Welcome, Guest!
Column: A tradition of excellence and innovation?
Mission possible: Keeping Uni's cultures while refreshing its facilities
Gargoyle photo by Deborah Ladd (click to enlarge)Andy Joseph, an architect with Wight & Company, discusses one of two proposed redesigns of Uni with students and faculty during an open-house session Feb. 26. Joseph will present revised plans at the April 8 spring general meeting of the Parent-Faculty Organization. Published: Friday, March 6, 2009 - 8:23pm
With plans for updated Uni facilities circulating, people are questioning if Uni really needs any changes.
Consider that in 1944 a 17-page report about Uni published by the College of Education noted that:
On the whole, the (Uni) building is not very satisfactory and in many respects inadequate for the educational program which this school is expected to provide. It is indeed too bad that a school of this design and purpose should be so handicapped in regard to a gymnasium, locker rooms, and showers …
Lacking an auditorium, the University High School has been using a fourth-floor attic for this purpose. It is now necessary to question such use as a result of unsafe conditions reported by the University Fire Station. In view of the University’s obligation to follow the accepted public building codes, it seems that serious consideration should be given to discontinuing the future use of this area.
Uni has made gradual improvements over the years, such as the use of the Kenney Gym for physical education and athletics, but much remains the same. Uni still lacks an auditorium and the attic is used for performances.
There's no question that something more is necessary, but not everybody agrees on what Uni needs.
Theater people agree that Uni needs a performance arts venue. Administrators and teachers agree that Uni needs a place to have large meetings and all-school assemblies. The PE department, coaches, and athletes want a new gym and PE 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 wants a more central library with more controlled access to non-Uni patrons. Faculty members want larger, more centrally located offices. Students want commons areas.
If you account for everybody's needs, you have a pretty long list of amenities. And these are just current needs — the future will bring new challenges.
Uni's heating and cooling system is very inefficient. Radiators are difficult to control and noisy at times. Windows are single-pane and poorly sealed. Uni does not have central cooling but rather wall AC units. These AC units are loud and inefficient. In the winter the air conditioning has to be run in computer labs to prevent the room from overheating.
Uni doesn't have enough classrooms, and they are smaller with long, narrow dimensions.
People often point to Uni's tradition of excellence as a reason to stay the same. Tradition is important. It tells us who we are and where we've been. But relying on tradition does not guarantee continued greatness.
By mission and title Uni is a laboratory school and a vessel for innovation. According to its mission statement, Uni is "a catalyst for educational innovation." In order to remain a great educational institution that ignites the potential of youth, Uni must never be complacent with the status quo.
Ask yourself, what is Uni doing today to continue its legacy of educational excellence and innovation?
Although the Uni community has demonstrated an outstanding resilience to the challenges they have faced, Uni's innovation is severely limited by its facilities. Imagine the possibilities for innovation with refreshed facilities.
Bold new curriculum and scheduling options could become possible with more classroom space. With a large lecture-style classroom and advanced science labs, David Bergandine could give chemistry lectures to all of the sophomores at once, and then have extended time to work with small groups of students in the lab. Lisa Evans' art students could have extended periods of time to work, cutting the time spent with prep and clean up.
Some teachers could choose to meet every day for a shorter period of time while others might choose to meet a few times a week for extended periods of time. More classroom space and flexible scheduling would allow Uni to expand its curriculum. Teachers would have more time to develop hands-on curriculum or teach new classes.
A fine arts venue would allow thespians to share their productions with the community. Uni could host IHSA athletic tournaments, a source of both revenue and honor. Teachers and counselors would have the space to meet with large groups of students, and it would be easier to hold all-school assemblies.
Some fear that larger facilities will mean larger enrollment, changing Uni's comfortable and close-knit environment. Uni is cramped as it is, and new facilities do not mean enrollment expansion. According to Assistant Director Sue Kovacs, any enrollment expansion would be minimal— no more than 70 students per graduating class, and wouldn't be an automatic result of new facilities.
I personally do not want Uni's enrollment to be expanded significantly, but keeping Uni's facilities less than adequate is not a solution— enrollment is a separate discussion, and I think if that discussion were to happen, the overwhelming consensus would be that enrollment should remain the same.
