Facilities

[agibson]

In all due respect you are making your dept. sound siloed.  Sounds like some centralized oversight might be in order to insure that the best interests of the university are being served over the self interests of individual depts./colleges.  Or, am I reading too much into your comments?

Interesting!  I'm talking about scheduling an exam, or a make-up class, a regular help/discussion section, maybe a guest lecture.  Something like that.  Elsewhere it might be a regular class meeting (those _are_ set, or at least published, centrally), a concert, or a play.

You think someone should centrally approve all of these things?

[valpospartan]

"I mean, if basketball was _the_ dominant passtime on campus (Duke? UNC? Kansas?) I can see scheduling around it.  But, there's a lot going on at Valpo.  There are only so many times you can schedule e.g. an evening event."


Say what?  Basketball is the dominant passtime at Duke, UNC, or Kansas?  I would say this would be true at VU, but not at those much larger and more diversified universities.

Also as for the sightlines in the chairbacks, I agree that they are not the best, especially when everone is standing.  That said, they sure are more comfortable, especially for these old bones.

[BigMoSmithFan]

Tis true that the new arena partnership with the city died, but that had more to do the the economy making a large public expenditure for something like that a non-starter than a lack of viability for a new venue. Make no mistake, the city would still absolutely love something like that as a centerpiece for the East Lincolnway renewal project.

I don't think anyone needs a 9 or 10K seat venue, but there's absolutely no reason to sit pat at 5K. Give your program room to grow. As long as we are spitballing, here's my (realistic) fantasy ARC renovation:

-Knock out wall behind chairbacks (easier than you'd think, the architecture of the building was designed with this in mind -- a nice piece of foresight by the administration in charge back in 1984). Add another mezzanine level (doesn't need to be as big as the other side) with a handful of suites on top for expanded corporate revenue streams. Add new entrance lobby on that side with new concession areas, Crusader Club space, etc. Build dedicated practice gym underneath, devoted entirely to teams' use, new dressing rooms/training could be part of this space as well.  Turn the remaining space between new arena entrance and Brown Field into a pedestrian-only promenade for the athletic campus (new home for Victory Bell, statues, etc.) Entry to new seating area would be "stadium-like" similar to the renovated Loyola arena. Better sightlines, better access, more of an "arena" look.

-Replace lower level bleachers behind benches with chairbacks to match north side. The relocation of the dressing rooms would allow VU to use restricted hallway by current dressing rooms as additional egress for fans, reducing congestion and allowing for additional access points into the arena (two additional tunnel-like entryways could be carved out, improving sightlines) or new concessions.

-Add permanent bleachers to east endzone similar to current student section. New concession areas make current temporary window moot.

-Total capacity expanded to 6,000 - 6,500. Additional seats for community's/university's future growth, increased viability for hosting other large events, enabling ARC to become defacto "civic center" for Northwest Indiana. Sell naming rights to building. "Centier Bank Center" or "Strack & Van Til Arena" or whatever. 

-New scoreboards/video board and new floor are already checked off the list. VU is already part of the way there!

[wh]

In all due respect you are making your dept. sound siloed.  Sounds like some centralized oversight might be in order to insure that the best interests of the university are being served over the self interests of individual depts./colleges.  Or, am I reading too much into your comments?

Interesting!  I'm talking about scheduling an exam, or a make-up class, a regular help/discussion section, maybe a guest lecture.  Something like that.  Elsewhere it might be a regular class meeting (those _are_ set, or at least published, centrally), a concert, or a play.You think someone should centrally approve all of these things?

In your original post you talked about scheduling an "event.".  I assumed you were referring to something extra curricular with some flexibility.  Now you mention scheduling an exam, which sounds like you're talking about an evening class assignment.  Obviously, I would not expect anyone to adjust a course syllabus around a sporting event.  What am I missing?

[crusaderjoe]

The university has, in my opinion anyway, gone about athletic facilities the right way in the face of limited funds and a long list of other projects that need to be done, by making small but significant improvements such as the new floor, video scoreboard, better locker rooms, softball field, etc.  I would expect more of the same in the coming years.  And that's the way it should be. 

