Arbor Hall... new dormitory on campus.. drawn by LPK.. who's got renderings? *
- Thread starter Xenomorph
- Start date
I was actually disappointed with thedesign of South Hall. I'm not a fan of the white metal panels,the dark brown brick or the drain/roof design. Don't get me wrong, it's much nicer than Suttle, Rice andthe boomerang dorms but for what they'respending for these dorms the exteriorleaves much to be desired.
For anyone else that know or cares, what are your thoughts on all of these dorms being "stick-built" with lumber as opposed to a concrete frame?
I know that it's cheaper but Iheard that the planfor Zacharias Village and the new dorms for them tohave a lifetime of 30 years and then to just rebuild new ones.
That just seems very shortsighted tome. Why notbuildthe concrete frame with a classic designbased on a 100 year plan?
Just seems like like the University isleaving itself lessbond capacity in30 years to borrow $$$ for new athletic facilities, classrooms and other buildings because they will have to borrow for another wave of new dorms to replace the 7 news dorms that have just been built or are being built. Am I missing something here? Is the thought process that it's cheaper to build new ones every 30 years than renovate existing dorms?
Yes, this could possibly limit the amount MSU spends on athletic facilitiesin the future sotherefore it's sports-related.
</p>
For anyone else that know or cares, what are your thoughts on all of these dorms being "stick-built" with lumber as opposed to a concrete frame?
I know that it's cheaper but Iheard that the planfor Zacharias Village and the new dorms for them tohave a lifetime of 30 years and then to just rebuild new ones.
That just seems very shortsighted tome. Why notbuildthe concrete frame with a classic designbased on a 100 year plan?
Just seems like like the University isleaving itself lessbond capacity in30 years to borrow $$$ for new athletic facilities, classrooms and other buildings because they will have to borrow for another wave of new dorms to replace the 7 news dorms that have just been built or are being built. Am I missing something here? Is the thought process that it's cheaper to build new ones every 30 years than renovate existing dorms?
Yes, this could possibly limit the amount MSU spends on athletic facilitiesin the future sotherefore it's sports-related.
</p>
Housing is anauxiliary. In other words, all the money it uses to operate comes from itself. It operates as its own "business" on campus, so to speak. It gets really no funds from the university, but still has to operate under the guidelines of IHL, the State, and the University. So to answer your question, the money housing uses to build dorms has absolutely no impact on the money athletics uses to build its facilities.<div>
</div><div>Also, the dorms are designed the way they are to recruit. Knowing what I know now, you couldn't pay me to live in South or Griffis because I appreciate the older buildings and the community in them more now, but to incoming freshman, they avoid buildings like Rice, Hull, and Critz at all costs for no other reason than because they are old and built of concrete (and community showers and bathrooms). People see buildings like South and Griffis and are amazed at how nice they look and all the amenities they have, but us college veterans know that all the memories and fun we had living on campus come from buildings like Critz, Suttle, and McKee. </div>
</div><div>Also, the dorms are designed the way they are to recruit. Knowing what I know now, you couldn't pay me to live in South or Griffis because I appreciate the older buildings and the community in them more now, but to incoming freshman, they avoid buildings like Rice, Hull, and Critz at all costs for no other reason than because they are old and built of concrete (and community showers and bathrooms). People see buildings like South and Griffis and are amazed at how nice they look and all the amenities they have, but us college veterans know that all the memories and fun we had living on campus come from buildings like Critz, Suttle, and McKee. </div>
Let me begin by saying that I'm not involved in bondsorpublic financenor do I pretend to have an in-depth knowledge of the subject. However, I do know that EBC bonds have been used to pay for the new dorms and that Stricklin has indicated that we will use around $80M ofEBC bonds to pay for the Davis Wade renovations.
I've always assumed thatthat housing revenue was used to secure and pay the bonds for the dorm construction and renovation while future tickets sales would secure the bonds forathleticfacility upgrades.My concern isthat MSUmay belimited to somedegree in the total amount of EBCbonds it could haveoutstanding at any time. Not that I would think that was there is a certain dollar cap but that bond ratings andpotentially the marketability of the bonds could be affectedif we have an excess of oustanding bonds.
Anyoneknowanything about EBC bonds? Or more specficallyif EBC bondingby one department (i.e. housing)would have an affect on the ability of the university as a whole or the athletic department touse EBC bonds a mechanism to fundnew buildingsor facility improvements?
I've always assumed thatthat housing revenue was used to secure and pay the bonds for the dorm construction and renovation while future tickets sales would secure the bonds forathleticfacility upgrades.My concern isthat MSUmay belimited to somedegree in the total amount of EBCbonds it could haveoutstanding at any time. Not that I would think that was there is a certain dollar cap but that bond ratings andpotentially the marketability of the bonds could be affectedif we have an excess of oustanding bonds.
Anyoneknowanything about EBC bonds? Or more specficallyif EBC bondingby one department (i.e. housing)would have an affect on the ability of the university as a whole or the athletic department touse EBC bonds a mechanism to fundnew buildingsor facility improvements?
