NEWS
UW building projects face criticism
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Keegan Kyle:
- Nothing to complain about? (December 12, 2007)
- Recruiting isn't easy on campus (December 7, 2007)
- Doyle set to sign off on ethics (February 2, 2007)
- Volunteerism on the road (October 19, 2007)
- Down and dirty on campus sanitation (October 11, 2007)
Related Stories:
- State lawmakers criticize UW building projects (April 19, 2007)
- Doyle group OKs building projects (March 20, 2007)
- Planned renovations to change face of Memorial Union (March 29, 2005)
- No summer vacation (May 10, 2007)
- Amid budget crisis, DOT hits jam (December 14, 2006)
by Keegan Kyle
Monday, April 16, 2007
University of Wisconsin System officials will make their case for $775 million in proposed building projects before the state Legislature's budget committee this Wednesday.
And while legislators have traditionally supported new academic buildings and renovations, some controversial proposals — such as that of UW-Madison's new Union South — may eventually sit on the chopping block.
Almost every requested project from the UW System was approved last month by the State Building Commission, which is chaired by Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle.
Some legislators called the approvals a step toward "empire building," which follows a national trend to grow the size of college campuses.
Mike Mikelsen, spokesperson for state Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, said universities should focus more on quality over quantity.
Last October, 6.59 percent of eligible UW-Madison students voted to approve increased segregated fees to fund renovations to Memorial Union and the rebuilding of Union South.
State Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, said the proposed Union South, as well as other projects, should be cut from the budget because of affordability.
"I think the UW has a lot of work to do to justify these projects," said Suder, a member of the Joint Finance Committee. "I would argue, what with limited resources, I'm not sure the state can afford it."
Most of the building projects — including six at UW-Madison — do not request any state funds but rather the use of state bonds as loan payment systems. Most projects will be fully funded by increased student fees and private gifts.
And Mikelsen said he is not sure even the students can afford the tuition hikes for the new buildings.
"You can't continue to build and raise fees and then complain tuition is too high," Mikelsen said. "All of these buildings can have a huge economic impact on students."
The two union projects, as approved by the campus vote, require students to pay an additional $48 per semester for two years starting this fall.
In 2009, students would be required to pay $96 per semester for no more than 30 years, amounting to 58 percent of projected costs. The remainder would be funded through private gifts.
David Giroux, spokesperson for the UW System, said the projects are crucial tools to better recruit and retain students and faculty.
Giroux said one-third of students reject a university due to its physical appearance, according to a national survey conducted in 2005 by the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers.
"We would never go forward on projects funded by segregated fees without some measure of student support," Giroux said. "We put forth these proposals from what we see today in the student body."
Giroux also said it is a misnomer to say every project was approved by the State Building Commission. Before requested projects go to the Legislature, the Board of Regents first decides which proposals are the highest priorities.
"We did not request everything our campuses wanted … or what our students may need," Giroux said. "We don't just pass along every request."
Some UW-Madison projects, such as the proposed new Music Performance Building, appear to be right on track for approval. Although Republican lawmakers said they would likely strike some projects, most have traditionally supported requests for new academic buildings.
University officials say the $43.8 million Music Performance Building — which would replace the current Humanities Building on Park Street — would eliminate many structural and academic problems.
Justin Richardson, facilities manager for the Music Department, said the mostly concrete building built from 1966 to 1969 was not designed to handle Wisconsin weather. He said the building constantly leaks, sometimes ruining expensive music equipment, and he added that the building is spatially inadequate.
"We're just kind of used to dealing with extreme issues," he said. "Sometimes we're at 100 percent of the building being used. Most times it feels like 90."
Richardson said many music students are forced off campus, such as to local churches, to find practice areas because Humanities is filled to capacity.
Molly Carlson, assistant director of the Music Department, said office and classroom space is often tight, but said she really looks forward to the proposed building's new concert halls.
"We would love a new building because we view ourselves as one of the top music programs around, and we would like to have the facilities match that," Carlson said.
The new concert halls would have improved acoustics and could be rented as a recording studio for classical musicians. Combined with compact-disc sales from concerts, the Music Department could create additional scholarships with the new revenue, Carlson said.
Before breaking ground on the new building, university officials would first need to find a new home for the Art and History Departments, which are currently based in the Humanities Building.
"This won't happen any time soon, I'm afraid," Richardson said. "But we're looking forward to it."
Anonymous (April 16, 2007 @ 1:52pm):
It would have been nice to briefly describe the six building projects heading before the budget committee.
Anonymous (April 16, 2007 @ 2:36pm):
UW needs to clean up the disaster at Bascom Hall before going on some spending spree. Also, what about the $28 million computer debacle? Where did that money go?
Anonymous (April 16, 2007 @ 5:07pm):
Really, the university doesn't need any new building space, even start-of-the-art research labs. There are already plenty of those and are underutilized (e.g ECB). Don't talk about campus environmental concerns (power plant or whatever) until you address the massive, unnecessary building campaign first. Putting up new buildings is an incredible drain on the ecosystem and the environment in general, not to mention they usually come overpriced$$.
Anonymous (April 16, 2007 @ 5:57pm):
It sure seems like money is not an issue for students and their families at Madison. If it was an issue, why would so many students being applying here? Why wouldn't they be wanting to go to other UW campuses where it costs less for both tuition and segregated fees? They could go to the UW two-year schools for a heck of a lot less and then spend their last two years at Madison. Maybe the lure of the social life in Madison trumps costs.
Anonymous (April 17, 2007 @ 12:18pm):
Humanities isn't 40 years old and it's no good? Why would a new building be designed any better? Did Quality not count in 1969? These arguments are absurd as is the plan to tear down Ogg Hall. The buildings may not be perfect but they are still useful and they are not too old by european standards. Do we know the real cost of disposable buildings?
Anonymous (April 17, 2007 @ 2:21pm):
I agree with an earlier post. There have been far too many disasters in the UW administration recently, including the $28 million computer fiasco. We need new leadership at UW-Madison and in the UW system administration before any new capital projects are approved. I say replace Wiley, Farrell, Walsh, and Reilly first.
David Miller (April 17, 2007 @ 2:52pm):
The Proposed Music Performance Building will be 100% gift funded, and located on the corener of Lake and University, not Park St. The proposed facility has no relationship to Humanities Building.
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 1:25pm):
The proposed new Music building has a relationship to Humanities building in that Humanities has to be torn down to build the new structure and the music and history departments have to be relocated during contruction to say there is no relation is disingenuous.
Anonymous (April 26, 2007 @ 6:46am):
Anyone who has ever worked in Humanities is eager for the building to come down. Ever try to open a window in that building? Or regulate the heat (if it is working) in the winter? God help you if there ice on the steps outside.
I share the concerns that the next building won't be designed, built, or maintained with any more care, but the Humanities Building is an embarrasment. I don't even like to bring visiting faculty to the building because, aside from ventilation and heating problems, it is so dirty and poorly maintained.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
