Future Of MSF Discussion

[DFW HOYA]

Sept 16, 2014 0:36:49 GMT -5 Problem of Dog said:

You can blame it on the facilities all you want, but I wouldn't say many recruits were lost simply because we didn't have a nicer stadium, unless you imagine that said stadium would have a new weightroom, new meeting rooms, new locker rooms, et al. And that's a lot more than anyone realistically expected from the MSF. So I think a lot of DFW's frustration is misguided.

Perhaps, but each of the items mentioned - weight room, meeting rooms, locker rooms - were at one time or another promoted within the MSF fundraising.

[DoctorHoya]

Sept 16, 2014 6:30:25 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Sept 16, 2014 0:36:49 GMT -5 Problem of Dog said:

You can blame it on the facilities all you want, but I wouldn't say many recruits were lost simply because we didn't have a nicer stadium, unless you imagine that said stadium would have a new weightroom, new meeting rooms, new locker rooms, et al. And that's a lot more than anyone realistically expected from the MSF. So I think a lot of DFW's frustration is misguided.

Perhaps, but each of the items mentioned - weight room, meeting rooms, locker rooms - were at one time or another promoted within the MSF fundraising.

And now they will have them (weight rooms, etc) inside the TAC. Not to mention, space may be repurposed once offices are moved from McDonough if football doesn't have any of it's own private space in the TAC.

[aleutianhoya]

One other factor: the senior athletic administration turned over at least five times during the planning and fundraising process for the facility (Lang, Brick, Porterfield, and then our two most recent ADs). No doubt priorities at the top of the Athletic Administration changed. It's hard to step back to 50,000 feet and say "it's wrong to build a basketball training facility that will benefit other teams directly and indirectly before we build a football facility." Obviously, the fact that he football facility had already been promised, planned for, and actually begun to be phased in complicates that. But you can understand the thinking by an administrator that wouldn't feel wedded to what had been promised in the past.

Moving forward, I think what makes the most sense institutionally is to see exactly what gets built within the IAC. We all know from the MSF that what is planned is not always what is built. Then, the AD can analyze what its needs are programatically moving forward and how those are best accomplished -- a partial renovation of the space within McDonough (i.e., maybe space can be altered for better use) or the construction of some sort of additional new facility with new space (e.g., something attached to a completed MSF). With that accomplished, I think you can then move to finish the MSF. My guess is that there would be no programatic building attached to it at all and it will simply be a nice-looking holder of seats.

We can all argue that "finishing" just the seating aspect of it could have been done long ago or could be done now, but I don't think it's crazy for the school to wait and see how things look after the new building comes on line.

In any event, we can all stipulate that this was handled incredibly poorly. If nothing else, the school certainly could have easily developed some sort of squishy party line like: "Georgetown remains committed to constructing a first-class place for our football (and other teams) to practice and play. As fundraising continues toward completion of the IAC, our planning will again turn toward completion of the MSF, consistent with our programmatic needs."

[RusskyHoya]

Sept 16, 2014 8:32:36 GMT -5 aleutianhoya said:

One other factor: the senior athletic administration turned over at least five times during the planning and fundraising process for the facility (Lang, Brick, Porterfield, and then our two most recent ADs).

There has only been one AD after Porterfield's interregnum - the current AD, Lee E. "EEE" Reed. Ok, that's not actually his nickname.

Sept 16, 2014 8:32:36 GMT -5 aleutianhoya said:

Moving forward, I think what makes the most sense institutionally is to see exactly what gets built within the IAC. We all know from the MSF that what is planned is not always what is built.

Err... that's not quite how that works. In order to get Old Georgetown Board final approval, you have to submit very detailed blueprints. So, yes, we know exactly what will be built. You can find the blueprints online, IIRC.

That the MSF went through several redesigns and got broken up into phases, including a completed turf and bare-bones stands phase, doesn't mean that we 'didn't know' what was going to get built.

[aleutianhoya]

Sept 16, 2014 10:46:19 GMT -5 RusskyHoya said:

Sept 16, 2014 8:32:36 GMT -5 aleutianhoya said:

One other factor: the senior athletic administration turned over at least five times during the planning and fundraising process for the facility (Lang, Brick, Porterfield, and then our two most recent ADs).

