EDITORIAL: Changing the face of campus

Students eed to take an active role in the revamping of dorms and dining halls on campus. But with the upcoming $300 million overhaul of dorms and dining facilities, major change is in the works. At first glance, the University's ambitious decade-long renovation and construction project seems headed in the right direction -- making campus living more community- oriented and diverse while radically changing the eyesore Superblock. Ever since its construction 30 years ago, students and area residents have lamented Superblock, now Hamilton Village, for its aesthetic failings and reputation for being unsocial. Though administrators are not going to tear down the high rises, they have the opportunity to make the most of them. By being creative and listening to many students' views, we hope officials will make more than simple cosmetic changes, such as by redesigning floor layouts and improving lighting in the halls. If officials really want to make the college house program thrive in the next century, their changes to the high rises must be centered around fostering community. In addition, amenities like larger, all-night computer labs and study spaces are a must. The 1,000 extra beds in Superblock may actually help the University create the Hamilton Village they'd like it to be. To keep students from moving off campus, officials will have to offer diverse living environments like apartments, singles and duplexes. Furthermore, the dorms' design will make all the difference in the world. Smaller, dynamic buildings are key to the plan's success, as they could transform the monotony of Superblock into an area with many of University City's rich architectural characteristics. The planned renovation of all dining halls is also an important factor in the success of the college house program in particular and campus living in general. Beyond the communal eating space, dining halls must offer a wide variety of options for students with all kinds of tastes. Though the demolition of Stouffer College House may be necessary for dining and aesthetic purposes, it's important that the house's strong community be preserved. Stouffer has many of the characteristics that administrators cite as key to the college house program. Perhaps because the plan is so comprehensive and far-reaching, it runs the risk of not succeeding as ideas turn into details. But there is much that the University can do in the coming months and years to help ensure that their ideas will work out. The most important task before Penn officials now is to design a long-term system of consultation that takes student and community voices into account. If the renovation and construction initiative gets off on the wrong foot, the entire project could be jeopardized. As students will be the ones who ultimately decide whether the plan succeeds or fails, their needs and ideas should be at the forefront of administrators' minds. Similarly, Penn is at a crossroads with the community, having worked hard in the past few years to prove that it cares about the future of University City. If the University wants to avoid a repeat of the 1970s -- when community members felt bulldozed over by Penn's unilateral expansion decisions -- officials must work hard to ensure that neighborhood leaders are given a voice in the process. In the coming months, we're eager to see how the University goes about planning the renovations. If Penn succeeds in creating a process that takes all its constituents into account, it just may be, as college house head David Brownlee said, "one of the most exciting winters in Penn's history."