Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 29, 1997)
▼ EDITORIAL EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Steven Asbury MANAGING EDITOR: Thom Schoenhom NIGHT EDITOR: Jennifer Schmitt EDITORIAL EDITORS: Ashley Bach & Brian Diamond editorials, letters, commentary and perspective NEWSROOM: (541)346-5511 DISPLAY ADVERTISING: (541)346-3712 BUSINESS OFFICE: (541) 346-5512 CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING: (541)346-4343 An EMU Emergency :HSE~ \ 1'U€ K..A..A j.SiiUi cJf' /V ■BaemoRZ | 7. tm CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald ■ OUR OPINION: The student union is in criticial condition and there’s no cure in sight For 47 years, the Erb Memorial Union has served as the center of student activity. Towering over campus, the mammoth building holds more than 50 ASUO Pro grams, a food service, almost 20 meeting rooms and plenty of room for students to study, work or just hang out. For all its dominance, however, the EMU is one inherently screwed up building. It always has been, and unfortunately, it always will be. First off, let us take the case of an incoming freshman, eager to explore the new campus before him or her. The new student walks into the EMU, the building he or she sees first and recognizes as the obvious center of campus. This is where it gets confusing. The ASUO Executive, for instance, is on the EMU Ground Floor, according to the building di rectory. But what ground floor, north or south? And why are there two ground floors? Not surpris ingly, our freshman gets lost quickly — no matter what location he or she was trying to find. After original construction in 1950, the EMU en dured two major additions in 1962 and 1972, as well as periodic minor remodels. While adding space, these renovations also added more mayhem to an already chaotically designed structure. Because of this, freshmen aren’t alone in their struggle. With at least six different levels by name and even more that aren’t identified, the EMU is hard to navigate even for the most experienced stu dent. The exact location of the Mezzanine Level, for example, is still highly classified information, save for the occasional campus radio employee. 1’he 1972 addition of the EMU’s northeast wing, which includes the Skylight Cafe, Fir Room and ASUO offices, was a major player in establishing the separation and clutter between the floors that plagues students today. Because the new wing was only connected to the original structure by a main floor skybridge, the other levels — especially the ground floor — essentially became two separate areas. The breeze way, where students can walk through the middle of the EMU while never stepping inside, separates the two wings now. And navigation difficulties are hardly the EMU’s only problem. Even if one can find a way to walk through the building without regularly stopping to gather his or her senses, the trip surely won’t be pretty. The EMU is a montage of different architec tural styles and interior design that hardly molds together. Nicely furnished areas like the piano room near the Fishbowl or the Ballroom and art gallery soon pave way to the hideous orange carpet of the Sky light and the Communist Bloc drabness of the Ground Floor South. There are no EMU design patterns except for the repetition of no pattern. Besides furnishings, such interior anomalies exist like the dentist chairs near the Skylight Cafe or that strange cloth rainbow structure hanging above the northeast wing. These are things that must be noticed not just for their ob vious novelty value, but also for their inability to fit into any kind of design standard. And lastly, the EMU, from the outside, is just plain ugly. Gigantic balconies on all levels jut out, seemingly ready for huge outdoor parties that rarely happen. Half of the monolithic concrete stairways never get used. And most importantly, there’s brick — a lot of it. And it’s not pretty. After listing all these deficiencies, it should be noted the University also noticed the EMU’s many faults. On Jan. 23, construction crews began a one and-a-half year building remodel that won’t really kick in until June. Among changes approved by the Campus Plan ning Committee in December are a new diverse “marketplace” food service, more entrances (that’s what we really need), and wider corridors. But the most promising addition on the docket is the im proved “Duck Crossing” — the nickname for the main lobby hub of the EMU. By tearing out walls and maybe adding a new stairway, the new lobby area could go far in im proving the vast circulation problem already de scribed. Unfortunately, many of the proposed changes that involve “opening up” the EMU are part of the “alternate” plan. This means they will only be executed if funds are available. With questions like these, it’s hard to be excited about the new EMU renovations. We don’t have much confidence that the problems described in this article will be improved sufficiently. And frankly, it really isn’t fair to expect much improve ment. The EMU’s problems began when its original de signs were approved 50 years ago. The original building was confusing, and the ensuing changes to its structure never adequately addressed its many deficiencies. Instead, the remodels made the EMU worse. One of the goals the University (and all involved in the project) laid out in its new renovations was to “work carefully and thoroughly toward this im portant step in reinforcing the EMU as the hub, crossroads, and heart of the University of Oregon campus and community.” Well, the EMU, no matter how bad it is, will al ways be the center of campus. That isn’t the issue. The building’s sheer bulk and housing of so many people ensures it will always be the center of at tention. And since tearing the whole thing down just is n’t practical, we all must instead live with the EMU for what it is — moments of brilliance and comfort mixed with architectural and design in competence, a combination that never really com bines — and whether we like it or not, the busiest site on campus. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. LETTERS Discrimination unacceptable As individual members of the Career Center staff, we would like to express our posi tion regarding military recruit ment at the Career and Intern ship Fair on Jan. 28 and 29. It is our understanding that under federal law, the military has the legal right to discrimi nate on the basis of sexual ori entation. However, we believe that our mission as a student services office is to serve and provide opportunities for all students regardless of race, col or, sex disability, national ori gin and sexual orientation. We would like for all Univer sity of Oregon students, faculty and staff to know that although the military is present, we do not condone such discrimina tory recruiting practices. Yet, it must also be made very clear that our intention is not to ha rass the recruiters. As you can imagine, this sit uation puts those of us who be lieve in equal rights in a posi tion of compromise that is not acceptable. We encourage each member of the campus com munity to help create a world where people will be hired for the quality of their work rather than the gender of the person they love. Debora Landforce Stephanie Paramore & 11 co-signers Career Center Contact k ■ BY MAIL: P.0. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 ■ BYE-MAIL: ode@oregon. uoregon. edu ■ IN PERSON: Suite 300, EMU READER VOICES If you could, how would you improve the EMU? “I would install a speaker system that runs through the whole EMU that would play funk and hip-hop 24 hours a day.” Geoff Mohr Sophomore Business “I think it would be good to have more benches under covers outside for people to sit at." Michele Snead Senior Biology “They need a better food selection, plus the food they have is really expensive." Gwen Gassman Sophomore Biology “I’d allocate a specific area for games like dodge ball to promote student participation and bring the student body together." Robert Fraley Sophomore
