Poll Results: Wes Not Happy with Usdan

Yes.
78 (17%)
No.
235 (53%)
Obligatory ambivalent response.
128 (29%)

*obviously unscientific as one angry member of the “mathematical community” pointed out.

(Visited 3 times, 1 visits today)

68 thoughts on “Poll Results: Wes Not Happy with Usdan

  1. Anonymous

    Do you really think we need any “rooms for general use”?. I’m pretty sure we have enough empty buildings on campus already. Davenport is empty for now. MoCon is empty now. The old Physical Plant building is empty. The old squash courts have been unused for a while. Tons of space in all our tunnels is totally unused. The top floor of Usdan is a wasteland.I understand that changes are underway and some of this will change eventually, but the entire campus layout now just reeks of poor planning.

  2. Anonymous

    Do you really think we need any “rooms for general use”?. I’m pretty sure we have enough empty buildings on campus already. Davenport is empty for now. MoCon is empty now. The old Physical Plant building is empty. The old squash courts have been unused for a while. Tons of space in all our tunnels is totally unused. The top floor of Usdan is a wasteland.

    I understand that changes are underway and some of this will change eventually, but the entire campus layout now just reeks of poor planning.

  3. Anonymous

    it’s also used for receptions after events in the chapel, biology student lab presentations, and for small gatherings. underground also has bathrooms and rooms for general use. what space is it wasting? there would be grass there otherwise

  4. Anonymous

    it’s also used for receptions after events in the chapel, biology student lab presentations, and for small gatherings. underground also has bathrooms and rooms for general use. what space is it wasting? there would be grass there otherwise

  5. johnwesley

    it’s supposed to function as a lobby for when you’re lined up for an event. Are you saying people would rather wait out of doors? Or, are there just not enough events to justify the expense?

  6. johnwesley

    it’s supposed to function as a lobby for when you’re lined up for an event. Are you saying people would rather wait out of doors? Or, are there just not enough events to justify the expense?

  7. Anonymous

    Wow, you’re right 1:36. I should appreciate it for the masterwork of architecture it is, instead of think of it as a waste of space because, um, all the space in it is wasted.Seriously, it would look exactly the same if it didn’t have doors, and I’m sure it would get just as much use. Would you still think it adds something to campus?And now all of our Wesleyan stationary with college row on it is out of date now because of that exorbitant see-through porta-john.

  8. Anonymous

    Wow, you’re right 1:36. I should appreciate it for the masterwork of architecture it is, instead of think of it as a waste of space because, um, all the space in it is wasted.

    Seriously, it would look exactly the same if it didn’t have doors, and I’m sure it would get just as much use. Would you still think it adds something to campus?

    And now all of our Wesleyan stationary with college row on it is out of date now because of that exorbitant see-through porta-john.

  9. Anonymous

    i like Zelnick! If any of you knew architecture, you’d realize that structures like Zelnick are GOOD- half-assed ones like Fauver are what’s BAD.

  10. Anonymous

    i like Zelnick! If any of you knew architecture, you’d realize that structures like Zelnick are GOOD- half-assed ones like Fauver are what’s BAD.

  11. Anonymous

    some rich alumnus/alumnae should pay to have the Zelnick Pavilion ripped down.We never use it. And it’s hideous. Let’s be serious.

  12. Anonymous

    some rich alumnus/alumnae should pay to have the Zelnick Pavilion ripped down.

    We never use it. And it’s hideous. Let’s be serious.

Comments are closed.