Apartment demolition should move forward responsibly
Tweet
Buildings on campus come and go. Some develop charming characteristics as time passes. Others don’t. When considering replacing buildings, such character should be considered.
Recently, the MSU Division of Residential and Hospitality Services, or RHS, announced its desire to demolish the Faculty Brick and Cherry Lane apartment complexes beginning in 2011. However, RHS first must get approval from the MSU Board of Trustees on April 16 in order to begin the project.
There are more than 400 leaseholders between the two complexes — about 42 percent are graduate students and about 25 percent are families. The process would begin in the summer of 2011, allowing families with children in the Red Cedar Elementary School to finish the school year. Other residents would be accommodated in nearby apartments, such as Spartan Village.
Demolishing the two apartment complexes is something that should be done as long as there is a plan to improve the open space in a financially responsible way. The buildings were constructed more than half a century ago and were intended to serve as living spaces only for 25 to 30 years. As they are well past their life expectancy, the apartments have weathered some cosmetic decline, but there is a certain character to the buildings that should be continued. Many of the current leaseholders are families and graduate students, and because of this, the buildings — although not the most beautiful structures in the world — have a residential charm. With that being said, the area could use a fresh look.
The demolition plan is in the beginning stages and RHS has not begun to speculate on what might replace the buildings, but it does intend to maintain its plan aimed at revitalizing student housing. The lots could house various buildings and shouldn’t simply be paved over. Similar complexes should be constructed to replace the old ones.
Cherry Lane and Faculty Brick have a unique family appeal. The apartments have attracted a certain group of residents with their close proximity to the elementary school, yards and playground. It’s nice to know there’s a family-oriented space on campus where people want to live, especially with the close location to campus. New apartments should be built and serve the same demographic. Constructing new apartments with the same price range and size of units should be a priority.
A new project — whether it be a new apartment or some other building — should have something with character, not just a parking lot. The stretch of land is one of the first things drivers see coming in from Trowbridge Road, so whatever is built there should have a certain amount of “curb appeal,” unlike what the university is attempting to do with the less-than-beautiful Eli and Edythe Broad Art Museum.
As long as whatever is built in place of the apartments is done responsibly and becomes a project people can proudly look at as they arrive on campus, the demolition likely is for the best.
Sixty years of wear and tear have left the Faculty Brick and Cherry Lane apartments with a decaying appearance. Now there is an opportunity for MSU to embrace the charm and character of a community, and develop replacement facilities that future generations of Spartans can view with pride.






Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
I'm Spartacus
(02/18/10 9:23pm)Report
10% of MSU students come from wealthy families overseas. This is diversity the RoBoTs sought? Destroying Michigan’s middle class?
huh?
(02/23/10 9:33am)Report
This is one of the most poorly written editorials I’ve ever read. Did anyone even bother to move this beyond the rough draft stage? In one paragraph they say “as long as there is a plan to improve the open space”, I have to ask…what open space? Open space is another term for undeveloped land. This land is already developed.
Then they go on to say MSU needs to build something other than “another parking lot”. Um, two paragraphs earlier you state that RHS plans to put housing on the site, so which is it? Besides you have to have parking (which already exists there) when you have apartments.
What does the look of the art museum have to do with future apartments? I could see your point if you had an issue with the look of the replacement university village apts built a few years ago…but by using the museum as your example you are comparing apples to oranges.
I guess in the age of twitter and texting I shouldn’t expect to read a well written, well thought out editorial from the State News.