<p>City approves plans to begin next Spring for Fall 2012. UW will then have capacity for all freshmen on campus</p>
<p><a href=“http://map.wisc.edu/[/url]”>http://map.wisc.edu/</a></p>
<p>So if you are facing the Natatorium, it’s to the right. I wonder if the tennis courts are being removed. The document that barrons linked mentions some displaced parking stalls. (These would appear to be part of Lot 57 - between the back of the Nat and the tennis courts, or part of Lot 58).</p>
<p>When are the new Southeast dorms going in? I remember reading it last year but don’t remember.</p>
<p>Barrons, are you saying that once these dorms are constructed there will be no need for all this private dorm nonsense? That would be great if it were true.</p>
<p>Smith and the new Ogg were just built so it’s time to focus on the Lakeshore. The comprehensive dorm planning document has been found on the Res Halls sidebar list for awhile. Seems logical and nice- includes replacing ancient food prep facilities that were old eons ago. When I last looked at them I remember being pleased with how they were increasing capacity without destroying the reason to be in the lakeshore area. The master plan I just reviewed shows that things like windows and bathrooms have been updated/replaced recently in the oldest lakeshore dorms with plans to upgrade the heating systems- in other words they plan to keep these old character filled dorms when they add lakeshore capacity. The master plan mentions replacing the tennis courts on what is known as “Cole Beach”- maybe that’s the space behind Cole Hall- as well as parking lot changes. </p>
<p>I am pleased they are able to go ahead with projects. Redoing Holt Commons will be a long awaited project as well- the plan refers to the inadequate food service prep capacities- I remember those well (and was pleased to find the basement Kronshage dining hall had been converted to a computer lab sometime between my tenure and recent years).</p>
<p>UW definitely is a dynamic campus. They keep some historical buildings, updating things, but also aren’t afraid to tear down others. There was a huge amount of building after WWII into the 1960’s to accomodate student needs, many of those buildings were put together cheaply and won’t be missed (think of the old Ogg and Van Vleck which my son told me has heating/cooling problems and is someday slated for redoing). Barnard (circa 1913) stays while the original Chad was replaced by a highrise decades ago. And it looks like the Adams, Tripp and Kronshage buildings will stay. So, it appears as though there will still be a variety of styles of UW Res Halls buildings into the future. Back in the 1960’s they added capacity with 3 Elm drive buidings known as A, B and C which then were converted for other uses. They brought back A as Bradley Hall and used another one for conference housing, redoing it into suites which now is used by Res Halls as Frederick Hall. The third building and commons built then house some small UW dept facilities.</p>
<p>The UW master plan calls for further redoing the west end of campus to include better utlilization of the area along the lake. Replacing the huge lot 60 surface parking with a ramp will free up green space and moving athletic fields and buildings will make for a better use of lakefront property eventually. Considering the environment has played a role as well.</p>
<p>Current and soon to be students- your snapshot of campus, like for all alumni, will not be the same campus future students will know.</p>
<p>Regarding private dorms and apartments. The character of the UW student body is such that there will always be demand for off campus housing. The turbulent late 1960’s and early 1970’s saw too much dorm capacity as many chose an off campus lifestyle- the Elm Drive complex was never really used as intended. In the early 1970’s one tower of Witte was reserved for grad students. No dorm space is available for those grad students desiring such now (dorm life could be nicer for incoming foreign students adjusting to the American lifestyle). Back then most off campus housing was in converted old houses many blocks away from the edge of campus compared to the numbers of newer apartment buildings adjacent to campus buildings now. I can see the Lucky apartments being acquired by Res Halls some year if it no longer is profitable to the private owner since it is part of the building jointly built by UW and private enterprise (remember UW and Res Halls are separate entities). Total housing capacity- on and off campus- can remain constant, without excess, by the shift of students from older dilapidated private buildings to newer construction as the years go by. I have seen this in the current number of good buildings that replaced so many old houses in the campus area over the years since my days on campus. Most recent construction is more energy efficient as well. With the shift of the medical complex facilities to the west and other renovations I can see how western- lakeshore- dorm facilities will not be as far away from things as they were decades ago.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how the existence of both public and private dorms can be attributed to the “character of the student body” as opposed to private enterprise making up for shortcomings in UW’s housing. It would be better for all concerned, and foster a more cohesive community, if UW were to provide housing for all freshmen and require all freshmen to live on campus.</p>