There has only been one AD after Porterfield's interregnum - the current AD, Lee E. "EEE" Reed. Ok, that's not actually his nickname.

Sept 16, 2014 8:32:36 GMT -5 aleutianhoya said:

Moving forward, I think what makes the most sense institutionally is to see exactly what gets built within the IAC. We all know from the MSF that what is planned is not always what is built.

Err... that's not quite how that works. In order to get Old Georgetown Board final approval, you have to submit very detailed blueprints. So, yes, we know exactly what will be built. You can find the blueprints online, IIRC.

That the MSF went through several redesigns and got broken up into phases, including a completed turf and bare-bones stands phase, doesn't mean that we 'didn't know' what was going to get built.

I no longer recall if Porterfield pre-dated or post-dated Bernard Muir (I guess he post-dated him, per your post), so forgive me if I got the order wrong, but Muir was the fifth AD to which I was referring. My point still stands.

As for the MSF, I wasn't necessarily referring to the possibility that the IAC may not get built in the same way as proposed on the blueprints (although fundraising realities in the 80s and early 90s caused changes to new projects and re-designs when projects already had begun). Rather, I simply meant that once things are built and lived-in for a time, you often find that you still have needds you expected the space to fill (or the space solves even more problems than you thought it would). Thus, whereas we weren't planning on building an IAC at the time we planned the MSF (in any of its several redesigns), I think it makes sense to actually build the IAC, see where we are, and make an intelligent decision from there on what to include in the MSF.

[RusskyHoya]

Fair enough; obviously, it is always important to continually reassess your needs, physical assets, etc. Timelines being what they are, though, it is also important to be able to project things out in time. Knowing exactly how the TAC will be programmed helps with that.

Moreover, the rule of thumb at Georgetown has always been: there's no such thing as overbuilding. Any excess capacity that is constructed will very quickly be filled.

From that perspective, there's not much of a need to wait and see how the TAC shakes out. Just build the best facility you think you can afford; leave space for future enhancements, if possible. Anything 'extra' won't be extra for long.

[thebin]

DFW- where did you get the pic you captioned "What was deemed affordable in 2007" of the MSF renderings on the front page? I've never seen this one, at least not this angle.

[aleutianhoya]

Just looking at the pic again, bin, and it's just incomprehensible to me why the school can't make that picture happen -- even if it's without the actual building that's on the right side (west side) of the picture, at least to start.

I mean, all that really is is permanent seats with a nice looking (but still fairly basic and less nice than originally envisioned) fence surrounding the field. It'd still be severely substandard, but at least it wouldn't look embarrassing. And as for cost, there's plenty of public parks that have that set-up. How much could it be?

[thebin]

Isn't the fence already in? I sure hope they don't nix the press box/vip suites because that is really the only thing making this a stadium rather.

[DFW HOYA]

May 1, 2015 8:49:27 GMT -5 thebin said:

DFW- where did you get the pic you captioned "What was deemed affordable in 2007" of the MSF renderings on the front page? I've never seen this one, at least not this angle.

Georgetown has taken down almost all MSF drawings from its web site (even those in the archives).Thanks to Google, the architecture firm did not.

As to the fence, the only side of the field with the actual fence seen in the plans is 160 ft. of fencing on the south side facing the SW Quad. The other three sides are bounded by a chain link fence put up in 2005.

[RusskyHoya]

May 1, 2015 9:02:05 GMT -5 aleutianhoya said:

Just looking at the pic again, bin, and it's just incomprehensible to me why the school can't make that picture happen -- even if it's without the actual building that's on the right side (west side) of the picture, at least to start.

I mean, all that really is is permanent seats with a nice looking (but still fairly basic and less nice than originally envisioned) fence surrounding the field. It'd still be severely substandard, but at least it wouldn't look embarrassing. And as for cost, there's plenty of public parks that have that set-up. How much could it be?

A couple of things to consider as we try to grapple with that:

1. The level of on-campus disruption due to construction is probably at an all-time high, as several key pedestrian routes are constrained or closed by construction.

2. Many students are aggrieved by this construction and especially by the perception that this construction and disruption is occurring not for their benefit, but due to the whims of out-of-touch old fogeys (neighbors, administrators, etc.).

