cperlman@acuho-i.orgClemson students say their last goodbyes to Clemson House. [CLEMSON LIBRARIES SPECIAL COLLECTIONS]
by Camille Perlman
Members spend so much time in their careers building community, doesn’t it go against the nature of their work to break one up? But that is what happens when a building is slated to be demolished. For better or worse, that community (of students and staff) is asked to move on. Luckily, rerouting students across campus and bringing a community back together (both the people and the physical structures) are part of the nature of working in student housing too.
Participants in this conversation are Kathy Hobgood, assistant vice president of student affairs and executive director of university housing and dining at Clemson University in South Carolina; John Biernbaum (JB), associate vice president for student services at Western Illinois University in Macomb; Von Stange, assistant vice president for student life and senior director for university housing and dining at the University of Iowa in Iowa City; and Mary Janz, executive director of housing and residence life at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Talking Stick: What were the compelling factors in making the decision to discontinue use of the building?
Kathy Hobgood: The Clemson House was built in 1950 as a hotel, and in 1974 it was transitioned to use as a residence hall, with very little renovation or enhancement to building systems. On top of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing needs, we learned that the seismic rating for the Upstate had changed since construction. That meant that, in a full renovation, all of the exterior brick would need to be removed and reattached to the infrastructure with more modern brick-ties. Additionally, the land use near and around the Clemson House is slated for future university operations that did not support keeping the building in use. All of these factors made the decision to move ahead with planning for demolition an easy one from a facilities perspective. This was NOT an easy decision, based on the history of the building and affection for its role in campus history – I can comment more on that later.
John Biernbaum: The reason we decided to take down Wetzel (14 stories) and Higgins (20 stories) halls was because of rapidly declining enrollment coupled with increasing deferred maintenance of the buildings. They were both at the end of life in terms of their ability to operate functionally and efficiently.
Von Stange: Quadrangle Hall was opened in 1920 and was originally built to train soldiers for World War I. However, the war ended before the building was completed. It was not in an area where other campus buildings were originally, but it was near the hospital. Over time, the campus built around Quadrangle, and during World War II the building was used to house pilots who trained for air missions during the war. Though utilitarian, the building didn’t have much for study space and had single, double, triple, and quad occupancy rooms. The building was slated to be closed in 2015, but a larger first-year class necessitated that it stay open one more year. We pushed for one more year as a bridge to the new building opening in 2017, but that decision would have jeopardized state funding for the new pharmacy building, and the decision was made to shutter and demolish it in May of 2016.
Mary Janz: McCormick Hall was a 720-person residence hall that was built in 1968. It was home to first-year students, one full-time residence hall director, one assistant residence hall director, 22 resident assistants, one facility manager, and two residence hall ministers. It was a great place for first-year students to meet one another and become acquainted with their new campus; however, the university would have needed to put significant dollars into it for infrastructure that was still not going to meet today’s students’ needs. It was a round building, with pie-shaped rooms, and the door of each room opened to the view of a cinder block wall. Community formed because of staff and a right-of-passage. The physical building did nothing to support and facilitate community efforts. In the end, it was truly a better financial decision to build new with replacement residence halls versus trying to retro-fit and repair.
TS: How did you make decisions around demolition versus implosion?
Hobgood: When we put out our RFP for removal of the building from campus, we included a request for both options to be explored. Responses included consideration of cost, time, effect, and safety of both implosion and the more traditional “claw it down” methodology. Implosion turned out to be more cost-effective, as well as a safer approach for the team doing the work. That seems oxymoronic, I am sure. However, we learned that the total days on site – as well as the physical handling and demolition of materials up close – often leads to more worker injury. We were also schooled by our contractor, Neuber Construction, to not refer to the process as being “explosive.” Rather, we utilized the more technical definition of implosion as “the strategic weakening of building supports in order to facilitate faster, safer inward intentional collapsing of a building.”
Biernbaum: We put an RFP out looking at both implosion and mechanical means. In the end, the lowest bid for taking down Wetzel was implosion. With Higgins, we had to do implosion because of the way the foundation was anchored and because of its location, which was right next to a local neighborhood. It was also the quickest option.
Stange: It was a two-story building, so no implosion was needed. Plus, we kept some of the materials for a plaza to be made when the pharmacy building is completed.
Janz: Subcontractors made their recommendations based on their reviews and physical walk-throughs of the structure. Implosion was never an option offered.
TS: In what ways were you able to re-use, recycle, or salvage building materials?
Hobgood: We specified maximum efforts in this area as part of our bid process. In the end we were able to reclaim 97 percent of the building materials. That includes 840 tons of salvage metal that was recycled, as well as 24,000 tons of concrete that was crushed on-site and used as back fill for foundations and site work for a new campus building being constructed in proximity.
Biernbaum: We worked with state procurement to sell or donate as many items as we could. This also generated a little revenue for us. We separated and recycled all metal. Additionally, we crushed all concrete and used it as back fill. In the end 95 percent of both buildings were recycled.
Stange: We kept gates, coats of arms, and limestone from the building for the plaza.