<p>Many find the private dorms better suited to their needs and can afford them. Much easier to choose exact living conditions, roommates (see all that negative roommate problems posts lately), etc. Not much different than deciding to live in a frat house or Co-op IMHO. Unlike some places, UW is all about freedom and personal choices for young adults. The fact that they can meet all freshmen needs does not mean all freshmen will choose to live there.</p>
<p>So I guess the answer is no – UW will not have capacity for all freshmen once these new dorms are completed? I just want to make sure I understand what the situation is.</p>
<p>As for “all about freedom and personal choices for young adults,” try telling that to a young adult who can’t get on campus housing. I’ve seen plenty of those posts on the UW board</p>
<p>No, the answer is they will have capacity but not all freshmen will choose to live there so maybe more upperclassmen will stay in the dorms. Some freshmen will still choose Lucky and other private housing for their own reasons. I don’t see UW requiring anyone to live on campus.</p>
<p>I see. Thanks for clearing this up. I now understand that UW will be “all about freedom and personal choices for young adults” in the year 2012. Thanks.</p>
<p>Supply and demand will be better balanced. The prediction is that all freshmen and transfers who want to live in Res Halls will be able to do so. But, unlike decades ago, there should not be excess capacity. Of course, events could always ruin predictions- just as the Vietnam War changed the scene in its day.</p>
<p>Addenda- UW has ALWAYS had its liberal character. One reason to choose a school has been the nature of the student body. The state of Wisconsin setup has favored this identity of the university for generations. McCarthy may have been a Wisconsin product but so was “Fighting Bob La Follette”. The liberalism/conservatism pendulum swings, a product of the times- the current UW nature is more conservative than in the late 1960’s early 1970’s. The definition of adulthood changed with the Vietnam war (think about the draft, drinking and voting, followed by privacy laws) and with it the control over the personal lives of 18 year old students. Some schools cling to past models, UW has not. The state motto is “Forward”, even if the statue on top of the capitol building (named “Miss Forward”) faces east (that fact was pointed out decades ago).</p>
<p>Wow, Nova’s back and sounding like someone stuck their finger in her peanut butter.</p>
<p>Addenda- the statue on top of the capitol dome is named “Miss Forward”.</p>
<p>Stooge-</p>
<p>You’re pretty funny. Thanks. Look, I’m just trying to keep the board honest. We can argue in 2012 about UW being “all about freedom and personal choices for young adults.” Until then we all need to agree there’s not enough campus housing to meet demand. Heck, if there were then UW wouldn’t be building those new dorms now, would they? Why waste money when there’s no demand?</p>
<p>There was an excess of campus housing when I attended (early 70’s) with fewer dorms than they have today and more students as students then were very much into being adults and not living on campus. So dorm rooms sat unfilled costing the housing office money. Now the trends are in favor of living in dorms and they have been adding them for several years. Tastes change but concrete and mortgage payments for them are nearly permanent. I think over demand for dorms is a very recent development. Another reason it’s nice to have the privarte dorms pick up the slack/overload and the UW is not stuck with excess dorm capacity. All UW dorms have to be self-supporting.</p>
<p>Interesting tongue-in-cheek article on the UW experience and the cultural divide caused largely by the existence of private dorms. </p>
<p>[Eric</a> F. Lipton > Undercover Undergrad](<a href=“http://www.lettuce.org/clipunde.htm]Eric”>http://www.lettuce.org/clipunde.htm)</p>
<p>A similar opinion by a student:</p>
<p><a href=“http://badgerherald.com/oped/2009/10/19/blame_buildings_for_.php[/url]”>http://badgerherald.com/oped/2009/10/19/blame_buildings_for_.php</a></p>
<p>If you read the letters following the one opinion in the BH you find a much broader range of opinions with many POVs. I think this one is particularly accurate and you could add UVa NOVA/OOS vs the rest of Virgina to that list. Basically it’s a class thing. </p>