IMO, this line of thinking is no longer viable with conference realignment possibilities still in play among other things.  Not to sound like an alarmist, but my guess is that Butler is as good as gone from the HL if the A-10 comes a callin'.  If the dominoes start to fall and conference realignment really shifts within the mid-major ranks, small incremental athletic improvements will not place VU in the best position to realign itself with a conference that might provide it with better exposure and revenue.  Not that I do not like the HL but if there is a mass exodus of private schools, what does VU as a private institution do then?  You need to think outside the box and long term here.  No one is arguing that academics should take a seat behind athletics, but at the same time no one is spending $20.00 a ticket on watching two chemistry students battle it out in the classroom to determine which experiment works better either.  VU nationally is known generally by its basketball--that's just the way it is.  It is time to be more proactive than reactive, as we were in 1993.  An upgrade in facilities makes us much more proactive.

[BigMoSmithFan]

Um, bump...

If today's events aren't an emphatic reason why you don't sit pat and wait on facilitiy upgrades until we "fill the seats we have," I don't know what would be... I'd say this subject has increased in urgency over the past 24 hours, no?

[VULB#62]

Unless there's poster out there from KS, IL or MD that's remaining quiet until they get their financial planner on board, it doesn't sound like Mega Millions will be our salvation.  So.......... let's talk about donors. 

IMO, the letters we get from the Athletic Department and a few other requests for donations that come every now and again are not going to spur significant donations to the athletic program.  Again in my opinion, it would help things along quite a bit if a well-conceived, coordinated, and publicized campaign with specific physical and monetary targets was established (not like FITT; but better conceived, better supported with collateral and upfront investment, etc).  We've heard words about the expanded athletic quadrant and lip service to excellence, and yes, there have been incremental improvements such as the court and scoreboard in the ARC and the turf surface, lights and scoreboard for Brown Field.  But what I am hearing from all of you, to one degree or another, is that it is now time, given an HL titles in MBB (along with the Drew MSU interview publicity) and MSO, overall excellence in WVB and WSB, NCAA bid in bowling, and upset of Arkansas in baseball, to take a more significant step forward in fundraising.  I would like to see the people in charge (1) develop and publicize conceptual drawings and plans for ARC enhancement/expansion and the enhancement/completion of Brown Field.  Then (2) next, there should be conceptual drawings prepared and released for the development of the new Porter Hospital property. And, finally,  (3) like some of the housing projects, secure loans to springboard the work and then put pressure on alumni and other donors to back up the strategy.  I, for one, respond better to concrete ideas and drawings than generalized wishes about the future.  Until there are some teeth applied to a giving campaign, I'm concerned that it will continue to shuffle along as it has for so many years.

[DMvalpo18]

Unless there's poster out there from KS, IL or MD that's remaining quiet until they get their financial planner on board, it doesn't sound like Mega Millions will be our salvation.  So.......... let's talk about donors. 

IMO, the letters we get from the Athletic Department and a few other requests for donations that come every now and again are not going to spur significant donations to the athletic program.  Again in my opinion, it would help things along quite a bit if a well-conceived, coordinated, and publicized campaign with specific physical and monetary targets was established (not like FITT; but better conceived, better supported with collateral and upfront investment, etc).  We've heard words about the expanded athletic quadrant and lip service to excellence, and yes, there have been incremental improvements such as the court and scoreboard in the ARC and the turf surface, lights and scoreboard for Brown Field.  But what I am hearing from all of you, to one degree or another, is that it is now time, given an HL titles in MBB (along with the Drew MSU interview publicity) and MSO, overall excellence in WVB and WSB, NCAA bid in bowling, and upset of Arkansas in baseball, to take a more significant step forward in fundraising.  I would like to see the people in charge (1) develop and publicize conceptual drawings and plans for ARC enhancement/expansion and the enhancement/completion of Brown Field.  Then (2) next, there should be conceptual drawings prepared and released for the development of the new Porter Hospital property. And, finally,  (3) like some of the housing projects, secure loans to springboard the work and then put pressure on alumni and other donors to back up the strategy.  I, for one, respond better to concrete ideas and drawings than generalized wishes about the future.  Until there are some teeth applied to a giving campaign, I'm concerned that it will continue to shuffle along as it has for so many years.

Are you sure your third idea is wise? Taking on a lot of debt with the assumption that donors are just going to come to your rescue and send in the money to finish it off is pretty risky business.

[okinawatyphoon]

Unless there's poster out there from KS, IL or MD that's remaining quiet until they get their financial planner on board, it doesn't sound like Mega Millions will be our salvation.  So.......... let's talk about donors. 

