Capital Planning
After listening to Bob Waddle’s presentation in class about capital planning I’ve learned quite a few things about the facility design and construction process. There are many challenges when it comes to designing a facility and then creating those designs into an actual facility. When you begin the process you must consider all elements such as the overall master plan, academic plans within the college, and the specific plans of each individual department. I believe it to be very difficult to please every one of these different aspects when designing a new facility on a campus. There are a lot of people who want a lot of different things in a new facility and the capital planning team has to try and please as many as they can.
Along with having to try and please all of the different areas you have to consider things like the more specific needs, budgets, hiring firms for construction and having the firms’ complete tasks within a given timeline. All of these components can become major challenges while creating a facility design and then brining that design to life. As Mr. Waddle discussed in class you have to be realistic with your facility design in retrospect to the money that you have to use. You cannot just jump into construction without thoroughly going through the specific needs of the facility and comparing these needs to what it will eventually cost. It can also be a challenge to find the firm that fits your needs, wants and matches the best with your team. Mr. Waddle discussed that if you do not consider how your team and the firm will work together you can end up with a lot of headaches and disagreements along the way.
Although there are many challenges to the design and construction process, there are rewards that come with the hard work. Being able to satisfy the needs of users who have needed the space you have provided for them can be a joyous moment. Watching your facility being used on a daily basis for productive and educational reasons is always a reward for the work that the committees and construction teams put in. Also, if the public is pleased with the new facility along with students and faculty can be a reward for the efforts put into a facility.
When comparing BGSU’s capital plan to other universities it can be a difficult task to see what BGSU can improve upon and what they excel in. Many universities are so different in many ways such as state funding, amount of students in attendance, and size of the campus. Two schools that I chose to compare BGSU’s capital plans are University of Minnesota and Ohio State University. First beginning with Minnesota the differences are subtle. The first very noticeable difference is the information provided for the public. They have an entire web page dedicated to their capital planning. This allows you to view projects that are current and ongoing, in depth information on these projects and a lot of information available for people to educate themselves about all the aspects of capital planning at the university (http://www.cppm.umn.edu/). The other main difference in the universities is that Minnesota has less projects in process than Bowling Green at the moment. Bowling Green has a lot of projects in the construction phase right now, while Minnesota has a few in route and a few soon to happen in the near future.
The other university that I chose is Ohio State. This university is significantly larger than Bowling Green so there are some obvious differences in capital planning that will occur. One of the largest differences in their plans compared to ours is money. Ohio State will have a significantly larger budget than Bowling Green due to the fact that they are a larger university. As of 2009 OSU’s, “facility projects total more than $2.5 billion for the next six years (FY 2011-FY2016), or more than $400 million annually,” (http://www.rpia.ohio-state.edu/committees/senfiscal/docs/09-22-09/BOT%20Capital%20Recommendations.pdf). These numbers exceed Bowling Green’s spending by quite a bit and shows how the different sizes in schools can really affect the funds granted for projects on their campus’.
S.W.O.T.
www.bonjourevents.com
The above website is what I have chosen to do my S.W.O.T. analysis on. The following information is the conclusions I have made about the website.
Strengths
• An array of helpful hints for all kinds of events (weddings, corporate, fund raising, auctions, ect.)
• Easy navigational links to find just what you are looking for from the site
• A seemingly endless amount of tips for each and every event (pages that scroll far down and have 20 or more pages for one type of event)
• Photographs to give the entries flare and make some of the topics a bit more visual/understandable
• Site is created by an event planner with 12 years of experience
• Anyone can share their event planning tips and ideas on the website for other users to have even more resources than just the creator
• Helpful links to other events websites
• More than just tips on how to plan an event. Tips on vendors, templates, event planning books and more
• Can send notes (contact) the creator the of blog and tell her your thoughts on the page
Weaknesses
• Pages can be a bit too long and monotonous for readers to find tips that are useful for them
• A bit of clutter with advertisements on the side of the blog pages
• Design of the blog is a bit bland and uninteresting. The design and color scheme doesn’t really go along with how good the information is
Opportunities
• Linking with other sites gives the opportunity for more viewers/readers
• Large amount of information about more than one topic helps the site stand out from a generic event planning guide
• Constant ability to grow because of readers input. The creator can use others tips to create even more options of information for readers.