Janz: We utilized the newer furniture from McCormick Hall to replace the older furniture in another residence hall. All of the security cameras are being repurposed as well. We took a number of fixtures out as spares to use in other buildings: alarm horns, strobes, newer faucets, etc. The mailboxes will be used to replace existing mailboxes in another building. At this time the market doesn’t appear to be strong for recycling other parts of the building (steel, bricks, etc.). We will continue to monitor the market.
TS: As you closed out the community, what are the ways that you celebrated with students? With staff?
Hobgood: The last group of students departed the building in May of 2016. The residential living staff did a lovely job working with students to create farewell parties, as well as creating a spot for a public wall mural that allowed current students to write messages during the last weeks. The wall was then fully photographed before demolition. As for staff, we had some special parties and celebration with this group as well as doing some strategic repurposing of some of the building materials. Slate from the front porch and a number of bricks were utilized to create an outdoor seating area at their new office. Plantings from the landscaping at the Clemson House, as well as a bench from the side porch, finish out a lovely spot at their new on-campus home.
Biernbaum: We didn’t really do a special celebration for the residents or staff in the buildings. There was such a long time between taking them offline and actually taking them down, so it is something we just didn’t do. I believe staff did something privately on their own.
Stange: We let students take the room plates from their rooms. We set aside 1,000 bricks to sell to staff, students, and alumni: $50 for staff and $100 for alumni. We sold about 250 bricks, for a net of $13,500 for scholarships. We partnered with an outside vendor who did the same thing for athletics and Kinnick Stadium.
Janz: We recently held a decommissioning event just before graduation. We had photo booth-like photos taken alongside the building’s sign, and an additional special sign was made commemorating the years of McCormick Hall. There was music, a decommissioning prayer, and brief speeches by the president and former VP for student affairs, who also served as a Jesuit hall minister for 17 years in McCormick Hall. T-shirts with the image of the hall were sold. Can Koozies in the shape of the hall with the photo of the building were sold to raise money for the university’s food pantry. Students, staff, and faculty were able to sign a section of the building as a sendoff. Former students and staff have been calling about room number plates since information regarding closing McCormick Hall was released. Rather than brick sales (which have not been successful), University Advancement conducted a room plate auction, raising funds for the university.
Building staff and students closed the building a year before demolition. There were t-shirt sales for students, a large-scale outdoor celebration, and photo opportunities planned by the RA staff and the Community Programming Council.
TS: How was the story of the building celebrated, discussed, or archived on your campus?
Hobgood: Our Libraries and Special Collections team did a number of site visits and created a beautiful remembrance of the chapters in the history of the building – and its role on campus. Their efforts went a long way to ensure that we were paying respect to our history, as we plan for the future.
The Clemson House was topped with an iconic neon sign that could be seen for miles. The sign was dismantled and preserved for a yet undetermined future use. The concrete cornerstone was preserved and stored, as well as the bronze tiger from the front of the building that had been a favorite photo op for years.
Our historian was involved with both the libraries project and selection of items to retain. One of our history faculty members also utilized the closure of the building to do a year-long project with students studying the preservation of archives and story-telling. They interviewed staff, alumni, and community members – using the opportunity to apply a current campus conversation to their field of study.
Biernbaum: I feel like we did a great job at this in both cases. Once we moved forward with the RFP to implode, we worked with alumni staff, former housing staff, and many campus and community members. We were in the alumni newsletter and local newspapers. We also had Facebook pages set up for both where former residents could interact with each other and post pictures and memories. We had many page views on social media. For Higgins we actually created a web link off our housing page. We didn’t work with an archivist or historian, but we did save building plaques and some art work. We actually had an alum that had made a painting for the building that we gave back to him in exchange for doing a story about it in the alumni newsletter. It was very cool.
Stange: There was an article in the alumni newsletter about the building (Quadrangle). The article was called “The Quad Squad.” We asked them to provide stories, and they did a great job submitting them.
Janz: The story of McCormick Hall is a well-known one. It was our largest residence hall that at one time housed 720 men. In later years the building was moved to co-ed, first-year students. It was known throughout the years as the “beer can.” Countless residence hall directors tried to change the image by developing catchy names like the “round town” or the “pizza.” Sadly, none of those ideas caught on. The “beer can” is still a descriptor used by students, alumni, and parents. Chris Farley was a one-time resident of McCormick Hall. The student newspaper ran articles about the closing of McCormick Hall and then again about the decommissioning and removal of the building. Messages were also sent out electronically to faculty and staff.
We have a few items in storage such as the exterior building signs that were posted in front of and on the building. These items are too large to maintain in the archives. For now, they rest in a storage facility on campus. The alumni were interested in finding a way to get one last photo in or outside of the building or trying to find a way to purchase a piece of the building. And a plan for auctioning off room number plates was developed when we heard that front desk staff were being inundated with phone calls requesting the plates. Once the building was closed, all room numbers were taken down and delivered to University Advancement.
Camille Perlman is the managing editor for Talking Stick.