Welcome, Guest!
Column: Do we really want a new Uni?
Gargoyle photo by Deborah Ladd (click to enlarge)Architect Andy Joseph explains one of the designs that Wight & Company developed for a new and improved Uni. Joseph and colleague Rachel Simpson held an open house for Uni students and faculty Thursday in the art room, during which they unveiled two proposals, one with an attached new gym (shown), and one with a new gym located on a separate piece of nearby property.Published: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 - 8:34pm
WE ALL KNOW Uni isn't perfect. The science labs use outdated equipment. The radiators clank when they come on. We can hear the orchestra playing two floors below, and the lounge is so messy that it can attract mice.
Last fall, the University of Illinois hired an architectural firm — Wight & Company — to identify the school’s problems and find ways to address them. The U of I Provost’s Office spent $72,000 on the study.
And on Thursday, we got a chance to see what they were up to. The firm presented two models — both of which would consist of additions to the main building. Both models would include a new library, a new music room, a new auditorium, and a lot more space.
The first model would include a gym incorporated into the main building, and would take up most of the block.
The second model would conserve some grass outside, and a gym would be built just northeast of the school. In both models, Uni Gym, the Hue House and the Math House would have to come down.
But is adding on a completely new structure the answer? For everything about the school that annoys us, are they truly problems, or are they just quirks? Wouldn't tearing down or adding on to the 1200 block of Springfield Avenue create more problems than it solves?
A redesigned Uni featuring an attached gym. To see floor plans, go to the end of the article. Gargoyle photo by Deborah Ladd (click to enlarge)
A redesigned Uni without an attached gym. The gym would be located across the street on U of I property slightly to the northeast. To see floor plans, go to the end of the article. Gargoyle photo by Deborah Ladd (click to enlarge)
On paper, these models look great. We’d have more room to move around inside, the temperature inside might actually stay around 68 degrees, and we'd have room for more people to watch Uni theater productions.
But is it worth the price?
It doesn't take a Uni student to figure out that we're in a difficult economic situation. Our country has been in a recession since December 2007. Without going into the specifics of the economic crisis, does anyone have the money to spend on what this project will cost?
Even if a new Uni could be built — say some Uni alum donates a heap of money to make it happen — it wouldn't make sense to build it, especially one built according to the first design, the one with a gym.
We already have our own facility that we use for PE and sports. In fact, we have two. Though it isn't technically Uni property, we've been using the H.E. Kenney Gymnasium for years now. Sure, it's old, and we may see an occasional cockroach in the locker room. But it's worked for us for years, and there's no need to replace it.
And Kenney's little brother — Uni Gym — just got a $17,000 makeover in November 2007. It's not that anyone is particularly attached to the place, but do we really want to render all of that work useless?
Lots of the things that we want to change about our school are fixable. Just this school year we got newly painted lockers and walls, new tile for the second and third floors, and a completely new look in the kitchen. Those changes wouldn't necessarily go to waste in a new Uni, but if we add on, what will they have accomplished?
At its current capacity, our school holds a tad over 300 students. With either renovation, there would be room for more than that. Even if each graduating class is limited to 60 students, the new Uni would be a culture shock. The fact that we're constantly rubbing elbows with our peers gives our school its identity. If you want to spread out at lunch, go to Centennial or St. Thomas More. In short, a new Uni wouldn't be Uni anymore.
When students at IMSA came to visit us on Feb. 12, what did they notice about our school?
"I liked the environment, actually. It was really lax, comfortable."
"They seemed really tight with each other."
"There's a lot of history in your building."
In either new Uni, would the environment be the same? Would we still be as tight with each other? The building wouldn't look like an antique anymore, that's for sure.
The blueprints leave me with more questions than answers. We'd be able to keep the handprints in the lounge in a new design, but it looks like that would be about all that would stay the same, besides the exoskeleton of what we have now.
Would a renovation really give us something that we not only want, but truly need?
Ultimately, why would we build a new Uni: out of need or greed?
A LOOK at the alternatives
A redesigned Uni featuring an attached gym. Gargoyle photos by Deborah Ladd (click for larger and sharper photo)
The first floor of this plan (click for larger and sharper photo). In this proposal, called the "axial option," the central hallway in the main building would be retained.
The second floor (click for larger and sharper photo).
The third floor (click for larger and sharper photo).
The fourth floor (click for larger and sharper photo).
A redesigned Uni without an attached gym. The gym would be located across the street on U of I property slightly to the northeast (click for larger and sharper photo).
The first floor (click for larger and sharper photo). In this option, the central hallway in the main building would be eliminated; rooms would be on one side of the building only.
