A new facility for Molecular and Life Sciences has moved to the forefront of the University’s building plans now that construction on the Usdan University Center is well underway. Initial plans describe a LEED-certified Green building, although a student group is raising concerns over that commitment.
According to President Douglas Bennet, the new science facility was a big focus of last weekend’s trustee retreat.
“We have to do it soon,” Bennet said. “Every year we don’t build a science center, [building inflation costs] are getting bigger, and that’s obviously a concern of ours.”
The administration hopes the facility will become the second building on campus to achieve LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification, after the Fauver residences. LEED certification designates a building as green in accordance with the regulations of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC.)
Green building standards pose high construction costs for the University, including obtaining recyclable materials and alternative energy mechanisms. The Environmental Organizers Network (EON), a student-run organization dedicated to promoting and improving environmental initiatives on campus, expressed concerns in a meeting Monday that these needs might not be met.
“The simple fact is that the University has so little money that it’s difficult to believe they’ll be able to finance this fully,” said Seitaro Takarabe ’09, EON member and spokesperson for the meeting’s Green Building discussion group. “They’ve announced their intentions, but it’s so far off in the future that they haven’t had to face the financial realities of the situation yet.”
A price tag for the building has not yet been set. The initial plan calls for the construction of a new facility, demolition of the Hall-Atwater Laboratories, and an extensive renovation of the Shanklin Laboratory. The Exley Science Tower would be untouched, other than the construction of an interior connection to the new facilities. “We’re looking for architects,” Bennet said. “I think the next stage is an architectural plan that we can use as a basis for judging the cost.”
Jacob Mirsky ’08, an EON member who headed the Energy Conservation discussion group during the meeting, agreed that a disparity exists between the University’s hopes and the realities of what it can accomplish.
“They seem to have left the promotion of new initiatives to us,” Mirsky said during the group discussion. “They’re not doing much to be progressive. Mostly they’re trying to enact older plans instead of beginning new ones.”
Associate Director of Construction Services Roseann Sillasen disagreed that the University has not expressed a strong commitment to enacting progressive policies.
“We’re definitely committed to researching cost-effective, environmentally-sound materials,” she said.
She cited the most recent efforts toward saving energy, including senior housing reconstruction and research into proper green building materials.
“We’ve installed geothermal power in two major senior housing units on Warren Street and Fountain Avenue,” Sillasen said. “We’ve also replaced many of the lighting installations on campus with compact fluorescent lighting, which uses less energy than normal incandescent lights. Exterior full cut off fixtures have been installed to decrease light pollution.”
Sillasen’s emphasis on changes in senior housing echoed comments made at the EON meeting, during which Mirsky stated that senior housing is currently the largest energy drain on campus.
“The wood-frames are responsible for 40 percent of total energy usage and 50 percent of total emissions on campus,” Mirsky said. “It’s important that we focus especially on them if we want to cut down on total energy usage.”
Leave a Reply