. That area should be kept 

particularly well lit. 

Telephones–In the age of the cellular phone, payphones around the country are falling into disuse and 

disrepair. However, not everyone has a cellular phone. Especially after the shops close for the evening, 

working payphones or emergency or “blue light” phones are vital sources of help for people without 

cellular phones. The shopping center should continue to maintain its payphones and keep them brightly 

lit at night and consider partnering with the University to instal emergency or “blue light” phones. 

24

Implementation/Maintenance 

The next major question is how to make all of this happen. Who will pay for it? JBG Rosenfeld Retail 

Properties, as the private owner of the property, is responsible for any future changes. Any parking 

reconfiguration also is likely to fall under their purview. In addition to JBG, another source of funding and 

implementation assistance is the combined efforts of the College Park Shopping Center Business 

Association. Items like tables, chairs, and expanded sidewalks will directly or indirectly benefit all of the 

Shopping Center’s tenants. A third source of funding is the Colege Park Commercial Landscaping 

Program. The City offers grants to business owners located on commercial corridors for installation of 

landscaping along the road frontage. The City pays 75 percent of the cost of the landscaping 

improvements, up to $5,000. The office of Economic Development runs this program, and while it might 

not be applicable to al of the Shopping Center’s potential landscaping needs, it is a resource that should 

be exploited. Finally, there is a lot of community spirit in College Park that can be tapped into for free (or 

at most the cost of some bagels and hot coffee). Local artists or art students might be convinced to 

design and paint a mural at no cost. Community groups, campus organizations, sororities and fraternities 

could help plant new trees. If there is the will to see these changes through, there are sources to make 

them happen. 

It is up to the City of College Park to see that pedestrian access is improved around the shopping center. 

The call for a stoplight on Route 1 at Hartwick Road goes back at least as far as the City’s 1995 

Comprehensive Plan, and a stop sign up Knox Road would be a boon for public safety. If room in the 

budget can be found, there is a need for improvements. Also, if the City finds merit in these plans and 

JBG Rosenfeld does not, it will be up to the City to convince them otherwise. Perhaps a special tax 

incentive could be used. The construction of a downtown parking garage also might take some pressure 

of of the Shopping Center’s need for parking spaces, thereby alowing it more leeway to change. 

Initial costs might be burdensome, but the investment will likely be very beneficial in the long term. Easing 

access and flow for automobiles and pedestrians, and creating a space in which people are more likely to 

linger should result in a larger number of customers, staying longer and buying more. What is more, 

there is the potential to create a truly vibrant quasi-public space in downtown College Park, as good for 

civic identity as for routine errands. 

25

MARYLAND BOOK EXCHANGE 


Picture 22: Book Exchange 

Bounded by Route 1 on the West, College 

Avenue to the South, and Yale Road to the 

East, the Maryland Book Exchange lot 

contains approximately 2,100 square feet of 

open space. North of the open space is the 

physical structure of the Book Exchange, 

built in 1959 and serving the town of College 

park since 1936. Directly east of the building 

is a metered parking lot for downtown 

business patrons. The 2,100 square foot lot 

is bordered by a sidewalk, which contains 

one tree and no streetlights. The lot is 

sparsely landscaped with several trees 

throughout the space. 

Before the Book Exchange building was 

constructed, this site was home to several 


fraternity houses and an ESSO gas station. 

From the time of construction until 1965, the 

gas station and the Book Exchange shared the lot. In 1965 the Book Exchange acquired the entire lot, 

removing the gas station. In the 1970s, the houses on the lot were torn down, making the Book 

Exchange the sole entity on the site. Ownership of this site has remained constant since the 1930’s. 

According to the current leaseholder on the property, the owners have since moved out of the area and 

have little to do with decisions made concerning the site. Thus, any decision to make alterations to this 

site would be made by the leaseholder. 

At present, students primarily use the site as a cut-through to retail establishments and to Route 1- 

presumably on their way to the University. One can easily observe the two natural pathways that have 

been created by foot traffic through the site. Observations revealed a large amount of pedestrian activity 

throughout the day. A majority of the pedestrians appeared to be students, yet observers did note that 

apparent non-students park their cars along College Avenue and then enter the retail establishments 

nearby. Pedestrians use the sidewalks adjacent to and across the street from the site on College 

Avenue. 

Picture 23: Book Exchange Store Front 

Picture 24: Book Exchange Open Space 



26

According to information gathered during interviews, the site also serves as a cut-through for individuals 

patronizing the bar establishments along Route 1 and in the downtown area. Unfortunately, landscape 

and other improvements made to this site have been severely damaged in the past by such individuals. 


With its close proximity to retail establishments, parking, and the University, as well as its ample amount 

of space, the Book Exchange lot offers numerous possibilities as a vibrant functioning public space. 

Currently, the site is passive, encouraging one to pass by or through without notice or care for what is 

contained within the site. The space commands no respect as evidenced by pedestrian foot traffic that 

has completely worn down the grass in many areas. The lack of adequate lighting, seating, connectivity 

to the rest of downtown, and appropriate landscaping contribute to a diminished sense of place for the 

residents of College Park. 

As previously mentioned, a possible constraint is that the site is privately owned and operated; therefore 

any changes to this site must be approved and ultimately implemented by the Maryland Book Exchange. 

Through recent discussions, management has indicated a willingness to look at proposals and consider 

recommendations. Additionally, the management has agreed, through interview conversations, that 

College Park would benefit greatly from improved public spaces and more opportunities for sitting and 

eating outdoors. 

The site also lacks optimal visibility from Route 1, the heavily traveled main street running through 

College Park. Currently, travelers headed both north and south on Route 1 cannot see the site. On the 

other hand, the park is in the direct line of sight from nearby houses and stores, which provides adequate 

visibility. 

While these issues currently exist, they are by no means insurmountable. If the proper political and 

economic environment exists, this site can be transformed dramatically into a space that brings the 

community together, encourages social exchange, and gives College Park the highly sought after “sense 

of place”. 

Suitability 

As mentioned previously, in determining the best 

use for this site, the Team conducted a suitability 

analysis. The analysis revealed that the Book 

Exchange lot is most suitable for large community 

gatherings, a sizable volume of outdoor seating, 

and a place where entertainers and various 

groups can hold events. Surrounded by a 

residential neighborhood to the east and 

commercial businesses immediately to the south 

and southwest across Baltimore Avenue, the site 

in its proposed form could complement and serve 

these adjacent land uses. The size of the site (300 

feet x 70 feet) provides ample room for a proposed 

entertainment/plaza space and outdoor seating. 

Picture 25: Performance Space Example 

The surrounding area also includes retail and 

restaurants that are compatible with the proposed 

site design. Because the site is a short walking Source: Team Photo 

distance from retail and restaurants, it will be 

accessible by the employees and customers who patronize the commercial businesses and desire a 

place to sit, relax, or eat outdoors. With such ample space and the addition of the proposed 

entertainment stage, this site has strong potential to be used for large community gatherings and events 

that can draw a diverse crowd of all ages. 

27

Picture 26: Outdoor Seating Options 

Picture 27: Outdoor Seating Option 



The surrounding neighborhood is quite active, consisting primarily of University of Maryland students. A 

considerable volume of pedestrians comes to the general area to shop at the commercial businesses 

across College and Baltimore Avenues. Parking is available both in the metered lot on the Book 

Exchange property and in the spaces that line College Avenue. 


Design 

Based on its analysis and literature review, the Team compiled a series of design guidelines for the Book 

Exchange site. To create a vibrant, animated space, we suggest that the area contain numerous 

opportunities for seating, a performance space, and landscape improvements. 

Plaza Performance Space- The Team believes that the City of College Park would benefit from a place 

where local musicians and artists are able to showcase their work to town residents and students. This 

performance space could also function as a venue for more formal events, such as concerts or plays. On 

the other hand, a popular trend curently found in most colege towns is “open mic” events, where random 

members of the audience are given a certain amount of time to speak poetry, sing, or perform a specific 

talent–this space could easily accommodate such an event. The provision of a performance space will 

transform this area from one that is merely a short cut-through to other parts of College Park into a prime 

destination location for all members of the community. 

While the Team does not consist of landscape architects and cannot give concrete design specifications 

for a performance space, the Team’s research has provided some general ideas regarding how the layout 

could be crafted. The plaza or performance space should be located toward the south central portion of 

the site in the form of a concrete, above ground, semi-circle, serving as the focal point for the public 

space. People should be oriented towards the west (Route 1) when viewing a performance. The 

rounded edge of the semi circle could be raised to allow for seating opportunities. The straight edge that 

connects the ends of the semi circle would have small steps leading down to the ground. This area could 

serve as both a performance space and an outdoor seating area. 

Outdoor Seating- Undoubtedly, the City of College Park suffers from a tremendous lack of opportunities 

for outdoor seating. The proper panacea for this situation is to include numerous and varied opportunities 

for seating in the Book Exchange lot. Because the site is set back from Route 1 and is surrounded by 

sidewalks, which act as a buffer along the perimeter, pedestrians will be shielded from the noise and 

pollution created by traffic. Further, according to the literature review, younger age groups are more 

willing to sit in unconventional locations such as the edge of a planter, steps, or a low wall. Thus, the 

performance area could easily serve as a second place to sit. 

