I. Does Smith College Need a Campus Center?
II. Specific Facilities and Services
III. Task Force Recommendation
IV. Siting a Campus Center at Smith
............................
Respectfully submitted to President Ruth J. Simmons by the Campus Center
Task Force
Donald C. Baumer, Chair
Katherine Barras
Barbara Brehm-Curtis
Ann Burger
Mary Calhoun
Charles Conant
Alexis Cordiano
Richard Fantasia
Emily Ferguson
Ileana Jimenez
Anne Leone
Marjorie Richardson
Hrayr Tamzarian
Susan Waltner
Kathleen Zieja
Pamela Karwasinski, Presidential Intern, Observer
Judith L. Marksbury, Secretary to the President, Staff Support
............................
April 18, 1996
............................
|
Introduction
President Ruth J. Simmons appointed the Campus Center Task Force in December
1995. The purpose of the Task Force was "to review with various campus
groups and individuals the mandate for a campus center, to determine what
programmatic needs should have the highest priority in any center, to provide
an opportunity for both proponents and opponents of this venture to make
known their views about such an undertaking, and to issue a report to [the
President] and the College Planning and Resources Committee (CP&R) on
the elements of the project that are most essential to meet." The Task
Force met for the first time on January 16, 1996 and began its work immediately
thereafter.
Background
The Task Force was fortunate to have a good deal of information about
the need for a campus center at Smith with which to work. Various subcommittees
of CP&R, dating back to January of 1988, had explored the questions
of whether Smith College should have a campus center, and where such a facility
should be located. The most extensive previous campus center study was conducted
in 1989-90 by a CP&R subcommittee led by Dean of the College Ann Burger.
This study included a telephone survey of 13 comparable institutions, a
survey of a random sample of 650 students, and an additional survey of 280
users of Davis Center. Its principal findings were:
- Communication and social interaction among students from different
houses is difficult; the house system does not foster a campus-wide sense
of community.
- A central gathering place is needed to address this problem of fragmentation.
- A relatively modest new facility should be built in the geographical
center of campus (Haven/Wesley, Hopkins) which would include a flexible
lounge/social space, a snack bar, a bookstore, and a centralized mail/central
service function.
- Scott Gym should be renovated for large gatherings; the offices of
student organizations should be clustered in Pierce and Lilly.
Methodology Employed by the Present Task Force
The Campus Center Task Force developed a multi-faceted approach to gathering
and analyzing information about the need for a campus center and the specific
services such a center should offer. The initial, and primary, method was
to conduct a series of focus group discussions with randomly selected students,
and with groups of students representing various campus organizations and
clubs. In order to work well, focus groups should be relatively small (6-15
people); the advantage of focus group interviews is that they enable researchers
to probe beyond the surface responses people tend to give to survey questions.
The Task Force believed that small group discussions would be the best way
to gauge accurately the nature and extent of the perceived need for a campus
center at Smith. Teams of Task Force members led these discussions using
a standardized interview guide. Notes were kept of all the focus group discussions.
There were sixteen focus group discussions held in February and March.
In addition to the focus group discussions, the Task Force met with several
large groups of students, and staff groups of various sizes, to hear their
suggestions and to discuss our preliminary findings. We also held two luncheon
discussions with faculty, and hosted an Open Forum on April 8. The goal
was to give everyone in the Smith community a chance to participate in a
campus center discussion. After all the discussions had been held, each
Task Force member submitted a report, which outlined the member's perceptions
and recommendations regarding a campus center, to the Chair.
The Task Force also opened an e-mail hotline (address: CAMPUSCTR) to
encourage further comments and suggestions from the campus community. The
CYCLES survey provided an opportunity for additional information, so the
Task Force developed several closed-ended questions for this year's survey.
Finally, the Task Force organized groups to visit campus centers at other
colleges.
Research Note
An important complication for the Task Force was the fact that we were
exploring a counter-factual condition; i.e., what would life at Smith College
be like if there were a campus center? Thus students, staff and faculty
were asked to comment on a state of affairs about which they could only
speculate: would you use a campus center if it included x, y or z facilities?