3. Many students also feel that new construction represents an intolerable opportunity cost, and that new construction should be suspended until the University catches up on its deferred maintenance, particularly with respect to student housing.

4. The MSF fiasco was a primary driver of the move to a more standardized and deliberate capital project approval process, one that would preclude the Board of Directors giving 'approval' to build a project that was not on firm financial footing.

5. The 2010 Campus Plan fiasco was the primary driver of the move to a more comprehensive and deliberate master planning process. Major construction projects are no longer to be tackled in an ad hoc, disconnected, 'stacks on deck... you could have whatever you like' manner.

6. The backlog of projects demanded by the 2010-2017 Campus Plan has required prioritizing those, and the added complication of MSF construction would likely interfere with the quickest possible completion of those projects.

7. The deliberation introduced by the new master planning process also means that the University is less likely to settle in its green-lighting of projects. The 'what is currently affordable' option is likely to be passed on until it aligns with an option that checks many additional boxes.

Put it all together (and there's probably some others that I've overlooking), and you've got a recipe for no quick action or half measures. It'll be tackled eventually, and it should be in a much more holistic and integrated way. In the long run, that's probably a good thing.

[kchoya]

May 1, 2015 19:44:06 GMT -5 RusskyHoya said:

May 1, 2015 9:02:05 GMT -5 aleutianhoya said:

Just looking at the pic again, bin, and it's just incomprehensible to me why the school can't make that picture happen -- even if it's without the actual building that's on the right side (west side) of the picture, at least to start.

I mean, all that really is is permanent seats with a nice looking (but still fairly basic and less nice than originally envisioned) fence surrounding the field. It'd still be severely substandard, but at least it wouldn't look embarrassing. And as for cost, there's plenty of public parks that have that set-up. How much could it be?

A couple of things to consider as we try to grapple with that:

1. The level of on-campus disruption due to construction is probably at an all-time high, as several key pedestrian routes are constrained or closed by construction.

2. Many students are aggrieved by this construction and especially by the perception that this construction and disruption is occurring not for their benefit, but due to the whims of out-of-touch old fogeys (neighbors, administrators, etc.).

3. Many students also feel that new construction represents an intolerable opportunity cost, and that new construction should be suspended until the University catches up on its deferred maintenance, particularly with respect to student housing.

4. The MSF fiasco was a primary driver of the move to a more standardized and deliberate capital project approval process, one that would preclude the Board of Directors giving 'approval' to build a project that was not on firm financial footing.

5. The 2010 Campus Plan fiasco was the primary driver of the move to a more comprehensive and deliberate master planning process. Major construction projects are no longer to be tackled in an ad hoc, disconnected, 'stacks on deck... you could have whatever you like' manner.

6. The backlog of projects demanded by the 2010-2017 Campus Plan has required prioritizing those, and the added complication of MSF construction would likely interfere with the quickest possible completion of those projects.

7. The deliberation introduced by the new master planning process also means that the University is less likely to settle in its green-lighting of projects. The 'what is currently affordable' option is likely to be passed on until it aligns with an option that checks many additional boxes.

Put it all together (and there's probably some others that I've overlooking), and you've got a recipe for no quick action or half measures. It'll be tackled eventually, and it should be in a much more holistic and integrated way. In the long run, that's probably a good thing.

Students are aggrieved? Try going to a big state school and see how long it takes you to get across campus.

[aleutianhoya]

May 1, 2015 19:44:06 GMT -5 RusskyHoya said:

May 1, 2015 9:02:05 GMT -5 aleutianhoya said:

Just looking at the pic again, bin, and it's just incomprehensible to me why the school can't make that picture happen -- even if it's without the actual building that's on the right side (west side) of the picture, at least to start.

I mean, all that really is is permanent seats with a nice looking (but still fairly basic and less nice than originally envisioned) fence surrounding the field. It'd still be severely substandard, but at least it wouldn't look embarrassing. And as for cost, there's plenty of public parks that have that set-up. How much could it be?

A couple of things to consider as we try to grapple with that:

1. The level of on-campus disruption due to construction is probably at an all-time high, as several key pedestrian routes are constrained or closed by construction.

2. Many students are aggrieved by this construction and especially by the perception that this construction and disruption is occurring not for their benefit, but due to the whims of out-of-touch old fogeys (neighbors, administrators, etc.).