28

Given the amount of food establishments in the immediate vicinity, the Team proposes several tables with 

seating be offered for those wishing to eat outdoors. These tables should be located towards the south 

and western side of the site, close to the intersection of Route 1 and College Avenue, because the 

majority of eating establishments in the immediate vicinity are along those two streets. The tables also 

should be clustered together to accommodate larger groups and create a distinct eating and sitting area. 

Additionally, benches or tables should be placed throughout the site to fully benefit from the shade 

provided by the existing trees–particularly under the large tree on the southeastern edge of the property 

whose shadow extends over a sizable portion of the site. Areas for socializing (i.e. places to sit) should 

also be near a major entrance to the space or at the busiest intersection on the space perimeter, such as 

the southwestern portion of the site. The literature on this subject indicates that the ideal location for 

seating is where vehicular and pedestrian trafic pass by, because it provides the best chance for “people 

watching” and being seen by others. The Team is confident that students and residents alike will take 

advantage of these seating opportunities for eating, studying, relaxing, and socializing. 

Landscape Improvements - Generally speaking, aside from the well-maintained landscaping near the 

entrance to the Book Exchange, this lot could greatly improve aesthetically and functionally through 

formal landscaping. Several trees have been planted recently in the lot; however, they appear to be 

placed without any regard for an overall design in the space. The Team recommends that a landscape 

plan for this site include the following: 

Low-level plantings, including shrubs along pathways, to maintain an adequate site line 

throughout the site and to encourage path usage; 

Street trees along College Avenue between the sidewalk and parked cars (there is currently only 

one near the corner of Route 1 and College Avenue), to create some connectivity to the 

residential areas further east along College Avenue and to further contribute to a buffer between 

pedestrians and traffic. 

Walkability 

The site is accessible to pedestrians and those ariving by automobile. The Team’s observations show 

that a clear majority of those walking through the site arrive by foot. As such, the site should 

accommodate and enliven the pedestrian experience. 

Access Points- Currently, pedestrians can access the site along the entire perimeter; this has worn 

down much of the grass on the site. We suggest that access points be limited to various pathways, 

extending to multiple points on the perimeter. It is important to provide users with a choice of entrances 

and exits to enhance safety. Each access point should be clear to any passerby through the landscaped 

paths and perhaps even through signage indicating that pedestrians should use pathways. 

Paved Pathways - As mentioned previously, several natural pathways exist where pedestrians have 

taken short cuts across the site. These pathways run from the Book Exchange Parking lot to various 

points along College Avenue at the western end. The Team proposes that these “desire lines” or 

pathways be paved over with concrete and surrounded on both sides by low plantings. The paths would 

lead to the performance area, to other seating opportunities and to access points around the perimeter of 

the site. Paths should be wide enough to accommodate two people comfortably walking side by side. To 

keep pedestrians on the paved pathways, landscaping, and benches should follow the contours of each 

path. 

Community 

As mentioned under the design guidelines, this site is well suited for a performance space. It is important 

that this space be attractive for all members of the community by offering a wide variety of activities and 

opportunities for informal socializing. This performance space has the potential to provide the community 

a center for activity and an identifiable community character. Time and again, these types of spaces have 

strengthened community cohesion and provided a sense of belonging and pride in the community. 

For this space to work effectively, there are several considerations to keep in mind. First, encourage 

activities that can be shared by all ages- it is important that this site not become known as a ‘colegestudent-only’ 

area. Second, create a sense of ownership by the community through citizen involvement in 

29

the design phase of the space. Further, citizens or formal groups within the community and University 

could be responsible for certain plantings or simply just ensuring the cleanliness of the area. Finally, local 

businesses could be involved through sponsorships of performances or through funding maintenance 

initiatives. 

Safety 

Lighting - One of the most important aspects of this proposed site is lighting. To ensure the safety of 

those walking through the site after dark, proper lighting must allow users to be able to see ahead and 

around them, and other users must be clearly visible. Pedestrian lighting should be provided at the park 

perimeter to enhance the park's character, encourage use after dark, and to build on the existing street 

lighting. Overhead lighting also should clearly illuminate each pathway. Adequate lighting will both 

assuage safety concerns and discourage antisocial behaviors. 

Informal Surveillance–Because the Book Exchange site is in the line of sight of nearby houses, retail 

establishments, and motorists on Colege and Yale Avenues, there can always be “eyes on the street” 

which will help reduce the number of isolated places where crime can take place unseen. Park Watch 

schemes should be considered to encourage surveillance by local residents and merchants. The site 

might further benefit from the installation of an emergency phone. 


As indicated earlier, to create this proposed space, implementation must take place under the direction of 

the Book Exchange owners and managers. It is to their advantage both for economic and civic reasons 

to invest in this space. However, because the proposed renovation is likely to benefit many of the 

businesses downtown and the whole of College Park, either the City or the Merchants’ Association could 

help contribute to a fund that would help pay for these improvements. The City of College Park would be 

responsible for any streetscape improvements along College Avenue. 

Different community groups, campus departments, churches, or other local organizations could sponsor 

the various events held in the space. Sponsorships could be another way to defray the cost of 

maintenance. 

The Landscape Architecture Program at the University of Maryland has indicated a willingness and desire 

to help create concrete designs based on the proposed design. It is too early in the planning process to 

estimate costs for the proposed space. Through their design specifications for type of plantings, number 

of benches, lights, and trash receptacles, etc. costs can be more readily determined. 

Maintenance will be handled in a similar manner to the other areas around downtown, which are currently 

being managed and maintained. The Team understands that the local business community contributes to 

a fund that pays the department of public works for the upkeep and maintenance of the downtown area. 

While more funds may have to be contributed for the upkeep of the proposed space, the current 

maintenance mechanism works efficiently and effectively. 

A possible source of funding for this space is The Community Parks and Playground Program, part of the 

Maryland Smart Growth initiative. The program provides a dedicated funding source to allow the State to 

focus on restoring existing parks and creating new parks and green space systems in Maryland’s cities 

and towns. The program provides flexible grants to local governments for sites located in Priority Funding 

Areas. Administered by the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Capital Grants and Loans 

Administration, the program provides funds for the construction of pathways to improve pedestrian or 

bicycle circulation, construction of critical park elements such as lighting and fencing, and potential land 

acquisition costs. 

The Maryland Book Exchange is a prime candidate for receiving state funds through this program. The 

site meets the first criterion, established by the DNR, of being located in an existing community within a 

Priority Funding Area. The second criterion is that the project should be consistent with the local Master 

Plan or Comprehensive Plan, as previously established. The construction of an urban public space in 

downtown Colege Park is consistent with the city’s goals of preserving and creating open space. Other 

30

criteria include that the design of the park be consistent with National Playground Safety rules and the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as the commitment to maintain the site as open space for 20 

years. In the selection process, potential projects are reviewed and rated based on several other criteria 

including the following: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accessibility- the degree to which the project is within walking or biking distance from established 

communities. 

(As established, the Book Exchange site is located in close proximity to both the student 

population and permanent residents.) 

The Project’s potential to benefit a significantly broader population and geographic area. 

(Through the inclusion of a performance space, the Book Exchange site will encourage 

visitors from outside of the immediate neighborhood who seek a unique experience.) 

The Project’s contribution to maintaining the cultural or historical significance of the community. 

The degree to which the funding would complement an existing urban revitalization project. 

Consistency with the Route 1 Sector Plan’s goal of revitalizing Colege Park into a vibrant and 

attractive city. 

The willingness of businesses, non-profit organizations, and the community to participate in and 

support the project through funding or leveraging resources. 

31

SOUTH GATE PARK 


Picture 28: South Gate 

Located in a highly developed metropolitan area, the 

University of Maryland is a campus pressured by 

suburban growth. Physically confined to a limited 

amount of land, the University’s open space is under 

increasing development pressure. While enrollment 

totals have remained, and are projected to remain, 

fairly constant at 33,500 students, the total number of 

students relying on on-campus housing is projected to 

increase by the year 2020, with a projected need for 

2,000 additional beds in the next decade alone 28 , 

creating the need for increased residential units and 

larger dining facilities. Therefore, the inclusion of 

public open space has become an increasingly 

important issue for campus planning and design. 

Source: Team Photo The University of Maryland’s Facilities Master Plan, 

authorized by President Mote in 2000, lists as two of its 

main guiding principles the need for preservation and the creation of open space. Consistent with the 

goals of Smart Growth, the University addresses the needs for public open space as well as 

environmental sensitivity. Among the four main principles identified by the Master Plan’s steering 

committee, two specifically address the role of the natural environment: 

 

 

Create a campus that respects the natural environment, practices environmental stewardship and 

sustainability, and emphasizes harmony between natural and man-made landscapes. 

Create a campus dominated by open spaces and carefully site buildings that invite pedestrian 

movement among the districts and help foster a sense of community. 

