After a long and intrepid journey, this reporter can hang up the walking stick and analyze the writing on the wall — our intramural facilities are in bad shape, and something needs to be done.
Earlier in September, The State News covered the conditions of our own IM facilities and the students responded. The consensus seemed to be our facilities need updates.
Throughout the semester, we packed up and visited three neighboring universities to compare how they have updated and maintained their facilities to keep students in mind.
MSU
This doesn’t come after simply admiring the pretty complexes from around the area — the extensive study from other universities reveals MSU lies dormant at the bottom of the barrel in regards to recent renovations, space per student and administrative involvement with student groups.
The first step was analyzing our own facilities and what the administration has planned to do with them in light of the recent healthy campus initiative.
ASMSU president Domonique Clemons laments the fact that MSU’s exercise complexes are some of “the worst in the Big Ten,” he said.
“We are being outdone by every university in the state of Michigan,” Clemons said, agreeing with the student body and calling for change “from the structures to technology.”
Graduate student John Benton also feels the equipment needs to be updated and that the workout centers are severely overcrowded and said he feels MSU could better represent their healthy campus initiative if they upgraded the facilities that students need in order to exercise.
“They have the funds,” Benton said, pointing to the recent addition to the north entrance of Spartan Stadium.
These findings are rather bleak, so we set out to see how neighboring universities have handled similar situation.
University of Michigan
The first stop on the trip was University of Michigan, a university recreational complex situation that was, until recently, very similar to our own.
Showcasing some of the oldest facilities in the country, the students lobbied for their renovations via a student organization called “Building a Better Michigan.”
The president of the organization felt updates would better represent the “leaders and best image” of the university.
“It has been a staff perspective to update the facilities for a long time,” Director of Facilities for Recreational Sports Jeff Straw said. “It was really kickstarted when the students got involved, they were the voice.”
The administration obliged and actively worked in tandem with the student body, consulting architectural firms on the optimal amount of space needed for the entirety of the student body.
Each of U-M’s three IM centers will be undergoing significant renovations in the next five years, one of them under construction now.
Support student media! Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
In the meantime, U-M officials are actively working to make the current facilities as conducive as possible to student wellness, often repurposing older rooms to centers for modern recreational needs.
Like U-M, MSU’s own student groups have shown significant interest in updating IM Sports-West and IM Sports-East. However, our administration has been less than accommodating to student wishes for better wellness centers.
Currently, there are no plans in the immediate future to renovate the IM centers, despite active student involvement from organizations such as ASMSU.
Ohio State University
The next stop was a mountaintop of IM facilities, not only in the Big Ten, but throughout the country — Ohio State University.
Ohio State faced a similar situation of aging complexes in the 1990s, but accomplished the renovations with a variety of different sources for funding. A portion came from state grants and donors, but the bulk came from the demographic that would be primarily using the facilities — the students.
Much like MSU, the largest university in the state found itself being outdone by its in-state counterparts in regards to the quality of the recreational complexes.
Toledo, Bowling Green, Miami University and Ohio University each developed student wellness centers that surpassed that of the Buckeyes, Senior Associate Director of Facilities David DeAngelo said.
Like at U-M, designers, accompanied by students, toured facilities from across the country in order to gain a perspective on what would be the most conducive to the students at Ohio State.
Officials at Ohio State even conferred with several health-oriented sources in order to assess how much space was needed for proper student health.
Upon its completion, the central Recreation and Physical Activity Center, or RPAC, facility boasted a recreational pool, hot tub, complete track level, multiple basketball courts for a variety activities, an entire section dedicated to cardio, a fully-functional maintenance room that can repair equipment at a moment’s notice and an education center solely dedicated to educating students on healthy lifestyles.
The state of the art facilities are seen by some, namely politicians, to be “country club costs,” he said.
However, it is important that universities continue to provide these accessible and adequate wellness centers, OSU Recreational Sports Director Don Stenta said, because of its direct correlation to the academic performance of a student.
Regular renovations to the primary complex are vital in order to ensure student wellness be in peak form for their academic performance.
Central Michigan University
The final stop of Central Michigan University placed student wellness into the initial designs of their buildings, so renovations are not as necessary or frequent.
Assistant vice president of facilities Stan Shingles heads the Student Athletic Center, or SAC, at Central Michigan. He said he has met with visiting MSU students hoping to gain a perspective on how they have maintained impressive facilities for their student body.
The officials there take great pride in the space they’ve set aside for student wellness. Shingles adores the social aspect of the complex, pointing out that its bowling alley and billiards room are extremely popular among students, children and adults alike.
He said the SAC boasts an adequate amount of space per student, Shingles said, referencing studies conducted by NIRSA, an organization devoted to research and development of recreational complexes and their connection to student wellness and performance.
“These are not luxuries, they are necessary amenities for student wellness,” Shingles said.
By contrast, MSU is well below this recommended level of space for student wellness facilities.
According to NIRSA research, trends show students that utilize the facility boast a higher average GPA as well as increased involvement around campus.
What we can learn
MSU students and administration can learn a great deal from the actions of their neighbors.
Each of the universities visited had one commonality — the student body was active in the design, funding and renovation of the complexes. Each school proved sustained and selfless student lobbying can go a long way if the student body truly shows the top brass adequate facilities are an absolute necessity. In short, these were and are their facilities.
U-M showed what concentrated student efforts towards the administration can accomplish. Ohio State unveiled some of the most impressive facilities in the country through the selfless activism of persistent students, some of whom remain active in the Columbus community to this day. Finally, Central Michigan revealed students can even be active in the planning stages of university buildings.
The administration can simply learn increased student wellness will pay substantial dividends for student performance, on and off campus.