The second floor (click for larger and sharper photo).
The third floor (click for larger and sharper photo).
The fourth floor (click for larger and sharper photo).
A look at the project goals (click for larger and sharper photo).
Comments
I too have my doubts about
I too have my doubts about the plans. However, I musy point out one thing in reference to Kenney Gym. As of now, the University of Illinois owns the property and therefore pays for all utilities. Any day now, as has been stated by Sue Kovacs and Steve Epperson, the University will cease to maintain the gym, leaving it in the hands of Uni High. The building is so out dated that the cost to keep it running would be far more than building a new structure all together. Keep that in mind.
Kenney
another thing about keeney is that the current building that houses the track, offices and gymnastics area is on the national register for historic places which means that that part of the building cannot be destroyed unless it falls down, and its outside may not be edited without permission from the government
none of that applies to the gymnasium (the annex)
Actually, you're incorrect--
Actually, you're incorrect-- both the annex and the original gym (as one site, the "Military Drill Hall and Men's Gymnasium" at 1402-1406 W. Springfield Ave., Urbana, IL) are on the National Register for Historic Places.
In addition, the National Register for Historic Places is not legally binding, but rather merely provides recognition to places deemed historically significant. Only places on Illinois' register for historic sites (approximately 18 sites in total -- such as the old state capital, New Salem, and Lincoln's home) are legally protected from renovation or demolition.
While it is true....
That renovating Uni would change the atmosphere slightly, isn't it also true that it is more the people at uni that make the school special? You make a valid point Chris that changing the building would alter it, but in my personal opinion, it would remain mostly the same. Additionally, these renovations would take place several years down the road, when we are not in a recession, so I don't think that point would hold water. As for your concern about green space, since we are on the UI campus we are allowed to use the quads as well as the area in front of Beckman, all of which are within ten minutes walking distance. Also, the renovation would either give us a gym within the building or a short distance away. Think of all the time we waste walking to and from Kenney for P.E. That time could be better spent with Sally Murf and Doug rather than merely walking there. In summary, I don't believe that building or renovating Uni is a bad idea, quite the contrary, I believe that the benefits of a new building would far outweigh any bad consequences there may be. Students and teachers alike would benfit greatly from this. With tweaking the plans appear as though they could fit everyone needs.
One question I had in regard
One question I had in regard to the plans, is why they changed the inside of Uni so much. I was expecting them to tear down the houses and build an extension on the Springfield side of the block that would house most faculty offices but was connected to Uni to encourage students to visit teachers. It might also have a couple new classrooms to help out with space.
I also hoped they would consider a few changes to Uni gym that would allow it to function as both a gym and theatre. It is a fairly common way of saving space in schools. With a plan like that we would still have all the green space we do now and preserve the character of the main building.
Then with the money we saved from making smaller changes perhaps we could turn the parking lot into a 2 story parking garage (one level almost underground) so our parents could park when they come to a game or performance.
Perhaps the architects felt we need our classrooms to be all new, so that they can be the most up-to-date, so they put them in the new additions. However, I feel that if we were not all on one central hallway we would lose the atmosphere. It would be harder to find someone when you needed them as well.
Another thing that worries me, is what do they plan these buildings to look like. Would the insides look like every other high school in the country and the outside as well, or would the architects take care to keep all the features matching the main building.
Overall I feel the money could be better spent to make small changes to the existing building or to build something to take the place of the houses than to add on according to these plans that take away from the character of Uni.
Hi Sarah, To answer a few of
Hi Sarah,
To answer a few of your question:
One of the reasons for separating the gym from the auditorium is that the gym will be needed throughout the day for P.E., and having a separate auditorium would allow for larger lectures and other meetings. Also, when spring and fall performances are being produced, the practice times for the production and athletics overlap, and set production would be limited.
The parking lot that is on the Uni block is owned by the University and as such the University controls the leasing of it's spaces. It is in no way reserved for Uni's uses— faculty who have parking spots there got them by being on a waiting list. If Uni were to build a parking garage, it would be subject to the same University parking regulations. This would be a huge waste of space for Uni.
The reason the architects chose to realign the current Uni building as an option (with the hall one one side and the rooms on the other) was that it allowed larger classrooms with more normal dimensions. Currently Uni's classrooms are smaller and narrower than is optimal. Remember that the realigned version of the current Uni building is just one option -- the architects also gave a version (the "axial" option) where the buildings central hallway was maintained.
I disagree with you that changing Uni's main interior would change the environment. Yes it would certainly be a change visually, but I don't believe that hallway would be used any different than it's used now. Essentially the hallway would be the same dimensions, just moved over and with a wing to the addition.