IMO, the letters we get from the Athletic Department and a few other requests for donations that come every now and again are not going to spur significant donations to the athletic program.  Again in my opinion, it would help things along quite a bit if a well-conceived, coordinated, and publicized campaign with specific physical and monetary targets was established (not like FITT; but better conceived, better supported with collateral and upfront investment, etc).  We've heard words about the expanded athletic quadrant and lip service to excellence, and yes, there have been incremental improvements such as the court and scoreboard in the ARC and the turf surface, lights and scoreboard for Brown Field.  But what I am hearing from all of you, to one degree or another, is that it is now time, given an HL titles in MBB (along with the Drew MSU interview publicity) and MSO, overall excellence in WVB and WSB, NCAA bid in bowling, and upset of Arkansas in baseball, to take a more significant step forward in fundraising.  I would like to see the people in charge (1) develop and publicize conceptual drawings and plans for ARC enhancement/expansion and the enhancement/completion of Brown Field.  Then (2) next, there should be conceptual drawings prepared and released for the development of the new Porter Hospital property. And, finally,  (3) like some of the housing projects, secure loans to springboard the work and then put pressure on alumni and other donors to back up the strategy.  I, for one, respond better to concrete ideas and drawings than generalized wishes about the future.  Until there are some teeth applied to a giving campaign, I'm concerned that it will continue to shuffle along as it has for so many years.

Are you sure your third idea is wise? Taking on a lot of debt with the assumption that donors are just going to come to your rescue and send in the money to finish it off is pretty risky business.

here is a great article about this very topic, and it is very risky! Roosevelt University in Chicago just spent millions on a new tower, and is having a hard time coming up with donors to back it.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/roosevelt-universitys-new-skyscraper-is-a-gamble/Content?oid=5527026

[rink]

I'd say this subject has increased in urgency over the past 24 hours, no?

What was this about?

EDIT: Never mind, just got through the Bryce thread...

[VULB#62]

"Are you sure your third idea is wise? Taking on a lot of debt with the assumption that donors are just going to come to your rescue and send in the money to finish it off is pretty risky business."

" here is a great article about this very topic, and it is very risky! Roosevelt University in Chicago just spent millions on a new tower, and is having a hard time coming up with donors to back it.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/roosevelt-universitys-new-skyscraper-is-a-gamble/Content?oid=5527026 "


I'm thinking more in line with priming the pump more than paying for it all with bonds or, conversely, waiting until every dollar has been raised before kicking it off. Get the architectural work done and paid for right away (probably would require a loan, no?) Use those plans and drawings as the center piece of the coordinated effort required to raise, what -- $10-11 million?  And I appreciate the concern expressed about Roosevelt University, but that was a $123 million gamble using a credit card so to speak.  And I also appreciate the overbuild of the Wright State arena and mistakenly going big instead of reasonable.  I think we all are thinking a lot more modestly than either of those.

One last thought.  Things never get cheaper the longer you wait -- except maybe for technology, but then the next new thing hits and the costs go up anyway. So maybe even reasonable debt service incurred now will be less expensive than later, but you economics guys out there would have a better view on that.

[DMvalpo18]

"Are you sure your third idea is wise? Taking on a lot of debt with the assumption that donors are just going to come to your rescue and send in the money to finish it off is pretty risky business."

" here is a great article about this very topic, and it is very risky! Roosevelt University in Chicago just spent millions on a new tower, and is having a hard time coming up with donors to back it.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/roosevelt-universitys-new-skyscraper-is-a-gamble/Content?oid=5527026 "


I'm thinking more in line with priming the pump more than paying for it all with bonds or, conversely, waiting until every dollar has been raised before kicking it off. Get the architectural work done and paid for right away (probably would require a loan, no?) Use those plans and drawings as the center piece of the coordinated effort required to raise, what -- $10-11 million?  And I appreciate the concern expressed about Roosevelt University, but that was a $123 million gamble using a credit card so to speak.  And I also appreciate the overbuild of the Wright State arena and mistakenly going big instead of reasonable.  I think we all are thinking a lot more modestly than either of those.

One last thought.  Things never get cheaper the longer you wait -- except maybe for technology, but then the next new thing hits and the costs go up anyway. So maybe even reasonable debt service incurred now will be less expensive than later, but you economics guys out there would have a better view on that.

