In three short years, a handful of University students will have the opportunity to live in a new, state-of-the-art complex aimed at providing space for both living and learning. The building — or buildings, depending on final architecture plans — will be a boon to campus because, quite simply, it will be the first residence hall constructed for student living since 1963.
This addition is the greatest necessity for recruiting new students to the University. The seven existing residence halls have such a bad reputation that The Princeton Review ranked the facilities as No. 2 in the “Dorms like Dungeons” category. The new hall, currently called a “living and learning center,” will consist of rooms sized at about 225 square feet. Most University residence hall rooms, with the exception of those in H.P. Barnhart Hall, are about 150 square feet.
The University also will be able to distribute the on-campus population and begin renovating some of its aging buildings. So, it can be assumed, all incoming students will benefit from the decision to build a new residence hall.
What’s unfortunate about the situation, though, is the location for the structure: It’s going to be built between Earl and Walton complexes, where tennis courts currently sit.
It’s certainly not a conspiracy, but it should be noted that on-campus tennis courts are quickly disappearing. The new basketball arena will displace existing tennis courts, and now the new residence hall will do the same. The courts will find new homes, we’re sure, but still, is there no value in tennis?
Well, there is value in tennis, as there are in many other things. But what it comes down to is which is more valuable. Does building a new arena in the heart of campus have more value than existing tennis courts? To administrators (and the Editorial Board), it does. Does building a new residence hall in the heart of campus have more value than existing tennis courts? To administrators, it does. To the Editorial Board, it does not.
In actuality, the tennis courts aren’t the issue of contention. Instead, it’s the usefulness of the space. The argument made by administrators is that a central location is necessary to help create the “living and learning” tie — faculty won’t visit a structure too far from the heart of campus. University President Dave Frohnmayer ultimately agreed and selected the Walton/Earl location.
But the question that begs to be asked is this: What’s more important, making the “living and learning center” work or saving land to make the University work in the future?
Individuals on the Campus Planning Committee expressed concern that the space should be kept for future growth, specifically academic. University Planning Director Chris Ramey was vocal in noting that the proposed structure was far too big of a building for the land designated. If the administration was willing to revise the land-use policy to build a residence hall, shouldn’t the land also be evaluated for other buildings that it could possibly host under the new guidelines?
That question never really got answered, and now we are left with only second guessing. But what doesn’t involve hypothesizing is the factor of growth.
The University will expand and so will its student body. More space will be needed for academic buildings and more space will be needed for housing. Housing already exists in the East-campus area, and the University owns a plethora of East-campus land, so that vicinity should be the location chosen for additional housing.
Teaching facilities are in the center of campus but also run East of the EMU on East 13th Avenue and at Straub Hall. Academics should be in the heart of campus, but they should have the ability to move Eastward as needed.
Yet under the newly established paradigm, housing has gone inward, meaning that when the time comes, academics will be forced to move outward.
A new residence hall clearly needs to be built, but Frohnmayer and administrators greatly erred in its placement. In half a century, it will be apparent that the land should have been saved for academics and that the residence hall should have been built in the East-campus area, across from Bean Complex on the outdoor basketball courts.