The possibilities of a facility update are endless. It is possible to innovate and adapt in a changing world while holding dear to Uni's unique culture and tradition at heart. We must keep our eyes up and remain clear about our dreams and vision.
Comments
Interesting column
You make some valid points, Isaac. There's something I forgot to bring up in my column -- the U of I. I don't think we need an auditorium if we have ones in DCL and Siebel that we can use for lectures. If there's some good reason we can't use rooms in Siebel, I'd like to know. It worked for us in Algebra II last year. Maybe the rooms there aren't free every day. In that case, we could have labs on other days (in chemistry, for example), or rework the schedules so smaller classes can be accomodated on different days of the week.
If we need to seat 300 or so people comfortably, we could just go to Krannert or Foellinger or the Union. Expensive? Maybe. But if we only need to seat that many people a few times a year, I think we can afford to. Walking to the Union for the awards ceremony isn't a problem. And if we can't afford to use those places, how can we afford a new Uni?
Uni is not a green building. I'll give you that, Isaac. But I DO think it is sustainable. Our heating system may not be centralized, and we may use individual AC units, so we get a nay for greenhouse gas emissions. But the real issue is sustainability. If this school is functional, do we need to replace it? (Though the current structure wouldn't be torn down, it's essentially a replacement.) Again, a new school might be an improvement in several ways, but it seems like it would just be wasteful to build on so much new stuff.
There is a pretty long want list for Uni, taking everyone into account. But of the people who want the things that Isaac mentioned, how important do you think they are?
I've got some questions for everyone reading this. To the thespians -- do we need a new theater? To the athletes -- do we really need a new gym? To the faculty -- do we need bigger classrooms? To the students do we need more room to spread out?
Of course we all may want those things, but is the lack of them truly detrimental to our day-to-day existence?
I acknowledge the opportunity that an addition would bring. But there's so much we can already do without adding on. I'm not averse to a new structure just because I'm afraid of change or because I love tradition. I just don't think it would be responsible to add on without taking into account what we already have. But I've said enough.
I want to ask everyone one last thing: Is a new Uni really necessary?
Um, I mostly agreed with
Um, I mostly agreed with your column Chris, but I COMPLETELY disagree about the auditorium/theater. We most definitely absolutely need one. Have you ever been to a Uni show? The attic is a fire hazard. It's not meant to hold as many people as it does. It's hard to get to. It can't seat enough people. We don't have room to advertise in the community. It's never the right temperature up there. The stage is old and a mess. If we had a theater, it could double as an auditorium. I think it would get used a lot more than you think. We could have more chorus and orchestra concerts, more all-school assemblies, better more comfortable shows.
I don't think an entire new Uni is necessary at all, but I think a couple additions are more than necessary.
UNi is not loss efficient by
UNi is not loss efficient by modern standards, but it is very small compared to the proposals and it is a historic structure. The number of exposed square feet in the new structures will mean much more heat and cooling costs compared to any losses from the current structure. Considering that the current structure is retained in those plans, even if just as a facade, then certainly some of that heating and cooling issue remains as well. It would be far more efficient to study the current structure and make high quality architectural improvements with an architect that specializes and is well known for Historical Preservation. The plans are also disappointing and a disaster from a design viewpoint, no attention has been given to expanding with respect to the current structure. By that I mean, no noteworthy attempt to really work with or extend the current limestone Gothic exterior, and no modern attempt to creatively accentuate it with a modern addition, as in the Louvre expansion. We have square feet and floor plans , but no apparent real attention to the seemingly blocky and mindless expansion. Just add on and ignore the details, as if an existing structure of this unique design is a mere appendage or afterthought to expansion goals.
It makes sense to consider a smaller more modest proposal. For instance, Uni survived its first funding crisis because it was possible for parents and teachers to support the school with very little outside help. You cannot build just a massive building and be floored and surprised by the huge increased costs in salaries and staffing to support it. It does need to be heated,insured, cleaned, maintained and staffed. Just because of the huge increase in size this would either require a tax base to draw on at will which Uni does not have, or a massive private endowment to support. Otherwise it is very likely that Uni will have to become a public school in the Urbana School district at some point in the near future. A school that may not even be wanted, as some regard as elitist or needed because of overhanging financial burdens.
