I’ve been meaning to post this here for a while now. From a memo I received recently:
In an effort to create a smooth transition to new locations during the renovation of the Pray?Harrold Building we have arranged to have four open forum meetings to share information about all matters related to the Pray?Harrold renovation and move.
All residents of PrayHarrold are invited.
The following dates are reserved for the meetings:Friday, January 22, 10:00?11:30, 216 PH
Friday, February 19, 10:00?11:30, 216 PH
Friday, March 19, 10:00?11:30, 216 PH
Friday, April 16, 10:00?11:30, 216 PH
As someone who is “a resident” (?) of Pray-Harrold and also on the committee, I have a couple of thoughts about this:
- So far, I think that the powers that be have done a pretty piss-poor job of informing the larger university community about the construction that is going to happen in Pray-Harrold. I mean, honestly: how hard is to put up a web site with information? How hard is it to send a campus-wide email? To get the local media to pick up on the story?
Because make no mistake about it: given that Pray-Harrold has something like 10,000 people in and out of it every day, the fact that it is going to be closed for 18-24 months is going to have a major impact on campus, far more major than what’s going on in Mark-Jefferson, IMO.
- I still think that the institution should have thought a bit harder about the pros and cons of building new (and smaller) buildings versus refurbishing Pray-Harrold, especially with the cut in funding to the project that’s happened over the years. But that’s always been kind of a non-starter, so we are where we are with this project.
- So, what are we going to get? Go to the meetings to find out. But in brief (and based on my experiences on the committee):
- Most of the project dollars are tied to infrastructure and won’t really be that visible to the average person– HVAC, for example. However….
- There will be very visible changes in the “look and feel” of the building, and those changes will be most obvious in the classroom spaces and lower floors of the building. The second floor (which, for all practical purposes, is like the first floor) will be very different– lots of glass, different layouts/configurations for lecture halls, classrooms, and lounge spaces, etc., etc.
- The layout/look changes to the building basically decrease as you go up. For example, floor two will be very different; floors three through five will look different (some minor layout changes, paint, flooring, lighting, etc., etc., not to mention new classroom furniture and other classroom features), but be recognizable; and the top two floors will look cleaned up but very similar. Faculty offices, for example, will have new paint, flooring, and (I think?) ceilings and lighting, but the furniture is likely to come back. We will get new chairs and those “tombstone” plugs will be gone though.
- Each classroom will be more “tech savvy” (though I have my doubts for reasons I won’t get into now), those well-hated “stages” will be gone, and each classroom will (supposedly) have a thermostat to control the temperature in that room.
- We move out at the end of this term; in theory, we move back in for Fall 2011, but Winter 2012 seems a little more realistic to me.
Right now, in the informal networks of people who bet on how EMU developments will likely turn out, it’s hard to find anyone who will confidently bet that when the work on PH is done it will be, overall, seen as a clear improvement unmarked by shoddy design or poor work Those who “reside” in PH are far more pessimistic than those more distant from the building. I think the reason for this lack of confidence stems exactly from the issues sitedad highlights: the very poor communications thru which this project has been explained and real input sought. A shame, as lost opportunities always are.
If what has been observed during one EMU major renovation project is a harbinger of what may come to the residents of PH, then please take note.
I have heard that during the Mark Jefferson project:
- many major decisions are being driven by the architects and not the residents
- the architects change their stories any way necessary to justify unexpected alterations that they want (these are often unwanted and unneeded)
- expensive things have magically appeared in the plans (things that were never considered as part of the original programmatic needs)
– the architects often do not give sufficient time for meaningful deliberations to occur before critical decisions are made. The favorite ploy of the architects is to present only two choices, a totally unacceptable one and the one the architects want. They then demand that a decision be made at that meeting.
I don’t know what is (or isn’t) happening with the Mark-Jefferson project, and there is no doubt that the Pray-Harrold project is going to be less than perfect in a gazillion different ways. However, as someone who has been going to the meetings on this for about a year now, I can say with some confidence that it will be “better” than before.
Mind you, “better” does not mean “great” or “extreme.” For people who have been around here a while: it ain’t going to be like the renovation in Porter where they literally gutted most of the interior of the building. While the layout will be a bit different on the second floor, by and large the rooms in the building stay the same. One of the unfortunate things about this project is that it really is significantly under-funded for what ought to be done.
Nonetheless, the changes will be noticeable and, well, “better.” For example, all of the classrooms will have a thermostat, which should (not necessarily “will” but “should”) help with a lot of the hot/cold problems. The “tombstone” plugs in the middle of faculty offices will be gone. And the building will actually comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
One other thing about the input process, at least from faculty and the like: I agree with Mark that it has been, um, “problematic” to say the least. But I will say I have a certain amount of sympathy (not total, but some) with the suits and construction people involved. For a lot of the things people want that would represent significant improvements (e.g., bigger offices, rearranged walls, etc., etc.), the answer has been “no,” because of the lack of money. But when it comes to dealing with the obvious problems (ADA stuff, hot/cold rooms, those stupid plugs, etc.), the answer is “yeah, we know.” So, if the answer to 90% of the issues is either “no” or “we know,” then the input process kind of bogs down and/or becomes irrelevant.