(02-21-2017 01:01 PM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 09:47 AM)FMRocket Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 09:27 AM)utxctrack Wrote:  I believe EMU is similar since their track is in their football stadium. Terrible for fans and for the athletes. Would be great to see soccer in the track. Coordinating practices will be challenging I am guessing. If I'm the athletic department I would not want the turf used by everyone under the sun.

I thought the old Phys-Ed/ROTC building was supposed to come down eventually. So possibly field events can be placed there. Though, maybe that is where the Rec Center may expand down to.

I can't wait for that building to be torn down. Highly valuable plot of land with a building stuck in the 1970s.

What is the building used for now these days?

(02-21-2017 01:33 PM)Stpetebeachrocketfan Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:01 PM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 09:47 AM)FMRocket Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 09:27 AM)utxctrack Wrote:  I believe EMU is similar since their track is in their football stadium. Terrible for fans and for the athletes. Would be great to see soccer in the track. Coordinating practices will be challenging I am guessing. If I'm the athletic department I would not want the turf used by everyone under the sun.

I thought the old Phys-Ed/ROTC building was supposed to come down eventually. So possibly field events can be placed there. Though, maybe that is where the Rec Center may expand down to.

I can't wait for that building to be torn down. Highly valuable plot of land with a building stuck in the 1970s.

What is the building used for now these days?

Still used for ROTC. The presentation I saw said nothing about demolishing it.

It looks like I am getting formal athletic fields across the street from my house on Drummond. That's OK with me as long as it does not morph into a parking lot or parking structure. I love the plan!!!!!!!!!!!

(02-21-2017 01:01 PM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 09:47 AM)FMRocket Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 09:27 AM)utxctrack Wrote:  I believe EMU is similar since their track is in their football stadium. Terrible for fans and for the athletes. Would be great to see soccer in the track. Coordinating practices will be challenging I am guessing. If I'm the athletic department I would not want the turf used by everyone under the sun.

I thought the old Phys-Ed/ROTC building was supposed to come down eventually. So possibly field events can be placed there. Though, maybe that is where the Rec Center may expand down to.

I can't wait for that building to be torn down. Highly valuable plot of land with a building stuck in the 1970s.

So are a few of us, lol. I'm not so against the building, unless it's in the way of something that would MUCH better serve a purpose. The building has wide open spaces, which makes it useful for things I would think. It can be classroom. It can be research labs. Great I'd think for physical training research, bio-med research...

(02-21-2017 04:24 PM)IamN2daRockets! Wrote:  It looks like I am getting formal athletic fields across the street from my house on Drummond. That's OK with me as long as it does not morph into a parking lot or parking structure. I love the plan!!!!!!!!!!!

glass shatters, kids scatter.

Master plan is always light on specifics. The work comes when the actual design takes place

The worst layout in the plan is the baseball and softball complex. The plan authors have clearly never played or even watched a game before. Sun angles are horrible

This project requires a dynamic leader and there would be none better to head this up than Mike O'Brien. Fund raising, keeping projects on time and on budget, getting a big bang from each buck.... This is right in his wheelhouse. I'm assuming he isn't planning on retiring in the next ten years. Of course, we'd have to hire a new athletic director.

(02-23-2017 12:30 AM)RocketJeff Wrote:  This project requires a dynamic leader and there would be none better to head this up than Mike O'Brien. Fund raising, keeping projects on time and on budget, getting a big bang from each buck.... This is right in his wheelhouse. I'm assuming he isn't planning on retiring in the next ten years. Of course, we'd have to hire a new athletic director.

I see what you did there.... and I like it. Seriously.

(02-23-2017 07:10 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 12:30 AM)RocketJeff Wrote:  This project requires a dynamic leader and there would be none better to head this up than Mike O'Brien. Fund raising, keeping projects on time and on budget, getting a big bang from each buck.... This is right in his wheelhouse. I'm assuming he isn't planning on retiring in the next ten years. Of course, we'd have to hire a new athletic director.

I see what you did there.... and I like it. Seriously.

Yep. a "win-win" so to speak.

