I suspect that if OCF had his druthers, he'd still be staring through the drafty windows of old Ewing Hall, throwing elbows on the hardwood at Bentley, eating supper in Super Hall, bunking in Howard and trying to land a date outside Boyd Gymnasium. That is, when he's not joining Rufus and Manasseh for a pint at the Bunch of Grapes.

I appreciate the humor, and there's a grain of truth in your sarcasm.

Interesting, though, that you mention Bentley (aka Men's Gym). That was an example where the university repurposed a building rather than tearing it down. I submit that this could have been done with many of the buildings we've torn down over the last several decades.

My campus tour guide lied to me. Though, it still seems specifically about flow.

Second, you just made up the idea that "campus flow" is administrative speak. A poster here used it. You decided it was administrative speak. I just posted that I followed what that poster was saying.

I'm not really following.

Club Hyatt used the term. OCF said "that sounds like administrative speak". I said "I followed what he meant." OCF said "that's administrative speak because it can mean anything." You googled it, found nothing. Yet have concluded that that's evidence that the phrase is, indeed, administrative speak.

It's a phrase that was used here. By a person here. With context that we can use to try and understand what was meant. I'm unclear why asking your friend makes any sense. We could, you know, ask Club Hyatt.

In my view, the administration tore down Scott Hall because it was filled with mold, cost a ton to keep up, wasn't well positioned to be a dorm, and would require a lot of investment to convert to office space.

I get that you all would prefer it not have been torn down, and get that when old things are replaced it makes you upset, but the administration's justification here is clear -- whether you agree with the conclusion or not.

Still not really any closer to understanding what's going on here.

Club Hyatt used the phrase "campus flow" -- not the administration, as evidenced by the fact that Google and the 100 strangers on the street you polled Family Feud Style hadn't heard it.

From the context, it seemed pretty clear to me.

I'm very unclear how everything else you're saying relates at all to anything I said. I just said that I understand why the administration made this decision, and followed Club Hyatt's point.

Whether they "backed into" it has nothing to do with anything I said; it's your own way of finding a way to be critical of the decision. Totally cool, you're welcome to do it. It's the favorite hobby of old grads all the world over. But it's entirely irrelevant to what I said.

I'm not an expert here

[/QUOTE]I agree 100% with you on this


[QUOTE=Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame]

I don't think that's a standard goal of urban planning. It may be a goal for some, but it's certainly not always the driving factor.

BLSS: You believe the administration’s statements about the rationale for tearing down Scott Quad. I do not. When was the last time you were in Scott Quad? I was in it many times when I was working as there were administrative offices in that building. I had meetings there with top administrators in the university communication office. The building was just fine. The only deterioration in the intervening years was due to neglect, some probably purposeful in order to justify a previously arrived at decision. You may know more about private business than I do, but you know way less than I do about the ways of university administrations. You also know way less about engineering and related disciplines than rpbobcat. A little introspection might be in order. Just a friendly suggestion.
[/QUOTE]Sorry, where am I suggesting that I know more about either of those things than you do? I've acknowledged what I don't know many times in this thread.

The three of us have a fundamental disagreement that has nothing to do with engineering or university administration. Our fundamental disagreement is about whether or not Scott Quad is such a critical piece of the University's history and character that it should be preserved. It just doesn't rise to that level for me.

I also just don't have any good reason not to take the administration at face value here. I'm not sure I understand why a nefarious plot's needed to replace a building. You all are approaching this from a baseline in which you assume it's a given that Scott Quad's such a historic building that it couldn't possibly be replaced. It's a necessary belief to reach the conclusion that the deterioration of Scott Quad was due, in part, to "purposeful neglect" to justify the decision to tear down the building.

But if, like me, you think of Scott Quad as a middle-of-the-road building that adds little to the character of campus, there's no justification needed. It just never would have occurred to me that it's irreplaceable, and as such the idea that the University would have to devise a plot of "purposeful neglect" to justify the decision to demolish it seems odd to me.

As I said to rpbobcat:

[QUOTE]
I empathize much more with OCF's perspective that repurposing buildings is more efficient (I don't know if it is or not, I'm not an expert here -- but I get the perspective). I don't really get the idea that Scott Quad rises to a level that it can never be replaced because it's old and a quad. It's not even half the age of the University.

You were taught in your urban planning classes that preserving the character of a region should always be a driving factor in urban planning? Would be curious to read about this if you can provide any links.

Again, not an expert, but that doesn't seem logical to me. I would expect the discipline to be focused on things that are far more tangible than "character". Things like quality of life, ease of transportation, campus flow**, attracting new residents, safety, and others. If you can accomplish those things in tandem with preserving character, great. But if character's in conflict with any of the above, I would think the hierarchy is clear. Am I wrong?



** Just kidding.

I’ve seen many such things in my day. I think it boils down to being a caretaker to the older and historic structures versus being or trying to be an inventor of something new. Our country wants to be an innovator, not a caretaker, so it mows down these structures and builds something new to strut like a peacock.