<p>As a designer in the architecture industry I am certainly a proponent of renovating good buildings - that said, you have to be smart about what’s being renovated. The demands of the collegiate environment are great - durability, first and long term costs, technology, etc. Add to that the competition for the best and brightest students. There are many experts out there in various architectural related industries who study current trends in higher ed and are paid to anticipate emerging technologies that will vastly change higher education. I just attended a seminar that discussed what some of these technologies might be and it was really something! Libraries aren’t going to need books - however, there will always be people that want and appreciate holding, touching, smelling a good book. Those books can certainly be housed in high density storage systems, reducing the square footage of a library dramatically, thus reducing the costs of construction, heating, air, and lighting. </p>
<p>The earlier link to the dorm photos - whoa are those bad buildings! There are many things to consider, do they meet current code, accessibility codes, do they contain harmful contaminants such as lead paint and asbestos, are the heating and air systems cost effective and maintainable, are they appealing spaces that are competitive with peer institutions? Believe it or not, tearing those buildings down and designing new construction is often more affordable. Most higher education institutions want their new facilities built to meet LEED requirements, which dictates that much of the building being torn down is recycled into other products - demolished buildings these days are almost never wholly carted to a landfill. Landfill costs are too high and recycling has become much more sophisticated.</p>
<p>Thanks for the insider perspective rather than us dabblers droning on from our non-expert perches. Like I said, I’ve seen some expert reuse, and often times, campuses are very landlocked, so tearing up green-space is not an option. It’s either reuse the existing building or reuse the ground it sits on - and cost is always an issue.</p>
<p>Certainly a driving force is competition between institutions for top students, especially for private schools. When you tour you are reviewing many factors about an institution - including the condition of housing, academic buildings, labs and research equipment, technology, etc. The schools know this of course - thus you see new suite style housing with a small kitchen, living learning communities, food court and health oriented dining facilities, etc. </p>
<p>The link above to the library at Williams was interesting. What a great building and if you noticed - the new section was attached to a historic building - a really well done, harmonious marriage of two building styles. The older section pays homage to the days of the reading room and handling rare books - because I honestly believe people like the tactile experience. The newer side allows for current and future technology and supports collaboration. </p>
<p>The research lab link was more of a finishes and furniture upgrade, as it appears these items were upgraded/renovated over a school break. It’s quite common to have small projects like this done over school breaks. That project does not appear to have been terribly expensive since it appears it was already a lab space before - so the plumbing and hood exhausts were already there for the new equipment to attach to. </p>
<p>Schools might do a major library renovation or expansion every 50 years or so, with periodic updates to finishes and furniture every 20 to 25 years. Those smaller classroom and lab updates occur more often, especially when the basic infrastructure is in place and the upgrade is more equipment, finishes, lighting, and furniture. Complication wise, the two types are hard to compare. In this instance the library was a far more complicated and expensive project.</p>
<p>And, nice as it is, you’re saying in fifty years they’re going to have to build a new one, because, of course, it still has open stack storage. </p>
<p>No, because we have no idea what technology will be in 50 years, what power sources will be used, etc. 50 years isn’t a hard and fast rule, but campus buildings typically have that length life before they require significant renovation, repositioning with another use, or replacement. </p>
Well, I’m detecting a little bit of a walk back from your previous position that high density cold storage was the wave of the future. In fact, it resembles my own reply of 48 hours ago almost word for word:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t that what Williams has built? A very nice place to shelve books?</p>
<p>I didn’t say that high density was the wave of the future. I said it was an option that is often used to house large numbers of books in a smaller square footage footprint. Many large institutions house collections this way to save space or to house collections that may not be used as frequently as other books. Most libraries will have some combination of standard stacks and high density. Do libraries actually need to house books - not really - if those books have been digitized. However, who really wants to destroy books just because you don’t really need them? Not many people want to do that and as I have stated, I believe in the tactile experience of holding and paging through a book. So, like the new library at Williams, libraries are designed to house books while also providing the latest in techonology related to books themselves and other methods of learning. </p>
<p>I’m sorry, but if am not familiar enough with the Robert Frost Library to answer your question. If it’s an older building, it’s quite possible that the newer technology demands have outpaced the buildings existing infrastructure. If that’s the case, then the college may be considering a major renovation or replacement of the structure.</p>
<p>Given how heavy paper is, it’s quite possible that an older library is not capable of structurally supporting a high density storage system without an extensive and expensive retrofit.</p>
<p>The high density storage argument has been put to rest for the moment. I think it’s safe to say, the kind of people who are drawn to an old, established, selective liberal arts college are going to want “the tactile experience of holding and paging through a book” for a while longer. :)</p>
<pre><code> OK… Let me ease into this SLOWLYYYYYYYYY.