In the creation of the University’s Master Plan, the Steering Commitee established a Team of consultants 

including the most prominent campus planning agency in the country along with environmental and 

transportation experts. In establishing tactics for achieving the identified goals, the consulting Team, 

through visioning techniques, established several objectives, including the following: 

 

 

Recognize natural environments as assets for education and research that are enhanced and 

protected for study and aesthetic value. 

Create a campus that meets al the needs of tomorow’s students and faculty and has more 

quality open space than we have today. 

Consistent with the goals and objectives of the University’s Master Plan, and the University’s Facilities 

Master Plan, the Team has conducted a complete study of South Gate Park and developed design and 

implementation guidelines to provide more viable open space. 

Positioned at the corner of Route 1and Lehigh Road, South Gate Park is the southern-most entrance to 

the campus. The “sister” to North Gate Park, the open area at the north entrance to campus, South Gate 

Park provides visitors as well as faculty and students with an initial impression of the University. 

Currently, the park is separated from the surrounding roads by a three-foot high brick wall, consistent with 

the architectural theme of the University. The park’s amenities include several large trees, grass, two 

sidewalks, a small fence, and a bike rack. Although South Gate Park is heavily traveled, field 

observations indicated that much of the traffic consists of students using the area as a pedestrian linkage 

to academic buildings (See Appendix 2) located in the interior of campus. Surrounding land uses, in 

addition to the roadways and University, include commercial establishments. Restaurants and small 

28 Facilities Master Plan, pg 7 January 2002 

32

shops line Route 1and Lehigh Road. In general, the area has failed to become a final destination point 

and serves primarily as a short cut to and from campus. 


Through site visits and analysis, the Team found 

that the design and location of South Gate Park 

poses several problems that impede the use and 

enjoyment of the area. Two sets of issues exist -- 

internal and external factors. 

Picture 29: Brick Wall Enclosing South Gate 

The park’s relationship to external factors poses 

several problems. The close proximity to Route 1, 

a major thoroughfare, is a contributor to the failure 

of this area as a vibrant and enticing open space. 

Noise, pollution, and a large degree of activity and 

movement detract from an area that should 

provide peace and relaxation. The surrounding 

brick wall and gateway entrance were an attempt 

to separate physically the park and University from 

the roadway; however, the problems associated 

with heavily trafficked streets are still an issue 


impeding the use of this space as a quiet area suitable for studying between classes or having a relaxing 

lunch. South Gate Park also is isolated from neighboring land uses. A line of large shrubs creates a 

visual and physical barrier between the park and restaurants and shops that line Lehigh Road. 

Picture 30: South Gate Chain Fence 

Internally, the park is not designed in a manner that 

encourages individuals to visit the area for extended 

periods of time. One of the largest concerns for this 

area is the lack of adequate lighting. With increased 

tension in the City of College Park over recent crimes, 

the issue of safety for residents and students demands 

immediate attention in the planning of all public places. 

Field observations during evening and nighttime hours 

showed that South Gate Park is not well lit. Large 

trees and plantings block surrounding street lighting 

from the most internal parts of the park, leaving the 

area susceptible to crime and vandalism. 

Another obstacle to the full enjoyment and use of the 

area is the lack of a defining focal point. Currently, the 


park is little more than an open green space, with no 

clear center or orientation. The converging pathways 

divide the space into three separate areas. Another barrier is the small chain and paling fence located at 

the southern edge of the park. Constructed to guide pedestrian traffic away from grassy areas, the fence 

has become dilapidated; several of the chains connecting the palings have fallen and detract aesthetically 

from the area. The park also lacks seating. Although walls have been identified as alternatives to formal 

seating, the wall at South Gate Park, as already discussed, is located too close to the noise and pollution 

of Route 1 to serve as a viable seating alternative. 

Suitability 

Given the size and location of the park, potential uses are limited to typical pocket park activities. 

Opportunities for sports or physical activity are hindered due to traffic and safety concerns as well as the 

limited size of the area. The park’s relative seclusion (due to visual obstruction by the brick wal and large 

trees) from the residential portions of the City of College Park also hinders its ability to be used for 

33

communitywide gatherings or entertainment purposes. After analysis, the Team concluded that South 

Gate Park is most suitable for individual use and enjoyment primarily targeted at members of the 

University community. The Team’s vision for South Gate Park is for a vibrantand comfortable opportunity 

for outdoor eating, studying, and relaxation provided by the inclusion of unique amenities. 


Design 

The design guidelines for South Gate Park focus on providing a comfortable atmosphere for outdoor 

eating, studying, and relaxing. 

Outdoor Seating - Given the close proximity to restaurants and carryout food establishments, the Team 

proposes that adequate seating be provided to encourage outdoor eating. To improve the area both 

aesthetically and functionally, the Team proposes that several seating alternatives be provided. A 

combination of formal seating arrangements, such as tables and chairs and more informal benches could 

accommodate a variety of needs. Tables and chairs would adequately provide space for groups to gather 

while benches would provide a space for individuals to eat a brief lunch between classes. One of the 

largest trees in the park provides a perfect opportunity for the location of more informal seating. 

Positioning benches around the tree would create a very attractive, well-shaded seating area. 

Patio Space- To provide a comfortable eating 

space, the Team recommends the construction of a 

paved patio at the southern edge of the park, along 

Lehigh Road. A small patio currently exists there, 

but should be significantly expanded. Construction 

of a brick patio, architecturally consistent with the 

surrounding brick wall, would incorporate the 

architectural characteristics of the University’s 

buildings and strengthen the park’s identity as part 

of the campus. The patio also would create a focal 

point and establish an orientation to the park’s 

landscape. Formal seating should be located on the 

patio, providing a level surface for comfortable 

dining. 

Picture 31: Potential Patio for South Gate 


Landscape Improvements - To improve visual and physical access, the Team recommends landscape 

improvements. Currently, a large row of shrubs along the Lehigh side of the park blocks access to South 

Gate Park, and poses potential safety concerns. These shrubs should be removed and replaced by 

smaller plantings, both to improve safety as well as access. A line of small shrubs should be planted 

along the length of the Lehigh Road side of the park, leaving a wide opening for access to the patio and 

the remainder of the park. This would control the flow of pedestrian traffic into the park as well as block 

the eating area from the noise and traffic of the parking lot. 

Other landscaping considerations include the addition of seasonal variety. During the winter months 

South Gate Park appears barren and desolate. Therefore, introducing a variety of plant species that 

bloom during different seasons would ensure that the park is attractive and appealing throughout the 

year. 

Focal Point - In addition to the paved patio, other focal points should be included to add character and 

continuity to the space. The redesign of the area should focus on introducing features that create a 

sense of space and an immediate identifiable orientation to the park. The Team proposes the inclusion of 

public art to act as a design feature as well as a community-building asset. 

Recreational Opportunities–As mentioned previously, South Gate Park is limited by size and location 

and is therefore unfit for an active recreation area. However, the park does provide the perfect 

opportunity for more sedentary forms of recreation. The Team proposes that South Gate Park include 

34

several chess tables, providing university residents in neighboring dormitories with an opportunity for 

impromptu social interaction and the University Chess Club with an opportunity to hold meetings and 

tournaments in a vibrant outdoor setting. 

Walkability 

To facilitate the movement of people throughout the space, the Team recommends improving pedestrian 

movement and accessibility. Currently, South Gate Park has two primary pedestrian entrances, the gate 

at the corner of Route 1 and Lehigh Road and the campus itself. Entrance from Lehigh Road and access 

for restaurant patrons is currently limited by the large row of shrubbery and parking spaces. The third 

entrance to the park, discussed above in the patio design guideline, would encourage pedestrian traffic 

from Lehigh Road. To improve the flow of pedestrian traffic through the area, the paling and chain fence 

should be removed, encouraging freedom of movement. A third pathway also should be added to the 

park, linking the newly constructed patio to the existing path, which runs in an east-west direction. 

Community 

Although South Gate Park is located on University property, and frequented primarily by University 

members, the elements that create a sense of community should not be ignored. Additional amenities 

should focus on the University community and the role that the University has historically played in 

College Park. As mentioned in the suitability section, the area is limited in size and is therefore 

inappropriate for large gatherings of people. To address the issue of community the Team recommends 

that public art be introduced into the area. 

Public art reflecting the human climate and culture of the University and its relationship with the City of 

College Park should be introduced to give the park a unique identity and foster a sense of pride and 

affiliation. The Team proposes that the public art should take the form of a sculpture reflecting the 

campus history. Many opportunities exist to capture the impact that the University has had on the state of 

Maryland as well as the nation. Sculpture recommendations include symbolic representations of the 

inspiration and contributions of famous University alumni, from Jim Henson, beloved Muppets creator, to 

Robert F. Chandler, Jr., one of the founding fathers of the Green Revolution. The inclusion of a sculpture 

also introduces a focal point and creates a sense of place. 

Safety 

Essential for the maximization of this park’s use and the comfort 

and enjoyment of visitors is the introduction of design guidelines 

to address the safety and security of the area. Through field 

observations, Team members found that South Gate Park is the 

poorest lit of the study areas. Ambient light provided by street 

lighting along Route 1 and along Lehigh Road provides 

insufficient illumination, leaving the areas furthest from the 

roadways susceptible to undesired activities. To increase the 

safety of the area, the Team proposes that more overhead 

lighting be added. The major pathways as well as the periphery 

of the area should be targeted as destinations for new lighting 

elements. 