• Trends are constantly changing in the industry so information on site is always new and fresh
Threats
• Not the only one of its kind. There are many other blogs/websites that provide tips for event planners
• The world wide web is so large it can be difficult for readers to ever stumble upon the site
• Blogs are a bit of a newer trend to the internet and they’re still a new tool for internet users
• Not necessarily a credible source because anyone can make a blog and put anything they want on it
ADA Scavenger Hunt
Positive Examples of Design Inclusion:
1. Handicap bathrooms in buildings
2. Handicap parking in parking lots all around campus
3. Elevators in buildings
4. Adaptive climbing at the Rock Wall
5. Handicap access to Andrews Pool
6. Handicap shower areas in the SRC locker room
7. Academic assistance in every class for those who may suffer with learning disorders and difficulty with school work
8. Ramps for those in wheelchairs to have access to buildings
9. Free bus shuttle around campus for those who may be injured
10. Braille
Negative Examples of Design Inclusion:
1. Classrooms with limited availability for wheelchair space/desk space
2. On campus living is limited with open doorway space, room space and maneuverability throughout buildings (narrow hallways in Mac)
3. Limited areas for handicap recreation in the SRC (Andrews pool and the rock wall but only on special rental $$)
4. Buildings lacking ramps and doors in easily accessible areas (BA building has one door area with no stairs located in back of the building)
5. Computer labs with areas that are hard to access if in a wheelchair
6. On campus living laundry rooms are difficult for maneuverability and loading/unloading clothes
7. Limited amount of elevators in buildings and can be inconvenient to access
8. Some buildings have narrow hallways which can make travel difficult during heavy traffic times of the day
It was more difficult to find flaws in design inclusion around BG’s campus. I attribute this to the fact that the university not only legally must do its best to provide for everyone, but also because by doing this it improves the image of the university. If the campus did not abide by the ADA requirements they could potentially face severe legal action as discussed in class. It saves them money in the long run also. Instead of having to go back and redesign a facility they just add the ADA features during the design process saving a lot of hassle and lawsuits in the long run.
BGSU’s ADA standards:
http://www.bgsu.edu/downloads/execvp/file40302.pdf
Football’s Silly
Having never been a fan of football or the football at BGSU this was my first time ever near the stadium, which I think for many is not a strange occurrence. In the past three years of being a student at Bowling Green I’ve heard much more about Ohio State football than I have ever heard about our own school. Recent years have brought new renovations and additions to the football stadium to help draw more students and community members in. The most noticeable addition is, of course, the Sebo Center.
Visiting the Sebo Center was quite the eye opening experience. I had both positive and negative feelings after the tour came to an end. One of the things that impressed me most about the facility was how nice it was and how efficient the inner workings of the facility were. As I found out in the tour only certain people have special access to the building and certain rooms in the building. Only certain staff is allowed in specific areas of the entire facility. The frustrating aspect of this is that the majority of students at BGSU will never see the Sebo Center and have no part in the building.
Though many students will not be able to ever use the Sebo Center, it does accommodate well for football players and other athletes on campus. The only issue I find in the Sebo Center is its intense focus on our football team. There are a total of 17 men and women’s sports teams at BGSU and the Sebo Center is mainly glorified for just the football team. This seems unfair to me that other facilities aren’t seeing the same attention. I think the way that BGSU is dealing with this is building another very large and expensive facility (Stroh Center). Instead of trying to condense and save money the school seems to be continually trying to put our sports teams on some sort of pedestal that I just don’t see. Maybe I’m blind to sports glory, but since when did BGSU sports become so epically great?
