For anyone who uses our campus gyms, especially during the busy periods before spring break or at the start of the semester, it is obvious something has to be done. Overcrowding in workout rooms, a lack of activity space and shortages of equipment are all serious problems that will only become worse as the university grows and develops. One group, NatUP, is currently circulating a petition that will attempt to address these issues by renovating the Natatorium, located in the far northwest corner of campus on Lake Mendota. Although this renovation would meet the physical needs of that portion of campus for decades to come, the cost, location and nature of the proposed project make it a poor solution for Madison as a whole.

Before signing the petition I decided to look into the costs of the project. The group would like to raise student segregated fees by $108 a year for a whopping 30 years beginning in 2013. Assuming we will have about 40,000 students for the next couple of decades this comes to about $65,000,000. $65 million! When I came to this figure, I was in shock. Why should it cost so much to renovate an existing building?

While NatUP offered no direct explanation for this huge figure, it is easy to see how the proposed additions could cause the cost to skyrocket. In an attempt to compete with new facilities being built elsewhere in the Big Ten and to remedy the current “dungeon-like” feel of our facilities, the Nat renovations would include “views of nature” and “every technology.” As college students, do we really need high tech equipment, a fancy gathering lobby and pretty views while we work out or play intramural sports? Is it necessary to have an indoor turf field so a few activities can continue in the winter? The answer is Madison doesn’t need to make the Nat fancy to compete with other schools. We need a simple, big facility with basic basketball courts, heavy weights and a place to run. These things do not cost $65 million.

Besides the cost and frivolous nature of the Nat renovations, the location is terrible for the majority of campus. While a large group of students live in the lakeshore dorms, only a small group works or lives nearer to the Nat in comparison to the SERF or Shell, with the vast majority of students living on the southeast side of campus. NatUP claims this won’t be a problem because students can simply take the bus to the Nat. But how is waiting for a bus any different than waiting for a bench press or a treadmill? The current Nat renovation plan fails to account for our campus facilities as a whole. Simply fixing one gym and expecting students to trek across campus will not relieve the problems faced by the SERF or the Shell.

One solution that has not been proposed for student discussion is to build a fourth, more centrally-located gym without expensive frills. By building it downtown instead of on the lakeshore it would be more accessible to a larger group of students, thereby relieving pressure on all of our other gyms. Centrally located space is hard to find, but there are several options available if we are willing to sacrifice some of our open space. The proposed green space located at Gordon commons or a portion of the woods next to the Social Sciences building would make good building sites. Finding a location would be difficult, and any space would require some sacrifice, but unless we discuss other options we will be forced to accept the only plan we have been given.

Of course, building a new structure would be more expensive than renovating the Nat, but it would be less expensive than attacking our problems separately in the long run. While NatUP would have us rush to tax future students millions of dollars, it makes more sense to plan a large new facility while doing what we can to inexpensively improve our current situation. For those who frequent our gyms, we know there are simple steps that can be taken to cut down on wait times. Why does the SERF weight room have six incline benches and only two squat racks? Why does the Shell fail to utilize the North East corner for workout equipment? Why does the Shell have a separate room for machine weights when it could keep all the weight equipment together and have a separate room for cardio machines? These questions demonstrate Recreational Sports and NatUP’s inability to consider alternative solutions to our fitness concerns.

While a renovated Nat would help our campus, the price tag and nature of this proposal have a lack of value for Madison students. It is strange that no alternative options are being discussed and Natup2010.com fails to list any potential problems with their solution; nowhere is the $65 million price tag mentioned. If students are to truly have a lasting impact on this campus’s recreational facilities, we need to discuss the option of building a new gym and improving our existing gyms at low cost. Unless we discuss multiple options, students will simply be paying more money for the same conditions. If we find a solution that will last, maybe future generations won’t even have to deal with overcrowding the week before spring break; dream big.

Andrew Carpenter ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in communication arts and psychology.