3. Many students also feel that new construction represents an intolerable opportunity cost, and that new construction should be suspended until the University catches up on its deferred maintenance, particularly with respect to student housing.

4. The MSF fiasco was a primary driver of the move to a more standardized and deliberate capital project approval process, one that would preclude the Board of Directors giving 'approval' to build a project that was not on firm financial footing.

5. The 2010 Campus Plan fiasco was the primary driver of the move to a more comprehensive and deliberate master planning process. Major construction projects are no longer to be tackled in an ad hoc, disconnected, 'stacks on deck... you could have whatever you like' manner.

6. The backlog of projects demanded by the 2010-2017 Campus Plan has required prioritizing those, and the added complication of MSF construction would likely interfere with the quickest possible completion of those projects.

7. The deliberation introduced by the new master planning process also means that the University is less likely to settle in its green-lighting of projects. The 'what is currently affordable' option is likely to be passed on until it aligns with an option that checks many additional boxes.

Put it all together (and there's probably some others that I've overlooking), and you've got a recipe for no quick action or half measures. It'll be tackled eventually, and it should be in a much more holistic and integrated way. In the long run, that's probably a good thing.

I think having procedures in place to plan university projects in a centralized and financially responsible way is important and essential. I also think this period of construction has been interminable and disruptive, so I understand that viewpoint.

Still, all we are talking about here is pouring some concrete (with minimal or no digging) with some essentially pre fabricated bleachers on top. Oh, and a fence and maybe a scoreboard. I think it would be quick, non-disruptive, and almost assuredly affordable with money already in hand. Smart people can easily figure out how to do it in such a way so as not to disrupt whatever the future building plan may be for that space. Thus, the ad hoc need not stand in the way of the permanent.

I understand the desire to avoid ad hoc remedies, but this situation is different for several reasons:

(1) the space is an eyesore and an embarrassment.
(2) donors have already given money to solve those problems.
(3) solving those problems is both easy and wouldn't interfere meaningfully with other projects

Finally, a carefully planned staged project isn't temporary or ad hoc at all. It is a thoughtful and flexible solution to the most enduring symbol of university ineptitude, intransigence, and insularity of the past quarter century. At a minimum, if the "plan" is to wait until other projects are done and/or to wait until more money is raised for a more complete project, then announce that. Now.

[aleutianhoya]

May 2, 2015 7:11:26 GMT -5 aleutianhoya said:

May 1, 2015 19:44:06 GMT -5 RusskyHoya said:

A couple of things to consider as we try to grapple with that:

1. The level of on-campus disruption due to construction is probably at an all-time high, as several key pedestrian routes are constrained or closed by construction.

2. Many students are aggrieved by this construction and especially by the perception that this construction and disruption is occurring not for their benefit, but due to the whims of out-of-touch old fogeys (neighbors, administrators, etc.).

3. Many students also feel that new construction represents an intolerable opportunity cost, and that new construction should be suspended until the University catches up on its deferred maintenance, particularly with respect to student housing.

4. The MSF fiasco was a primary driver of the move to a more standardized and deliberate capital project approval process, one that would preclude the Board of Directors giving 'approval' to build a project that was not on firm financial footing.

5. The 2010 Campus Plan fiasco was the primary driver of the move to a more comprehensive and deliberate master planning process. Major construction projects are no longer to be tackled in an ad hoc, disconnected, 'stacks on deck... you could have whatever you like' manner.

6. The backlog of projects demanded by the 2010-2017 Campus Plan has required prioritizing those, and the added complication of MSF construction would likely interfere with the quickest possible completion of those projects.

7. The deliberation introduced by the new master planning process also means that the University is less likely to settle in its green-lighting of projects. The 'what is currently affordable' option is likely to be passed on until it aligns with an option that checks many additional boxes.

Put it all together (and there's probably some others that I've overlooking), and you've got a recipe for no quick action or half measures. It'll be tackled eventually, and it should be in a much more holistic and integrated way. In the long run, that's probably a good thing.

I think having procedures in place to plan university projects in a centralized and financially responsible way is important and essential. I also think this period of construction has been interminable and disruptive, so I understand that viewpoint.