It was also clear that many of their comments stemmed directly, and somewhat
narrowly, from their experience of the Smith campus as it is. This was especially
evident in comments about particular sites on which a campus center might
be located. The Task Force believes that a campus center could have something
of a transformative effect on the campus. That is, its presence may help
to define what is central to life on campus, rather than having centrality
defined by simple geography, or existing perceptions and traffic patterns.
Format of the Report
There are four remaining sections in this report. Section I examines
the question of need: to what extent does Smith College need a Campus Center?
Section II describes in a summary manner what the Task Force heard about
various services and facilities that might be included in a campus center.
Section III presents the Task Force's overall recommendation. Section IV
offers a brief discussion of the siting issue.
Back to top
of page
I. Does Smith College Need a Campus Center?
Based on the information the Task Force has gathered and reviewed, the
answer to the question posed in the heading above is a unanimous yes. Community
sentiment favors the establishment of some sort of campus center. Not surprisingly
this sentiment is strongest among students, who in many cases can articulate
an acute sense of social isolation and fragmentation. They appreciate many
aspects of Smith's house-based residential system, but believe the campus
should offer greater opportunities for interaction between students of different
houses. The Davis Student Center does not provide such opportunities because
its facilities (snack bar, small lounge, ballroom) are quite limited and
unattractive, and its location discourages many students from visiting it.
Most students think that a campus center which offered comfortable areas
to "hang out," food and drink, recreation, mail, meeting space
and information would attract large numbers of students and would help to
break up the social fragmentation that is widely acknowledged to be present
on this campus. In addition to providing wider friendship networks, students
and others hope that a campus center would help to foster a greater sense
of community at Smith.
Support for a campus center was also very strong among members of the
staff. They saw it as a means for addressing the needs of students, and
as a facility that would enable staff to have more and better conferences,
training sessions, and other gatherings. They also thought it would encourage
a better sense of community at Smith as all types of campus groups-students,
faculty and staff-would have occasion to interact at a campus center. Interest
in a campus center did not come from only certain staff groups or offices,
such as senior administrators, the Admissions Office, or Human Resources;
it was also evident among physical plant workers, dining service employees,
and others.
Most faculty support the concept of a campus center, but the level of
consensus about the desirability of actually having a campus center at Smith
is not as high among faculty as it is among students and staff. Some faculty
wonder whether existing facilities could be better utilized to address the
problems identified by students. Others doubt that a campus center would
have a significant impact on social fragmentation at Smith. On the other
hand, a number of faculty envisioned the possibility of using comfortable
spaces in a campus center to continue class discussions in a relaxed atmosphere.
Others thought meeting rooms in a campus center might provide attractive
classroom space for small classes. Faculty also looked forward to the increased
opportunities a campus center might provide for casual interaction with
students and staff.
Visitors
The problems of social isolation and lack of community were by no means
the only ones that came up in discussions about the need for a campus center.
There was widespread consensus that the Smith campus is not visitor-friendly.
Many visitors to campus have difficulty knowing where to go, or how to get
where they are going. Campus centers are typically the place where maps
and other information about a campus are readily available for visitors.
A campus center could also fulfill a hospitality function for visitors,
a place where they could have a cup of coffee or a meal. This is especially
important for five-college students, and Smith students who live off-campus;
both take classes at Smith, but have few places to go other than a classroom.
There are also very few places on the Smith campus where our students can
meet, talk, study, eat and/or drink with students from other campuses, or
visiting family and friends. Smith students, understandably, do not necessarily
want to invite all their visitors into their living space. A campus center
would go a long way toward solving this problem.
Town-Gown
The relationship between the college and the city of Northampton, and
what a campus center might do to that relationship, was a topic that produced
many different reactions. From our discussions, it is clear that student
use of shopping and entertainment facilities in the city varies greatly.
In general, older students (21 or over) and students in houses located closer
to the city (Albright and Baldwin) rely on shops and clubs and bars in the
city much more than younger students living in, for example, the Quad. Proximity
to downtown is, obviously, one major reason for this pattern, but it is
also important to note that most of the night life in the city is inaccessible
to students under 21. Therefore, in the eyes of most 18-21 year-old students,
the active social life in Northampton is not an adequate substitute for
a campus center at Smith.
