What should be MU's next campus improvement priority?

[Coleman]

The Law School building is nearly done, construction is underway for the new engineering facility and in the last decade we have had a new library, on-campus arena, dental school, administration building and have rehabbed a dorm. What should MU do to campus next? I feel like this needs to be a continual process, and that Fr. Wild shouldn't rest on his laurels (he's done an amazing job). MU needs to constantly be looking for ways to improve and move up in national rankings, as long as the funding can be secured. Feel free to vote other and comment.

[akmarq]

Priority #1 has to be a new rec center. Ours is outdated and cramped.

[GGGG]

I toured campus 18 months ago when my son was looking at schools.  I thought the campus looked great in general, and stacks up nicely with a lot of similar schools, but I thought the science facilities seemed outdated.  And yeah, as the poster above mentioned, the rec facilities seemed cramped.  (Which is funny because when I went there, they seemed so good!)

[Brewtown Andy]

I know there are people with actual pull on campus who, if given free reign to knock down 1 building, would get rid of Lalumiere first.

[mu_hilltopper]

Answer: NOTHING!

All these buildings cost $$$ to build and $$$ to maintain.  Tuition increases are outstripping inflation by several factors (5.6% this year versus the CPI which is basically flat) .. as I said in the other thread: the long term universe of people who can afford MU (and all private colleges) is decreasing every year.

MU's physical plant is superlative already.  Sure, you can find spots that aren't palaces, but the idea that MU needs to "keep up" with other schools is self-fulfilling balderdash, destructive in the long run.

MU needs to do everything in its power to cost-contain or it will fail its mission in the decades ahead.   

[Chili]

The business students always need new stuff.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Answer: NOTHING!

All these buildings cost $$$ to build and $$$ to maintain.  Tuition increases are outstripping inflation by several factors (5.6% this year versus the CPI which is basically flat) .. as I said in the other thread: the long term universe of people who can afford MU (and all private colleges) is decreasing every year.

MU's physical plant is superlative already.  Sure, you can find spots that aren't palaces, but the idea that MU needs to "keep up" with other schools is self-fulfilling balderdash, destructive in the long run.

MU needs to do everything in its power to cost-contain or it will fail its mission in the decades ahead.   

That is actually a great point, in which case maybe MU needs to look into multi-purpose buildings that can create (some) revenue.

I don't really think a new rec center is needed, but if a new facility could be rented/leased to other organizations when students aren't using it, it might be worth it.

Also, classrooms are really only used a portion of the day. I wonder if an upgraded theater style auditorium could be rented out to businesses for conferences and meetings. There are hotels right down the street, so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

I know we don't necessarily want to flood MU's campus with a bunch of business travelers when conferences are in town, but MU might need to find creative ways to pay for it's upgraded facilities (other than just raising tuition).

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

I 'love' the "we need a new rec center" people. I heard that throughout the time I was there (03-08). People would point to the new MSOE facilities downtown.

I really never understood it. Is your workout experience better if you run on a treadmill in a more pretty building versus a less pretty building?

Topper is correct ... if Marquette, or any other private university really want to think about the future, they need to think about cost containment. Not, "How many pretty buildings and new self-serving bureaucracies can we create on students' dimes?"

[77ncaachamps]

Taking Hilltop's post, I concur.

However, if this was a wish list...

Wehr Life Sciences. The labs (when I was there) dated themselves.

[Brewtown Andy]

Taking Hilltop's post, I concur.

However, if this was a wish list...

Wehr Life Sciences. The labs (when I was there) dated themselves.

Its worth mentioning that there's been multiple labs getting equipment refreshes or even complete remodels recently.

[GGGG]

Answer: NOTHING!

All these buildings cost $$$ to build and $$$ to maintain.  Tuition increases are outstripping inflation by several factors (5.6% this year versus the CPI which is basically flat) .. as I said in the other thread: the long term universe of people who can afford MU (and all private colleges) is decreasing every year.

MU's physical plant is superlative already.  Sure, you can find spots that aren't palaces, but the idea that MU needs to "keep up" with other schools is self-fulfilling balderdash, destructive in the long run.

MU needs to do everything in its power to cost-contain or it will fail its mission in the decades ahead.   

It would be silly to knock down Lalumier.  Yeah, it is ugly, but it is completely functional given the classes that are there.  My concern about the science labs is that those need to be kept up to date.  To hear that they are getting rehabbed is a good thing.