Picture 32: PERT Phone 

Safety should further be increased by the inclusion of Blue Light 

PERT Phones. Found throughout campus, PERT phones 

provide a direct link to the University Police at all times of the 

day. Easily recognized by their blue lights and Emergency 

markings, these phones will provide an increased sense of 

safety and a means of communication in an emergency situation. 



To implement the above design plan for South Gate Park, the University’s authorization and cooperation 

is necessary. South Gate Park is located entirely on University property; therefore, any plans for the area 

are subject to the University’s review and approval. 

35

Maintenance and construction of the area fall under the authority of the Facilities Management 

Department, consistent with the department’s mission statement, which says, “Facilities Management 

plans, designs, constructs, equips, maintains and operates buildings, infrastructure and grounds, and 

provides related services to support the University's mission of education, research and public service.” 29 

South Gate Park would be the primary responsibility of the University. 

Funding for the park’s revitalization also would be left to the discretion of the University. The Facilities 

Master Plan identifies potential monetary resources available in the current planning period (2001-2005). 

Over this period, the University has a committed budget of $14,970 for landscape improvements, with an 

additional $5,000 for the following planning period (2006-2010). The total budget of $20,000 has been 

earmarked for 14 current projects. Through the proper distribution of resources it is possible to use 

current funds for the renewal and improvement of South Gate Park. 

29 Facilities Management Website, Our Mission 

36

CONCLUSION 

Recognizing the many benefits of urban public space, the Team believes that downtown College Park 

and the University of Maryland would benefit from the development of new public spaces as well as 

improvements to existing public space. The Team maintains that creating public spaces–College Park 

Shopping Center, Book Exchange, and South Gate Park–that are mutually beneficial to the University 

community and adult residents living in College Park is instrumental in developing a true college town 

atmosphere. Such an atmosphere could be beneficial to students, businesses, the City, and the 

University. Each of the spaces proposed by the Team addresses a unique need in the community, 

including outdoor seating, performance space, and public art. Additionaly, the Team’s recommendations 

address broader issues including safety and design that will influence not only the proposed sites, but 

also the broader College Park community. 

As noted in the report, there is strong support on the part of the City, downtown Merchants Association, 

residents, and the University to create public spaces. College Park is fortunate to have committed and 

engaged citizens, as well as a University that recognizes the need to work with the community to create 

better relationships and better connection. We believe that the City and University should capitalize on 

these strengths to ensure that the creation of such spaces comes to fruition. 

We acknowledge the complexities of providing public space in College Park, which include parking and 

maintenance. However, it is our belief that with strong cooperation and partnerships among all 

stakeholders, as well as significant funding, such intricacies could be lessened. We hope that the 

suggestions offered in this report for the three sites, will serve as a framework for future action. 

37

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Alexander, Christopher, Ishikawa, Sara, Silverstein, Murray. (1977). A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford 

University Press. 

Bolitzer, B. and N.R. Netusil. (2000). “The Impact of Open Spaces on Property Values in Portland, Oregon.” 

Journal of Environmental Management, 59(3), 185-193. 

Canin, L.H. (1991). “Psychological Restoration among AIDS Caregivers: Maintaining Self-Care.” Doctoral 

Dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI. University of Michigan. 

City of College Park (1995). City of College Park Comprehensive Plan. College Park, MD. 

Crompton, John L., Lisa L. Love, and Thomas A. More. (1997). “An Empirical Study of the Role of 

Recreation, Parks, and Open Space in Companies’ (Re) Location Decisions.” Journal of Parks and 

Recreation Administration. 

Goffman, Erving. (1963). Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. 

Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 

Hayden, Delores. (1995). The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

IMCL Council. (1990). Documentation on Urban Space Design: Selected from Presentations at the 

International Making Cities Livable Conferences. Carmel, CA: IMCL Council. 

Kuo, Frances E. and Wiliam C. Sulivan (2001). “Environment and Crime in the Inner City, Does Vegetation 

Reduce Crime?”Journal of Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 343-353. 

Lennard, Henry, Lennard, Suzanne. (1987). Livable Cities: People and Places: Social and Design Principles 

for the Future of the City. New York: Gondolier Press. 

Lutzenhiser, Margot and Noelwah R. Netusil (2001) “The Efect of Open Spaces on A Home’s Sale Price.” 

Contemporary Economic Policy, 19(3), 291-298. 

Marcus, Clare Cooper, Francis, Carolyn. (1990). People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space. 

New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 

Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission. (1989). Langley Park – College Park – 

Greenbelt Approved Master Plan. Upper Marlboro, MD. 

Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission. (2001). Preliminary College Park US 1 Corridor 

Sector Plan. Upper Marlboro, MD. 

Mulvihill, David. (1997). Flagstar Corporate Plaza and Jerome Richardson Park, Spartanburg, South 

Carolina. Garvin and Berens, 101-107. 

Newman, O. (1971). Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Planning. New York, N.Y.: 

Macmillan Publishing. 

Reid, Grant. (1987). Landscape Graphics. London, UK: Architectural Press. 

Smith, Tara, M. Nelischer, and N. Perkins. (1997). “Quality of an Urban Community: A Framework for 

Understanding the Relationship Between Quality and Physical Form.” Journal of Landscape and Urban 

Planning, 39, 229-335. 

University of Maryland (2002). University of Maryland College Park, Facilities Master Plan. College Park, 

MD. 

38

APPENDIX 1: SUMMARIES ON EXISTING PLANS AND PUBLIC SPACE 

College Park Comprehensive Plan of 1995 and Update of 2001 

The City of College Park began a months-long process in 1993 to create an updated comprehensive plan for itself. 

City officials, planners, business-owners, residents, university officials, and others came together to lay out a vision 

for the future growth and development of the city. There is much to discover in the finalized plan, released in 1995, 

relevant to our study of public space in downtown College Park. 

The plan is divided into several sections including one for the town center, defined as the commercial core of the city, 

stretching between the southernmost reaches of the University and the College Park Metro station. According to this 

section of the plan, downtown “is where the focal point of the entire community or town center wants to be” (157). 

The plan also notes the results of a citizen survey of 1993, which found that 56% of residents supported the idea of 

developing a public town center in the downtown area. When asked what the most important aspects of such a town 

center would be, these respondents listed 1) a plaza or town green, 2) more benches, landscaping and public art, and 

3) more parking. In 1992 a Team from the Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team of the American Institute of 

Architects recommended creating “a central town meeting space or town center to encourage participation in civic 

afairs and foster a sense of community” (157). Our Team was encouraged by this information. It meant that there 

was a general desire from City officials and residents for new public spaces downtown, and that any plans we created 

would at least be appreciated for the effort. 

Delving even further back, the comprehensive plan discusses the results of a 1991 city-commissioned report entitled, 

“Opportunities for Downtown Development,” writen by Halcyon Ltd. and LDR International. This plan reported on the 

general development capacities of certain lots downtown. While originally meant for commercial purposes, the five 

sites noted in the reports are also useful for us inasmuch as they are well-located and heavily trafficked, important 

aspects for public as well as commercial spaces. These five sites were therefore considered by our studio group as 

locations for our public space recommendations. 

During charrettes and public hearings throughout the development stages of the comprehensive plan, local officials 

and the public agreed that despite an economic downturn and political inaction, new public spaces downtown were 

still desirable and feasible. Eight goals were established for future urban design along with related strategies and 

actions. It is important that our studio group takes these goals into consideration, as they represent the community’s 

will (or a close approximation from seven years ago). They include among others: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forming more positive gateways downtown 

Providing a town green, plaza or square as a reference/focal point for civic life 

Providing kiosks for business directories/locators 

Making pedestrian crossings less dangerous by widening sidewalks 

Constructing a parking garage (also locating parking behind or to the side of buildings) 

Pursuing public/private partnerships for development projects 

Improving pedestrian lighting 

Locating storefronts along the street 

Encouraging sidewalk seating and dining 

Programming more special events and activities 

Providing coordinated streetscape amenities of similar design 

Providing dense landscape buffers between uses such as parking, commercial and residential 

These goals can be achieved through the intelligent design of new public spaces in the downtown area. 

Preliminary College Park Route 1 Corridor Sector Plan 

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission worked with the City and the University to draft the 

Preliminary Route 1 Sector Plan. The Route 1 Sector considered in this plan includes approximately 422 acres of 

land and extends along three miles of Baltimore Avenue from the Capital Beltway to Guildford Road. The purpose of 

the sector plan is to achieve a revitalized residential and business community along with improving pedestrian access 

and improved gateway entrance to the city. The sector plan is an initiative involving the M-NCPPC, the City of 

College Park, the University of Maryland and the State Highway Administration. The Plan has created a 

Development District Overlay Zone which includes Development District Standards for the purpose of regulating 

39

development as it relates to public areas, including establishing guidelines for streetscaping, lighting, utilities, etc. 