Many faculty and staff, and some students, worry that a campus center
at Smith would be viewed by residents and businesses in the city as an unwelcome
form of retail and entertainment competition. If the campus center included
a bar/pub, how would this affect city bars near campus? Similarly with retail
and convenience stores. Many students, however, believe that the prices
in near-campus retail and convenience stores are too high; they would like
to have easy access to lower-cost alternatives.
A number of discussants raised the possibility/hope that the campus center
could actually improve town-gown relations by serving as a kind of bridge
between the city and the campus. Campus and community groups might be able
to hold jointly-sponsored events in a campus center, for example. Or, a
campus center might serve to lower the social barriers between city residents
and students. On this latter point, however, students were divided. Many
thought a campus center should serve Smith students and invited guests;
it should not become a "hang-out" for people from town, or even
uninvited students from other campuses. They raised concerns about safety,
and the specter of having to interact with "high school kids"
from Northampton.
Openness
The issue of how open a campus center should be to people outside of
the Smith community is a very important one, which was examined in virtually
all of the discussions conducted by the Task Force. One aspect of the openness
issue is the question of whether part of the goal in establishing a campus
center should be to create a social space that at times (possibly weekend
evenings) would approximate those present on co-ed campuses. Presumably,
the creation of such a space would mean that a good deal of emphasis would
be placed on facilities for enjoying music, dancing and recreation, especially
on weekends, in order to attract students from other campuses. Part of the
idea would be to establish a better balance between the number of students
leaving Smith on weekends and the number visiting the campus.
Many students thought the possibility of creating a weekend "hot
spot" at Smith was unrealistic. They simply could not envision the
possibility of large numbers of students from other campuses coming to Smith
on weekend nights. Others saw a more open and crowded weekend social scene
at Smith as undesirable; they worried about noise and personal security.
On the other side were a great many students who thought a campus center
with proper programming and facilities could be a weekend nightlife attraction
to students here and on other campuses, and that extending social opportunities
in this way was essential to the success of a Smith campus center.
The openness issue is not simply about the possibility of a more active
and open social scene on the Smith Campus; it also encompasses attitudes
and traditions of exclusiveness about which many, if not most, students
are not aware and do not question. Smith students feel entitled to an educational
environment that is virtually free of inconveniences and impediments; they
also expect the highest level of personal security. This can lead to a wariness
about outsiders. Thus many students (and a number of staff) expressed the
view that a campus center should be designed to serve the immediate needs
of Smith students and their invited guests, and not attempt to serve as
a magnet for outsiders. Support for exclusiveness, however, tended to diminish
as discussions about the various issues associated with openness progressed.
There was a recognition that the sense of community a campus center should
aim to foster should not be conceived and defined too narrowly.
Campus Aesthetics
Concerns about the aesthetic impact of a campus center, especially if
it came in the form of a new building, were widespread and strongly held
among members of the Smith community. Students were often quite eloquent
in expressing their views about the importance of green space and architectural
aesthetics on campus. For faculty these considerations were often primary.
Many students were emphatic in saying they would not want to have a campus
center if having a center entailed the construction of a large, unattractive
building that took away green space and impeded present vistas. Faculty
and staff were even more emphatic about these matters.
Final Thoughts About Need
Although the Task Force was persuaded that there is a genuine need for
a campus center at Smith, there were indications that some of the student
expressions of need were not as deeply felt as they were commonly held.
Nearly all the students agreed that it would be beneficial to have a common
space to interact with one another. Several students mentioned other colleges
they had visited or attended, and described how important the campus centers
seemed to be to campus life at those colleges. Many said they viewed the
absence of a campus center at Smith as an important drawback either before,
or soon after, arriving here. A number of students said that they were consciously
aware of the disadvantages of not having a campus center on a daily basis.
On the other hand, many of these same students would agree that campus aesthetics
were as important, if not more important, than the presence of a campus
center; or would say that if the center were located on a site that they
did not consider central, and sufficiently close to their residence, they
would not use it. (Students in the Quad, for example, said they would not
go to a campus center located in the Green Street area at night, but they
would go to one in the Wesley/Chapin area.)
Our conclusion is that the quality of a campus life at Smith, especially
for the students, could be significantly improved through the establishment
of a campus center. The articulation of need, centering around feelings
of social isolation and fragmentation, was clear and consistent among students,
and was recognized by other campus constituencies. The facility should be
a campus center, not merely a student center. That is, the goals of making
the campus more welcoming to visitors, of providing meeting and conference
space for staff, of providing a place where all campus constituencies can
interact, and of serving as a bridge to Northampton are very important.
