Nope. I was the end of a weekend and hopefully enough time for people to chill out. But if it had the added effect that people would wait to seen if there was going to be an announcement of some kind (there wasn't), then my choice of wording had an unintended benefit. :)

Akron basketball team lounges, weight room coming to Rhodes Arena

The Suburbanite

Posted May 09, 2011 @ 09:52 AM

 

Akron, Ohio —

 

The University of Akron will convert 5,000 square feet in James A. Rhodes Arena into team lounges for the Zips men's and women's basketball programs and construct a 1,650-square-foot strength-training room that will service four varsity teams. The University's Board of Trustees approved the project on April 28.

 

The lounges will provide enhanced facilities for team activities and be located in proximity to each squad's locker room and arena floor. The Zips tennis and volleyball programs, which like the basketball teams have office and locker room space in Rhodes Arena, will also utilize the strength and conditioning center.

 

http://www.thesuburbanite.com/sports/x855741920/Akron-basketball-team-lounges-weight-room-coming-to-Rhodes-Arena

hhmmm.....

 

Focusing on four Akron districts

 

Published on Monday, May 09, 2011

 

MAIN STREET DISTRICT: Main Street along the canal has a good start with Lock 3 Park, but Eckstut said he'd like a town square similar to a Rockefeller Center. If there were to be a new University of Akron arena, it could also be located nearby.

 

http://www.ohio.com/news/first/121483158.html

^ won't happen.

^A lot of people said that about the stadium too.

UA has the arena in their plans, and I believe an architecture firm in Cleveland already has preliminary drawings done.  Now obviously fundraising is a huge issue, but I think this happens sooner then some on here think.

If it happens I'm all for it if it happens. I wonder when UA will cross market st and start building over there. Plenty of space available on that side.

If it happens I'm all for it if it happens. I wonder when UA will cross market st and start building over there. Plenty of space available on that side.

I've often thought the same thing.  Great place to start a Medical Research Park.

UA has the arena in their plans, and I believe an architecture firm in Cleveland already has preliminary drawings done.  Now obviously fundraising is a huge issue, but I think this happens sooner then some on here think.

 

Hoping you're right about that.

 

And welcome to the forum!!

 

Officials celebrate start of new engineering building

05/11/2011

 

The University of Akron College of Engineering broke ground for a new, 39,000-square-foot research building scheduled to open its first laboratories in winter 2011-12.

 

During the May 9 groundbreaking ceremony, U.S. Rep. Betty Sutton (OH-13), announced that the U.S Department of Defense is entering into contracting processes to award an additional $11 million to UA to continue the development of the National Center for Education and Research in Corrosion and Materials Performance.

 

http://www.uakron.edu/im/online-newsroom/news_details.dot?newsId=1979044

I was driving down Exchange today and I noticed the Europe Gyro being bulldozed.  I was not even aware that they closed.  Is anyone aware of plans for this lot?  It seemed like a rather fast tear down, so I dont think it was condemned. That leaves me to think it was tore down for another purpose.  I am hoping for some new construction and not a parking lot like the old record exchange building.  The old zip strip could use some new establishments in that area, as it is pretty much down to bw's, pints and a couple of drive throughs.

If it happens I'm all for it if it happens. I wonder when UA will cross market st and start building over there. Plenty of space available on that side.

I've often thought the same thing.  Great place to start a Medical Research Park.

 

I heard Neoucom may be moving to Akron.  If UA don't pick up that empty space there then it would be perfect for Neoucom. It's within the medical corridor so it's close to the 3 major hospitals.

 

 

I was driving down Exchange today and I noticed the Europe Gyro being bulldozed.  I was not even aware that they closed.  Is anyone aware of plans for this lot?  It seemed like a rather fast tear down, so I dont think it was condemned. That leaves me to think it was tore down for another purpose.  I am hoping for some new construction and not a parking lot like the old record exchange building.  The old zip strip could use some new establishments in that area, as it is pretty much down to bw's, pints and a couple of drive throughs.

