Campus Architect Recommendations: Demolish Hill, Build Wellness Center

Representatives from BHDP Architecture presented their recommendations for Ohio Northern University’s campus master plan. The event was on Friday, February 16th at 8:30 AM in the Dicke Forum. An invitation was sent to faculty and staff on Wednesday, February 7. After a brief introduction by President Melissa Baumann, the presentation was led by Paul Orban, Higher Education Market Leader and Partner at BHDP. Gabriel Mott, News Editor for Northern Review and Donald Waters, Arts and Entertainment Editor, were both in attendance. BHDP’s recommendations focused on facility use and updating, not on program or faculty decisions. Their recommendations are not binding, and subject to ratification by ONU’s Board of Trustees, which Baumann says “just saw it [the recommendations] Saturday morning.” BHDP says ratification would likely occur in May of this year. A summary of their recommendations follows:

Master Plan Overview

BHDP’s consultants spent nine months of work compiling their recommendations for the Master Plan. They surveyed students and faculty, in addition to consulting structural engineers. Throughout the process, they were guided by the following vision:

Overall, BHDP is satisfied with the quality of ONU’s facilities. Orban said, “The good news is ONU has invested heavily in facilities in the past” and “seriously, your buildings are in very strong shape compared to [other universities].” Their review of academic facilities finds only 40-45% capacity. This would leave room for growth or displacement. Further, they conducted a survey of faculty and staff, finding generally positive feedback on academic spaces. Their presentation read, “65% of students and 60% of faculty and staff reported as “Very Satisfied” or “Satisfied” with the quality of ONU’s academic facilities.” They say these figures would increase by 90% if “Neutral” responses are included.

Despite ONU’s strong position, a few problems face the university. One is an estimated $30 million in deferred maintenance (building maintenance that has been delayed) over the next five years. Excluding Hill (which is recommended for demolition), BHDP recommends an annual investment of $4.5 million to address the deferred maintenance. Priorities would include HVAC, Plumbing, Electrical, and Interior Finishes.

The consultants provided an overview of their recommendation, which were condensed into the following list, provided on a single slide: 

Hill Memorial

After recommending decommission and demolition of Hill Memorial Building, a representative from BHDP Architecture suggests building a small park in the space the building currently occupies (Northern Review/Gabriel Mott)

One of the major topics of discussion was Hill Memorial, which BHDP is recommending be decommissioned and demolished. They cite around $9 million in deferred maintenance and severe structural problems. They say the stucco on the outside has contributed to the degradation of Hill’s brick walls. One structural engineer they brought onto campus to assess the problem reportedly said, “This is the worst brick I’ve seen in my career…on a building like this.”

In place of Hill Memorial building, the representatives suggest that a small park could be built to honor the legacy of the building and the university, pictured above. Hill’s potential demolition has been the subject of administrative and student discourse for over a year, with President Baumann addressing the issue early on during a town hall event last academic year.

Shane Tilton, Associate Professor of Multimedia Journalism, asked whether the cost of demolition has been considered by BHDP. The representatives responded that this has been “factored in”: “Depending on what we put back, we’re likely going to spend North of half a million, a million.” This is less than the $9 million they estimate would need to be spent on deferred maintenance. Among other considerations needed to demolish the building, they cite the need to carefully dispose of certain materials. Dr. Tilton is the faculty advisor for Northern Review, but has neither controlled nor revised the content of this article.

Robert Waters, Associate Professor of History, told us that he still feels “Saving Hill should be the priority.” During a faculty question-and-answer session, he asked, “Did you survey alumni about blowing up Hill?” BHDP said, “We did not extend the survey to alumni yet.”

Health and Wellness

Two location options for a new Health and Wellness Center building are identified by representatives for BHDP Architecture. The new building would be a major building project for the university (Northern Review/file). 

One major new facility endeavor proposed by BHDP would be the building of a new Health and Wellness Center on campus. They think it will address “conflicting space and time” for the use of Kinghorn facilities, which has caused frustration among the student body. They want to borrow from the design of the Engineering building for “the idea of seeing the activities inside.” One mock-up features an outdoor rock climbing wall, which the representatives say could be one of many options for student engagement. They have “itemized” everything they would like this building to include, and they suggest the Pharmacy, Clinic, and Counseling Center be relocated to the new building if it is built.

BHDP has proposed two potential locations for this facility, pictured above: one would be on the field between Biggs and Kinghorn, and another would be between Kinghorn and the current Delta Sigma Phi house, sitting on the Tundra. They clarified that although the perspective may make them look different, the two versions of the same building are the same size. Tom Simmons, Director of Athletics, briefly spoke in favor of having the new facility built on the Tundra. He says the facility will be important on tours of prospective students, and that this location would have a “Dramatic effect” and make a “big difference.” He also likes the idea of projecting that the building “belongs to the students, the faculty, and the staff,” as opposed to merely the Athletic Department. President Baumann said that she has a preference between the two options, but declined to indicate which she would support.

Housing

BHDP recommends a “phased renovation” of residential spaces, saying “the priority needs to be what we call the first year experience.” Aside from the first year housing, BHDP largely approves of ONU’s housing. Architectural mock-ups follow a modern aesthetic, similar to Macintosh or the Engineering building. 

BHDP has also proposed the construction of townhouses for graduate students, staff and faculty. From their earlier survey, the presentation cites that “27% of faculty and staff report a daily commute of 30 minutes or more.” They identified a plot of land across from the South side of campus which is owned by the university as a potential location.

Other Recommendations

BHDP’s survey of students and faculty indicated poor approval for Kinghorn: 29% of students listed Kinghorn in response to the question, “What is your least favorite space on campus?” The next highest scoring location was the Macintosh Center, with only 18%. One way the representatives suggest we address this is by conducting a renovation to Kinghorn. In addition to this, they suggest the construction of a new locker room building, which they highlighted around the bonfire/tennis courts.

A few changes to the roadways on campus are suggested: BHDP recommends the closure of the outer loop of Fraternity Circle, the conversion of West Lehr Avenue (between Stambaugh and the Law building) to a primarily pedestrian route, and the renovation of South Gilbert Street, which runs parallel to Main Street behind Hill, Lehr, and Dukes. To address the loss of parking from the closure of Fraternity Circle, they speculate that the parking lot on the North side of campus next to Kinghorn could be expanded. Further, they recommend increased signage, especially around the corners of campus. They cited examples of several other universities’ entrance signs. In addition, they are recommending charging stations for electric vehicles, and identified the Macintosh visitor lot and the lot behind the Engineering building as potential locations.

Conclusion

After fielding a series of questions from faculty and administrators, the BHDP representatives provided a link to another survey, asking faculty to fill it out to indicate which three of the Master Plan projects they proposed should be the priorities, and to vote on which location the Health and Wellness building should be built in.

Northern Review will do its best to keep the student body updated.