Thus we recommend a campus center designed primarily, but not exclusively,
to meet the needs of students.
Back to top
of page
II. Specific Facilities and Services
The Task Force listened to, and otherwise received, many recommendations
and suggestions about the kinds of services and facilities that should be
included in a campus center at Smith. Many of these comments and suggestions
identify problems and issues that are important for the college to address
regardless of how the campus center question is resolved. This section summarizes
what the Task Force has learned about some of the specific services a campus
center might provide.
Common Space: The principal need that a campus center should satisfy
is the creation of a space where students can interact casually and comfortably
with one another. The centerpiece of a campus center might be a large multi-purpose
room where sofas and other comfortable seating would accommodate both reading
and socializing. The furniture should be movable so that a lounge might
be easily transformed into a room where lectures or other presentations
might take place. Many thought this centerpiece space should be open to
as much sunlight as possible, so as to partially offset the darkness and
dreariness of New England winters. If possible, this area might include
various anterooms which would facilitate social studying. The desired effect
is a space that is welcoming, attractive, comfortable and flexible.
Food and Coffee: The availability of food and beverages, especially
coffee, is another essential element of a campus center. Students put great
emphasis on the need for variety and quality in the choices of food and
coffee. The traditional snack bar menu of fried foods, carbonated soda and
flat coffee needs to be replaced with healthier foods, juices, and many
varieties of coffee. It is also important to have facilities for dispensing
the food and coffee that do not lead to long lines, and to have comfortable
places in which to eat and drink. An attractive facility for enjoying food
and coffee would likely be the principal vehicle for encouraging interaction
among students, faculty and staff.
Students viewed the option of eating a certain number of meals at a campus
center, instead of eating at one's residence dining facility, as one of
the most significant potential benefits of a campus center. Many said that
they miss meals regularly because of restricted dining hours. For example,
students living in the Quad may have a class that ends at 12:10 p.m., then
another that begins at 1 p.m., and because of the difficulty involved in
rushing back and forth in this time span, they often forgo lunch. Thus students
favored a system in which they would have a certain number of vouchers that
allowed them to substitute a house meal for a campus center meal. Athletes,
who often have trouble getting back to their houses in time for dinner,
also hoped that food facilities in a campus center could serve their needs.
Centralized Information and Communication: A campus center would
be a natural location for posting and disseminating information about the
college and events on campus. This might take the form of an information
booth where maps of the college could be obtained and tickets for campus
events would be sold. Nearby might be student mailboxes and bulletin boards
(possibly electronic). All the groups on campus agreed that this would be
a valuable service.
Recreation: The students were very consistent and emphatic about
the need for a recreation room, with pool tables, in a campus center. Although
they appreciate the academic character of campus life, they believe there
should be more opportunities to have fun at Smith. In addition to pool,
students mentioned ping-pong and other board and card games. Many imagined
a room with various tables and games (not video games), which included television
(possibly large-screen) and recorded music.
Bar/Pub: Although opinion was divided on the desirability of serving
alcoholic beverages in the campus center, the majority favored it. (A surprising
number of students were unaware that Davis presently offers beer and wine
at certain times.) The prevailing view was that beer and wine should be
available, and that those partaking of such beverages should not be separated
from others. Students mentioned systems used at campus centers they had
visited where people were designated as being alcohol-eligible or not, but
everyone was allowed to sit together to enjoy entertainment and food.
Entertainment: Many students expressed the hope that entertainment
facilities at a campus center would have a great impact on the nature and
quality of social life at Smith. The prospect of having a regular weekend
evening schedule of live (or recorded) music and dancing was very appealing
to almost all students; but, as discussed in the previous section, there
was disagreement over the emphasis that should be given to drawing students
from other colleges.
Nearly everyone agreed that the campus center should be designed to accommodate
a wide range of performances. Thus there might be small, intimate settings
for readings or solo musical performances, and somewhat larger settings
for choral groups or live bands. The expectation was that many of the performers
would be students.