(02-23-2017 08:13 AM)bcunn3128 Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 07:10 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 12:30 AM)RocketJeff Wrote:  This project requires a dynamic leader and there would be none better to head this up than Mike O'Brien. Fund raising, keeping projects on time and on budget, getting a big bang from each buck.... This is right in his wheelhouse. I'm assuming he isn't planning on retiring in the next ten years. Of course, we'd have to hire a new athletic director.

I see what you did there.... and I like it. Seriously.

Yep. a "win-win" so to speak.

Really the development of facilities for department is part of his job. A job he has done pretty well with given the limited resources of the university. Larimer. Savage. Glass Bowl. All incremental improvements. GPA of student athletes is as high as ever. While the performance of some of the coaches is less than we would like we have a lot more stability than back in the Amstutz Joplin point shaving days

So the notion of hiring an AD and making MOB a development guy is ludicrous

(02-23-2017 10:01 AM)indianasniff Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 08:13 AM)bcunn3128 Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 07:10 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 12:30 AM)RocketJeff Wrote:  This project requires a dynamic leader and there would be none better to head this up than Mike O'Brien. Fund raising, keeping projects on time and on budget, getting a big bang from each buck.... This is right in his wheelhouse. I'm assuming he isn't planning on retiring in the next ten years. Of course, we'd have to hire a new athletic director.

I see what you did there.... and I like it. Seriously.

Yep. a "win-win" so to speak.

Really the development of facilities for department is part of his job. A job he has done pretty well with given the limited resources of the university. Larimer. Savage. Glass Bowl. All incremental improvements. GPA of student athletes is as high as ever. While the performance of some of the coaches is less than we would like we have a lot more stability than back in the Amstutz Joplin point shaving days

So the notion of hiring an AD and making MOB a development guy is ludicrous

Disagree, certainly with the "ludicrous" assessment. What other position in the University has the experience with fund-raising of this magnitude and keeping tabs on construction projects of this magnitude? He IS going to have to make-way for next AD, probably sooner rather than later. He might even have the sense to spin your ball-fields around.

Whether originally proposed in jest or not, it's still something Admin should at least consider.

(02-21-2017 09:56 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  Master plan is always light on specifics. The work comes when the actual design takes place

The worst layout in the plan is the baseball and softball complex. The plan authors have clearly never played or even watched a game before. Sun angles are horrible

When the baseball field was on main campus it faced northeast, softball faced northwest.

Also O'Brien is 63/64 so yes, he could likely be gone in ten years.

(02-23-2017 12:15 PM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 09:56 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  Master plan is always light on specifics. The work comes when the actual design takes place

The worst layout in the plan is the baseball and softball complex. The plan authors have clearly never played or even watched a game before. Sun angles are horrible

When the baseball field was on main campus it faced northeast, softball faced northwest.

Also O'Brien is 63/64 so yes, he could likely be gone in ten years.

It is my understanding that Athletics, both teams and examining other MAC fields was done in considering the layout of those new fields on campus

(02-20-2017 07:44 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  I'll be that guy

This is embarrassing. A lot of waste in foresight and in hindsight. It's certainly not the catch-up needed by a university that cannot even get themselves academically ranked. They're thinking more like someone planning a retirement community than someone planning to compete in the field of research university and academic institution.

- Outdoor Rec Complex, won't last a decade. It's useless in concept, let alone function. It's low functioning seasonal on prime real estate and way too detached to be of use to students who need also to change cloths, shower... before class. Useless to the commuter student. Looks more like a field for the campus police rec league.

You want student life there but something that's going to synergize with academic life, bring investors and bring revenue. The new Engineering University works in concert with industry, generates new industry. The plan for that part of the Dorr St. corridor (as well anything they can get past Byrne) should be mixed use privately owned off-campus life and spin-off research park.

- lot across from U-Hall. I see they're not done trying to pizz off the neighbors so some old fart can have ten steps to parking. University use of this for anything other than a park, needs put off the table forever. The plan should have made that statement.
-Palmer Hall is another one they just spent millions renovating. And now it's to be gone replaced by a building of comparable footprint. If they have need for a "research" building then they should be able to be specific as to what research is to be conducted in that tiny space..
-Remove the Transportation Center? The one completed in 2012?
-A new public safety building for the ten campus cops? Ticketing must be a cash crop.
-They're going to raise 175 mil and only Bond 20?

