Ruston Daily Leader article on the future of Wyly http://www.rustonleader.com/top_news
Reason here
|
|
|
|
|
Ruston Daily Leader article on the future of Wyly http://www.rustonleader.com/top_news
Reason here
I don't guess I could convince any of yall this represents an irreplaceable loss ...
I hear ya. Don't think the options to save it are feasible though.Originally Posted by Champ967
We won't have any tall buildings to gaze at from our seats at Joe Aillet.
Good old Memorial Gym
Harper will be the last high rise. I can't remember if we could see it or not. With Nielsen, Carruthers and now Wyly gone you might be able to see it from the stadium.
Or have something to spot easily while flying in Ruston.
I found you some old infrastructure local to you that they're giving away. Check twitter.
Sorry, but i'm too sentimental. I'm guess. Pretty soon there will be nothng left from when i was there. Oh, well, Just so the new library fits in and doesn't look like some of the newer stuff they've put here and there--bird beak roof apartments and space ship looking intramural center, for examples. I hope they give the new lbrary the old traditional look of Keeny, Bogard, the refurbished university hall, etc., since it will be right there in the quad area.
So very true.
Read the plan.
Wyly wasn't there when I was there. The newest class room building were Madison and Niethken. Since I left they have torn down Old Lomax Hall, Kidd, Hale, Old Business Building, Carruthers, Nielsen, Men's Old Gym, and Women's Old Gym.
Maybe one more that I can't remember. What's scaring me is that they tore down buildings built while I was there -- the three high rise dormitories. Not that they didn't deserve it. Now they're tearing down a building built after I left. I'm not really nostalgic about any of them.
The "Architectural Context" page, roughly page 16, describes the buildings in the quad and says, "Projects should be sensitive to the historic qualities and should respect those surrounding buildings." I don't think they are going to put a space ship in the middle of the quad.
Just a thought, but I can't help noticing that they are getting rid of the tallest buildings on campus (Neilsen, Carruthers, Wyly). Those buildings were built in the 60s and 70s, and there have been a lot of discussions here about the quality of work on those projects. But, I am curious if taller buildings are more difficult/expensive to maintain. Obviously a building with more square footage will take more work to maintain, but I am asking about the structure itself. There is no doubt that getting rid of Asbestos isn't cheap, so a new building makes sense.
Are we getting rid of tall buildings as a way to cut maintenance costs? I am asking this because the "Conclusion" on page 43 suggests that the new library will be smaller than the current one (about 70-80% the size of the current library), and will be six stories tall. Neilsen and Carruthers were replaced with a series of smaller apartment buildings.
On the other hand, maybe they are suggesting six stories for political reasons -- because they know that money is tight and they couldn't get the money to build a bigger building.
What do you guys think?
What an unfortunate waste.
Only 50% of the building has windows. That's pretty amazing. I'm hopeful that the new design will be top notch.
While I will miss Wiley Tower's magnificent presence on the Tech skyline, I do believe the new facility will likely be much more useable for students. Wiley Tower always has seemed a bit unapproachable.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