They are just rebuilding Euro Gyro.  It will be a 5000 SF sit down eatery.  It will still be a Euro Gyro though.

Thanks for the reply.  Good to hear about some new private development in this area.

Please let it be the last word Tom.  I think that's Yanni's  point.  It's not that he disagrees with you, it's that you ramble on continuously about this without presenting any evidence.  When you first started posting on this board, you were rude and standoffish and you still are.  And you really have nothing better to do than make bumper stickers proclaiming the need for the arena to be on campus?  Kinda sad.

 

feel better now!

^A lot of people said that about the stadium too.

 

What a lot of people said was that UA doesn't have room for an on-campus stadium and that it should go downtown. That is the same pessimism being expressed today on this forum when people say that a new UA arena can't/won't be built on the campus. Watch and listen...a new UA multi-purpose arena will go directly on the UA campus proper and not in downtown. It is a downtown arena that won't happen.

What a lot of people said was that UA doesn't have room for an on-campus stadium and that it should go downtown. That is the same pessimism being expressed today on this forum when people say that a new UA arena can't/won't be built on the campus. Watch and listen...a new UA multi-purpose arena will go directly on the UA campus proper and not in downtown. It is a downtown arena that won't happen.

 

FYI.. As part of the Quaker square deal UA agreed to build an arena downtown when the time for an arena comes.

No, you are wrong. As part of the Quaker Square deal UA agreed to run the hotel portion for two years which has now been changed to indefinitely, making the Quaker Square deal null and void, especially since UA bought Quaker Square from its private owner, Jay Nausbaum and not the city.

 

Also, you have got the wording wrong. At the time before this "deal" became nullified, UA agreed to build a new arena in or near downtown in a location that is acceptable to the university and the city.

 

I am a member of the city and I am a member of the UA community and I say it goes on campus proper and not downtown.

Larry States, a credible Akron area reporter, back in 2007 said this in a story for WAKR and akronnewsnow.com.

 

"Mayor Plusquellic tells WAKR News the city and the University of Akron now have an agreement as part of the Quaker Square purchase that if and when the university would build a new basketball arena, it would be located downtown. Plusquellic says he received a letter from University of Akron officials making the commitment."

 

 

http://www.akronnewsnow.com/news/itemdetail.asp?ID=8766

 

Unless anyone brings forward any printed facts via UA, Akron, or media outlets to overturn this info it stands as truth. All else is speculation.

Here is a direct quote from the letter of agreement that is now nullified:

 

"If and when a new arena is built to house university of Akron sports teams, including its intercollegiate basketball team, the arena will be built in or near downtown Akron at a location acceptable to the city and the university."

 

We have much legal wiggle room and this agreement doesn't mean squat not only because it is null and void by the fact that it was part of UA running a hotel for two year and now they are running it for longer than that. This agreement is not legally binding because the city has no right or power to force UA from doing what it wants to do. In effect, the agreement is at best a gentleman's agreement and has no legal force. I dare the city to sue UA over a so called violation of this nullified agreement.

Here is a reply to that audio:

 

LEEFALLS said:

 

MAYOR DON IS ONCE AGAIN BEING HIS POMPOUS SELF! HE TALKS DOWN THE NEW FOOTBALL STADIUM AND CONTINUES TO SAY HE WANTS U OF A TO BUILD HIM A DOWNTOWN ARENA HE CAN USE ON U OF A'S DIME. BET HE DOESN'T TURN DOWN ANY OF THE TAXES THAT WILL BE COLLECTED FROM THOSE PEOPLE WHO GO TO THE FOOTBALL GAMES,EAT,DRINK BEFORE AND AFTER...WHO BUY OTHER THINGS WHEN THEY ARE THERE WHO MIGHT STAY OVERNIGHT ETC...ETC YES IT WOULD NOT BE USED AS MUCH 'POTENTIALLY' AS AN ARENA BUT CANAL PARK ISN'T A YEAR ROUND OPERATION EITHER... I DON'T SEE BASEBALL IN OCTOBER,NOVEMBER DECEMBER,JANUARY FEBRUARY ETC ETC..