The plan has also created a Mixed-Use Infill zone to replace the Commercial-Shopping Center (C-S-C) zone. This 

change in zoning will allow for more flexibility and mixed uses to include commercial, residential, office and open 

space. 

The goals of the Sector Plan are to: 

 

 

 

 

Create a distinct and positive identity along the entire US 1 Corridor 

Provide a variety of land uses in appropriate locations and arrangements, rather than high-way strip 

commercial development 

Provide as appropriate transition from the commercial properties fronting Route 1 to existing residential 

properties. 

Encourage pedestrian movement along Baltimore Avenue 

The actions outlined in the plan have been initiated and include: adoption of an urban design plan for downtown 

College Park with guidelines for site plan and design review and re-zoning to Mixed Use Town Center; using 

landmarks as focal points, where possible to enhance view; attracting uses and activities such as art or craft galleries, 

cinemas, farmers markets, cafes, restaurants and boutiques; provide town greens, plazas, or squares as 

reference/focal points of civic life; clustering student-related activities on the west side of Route 1 and civic and 

community uses on the east side; encouraging sidewalk cafes. The Sector Plan also recommends expanding the 

Town Center area beyond downtown to include the “Knox Boxes” on the west side of Route 1. 

Langley Park –College Park –Greenbelt Approved Master Plan of 1989 

In this project, particular attention has been paid to The Langley Park–College Park–Greenbelt Approved Master 

Plan of 1989. This plan supports the creation of public spaces in the downtown area. In fact, it supports this concept 

in its environmental, historic structure, living areas, commercial areas and public facilities sections. This alone 

indicates the interconnectedness that open spaces can provide. The Plan offers guidelines for meeting its goals. 

Relevant goals, objective and guidelines are discussed further below. 

One of the overall goals of the plan is to protect and enhance the environmental quality of the planning areas. Some 

of the objectives mentioned to reach this goal include: 

 

 

 

To encourage the preservation of scenic assets and the incorporation of aesthetic features into 

development, in order to enhance community appearance. 

To ensure the provision of adequate open space within each community. 

To create a system of greenways and trails to link living areas, schools, shopping and other focal points as 

part of the open space network. 

Before providing connections we must create these focal points. The Plancals for “the inclusion of parks for active 

recreation, green space for its visual and bufering value, and trails for recreation and transportation.” Parks are but 

one part of the open space network proposed. The implementation of the Plan calls for public park acquisition or 

dedication – “acquisition by purchase or gift or acquired through the mandatory dedication provisions of the 

subdivision regulations for active and passive recreation.” It also cals for the use of private open space – “land which 

remains in private ownership but which is used for golf courses, swimming clubs, or passive recreation, or otherwise 

remains undeveloped.” These implementation strategies are key to our project. Ful cooperation from the private 

sector will be necessary to develop smal parks in downtown Colege Park. “Much of the open space network need 

not be transfered to public ownership but can be provided as part of the site design of private development.” We 

realize that the downtown area is highly built out, but we believe that this statement highlights the private sector’s 

responsibility to be an integral part of open space development in the downtown area. One of the guidelines set forth 

in the Plan states that “the responsibility for environmentaly sound development practices should apply equally to 

private and public interests; decisions concerning the selection and use of properties should be based on 

environmental considerations. 

One of the Plan’s goals with regard to local historic features is “to recognize designated resources, sites and districts 

as valuable physical components of our heritage.” This goal was originaly developed as part of the Prince George’s 

County Historic Sites and Districts Plan of 1981. Designated sites in the immediate study area are the Rossborough 

Inn (National Register) and the Colege Park Woman’s Club. These historic structures and others in the downtown 

College Park area can contribute to the sense of community that we attempt to create in developing small urban 

spaces. 

40

The downtown area is adjacent to living areas as noted in the Master Plan. Several guidelines listed for living areas 

are directly relevant to our project and show the City’s commitment to providing its citizens with a good quality of life. 

These guidelines include: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Living areas should be developed in a system of identifiable communities, oriented to adequate, appropriate 

community facilities. Recreation areas, school facilities and convenience centers should be designed to 

serve as social focal points in residential areas. 

All significant aspects of housing and neighborhood quality should be monitored to identify and counteract 

neighborhood decline within the Planning Areas. 

Wherever possible, living areas should be linked to community facilities, transportation facilities, employment 

areas, and other living areas by a continuous system of pedestrian walkways and bike trails utilizing the 

open space and conservation network. 

Buffering in the form of landscaping, open space, attractive fencing, and/or other creative site planning 

techniques should be utilized to protect residential areas from commercial, industrial, and other incompatible 

uses. 

Recreation area, school facilities, and activity centers should be designed, or redesigned upon future 

expansion or renovation, to serve as social focal points in residential areas. 

Expeditious handling of development proposals is encouraged that provide privately sponsored active 

recreation facilities in addition to public open space. 

In addition to living areas, commercial areas are a focus of the plan. The unique mix of commercial and residential 

areas in the downtown area begs for special attention by policy makers. Individuals living and working in the 

downtown, as well as students, will benefit from a more enjoyable environment. Objectives for the commercial areas 

are to locate commercial activities where vehicular access is adequate and where pedestrian walkways and bikeways 

can be integrated into the design and to encourage and provide for the upgrading and maintenance of commercial 

corridors. It should be noted that even in 1989 

“Most of the commercial areas display(ed) an absence of site plan review…that has resulted in 

poor siting of structures, poor vehicular circulation, inadequate parking and a lack of pedestrian 

walkways. A majority of the shopping areas have very little or no landscaping along highways, no 

landscaping in the parking areas and no landscaping/buffering to protect adjacent residential 

areas.” 

The same can be said for the downtown commercial area today. Specific problems that exist today and were noted 

at the time this Plan was approved include landscaping and exterior environment; façade and signage; structural 

conditions; ingress/egress/internal circulation; parking availability; and screening and buffering. Specifically, the 

College Park shopping center ranked poor in landscaping/exterior improvement and ingress/egress/internal 

circulation categories and slightly below average overall. The book exchange site also ranked slightly below average 

with a poor ranking for landscaping/exterior environment. The South Gate park site was not part of the evaluation as 

it is on University Property and contains no commercial use on the site. 

At the time the Plan was approved the City intended to 

“provide functional and visual improvements to this area through the Community Development 

Block Grant funds by continuing to make loans for improving the facades, widening sidewalks on 

the east side of Route 1, providing brick sidewalks between College Avenue and Guildford Road 

and widening the median to incorporate a landscaping plan for Route 1 from Guildford Road to the 

Beltway. The initial improvement is a brick wall on the west side of Route 1 between Knox Road 

and Lehigh Road where the sidewalk is considerably higher than the road and irregular crossings 

by pedestrians could be hazardous.” 

The only obvious accomplishment related to this statement is the brick wall adjacent to the book exchange site. 

Without the other improvements, this wall gives a sense of separation and isolation between the University and the 

book exchange and contributes to an overall lack of sense of community. Other recommendations for the downtown 

area include: 

 

 

 

The Chaney and Shell sites should be studied in detail to determine, based on physical and traffic capacity 

constraints, the number of parking spaces that can be provided at each site. An evaluation of each site, 

based on these factors as well as cost, ability to fund construction, potential utilization and impacts to 

adjacent property should be conducted to provide input to site selection, and later, construction details. 

Provide a unifying system of street trees along all public streets in the downtown area. 

Provide a safer and more attractive sidewalk system to connect the different parts of the downtown area. 

41

Provide a pedestrian plaza as a gathering place and for special activities to attract shoppers. 

Provide visual focal points to add interest and to locate a perceived visual center of the downtown area. 

Provide parking lot landscaping to minimize the visual effects of a large paved space covered with 

monotonous rows of parked automobiles. 

Generate special activities to occur seasonally in the newly created gathering spaces to increase pedestrian 

use. 

Provide ample sitting areas in highly active pedestrian spaces and in low activity areas. 

The Plan suggests making timely and orderly provision for needed public facilities and services that provide 

opportunities for enjoyable use of al local residents’leisure time in both indoor and outdoor settings, at all seasons of 

the year. All of these goals, objectives and guidelines are present in sections not directly related to parks and 

recreation! Downtown open space and environment was clearly an important issue in 1989 and still is today. 

Additionally the plan recommends that: 

 

 

Innovative site design and/or ample landscaping should be used within and around redeveloped and 

expanded commercial areas, to enhance the aesthetic qualities of the areas and to break up the otherwise 

monotonous, barren look of parking areas. 

The businessmen and property owners should be encouraged to make necessary improvements to their 

properties to maintain an aesthetically pleasing environment. 

The Master Plan addresses parks and recreation specifically. The presence of a parks and recreation section within 

the larger public facilities section indicates the importance of this subject. Goals listed include: 

 

 

 

To provide parks, recreation facilities and programs to respond to the needs of the residents of the planning 

areas. 

To develop facilities that are functional, safe and sensitive to the surrounding environment. 

To protect and conserve public open space and natural resources. 

