Student
Union Renovation
When
the planning phase for renovation of Student Union began, long
before any ground was broken, many parties were involved in the
design of the project. Administrators, student leaders and various
other key campus figures all had a part in the renovation of the
building. Directors of the cultural centers designed the centers
to best meet the needs of the student who would frequent them.
Soundproof studios were created for UCTV and WHUS and the student
organizations like the Undergraduate Student Government and SUBOG
were grouped together. Meeting rooms, graduate lounges, commuter
lounges and even an art gallery were all carefully planned and
designed to serve the students best interests.
The
decision to renovate was made rather then to tear down and rebuild.
This decision to save a vital part of campus history placed restrictions
on space, which would include exposed pipes and lower ceilings.
In
the recent months, complaints and dissatisfaction about the project
have arisen as the construction to Phase I comes to a close. The
reasons of unhappiness included low ceilings, columns in awkward
places and exposed pipes. Dr. Ronald Taylor, Vice Provost for
Multicultural Affairs said that he was not satisfied with designs
either. He also said that the problem of exposed pipes was not
explained to anyone early in the planning process and no one told
the cultural centers that this would be an issue.
Provost
John Peterson created the Student Union Project Advisory Committee
(SUPAC), which included the directors of all of the cultural centers
as well as a variety of student representatives. The committee
is co-chaired by Interim Vice President for Student Affairs John
Saddlemire and Vice Provost for Multicultural Affairs Ronald Taylor.
The committee is charged to review the Phase I and Phase II plans
for the purpose of identifying appropriate sites for the cultural
centers, student groups and other organizations preparing to move
into the Student Union. Saddlemire said part of the reason the
cultural centers had complaints once the project started was the
difficulty of translating something from plans into reality.
According
to Mike Tower, a 4th-semester political science major and SUPAC
member, 17 students to 10 faculty ratio of the committee makes
a statement about the administrations intentions and that the
administrators are incredibly receptive to students on the committee.
Cultural
centers and student organizations have been meeting with the architects
individually to talk about their spaces and ways they can be made
more suitable. Tower said that not only will spaces be reallocated
but they can also be renovated in some ways.
According
to Saddlemire, he expects that there would be some cost associated
with changes, but he said it is not unusual for building projects
to undergo changes, which alter their budgets. Meetings are being
held with architects to evaluate the options available to make
changes. Mr. Eddie Daniels, director of campus activities said
“He is hopeful that the building will be ready to move things
in by early summer”, but he is not sure at this point what
the budgetary impact of the delays will be. Mr. Daniels also said
that they are waiting for SUPAC to submit their recommendations
and Provost Peterson for cost evaluation.
SUPAC
is waiting to hear from the architects with the costs involved
in the proposed changes. The committee has proposed few things
that include:
