+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: University Area (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: UW SLC/PAC Expansion Project | ?m | 3 fl | Referendum (/showthread.php?tid=523)
Pages:
1
2
UW SLC/PAC Expansion Project | ?m | 3 fl | Referendum - Markster - 01-08-2016
Quote:The University will contribute $10 million of the capital costs towards the expansion and students would need to contribute the remaining $24 million through an $18 per term fee, for the addition to be built.
The proposed expansion would include a 63,970-square foot addition to the SLC and the PAC, to the west of the BMH Green. The new space will connect to the current SLC on all three floors and connect with the Red North corner of the PAC. It will also include a link connecting the SLC to the third floor of the MC building and a covered walkway to the AHS buildings.
The expansion will focus on the creation of additional student social, activity, dining, and recreation space, to help facilitate a greater sense of community and to improve the Waterloo student experience.
A referendum will be held February 9-11, 2016 to ask undergraduate and graduate students if they will support an $18 per term fee to build the SLC/PAC Expansion.
RE: SLC/PAC Expansion Project - insider - 01-08-2016
Thoughts?
http://www.uwimprint.ca/article/5523-new-student-building-going-to-referendum
![[Image: newbuildingexterior2withlogo.jpg]](http://www.uwimprint.ca/uploads/2016/01/newbuildingexterior2withlogo.jpg)
RE: SLC/PAC Expansion Project - Spokes - 01-08-2016
Looks good. The connection between the two buildings will be nice.
RE: SLC/PAC Expansion Project - Markster - 01-08-2016
My main issue is that I don't see any mentioned increase of (storage/office) space for student clubs. Just more bookable rooms. The deep shame of student space over the past 10 years has been the steady eviction of student-run organizations that are not called Feds.
Also, as a lazy person, the half of it that's the PAC expansion doesn't interest me, though I'm sure it'll be greatly appreciated.
The bridge to MC is amazing. It's the holy grail of indoor connections! I can't believe it might actually come true!
In all, it's a bit more focused than the ~2008 proposal that was promising everything to everyone on a site at South Campus.
I think I preferred the ~2011 proposal for a student building near Grad House, as it was the same size, but was focused on student service facilities rather than being split 50-50 with athletic facilities, but that one unfortunately never made it to a referendum.
They desperately need to build something, anything, at this point, so I think I will begrudgingly approve, despite the lack of clearly non-Feds support space.
RE: SLC/PAC Expansion Project - nms - 01-08-2016
Now that PAC and the SLC will be joined, I wonder if there might be pressure from Athletics long-term to bleed into some of the SLC space. I can't recall what the ownership structure is for SLC, but I think Feds now has more control of the space. Perhaps there will be a "You are now entering the Feds zone" sign?
On a related note, I understand that the first SLC renovation that added the Brubachers and Pharmacy space (among others) was initially proposed to be much more ambitious and effectively fill the space that this renovation will occupy. I don't have any renders.
And when will there be a bridge/tunnel between the Arts and Eng/Sci buildings? Even Needles Hall is now connected to the Eng/Sci labyrinth. Are some divides never meant to be bridged?
RE: SLC/PAC Expansion Project - chutten - 01-08-2016
(01-08-2016, 03:26 PM)nms Wrote: And when will there be a bridge/tunnel between the Arts and Eng/Sci buildings? Even Needles Hall is now connected to the Eng/Sci labyrinth. Are some divides never meant to be bridged?
Isn't there already one via SCH? Or is there still that short overland hop between DWE and SCH before you can take the tunnel to HH?
RE: SLC/PAC Expansion Project - plam - 01-08-2016
(01-08-2016, 03:26 PM)nms Wrote: Now that PAC and the SLC will be joined, I wonder if there might be pressure from Athletics long-term to bleed into some of the SLC space. I can't recall what the ownership structure is for SLC, but I think Feds now has more control of the space. Perhaps there will be a "You are now entering the Feds zone" sign?
On a related note, I understand that the first SLC renovation that added the Brubachers and Pharmacy space (among others) was initially proposed to be much more ambitious and effectively fill the space that this renovation will occupy. I don't have any renders.
And when will there be a bridge/tunnel between the Arts and Eng/Sci buildings? Even Needles Hall is now connected to the Eng/Sci labyrinth. Are some divides never meant to be bridged?
I thought Feds now owns all of SLC?
NH connected to Eng/Sci? Really?
RE: SLC/PAC Expansion Project - Markster - 01-08-2016
(01-08-2016, 05:15 PM)plam Wrote: I thought Feds now owns all of SLC?
That is correct, they have complete control over the SLC. There is no danger of athletic facilities kicking out Feds. They need that space. For more bureaucracy.
Quote:NH connected to Eng/Sci? Really?
Yep. Needles Hall had an expansion that was connected to the new Science Teaching Complex.
![[Image: 6CuehzX.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/6CuehzX.jpg)
RE: SLC/PAC Expansion Project - plam - 01-08-2016
(01-08-2016, 05:27 PM)Markster Wrote:Quote:NH connected to Eng/Sci? Really?
Yep. Needles Hall had an expansion that was connected to the new Science Teaching Complex.
Oh, right. I've seen the construction but just blocked it out because, well, it's construction. Thanks!
RE: SLC/PAC Expansion Project - ijmorlan - 01-08-2016
I noticed a few questions about links on campus. Here's what I know:
DWE to SCH: yes, there is a gap in the system here. Note too that for people who can’t take stairs SCH is not connected to the tunnel, nor is AL or HH. My understanding is that the campus master plan calls for a replacement of SCH that would be larger and connected to DWE. However, it was not crystal clear that the existing tunnel would connect to the new SCH, although it would be insane for it not to do so (and with an accessible connection). It’s not clear to me how live this replacement is: I believe they are now renovating the banquet facilities upstairs to turn them into something else, so it seems safe to assume there are no plans to tear down SCH in the near future.
PAS is also not connected although it has doors pretty close to EV2 and HH.
One disappointing aspect of the new plan is that it apparently does not connect to BMH. Instead it has a covered walkway “towards” BMH. How close does it have to get before it’s simply absurd not to cover the remaining distance?
SLC and PAC are already connected. I believe this was done as part of the renovation that turned the CC into SLC. The new building promises to provide a more convenient connection however.
And finally, for completeness as this has already been mentioned by somebody else, NH is now connected to B2 via STC. I speculate that in the future a new building could be built connecting NH to ML. Combined with a hypothetical SCH to DWE link, this could conceivably mean that one might be able to walk all the way around LIB entirely indoors, but still not be able to get to LIB itself.
RE: SLC/PAC Expansion Project - jordan2423 - 01-09-2016
I'm completely fine with this project, as long as I'm not paying for it. lol. I won't get to experience it as I am graduating a year from now - unless i decide to do a masters in Waterloo. As an AHS student, I find this 'pathway' cover ridiculous. At least have it fully covered or connect a walk way (like the one from MC to SLC proposed by this plan) from the new AHS building to SLC.
UW really needs to have every building connected one way or another lol. I'm not trying to walk outside in the harsh Waterloo winters.
RE: SLC/PAC Expansion Project - plam - 01-09-2016
(01-09-2016, 02:37 PM)jordan2423 Wrote: I'm completely fine with this project, as long as I'm not paying for it. lol. I won't get to experience it as I am graduating a year from now - unless i decide to do a masters in Waterloo. As an AHS student, I find this 'pathway' cover ridiculous. At least have it fully covered or connect a walk way (like the one from MC to SLC proposed by this plan) from the new AHS building to SLC.
UW really needs to have every building connected one way or another lol. I'm not trying to walk outside in the harsh Waterloo winters.
Thing about walkways is that sometimes they are much slower than the direct outside route.
RE: SLC/PAC Expansion Project - ijmorlan - 01-09-2016
(01-09-2016, 03:23 PM)plam Wrote: Thing about walkways is that sometimes they are much slower than the direct outside route.
That depends entirely on design. The only reason this is even a discussion is because of absurd mistakes made when the campus was initially built. At first, links were not normally built between buildings, even when it would have been easy. When E2 was built, there was a maybe 10m gap between it and E1 (now DWE). Recently (in the last couple of years), this gap was finally filled by a bridge on level 3. Who builds buildings with 10m gaps between them in this climate?
In some cases buildings are built further away for strategic reasons, and in this case it may well make sense not to have a link. I don’t expect indoor passages to be built across enormous distances. But failing to bridge (or tunnel, or otherwise cross) short distances is just incomprehensible. Even recently, I understand that there was some debate as to whether or not to build the NH-STC link. Given that both ends of the link were built at the same time, it’s an absolute no-brainer.
The right way to proceed when the campus was first built would have been to lay out a plan of main corridor routes covering the entire campus, and refuse to hire any architects who would not agree to respect the corridor plan. That is, as each new building was built, it would have filled in whatever portion of the corridor plan was needed to serve that building. Initially, some buildings would have been built further away for various reasons, but it’s safe to say that by now everything inside Ring Road would be linked, and by connections more convenient than the ones that have actually been built.
I should mention that this failure to take into account the actual use of the buildings is not limited to our climate. Once I was in San Diego. As one might expect, buildings tend to open out to the outside more there. I was “in” what would here be a shopping mall like Conestoga Mall, except it was mostly open to the air. So far, no problem — the climate is enough different there that it is entirely reasonable to have things more open. Except that it was raining that day, and I actually experienced being rained on … while riding an escalator. There was lots of roof around — it wasn’t that it was a completely open-air mall — they just didn’t think that maybe the escalators and other major elements of the circulation routes should be top-priority for being covered.
RE: SLC/PAC Expansion Project - tomh009 - 01-09-2016
Ahhh, but there is really much more connectivity, if you just look for it:
http://matt.wandel.ca/tunnels/tunnels.html
RE: UW SLC/PAC Expansion Project | ?m | 3 fl | Referendum - Markster - 05-18-2016
Apparently there have been some feedback sessions happening on Campus this past week.
All take place in the SLC Multi-purpose room, at 5:30pm.
May 18
SLC/PAC Expansion Feedback Session #4 - Multi-Faith Space
https://www.facebook.com/events/1741316769439272/
May 19
SLC/PAC Expansion Feedback Session #5 - Dining & Social Lounge Space
https://www.facebook.com/events/1077010895675580/
May 24
SLC/PAC Expansion Feedback Session #6 (last one!) - Overview
https://www.facebook.com/events/235451816816648/