But hilltopper, to be competitive, private schools have to keep up with their physical plant.  The schools that don't are the ones that struggle.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

McCormick is an ill conceived toilet and as well as an eyesore.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

It would be silly to knock down Lalumier.  Yeah, it is ugly, but it is completely functional given the classes that are there.  My concern about the science labs is that those need to be kept up to date.  To hear that they are getting rehabbed is a good thing.

But hilltopper, to be competitive, private schools have to keep up with their physical plant.  The schools that don't are the ones that struggle.

I think part of the "problem" is that the new buildings on campus seem to consistently be non-academic buildings (like the new admin building or the student un-friendly AMU) instead of pure academic buildings, like the ancient science facilities. The Straz business building is just about the opposite of what you'd probably like for the college whose alumns are among the highest potential donors to the university (cf the new LS building).

[GGGG]

I think part of the "problem" is that the new buildings on campus seem to consistently be non-academic buildings (like the new admin building or the student un-friendly AMU) instead of pure academic buildings, like the ancient science facilities. The Straz business building is just about the opposite of what you'd probably like for the college whose alumns are among the highest potential donors to the university (cf the new LS building).

The Law School, Dental School and engineering buildings are non-academic?

[MUBurrow]

The Straz business building is just about the opposite of what you'd probably like for the college whose alumns are among the highest potential donors to the university (cf the new LS building).

+1.

I think that the best ways to raise a school's prestige and popularity are via the professional schools/graduate schools and athletics.  Undergrad quality and popularity seems to go as those go.  That being said, the Law School was a definite need - there's no reason a law school that can essentially corner a mid-major market should be ranked as low as MU.  Ditto the dental school, as its the only one in WI.  Next up should be something to attract MBA candidates.  It would be a close race with the science buildings, but since MU has pretty much acquiesced to U-dub and MCW in not keeping pace as a research institution, I think upgrading the MBA program can only be a good thing for MU and mke as a whole.

[mu_hilltopper]

This conversation reminds me of a NewsHour segment .. I'll get the exact facts wrong, but close enough.  The topic was a public college in New Jersey .. they interviewed kids that were deep in debt, leaving the school to go to a cheaper community college, or just quitting completely .. then interviewed the provost.  They asked why did the school spend $100m+ for 3 buildings in the past couple years, especially a $40m rec center.

The lady responds, well, these kids need a place to unwind and work out, relax, and get fit.

Meanwhile, those same kids, the customers, are struggling and failing to foot the bill for all these amenities.  Ginormous disconnect.

Marquette would do just fine with the buildings it has right now.  

--

Curious .. maybe the collective knowledge of Scoop can help with a timeline.  It seems as if the last 10-20 years, MU has had an explosion of building.   How does that compare to prior decades?  Help fill in the blanks:

2000-2010 - Al Center, Law School, Library, Zilber, Dental School, McCabe Residence Hall, Engineering building
90s - New union, Cudahy Hall
80s - ??
70s - ??

[Coleman]

As a recent graduate (and tuition payer with about currently 30k worth of debt) I can sympathize with those stressing the need for cost containment. MU should do everything it can to give financial aid to deserving students. But the fact of the matter is most building projects come from outside fundraising or donation (a la Eckstein Hall). Maintenance might not, but the fact of the matter is old and crumbling buildings have high maintenance costs too.

However, most of you are wrong in your assessments of the current buildings. Lalumiere is an absolute disgrace, and I don't just mean the honeycomb windows. Throughout my tenure at MU (04-08), There were multiple times the roofs leaked in massive amounts of water (usually during the spring melt) into classrooms and hallways, and more than once did class have to be cancelled. Its also an eyesore and the first thing people see from the highway.

Life sciences isn't bad, but compared to other Jesuit schools similar to us (SLU and Loyola Chicago come to mind) who have just got brand new state of the art research facilities, I have a hard time believing anyone wanting to study biology or premed would choose us over them. If you don't believe me, just compare via pictures online of the various websites. Physics and Chemistry buildings are not quite so bad, but will probably need major updating soon.

And as a former resident of McCormick Hall (04-05), I can tell you the place is an absolute pit. As much as I lovingly remember my times there with my buddies, it is disgusting and its no wonder campus tours for prospective students usually skip over it or just visit the cafeteria. Not to mention its in the heart of campus next to the AMU. The building there should be a gem, and McCormick is anything but.