One objective is to encourage joint efforts between the various public agencies in the County and private groups 

which can result in the provision of additional parks and recreation facilities. A partnership will most likely be the only 

way the recommendations we present can be implemented. Related to this is the desire to utilize alternative methods 

of park acquisition and facility development such as donation, mandatory dedication within subdivisions, and the 

conversion of surplus government property to parkland. 

Guidelines for the development of parks include: 

 

 

 

 

Sites for neighborhood and community parks should be easily accessible for the intended users. 

Recreational opportunities should be offered in each community to reflect the recreational preferences and 

needs of local users. 

Development of private or commercial recreation areas shall be encouraged to help meet recreational 

needs. 

Safety, for both persons and property, is a primary consideration; and trails shal be designed to be “good 

neighbors” to the areas where they are located. 

Common themes throughout this plan suggest that there has been a desire and even a need to upgrade the quality of 

the downtown area and the development of small urban spaces can significantly contribute to this. Let this review of 

the Master Plan of 1989 serve as a reminder of the importance of open space and public places previously in College 

Park. 

University of Maryland College Park, Facilities Master Plan 2002 

The Facilities Master Plan outlines four goals for the future development at the University. These goals include 1) 

plan the built and natural environment in a way that preserves the beauty of the campus and protects the 

environment; 2) reduce the number of automobiles on campus and eliminate vehicular congestion to the extent 

possible while promoting unimpeded movement across the campus; 3) reinforce the campus’s role as a good 

neighbor in the larger community by the careful development of sites on the campus periphery or in outlying areas 

that link (it) to the community; and 4) preserve the architectural heritage of the campus and enhance it through open 

spaces, gathering places, vistas of green lawn and trees, and groupings of buildings that promote a sense of 

community. Each of these goals is represented in our recommendations for the creation of small public spaces, 

particularly one in South Gate Park. 

42

The Plan includes a statement regarding outlying properties. There is a lack of continuity around the edges of 

campus. The plan states that “the University wil continue to explore the potential of public-private partnerships to 

help catalyze appropriate local economic and physical development and strengthen relationships with existing 

businesses and institutions.” The Route 1 Coridor is one of the identified for development or redevelopment. South 

Gate Park is a great opportunity to make this statement a reality. The goals created by the University support the 

creation of small public spaces along the periphery of the campus. Though connections between residents and 

students may not occur immediately, the creation of the opportunity for connection is important in creating a college 

town atmosphere. 

APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF SITE OBSERVATIONS 

SOUTH GATE 

Observation 1: Sunday 2:00:00 PM - 3:00:00 PM 

Number of people walking through the area in pairs or groups: 18 

Number of people walking/biking through the area alone: 28 

Number of people loitering (average count for each 15 minutes): 0 

Observed Cleanliness: 

Very Clean 

Very little traffic, but most parking spots on Lehigh Road are taken. People seem to be parking here and walking 

elsewhere. Of 10 businesses on Lehigh, only 3 were open. Majority of passersby were students. Chain "fence" hung 

between posts. Seems to discourage walking between shops and the park. 

Observation 2: Wednesday 10:30 AM –11:30 AM 





Very Clean 

2 Cop cars with officers were parked right at the gate. Many cross Route 1 and use South Gate and campus 

entrance. Nice tree. Heavy and steady foot traffic. 

Observation 3: Saturday 6:00 PM –7:15 PM 





Very Clean 

Most walking through the area all walked across the street to eateries on the other side of the street. 

Observation 4: Sunday 8:30 AM –9:30 AM 



Number of people loitering (average count for each 15 minutes): 0.5 


Noticeable Litter 

Observation 5: Friday 11:00 AM –1:00 PM 





Very Clean 

1 moped, 1 jogger, 1 bicyclist. Believe that patterns are influenced by Sniper and Gary Williams book signing at 

Bentley's. We observed several people with food moving through the areas very slowly. It appeared to us that they 

definitely had the potential to sit and eat in the park. 

Observation 6: Monday 3:30 PM –4:30 PM 





Moderate Clean 

Someone had used a tree as a bike rack. The light to cross Route 1 at College, near the South Gate, is very long. I 

observed they are within the wall, and the sidewalk that passes between the South Gate. 

Average number of people walking through the area in pairs or groups: 27 

Average number of people walking/biking through the area alone: 81 

Average number of people loitering (average count for each 15 minutes): 0.25 

COLLEGE PARK SHOPPING CENTER 


43


Estimated average time (in minutes) spent loitering: 3.5 

Male/Female Ratio of loiterers: 

3 males to 2 females 

1 person alone for every 

Are people in groups or alone? 

2.5 people in a group 

Smoking, using cell phone, 

Observed Loitering: 

waiting for people, talking, 

eating, 


Litter 

Parking lot was always quite full. Great deal of people walking. Since few others were long-term loitering, I felt I stuck 

out. Mix of students, families, others. Large proportion Hispanic. Majority of passersby were students. Lack of public 

restrooms an issue for any loiterers 

Observation 2: Wednesday 10:30 AM –11:30 AM 

Number of people loitering (average count for each 15 minutes): 

Estimated average time (in minutes) spent loitering: 


3 males 2 females 


All were alone 

Smoking, using pay phone, 


using cell phone 


A lot of lunch activity- many going to the restaurants and Wawa and then leaving promptly. Many non-students (i.e. 

people over 30) High volume traffic in parking lot also high pedestrian volume-people walking from other areas to this 

shopping center 

Observation 3: Friday 7:30 PM –9:00 PM 




Groups (groups of 2-6 


people) 


Standing around talking 


Clean 

There were many people who both walked and drove the shopping center. The parking lot was also filled. WAWA, 

CVS, Chipotle, and the Noodle Company received the most visits. 





2 males to 1 female 

Most were alone. As time 


grew on more people were 

in pairs. 

They either seemed to be 


waiting for someone or just 

sitting on the curb. 


Not the most sanitary 

Every time I have visited (especially later in the day and at night) there seems to be a great need for outdoor seating. 

Many visitors to this area seem to be sitting on the curb. 




Corners/pavement with 

benches or chairs/tables 

Male/Female Ratio of loiterers: 2/3 


People mostly alone 


Eating and chatting 


44

During the observation, the parking lot was full of cars from 1.30 - 2.30, then the number kept decreasing until I left at 

3.00 PM. The people came and went after they got what they needed (did some shopping, had lunch). There were 

some benches (provided by the owner of the complex?) and tables/chairs put on three corners (provided by the 

restaurant owners?). I noticed only those who bought food from the restaurants sat on the chairs and passers by tend 

to sit on the benches. This place is lack of trees, benches or other park elements and unfriendly. If we want to hang 

around in there we must be ready to tolerate the CO produced by the cars. The number of cars exceeds the number 

of people. 







45 

Groups 

Smoking, waiting to meet 

someone 


Very busy lunch time area! 







2 males to 1 female 

Mostly in groups 

Eating, talking, using cell 

phone, giving parking 

tickets 


Relatively clean 

There are 2 pay phones, 1 mailbox, and 12 trashcans in the College Park shopping Center. There are very few spots 

to sit. The two existing benches are uncovered. Chipotle and TCBY are the only locations with outdoor seating. Most 

visitors appeared to be visiting the Shopping Center for a specific purpose. There is a construction trailer parked out 

front of the old Radio Shack. 

BOOK EXCHANGE 






Mostly clean. Some 

scattered litter. 

Majority of street parking was in use. Many people parking at the Book Exchange lot and then walking elsewhere. 

Almost continuous car traffic on College Avenue. Majority of passersby were students, but many were not. Many 

people seated outdoors at The Bagel Place across the street. 

Observation 2: Friday 10:00 AM –11:15 AM 





People use the parking lot to go to retail establishments next to the bookstore 

Mostly students Steady flow of pedestrians throughout observation 

Observation 3: Sunday 3:00 PM –4:10 PM 




Very Clean 


Those observed walking through the area were going into the Book Exchange 





Clean 


Pretty Clean 

It was pretty early, which I think played a role to the lack of loiterers. Those noticed walked past with a mission. 

Observation 5: Tuesday 4:45 PM –5:45 PM 


Number of people walking/biking through the area alone: 106



Very Clean 

I sat on the open area near the parking lot. People just passed by and most of them walked on the south sidewalk 

(across from the book exchange). The open space where I sat was pretty nice place with lots of big trees, but there 

are no benches. The passers by are mostly student who came from the university (I saw them crossing the crossroad 

from the campus). I did not see any loiterer. They mostly stopped at the crossroad, wait for the green light. Across the 

street from the book exchange there are some stores: English tea house, computer shop, Papa John pizza, grocery 

store, Danny's burger and Espresso Coffee bar (on the corner) I took some picture on the observation day 

Observation 6: Sunday 12:30 PM –1:30 PM 






Some use for parking and walk elsewhere Lots of people with food Diverse age groups (elderly, young mothers, etc.) 

Observed doddlers with a drink looking for a seat 







People tend to use the book exchange lot as a cut-through, walking across the grass. 

People tend to cross College Avenue, not in the cross walk, to get from the Book Exchange side of College to the 

Tea House side of College. I observed the College Avenue side of the Book Exchange, including the sidewalk 

surrounding the Book 

Exchange. I did not count individuals that parked in the lot and visited only the Book Exchange. 