This article is a bit misleading. I was under the impression that Amherst College was crying broke due to an overwhelming influx of low income student. Far form that… The school is doing great and its endowment is healthy, but the low income student’s percentage is just as low as in any of the TOP schools in the nation.
</code></pre>
<p>Lets not be mistaken, Amherst College is by no means near Berea College, when we are talking about what the article was illustrating. Ironically, Berea College is in Kentucky and kids with great potentials have a fair shot at this institution, which unlike Amherst offers 100% free tuition, and few hours of on campus job for room and board and other expenses. In addition, when Amherst says they meet the student’s 100% demonstrated needs, these include Stafford loans. So it is funny that they mentioned Amherst as a savior for poor kids from Kentucky but forgot to mention the school that is ACTUALLY GOING ABOVE & BEYOND to do more than what Amherst does.
If I go with my instincts, it must be a way to drum-roll attention for Amherst College that has in fact seen quite a decrease in application and yield this year compared to Berea College. If that is the case, there is nothing wrong with that, but just “GIVE CREDIT TO WHOM IT’'S DUE”… especially when the report cites a location where the CREDIT is DUE.</p>
<p>Yes, and high density storage allows you to do that while at the same time reducing the volume of the building AND allowing for greater operating efficiencies, not to mention preserving the books in a better environment. The only thing is doesn’t allow is wandering the stacks. I too would hate to see all books digitized and available only in that form, though it would be great to have that option as well, especially late at night and you’re 1000 miles away and need to look up something.</p>
<p>It seems to me you’re simply opposed to any new library, and you’re just grabbing at reasons not to have one, whether that’s budgetary, aesthetic, technological, environmental, nostalgic, or just old guy - the Frost Library was plenty good for me in 1980 and it’s going to be plenty good for my great grandkids in 2080!</p>
<p>I enjoy it in any library, and I went to an engineering school. But I’m not stuck on the past either. </p>
<p>I suspect, just like some people will always prefer the paper version of books, some people will prefer the stack version of libraries, and for the foreseeable future, we’ll see a hybrid of the two, as we’re seeing in the new designs. Since the old libraries already exist, they and their stacks will continue to exist, provided the space the building occupies is not needed and the building is maintainable, both physically and monetarily. The high density libraries will be built adjacent, and will complement the old buildings, taking on a majority of the collection that isn’t in high demand as well as being the main viewing area of the library, with all of the equipment to allow that. But I would be surprised to see many major old style stack libraries built in the future, if at all.</p>
<p>You got some things mixed up.
In fact, Amhest enrolls 22% low-income students, which puts it at #4 nationally for top colleges. </p>
<p>Amherst meets 100% of need 100% of the time, is need-blind for all students, and does not include loans in any financial aid packages. Amherst works with full cost of attendance. Low-income students hence will be given financial aid for flights, clothing, housing, food, and everything else. In addition, they can have an on-campus job or an off-campus job through either a federal or an institutional work-study program. </p>
<p>This years regular admissions acceptance rate was 11.5% which is lower than last year’s as far as I know. the yield so far is 40-41% as far as I have heard, just like in recent years. </p>
<p>Hence you can’t say that poor students have it better at Berea. If they were among the lucky 11.5% notified of their acceptance at Amherst this April, they will have all expenses paid including internships and study abroad, travel etc. for the next 4 years. I wouldn’t call that “unfair” or “not generous.”</p>
<p>@AmericanHope I think you actually did misunderstand my post.
My post had very direct response to the article, and re-bottling with facts instead of the generalized theme it portrayed. I did not say Amherst was unfair or not generous enough, I actually compared it to a school that is doing what the article said for 100% of its students with no exception.
Since you decided to go there, lets see…Like you said, Amherst did it for what?..22% …there you have.
… the stats speaks for itself…sure,41%…?? … I would not call that a good yield compared to other schools including Berea.</p>
<p>Point made… I am glad Amherst is doing what they can with what they have,… and I said that earlier…however, the article sort of bulldozed into a zone that he/she knows very little about… and then decides to pick one kid in the area to write about just like it did to Alaska… ignoring or just plain uninformed about the VERY BIG ELEPHANT in the same room that he/she decided to land his story line to earn the publicity they wanted.
So relax… I have nothing against Amherst…at-least they are trying…which is better than nothing. Its all about the article and the writer.</p>