You have a valid point about things getting more expensive as time goes on. But how about inflation? That's why. The currency keeps getting debased, so the value of it goes down. Then obviously requires more dollars to get the same thing. Anyway, not to get too far into economics, but the idea that starting now would make more sense so that you don't pay more later is a good thought I think. But will they do something so proactive? I sure have my doubts. There is still some risk with that approach.

[VULB#62]

Gotta agree that there is some risk -- heck, we'd not be paying in cash (at least not initially).  But isn't it time that the athletic facilities match the non-athletic facilities to present a consistent image of a quality educational experience across the board?  Valpo wouldn't offer degrees in the sciences without adequate labs (see Track & Field with no track and no field).  They wouldn't try to compete with other schools for students in modern technology/information resources without a Christopher Center (see ARC and Brown field as less than modern, completive facilities with which to attract top flight student athletes).  Outside of athletics there has been aggressiveness.  And there was aggressiveness once it was realized that the old union just wasn't cutting it and probably, based on market research, demonstrated that VU was losing quality applicants because of the absence of a modern, multifaceted student center.  Given the lengthy track record of OK but (IMO) less than aggressive athletic facility development, I can only see a proactive campaign as the way to break with history. Once visible plans are developed, released and promoted; once there's a hole in the ground and some bricks and mortar in place; once alumni see the tangible fruits of the effort and say 'wow,' then I think giving can really be even more focused and the donors'  responses will be commensurate.     

[FWalum]

Building costs over the last year or so have been comparatively low. Most current project bids have been coming in below projections.  Interest rates are low and expected to hold in the short term.  Now is the time to move.

[cmack]

Seriously, do we really believe that the size of the arena or how comfortable the seats are is a deciding factor for recruits??? 

I believe facilities is lower on the priority list than at least the following in no particular order:

1. Like the coach(es)
2. National exposure
3. Promise of playing time
4. Proximity to home (in some cases)
5. Winning program

I'm sure others could be added to this list.  If ALL of those are equal, maybe a particular recruit will then base his decision on how nice the equipment in the weight room is or because he liked the carpet in the locker rooms, but I highly doubt it.

I have sat in the lower level bleachers for a long time and would certainly not turn down a chair back, but I just don't see the ARC as the only reason a recruit turns us down.

[vu72]

I'd add "style of play" to your list.  I have never heard or read about a recruit using facilities or the lack there of as a deciding factor, although I'm sure there have been some.  Facilities can improve attendance, there is no doubt about that, and more people means more money and more salaries for coaches and more travel and recruiting etc.

Our success speaks for itself in spite of our facilities.

[valpopal]

Seriously, do we really believe that the size of the arena or how comfortable the seats are is a deciding factor for recruits??? 

The size of the arena or comfort of the seats? No. But I don't see many posters asking for a much larger arena or making comfortable seats a high priority.

However, the facilities for the player, though not a "deciding factor," often might be a contributing factor in his decision, especially when other elements are basically equal, which frequently may be the case. An 18-year old visiting a campus wants his college experience to be different from high school, and when the arena and practice facilities resemble what many have called "a glorified high school gym" (which is true no matter how fondly we regard the ARC, and may be stretching it for the practice court), he will be disappointed, especially if he is a highly evaluated recruit making various visits to other campuses for comparison.

Also, to the recruit, his parents, or others, poor facilities reflect upon the program and a perception of the university's (lack of) commitment to that program. The facilities represent the image of the university program to recruits considering Valpo just as one's appearance in a job interview reflects upon the self-image and apparent seriousness a candidate possesses and could influence any decision in a competitive environment.

[78crusader]

For what it's worth, this 55 year old --who has only set foot in small town gyms in the Iowa hinterlands over the past 35+ years -- doubts that the ARC is merely a "glorified high school gym."  I suppose a few very large high schools might have a facility that compares well with the ARC, but I doubt there are that many around.  And I doubt the size of the ARC is the deciding factor for most of the players we recruit.  I'd rather see a renovation of the ARC that includes an expansion of the north wall (with windows, please), plus more restrooms and concessions.  I suppose maybe a few more rows on the chairback side wouldn't hurt. 

