Archived Edition: May 04, 2004 | Back to Current	Sep 09, 2010

CC poll critiques new Baxter
Hayley Wynn - MANAGING EDITOR

A recent College Council (CC) survey highlighted student skepticism about the plans for the new student center and has led to calls for increased student input into future building projects. Administrators and members of the supervisory committee, however, remain satisfied with the level of student involvement and the progress of the ongoing plans.

When students were asked to rate their satisfaction of the appearance of the plans on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest level of approval, the average rating was a 2.8, with 71 percent of students giving the plans either a negative or neutral rating. Only 50 percent of those surveyed had previously seen the plans, while 79 percent ranked the appearance of the new student center as important or very important. Additionally, students indicated an overwhelming preference for architecture consistent with the style of older buildings on campus.

The survey, conducted by CC representatives Aaron Helfand ’05 and Jonathan Misk ’07 polled 65 students. It included renderings of the new student center and a chance to comment on the building’s appearance.

From the results of the survey, Helfand and Misk made two recommendations: that future construction “be even more sensitive to the historic and stylistic context of the Williams campus” and that future building projects include more visibility of plans earlier in the process, to better solicit student opinion.

Helfand explained his perception of the need for more student participation: “The public forums for the new Baxter were good, but not well enough attended to be very useful,” he said. “I think the survey demonstrated how easy it is to get more student input. All that has to be done is to put a table in Baxter during lunchtime, and have lots of pictures available. And the architects used this approach in soliciting student opinion on the functions of the new building, I don’t know why they didn’t do the same to find out what students wanted the building to look like.”

Misk stressed his belief that more active student participation, or a similar survey conducted earlier in the planning process, could have been more effective than the forums. “Students love to be involved, do polls, fill out surveys when it matters for them, when they can have input,” he said. “The administration should have distributed plans and designs sooner and in more populated areas. Students love to be active. Just looking online at pictures doesn’t help…I do think that administrations would have listened to input and been responsive to students if this had been done earlier in the process.”

Dean Roseman took a very different view toward the effectiveness of the solicitation of student input. “Student attendance at those forums was usually quite good, with a few exceptions,” she said. She also stressed the role of students on the building committee, and the adaptability of the architects to suggestions about the plans. “In fact, what I observed over and over again was a member of the community making a suggestion, and Polshek incorporating that suggestion into the design.”

Roseman appeared unconcerned about the mixed reactions to the plans. “It seems to me that the survey represents an expected range of opinion,” Roseman said. “In the open forums there has always been a mix of opinions; some students love the building, some don’t. The comments with the survey are also a mix…and it is striking how many simply say to build the darn thing and as quickly as possible.”

Students on the buildings committee which has been involved throughout the process also seemed pleased with the level of student input. “Unlike other recent construction initiatives, the administration has done a great job of incorporating student opinion into the design process,” Adam Grogg ’04 said. “As it reflects Williams students’ needs, the new Student Center’s very design process reflects Williams students’ seemingly infinite passion for engagement with institutional issues, issues that might be closed off to student input at other places.”

The idea of producing new architecture consistent with the existing feel of the campus was also of concern to Helfand and Misk. In response to the survey question “If the new building were to look more like another building on campus, which one should it look like?” 50 students indicated a building in the Georgian style such as Chapin Hall, while only 12 chose a modern building.

Roseman reflected on this unique trend among students. “The interesting thing has always been that the vast majority of non-students who have seen the building react positively to the design,” she said. “I don’t know how to interpret the fact that those that are closer to 25-30 years of age and older seem more comfortable with contemporary architecture than current students. I recently gave a presentation of the building to members of the Class of 1980 and they seemed to be very happy with it.”

Irene Addison, associate vice president for facilities and auxiliary services, explained the desire for a modern design. “In keeping with tradition, the façade is intended to be representative of current day architecture, not a copy of a previous era of architecture,” she said. “Many details were changed along the way so that it coordinated better with the materials of the surrounding buildings.”

Helfand remained skeptical. “As things stand now, they either have to completely rework the plans and waste much of the effort that has gone into planning in the last several years, or accept that they are going to spend $30 million on a building that many students think is an eyesore. We hope the administration will respond to the survey by making an effort to avoid this situation in the future.”