Still, all we are talking about here is pouring some concrete (with minimal or no digging) with some essentially pre fabricated bleachers on top. Oh, and a fence and maybe a scoreboard. I think it would be quick, non-disruptive, and almost assuredly affordable with money already in hand. Smart people can easily figure out how to do it in such a way so as not to disrupt whatever the future building plan may be for that space. Thus, the ad hoc need not stand in the way of the permanent.

I understand the desire to avoid ad hoc remedies, but this situation is different for several reasons:

(1) the space is an eyesore and an embarrassment.
(2) donors have already given money to solve those problems.
(3) solving those problems is both easy and wouldn't interfere meaningfully with other projects

This is not an athletics problem. I played a sport that didn't use that space and was a student twenty years ago. None of my friends played a sport at all. Literally all of them (and me) think that space is an embarrassment and indicative of an incompetent university administration.

Finally, a carefully planned staged project isn't temporary or ad hoc at all. It is a thoughtful and flexible solution to the most enduring symbol of university ineptitude, intransigence, and insularity of the past quarter century. At a minimum, if the "plan" is to wait until other projects are done and/or to wait until more money is raised for a more complete project, then announce that. Now. We look incompetent, but if we really are increasing our core competencies, then we have to let people know. Again, now.

[RusskyHoya]

Yea, I mean, I certainly don't disagree with the criticisms of the opacity and lack of communication surrounding this effort, aleutianhoya. I've made that point repeatedly, but the spirit of communicativeness that has arisen among the campus master planning folks for the most part does not extend to either McDonough or Advancement.

Having said that, I walked into the Planning 302 session last week half an hour late, just in time to catch the tail end of what appeared to be a conversation on the "student life corridor," which included a built out MSF of some sort. If and when they post the slides, we can have at it.

In DC, even some basic pouring of concrete and assembling of tasteful fence is a multimillion dollar endeavor. A phased approach is possible, but it would require a full-scale planning out of each phase; planning of this sort does not come cheap either. The MSF is also oversubscribed throughout the school year and gets significant use over the summer. Taking it offline for any length of time carries its own costs.

At the end of the day, I feel like if there were some magic, low-cost, low-impact, interim solution that could be readily implemented and bring the facility up to "not horrendously embarrassing" status, it would have been implemented. The fact that no such solution has emerged tells me that it's not that easy. Students have issued the same complaints about renovating Henle and Village B - how can it possibly take years to figure out how to renovate a bunch of rooms? It looks simple on the surface, but as is often the case, the devil is in the details.

One other thing to keep in mind: with the blueprints of the Thompson Athletic Center locked in, the AD now has to plan for the renovation of McDonough, which will itself be a complicated, phased process. Plotting out the future uses of space within McDonough will require identifying what needs are expected to be filled elsewhere, whether over the short or long-term. In other words, if you believe that the MSF will contain football locker facilities, then you will probably go about the plan for McDonough differently than if you assume that it will not.

I don't know what the McDonough renovation planning timeline looks like, but I do think that an ultimate determination regarding the MSF's intended configuration is dependent on the conclusion and acceptance of that process.

[DFW HOYA]

May 3, 2015 13:37:56 GMT -5 RusskyHoya said:

I don't know what the McDonough renovation planning timeline looks like, but I do think that an ultimate determination regarding the MSF's intended configuration is dependent on the conclusion and acceptance of that process.

Except the McD renovation is as many as 10-15 years away and the MSF can't wait that long.

Why? Consider that...

1. The Thompson Center is not even close to being fully funded. Athletic Development now has to call in even more donors to pay the bills and avoid the debt financing that the University will not cover. Departments covering debt financing are what got Maryland into its mess, and there are no conferences waiting to throw a lifeline for Georgetown.

2. The next big athletic project on the horizon is the Yates decision: renovate, rebuild, raze, or reposition elsewhere on campus (e.g., smaller fitness centers). The idea of a true multi-sport intramural facility was ahead of its time for the 1970's but was doomed by the architecture firm which was brought in on the project, but is it the design for the next 50 years? No. But it's not an Athletics project anymore and Student Affairs (who owns Yates) can't fund what could easily be a $80-100 million project by 2020. And by then, cue the inquisitive HOYA reporter who asks "So why can't all students use the Thompson Center?"