Average number of people walking through the area in pairs or groups: 34 

Average number of people walking/biking through the area alone: 44 

Average number of people loitering (average count for each 15 minutes): 0.107 

APPENDIX 3: COLLEGE PARK LOCAL ASSN. SURVEY RESULTS 

1. Approximately, what is the population of your neighborhood? 

1 700 

2 1200 

3 1700 

4 6000 

2. Does your association regularly hold community meetings? 

Yes 4 100% 

No 0 0% 

2a. If so when and where 

1 Once every three months College Park Airport 

2 7:30pm, approx every 3 months 2 Friends Community School 

3 N/A 3 Fealy Hall, Berwyn, Maryland 

4 Second Thurs of each month N/A 

3. Approximately, how many residents attend? 

1 38 

2 37 

3 15 

4 20 

4. Does your association sponsor community events? 

46

Yes 4 100% 

No 0 0% 

4a. If so, what are some examples? 

1 Community Block Party and Community Yard sale 

2 Annual Community Picnic, Christmas Tree Lighting, Community Yard Sale in the spring 

Berwyn Day, Bonfire, Holiday Party, Community Wide Yard Sale, Community Night Out, Defeatii 

3 

Grafiti Brigade 

We had a NCPCA picnic in JUN 2002. 

4 We also sponsored two workshops on the 

intersection of Edgewood and RI at Davis Hall. 

5. Where are community events held? 

1 Within the neighborhood 

Calvert Park for the picnic, end of Dartmouth Road in the community square for the Christmas Tree 

2 

Lighting, and maps to participating houses. 

Cherry Park-Berwyn Neighborhood Playground, Fealy Hall, Social Hall at Holy Redeemer, Berwyn 

3 

Trolley Plaza and wherever the "urban artist" want to vent their urges. 

4 We had the picnic in Hollywood Park. 

6. How does your association disseminate information about such events? 

1 By E-mail and flyers 

Through approximately 25 neighborhood representatives and the community channel bulletin board 

2 

provided by the city 

Through the publication of the BERWYN NEWS ten times a year, e-mail, telephone tree and special 

3 flyers to all dwelling units and businesses. Also the BERWYN NEWS is distributed by hand to all 

dwelling units and businesses. 

We mail membership notices every month and are planning a full north College Park mailing in the 

4 near future. We also use flyers, road signs, letters to the ed, the CP pages in the Gazette and Ch 

71. 

7. In general, do residents of your neighborhood feel that Downtown College Park serves as a focal 

point for the City of College Park? 

Strongly Agree 0 

Agree 2 

Somewhat Agree 1 

Disagree 1 

Strongly Disagree 0 

8. Of the following activities, which would be most influential in drawing residents of your 

neighborhood to the Downtown? 

Very Influential Somewhat Not at All 

Influential 

Public Art 1 1 2 

Public Plaza 0 3 1 

Outdoor Performing Arts 0 3 1 

Outdoor Community Education 0 3 1 

Outdoor Health/Exercise 0 3 1 

Outdoor Eating Areas 1 1 2 

47

9. Currently, in your neighborhood are there activities, which would benefit from new public spaces 

in the Downtown? If so, what types? 

1 N/A 

2 Can't think of anything. 

3 N/A 

4 None that I know of. 

10. Maintenance is an issue in any public space, do you think your association would be interested 

in assisting in the regular maintenance and upkeep of a small public space? 

1 N/A 

2 Would like to, but we can't keep north CP presentable. 

3 Yes 

4 No 

11. What would be the most effective method of gathering public opinion on downtown public space 

from the residents of your neighborhood? 

Phone Interviews 0 

Association Meetings 2 

Mail Surveys 1 

Other Suggestions 1 

12. Other Comments: 

1 N/A 

If Route 1 had bike lanes, people in NCP might be much more inclined to visit downtown, no 

2 traffic/parking problems. However, we would prefer to develop these amenities in our area. There is 

no valid reason to put all resident amenities downtown. These should go where the people are. 

An email or phone tree would help generate interest and attendance to come out to the community 

3 

Association meeting on these issues. 

Keep up the good work. You will soon find that the rest of College Park (i.e. the other wards except 

Ward 3), looks on the University of Maryland at College Park as somewhat of a burden on the 

4 

community. I believe efforts that you are expending will only go to enhance the bringing together of 

the "town and gown" communities. Right now, they are widely apart. 

APPENDIX 4: LIST OF PROFESSIONALS INTERVIEWED 

Name Title Organization 

Association Members 

Downtown College Park 

Merchants’ Association 

Bill Heygster 

College Park Shopping Center's Property 

Manager 

JBG Rosenfeld 

Bill Mallari Facilities Management University of Maryland 

Brenda Alexander Horticulturist City of College Park 

Brenda Testa Director of Facilities Planning University of Maryland 

John Hilley Manager of Facilities Planning University of Maryland 

48

Roberto De Necochea Executive Director University Partnership, Inc. 

Terry Schum Planner City of College Park 

APPENDIX 5: SUITABILITY TABLES 

Criteria 

Accessibility (pedestrian 

access, sidewalk 

connections) 

Location with respect to the 

community residents 

Access to public 

transportation 

Proximity to retail 

Proximity to recreational 

uses 

Proximity to High Density 

Residential 

Adjacency issues. 

Compatibility of proposed 

use with surrounding use 

Size of space, flexibility of 

uses 

Ability to be used in 

conjunction with adjacent 

uses 

Accessible to employees 

Parking availability 

Potential for use by large 

community gatherings 

Ability to address the needs 

of all age groups 

Ability to implement in short 

term 

Pedestrian safety 

Visibility 

Suitable for events 

Ability to support a variety of 

programs 

South Gate Park 

Somewhat 

Most Suitable 

Suitable 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Least Suitable 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Does Not Apply 

49

Criteria 



connections) 






Proximity to recreational 

uses 


Residential 


Compatibility of proposed 

use with surrounding use 


uses 



uses 





Ability to address the needs 

of all age groups 


term 


Visibility 



programs 

WaWa Shopping Center 

Somewhat 

Most Suitable 

Suitable 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 


X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 


Criteria 



connections) 






Proximity to recreational uses 

Book Exchange 

Somewhat 

Most Suitable 

Suitable 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 



50


Residential 


Compatibility of proposed use 

with surrounding use 


uses 



uses 





Ability to address the needs of 

all age groups 


term 


Visibility 



programs 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

APPENDIX 6: ADDITIONAL DESIGN GUIDELINES 

Size and Location: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seating: 

Design 

Create public spaces under 70 feet to make the area appear lively and active all the time 

Locate public space at the heart of a city or neighborhood 

Create an environment that is traffic-free 

Keep its size proportionate to the size of the population 

Create a clear sense of threshold and enclosure 

Create an environment that is complex and varied in appearance 

Design a place for meeting that can be easily describe to people 

Create a space that allows passer-bys to look in at the social activity, but does not force the person to 

enter to view the action 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provide areas for sitting close to the space perimeter, but screened from the noise of street activity 

Build low walls that define the space and act as casual seating 

Offer a variety of seating for different people 

Place benches and seating at right angles to encourage contact between people or groups of people 

Isolate tables and chairs 

Locate benches in planted areas that face pleasant greenery 

Create quiet pockets within the space for privacy 

Provide movable seats for self-structured social environments 

Offer picnic tables to allow outdoor lunch eating or reading 

Supply an area for socializing near a major entrance to the space or at the busiest intersection on the 

space perimeter. 

Locate a hangout that provides seating for five to seven persons. Seating that allows various levels in 

51

various postures is best. 

Landscaping and Exterior Environment: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Create a carefully detailed floorscape 

Provide trees and planters for aesthetic and environmental purposes 

Be aware of appropriate tree shading and sun light access 

Enhance the existing visual focal points such as main entrances by landscaping 

Create an environment to maximize contact with nature 

Allow space for trees that do not need drastic pruning 

Provide a space that can grow naturally 

Install intensive landscaping to buffer residences behind the commercial development 

Conduct proper maintenance procedures to insure that the landscaping will be healthy and attractive 

Use landscape islands to delineate parking and loading areas and circulation lanes, wherever feasible, 

to provide visual relief from large expanses of parking 

Provide street trees wherever possible 

Screen outdoor trash storage areas and waste containers 

Install benches, trash receptacles, and planters at appropriate locations 

Add water features such as pools and fountains 

Façade Improvements: 

Create compatible building facades and styles wherever possible by unifying color schemes and building 

materials. 

Exercise care in the remodeling of buildings to enhance, rather than weaken, the original character of 

building facades. 

Renovate the facades of establishments needing an upgrade and conduct routine maintenance of 

facades and signs. 

Provide a harmonious style between the rooftops and marquee heights if a new building is to adjoin an 

existing building, or an existing structure is to be rehabilitated. 

Provide handicap access to all buildings 

Signage Improvements: 

 

 

 

 

 

Upgrade and unify the commercial signs to establish a positive image of the area while identifying each 

use effectively. 

Integrate signs with the architectural design of the structures. 

Reduce signs in size where feasible so that these do not overwhelm the façade. 