Compare building density to most major campuses and UT is blessed to have the space they have. They don't seem to have any freaking clue how to use it or how to plan for the revenue generation needed to attract competitive Professorships. They aren't creating atmosphere or identity.

lot across from U-Hall. I see they're not done trying to pizz off the neighbors so some old fart can have ten steps to parking. "
not sure what you were looking at, but there are no plans for a lot there, but work with Old Orchard Association to develop formal recreational fields

"Palmer Hall is another one they just spent millions renovating. And now it's to be gone replaced by a building of comparable footprint. If they have need for a "research" building then they should be able to be specific as to what research is to be conducted in that tiny space.."
Millions were not spent on Palmer, but it does get heavy classroom and lab use so funds needed to be spent. Plan is to expand back of Engineering North with new and added classrooms and labs, then take down Palmer Hall and replace with new research building-looking at 3-5 yr process for all that.

"A new public safety building for the ten campus cops? Ticketing must be a cash crop." The current Transportation Center actually holds several offices and numerous staff may more then is was designed for. New Public Safety Office is needed to house all those staff plus need spaces.

Outdoor Rec Complex, won't last a decade. It's useless in concept, let alone function. It's low functioning seasonal on prime real estate and way too detached to be of use to students who need also to change cloths, shower... before class. Useless to the commuter student. Looks more like a field for the campus police rec league.
..........................................................................................................................................

I certainly don't think that is prime real estate with numerous empty buildings across the street (fast food etc..) that are unlikely to be occupied any time soon.

(02-28-2017 06:35 PM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  Outdoor Rec Complex, won't last a decade. It's useless in concept, let alone function. It's low functioning seasonal on prime real estate and way too detached to be of use to students who need also to change cloths, shower... before class. Useless to the commuter student. Looks more like a field for the campus police rec league.
..........................................................................................................................................

I certainly don't think that is prime real estate with numerous empty buildings across the street (fast food etc..) that are unlikely to be occupied any time soon.

I'd love to see that area get built up, preferably focused on university student life. There's a lot of potential there as it elegantly leads up to the University. Problem now is that the buildings there are not so elegant - just very old & mostly unused. How about an entertainment district?

The area where 7-11 is now and where Maxwell's coffee shop used to be on Bancroft is also prime real estate for UT. A university focused entertainment district would be ideal for that land.

(02-28-2017 06:35 PM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  Outdoor Rec Complex, won't last a decade. It's useless in concept, let alone function. It's low functioning seasonal on prime real estate and way too detached to be of use to students who need also to change cloths, shower... before class. Useless to the commuter student. Looks more like a field for the campus police rec league.
..........................................................................................................................................

I certainly don't think that is prime real estate with numerous empty buildings across the street (fast food etc..) that are unlikely to be occupied any time soon.

If that area (so close to the dorms and off-campus housing) isn't good for retail development, you might recommend to grads like Gradkowski that they stop investing there.

That wasn't my central point use for the land anyhow.

Thinking that athletic fields and other lipsticks are going to sustain a research university is as I posted, confusing and it's certainly not what other research universities of note would be doing with limited land resources. They are building research to market parks close enough for Professors so they can supplement and obtain a somewhat private industry competitive wage.

Investing nearly 200 million this way is just plain short sighted. It's a construction hand-out.

They need a new generation of Professors to rebuild instructional and research infrastucture, the kind of Professor and research that will make a statement on their vocation. That can be obtained but I can guarantee, no one in that university has the creative brain to understand that UT can compete with the premier universities for talent. They shoot so low for only what they think they can get, because that's all they've ever gotten. Their goal, is to get to retirement and leave the problem to others. This way of thinking is why UT is being staffed by BG and local universities. It's become a big in-breeding program. Lol, it represents everything "Toledo" very well in that regard.

BUT, we'll see if same'ol-same'ol can suddenly result in something different. The decision makers will be long gone with their income bonuses before anything hits the fan.

New Safety Bldg, lol.

