“Master planning” for Irvine Valley College: correspondences

Feb. 2
     [Re our meeting today with architectural firm gkk:] I would like to thank and acknowledge X for attending the meeting.... Also, special thanks go out to Steve R and Lisa DA for advocating on our behalf….

Feb. 3
Dear Colleagues,
     I attended the SPOBDC [Strategic Planning Oversight & Budget Development Committee] meeting February 2nd. Here is my summary.
     First, on communication, transparency, etc. . .
     I think those involved in the decision-making process have heard our concerns and seemed eager to reassure us that the process has been, and would remain, open and transparent….
     Steve R. and Lisa D-A. were rather outspoken in expressing their desire to make sure our needs [in Humanities and Languages] were considered. I might say they even seemed to be leaning towards prioritizing our concerns. XX especially stressed that in the past the Humanities and Languages, and to some degree the Social and Behavioral Sciences, with regard to new buildings, had been screwed over [by Raghu Mathur] time and again for political reasons and that this explains … the cynicism many of us feel regarding the process.
     Brandye [D.] stressed her desire and commitment to communicate clearly what the administration is thinking and doing at each step in the process.
     The new Life Science Building is going to be built. It has been planned, approved, and funded….
The new Fine Arts Buildings is going to be built next. It has been planned and approved for state funding, but the state does not yet have the funds to fund it….
     After those projects are completed, any future buildings for the college will depend on state approval and funding. Such approval of funding is based on a variety of factors that boil down to “do you really need more buildings?” This depends on the factors you would expect—growth, room use, load-capacity ratios, etc.—and is tallied for the college as a whole. Getting approval for any new buildings depends on demonstrating that need as a college, but the building that is actually constructed can be assigned to any unit. So, even if the biggest growth was in School/Department A, that doesn’t mean the new building needs to be assigned to School/Department A if the college feels School/Department B needs it more. This point is crucial for us to understand. Even if we demonstrate that we are the largest unit on campus, projected to experience astronomical growth in the next five years, that doesn’t mean a building will be constructed for our use. It might be that our growth will make it possible for the Beer and Ale Brewing Technology Department to get a new building.
     With the completion of the Life Sciences Building, and the completion of the Fine Arts Building, the college will need to grow significantly before new construction could be justified (i.e., win state approval and funding). This may be further hampered by the fact that the square feet at ATEP [the district's troubled third facility--former Navy property] are now IVC’s….
     [One of the gkk guys guessed that] by 2020 [the college] might qualify for a 33,000 square foot building. This guess was offered in the context of trying to provide some sort of frame for understanding the scale involved in this process. Perhaps that building would be ours, but perhaps it wouldn’t. No priorities, or criteria for establishing such priorities, have yet been set. (See below.)
     I know this might be a bitter pill for some of us to swallow. Since I’ve been here (six years?) we’ve seen a whole list of buildings—PAC, BSTC, CHEM Lab, Life Sciences, and Fine Arts—win support and approval while we, a large, significant school, find ourselves scattered all over campus, facing at least one more decade of life in the [decrepit] A Quad….
     So, the next steps for us. . .
     The next step in the process, underway right now, is for the members of the SPOBDC to develop the criteria by which they will prioritize future development projects. We should put some thought into what we think such criteria should be. While appeals to “fairness” and “productivity” might be influential, I suggest we think more concretely as well in terms of needs (in general) and benefits (for our students)….
     Finally, gkk is supposed to have posted (somewhere online) a “Facilities Assessment.” I can’t find it on the website, but I’ll try to find out when and/or where we can get a look at these. We need to review gkk’s assessment of the buildings we use, especially A Quad buildings, and see if they are correct. (By the way, JE told us that the A Quad was not originally designed for educational use. It was more “storage and store-front” because they weren’t sure the college would make it. I’d never heard that before, but it explains so much.)
     Once the criteria for prioritizing future development are set, it seems the SPOBDC will then work through developing some kind of priority list. I don’t know if the final decisions will be reached by vote, consensus, or fiat, but I’ll try to find out….

Feb. 3
     I rather hope that the Beer and Ale Department gets a building first. I am going to need some [beer] just to swallow the notion that I will have spent 40 years at this institution and will have not seen a Humanities Building. And yes, X, the story about the A quad being built for possible conversion into a small shopping mall is true.
     Thank you for such a complete and concise (considering the complexity) summary….

Feb 8:
     At last Wednesday’s gkk meeting, I brought up the delay in posting comments [on the master planning website] issue. I strongly suggested they post the comments shortly after they’re submitted. They seemed to be receptive to the idea….
     Yes! This is the time to speak up or forever hold our breath. At the next gkk meeting, scheduled for Feb. 16th, the group will create a set of priorities by which the projects will be prioritized….

