Decay by Neglect

While writing the article on South Hall (see pg. #), I was inspired to write this piece. Reading the papers and researching the history of the building, it appears that with this building and another on campus, the University has taken a stance of ‘Decay by Neglect’ which doesn’t sit well with me for several reasons.
1. It’s Irresponsible. Just like we have responsibilities as students on this campus, the University has responsibilities of its own, and maintaining their buildings is one of those responsibilities. Maybe resources are scarce, time is short and money is tight but students seem to get the job done. Why can’t the University?
2. It’s unfair to those who still use the space. This pertains to the ‘other’ source of angst, Davis Gym. Obviously South Hall is no longer used by students, but I’m sure it went through the same stages on its way to being boarded up as Davis Gym is going through.
You can’t let a building rot when people still use it. To name a few, intramural teams, sports teams, clubs and organizations and the Bicycle Lending program all still use that space. When the roof leaks, or a bulb is blown, or the floor is coated with dust and dirt, it negatively affects the way we can use that space.
3. It’s unequal treatment of University Spaces and OUR money- If your roof was leaking in your room, how long would it take for it to be fixed? I would bet less than a day. Any takers? Because you’re paying to live in that space and because the University willingly placed you in their room to live in, it treats that situation totally different than if it was a meaningless building like Davis Gym. But should it really be that different?
If the roof leaked in Powell Campus Center, don’t you think they would fix it quickly? No one lives there, but we all use Powell, don’t we? Last winter, the roof was leaking in Herrick Library and, luckily, it was fixed very quickly. No one lives there either, but many students use Herrick as well. Did I mention that we still use Davis Gym?
We are not only paying for our education, our room and our board, but the tuition that we pay also goes towards the costs of running the University, and included in those costs are buildings and grounds. Don’t you think that a portion of that money should go towards keeping present buildings in working order? Some of that money went to Herrick library, but has any gone towards Davis?
South Hall, I’m afraid to say, is a lost cause. At a cost of over $10 million for renovations, the chances that anyone will ever set foot in it again are doubtful. But, putting South Hall aside, don’t you think the University should maintain the buildings that are still being used? Davis Gym, I’m happy to say, is not a lost cause. The University is actually in the process of installing security cameras in Davis Gym to protect what’s still of value inside and to curb vandalism. It’s a start to making the space more ‘functional’, but the cameras won’t do any good if Davis is slowly rotting from the inside out because of neglect.
Everything has to do with money, and I understand that. The agreement was that until adequate facilities, like a field house, are provided, Davis Gym cannot be touched. So far, the University has held their end of the bargain, but we didn’t mean that you can’t touch the building at all! You have our permission to maintain it! The University may have read over this part; it was in the small print. Note: it wasn't actually in the small print.
With the prospect of a field house not even on the radar, the University should maintain Davis Gym and the facilities it has, because before we know it, Davis gym will be the next South Hall.