(02-28-2017 07:00 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 06:35 PM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  Outdoor Rec Complex, won't last a decade. It's useless in concept, let alone function. It's low functioning seasonal on prime real estate and way too detached to be of use to students who need also to change cloths, shower... before class. Useless to the commuter student. Looks more like a field for the campus police rec league.
..........................................................................................................................................

I certainly don't think that is prime real estate with numerous empty buildings across the street (fast food etc..) that are unlikely to be occupied any time soon.

If that area (so close to the dorms and off-campus housing) isn't good for retail development, you might recommend to grads like Gradkowski that they stop investing there.

That wasn't my central point use for the land anyhow.

Thinking that athletic fields and other lipsticks are going to sustain a research university is as I posted, confusing and it's certainly not what other research universities of note would be doing with limited land resources. They are building research to market parks close enough for Professors so they can supplement and obtain a somewhat private industry competitive wage.

Investing nearly 200 million this way is just plain short sighted. It's a construction hand-out.

They need a new generation of Professors to rebuild instructional and research infrastucture, the kind of Professor and research that will make a statement on their vocation. That can be obtained but I can guarantee, no one in that university has the creative brain to understand that UT can compete with the premier universities for talent. They shoot so low for only what they think they can get, because that's all they've ever gotten. Their goal, is to get to retirement and leave the problem to others. This way of thinking is why UT is being staffed by BG and local universities. It's become a big in-breeding program. Lol, it represents everything "Toledo" very well in that regard.

BUT, we'll see if same'ol-same'ol can suddenly result in something different. The decision makers will be long gone with their income bonuses before anything hits the fan.

New Safety Bldg, lol.

I have met a number of recent faculty hires who have come from major research institutions and the amount of external research funding secured by UT faculty is on the rise. Adding a new research building is also one of the major elements included in the Master Plan. But when you are also a mid size open enrollment university, teaching is going to be a significant part of your mission which is always not aligned with efforts to increase research. Retention of top research faculty is a major problem as once successful they often leave to bigger research focused institutions where support and resources are much better. A lot of that happened under the previous Provost who did not fully value the research enterprise. Colleges with major research parks are also ones with local companies investing in partnerships including existing and new research spin off entities. The R1 building at UT provides the opportunity at perhaps a small scale, but has not resulted in many large or successful industry partnerships, so part of the problem/solution is lack of outside private sector investment and engagement in the research enterprise at UT.

(02-28-2017 06:35 PM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  Outdoor Rec Complex, won't last a decade. It's useless in concept, let alone function. It's low functioning seasonal on prime real estate and way too detached to be of use to students who need also to change cloths, shower... before class. Useless to the commuter student. Looks more like a field for the campus police rec league.
..........................................................................................................................................

I certainly don't think that is prime real estate with numerous empty buildings across the street (fast food etc..) that are unlikely to be occupied any time soon.

Part of the thinking with making an investment and footprint at that location is that it will help then stimulate other student centered development along that block. And the idea of the fields for student recreation was discussed with and supported by student government as it allows for a quality and size of space dedicated for campus rec that simply does not exist on the current main campus footprint.

(03-01-2017 09:03 AM)PaulJ Wrote:  But when you are also a mid size open enrollment university, teaching is going to be a significant part of your mission which is always not aligned with efforts to increase research...

You might just as well as said "agreed" after quoting me because exactly what I said, they do not have the thinking to improve. "But when," says everything there is to say.

We can site anecdotal hires or we can look at the predominance. "But when."

There's not a university on the planet where "teaching" isn't going to be a significant part of their mission, be it UT, be it Cornel. But UT can offer opportunities to that young researcher that Cornel does not and can not. The model is even on that campus but it's not for me to do someone else's job and point it out screaming and hollering. Tried it. Pointed them to someone with high credentials, that wanted something a UT could provide, they couldn't get easily elsewhere but I couldn't be heard. That person suffered, they had to take a position at Northwestern in Chicago. THey're not doing what they want to, probably won't be for a good decade and by that time, what opportunities are lost. sigh Yes anecdotal but that experience was very much the short-sighted atmospere I feel from the place and this "plan" supports my impression.

same bricks of thought being used on that campus. No imagination. No breaking the mold that's not worked. They can only hope for the same results in a toughening atmosphere.