I like Uni the way it is.
I like Uni the way it is. While I think maybe we could do with another classroom or two, I think the biggest priority is an auditorium/theater and our own gym facilities.
courtyard
To keep some of the grass, I think it would be nice to have a courtyard.
I can think of three times
I can think of three times in my high school career when I was inconvenienced by an aspect of Uni's facilities:
-someone left the radiator on over a long weekend in 106N, making the air temperature something like 105. We went to the chemistry classroom instead.
-I was the last person let in to a performance of Studprod, and ultimately nestled down behind the bass amp. I not only heard, but felt, all four notes of Blitzkrieg Bop, and next time I got there earlier.
-today in 8th hour the electricians were grinding and slicing and hammering in the alcove. it was background noise after a few minutes.
I understand the arguments for a new gym (not that I have any problem with Kenney, quite the contrary; I'm just alluding to Anonymous #1 up there) and maybe for new performance space (I've never been involved in a play at Uni, so I can't pass judgment on what's left to be desired there). However, it's just irresponsible to drop however many thousands of dollars the architects suggest on new educational facilities, office space, etc. Drastically changing the structure of the main building itself seems especially unpleasant. The best libraries are claustrophobic. No one's going to understand differential fractions or Japanese grammar better if they have a little more room to stretch. And when would all of this happen, anyway? Knocking out all the load bearing walls on the first floor and rebuilding them all on one side doesn't sound like a summer-long project to me.
I acknowledge the annoyance of the fact that I only have an opinion to express now that all the surveys and consulting are over, but the fact remains that there are so many better uses for Uni's money than a 'nicer,' more comfortable building. With the same amount of cash, we could make a few environmentally-friendly changes and pad the teachers' salaries not inconsiderably.
I agree with Andrew. A
I agree with Andrew. A smaller, nice building in place of Hue and Math Houses would work fine for faculty offices, and everything else seems fine to me. Updating the radiators and adding computer capabilities to more classrooms would be nice, but knocking down half the walls seems unnecessary.
I like Kenney Gym, too, despite the quirks and the cockroaches. It's a lot bigger and more impressive than the gyms at most high schools we play, and I don't think fitness would be made any more pleasant if there was an expensive, fancy track to run on. What about it makes it not cost-effective to run? If the University is planning to turn it over to Uni, why haven't they done so before?
To Andrew: Updated
To Andrew:
Updated facilities isn't just about addressing problems we encounter now, but addressing challenges for the future. For example, with more classroom space and one lecture-hall style classroom, Uni explore innovative curriculum and schedules. For example, with block scheduling, Mr. Bergandine could give an hour long lecture to all sophomores on Monday, and then smaller groups of students could have an extended time (maybe an hour and a half) in the lab other days of the week. Flexible scheduling like this would open up a lot of other curricular options, for example, special programs for seniors.
Also, a quick note about Uni's building: the walls at Uni are not load-bearing walls— Uni has a concrete frame structure. Because of this, realigning the hallways would not be as difficult as you imagine. Admittedly, however, it would still be a task‐ and I'm not saying it's necessary.
Finally, Uni's building is so environmentally-unfriendly that major renovations and structural changes would have to occur to make it environmentally friendly. There's really almost no way to make Uni environmentally friendly without major renovation. One of the goals of the new addition is to be environmentally friendly— more specifically LEED certified, a standard by the U.S. Green Building Council.
To Joy:
If Uni's going to invest the millions of dollars it will take to update it's facilities, there's no point in making incomplete plans. We need to look at what Uni needs know and what Uni will need down the road. Strategic vision is critical in this project— making careless additions is not an option.
Also, yes, Kenney is extremely expensive to maintain. It is in constant need of repair, let alone the renovations and improvements that should be made. The locker rooms are decaying, almost to the point of being unsanitary. While the gymnasium has been greatly improved in recent years, there are still issues with space and other maintenance issues. Just the utilities alone are very expensive.
I'll be writing a column about this more in-depth in the coming weeks, so look to that for a further explanation of my views on this topic.
So far, Isaac is the only
So far, Isaac is the only person who I've talked to who really likes what is happening with this.
I think that maybe such an overwhelming response against these designs says something about how much more really needs to be looked at in terms of what students really want/need. This just seems like an incredible amount of money to be spending on something we've been surviving without so far. Plus, this is taking out the parking lot that they just probably spent a bunch of money on. And Uni Gym, which just had nice though totally pointless and inconvenient flooring put down. Something needs to be done, but I don't think this is the right something.
