NEWS ANALYSIS: Schools to set priorities for new facilities

Department chairs will present all requests to their deans and the provost. Following several months of heightened concern about safety, University President Judith Rodin has refocused attention on her vision of Penn's facilities in the 21st century. In particular, Rodin's proposals have sparked discussion within departments that have complained of inadequate facilities in the past. Some of these departments had been promised better facilities by past administrations. Department chairpersons and individual schools' administrators agree that Rodin's "ambitious" plan would definitely improve their facilities. However, many say they are unsure of Rodin's priorities for the plan. Rodin said the administration will rely on the individual schools to determine their own priorities. The schools' would then devise an "orderly" timetable for the facilities plan, working within its commited funds. "The actual construction part of it -- both geography and just the ability to manage the projects -- may develop, certainly, once funding issues are resolved," Rodin said. Vice President of Facilities Management Art Gravina detailed the method used by the University's 12 schools to prioritize and present their needs to Provost Stanley Chodorow. The department chairpersons formulate their list of needs, which are then prioritized by the school deans. The requests are presented to the provost's office, which checks them against the school's budget. If the individual school is unable to fund the request, the provost determines funding by balancing the need with University resources, Gravina said. Although Gravina outlined a method for keeping departments' needs in order, the current progress of the facilities plan is inconsistent, according to several department chairpersons. They say they are confused about the individual department's role in the facilities master plan. A few departments have already developed plans for new facilities. The new biology complex -- which will include construction of new facilities and renovation and demolition of existing buildings -- will soon provide the department with modern teaching and research space, according to Biology Chairperson Andrew Binns. "Even the stuff renovated in 1978 is falling apart," he added, referring to the current laboratories' lack of space, limited electrical capability and faulty lighting. Binns said the proposed complex will definitely happen, but he is waiting for an already-engaged architecture firm, Ellensweig Associates, to contact him. School of Arts and Sciences Facilities Director Charles Bronk said new facilities for the Psychology Department -- which is in the early stages of its planning process -- is the school's top priority. But plans for the Psychology Department have been detained by debate over the department's future. Before receiving new facilities, it must decide whether to divide into two departments -- cognitive science and neuroscience, according to Rodin. Psychology Chairperson Robert Seyfarth said a new building is still a top priority. And some departments must deal with both inadequate resources and the threat of relocation in the face of other University plans for facilities upgrades. For example, the Music Department -- which has been housed in a "temporary" building for 20 years -- is slated for relocation under phase two of the Institute of Advanced Science and Technology project. Although Rodin said phase two would likely utilize the Music Building and Music Annex, Music Chairperson James Primosch said he was not aware of proposed plans to build a new music facility. School of Engineering and Applied Science Dean Gregory Farrington said phase two will begin "as soon as possible." Although Farrington is confident the Engineering school can raise the funds necessary for IAST, construction cannot move forward without securing future facilities for the Music Department. College Dean Robert Rescorla said there have been no formal proposals for future music facilities. Some faculty members said additional facilities are needed but that further communication is necessary for proposals to succeed. According to City Planning Chairperson Anthony Tomazinas, the facilities overhaul is "feasible," but will only work with "the proper coordination efforts."