Mobile? Click HERE for m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr 

Thursday, September 2, 2010 |  Madison, WI: 75.0° F  
The Paper
 

OPINION

UW campus building boom is wasteful, unnecessary
The orange revolution

Union South construction site.
Union South construction site.
Credit:Peter Patau
Article Tools: Read moreRead more Opinion items
Email this articleEmail this article
Print this articlePrint This Article
Email the authorEmail the author
Recommend This ArticleLike This Article Add to DiggShare this item

I attended the UW-Madison from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s — an era when protests, teach-ins, be-ins and the occasional full-scale riot were part of the campus experience.

The noise emanating from the students was matched by that from the biggest construction initiative the campus had ever seen, as the baby boomers entered college. During this period the university built some of its largest, most imposing structures, including Van Hise Hall, the Humanities Building, Vilas Hall, Van Vleck Hall and Helen C. White Hall.

Today, it may seem as though history is repeating itself. Stroll through the heart of campus, and you'll find yourself in one massive construction site that encompasses work on the Chazen Museum of Art, the Chadbourne and Barnard dorms, the Education building, Sterling Hall, the old University Hospital, Washburn Observatory, the new Discovery Center, one of the buildings on Henry Mall and the new Union South.

And these are only the most notable of 22 current projects that will collectively cost half a billion dollars. The prevailing color on the UW-Madison campus today is blaze orange: orange cones, orange barrels, orange signs, orange fencing, orange barricades. It's the UW's very own orange revolution.

Forty years ago, everyone knew why the building boom was happening: enrollments were exploding and the university was flush with revenue. What's the excuse today, when enrollment has been relatively constant for the last two decades and we're in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression?

Let's examine one of the UW's bevy of projects, the new Union South (for more information, consult the Wikipedia entry for "Boondoggle"). When completed, this $95 million extravaganza, complete with rock-climbing wall, will take up an entire city block.

It's been claimed that replacing the old Union South was necessary because it was "underutilized." Only administrators adept at spending other people's money could convince themselves this is a valid reason for demolishing a perfectly serviceable building a little more than 30 years old.

While the new Union South is the most egregious and indefensible of the colossi rising on the UW campus, it should prompt taxpayers, students and their parents to demand a more thorough accounting of how their money is spent. The university's current administrators seem to have an Olympian disregard for whether these grandiose projects are needed, and how much they cost.

Like many others, I believed the reign of the pharaohs at UW-Madison might finally be drawing to a close with the appointment of a new chancellor. Yet in the year since Biddy Martin was hired, the monuments to administrative egotism have continued to reach for the clouds.

By far the biggest enabler of this trend is Alan (The Jackhammer) Fish, long-term vice chancellor for facilities planning, the man who never saw a building he didn't want to tear down. The top items on his current hit list are the Humanities Building, Van Vleck and Van Hise.

At this rate, the university's architectural history will be forever limited to the handful of buildings on Bascom Hill. Few know that the Red Gym, nowadays regarded as a campus landmark second only to Bascom Hall, was very nearly demolished in the 1960s. Why? The usual excuses: Outdated. Inefficient. Underutilized. Thank God this was before Alan Fish's time.

If one were to chart the building boom on the UW campus over the last two decades (culminating in this year's frenzy), that line would run parallel to another: the rise in tuition and fees.

To absorb the staggering cost of the new Union South, annual student fees at Madison will rise to more than $1,000. Recently, UW System President Kevin Reilly announced that undergraduate in-state tuition would increase to above $8,000 per year.

"We'd love to have no tuition increase at all," he added. "In reality, however, that is not an option." Thanks for explaining that, Kev.

While demanding that students pay more, administrators expect faculty and staff to get by with less, rescinding their promised pay raise (a paltry 2%) and acquiescing to the state's demand that they take 16 furlough days over the next two years.

Meanwhile, the UW is increasing class size, restricting availability of programs, and looking on complacently as students are crippled with educational debt — all so that the university's potentates can have ever more lavish venues over which to preside. Term limits for college administrators, anyone?

The slogan of the revolution used to be: "Don't trust anyone over 30." Now it seems to be: "Don't spare any building over 30."

It's time for students, faculty and staff fed up with subsidizing administrators' addiction to bricks and mortar to man the barricades. At least this time around, we won't have to build them — they're already there, in a brilliant shade of orange.

Gary L. Kriewald, who earned his undergraduate and graduate degrees at the UW-Madison, has lived on and off in Madison for more than 20 years. He teaches English at UW-Platteville.

Comments (2)

From Peter Gruett on 09/01/09 at 2:22 pm

Do you have prove you don't know what you're talking about before you're allowed to write editorials about the Universty or is it just coincidence?

The UW - Madison is not a giant high school.  It doesn't have a single pile of discretionary money and it doesn't just build classrooms.

Less than a fifth of that half-billion dollars is coming from taxpayers who weren't asked for a dime toward the construction of the new Union.  Say what you will about the process by which the students voted to fund their portion, it's a little late now.

The bulk of the projects Kriewald is too busy fulminating about the Union actually mention are research facilities. They're related to the University's research mission and not to its enrollment but I'm sure we're all aware of what a dead weight the UW - Madison's $840 million in outside research funds are to the state's economy.  Who could see the use in staying competitive?

Lastly, there's the Humanities Building, which was marked for demolition as a cost-saving measure because it would cost more to renovate it than it would to replace it, not to metion the fact that it's too small and doesn't lend itself to additions.  The money still has to be raised before it comes down.  The state isn't paying for most of that either.

Al Fish could acknowledge how unseemly the university's construction boom looks to know-nothings driving by and waste millions of dollars delaying and scrapping projects that are already funded. . . Or he could proceed with a half-billion dollars in stimulus the state is getting for 20 cents on the dollar.

From Ashley Campbell on 09/02/09 at 6:38 pm

Peter makes some excellent points above.  As a self-supported 3rd year student, I have to say I was surprised by what this article had to say.  Is the construction sometimes a hassle? Yes.  Does the increased tuition stretch my budget a little? Yes.  Am I in favor of this so-called "orange revolution?" Definitely yes.  I wonder if the writer has spent much time in the buildings that were constructed in the 60's.  Students and teachers alike dislike these buildings.  "Poorly designed" and "an eyesore" are two descriptors I commonly hear.  People have an intense dislike for most of these buildings; many of them are hard to navigate and unpleasant to be in.  Underutilized? There's a reason for it!  The writer of this article, though, tries to portray them as some sort of architectural gem.  I assure you, they aren't.  I have nothing against old buildings; Ag Hall, the Memorial Union, the Red Gym, etc, are all beautiful buildings with history worth preserving, and I've heard of no plans for any of them except some renovations to keep them usable.  The buildings built in the 60's? It would cause me no pain at all to watch them torn down.  Though the quality of the teaching staff is what makes this a great university, one must remember that the quality of the classroom can have a very large impact also.  

 

Log in or register to comment

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater
PluggedcommentsViewedForum
Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs RSS
Collapse Photo Bar