Another area of divided opinion was how movies should fit into the campus
center picture. Some thought one of the main rooms in the campus center
should be designed to show movies for fairly large audiences (200-plus);
others thought the present arrangement of showing movies in Wright auditorium
was quite satisfactory, and believed the campus center should focus on other
forms of entertainment. Interest was also expressed in having free or rental
videos dispensed in the campus center.
Exhibitions: Many students, and a number of faculty and staff,
mentioned the possibility of having a good deal of space in the campus center
devoted to exhibitions of student works of art.
Offices for Student Organizations: In discussions with representatives
of student organizations, and randomly-selected students, there was general
agreement that SGA offices should be in the campus center. Beyond that,
opinions varied greatly. Some students proposed having dozens of offices
for student organizations in the campus center, others saw this as impractical.
Nearly all the groups, except SGA, which currently have space (Women's Resource
Center, Lesbian-Bisexual Alliance, Unity and others) wanted to keep their
existing space, and have a presence in the campus center.
Although no clear consensus emerged, there was some agreement that the
needs of most groups could be accommodated by having a large, well-equipped,
common room for student organizations (with storage capacity), and a visible
space in the center where groups could put on displays. Most thought the
radio station (WOZQ) should be in the campus center, but the Sophian and
the Yearbook did not have to be. The Black Student Alliance felt strongly
that the Mwangi Cultural Center should stay in Lilly Hall.
Meeting Rooms: Students, faculty and staff agreed that a campus
center should include meeting rooms for groups of various sizes. Students
thought such rooms could help meet the needs of student organizations, informal
study groups, and even large delegations of students interested in discussing
an issue of common concern. Faculty mentioned the possibility of extending
class discussions in more informal settings. Staff expressed a strong interest
in having conference rooms for everything from in-service training to regional
or national conferences.
Copying and Computer Services: It was widely agreed among students
that a campus center should include copiers and computers for their use.
Some would be content with computers that could be used only for e-mail,
others envisioned a fully-equipped computer center.
Bookstore: Students expressed strong discontent about the pricing
policies of Grécourt Bookshop. They thought students received too
little for the books they resold, and paid too much for new and used books
they bought. They were also critical of the paraphernalia available at Grécourt.
Many advocated some sort of student cooperative approach to buying and selling
textbooks, which would entail college sponsorship and, they hoped, lead
to lower prices. Many favored the inclusion of a bookstore in the campus
center, but many others did not think this was essential, especially if
the bookstore were located nearby.
Commercial Services: Many students complained about the prices
in near-campus convenience stores and thought many of the daily necessities
should be available at reasonable prices in a campus center. They also envisioned
a retail facility that sold paraphernalia (sweatshirts, etc.), and possibly
art supplies; an ATM, and possibly full-service banking; even a travel agency.
Some mentioned a laundry service; a few, but not many, students expressed
an interest in commercial food vendors.
Fitness Facilities: There was limited support among students for
a fitness facility, except among athletes. A number of faculty and staff
also expressed support for a fitness component. Most everyone agreed that
the existing fitness facilities do not meet the needs of the community.
Athletes believe they should have exclusive access to much of the existing
fitness equipment; therefore, much more is needed to serve the larger community.
In their view, a campus center would be an appealing location for these
additional fitness facilities. Most people, however, thought a renovation
of Scott Gym was a better way of providing additional fitness facilities.
Smoking Room: Not surprisingly, a number of people who smoke suggested
that a room be set aside for smoking. Even some non-smokers agreed that
this might be desirable because the alternative seems to be having a gauntlet
of smokers stationed at the entrances to buildings. Many others said that
the college should not encourage or accommodate smoking in any way.
Outdoor Space: Many students, faculty and staff saw an attractive
outdoor space (patio or courtyard) as being a very important part of a campus
center. This space should be designed to emphasize visual aesthetics, and
be connected to food and beverage facilities.
Day Care: A few Ada Comstock scholars and several staff expressed
a desire for child care space in the campus center. This idea was never
fully developed, but the interest seemed to be in short-term, drop-in daycare,
rather than in a full-fledged daycare facility.
Parking: Parking is a very important concern of many members of
the Smith community, especially staff and faculty. Nearly everyone agreed
that the creation of a campus center should entail additional parking space.
