This summer, news blew up that a “glass box” will likely be added to the Memorial Union Theater. The structure would jut out in a mushroom-like shape, encompassing much of the area that sits next to Park Street to the north of the Union.

Opponents would like you to believe the addition will kill the unique feel of the Terrace, but even a short visit can show its impact will be minimal. Tables located along the side of the existing theater space are comfortable and popular, despite the lower amount of light and breeze they receive. The concrete plaza located where the addition will go is easily the least popular segment of the Terrace.

The killer detail is most of the views the addition would supposedly block do not exist. If you seat yourself on the upper part of the Terrace between Lakefront on Langdon and the Rathskellar, you run into a problem: There is a giant tree and lots of concrete steps leading up to the theater.

Opponents are right, however, that the box is a disgrace to shared governance. When you talk about a broken system at the University of Wisconsin, time and time again talk will return to the 2006 fall referendum. Labeled as the Student Union Initiative, the referendum OK’d the new Union South and remodeling of Memorial Union.

Similar efforts failed in the spring of 2005 and in the spring of 2006 during which two votes were dismissed due to technical errors with online voting. The fall 2006 referendum passed with 1,691 favorable votes among the 6.59 percent of the student body that turned up to cast their ballot.

While it is astounding 1,691 students can saddle students with an extra $96 in segregated fees a semester for 30 years, where the system is really broken is how little the original language in referendums matter.

The referendum makes mention of “creating expanded student lounge/coffee house space,” but that is it. As has been the case over and over with new buildings on campus, the original language is vague.

Union South falls into the same category. For the new building, the referendum listed expanded student lounge space, activity and programming spaces, a pub, coffeehouse, recreation spaces, outdoor campus green space and the latest communication technology as features to be included in the new building. Today, those are in place, but not in a form that was directly defined in the referendum.

This is not a product of the folks over at Wisconsin Union attempting to mislead students. It is a result of voting first and designing later.

The actual design process falls to a committee set up within the Union. The student-majority design committee’s decisions later go to an executive team and, finally, the student-majority Union Council for approval. The process is peppered with community meetings and other efforts to invite student input.

The concept of “mission creep” is real, and it can happen here. In reality, the glass box is balancing campus services with the particular needs of a historic building, and it is compromising in the process. Regulations for historic buildings in Wisconsin state that additions must be apparent, meaning they cannot closely match the style of the existing building. The glass box represents a needed solution-the only natural spot for a new structure that will blend well with the theater’s glass lobby.

Instead of fighting about the theater addition’s presence, we should be talking about it’s use. While Union representatives have said the glass box will not be rent-able, the question remains if it will be closed to students during performances, or at least made unattractive due to furniture removal to make space for theater patrons.

In the end, it is also likely the space on top of the glass box will rarely be open, much like the upper terraces currently located above the Rathskellar and Lakefront on Langdon. Resources should go toward ensuring these existing resources are fully utilized.

Signe Brewster ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in life sciences communication.