That is the responsibility of the individual departments, like athletics, housing, or parking services, to secure its own funding for any investments, like facilities. I do not THINK there is some kind of cap limit on that but I have never worked in the financial departments of either. I do know each department is completely independent to one another when it comes to budgeting and financing its inventory (buildings or large investments), so their ability to raise money probably doesn't impact one another's. <div>
</div><div>
</div>
</div><div>
</div>
The concept of high school graduates leaving home forsome brick and mortar school could become obsolete in 20-30 years. Of the $300-500/semester hour students now pay, how much of it goes to building maintenance, grounds upkeep,plus utilities? With computer technology advancing exponentially, why pay $20,000-30,000/ yr. to attend classes by poor to fair professors, when you can pay a fraction of that to study under superb profs who present their lessons on-line?If some internet professor can teach tens of thousands of students at a few dollars/semester hour, at times convenient toeach student, it could spell the end of leaving home just to go to school. For the students who really want to leave home after high school, they could room together in some exciting city, hold full-time jobs, and watch the professor's lessons, turn in tests n reports, at their leisure.
It doesn't mean the end of Mississippi St. (or any other university for the matter). It's just that the concept of attending school on campus could become dated. In 20-30 years, those new buildings could be torn down and replaced with parking lots to accomodate fans for the Mississippi State Sports Organisation teams in the SEC Professional Feeder Leagues.
It doesn't mean the end of Mississippi St. (or any other university for the matter). It's just that the concept of attending school on campus could become dated. In 20-30 years, those new buildings could be torn down and replaced with parking lots to accomodate fans for the Mississippi State Sports Organisation teams in the SEC Professional Feeder Leagues.
We will begin to see a shift in the way students are recruited, but I highly doubt a University campus will go away in our lifetime. Going "off" to college is a right of passage for a lot of people and it is perceived that way. A comparison would be the cars we drive. 30 years ago, people thought cars would be much different, but we still have the same gas engines and have the same radio that they did 30 years ago. I may eat my words, but those are my thoughts. <div>
</div><div>I think the dorms were built the way they were to save money. They provide a perceived "homey elegance" that is attractive to incoming students. Problem is, once they get there, after 3 days, they are bored out of their minds (that was me). </div>
</div><div>I think the dorms were built the way they were to save money. They provide a perceived "homey elegance" that is attractive to incoming students. Problem is, once they get there, after 3 days, they are bored out of their minds (that was me). </div>
Yet by the 1980's, nobody used them. In the 1980's and early 1990's, it seemed impossible to believe that students send homework and tests via e-mail, and the chalkboard replaced by PowerPoint presentations. There's nothing in the life rule book that says that high school graduates have to be isolated on one campus. If I wanted to be a superb Engineer, why not take a structures class from the best prof @ Geor. Tech or MIT or Cal-Poly,Soils n Foundationsfrom the best Geotech @ auburn, Highway engineering from the best one @ Iowa St.,etc.????
...but I have been taking classes working on a engineering master's degreefrom NC State via the interwebs. So far, I'd say the experience, although not bad,is not the same nor as effective as on-campus classes.
..however, with 4-D technology (and something that'll probably eclipse that in 10-20 years), fool-resistant security systems to ensure that there's no cheating (I didn't say fool-proof because you can't underestimate the ingenuity of fools), and larger screens to watch a presentation, I can see the college experience replicated for pennies on the dollar as to what a campus education will cost.<div>
</div><div>Used to be, you could work part-time during the school year and/or get a full-time summer job to pay for it all. Today, students are putting themselves into 10's of thousands of dollars in debt, even with jobs. Parents and the public are no longer going to tolerate that. </div><div>
</div><div>I know what you're talking about concerning being in class. I've taken a couple on-line courses, and it's hard to maintain the discipline to stick to course, to not have someone pushing you from the lectern. Still, I see that the intrawebs, downloading textbooks on Kindle, living at home or with friends, etc. will someday replace the traditional brick-and-mortar college education.</div>
</div><div>Used to be, you could work part-time during the school year and/or get a full-time summer job to pay for it all. Today, students are putting themselves into 10's of thousands of dollars in debt, even with jobs. Parents and the public are no longer going to tolerate that. </div><div>
</div><div>I know what you're talking about concerning being in class. I've taken a couple on-line courses, and it's hard to maintain the discipline to stick to course, to not have someone pushing you from the lectern. Still, I see that the intrawebs, downloading textbooks on Kindle, living at home or with friends, etc. will someday replace the traditional brick-and-mortar college education.</div>
is that they expect the lifespan to be short-lived. Like it was said earlier, new students are more drawn to the newer dorms/living accommodations. They'll just tear them down in 20+yrs to build newer ones to attract those new students again. Nothing wrong with that idea to me. They're building to attract those future students, so, to me, they ARE building with a long-term vision.
But it will not happen until the right techniques for online education are developed. I think distance education tries to copy classroom education too closely and thus may not be effective since they must necessarily remove benefits of classroom education (such as in-classroom dialog) and do not add much aside from being able to replay lessons. There must be something to make the education process itself equally or more effective than traditional classroom education. I don't know what the killer breakthroughs in distance education will be, but when they happen there will be a quick change in favor of them. Sort of like how digital cameras put film companies out of business or Netflix destroyed Blockbuster before anybody realized what was going on. All it will take is the right technology/technique.