61hawk

I'd say the majority of them that were still structurally sound. The library was "remodeled" not "demolished" so I don't see your argument there.

What have you contributed to this discussion? I mean other than being a cheerleader and sunshine pumper.

One of the last projects I worked on was with an old ROTC building that was renovated into classroom and office space. A second floor was added to the area that was the gymnasium. The same could easily be done at Hyslop to the original building, natural light would be the biggest concern. Perfect for classroom/lab space. I've never stepped foot into The Betty (I gave up on athletic support with the name change), but Hyslop would easily hold the crowd for men's and women's basketball. When do either draw more than 6000 fans?

I have never liked the look of the Chester Fritz Auditorium. Sure it's different and doesn't match anything else on campus... so I guess it has that going for it. Who thought orange brick was a good idea? The same people who approved the pie wedge addition on Gamble Hall. Phil Jackson wasn't the only one smoking dope back in the 60's. I wouldn't hold my breath for "remodeled and refurbished", UND administration prefers demolition and construction.

Enjoy the vinyl plank flooring.

That's probably because you have little history with the building. Are you saying that the structure couldn't be repurposed?

Which is pure BS. I've worked my entire adult life around higher education and at universities around the country. I have worked in dozens of renovated buildings and buildings that were currently under renovation that were as old or older than the buildings that UND is tearing down because of "asbestos and lead paint". I've been in historic buildings that were nothing more than exterior walls, when completed the exterior will look the same, the inside will be state of the art. Alumni at other universities would lose their mind if the administration made decisions that are being made at UND. From my experience, tell Princeton, Yale, Brown, Duke, Vanderbilt or Notre Dame alumni that you needs to demolish a building and you'll have a fight on your hands. At UND, in typical North Dakota fashion (and I am born and raised in ND) they'll just stand around with their hands in their pockets and say "well if you think its best, I don't want to start an argument and upset you" and in come the demolition crews to tear down 100-150 year old structures to put up a structure that'll hopefully last 50-60 years before it's complete carpet and vinyl plank flooring garbage. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it pisses me off to see what's being torn down on the UND campus. What they're planning for Hyslop is not necessary if they would just make an attempt to hire competent architects and engineers to work on the project. They're demolishing and building because it's easier... a demolition crew is likely more expensive than a remediation crew. "Oh the ground is unstable"... do you not think that is going to have to be addressed with the new construction?

What buildings are they planning on tearing down next? The campus is almost unrecognizable for those who don't live in the area. Other universities renovate, UND demolishes. Isn't it about time UND tears down the Chester Fritz Auditorium?

What year did they switch from this wooden floor to the crappy rubberized floor? If I remember correctly, the new wooden floor was installed for the 85-86 season. Looking closer at this photo, it looks like this may have been a regional high school game... it looks like school names over different sections. Were the state high school tournaments ever played in Hyslop?

Interesting, the last building I worked in at USC also was full of asbestos. They did abatement and were able to do a restoration that made the building one of the best looking spaces on campus. I haven't been on campus in maybe 20 years, but did spend a lot of time at Hyslop. Gambell Hall was another one of those Mike Brady designed buildings, I hated the pie shaped classrooms when I was a student.

The old Ralph and the old Memorial Union all had that 1970's/Mike Brady architectural feel about them and deserved to be torn down. The old Ralph was an abomination when it was first built and didn't get any better looking with age. I believe the architect moved on to make a fortune designing oil storage tanks. You can't compare the architecture of either of those buildings with Hyslop.

I don't see any reason why Hyslop needs to be demolished. Campuses around the country have gutted and renovated historic buildings to meet the needs of the university. As long as the structure is sound, there is no reason they can't repurpose the building. But UND is all about tearing down. As a graduate of 1988, I'm seeing a campus that I remember disappear. I have worked on several different Ivy league schools and they don't tear down and rebuild, they renovate and alumni can visit and recognize the campus. Hyslop is a beautiful building from the outside, unless it is structurally compromised it's a shame that they are even discussing demolition.

These two are almost as annoying as the Olson twins. Instead of expressing their opinion, why don't they try to solve the problem. Donate the funds needed to keep the sport, or tell Kennedy what sports he should have cut instead of women's hockey.

Tony wasn't a Finance major while at UND. There's a simple solution, one of these NHL superstars just needs to cut a check to UND.

No, he said it was better to cut one sport than four. So he's in favor of keeping men's and women's tennis and swimming and diving. That leave five individual sports to choose from that can cut $1.3 million from the budget. I simply asked him which of the sports he would cut.

Refresh my memory, how much revenue do these four sports (men's and women's swimming & diving, men's and women's tennis) generate? What one sport do you suggest we cut, pick one... men's hockey, women's hockey, football, men's basketball or women's basketball.

How much would be saved if they cut Men's and Women's Tennis & Swimming and Diving? If not enough then go after soccer.

I'm not arguing with you, and don't mean any disrespect to you or your brother, but something doesn't add up for me. This may be mainly from my lack of knowledge on his coaching history over the past 18 years. With the credentials and contacts that you stated (and I do realize you have a bias as you mentioned in this matter), it seems odd that he would be coaching at the 2-year college level where it doesn't appear the team has any traditional "scholarship" players. I am concerned somewhat about his ability to recruit, since I don't know or see a recruiting history. I assume Pete is looking at other schools as well, otherwise why would he already have his coaching staff set. I guess that I'm just focused mainly on getting someone at UND who has proven to be successful at the 4-year level. I work at USC and can use their football program as an example, when Brad Scott was fired the Athletic Director brought in Lou Holtz, and then after Holtz left, he brought in Steve Spurrier... this is what I think UND needs to do at this point, bring in an established and historically successful coach. Getting someone who could draw fans soley on his name would be a bonus and only help in recruiting. I realize that UND is not going to get a DI national championship head coach, but there must be some head coaches at DII or NAIA... or even DI championship level #1 assistant coaches that would be willing to make the step to a head coach in DII. For me there are just some holes that need to be filled before I could be 100% comfortable with this selection. From the names they brought in so far, I'm not comfortable with any of them... and I would have to review all the applicants a little more closely before I could even pick who I thought they should have brought in for the first round of interviews.

Why do people get all excited about Mike Boschee? He's been mentioned a couple times. As a head coach his record is 24-52 at a lower level college. Sure he's a local boy, but so are coaches Dave Vonesh, Todd Olson and many others who played for UND. These coach's records as players should play a minimal amount in the interviewing process. Boschee should hold off applying to a larger school until he can put together at least one above .500 season in the lower ranks. As far as Pete, I went to school with him at UND and am glad to find out where he and Julie landed. As good a friend as he was in college, I still don't know if I could give him complete 100% support for this position at this point in his head coaching career when comparing him to some of head coaching careers of the other applicants. Maybe someday, but not today. I could see him as head coach at Mayville, Wahpeton, Minot, Mary, etc. first in the near future. I think he'd be taking two steps up the ladder instead of one at a time. I could see if his record mirrored Roebuck's, but Roebuck had won a couple national titles by the time he interviewed at this level... at the same time recruiting and coaching another sport (baseball). I would agree that if they're going to interview the 3-4 that they picked, I don't think Pete or Mike are any less qualified and could be brought in. Obviously the committee sees something I don't when looking over the applicants. I doubt the committee will be done interviewing after these initial candidates... or at least I hope not because I'm not overly impressed.