Miami University's new plans for the Bicentennial Student Center (BSC) offer a decreased cost estimate of $77.7 million. These new plans call for the incorporation, rather than the destruction of Gaskill, Culler and Rowan halls. The editorial board of The Miami Student commends the university for utilizing its existing infrastructure to reduce the costs of the BSC but pushes the university to keep the planning process dynamic by searching for other ways to limit expenses and solicit student opinions.
Every brick we recycle represents a savings. By using the three buildings, which were originally going to be demolished, the university can not only cue nostalgia of the old Miami/new Miami sort, but more practically use the structures in the construction of the BSC. Even so, the price is high and anytime there is such a large price tag there are questions.
While we recognize the estimate represents a decrease in projected cost, we diverge with the university in our interpretation of the savings. Miami has said this plan saves about $40 million. However, the university's original plans priced the BSC at $89.6 million ("MU trustees approve student center plans," April 29, 2008). The larger figure of $120.4 million the university is using in its savings calculation was the estimate of the original architect. Since the estimate was so much above the university's own, we now have a new architect with a new plan that has a lower estimated cost. The savings are still significant (almost $12 million), just not as great as the university is trying to present. Still, they are based on hypothetical projections anyway. Costs may rise with construction. Thus, we highly encourage the university to not settle and to continue searching for ways to save money.
Miami is already the most expensive public university in Ohio. The new plans would increase student general fees, which are currently around $861 per semester, by $41 to $163. Students should not shoulder an increased fee though until they can use the facility. So, it is appropriate that the increase in fees will not take place until after phase I is complete. As the university continues the process, it should actively seek input from students, at the very least through Associate Student Government (ASG), which is intended to act as the voice of the student body. The university must find a way to demonstrate it is listening to student requests and concerns. The $20,000-survey ASG plans to conduct regarding what students want to see in a student center and how much they are willing to pay will be a source of student opinion. Just because the university already has plans drawn up, it should be willing to adjust plans to serve student needs and reduce cost.
Because the BSC carries "bicentennial" in its name, there is an understandable push to construct it relatively close to Miami's bicentennial year of 2009. However, the university must resist the temptation to rush the process. It would be poor judgment to ignore small areas of savings now only to watch costs get pushed up later due to poor planning. Currently, there are no plans to deal with parking for the BSC. Perhaps the university could reconfigure the parking garage system to construct underground parking. Even if the chosen solution is nothing elaborate, the university should not ignore the problem completely.
Miami does need a new student center; we have no argument on that point. But it certainly matters how the university goes about the process of planning for one. As the university moves forward it must do so cautiously and not be content with its plans, but constantly search for ways to limit expenses.