Feb. 10:
     As I look at the criteria and try to make sense of the categories and listings, it occurs to me that one of the major problems with the college plant for the programs in English is the absence of what I can only term academic logic. In English classes in particular, students are learning and practicing a skill that is fundamental to all other learning. In the text and assignment choices for writing classes in English, instructors endeavor to demonstrate to students this fundamental relationship between writing, reading, and all other academic endeavors. These skills are the groundwork of study and, likewise, of success in study.
     Yet here at IVC, the programs in English—its classrooms and faculty—are dispersed so widely that when students ask where they can find the “English Department,” I have no answer. At the far end of the narrow hallway in A200 where the department co-chairs are crowded into one room? At the back of the Library where the dean’s office may be found at the end of another hallway? On the second floor of B300, still designated the Business and Science Building? This geographical dislocation distorts communication for the faculty. Imagine what it does for students, those who are just learning that the network of academic study in which they are engaged is based on a logic of interrelatedness. Here at IVC, however, that logic is confounded by an irrational landscape.

Feb. 16:
     I know we are all busy, but you might want to go to the Master Plan website and look at the "Projections" presented as the minutes for the February 2nd SPOBDC meeting. Especially note pp. 13-20. There they offer their predictions regarding which departments will grow faster, on average, or slower than the college. I don't know how these figures were generated. For example, they predict ESL will be in decline, while journalism will be an area of rapid growth. [Both predictions are prima facie implausible.]

Feb. 16:
     [At today’s gkk meeting,] Jeff pointed out a mistake. I'll let him tell you about [it] if he wants to….
…The gist of [Glenn’s] suggestions seemed to be aimed at making B100 into the site for the bookstore and some kind of meeting area. B300 would then be a math/engineering building (eventually). Further complications followed. gkk guys scribbled like crazy.
     There IS a Humanities (and Social Sciences?) Building in the Master Plan. It is supposed to sit on top of the A-300 building. "Why do that?" asks Lisa DA, when we've just spent so much money renovating it? Why not build the Humanities and Languages Building on top of the A-400 building"
     Because, they explain, by the time they get to building the H&L Building, the newest and best A-Quad building will be the A-400 building.
     …When Life Sciences vacate A400, they're going to go in there and make an "entirely new building … on the inside." The outside will remain the same. This will include some new offices and several new classrooms designed for class of 25 or 30. By building these classrooms, they can improve the "fill-rate" on our campus which should help to demonstrate to the state our need for a new building and thus hasten the construction of the new H&L building.
     JE also seems to want to get rid of all the portables (thus demonstrating further need for new buildings) and cut the size of the new ATEP building in half (again, to make the numbers work better for us).
     In the meantime, almost everybody seemed to be floating the idea that the next new building might be a "Library Annex" or a "Student Services Annex." A dean seemed to advocate using the Library Annex to house the Writing Center and Reading Lab until the H&L building could be constructed. Everybody seemed on board, until somebody (I forget who) said hey, what if we took A100 "off-line" and rented the space to Kaplan and/or used it for "co-curricular" groups and activities (thus creating more "need" for square footage to help us get a new buidling). Well, then where would the college president and VP's go? The new Student Services Annex.
     …Don’t take any of this too seriously. It all seems up in the air. What seems to be driving the thinking at this moment is how to manipulate space usage on campus in ways that will improve our chances of getting more buildings funded.
     The brightest spot was an unofficial conversation I had with JE. He seems pretty convinced that he can really get this building for us, but it's going to take time….
     NOTHING HAS BEEN DECIDED YET. I think our comments have been heard. I don't know what, if anything, we can do at the moment. We definitely should show up for the informational meeting when it occurs…. –X

Feb. 17:
     X, thank you for writing such a good summary of yesterday's long meeting! … Some further details:
     1. Unlike the previous meeting, yesterday's meeting had A300 Bldg as the future new H&L Bldg. … The Health Sciences are scheduled to move to their new building in approximately two years. While it is probably too soon for our new building, it is likely that we're able to build a new two-story classroom building with Basic Aid funds….
     …[R]ecently, the State, due to its budgetary constraints, put a freeze on new buildings (and hiring for that matter), which means that the Fine Arts Bldg is delayed by two or more years….
     2. The Library Annex was on the last Master Plan and would have probably been built by now if the District hadn't intervened…. I think this is the piece that X was missing. The Library Annex is now back in the picture, which means it will probably be built in the near future using Basic Aid funds. The B100 Bldg was designated as a future Math Bldg on the old list. However, Glenn [Roquemore] suggested that the College would be better served if the bookstore and the "Convocation Center" (or community center) were moved to the B100 Bldg. This project would go forward sooner because the Bookstore would probably finance the bulk of the renovations.… How about Math? The B300 Bldg is the logical future location for Math and Sciences. How about the Centers on the second floor of the B300 Bldg? Glenn suggested moving them to the new Library Annex….
     3. [N]othing has been decided yet. Now is the time for the campus community to be involved in this process. The team seemed very sensitive to our needs and demands. Brandye, in particular, brought up the importance of consulting with faculty a few times. [Some] recommended to Craig that he or Glenn call an all-campus meeting to share the new information and solicit feedback from all employees. March 2nd meeting with gkk will be the final and most crucial meeting. The architects plan to take the prioritization list to the March Board meeting.

