(10-17-2017 03:35 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 06:53 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 06:08 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  It's not a "glass wall, facing another wall." It is facing the Ottawa River.

If you had been in the library in the last 6-10 years, like I had been, you would have seen floors 3 thru 5 NEEDED a remodel. Those floors were stuck in the 1980s. So dull and boring. I bet students, and potential students, would see it and think, "Why would I want to come to the library if this is what it looks like?"

Students using the library = students studying/doing school = students getting better grades = a higher ranked university

I have been on those floors and nothing shallow came to my mind at all about them. An academic will study on a bus, in a dorm, in a bar. Plenty of enclosed study rooms, open rooms, a few nooks and crannies people like and if anyone thinks bright open views are conducive to studying can I recommend they open the Glass Bowl press box to studies? UT will probably zoom past Harvard in the rankings.

The wall faces the SU extension, with a lean your head around Snyder view of the downriver and a tilt the other way look at the bridge over the river, neither of which is particularly impressive nor important to the concern of how public money is used to deliver pork instead of results.

These are opinions. But I appreciate, you didn't denigrate the opinion. Mine's well thought out I think. Did my homework I think on this and with all due respect you're not going to bring anything to bear that would change the opinion that this was not a respectable use of public money or even University donation, for a university in this standing. The priority and the appearance of priority were all wrong, in MY opinion.

Now, if we find many, many donators suddenly giving millions to research and Professor endowments and community initiatives because of this glass wall, I'll post admiration the foresight of whomever made the decision on this apparent public waste.

state capital funds can only be spent on buildings-in this case renovations, so the only decision that could be made is on what building to upgrade.

Well of course they could have re-renovated the renovated Snyder. Would tearing it down be considered renovation?

Not sure if you were intending to make a point? It's a pretty specious "upgrade" since a glass wall serves no educational purpose. Should we file a complaint for misuse of state funds?

If it was meant to shore up a crumbling building, I also addressed that. As I posted, if it had actually been used in a way that would support bringing the University into an improved academic standing, good, which I imagine a creatice thinker could marry to the porkish intent. But it wasn't. The source and manufactured intent doesn't make it any less pork or any less a waste.


Nothing you posted responding to me, contradicts anything I posted. So uh,...ok?