Monday, November 05, 2007

Does C/R Need Renovating?

After reading the Eureka Reporter article twice, I was glad to see I'm not the only one questioning some of the demolition and renovation planned for College of the Redwoods. It looks like they're going to demolish the Administration Building, among other things. I've always felt that building was really neat looking.

I can't help but wonder if this is just renovation and rebuilding for the sake of renovation and rebuilding? After all, I'm sure there a many older buildings than C/R's in the county still being used for one purpose or another. My house was built in 1880 and it's still occupied. Does C/R really need to spend millions for new buildings?

20 Comments:

At 8:22 AM, Blogger The Boy Most Likely to ... said...

Newer buildings are safer, more energy efficient, and are better wired for new technology. An Academic institution, no matter what level, must continue to modernize to provide the latest available resources to its students. Buildings can be pretty, and have a long standing history, but times keep on changing, and so does the need of C/R.

-boy

 
At 9:41 AM, Blogger Stephen said...

And the highways always need up-grading too because they're flunking efficiency 101 big-time everyday at our great expense. I guess the C-R Administration needs fancier digs to go along with their salaries fit for big city housing prices and new car payments.

 
At 10:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pardon me for including this comment. It is about building renovation, but not at C/R.

The beautiful new Eureka Small Boat Basin, the Warfinger Building, and other adjacent structures were partly constructed of the kind of metal that rusts in a marine environment. Sure enough, parts of these structures have rusted in just a few years, making these new buildings look shabby.

On the other hand, parts of the Small Boat Basin have metal parts that have not rusted at all. If all the metal that is now rusting had been made of the rust-proof metal, those buildings would look brand-new today.

Who decided to use metal that rusts? Who bears liability for the damage of salt air on those structures. Does the city have any legal standing to sue for nonperformance of the contracts involved in erecting these structures? Does the City itself bear responsibility for the design considerations that resulted in this deterioration of these buildings?

Anybody with an ounce of sense could have told the designers and builders of these buildings that using non-rusting metal was the only sensible choice. Why did the people responsible for building these buildings fail to take that into account?

And have these concerns been addressed already in some forum with which I am not familiar?

And if so, have the discussions been reported to the Citizens of Eureka?

And if not, wouldn't this be a good time for the local media to consider pursuing these questions?

 
At 10:49 AM, Blogger Fred said...

No pardon necessary, anon. Interesting comments on an issue I wasn't aware of.

 
At 1:59 PM, Blogger Pogo said...

Buildings constructed of non ferrous metals i.e. aluminum have different structural properties than steel and are often more costly to erect. The cost of using stainless steel would have been prohibitive and initial cost was doubtless a factor. Occasionally long term costs are overlooked especially with regard to public projects. As for CR, the question should be asked: What is the cost of retrofit vs demolition-rebuild? Stephen makes a good point.

 
At 6:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All I see is another local bond measure that will yet another fee to my property taxes. Raise student fees to pay for it!!!

 
At 6:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

tear down CR's administration building??

CR was opened less than 50 years ago. admin building is a great example of 60's modern architechture. lots of redwood is used. the building was build to last. it is wired for modern day life. the building works perfectly. i can say this as a former student and employee of CR.

i agree with stephen. a new admin building would only serve the bigwigs in the state community college system, not the community at large. that money would be much better spent on improving the curriculum.

how can CR justify a project such as this at a time of decreasing enrollment?

 
At 8:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, I hope it's only a rumor that the main CR building is going to be demolished. Just a waste of time and money. The exterior is solid, just give it a new paint job and pave the freakin parking area, if they haven't already. It's been awhile since I've been on campus there.

 
At 8:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, the problem is that the buildings sit on a fault line that they did not know about in the '60s and the state is making them move the buildings off of the line as a condition of the upgrades approved by the voters with Measure Q. The state will be providing, I understand, the extra money needed to make these changes.

Five minutes of research before you commented would have revealed these facts...

 
At 8:42 PM, Blogger Carol said...

It is called the Little Salmon fault zone. It lies near the southern end of the Cascadia Subduction zone.

For a detailed map check out this from the Humboldt Bay Repowering Project:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/humboldt/documents/applicant/afc/Volume_01/Section%208.4%20Geological%20Hazards%20and%20Resources.pdf

This faultline can has the potential for big earthquakes.

 
At 8:53 PM, Blogger Fred said...

8:32 wrote, "Five minutes of research before you commented would have revealed these facts...".

No need to research. The E/R article referred to the potential earthquake problems. You need to read all the way down towards the end of it.

Sorry, but I have a problem with the line of thinking that if you move a building one or two hundred yards away from a fault, it will be all that much safer than if it was directly on the fault.

 
At 10:42 PM, Blogger Stephen said...

Yeah, really. There are faults running all over the place here. Actually, it's a good thing because our ground is so used to being shaken up all the time that handles "big ones" better than most places, e.g., the 7 pointer here that only knocked down one freeway bridge (right near CR) but otherwise did hardly any damage. Wood building "give" more in earthquakes, than bricks or concrete ones, btw..

 
At 1:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Fred, how's the lawn mowing going?

 
At 6:15 AM, Anonymous chuck hurwitz said...

Not to worry. The entire campus will soon be under water due to global warming according to OwlGore. Why not use the funds to invest in beach front property near Lord Ellis?

 
At 10:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe the Little Salmon fault has had a ground fault rupture which does more damage than "regular" earthquakes.

 
At 12:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

7 deletions and counting

If Fred knows so much about engineering, why is he mowing lawns for a living?

 
At 2:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why does everyone act like money "from the state" is not real money. This proposal to tear down a bunch of perfectly good buildings and replace them is a developer's wet dream. That is what is really behind this.

 
At 5:17 PM, Blogger Hayduke said...

Yes indeed, it sounds like a developer's windfall to me. Whenever anything like this happens it is a good idea to follow the money.

 
At 10:18 PM, Blogger Rose said...

I can't imagine tearing that building down! It is beautiful. I hope they are at least going to stay true tothe architecture.

 
At 11:56 AM, Blogger Anon.R.mous said...

http://anonrmous.blogspot.com/2006/09/college-of-redwoods-measure-q.html

Covered this over a year ago.

Buildings are fine, Crabil was milking the state for money. See the LRC and the Old Library, which they have illegally remodeled and used since the LRC has been opened.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home