As I said earlier, I’ve never heard much about BGSU football or many other sports for that matter, but what I’ve consistently heard about year after year is Ohio States football. It’s like Ohio bows down to these kids who can throw balls and tackle each other. Now, I’m not saying it’s not a strategic sport that takes dedication and practice, but come on, they’re still kids too. To focus on the point of why I think many are so infatuated with Ohio State it is because of their stadium or as many call it “The Horseshoe”. This facility is much like going to any professional game. The stadium becomes a whole different world when you enter it, with people everywhere, super fans all the way to rival team fans willing to step foot into the stadium.
Comparing this facility to the Bowling Green stadium is a whole different spectrum. Both of the teams are D1 schools, but they are completely different layouts and personalities. Although I think sports are way too glorified in our society and I could care less about it all, the Sebo Center does a great job and trying to keep up with other schools such as OSU. It adds a good look to the stadium with a sleek, fresh design and quality services for our athletes to succeed at what they do best. The tour was beneficial for the class, but not for my life. I still don’t care for football or sports that become way too intense in the public eye. Sports should be for fun and exercise, not money and glory.
Brooklyn Reflection
There is a lot of controversy over the development plans for the “Atlantic Yards” project in Brooklyn, New York. As discussed in class there is also controversy over how these projects should be financed. These developments, such as the “Atlantic Yards”, are usually being pushed by large corporations and rich moguls like Bruce Ratner.
It is hard to say which financial options are the best for developments. It depends on the area and all of the specific plans for development. Bringing tourism into any area is a good idea. Although it is a difficult process, and you are going to run into unhappy people, the end product tends to benefit the communities. In the class reading “Law- Urban Tourism” these issues of financing are addressed. It is said that, “…many studies have attempted to show that there are benefits from tourism and that any public sector investment can be justified,” (p. 51).
Not every situation is the same, though, as I have stated before. The Brooklyn Case Study delves into the issues of the developers vs. the community. The area that is being developed isn’t necessarily in need of the new sky scrapers, an arena and various shops. In the PBS video viewed in class Candace Carpenter, member of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, discusses how the majority of the community will not be able to achieve the $65,000/year income to meet the affordable housing requirements. The community is upset about the developing because of these issues. Many residents will be displaced from their homes and unable to come back to the area. Though the new developments can potentially bring a lot of revenue, the costs of the project seem to keep going up. “16 Skyscrapers and a $950 million Arena (cost was $636 million at approval in December 2006, but has been reported at $950 million since March 2008) that will cost taxpayers nearly $2 billion, according to independent analysis,” (Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn).
Other issues that are problematic with public financing of these large developments are political “promises”. Developers are quick to list of potential benefits of taxpayers money, but they can’t really make these promises set in stone. A lot of times these are hopes of what will happen, not necessarily what does happen. In the Brooklyn Case it is claimed, “that Atlantic Yards will create 10,000 permanent jobs and 15,000 temporary construction jobs,” (www.nolandgrab.org). However, the facts show that their claims were far off from what is now being estimated. The New York City Economic Development Corporation estimates that instead of 10,000 it will be 2,500 jobs and only 700 of them would be new to NYC (www.nolandgrab.org). The claims that were once made to the community are not going to be successfully followed through by the developers and this is only going to hurt the people.
There are positive perks to development in certain areas. However, if the development is mainly unwanted from community members and development only hurts them, it will not be as positive as expected. The developments may bring tourists to an area, but it will not be welcomed by the community. If there is resentment of tourism by the majority of a community the two will not mix well together. Bad word of mouth will spread about these areas and it will only hurt community members who paid all of the tax money to develop the area. By using public funding developers take a chance with community members. They risk trust, commitment and support from local people who are essentially paying for their projects. It is a difficult topic that literally changes from every single place and project.
