My thoughts on a new student rec center:
1) Do we really need a 32.8 Million dollar newbuilding when we already have 2 rec centers thataren’t being currently used? Couldn’t we refurbishthe HPER and field house and just advertize theirfacilities more? If students aren’t “playing thisrole as much as we would like”, will they suddenlystart using a new center more? And if they will maybeits just because they don’t know about the currentavailable centers.
2) Location is critical. For one thing, the lastthing we need to do is build another building on topof parking. In the Chrony’s article today talkingabout the new engineering building, Alma Allredsuggests that there will be no impact of building ontop of 100 A spots. He says “We expect those carswill probably trickle into surrounding lots.” Ifanything is true about parking at the U, its that whenA spots get eliminated, the best U and E spots getreplaced with A spots to accommodate professors andstaff. Upper campus is a perfect example of this. They keep building on top of the only existing parkingareas, and as a result U and E spots are turned into Aspots. Parking is at a premium here and justnon-chalantly eliminating 100 spots should not bedone.
So if a new rec center is built, it should A: noteliminate existing parking, and B: actually have somenew parking built around it. If you want to getstudent support for a new building, how about creatingsome parking for once, rather than eliminating it. Look at the new LDS Institute building. For once anew building was built with ample parking. Ifstudents have to park out on Guardsman Way to hike toa rec center somewhere in the middle of campus its notgoing to get a high volume of use. And if space is attoo much of a premium to create new parking, thenmaybe we should look at bulldozing the fieldhouse andHPER to make room. When I was little, my mom said “ifwe get a new toy, we have to get rid of two old toys,to make room.” If the fieldhouse and HPER aren’tserving their purpose then lets get rid of them andmake room for parking which we know serves itspurpose.
3) Dr. Betz’s comment that “This has the potential tobring people together and change the campusfundamentally” is a bit of a stretch. People havebeen saying this through the last 8 years that I havebeen on campus and no one seems to realize that the Uis a commuter campus, and while there will always be aportion of the student population who have time to beinvolved on campus, many students here have to work topay for their school and can only be on campus longenough to take their classes. A new rec center willonly be a benefit to those students who already havethe time to stay on campus and participate here. Alarge percentage of the studentbody will be paying upto $60 a semester for those few who have the time touse this new rec center.
and finally:4) If the rec center actually did become popular,there would never be enough equipment, machines,space, etc. to accommodate everyone. Even now, themid-day open weight room times at the HPER are sopacked that many people choose to join a gym somewhereelse rather than wait in line to work out. Building acomprehensive rec center for a student population ofour size should have more than 2 treadmills and acouple stationary bikes. Wouldn’t we be better servedin giving students a $60 credit toward joining a reccenter near their homes?
I am not completely opposed to the idea of a new reccenter, but lets try to have some perspective at thesame time.
Jacob TrippGraduate Student, Medical Informatics