Welcome, Guest!
Column: New Uni looks spiffy, but is it worth the price?
Gargoyle photo by Isaac Chambers (click to enlarge)A view from the northeast of an expanded and renovated Uni; a new theater space is located at the east end. A new but detached gym would be located kitty corner across Goodwin Avenue. This revised drawing was one of several presented at the April 22 PFO Spring General Meeting by architect Andy Joseph of Wight & Company.Published: Friday, May 8, 2009 - 4:20am
TWO MONTHS AGO, I wrote a column about the plans for redesigning and expanding our building. I was skeptical of the designs, and according to the 29 comments I got, many of you were, too.
In late February, Wight & Company, an architectural firm hired by the U of I to evaluate the school’s needs, showed us models of two of their proposals, both of which called for keeping but renovating the current building and adding on to it with new facilities. My column was in response to those plans.
In late April, architect Andy Joseph returned to present more detailed plans at the Parent-Faculty Organization's Spring General Meeting. I went into the meeting with four main concerns from your comments in mind.
- One: Why incorporate the old structure into a new Uni? Wouldn’t it be easier and more effective to tear down Uni and build from the ground up on the current site? Or design a new building at a different location on campus?
- Two: Wouldn’t the atmosphere in a new Uni be different? The designs make it look like a generic high school. We would lose the closeness that we have, and the daily life would be much different.
- Three: Is a new Uni even necessary in the first place? Uni is fine as it is. The things that are wrong with our school are just little things, and there’s no need for any largescale change.
- Four: Would it be responsible to build a new Uni? It would be hard to get the money to fund it (however much that is), and even if we could, it could be better spent on other things. We’ve recently renovated some parts of Uni and the surrounding buildings, and they would go to waste with a new Uni. It would also cost more to heat a new building. And why build a new gym when Kenney is still functional?
So I went into the presentation with an open mind, hoping to be amazed. And to an extent, I was.
Of the three proposals that Joseph discussed, the featured plan was the model that incorporated an addition onto the current structure and a separate gym on the block just northeast of Uni.
Two other designs — one with a new gym attached to the expanded facilities and one that would be built from the ground up on the corner of Race and Florida in Urbana — were given secondary mention.
The featured proposal didn’t look anything like a prison, as one parent said the original design had been labeled. In fact it looked like a place in which I might actually want to go to school. There was a fair amount of “green space” surrounding the addition, and the color scheme would be a blend of Uni’s gray stone, the red brick of surrounding buildings, and large windows a la those at Siebel.
The roof of the expanded theater/auditorium would be covered in eco-friendly vegetation as rain gardens, so rainwater wouldn’t all end up in the sewer. As for the closeness, there would be a large student commons connected to the current lounge featuring a spiral staircase in the middle.
I have to admit, it looked state-of-the-art.
But now it comes with a cost: $32.5 million. Look at the some of the surrounding buildings on the Engineering Campus:
Grainger Engineering Library, built in 1994, was funded by an $18 million donation from William Wallace Grainger’s son David. The Beckman Institute, built in 1989, took a $40 million donation by Arnold Beckman. The Siebel Center for Computer Science, built in 2003, wouldn’t have been built without a $32 million donation from Thomas Siebel.
Where is our big donor coming from? Is there a Uni alum out there who can afford to pay that much? If we just go around the Uni community for donations, are we going to ask them to contribute more cash than what they already do to fund other aspects of the school?
At least we know it wouldn’t be cheaper to build from the ground up. The model that incorporates the gym into the building would cost $32 million, and the Race and Florida plan would cost $33.2 million. That’s eight figures, no matter what design is chosen. And I still don’t see the need for a new gymnasium when we’re still getting along fine with Kenney.
These plans can go somewhere. I get the feeling that students wouldn’t be adamantly opposed to a new building if it was built. The addition looks like it blends in well with the current structure. It was designed to hold 300 students, so there should be no worries of a mega-influx of new students.
