The new Molecular and Life Sciences facility promises to have a huge impact on the University’s campus, though it won’t be completed until 2015, well after all current undergraduates have graduated. After deliberating over numerous options, the building committee has decided on a site for the facility, to be built in two phases starting in the winter of 2009.

“It’s the most important construction project at Wesleyan since the CFA was built, or maybe even ever,” said Stephen Devoto, associate professor of Biology and Neuroscience & Behavior. “It’s going to be the most expensive thing Wesleyan has done, perhaps ever. The next step is to get the campus behind this plan, and agree that this is the best way forward.”

According to Project Manager Robert Schmidt, the project’s cost is currently estimated at $109 million (in 2007 dollars). In a presentation at the Fall Board of Retreat meeting attended by Wesleyan Student Assembly (WSA) members, however, the projected expected cost of the building was reported to be closer to $160 million.

“Until now, we’ve only had an estimate on the cost, but this planning process will give us a much firmer cost estimate based on specifics,” said Dean of Natural Sciences and Mathematics David Bodznick. “We’ll take that number before the Board of Trustees in February, and if the Board is convinced that we’ve done our homework, they’ll give approval for us to move onto the next phase, design and development, where we’ll actually finalize construction details and blueprints.”

The new facility will be a large L-shaped building projecting out toward Home Ave., constructed behind the existing Exley Science Tower and Science Library, which will remain intact. Once that is completed and science faculty have moved into the new building, the Hall-Atwater Labs will be demolished and replaced by a long connected structure that will extend out toward Church St. Finally, Shanklin will be demolished, allowing for a large green space between the Science Library and the new building.

The decision to demolish the historic Shanklin building, which opened in 1928, has not been without controversy, perhaps most of all within the science departments themselves.

“Demolishing Shaklin is a big decision,” said Devoto, who has played an ongoing role in the planning. “Those of us who are in Shanklin love it—the tall ceilings, the big windows. It’s a beautiful building.”

Devoto said that from the beginning, the project’s architectural firm, Boston-based Payette, indicated that the best possible plan for the facility would not include Shanklin.

“We fought, we dragged our heels, because we just love this building,” he said in an interview, looking around his office in Shanklin. “We forced the architect to give us a plan that had Shanklin, but with tremendous reluctance we accepted that there’s no way to create a facility that both saves Shanklin and would work for us and Wesleyan.”

Among the proposals considered, many would have saved the historic building, including one plan that would have sited a large L-shaped building along the base of Foss Hill and Andrus Field.

Another proposal placed all new construction behind Exley, preserving the current view from Church St.

“Ultimately we didn’t want our pride and joy tucked behind the ugliest thing on campus,” Devoto said.

A different plan proposed demolishing the Science Library and building a new building in its place, although further back. This plan was widely supported, as it would have created a campus green echoing the one in front of Olin Library, restoring the lawn eliminated when Exley was built in the 1960s.

“I pushed hard to consider the option of considering SciLi as an open green, but no matter how much we hate its architecture, [SciLi is] still perfectly functional,” Devoto said. “Knocking it down might add to the cost of the science building by 50 percent, because in order to realize that plan we would have to construct something to replace SciLi.”

Another plan would have preserved Shanklin by placing all new construction on the hill that extends from Exley down to High St., but that idea also had a number of disadvantages.

“Ultimately it would be a big, big building right down on top of residences,” Devoto said. “Wesleyan owns a lot of those houses, but there are also a lot of Middletown residents living in this neighborhood. Also, a building down the hill would isolate the sciences further away from the tower.”

The project is currently in the schematic design phase, and extensive planning has been done to determine interior spaces of the building, and where classrooms, offices, and labs will be placed and sized. There are currently no images of what the new facility might look like, although it will probably be clad in stone.

“The exterior design is in the preliminary stages,” Schmidt said. “Payette is scheduled to have more developed images for mid-November.”

According to Devoto, many of the Science Library’s exterior columns are nonstructural and could be removed, giving the existing structure a new façade to blend better with the new building.

The designers hope the green space that will replace Shanklin will be key in connecting the science complex to the rest of campus.

“They’ve always been asking: how we can link sciences to the rest of campus? You don’t always make that link with a building. It’s green spaces, not buildings, that link campuses,” he said. “There are plans for a café. It could be a real hub of activity.”

According to a report on the Fall Board of Trustees Retreat distributed by WSA Vice-President Emily Malkin ’08, every year that the construction start date of the building is postponed, the cost of the building will climb by about $7 million, making a construction delay to focus on fundraising unfeasible.

Bodznik said that the building’s high cost combined with the University’s previously stated goal to not draw too heavily from the endowment to fund construction will make fundraising crucial.

“The Board of Trustees has requirements on how much cash you must have in hand and how much you must have committed before you can start construction,” he said. “We’ve had some gifts to cover incremental costs, like hiring the architect, but our major fundraising push will probably start in bulk late next year, though we’ll certainly take money any time it comes along.”

Bodznik reiterated the environmental concerns that have played a large role in the building’s planning, with EON representatives sitting in on meetings. Environmental planning is also being considered as a way to save money on the building’s cost, at least in the long run.

“Science buildings are very complicated,” he said. “There are many technical details, fume hoods, ventilation, and safety considerations, as well as environmental costs. And that’s a place where you can make an impact with a lot of savings: environmental planning that improves sustainability and also saves money.”

Moving forward, the building committee welcomes feedback on its plans, the entirety of which are available to view on Blackboard.