 

Give it up people. You don't know what you are talking about. There will be a new UA arena and it will be built in the heart of the UA campus near InfoCision where it belongs and not downtown. UA has had long range plans to place ALL athletic facilities on the campus within proximity of one another as part of a master plan to have a campus within a campus dedicated to all (not some) multipurpose athletic endeavors.

 

The world class multipurpose arena will be built on the campus with the rest of the state-of-the-art athletic facilities.

 

If you or the mayor want a downtown arena, then you and the mayor can pay for it 100%. End of discussion.

Do we have any more official pronouncements from either the city or from the university on the subject?  That press snippet was from 2007, after all, and I haven't heard or seen anything else on the topic from an official source dated more recently (though I admit I haven't been following heavily).  All things considered, the answer to the debate over the location of the new UA basketball arena appears to be "© none of the above, it's not getting built anytime soon."

 

As for the letter agreement, I have no idea what the original terms of the agreement were nor do I have any idea of how formal or how comprehensive any subsequent amendments to that agreement were.  However, I am inclined to doubt Tom's account, both because of what I know about general contract law and because of Tom's clear bias against the city.  It may be that the entire original contract was nullified and a new contract containing completely different terms was entered into.  On the flip side, it may simply be that the original operating agreement was extended indefinitely, with no novation ("novation" means substituting a completely new contract for an old one).  In most cases, renegotiating or amending one part of a contract doesn't render the remainder null and void; quite the contrary, in fact.  Of course, it may also be that the original "letter agreement" was really just a letter, not an agreement--I haven't seen any of these documents.  However, from a pure rationalist perspective, I strongly doubt that *if* the city secured a commitment from the university to build its next major sports arena downtown, that it would release that obligation for nothing more than the commitment from UA to run Quaker Square for a little while longer.

Let's just pretend the letter of agreement is still in effect. Even so, the wording specifically states that the location of a new arena will be in OR NEAR DOWNTOWN IN A LOCATION THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO BOTH UA AND THE CITY. That gives UA the upper hand especially, when convenient, downtown politicians love to refer to the entire campus as being "in downtown".

 

Bias or not, the city does not get to control UA, nor did it ever own Quaker Square and that is why the campus has flourished. I wish the best for this city, but its progress has paled in comparison to that of the UA campus. And the city sees that and wants to ride UA's coat tales if not rob it outright. Saying so is not a bias, it is stating the obvious historical truth about Akron, Ohio. This penchant by the city of Akron to pretend that we don't have a real university and merely an extension of downtown has been going on for long enough and UA has demonstrated that it will not let it go on any further, The last thing our university and region needs is for the city of Akron to hoodwink UA and the population while it emasculates the campus as a means to rape its holdings in an attempt to claim a campus asset as a city of Akron accomplishment. That has been an Akron MO for a very long time ( see E.J. Thomas Hall)  and most astute people can see through that classic Akron game.

The latest news on this comes from the Architectual firm from New York that was hired to help design a urban development plan for this area. They suggest splitting the area into districts. And have directly mentioned a University arena should be placed in the Main street district in order to capitalize on the areas assets. They are in works with the city, UPA, UA, and the area hospitals to create the best plan. The main architect even said the goal is to blur the distinction between the campus and downtown.

We all know what the "main architect" said and he is in error. We should not blindly follow another pied piper hired by Akron. He is no different than any other including Rebbecca Ryan. Just because they say it is so, doesn't make it so.

 

And he actually called for "blurring the distinction between the campus and the city". Bogus advise. It is not going to happen.