The only questions that remain are the most fundamental. Are we merely making progress for progress’ sake, or would the addition truly transform Uni into something bigger and better? Again, do the few problems we face frankly need to be fixed by such drastic measures? And once we’ve made up our mind, how do we pay?
This is a step forward from the original plans, but we all need more information before we throw our support and our money into it. This change looks intriguing, but I think we still need some evidence that it would be truly necessary.
A look at an expanded Uni without an attached gym
An overview of the preferred plan. The addition to the main building is located on the current property (bottom left corner of the above blueprint). A new but separate gym would be located to the northeast of Uni High on U of I property, kitty corner across Goodwin Avenue (upper right corner). Gargoyle photos by Isaac Chambers (click for larger and sharper photo).
The first floor of the renovated main building and addition (click for larger and sharper photo).
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).
The gym (click for larger and sharper photo).
Wight & Company's schedule for designing (not building) the new and improved Uni. Construction and renovation could take up to three years once the U of I approves the plans and Uni raises the money (click for larger and sharper photo).
A set of goals that define the new Uni (click for larger and sharper photo).
A view of the renovated main building and addition from the southeast (click for larger and sharper photo).
Computer models of the same design (click for larger and sharper photo).
Comments
The new building design can
The new building design can certainly improve and expand the Uni curriculum. Our current curriculum is satisfactory, but the limited space and facilities limits the possibilities of, say, biotechnology and labs for the sciences, while an expanded theater/auditorium would improve the concert/play environment and increase the potential of the fine arts curriculum. Of course, it depends how much people are willing to spend, but I think a new building can easily improve the current Uni curriculum.
I like that new design a
I like that new design a lot, actually. While I still don't see why we need to spend all this money we don't have on something I still don't see why we need, if Uni has got to be redone then I think this is the best way to do it.
Who do you trust?
Chris,
Another well written article. I appreciate your honesty, even if I disagree with some of your position. So I offer some of my views as one that I hope will be involved in Uni long after you are gone.
The current building was not built to house 300 students. We are bursting at the seams, whether the students realize it or not. Take as an example my classes. I teach in the North Attic, a space I find attractive for my Subbie classes. Several times a year, however, that space becomes a theater, and my classes have to relocate. This year, there were no available classrooms for my fifth period class to meet in. We were given the kitchen -- fifth period, right after lunch. Have any of you ever looked at that place after you all were in there eating? Not the most pleasant place to try to talk about Romeo and Juliet, I assure you. That is just one example of a space need.
Many want to maintain the status quo. We all love Uni -- even those of us who think a new building might help. Personally, I do not want to abandon the wonderful current building nor the spirit the student body has. But maintaining the status quo eventually leads to deterioration. Atrophy sets in. It is true of the curriculum. It is true of the building. If we maintain the same space forever, the space becomes increasingly inadequate for what we need to do. Example? The Mac lab. We have no space for a real computer lab, so we stick it into a space that is, I think most agree, inadequate.
Finally, money is always an issue at Uni. The cost is daunting, to be sure. If, as you suggest, we nickle and dime the Uni community, we will never get things done. I dare say, though, that none of the buildings you name that had substantial donors just happened by chance. Plans were made and potential donors were contacted. A building like the one proposed -- whatever shape it eventually takes -- does not necessarily have to have a single mega donor, and we might all be surprised at what the Uni alum may come up with.
The bottom line may be who you trust. Many seem to assume this whole issue was the whim of a few crazy faculty who apparently don't understand nor appreciate Uni, who only lust after bigger, newer, better. But if you and your parents trust the faculty to teach you, shouldn't you also believe we have Uni's best interest at heart, that those making the plans are doing so with careful consideration and concern for not only what Uni has been and is, but also what Uni could be? I have tremendous respect for the students at Uni and their intelligence and concern, as I think my colleagues do. Do you trust us?
Again, Chris, I appreciate the well-written and open-minded article. Thanks for engaging us.