For many this meant some sort of underground parking garage, others said
a parking facility away from the center would be acceptable, as long as
it wasn't too far away.
Hours of Service: Nearly every student group spoke of the need
for a campus center to be open late hours. Indeed, many thought a center
should be open 24 hours per day. It is clear that many students are up reading
and studying until well past midnight, and they often find themselves hungry
or thirsty with no place to go. They saw the campus center as a potential
remedy for this problem. If at least parts of a center could be open late
at night for studying and snacks, many students say they would use the facilities.
Back to top
of page
III. Task Force Recommendation
The Campus Center Task Force recommends that the college secure the services
of an architect(s) to design a campus center that would accomplish the following:
- Provide a space for informal socializing, reading and relaxation. This,
presumably, would be some sort of lounge/multi-purpose room. It should
be large, open, bright and welcoming.
- Offer food and beverages. Snack bar or cafeteria designs should be
avoided; the atmosphere should be casual, but not downscale. Beer and wine
should be available, but not emphasized.
- Create an attractive atmosphere for night-time entertainment. This
would involve a sound stage for live music, and a dance floor; this space
should be flexible in size, but capable of accommodating dances and parties
for up to 500 people. Food and beverages should be a part of the entertainment
package.
- Offer a number of performance spaces for audiences of different sizes,
and performances of various types. Thus, there should be appropriate facilities
for everything from lectures or poetry readings to live band performances.
- Include recreation facilities, in particular, pool tables.
- Provide offices for student government (SGA). These offices should
be supplemented by a common room that could accommodate many student organizations,
and provide them with telephones/fax, computers, printers, copiers and
lockers for storage.
- Include meeting rooms of various sizes. The center should be designed
with an eye toward accommodating conferences that might involve several
hundred people.
- Feature a central information facility and box office, including student
mailboxes. This might have a commercial adjunct that sold convenience items
and college paraphernalia.
- Have a certain number of computers and copiers for student or public
use.
- Provide as many art exhibition opportunities as possible.
- Offer an attractive outdoor space where food and beverages would be
available.
- Offer certain services until at least 2 a.m.
- Include a plan/facility for parking.
Back to top
of page
IV. Siting a Campus Center at Smith
The concerns of faculty, staff and students about campus aesthetics led
all of the groups to discuss the siting of a campus center at Smith. Although
the Task Force understood the president's mandate to us to involve a separation
of the question of whether Smith should have a campus center (Task Force
business) from the question of where it should be located (a subsequent
CP&R decision), it proved impossible to achieve such a separation during
the actual discussions. Therefore, we conclude this report with a summary
of what we heard about the siting issue.
All other things being equal, most student groups thought a campus center
should be located somewhere in the Wesley-Chapin-J.M. Greene area; this
was generally considered to be the functional and geographic center of campus.
Students often suggested that Wright Hall be destroyed and the site used
for a campus center. Another idea was renovating Chapin. A third was somehow
tying a campus center into the rear of J.M. Greene as part of a renovation
of that building. Finally, many thought a new building could be constructed
in the present site of Wesley, and that Wesley could be moved somewhere
nearby (maybe in the Hopkins location). Everyone wanted to preserve Wesley.
Of course, all other things are not equal; the space limitations and
ecological sensitivities of the Wesley-Chapin-J.M. Greene area were widely
acknowledged, so several other sites received attention and support. Faculty
and staff generally favored the Alumnae Gym-Dickinson lot-Green Street area
for a campus center because a new building or major renovation in this part
of campus would entail fewer aesthetic and ecological problems. This area
also offers the possibility of using existing facilities - bookstore, central
services, possibly the Gamut; and this part of campus serves as a natural
gateway to Smith from the city of Northampton (and is not on a major road/thoroughfare).
Finally, there would appear to be more and better opportunities for expanded
parking in this area than in other parts of campus. The obvious shortcoming
of this area is the perception among students, especially those in the Quad
or on Prospect Street (Talbot, Capen), that it is too far from their residences.
The disadvantages associated with the two siting areas discussed above
led some people to conclude that a renovation and expansion of Davis might
be the best approach to a campus center. The vast majority, however, viewed
the Davis site as inherently flawed because of its off-center location and
its already crowded vehicular traffic pattern.
Back to top
of page
|