You ignore three facts
You ignore three facts:
1. Modern buildings can be far more efficient and cost less to clean and maintain. One of the goals of this project is sustainability and LEED certification. Energy savings alone would be signifficant.
2. The University of Illinois has a vast collection of resources and is financially stronger than almost any public school district. It is one of the largest employers in the state and operates departments with multi-billion dollar budgets. If the University is not able to give Uni the resources it needs, I sincerly doubt public school districts would.
3. The initial building plans show the volume of the space and space usage, not the architecture. Wight Inc, the firm doing the study, has experience with historical rennovation, one of the reasons they were selected for the study.
Efficient by cost per square
Efficient by cost per square foot. You ignore physics and the fact that a building addition as large as the one you are proposing. Absolutely huge with the old structure attached uses massively more energy. State a fact that shows a much much larger building with the original structure attached can use less energy than the current structure. Any one with common sense can see that a structure of this size uses much more energy.
Second the University of Illinois cannot and will not give Uni high unlimited resources. The school went through this crisis already.
Lastly, this structure is a disaster of design in respect to the current structure. Accolades and awards cannot substitute for good taste and an artistic eye. Really how much worse could the design have turned out than this proposal.
I suggest if you want to achieve something of this nature, that you be realistic and listen to criticisms.
A response to your question...
Yes, a new uni is nessecary. A while it may be expensive and not afect us in the near future , a new uni would greatly benefit students and faculty. The suggestions you give as alternatives are merely patches Chris. Eventually we will have to tackle this issue head on and not merely use quick fixes to patch problems we need to look to the future. Will uni really be servicable in 10-20 years if we merely patch current problems? I think not. If we do not address them now, either with a major renovation, i.e. not just the floors and lockers, or with an extension to the current building/new building entirely, our current minor annoyances and problems will magnify until uni is unusable. Uni, Kenney, and Uni gym will not last forever with slight changes. They will all face major problems if they aren't already. In short we do in fact need a new Uni.
In response
To Lauren: I didn't mean to phrase my questions to imply the answer was no. My bad. I was just trying to gauge how important each of those things are to those in the Uni community. Thanks for your response, though.
To anonymous: I think your predictions for the future of the current Uni are way too dire. I don't think the roof is going to cave in or anything if we don't add on. What makes you think these "minor annoyances and problems" will expand? The classrooms aren't going to get smaller. We can always upgrade the classroom technology, as far as I know. The single-paned windows can be replaced. The only issue where I don't see a solution is in the heating -- I don't know much about how that works though.
I'm not proposing patches to current problems, I'm saying we don't have major problems in the first place. Of course, if I'm missing an expanding issue, let me know.
Personally, I believe a
Personally, I believe a Auditorium that could be used as a lecture hall when needed and with a Library underneath and some teachers offices included would easily fit most of the most pressing needs of Uni. Uni has never put on a Broadway show to my recollection. If a gym and workout room is included as part of this more compact-multiuse facility this would fix many of the problems in the current Plant. This would not end UNI as we know it. You also get more bang for the buck. Consider that the Library area would now be available to be renovated for a Lab or Classrooms as well as teacher office areas. The School itself could be renovated where necessary with the freed up space. This represents progress on a smaller more manageable and realistic scale. If as some say air conditioners are being run in the Winter to cool rooms then perhaps it is time someone paid to have heat specialist to fix the problem. People do exist that have the skills to manage these problems. Much more will be spent with the current proposals in the short and long term.
What happens to the swimming
What happens to the swimming programs under this new proposal? Without Kenny Gym since UNI is building this to end reliance on that facility? I don't see anything in the plans. No opening gym floor like in A Wonderful Life?
The Kenney Pool closed a
The Kenney Pool closed a year ago and is therefore no longer in use by Uni or any other group. Uni has been utilizing other pools for workouts, such as Freer.
Post new comment