3. Once the men's and women's teams move practices out of McDonough, what will the main gymnasium area be used for?

• Orientation/Graduation Week
• Women's volleyball games
• Women's basketball games
• Kenner League

But that's about it. There will be interest in retro-fitting the floor or dropping some artificial turf atop the hardwood to use it for other sports, but is it worth it to move the volleyball team (drawing just over 200 per match) or even women's basketball (down to 571 a game) so that track or baseball has an indoor option? Probably not. In reality, McD renocation is dependent on whether it serves as the de facto intramural facility while Yates is renovated, rebuilt, etc.

3. One could make a rational "academic" argument that there are a dozen projects ahead of MSF: Lauinger Annex, Harbin II, a White-Gravenor refurb, a permanent home for McCourt, Leavey repurpose/hotel expansion, the rebuild on the Poulton corner, what to do with the the med center, ad nauseum. But this is the only approved project in the pipeline that was started, BZA and OGB approved and NEVER completed. In the years since the 2004 vote, we have seen the shovels move for the Davis Center, the Darnall Hall/Epicurean refurb, Hariri, Regents, the Dahlgren refurb, Georgetown Downtown, the Healey Family Student Center, the Calcagnini Contemplative Center, the Thompson Center, the Ryan-Mulledy refurb, and the Northeast Triangle. Why not the MSF?

Shaw Field got things done and why? Because it is no longer under the premise that it is a placeholder, like "North Kehoe". The MSF is a placeholder in every sense of the word.

[RusskyHoya]

Ummm... so, this is a difficult conversation to have, because we appear to have very different understandings of the facts at hand. Now that I'm not longer in the University's employ, I'm no longer fully confident in my own understanding, although I do believe that my contacts would set me straight if I were totally going off the rails...

May 3, 2015 19:45:19 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Except the McD renovation is as many as 10-15 years away and the MSF can't wait that long.

Do you have a source for that timeline? I've never gotten any indication that it is that far away.

May 3, 2015 19:45:19 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

1. The Thompson Center is not even close to being fully funded. Athletic Development now has to call in even more donors to pay the bills and avoid the debt financing that the University will not cover. Departments covering debt financing are what got Maryland into its mess, and there are no conferences waiting to throw a lifeline for Georgetown.

My understanding is that the funding stream for the TAC passes all the checks. I don't know the exact percentages of in-hand/committed/forecast, but the overall picture is supposed to be such that the chances of anyone being left holding the bag are minimal.

As an identified and announced priority of the Campaign, the chances of the AD being stuck with debt financing should be zero.

May 3, 2015 19:45:19 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

2. The next big athletic project on the horizon is the Yates decision: renovate, rebuild, raze, or reposition elsewhere on campus (e.g., smaller fitness centers). The idea of a true multi-sport intramural facility was ahead of its time for the 1970's but was doomed by the architecture firm which was brought in on the project, but is it the design for the next 50 years? No. But it's not an Athletics project anymore and Student Affairs (who owns Yates) can't fund what could easily be a $80-100 million project by 2020. And by then, cue the inquisitive HOYA reporter who asks "So why can't all students use the Thompson Center?"

Erm... Where are you getting the idea that it's on Student Affairs to fundraise the entirety of the cost of Yates by itself? That's not how University priority projects get fundraised and built. It's not like the science faculty got Regents funded and built all by their lonesome.

The early favorite for the long term appears to be rebuilding Yates - or, rather, a non-irrational student rec center - on top of the current Shaw Field footprint. Soccer and track then go where Yates is now.

May 3, 2015 19:45:19 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

3. Once the men's and women's teams move practices out of McDonough, what will the main gymnasium area be used for?

• Orientation/Graduation Week
• Women's volleyball games
• Women's basketball games
• Kenner League

But that's about it. There will be interest in retro-fitting the floor or dropping some artificial turf atop the hardwood to use it for other sports, but is it worth it to move the volleyball team (drawing just over 200 per match) or even women's basketball (down to 571 a game) so that track or baseball has an indoor option? Probably not. In reality, McD renocation is dependent on whether it serves as the de facto intramural facility while Yates is renovated, rebuilt, etc.

