EDITORIAL: CMU master planning represents misguided priorities
In 2012, Central Michigan University recreated the campus master plan.
Focusing on building and land use and condition assessments, the plan was the first to be implemented since 2001.
In August, University President George Ross called investment in priorities through what “strategic decisions.” However, the plan may prove to be financially irresponsible and represent a misguided step for the university.
In January, the university partnered with Los Angeles-based consultant firm AECOM for $310,000 to help assess priorities and guide the campus identity project.
This is not the first time CMU has written AECOM a paycheck.
According to the 2013-14 capital budget, $300,000 had already been allocated for master planning efforts from university reserves – bringing the total payout for master planning to more than $600,000.
The most recent fee included five months of information gathering and work completed through the final March forum – however, AECOM gathered less information compared to last year.
According to figures provided by Steve Lawrence, vice president of Facilities Management, the total attendance for all three sessions of the January forums was 138 people. A February 2013 forum garnered an audience of more than 200.
Although it's difficult to gauge the amount of individual contribution from the attendees, AECOM is ultimately only reaching a small percentage of the population. If the university and AECOM are looking to gather campus-wide input, asking students to attend a "charrette" is not going to do the trick.
In an increasingly digital society, it's easy to reach out to students through email and surveys. Perhaps master planning could be more effective if representation efforts are brought to the students, rather than asking students to come to them.
With more than 22,000 faculty, staff and students on campus, the small percentage of the population contributing is not an acceptable representation to base any decisions on – particularly ones that Ross said “will drive our decisions, short-term and long-term.”
But what are these decisions?
Over the course of the master planning process, AECOM, based partly on their undersized contributor base, have repeatedly advocated a need for a more walkable campus, simplified parking arrangements, landscape improvements and signage.
Although AECOM has provided no cost estimates, and Lawrence said one would not be available until at least June, this is not an area CMU should be directing its focus.
Bike paths, roundabouts, parking lots and landscaping are superficial aspects to the college experience. CMU’s first priority should be on academics, and a handful of directional signs are not the help we need.
On-campus enrollment has been declining since 2010 to a 16-year low of 19,634.
At a time when CMU struggles to appeal to a shrinking prospective student base, the emphasis should be placed on improving class offerings and strengthening the curriculum – particularly when a $15-million budget deficit is leaving campus with significantly reduced resources.
Instead of developing the appearance of a CMU brand, the university first needs to understand what that brand represents. Right now, it represents decreased funding across nearly every college on campus, fewer class offerings, vacancies in residence halls, increasing tuition and faculty cuts.
Strengthening the academic core and placing a focus on education rather than physical appearances should be CMU’s real master plan. Anything less is taking advantage of our students, their tuition dollars, and depriving us of what we really came here for in the first place – a quality education.