UPDATE:

THE MICHAEL R. AND MARILYN C. QUINLAN
LIFE SCIENCES EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CENTER
http://www.luc.edu/biology/quinlan.shtml

EDWARD A. DOISY RESEARCH CENTER
http://www.slu.edu/x30261.xml

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

The Law School, Dental School and engineering buildings are non-academic?

Did I say they were? I said new buildings are consistently non-academic. I didn't say exclusively. In fact I specifically positively referenced the LS building.

Edit: As an example, in the five years I spent at Marquette (03-08), the University:

Opened a library without books, Raynor (yes, I love Raynor too), finished an addition to Campus Town(e) and finished and opened the Al, and demolished the 1212 building to break ground for an administrative building (because the 3-4 already existing on campus weren't enough). These are all worthy and great projects (in their own rights). But the only academic building was the beginning of the Law School.

If the school is going to build new buildings (apart from whether or not it should), I'd hope it would devote as much fund raising efforts to academic buildings as non-academic. (Or, hell, residential halls.)

+1 to everything MUBurrow posted.

[4everwarriors]

Answer: NOTHING!

All these buildings cost $$$ to build and $$$ to maintain.  Tuition increases are outstripping inflation by several factors (5.6% this year versus the CPI which is basically flat) .. as I said in the other thread: the long term universe of people who can afford MU (and all private colleges) is decreasing every year.

MU's physical plant is superlative already.  Sure, you can find spots that aren't palaces, but the idea that MU needs to "keep up" with other schools is self-fulfilling balderdash, destructive in the long run.

MU needs to do everything in its power to cost-contain or it will fail its mission in the decades ahead.   

New ride? Very cool.

[mu_hilltopper]

New ride? Very cool.

???

[Brewtown Andy]

and demolished the 1212 building to break ground for an administrative building (because the 3-4 already existing on campus weren't enough).

But that was the point of the new building: consolidating every administrative function into one building.

[GGGG]

This conversation reminds me of a NewsHour segment .. I'll get the exact facts wrong, but close enough.  The topic was a public college in New Jersey .. they interviewed kids that were deep in debt, leaving the school to go to a cheaper community college, or just quitting completely .. then interviewed the provost.  They asked why did the school spend $100m+ for 3 buildings in the past couple years, especially a $40m rec center.

The lady responds, well, these kids need a place to unwind and work out, relax, and get fit.

Meanwhile, those same kids, the customers, are struggling and failing to foot the bill for all these amenities.  Ginormous disconnect.

Marquette would do just fine with the buildings it has right now.  

--

Curious .. maybe the collective knowledge of Scoop can help with a timeline.  It seems as if the last 10-20 years, MU has had an explosion of building.   How does that compare to prior decades?  Help fill in the blanks:

2000-2010 - Al Center, Law School, Library, Zilber, Dental School, McCabe Residence Hall, Engineering building
90s - New union, Cudahy Hall
80s - ??
70s - ??

1990s was the whole Campus Towne building too.

BTW, I will point out something else.  These buildings are built largely through donations.  Donations aren't always fungible. 

[GGGG]

Did I say they were? I said new buildings are consistently non-academic.

But how can you call it "consistently non-academic" when three of them are large, academic buildings?  Versus two (?) non-academic buildings in the last ten years.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

But that was the point of the new building: consolidating every administrative function into one building.

I was being sarcasting about not enough existing administrative buildings ...

The administration already has the 707, AMU, Holthusen, 500 North, O'Hara and Marquette Hall for almost completely administrative functions. Add on to that Coughlin and the Academic Support Facility for faculty support. (BTW, we're making some faculty walk to 17th and Wells for their offices but Res Life must be on 12th and Wisc?) And then other (again, purely administrative) offices in Carpenter, Straz and Campus Towne (Bursar, Les Aspin).

Marquette could have put a new College of Business building or even the new Law School right on Wisconsin Avenue. Instead, the Law School is going to face the Interchange and the Advance and PR groups get a centralized campus location.

How about the faculty and administration of the College of Communication ask to swap with the Office of Res Life? Who should get an 80 (or whatever) year building and who should get a brand new building? The Bursar Office or an actual academic department?

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

But how can you call it "consistently non-academic" when three of them are large, academic buildings?  Versus two (?) non-academic buildings in the last ten years.

Huh? You mean the four non academic and the one academic I cited? That's how it's consistently non-academic.