Limit the number of signs pertaining to a single business to avoid overcrowding the façade. 

Ban all temporary window signs. 

Structural Condition Improvements: 

Demolish buildings that are beyond the point of rehabilitation. 

Encourage businessmen and property owners to make necessary improvements to their buildings to 

maintain a safe and pleasing environment. 

Attract new businesses to occupy vacant buildings in order to reverse any deteriorating trend. 

Walkability 

Pedestrian Walking Safety: 

 

 

 

 

Ensure there are sidewalks, paths, or shoulders 

Create sidewalks that are continuous, not broken or cracked 

Sidewalk should be open, not blocked with poles, signs, or dumpsters 

Eliminate the amount of traffic 

Pedestrian Ability to Cross Streets: 

 

 

 

The road is not too wide 

Traffic signals do not force pedestrians to wait too long or fail to provide pedestrians with enough time to 

cross 

Crosswalks are striped or have traffic signals 

52

Parked cars do not block pedestrian’s view of trafic 

Trees orplants do not block pedestrian’s view of trafic 

Curbs and ramps are maintained 

Making Walking a Pleasant Experience: 

 

 

 

 

 

There is landscaping, including grass, flowers, or trees 

There are no scary dogs 

There is no suspicious activity 

Walking areas are well lit 

Walking areas are free of dirt, litter, and trash 

Circulation: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eliminate any on-street loading along the main street; designate the loading areas to provide better 

service. 

Generate special activities to occur seasonally in the gathering spaces to increase pedestrian use. 

Provide a safer and more attractive sidewalk system. 

Separate pedestrian and vehicular circulation facilities, enforce the use of crosswalks or provide 

pedestrian overpasses. 

Include analyses of the potential impacts on the local transportation system for all proposals for renewal 

or expansion. 

Combine existing access points wherever possible to limit conflicts with the free flow of traffic on the 

main road; additional access points to the main road should be restricted to those which are strictly 

required; additional access from the commercial properties to the residential streets should be 

prohibited. 

Parking Facilities: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provide adequate lighting in parking areas 

Create legible parking lot signs 

Provide adequate parking for both short-term and all-day parkers 

Maximize landscaping to minimize a monotonous view of parking areas from the main road 

Modify some existing parking spaces into compact car spaces, thereby creating some planting and 

visual attractions 

Maintain parking areas in very good condition by resurfacing, coating and patching potholes 

Mark the handicapped parking spaces; provide with access ramps 

Provide highly visible pavement markings to indicate proper vehicular circulation and pedestrian 

movement within the parking area 

Buffering Improvement: 

Add and/or develop a buffer strip to assure a visual and physical barrier between the commercial 

structures and the residential area. 

Preserve any mature trees that exist between the commercial development and the residential area. 

Establish and maintain intensive landscaping buffers to minimize any adverse impacts of noise, air 

pollution, visual blight and the glare of lights from commercial activities to the residential area. 

Include methods and materials that will be acceptable for integration into the residential community for all 

required screening adjoining residentially zoned properties. 

Community 

General Guidelines: 

Provide amenities that are unique in the College Park area through the incorporation of public art, 

performances, and outdoor dining 

Encourage activities that can be shared by all ages 

Create a sense of ownership of areas by the community 

Actively involve citizens in the design and construction phase of the park 

Encourage the involvement of citizens in the maintenance and care of the area 

Provide amenities, such as public art, which are symbolically representative of the history and identity of 

53

College Park 

Encourage the involvement of local businesses in the form of mutually beneficial partnerships 

Safety 

Park Design: 

The layout of the park should be easily understood from the point of view of a first-time user. 

The entrances and exits should be easy to locate from both inside and outside the park. 

Measures should be taken to lessen the impact of vacant, derelict or problematic land uses nearby the 

park site. 

Pathways should connect with destinations. 

The signage should direct users to key points of interest. 

Focal points should be clearly visible. 

Obstructed sightlines should not prevent users from moving comfortably into and around the park. 

The edges of the park should be open enough so that passersby can see into the park and park users can 

see out. 

At least one activity or facility should be located at the perimeter to create an 'active edge' visible from the 

street. 

Nighttime activity nodes should be located to take advantage of existing street lighting. 

The entrances should be highly visible to promote casual use by passersby. 

Solid walls, tool sheds or plantings that reduce visibility should be avoided along primary Routes. 

Vegetation should be planted close to the park edges, along walkways or between activity areas that will 

block sightlines once mature. 

The location and design of the park should be selected and planned to take advantage of surrounding land 

uses. 

Vandalism Guidelines: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Place benches along pathways to avoid cross-cutting over flower beds 

For benches, consider using light colored wood coated with varathane, or the like. This type of surface is 

less desirable for carving into the material. 

Provide heavy-duty trashcans that can withstand abuse. Provide more than the normal amount of 

trashcans in areas with litter problems. 

Protect young trees with guards 

Reinforce lawns at path intersections and along short-cuts with an edging of block or cobblestone 

Avoid signage with white backgrounds that will attract graffiti 

Informal Surveillance: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The park or areas of the park should be in the line of sight of nearby houses, apartments, stores or activity 

areas to assure visibility. 

'Park Watch' schemes should be considered to encourage surveillance by local residents and merchants. 

Activity areas such as playing fields, tennis courts, playgrounds should be located so that there are clear 

sightlines between areas to encourage surveillance. 

Washrooms should be highly visible from nearby activity areas. 

There should be visible staff presence in the park who can be easily identified by their uniform. 

Park hours should be posted. 

Activity areas should be clustered to provide greater informal surveillance within and between areas. 

Washrooms should be located beside a major activity area, or park entrance to encourage surveillance. 

Users feel a sense of security and comfort when they are able to see ahead and around them, and if others 

are visible to them. 

The lighting should help to direct movement between destinations at night. 

Access and Circulation: 

 

 

 

 

The park circulation system should connect and integrate with the circulation patterns of the surrounding 

community to encourage maximum use. 

Primary access Routes should be clearly identifiable, legible and well maintained. 

Access points should be clearly identifiable from the street and from within the park. 

Major circulation Routes should follow "desire lines" of park users. 

54

Pedestrian and vehicular Routes should visually be connected to provide informal surveillance. 

Pathways should be designed to concentrate pedestrian movement after dark along properly illuminated 

and well-used Routes. 

Nighttime activities should be clustered? 

Pedestrian Routes to recreational building entries should be well lit and un-obscured by landform, 

vegetation, structure, signage, etc. 

If possible, locate areas of activity adjacent to channelized routes to provide increased surveillance. 

The park should function as a shortcut Route between major destination points to increase the sense of 

activity and informal surveillance. 

A 2-3 meter mown edge or low planting should be maintained on either side of pedestrian Routes to keep a 

feeling of openness and clear visibility as well as limit potential entrapment areas? 

Lighting: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A hierarchy of lighting types and intensities should be used to highlight activity areas and primary 

pedestrian Routes so that they become areas of concentrated use after dark. 

Pedestrian lighting should be provided at the park perimeter to enhance the park's character, encourage 

use and to build on the existing street lighting. 

Lights should be positioned to respond to problems of surveillance created by vegetation and topography 

rather than on the basis of arbitrary light pole placement. 

Lighting needs to be redirected so that it extends beyond the edge of paths to illuminate potential 

concealment areas and hiding places. 

The installation of low ground-level lights should be avoided where higher-level lighting is not also 

provided. 

If possible, light tennis courts and/or playgrounds to make the park safer by encouraging greater evening 

use. 

Lighting should be positioned to coordinate with informational and directional signage. 

Signage and Park Information: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maps should be located at entry points, activity areas and intersections of paths. 

Signage should be visible from the street to encourage use by passersby and familiarize users with the 

park's layout and interior facilities. 

There should be a designated place at the park entrance for special events signage. 

Signage should be designed as a group of coordinated elements. 

Signage should be highly visible. 

Directional signage should be visible from at least twenty meters. 

Standard graphic symbols should be used to supplement text descriptions to assist people who are 

functionally illiterate or map illiterate. 

Signage should be accessible to people in wheelchairs? 

Signs or brochures should provide the following information at regional scale parks: "You Are Here" 

markers, hours of operation, walking distances between key points, location and hours of operation of 

washrooms, location of telephones, information on how to access park and police personnel, food 

concessions, parking and landmarks. 

There should be information on who to notify to report maintenance problems, vandalism or safety 

concerns. 

Directional signage should be used to identify primary pedestrian Routes and the destination points of 

secondary Routes. 

Signage and lighting should be coordinated so that major signs are lit for nighttime visibility. 

Signs should be located so that planting will not obscure them from view. 

Finding Help: 

 

 

 

 

 

Telephones should be located in well-lit areas where informal surveillance is likely to occur. 

Telephone booths should be designed to discourage loitering and possible vandalism. 

Telephones should be low enough for use by children or a person in a wheelchair. 

The telephones should have a code number or area locator feature that the caller can relay to emergency 

personnel to identify geographic location the telephone booth. 

The location of the telephones should be coordinated with information signs and lighting. 

55

Public Open Space in the City of College Park, Maryland:

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?