It has always been understood that the 'New Yates' would have to be online first before the old Yates could be decompressioned. There is no possibility of McDonough serving as an interim student recreational facility.

May 3, 2015 19:45:19 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

3. One could make a rational "academic" argument that there are a dozen projects ahead of MSF: Lauinger Annex, Harbin II, a White-Gravenor refurb, a permanent home for McCourt, Leavey repurpose/hotel expansion, the rebuild on the Poulton corner, what to do with the the med center, ad nauseum. But this is the only approved project in the pipeline that was started, BZA and OGB approved and NEVER completed. In the years since the 2004 vote, we have seen the shovels move for the Davis Center, the Darnall Hall/Epicurean refurb, Hariri, Regents, the Dahlgren refurb, Georgetown Downtown, the Healey Family Student Center, the Calcagnini Contemplative Center, the Thompson Center, the Ryan-Mulledy refurb, and the Northeast Triangle. Why not the MSF?

Priorities?

I mean, that's the answer, isn't it? I feel like we've dissected the history many times over by this point. Some of those projects were Campus Plan requirements, others had hard-charging standard-bearers who were willing to take on projects already on the University wish list. The MSF is not a high University priority, and it has no high-powered or well-monied champion.

If Dave Urick were 20 years younger, things might've been different, but...

May 3, 2015 19:45:19 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Shaw Field got things done and why? Because it is no longer under the premise that it is a placeholder, like "North Kehoe". The MSF is a placeholder in every sense of the word.

Well... sort of. Shaw Field kind of *is* a placeholder, right? I mean, we're openly talking about excavating it, and several stories' worth of dirt underneath it, and building a new student recreation center in its place. The soccer team would be exiled for at least a season and maybe more in such a scenario. Earlier (perhaps not entirely dead?) discussions had the University swapping the site to MedStar in exchange for Lot A or some other preferred location.

Regardless, the current MSF is indeed a placeholder - for the future MSF. I have never seen any plans, suggestions, propositions, etc. that have anything on that site other than some sort of realized football/lacrosse stadium.

[reformation]

The MSF debacle is not unique, the boathouse was essentially resigned to the same fate. Univ administrators blame external forces, which obviously successfully opposed it, but blundered early on in the project which allowed opposing forces to get the upper hand.

As far as the MSF, It seems that one has to make a case that it is crucial to more than football. In this sense I think the poster above is correct that the performance of the team is part of that calculus.. The same goes with upgrading the program with scholarships(though I'm not sure what the real incremental cost of scholarships is as one would have to net the existing fin aid cost vs the incremental scholarship amt).

Looking at this from a bigger picture it would seem hard to justify putting 60 scholarships against a sport which competes at a 1-AA level. I would think that one could easily argue that we'd be better off allocating scholarships to sports first where we are or could compete at a top national level. Gtwn often does not look at things very strategically and this is certainly the case with the current allocation of athletic scholarships. Sprinkling a few scholarships around to subpar programs like baseball, volleyball, softball which aspire to be mediocre makes no sense. Pick a few additional sports that we really want and "can" be good at and concentrate the resources there.

The case for really supporting football at the 1-AA level vs other sports at a national level would have to be that the sport is uniquely tied to the university's identity in a way that other sports are not.
I suspect that when we started playing the ivies this type of aspirational thinking prevailed when the MSF was launched. I would guess that the sr admin at least have second thoughts or no longer believe that is true, but will never admit it. Therefore the program, project , and other programs languish.

[thebin]

Who are the jagoffs that didnt want that beautiful boathouse built and why were their panties in a bunch exactly? Its not like that land is useful for another purpose or that anyone thinks boathouses are a blight on a river landscape.

Officially dead in the water as in cancelled? Or just whither on the vine dead like msf?

In a country smothered with strip malls, chain link fences and forests of billboard signs along our heavily littered and crumbling highways, I'm annoyed how much power some have to prevent people improving their own damn property. Land of the free indeed.

[DFW HOYA]

May 10, 2015 8:26:21 GMT -5 thebin said:

Who are the jagoffs that didnt want that beautiful boathouse built and why were their panties in a bunch exactly? Its not like that land is useful for another purpose or that anyone thinks boathouses are a blight on a river landscape.

www.cctrail.org/boathousefeasibility.html