The flooring that was put
The flooring that was put down in Uni Gym was not just a "nice" and "totally pointless" thing. The old flooring in Uni Gym was really bad for playing basketball -- it was uneven and had terrible traction -- and players and refs had slipped and fell on the floor. It was not just a matter of looking nice, it was a matter of safety.
Also, it must be stressed that the parking lot on the block is not Uni's parking lot. It is the University's parking lot. Any money that was put into had nothing to do with Uni.
I realize that these changes are overwhelming because of the scale and gravity of the changes. It's hard to envision Uni any other way than as it is. But these things are really both wanted and needed. Theater people all agree that Uni needs a performance arts venue. Administrators and teachers all agree that Uni needs a place to have large meetings and all-school assemblies. The P.E. department, coaches, and athletes want a new gym and P.E. facilities. Teachers want more classrooms and larger classrooms that support technology. Science teachers want new labs. Language arts teachers want easier access to computer labs. The development office wants meeting places for reunions. The Student Services Office wants a place to meet with students and parents. The library staff want a more central library with more controlled access to non-Uni patrons. Faculty want larger more centrally located offices. Students want commons areas.
Not everybody will agree on what Uni needs but I think that if you account for everybody's needs, you'll find Uni needs a lot more than you suggest. And these are just current needs— the future will bring new challenges.
Maintaining Uni's current facilities is an ongoing struggle and Uni needs to seriously look at how to address these challenges.
This is overkill. Why not
This is overkill. Why not just level the place. Do us of us a favor and quit beating around the bush. This uses the current structure as a facade for a fancy public school. The current building loses most of its windows. I can only imagine how attractive that will make it to use. These plans are a nonstarter. They have very little respect for the current structure or its traditional function. I cannot even imagine the increased costs to air condition, provide security and heat this number of square feet. This is hardly a Greener building for that reason alone, and expanding the student body ultimately means lowering standards and more social clicks. This will be the death of anything remotely resembling UNI.
I completely agree! Uni is
I completely agree! Uni is not a regular public school. It doesn't need to look like one or function like one. Excellent comment.
That's a rather elitist
That's a rather elitist thing to say. Any and every institution of learning has basic needs. Uni scrapes by with what it has and patches are NOT a long-term solution. It is selfish to think of what Uni needs in terms of what YOU need. Do you want future students who pass through Uni's doors to have an education that at least rivals the one you received?
I think it is selfish to
I think it is selfish to only see your point of view. I attended the same UNI high that you are apparently too good for and apparently you want to raise money from me.
Your making an awful lot of
Your making an awful lot of assumptions there. I see you point of view, it just so happens that I disagree with you.
Also, I want to preface this by saying that there are certain alumns that give back to Uni very generously. But this is not the rule. Uni alumns as a whole are terrible about giving back to Uni. I don't honestly expect that the funds for this project will come from but a few alumns; you aparently are not one of them. If alumns had a stronger record of support for Uni, maybe their input would be more valuable.
But make no mistake, this isn't about you or me, for neither of us will benifit from these changes. It's about the future of Uni.
I think you face the issue
I think you face the issue that IQ and earnings do not correlate past a certain point. Most intelligent people either must realize that material goods have their limitations ,they choose intellectual pursuits over earnings or intelligence distracts from earnings at some point. While one certainly benefits from more earnings, that benefit diminishes and intelligent people may realize that and pursue a seemingly more rewarding intellectual goals. Who really knows. The fact is that many Uni grads, while well off, and have amazing careers in general they are not extraordinarily wealthy.
While Uni has many successful grads, money has usually not been the main point of their careers. I think the potential of the Grad base for even being a source of funding for these proposals needs to be seriously considered. It is small compared to most schools.The need for operating funds for any expansion in the form of a significant endowment is also necessary. Any expansion that cannot be supported through an increase in endowment is in my opinion reckless with the future of the school. Non profits are cutting budgets and canceling or scaling back projects significantly in the current climate. These are necessary steps to consider. Regardless of whether there is agreement.
Supporting new construction
I'm in favor of new construction. The Uni building is decaying, poorly heated, under equipped, and too small for the needs of our current student population, let alone a larger one. The North Attic is tiny and barely usable as a theater or auditorium. Students in Genetics complain about hearing the orchestra rehearsing during their class because the orchestra room is only one floor above and poorly soundproofed. Often I have to change from one layer to three when moving between classrooms because the heating is so uneven. Sometimes we have rooms with the radiator going full blast and the windows open. As much character as the current building has, it's simply not practical for the long run. Basically all of the arguments I see against new construction boil down to "we don't like change." I expect people will get used to it a lot more quickly than you realize, and may even like it better when there are no longer 15 degree temperature differences between different classrooms.
change
Haven't you been listening to Obama? It's the Age of Responsibility. Time to put aside discomfort and find better ways to spend our money.