Life as a Proofreader
WHOM do you trust. My bad. I should never respond to Gargoyle articles late at night!
Goals.
Here is the list of goals in the original building development project proposal:
SOCIAL CHALLENGES
MULTI-USE COMMUNITY & MEETING SPACES
HEALTH & SAFETY
INTERIOR ENVIRONMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
The real question is: are these goals worth the cost?
I agree with many of the
I agree with many of the points Mr. Rayburn brought up. I am a Uni student, and I have noticed the inadequate space issues. The price of the additions is daunting, to be sure, but I think it could be worth it, if we go into the community and see if we can get a big sponsor or several smaller ones.
As it is, theater is one of the things at Uni that most students enjoy/are involved in, but the space we have is inadequate. The new plans deal with that.
Being at Uni is great, and I love the building's old theme, even if parts of it are run down. But we really do need more space, whether we build an addition or use existing U of I classroom space. Uni really isn't enough for our 300+ students and staff. We can't even fit our teachers' offices into the building!
A view from outside
Just a quick comment from a parent-- and University community member-- whose kids do not attend Uni. We looked at all local (and a few non-local) high school options for our children. In spite of the perception of better academics at Uni compared to the public schools, we and our children independently concluded they would be happier at Central High. Much of the reason was due to the facilities or lack thereof-- science labs, music, drama, sports, etc. Looking at the current plans, they would seem to both keep the personal feel and tradition of Uni while at the same time adding much-needed space and modernization to the overall facilities. I for one wish it had happened several years ago!
Public Schools
I appreciate what the anonymous, non-Uni parent had to say, but I would point out to that parent Uni is a public school, so the perception of better academics at Uni is in comparison to other public schools in the area. We charge no tuition, and enrollment, though competitive, is open to any resident student in the state of Illinois. In fact, one reason funding for a new building is such an issue is our unusual public school situation. Uni charges no tuition but also receives no state money other than attendance because we are not part of a school district. Consequently, for example, the recently passed tax increase to be used for school upkeep helps every public school in Champaign County except Uni.
Chris, I agree with Mr.
Chris,
I agree with Mr. Rayburn on the appreciation of an honest and open opinion. However, I am on the completely opposite side of the spectrum in this debate from you. I have had enough of the poor facilities. There is almost no way that this building will survive without some massive renovation in the next 20 years or so. The school is massively drafty. The heating is inefficient and half the time can cause a third degree burn if not watched carefully. Many windows are broken on the first floor. Both computer labs are ovens in the summer and cramped all year round. The teachers have no offices in the building, seriously inconveniencing both student and teachers alike. The North Attic is a terrible place to hold a play, much less hold a class for an hour. There are few classrooms that are truly integrated with technology, and those that are need improvement. We cant use the parking lot anyways without paying for a spot after applying for it in the first place. Kenney Gym is a total dump, with countless problems that are beyond saving. Plus the time wasted walking there and back cuts time down to maybe half an hour, if the coaches are lucky. These are not what anyone would call "small problems". These are major. They need fixing. From what I've seen of these plans, these address all of these problems and more, before they become problems. Whether or not you like these plans, you have to agree this school is broken. We are supposed to be some of the best and brightest students in the state, if not the country. The best and brightest need facilities that will enable them to grow and mature, rather than be cooped up in a space too small, broken, and dark. The Uni community has sent a huge number of people to the U of I over the years, 19 in this past year alone. I think its time we stop being treated like the stepchild of the U of I and finally get the funding and building we both need and deserve. This facility will not last forever, and merely maintaining it will eventually lead to its downfall. Then what? Will the University bite the bullet and build us a new building when this one is deemed a hazard? Or will they prop it up with minimal funds like you propose? I'm all for preserving the community feel too, but a building that doesn't meet our needs now will never meet them in the future. In short, we need this new building and we need to be strong in asking for it. We have contributed much to both the University and the community at large and it is time we get something back.
Post new comment