CULC Design Shows Promise
I love the concept for the new CULC building. However, I don’t think anyone can deny that the appearance has something to be desired. The new building should build upon the existing architecture while also brightening things up a little.
There are also complaints about the building taking up so much open space, and I do have to say I share some of the same sentiments. The Consensus Opinion [“Disappointing Design,” Feb. 6] said the roof of the building would be a safety risk. What about making the roof purposefully accessible? Think how amazing it would be to sit atop the building and just get above it all.
This not only frees up the area consumed by the building, but offers an arguably better place to be outside. Also consider the possibility of putting a cafe or small sandwich shop on the top floor right next to the doors to the roof. It would definitely be an attractive place to spend a summer afternoon for many students. I have to admit that I love the redesign of Skiles Walkway. One thing, though: don’t make the stairs too deep. The many sections of stairs don’t sound bad but oftentimes whoever designs the stairs makes the stairs awkwardly deep.
All in all, I love the improvements and I think the student body greatly appreciates the transparency of the process and the feeling that the administration is open to student’s opinions.
Lee Bouldin
First-year ME
Football ticketing ‘fix’ insults our intelligence
Over the past few weeks I have heard a lot about a new plan for the Student Government Association to change the way that student football tickets are distributed. The fact that this is not an attempt to make our lives easier and the fact that each of the plans are totally the same is why I have a problem with allowing SGA to take such a drastic action on our ticketing system.
Each of the proposed “different” plans for the new ticketing system are essentially the same. Each will incorporate an internet distribution system and all use Buzz cards. What is the difference between them? The difference is how much money the Athletic Association gets from each. These changes are just intended to allow the AA to make up the money they will lose this year in the budget cuts.
I am frankly insulted that Tech and the SGA believe they can cover up new raises in the money we pay with a supposed “fix” to the ticketing system. It is understandable that budget cuts are happening, but there is no reason for the AA to pawn the budget shortfalls off on us. If Tech needs to increase fees, then that is fine. But there is no need for them to insult our intelligence by trying to cover it up with this “new” ticketing system.
Frank Starosto
Second-year PUBP