October 1999
Animal Law Cited by
New York Times
By Glenn Fullilove
Possibly as soon as this spring, once graduation is over and many students have left for the summer, the tranquility of our campus will be shattered. A cacophony of jackhammers and bulldozers will echo throughout Tryon Park. Yes, progress has found our law school, and it is knocking on the front door. We have outgrown the aging buildings that have served our law school community for decades.
The plans for a new building expansion have been in the works for several years. What once seemed like a distant promise of new classrooms and more office space will soon become reality. Currently, "Phase I" of the building plan is upon us.
What improvements can students expect from the impending construction chaos? Before this fall, the answer to this question was much more clear. The student representatives to the building committee, Michael Fleming and myself, accompanied by SBA President Nathan Baker, met with the building expansion architect, John Wiener, last summer.
At the meeting, Mr. Wiener laid out proposed plans for the new building expansion and improvements that were to be made to Gantenbein. The plan appeared to meet many of the students' immediate needs, including increased locker space, better facilities for bicycle commuters, added office space to relieve the current claustrophobic conditions in student organization offices, women's and men's locker rooms with showers and full sized lockers, and more study space to reduce demand on the library.
The most controversial proposals in the building plan were the removal of the sky bridge connecting the student lobby to the library, and a proposed path through the forested south side of the library that would connect the student center to the library at the ground level. Also on the table were plans for an outdoor pavilion that would intrude even farther into the forest.
Today, only a few months later, all of these plans have changed. All work to improve Gantenbein has been deleted from the building plan. In fact, Gantenbein itself has been slated for destruction, allegedly due to President Mooney's dislike of the building's appearance. This result would mean no student locker rooms, no showers, no additional lockers, no new study space, and no new student offices in Gantenbein. The administration has completely disregarded student input on the newest draft of building plans.
Unbeknownst to the students and to most members of the building committee, the administration sought advice from a building contractor because the project was almost $3 million over budget, asking the contractor to revamp the plans and cut building expansion costs. The new building plans, unveiled at a faculty building committee on September 29, were presented to a bewildered faculty by architect John Wiener and Dean Jim Huffman.
As a result of the contractor's advice, the new plans called for the deletion of all work to Gantenbein and no storage space for library materials now stored off site. The new plan also enshrined the path through the forested side of the library, and included the sky bridge that was once scheduled for demolition.
When asked if the path through the woods would compromise the aesthetic view of the forest, the architect responded that the path would not be noticeable from the library. He added that people taking the path would probably not be seen by students studying in the library. When someone challenged the necessity of the path, the architect explained that according to his interpretation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) rules, the path was necessary in order to comply with the building code.
When the building committee student representatives learned that all student input had been ignored by the administration, it made the building expansion a priority issue on SBA's October 3 meeting agenda. After a long discussion of the current plans impacts on student needs, SBA adopted a list of student priorities for consideration by the administration and the building committee.
SBA also arranged two student meetings during the week of October 4, where students heard from the Dean and the architect about the building plan. The architect tried to allay student fears that the construction of the new building would diminish the aesthetic quality of the campus. Students were told that a construction road planed around the west side of the building would not extent out into the forest. Students were also assured that accommodations would be made for more lockers and showers. Student groups were promised more space in the new building rather than in Gantenbein.
Does this mean that students can rest assured that the building committee and the administration will implement SBA's demands? No. It would be a mistake for students to become complacent at this stage. Despite the administration's apparent willingness to listen to student concerns, students must be vigilant in ensuring their needs are addressed by the building plan. Once the plans are finalized and construction begins, it may be too late to make changes to accommodate student needs.
Many unanswered questions remain about the proposed building expansion. What impact will construction have on Tryon Park? What impact will construction have on summer classes this year? Should construction plans be delayed to solicit more student input? Should Gantenbein be demolished and another building rebuilt in it's place? When can we see color sketches of what the new campus will look like? (Building blue prints are hard to visualize.) The answers to these and other questions will only come if students demand they be addressed by the administration.
While the administration has done a pathetic job of collecting student input, in all fairness, it will be easier for them to address our concerns now rather than to hear our complaints after the project has been completed. In addition, we would be doing future students a disservice by remaining silent.