Feb. 17:
     [Re the projection of areas of rapid growth:] It turns out, it's pretty-much meaningless. It was generated by a spreadsheet using data … based on the last five years of program growth. The reason journalism looks like a significant growth area is because it went from having zero students to having four … students in a short period of time.
     When it comes to getting state funding and approval for a building, numbers indicating how fast our school is growing mean nothing. The funding and approval depend on the relationship between our WSCH [weekly student contact hours] and the square feet we have as a college.
     If and when they approve an H & L building, they will then go and do a real study of the needs in the school department by department.
     Sorry for the confusion.

Feb. 17
     Thanks for these notes and explanations. Thanks all of you, too, for your comments and suggestions.
     It seems to me that most of the arguments for a new H & L building I've heard so far fall into two categories: (a) [Humanities and Languages] are the biggest program on campus, so why are we being ignored when it comes to allocating resources? (b) we are currently scattered all over campus, a situation that hampers collegiality, stifles communication, and makes it nearly impossible for students to navigate their way around H & L. It seems to me that arguments like (a) don't necessarily make a case for a new building. To make that case we need to clarify why existing classroom facilities do not, or could not be made to, serve our needs. I think this has been an easier case to make for other schools that require special equipment and spaces in order to do what they do. Arguments like (b) (actually only?) make the case for pulling us all back into the A Quad after Life Sciences and Fine Arts vacate those spaces, but I don't see how that necessarily makes a case for a NEW building. My personal view is that the A Quad was not initially designed for instructional purposes and that it's a waste of money to keep using Basic Aid to renovate these buildings a few million dollars at a time. I don't think the administrators buy this argument because they understand that its easier to get $3 million than $30 million out of the board. At least that's the impression I get from just listening to them talk. But if we are eventually going to have to replace these buildings, it just seems smarter to do it now in one large, painful step, and have a building (or two) that really work, than to keep pouring money into them over the next twenty years and then do the expensive, painful thing. That said, there IS a new Humanities and Languages and Social and Behavioral Sciences Building on the Master Plan.

Feb. 19:
     ...I think the position has been that it is desirable to structure the campus around academic groupings: H&L and SS in A Quad. Math and Science in B Quad. PE where they are right now. Fine Arts in a Fine Arts Complex built behind and including the PAC. Library, Student Services, and Administration in the middle. BSTC where it is now. By placing [H&L] in the A Quad (which probably does make some sense) we can't get a new building without making a case for destroying an old one.
     ...I worry ... that the numbers will always make more sense to build other buildings first, so that if our building isn't prioritized it will get built last... [People respond as though I'm insolent when I say this,] so maybe I'm wrong. There is a building on the current Master Plan that is described as a humanities and social science building. It will sit on the current site of A300.
     A400 is slated for some kind of remodel. "It will be a completely new building on the inside," they say, but the same shitty building on the outside (I say).
      ... There has not been any sort of priority list set for any new projects. That is to be determined on March 2nd. As the plan stands now A100, A200, A400, and B100 are meant to be standing to 2030 (and beyond). In addition to the humanities and social science building, the Master Plan calls for a new Student Services/Admin Building, A Soccer Stadium, a big multiple-purpose gym, a swimming pool, another fine arts building (for a total of three, including the PAC), an art gallery (for a total of four fine arts buildings including the PAC), a library annex, and some parking structures (I can't remember if the baseball stadium is still in.
     ... I think everybody is saying there is going to be a building for [H&L or H&L and Social Science], but funding is tight, the economy is bad, etc. We have to consider the needs of the whole campus. Both now and in every projected horizon (2015, 2020, 2025, 2030) humanities and languages has the highest WSCH, but is near the bottom in ASF (assigned square footage). In other words, in terms of the quantity of square feet things are not at all equitable, though, admittedly, PE and Fine Arts need more space to teach their classes. In terms of quality of facilities, if we assume A200 is the shittiest building on campus, and A400 the second shittiest, once again we are the bottom of the list. That said, we certainly can teach in the A Quad. We've been doing it for years....