COLUMN: Follow through with capital projects

From Yoni Slonim's, "Ink Blots," Fall '97 From Yoni Slonim's, "Ink Blots," Fall '97Everything is bright and shiny on campus -- literally. Lights are beaming. Police are protecting. And students are generally happy. Promised efforts to literally light up the campus have been completed in time for school. Glaring floodlights seem to have their desired effect of increasing visibility around campus and thereby hopefully deterring crime. Besides, nighttime volleyball is no longer just a dream at our esteemed University (no wonder we jumped over Columbia, Cornell and Brown in the rankings). Additionally, an increased police force over move-in weekend definitely made its presence felt. Nothing is more reassuring to new parents and students than a man-in-blue on every corner. This effort was so effective -- or University President Judith Rodin's spin control was so dizzyingly persuasive -- the still unresolved "attack" in the Veterinary School could almost go unnoticed. The increased safety efforts were in response to the disastrous events of last year. Rodin -- after literally getting screamed at by parents and students -- finally woke up to the realities of Penn's campus. What guarantee do we have that these changes will outlast the next "downsizing" effort or restructuring plan. Judging by the past -- not much. While things at Penn seem rosy, a few on-going projects and commitments are being overlooked or happily "forgotten." For instance the relocation of the Music Department, required after construction of the IAST building, has still not been decided upon. If taken as an isolated incident this mistake could be forgiven and even understood. However a trend seems to be developing with the University either overextending itself or glossing over "minor" issues for supposed big gains. Besides the Music Building there are numerous examples over the past few years where the University has begun new projects with a bang but has seemingly lost interest very quickly or probably more to the point when student interest and pressure have waned. For example, in 1995 new elevators were installed in High Rise South with much fanfare. Lynn Horner, the Residential Maintenance director, said in a DP article ("Renovations on tap for elevators," DP, 9/13/95) that all three high rises would have the refurbished elevators by the end of the '96 school year. In an earlier DP article, ("UA proposes Res. Liv. changes," DP, 9/16/94) then-Residential Living Director Gigi Simeone said, "Within three years they should be done." However, this project was never completed as promised. High Rise North elevators were never fixed as promised. This whole story can be traced back to 1994 when the Undergraduate Assembly did its job by exerting pressure on the University on the student's behalf. Upperclassmen living in the high rises were becoming frustrated with the elevators. The long wait for elevators and their penchant for breaking down finally became too much. As one of the elevator repairmen explained, ("Renovations on tap for elevators," DP, 9/13/95) the "speed and number of elevators is insufficient for a 25-story building." During that initial push, then-UA Treasurer Sabrina Gottlieb happily exclaimed, "The UA is working for the students," ("UA proposes Res. Liv. changes," DP, 9/16/94). "They wanted elevators, we got them elevators." Unfortunately, through no fault of her own, Gottlieb got a little ahead of herself After the group of students who pushed for this elevator "amenity" graduated from Penn, the project seemed to join them on the unemployment line. The elevators in two of the three high rises were fixed while High Rise North was put on hold. Some explanation was given for this pause in a ("Most high rise elevators work," DP, 1/20/97). According to Larry Moneta, the Associate Vice Provost for University Life, the refurbishing plan for High Rise North was being put on hold until the release of the Biddison Hier report on facilities and residences. However that report has come and gone and where are the elevators? While this unfulfilled promise does not beg to be a rallying cry for the student body it is revealing in its nature. The paltry estimated budget for the elevator project was $2.25 million while the highly touted Sansom Common project is projected to cost over $45 million. It would seem logical if the University were truly scaling back on projects deemed too costly they would not embark on such a hugely expensive lengthy commitment. Where would the sense be in that? The sense is Sansom Common will make money for the school while elevators, though requested and needed by the current student body, will not. While these two projects are not directly connected, they demonstrate a trend in lack of foresight by the University. Clearly, Penn started something and jumped ship mid-voyage to board a flashier boat. A similar example is currently taking place with the way-over-hyped PennCards. Though promised to do everything but tie your shoes the cards are not performing their most basic and important function as a security device. There are numerous complaints of the card readers not being able to read the cards and thereby forcing security guards to let in almost everyone into residential housing. Even worse, many cards are already shredded because the card's plastic coating was nonexistent. It seems the University, while inflating the advantages of this new technology, did not do enough quality-control testing. Instead of taking its time and doing things right the first time it looks like much repair work will need to be done. Will having to fix the bad Penn cards be so terrible? Is it such a big deal that the elevators were not put in all the high rises yet? Will the University not find a new site for the Music Department? The answer to all of these and similar questions is probably no. However, is it not troubling that bigger "deals" such as the Perelman Quadrangle and Sansom Common won't be as easy to fix if unforeseen problems arise? Are we rushing in with toes of excitement without our heels grounded in reason? Put simply, if Penn can't get the small things right why should its supporters, students and alumni, trust it with the big things? After a few very alarming safety issues were unfortunately raised last year, Penn has responded. Here is hoping that these increased precautions are similarly not just a passing fancy.