FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS... answered to the best of our ability...
Long Library
Q: What about the maintenance problems? Doesn't the roof leak all the time? Aren't the heating costs too high? What about cooling and humidity control? Can it be fully adapted to computerized technology?
A: No effort has been made to improve the library's energy efficiency. (Add insulation; double glaze the windows; etc.) The roof needs regular routine maintenance, which it has not received. Viable alternative roofing solutions have not been pursued. The adminstration shut off the air conditioning and humidity control systems in all the modern buildings years ago; hence, the systems currently do not function. Ethernet connections would bring the entire building "on-line" without the need of rewiring.
The world-famous architectural firm which created the library (Skidmore, Owings, and Merril), has not been asked to provide any necessary improvements or modifications to their plans. Why not?
In 1988, a $1 million dollar endowment was given specifically for library maintenance. (See Wells College: A History, p. 270) That dedicated endowment increased by a second million during the last capital campaign. Why isn't this money being used to maintain, upgrade, and save the building?
Q: Isn't the design too eccentric to function well as a library?
A: It is the most impressive architectural feature of the campus, and it's worked well for 30+ years. The college's professional library staff collaborated in the design of the building and many members of the staff have enjoyed working in its unique environment, though it is denigrated by the current head librarian. International experts consider the building to be a work of art in its own right. See Great Buildings On-line. Wells will look incredibly foolish to the outside world if it destroys this architectural landmark. Such action could generate much negative national publicity for the college.
Q: Aren't there code violations?
A: The building is legal and safe. Otherwise, changes would be ordered by the state (as with the upgrades made to the older dormitories some years ago). Changes may be desireable to reflect more recent code standards, but demolition instead of modification is an absurd solution according to most reputable professionals. See the testimony of other architects from DOCOMOMO.
Q: Isn't the library getting overcrowded?
A: Possibly, as the library staff has recently brought departmental libraries into Long Library for some reason. But the Master Plan replaces it with a far smaller building. The current structure has 55,000 square feet and original stack space for over 250,000 volumes.
The Music and Art Buildings
Q: Are the Campbell Art Building and Barler Music Building underutilized?
A: No. This was the administration's first rationale for destroying the buildings, based on faulty interpretation of data from the registrar.
Q: Are Barler and Campbell overcrowded?
A: Sometimes. This is the administration's more recent rationale for demolition. But tearing them down and not replacing them will not solve that problem. It will simply destroy the programs.
Claiming that Zabriskie can house these programs is nonsensical. Imagine painting studios and a ceramics studio with lots of plaster dust, housed with a recital hall, rehearsal rooms, seminar room, listening lab, piano lab, practice rooms, etc., all somehow jammed into a building which cannot be reconfigured because its interior walls are load-bearing. The spaces that held art and music before 1974 have long since been destroyed or turned over to other purposes. But no alternative facilities are proposed, other than Zabriskie.
Q: Do Barler and Campbell contain A.D.A. code violations?
A: Modest and manageable proposals to make these buildings much more accessible have been ignored by the administration. They were constructed before the American's with Disabilities Act; they are legal as they stand, although modification is desireable. According to many reputable architects, destruction rather than modification is an absurd solution. But the architects working on this project are openly committed to the demolition of these buildings; they seem to have been instructed to consider no other possibilities. The many other non-compliant buildings at Wells, such as Morgan Hall, are not slated for destruction. Why single out Barler and Campbell?
Q: Are Barler and Campbell being destroyed to reduce the total square footage of buildings under maintenance in order to compensate for the new science building?
A: This was the Board's original position as presented by the architect to the arts faculty. Trustees later denied taking this position. But in faculty meetings the President has supported this exchange: a new building going up requires the destruction of existing facilities.
Miscellaneous
Q: How many buildings will be moved, according to the Master Plan?
A: Three: Cleveland (once the old library, now the language building), the Sommer Center (a.k.a. Smith Hall), and the "Bellinzoni Building" (once the art studio, laundry, president's office, and now security center). Recent statements from unofficial sources suggest that there are no longer plans to move Smith "at this time."
Q: Why should buildings be moved?
A: The plan shows single a central north-south walkway with nearly all buildings aligned on this new path. Buildings are displaced to make this possible. The adminstration's rationale is that the campus -- the very, very small campus -- needs to be more concentrated, centralized, and focused to create a sense of "community," and the central walkway will create more "interaction."
Q: How much will this cost?
A: The president has said she doesn't want to worry about the money right now, that she just wants to dream a vision for the future of Wells. No costs have been attached to any aspect of the plan, except for the new science building.
Q: Where could Wells ever find the money for all of this?
A: The money is at hand. Pleasant Thiele Rowland '62, a member of the Forbes 400 List (of the wealthiest people in the country) is widely perceived by faculty, students, alumnae, and local residents as the driving force behind the Master Plan; see the Rowland page.
Q: Since nothing drastic has happened since the adoption of the plan over two years ago, isn't the Master Plan dead?
A: Alumnae concern may have stalled the progres of plan. Alumnae donations for the new science building slowed dramatically after the announcement that groundbreaking for the long-planned science facility would become the "first step" in the new Master Plan. Originally scheduled for Fall 2001, the groundbreaking has yet to take place because of a shortfall in contributions.
However, the Board of Trustees has not rescinded its endorsement of the plan nor has the adminsitration abandoned its committment to the project. Board members have indicated that once the funds are availble to construct the new science building, which apparently is not supported by Ms. Rowland, the Master Plan will move forward.
___________________
Return HOME