Excellent point. The study
Excellent point. The study alone cost over $70,000. Imagine what that money, let alone the millions it would cost to actually carry through with the plan, could do in other areas. A thousand dollars can provide a lifetime of food, water, and shelter for people who don't have what we do. Didn't you ever read the back of the Treak-or-Treat for Unicef box? Every dollar counts, and here we are, worrying about how big our theater is and how smart our classrooms are. We are all educated magnificently, and no matter how discomforted we are by the state of Uni [even though most are NOT discomforted], we need to keep in mind that there is so much we can do for other people, not just ourselves.
I can't keep track of all you Anonymous people
You are not Legion, let's get that straight. Post under a name, even if it's a pseudonym.
Once again, practicality. Where will the money be used if not at Uni? Will the University make a million-dollar contribution to charity if we agree to go without a new building? Of course not, they're really pretty cash-strapped, and if we deny their funding they will use it in other areas for themselves. I don't think the idea of feeling guilty about how much money could be used has ever entered into the discussion. It's not really a relevant point as far as I can tell. Deciding whether or not to spend is one thing, bringing in some unrelated idea about giving the money to some other cause is quite another.
I do think that it is
I do think that it is important to keep in mind that these are rough exterior drawings and obviously the new structure would not be as boxy and sterile-looking as it may seem at this rough stage. That being said, I like the second (smaller) design much more if the choice is between these two, because it does seem to dominate over the existing structure so much. A T-style hallway on only the lower two of four floors seems like it would not greatly alter the close, familiar feel of having everything on one straight shot of hallway. Sure, we could probably put together solutions to update the technology in current classrooms and create a better HVAC system, but the north attic will never be large enough for a theatre no matter what we do. Long story short, I don't want to see the atmosphere of Uni change, and I think most students feel the same way, but we can address problems that bother us all without changing this atmosphere. It is people that make the atmosphere, and while the building is a big part of this, adding on a tastefully designed addition (which, I would hope, would resemble the facade of the rest of the building) that fills the needs we all agree on will not destroy the Uni feel.
Good points. I definitely
Good points. I definitely agree with Daniel about the outside. The first time I saw the drawings I was shocked, thinking that this would be an addition to match the looks of other high schools. After realizing that they are just rough plans and seeing support for the changes (and reasons against them) I am warming up to the idea.
I hope the plans will consider that we really do love the building as it is, and will work to maintain some of the feel that comes from wood trim and the outside facade. I think a good floor plan can fail to please if these details are not kept in harmony with the rest. I hope the architects could take some time to consider how they will carry over the details, kind of trim they will use, outside building material, and window type. If I could see a page that demonstrated thought put into those details I might become even more reconciled.
And seeing as they are still rough plans, I also hope our comments can provide the architects with some ideas about where they misunderstood our requests and how the plans could be improved. I for one, am confused about where they put our lockers!
I really don't understand
I really don't understand why there are so many people who seem to think that construction is ill-advised or a bad idea. Sure, we don't NEED an addition, but it would certainly be a lot more convenient and give a reason to fix other things, like the heating that was mentioned above. If you lived by thinking that everything you should get should be something you need, then you would be pretty darn inconvenienced. It may not be "Green" but there are certainly a lot more UN-Green things than a building with a fair amount of air-conditioning, heating, etc. Besides, the "green-ness" seems like a small price to pay for a more accessible and modern building that can compete with other schools in ways that Uni has been unable to.
Why do we need to change it?
Do we need to change it? … Personally i like how our school is laid out and if we get a new building that would take away from the homey feeling of it. It would make it feel too much like just another school. Uni is unique, and if we change it, it won't be what it is right now.
Nostalgia is wonderful, but it won't solve our problems.
A new building would not take away from the homey feeling of Uni if it was done properly. There's this crazy belief out there that getting updated facilities is going to radically change Uni's character. There are ways to change what's bad about Uni (i.e. aging and limited facilities, low faculty salaries) while keeping what's good (Uni's character, people, location, history, etc.). Nostalgia is wonderful, but it won't solve our problems.
Understandable opinions
I understand what "Why do we need to change it?" is trying to say. But I also understand what Isaac is trying to say... I guess I want uni to be updated with all the facilities (especially the teachers salaries) but you have to be careful. The changes in my opinion are trying to make uni just like another high school. I like uni how it is... it has a unique structure and unique facilities. But you can update them without tearing down walls and building new gyms and studies on top of what we have all come to love and adore.
Post new comment