2008 Woodie Awards
Art building's abysmal condition is unacceptable
Issue date: 3/8/07 Section: Opinion/Editorial
Art students rarely have the best facilities at any university, but the conditions Webster artists must work in are abysmal.
A hot-button issue among art students — but evidently not among administrators — the Visual Arts Studio has been in a state of disrepair for years. Originally intended only as a temporary elementary school decades ago, the building has since become the permanent home of art students, mold and asbestos.
For those not familiar with the more recent story of the Visual Arts Studio, The Journal discovered mold last spring during an investigation into the building’s condition. The inquiry arose after several art students, led by the Webster Arts Coalition, lodged complaints with the administration in general and with University President Richard Meyers in particular over the dismal conditions of the building.
Additionally, leaks from spring rains were evident in the painting studio, and the building’s basement darkroom lacked proper ventilation from toxic photographic chemistry. Perhaps the most serious issue arose after the administration began a cleanup of the Visual Arts Studio, discovering the carcinogenic material asbestos.
Though it may sound all well and good, the administration is trying to clean up a mess it should have headed off in the first place. The level of confusion involved in this endeavor is in itself appalling.
The university initially hired cleanup company Wellington Environmental to deal with the mold in the basement mechanical room. Though Wellington cleaned the room, it failed to address the mold in the rest of the building.
Dave Stone, interim director of facility planning and management, initially said he thought Wellington should have cleaned up all the mold. He later checked records and determined Wellington had, in fact, completed everything they were contracted to do.
Mold that was present on piping in the stairway of the basement was finally removed Feb. 27. Mold in art building offices is slated to be removed the first week of March, and mold in the darkroom will not be removed until spring break.
The now-infamous pipe has finally been stripped of its moldy insulation and fitted with new insulation. Why did it take over a year for mold to be removed from the building? Though mold has no effect on some people, students with mold allergies can face adverse effects from this environment. Why should art students suffer with a dirty building that needs repair when communications and business students have clean facilities in Sverdrup? The darkroom facilities in Sverdrup have proper ventilation. Why should art students work in subpar conditions?
Though art students adore the Visual Arts Studio as a place to be creative, they certainly deserve better than health hazards and poor planning — particularly with an $18,240 tuition charge on their accounts for this academic year. They, like we at The Journal, must be asking where their money is going if not to the facilities they are using.
The administration should learn that the Leigh College School of Fine Arts isn’t composed simply of the Loretto-Hilton Center with its state-of-the-art theater, but also of the dumpy building on Big Bend Boulevard that routinely hosts both professional and student work. Campus life and culture are enriched not just by the performance arts, but also by the visual arts produced on a regular basis in the art building.
Perhaps the administration should stop trying to build a new business complex or, more absurdly, a science building. Instead, they should focus on Webster’s strengths and spend students’ money on what they want it spent on — a brand new space where students are free to be creative and free from cancer-causing agents.
A hot-button issue among art students — but evidently not among administrators — the Visual Arts Studio has been in a state of disrepair for years. Originally intended only as a temporary elementary school decades ago, the building has since become the permanent home of art students, mold and asbestos.
For those not familiar with the more recent story of the Visual Arts Studio, The Journal discovered mold last spring during an investigation into the building’s condition. The inquiry arose after several art students, led by the Webster Arts Coalition, lodged complaints with the administration in general and with University President Richard Meyers in particular over the dismal conditions of the building.
Additionally, leaks from spring rains were evident in the painting studio, and the building’s basement darkroom lacked proper ventilation from toxic photographic chemistry. Perhaps the most serious issue arose after the administration began a cleanup of the Visual Arts Studio, discovering the carcinogenic material asbestos.
Though it may sound all well and good, the administration is trying to clean up a mess it should have headed off in the first place. The level of confusion involved in this endeavor is in itself appalling.
The university initially hired cleanup company Wellington Environmental to deal with the mold in the basement mechanical room. Though Wellington cleaned the room, it failed to address the mold in the rest of the building.
Dave Stone, interim director of facility planning and management, initially said he thought Wellington should have cleaned up all the mold. He later checked records and determined Wellington had, in fact, completed everything they were contracted to do.
Mold that was present on piping in the stairway of the basement was finally removed Feb. 27. Mold in art building offices is slated to be removed the first week of March, and mold in the darkroom will not be removed until spring break.
The now-infamous pipe has finally been stripped of its moldy insulation and fitted with new insulation. Why did it take over a year for mold to be removed from the building? Though mold has no effect on some people, students with mold allergies can face adverse effects from this environment. Why should art students suffer with a dirty building that needs repair when communications and business students have clean facilities in Sverdrup? The darkroom facilities in Sverdrup have proper ventilation. Why should art students work in subpar conditions?
Though art students adore the Visual Arts Studio as a place to be creative, they certainly deserve better than health hazards and poor planning — particularly with an $18,240 tuition charge on their accounts for this academic year. They, like we at The Journal, must be asking where their money is going if not to the facilities they are using.
The administration should learn that the Leigh College School of Fine Arts isn’t composed simply of the Loretto-Hilton Center with its state-of-the-art theater, but also of the dumpy building on Big Bend Boulevard that routinely hosts both professional and student work. Campus life and culture are enriched not just by the performance arts, but also by the visual arts produced on a regular basis in the art building.
Perhaps the administration should stop trying to build a new business complex or, more absurdly, a science building. Instead, they should focus on Webster’s strengths and spend students’ money on what they want it spent on — a brand new space where students are free to be creative and free from cancer-causing agents.
Be the first to comment on this story