<p>"There is nothing revolutionary about this article, and it is dumb. Every three months or so there’s a writer who says the same thing about this issue and provides no new or interesting developments. The buildings may seem like the problem, but they are just symbols of the problem. It took you a lot of balls and a lot of speculation to say this problem does not exist in Michigan. It exists in Michigan as much as it does at Indiana, Penn State and UofI (though with a more NE suburb of Chicago “coastie”). Even if these two buildings did not exist, the people who need that comfort zone would naturally find each other and the “coastie” and “sconnie” scenes would exist anyway, just as they do at those other schools. Though the coasties may seem more flashy, the sconnies segregate just as much. If I did not go to this school and was first reading about this social problem, I would think there are only two different types of people. Those who are identified as neither are never pointed out and should be congratulated. There is a huge part of the student population who have the power and need to break out of their predetermined roles and make friends with whoever they care to. The people who are able to comfortably say they broke away from either of these monikers, are the ones who challenge themselves to find people they actually want to be friends with, regardless of their background. They are the ones who can think creatively and outside a group mentality and therefore will actually go places in life. So basically, these articles should advocate individuality and not the battle between two groups of very uninteresting people. "</p>
<p>Most of my NJ freinds went away to school OOS because in NJ that’s what you do. And anyone who went to the midwest as many did found the same divides 40 years ago. It did not matter if they went to a tiny LAC in Kansas or a B10 school. Most found the natives a couple years behind the times and a bit less than hip. Just now it has become a cottage industry with Tshirts to be sold. </p>
<p>[Sconnie</a> Nation - Original Apparel Celebrating the Wisconsin Lifestyle / Wisconsin Adidas Apparel](<a href=“Original Apparel Celebrating the Wisconsin Lifestyle – Sconnie Nation”>Original Apparel Celebrating the Wisconsin Lifestyle – Sconnie Nation)</p>
<p>Just reread recent posts. Why on earth would one want to make nearly 6,000 students who begin school the same fall semester, aka freshmen, want or get to be a “more cohesive community”? Everyone has being a UW student in common, that’s all, there is far too much diversity to form a single cohesive unit. Forcing all freshmen to live in dorms won’t provide any more cohesion among students living from one end of campus to another. Maybe it works on a small campus with a limited population whose dorms are all clustered in one block and all eat 3 meals a day in the same dining hall such as exists in many of the other UW system schools. The dining options are much nicer at UW, btw.</p>
<p>There are learning communities, courses offered in dorms and FIGs available. This isn’t high school where one’s identity is linked to class status and school spirit. It is a place to get what one wants for an education, not to be a part of a “cohesive” group. There is no sense of being in a certain year class as in HS with class unity. Those who desire that would choose other schools. Those who value their independence and freedoms choose a place like UW.</p>
<p>Housing supply and demand has fluctuated at UW over the years. barrons and my posts covered this.Too many Res Halls rooms decades ago followed by a tightening of the supply, now too few. Hopefully the new construction will be utilized, unlike that of the 1960’s. The social upheaval of the 1960’s was unprecedented and a similar change is unlikely. No forced living in dorms to keep them full as certainly happens on some campuses. Res Halls must be doing a lot of things right to fill dorms when students don’t need to use them.</p>
<p>Heartfelt response, wis75, and with many a platitude, but you’ve failed to address the very real and longstanding tension and division between Wisconsin residents and out of state students that many commentators (including the two that I’ve just referenced) believe can be blamed squarely on the current housing system. </p>
<p>And it’s funny, but I don’t see too many students commenting on UW housing threads that they’re thrilled with “the independence and freedom” that UW housing ostensibly provides. To the contrary, I see students lamenting a confusing array of choices, decrying the current lack of sufficient spaces in public dorms, or (contrary to your suggestion that UW isn’t “high school where one’s identity is linked to class status”) seeking advice on where they’d best “fit in.”</p>
<p>I’m quite confident that UW would continue to attract a “diverse” group of applicants even if it required them all to live on campus. Many large and equally vibrant colleges manage to do this just fine. I’m not saying that this is the only way to go, of course, but without question the current system and the “class warfare” that it contributes to is hardly a panacea either. Once we’re at 2012 and there’s sufficient space for all fresman to live on campus, there would be worse things for UW to do then come up with very strong incentives to get all fresman to elect the option.</p>