The VU program that DOES suffer in comparison to high school facilities is our football team.  I think Coach Carlson, who is a good coach and a fine person, is at a tremendous disadvantage when it comes to bringing recruits in.  I understand why VU believes that other campus improvements should take priority, but honestly, the Brown Field facility has been outdated and inadequate since I was in school 1974-78.  There can be no argument about this statement: it simply is not an attractive place to host football games.  I appreciate the new turf and scoreboard, but we need a new stadium with a track around it.  Albion College in Michigan built Sprankel-Sprandel stadium a few years ago for 6.5 million.  (If you think our situation needs updating, keep in mind that before building its new stadium, Albion played its football games at a local high school.)  Take a look at the website and you'll get an idea of what that kind of money can buy.  And, while we're at it, please, please VU...put in some trees around Brown Field, the kind that turn pretty colors in the fall, so that fans can look at changing leaves rather than the Porter County Hospital HVAC units. 

Paul

[sectionee]

rather than the Porter County Hospital HVAC units. 

Those won't be there much longer!  But, some trees would be a nice touch. 

[valpopal]

For what it's worth, this 55 year old --who has only set foot in small town gyms in the Iowa hinterlands over the past 35+ years -- doubts that the ARC is merely a "glorified high school gym."  I suppose a few very large high schools might have a facility that compares well with the ARC, but I doubt there are that many around.  And I doubt the size of the ARC is the deciding factor for most of the players we recruit.  I'd rather see a renovation of the ARC that includes an expansion of the north wall (with windows, please), plus more restrooms and concessions.  I suppose maybe a few more rows on the chairback side wouldn't hurt. 

I am fond of the ARC and have had season tickets since it first opened in 1984, but I can't argue with those who regard it as a "glorified high school gym." Even the announcers on ESPN and elsewhere have referred to the ARC as similar to high school gyms. I have been to quite a few high school gyms, mostly in Indiana, and a number of them are larger than the ARC, including New Castle that seats about 10,000, the 8,000 seat Anderson High School gym, and some others with over 7,000 seats. But the size isn't the primary factor. Most of the high school gyms have better concession stands and better parking than the ARC.

However, the fact that we can even speak of the ARC in the same breath as high school gyms proves my point that recruits are looking for something better. Recruits expect the college environment and experience to be a substantial step higher from high school.

[VULB#62]

Hey Paul, I'm with you on Brown Field. In truth it hasn't changed much overall since I played FB in the 60s (but it sure is nice not to have to dodge line drives to right field if you are running on the track that's no longer there  ).

And I do disagree, CMACK, it's the whole package that kids and their parents look for in a university athletic program today and facilities are an integral part of that.  Your list is a good one, but leaving out facilities, whether it's BB or FB, ignores an important decision factor for a recruit, any one of which could tip the scale.  VU is in a magnificent position to leverage it's investment in athletic facilities at this point in time and nail down one of many decision points in its favor.

Great point, too, on the economy FWalum --  contractors are low balling everywhere to get work.

BTW all --     -- there's been some good stuff being shared here.

[78crusader]

I have a feeling we're gonna find out soon what the Board of Directors thinks...I'm looking for an announcement soon that VU will be starting a new capital campaign.  I base this on a single comment that President Harre made at the Union dedication in 2009, that he expected the next capital campaign to begin in 2011...I figure the Board isn't going to wait until 2013 to begin the new campaign.  They meet again at the end of this month.  The consultant they hired was expected to provide the final report on the Campus Master Plan this past January.  And, since I was dead wrong and figured that a Welcome Center was the last thing in the world that would be next up to bat on the construction list, I really have no idea what the Board will select as the next building project(s). 

Paul

[VULB#62]

Hope they are reading this forum   

[crusadermoe]

If enrollment is job #1......The board is hopefully asking what will attract and retain more students?   The field house which affects  space usage for athletes and non-athletes might actually rank high.    Kids have a lot of energy to burn and exercise is great for the mind too.
But maybe VU is no longer targeting active and vigorous students.     Has anyone counted the number of sofas, fireplaces, and small meeting rooms in the two bigger buildings?    How much of the space in the newest 5 or 6 buldings allows for anything but walking and sitting.

[BigMoSmithFan]

Yet another reason not to stand pat with 5,000 seats and the current ARC: the home schedule. If you want to see better home opponents consistently in the non-conference schedule, instead of a parade of Calumet Colleges and Manchesters with the occasional bone thrown our way by Purdue every 5-6 years, you need an arena that makes such games financially viable. Having an extra $25,000 or $30,000 in gate revenue available makes it easier to schedule more like Butler and less like Bethel.