 

Don't think for a moment that this bogus consultant is not influenced by politicians and the mayor and followers of him.

 

Again, they couldn't care less about The University of Akron. They want to explot UA in order to get what they want in the downtown area in spite of what is good for UA and the region. The obsession with downtown is at best myopic. But, then again, I have always maintained that this view is soooooo Akron.

The personal insults in this thread will stop - otherwise, forumers will find their accounts suspended.

^ Agreed.  Until additional news is available arena talk should stop.

 

As a single point, University Park was formed and is still partially funded by the University of Akron and was and is Dr. Proenza's pet project.  Nothing that UPA does is outside of what UA wants.

^ Agreed.  Until additional news is available arena talk should stop.

 

As a single point, University Park was formed and is still partially funded by the University of Akron and was and is Dr. Proenza's pet project.  Nothing that UPA does is outside of what UA wants.

 

Exactly. UPA is a collaboration of entities that want the best for the area. I for one am encouraged that organizations are coming together and can't wait to see what's in the future for that area.

Just because a single architect wants something does not automatically mean that UPA wants it too. Also, nothing that UA does is outside of what UPA wants. UPA is here to develop the 50 block area around the campus and not dictate what the campus should do. If it weren't for UA, UPA would not exist. UPA is not going to change UA's master plan nor does it intend to. And I will "talk" about this all I want. Doing so is not a personal attack.

I think UPA was one of the best ideas Dr. Proenza created as long as it sticks with its mission of developing non-campus areas and not the campus itself.

Well this U of A grad thinks any new arena should be built downtown, ideally across from the baseball park. I think this would serve the greater good of the community, and a stronger city core would help the University more than having an arena in the middle of campus. Also, this is not a rubber bowl situation. The campus is directly adjacent to downtown and in some cases it spills into downtown. It's an easy walk to main street from campus, just like the bars and restaurants down there.

Well this UA grad and financial backer thinks you are wrong. UA has been trying to build a real campus and to put an arena off the campus is just plain suicidal. The new UA arena belongs on the campus along with the UA football stadium. It's is called common sense and logic. And it is called a campus for a reason. A UA facility should go on the UA campus. It is not rocket science. It is not the job of the university to build up the downtown area. Being adjacent to the campus is not enough. Something as big and new as a UA arena needs to be actually on the UA campus. That was the sentiment of an on campus football stadium and it makes no sense to change the strategy when it comes to a UA arena. UA is here to serve its students and not the hidden agendas of politicians and downtown retail establishments. The campus is watered down and blurred enough. It needs more distinction and its boundaries need more sharpened and not less.

 

If people want an off-campus arena, then let off campus entities pay for it. UA is not here to be merely a money pot for city agendas and those who couldn't care less about the university. Akron has had a long history of exploiting UA and its money sources for the purpose of misleading people to believe that a UA facility is a municipal facility. Advocating that UA build a university arena off the campus is just a shell game to emasculate UA as a means to hijack its facilities. Many alumni are sick and tired of Akron's dog and pony show where it pretends we have no university as a means to falsely claim credit and ownership for facilities which have little to nothing to do with the city of Akron.

 

It's a dishonest political game and many of you on this site are buying into it.

 

UPA is the tail and UA is the dog. The tail does not wag the dog.

 

And it is an easy walk from Main Street to the campus where a campus arena will be (just like the campus football stadium). It makes more sense to place a campus arena on the campus for people to have an easy walk to than it is to place a campus arena off campus for campus people to have to walk to.

Well this UA grad and financial backer thinks you are wrong. UA has been trying to build a real campus and to put an arena off the campus is just plain suicidal. The new UA arena belongs on the campus along with the UA football stadium. It's is called common sense and logic. And it is called a campus for a reason. A UA facility should go on the UA campus. It is not rocket science.

 

You're right, it's not rocket science. It's proper urban planning which both the city and university could benefit from. And it seems that this common sense and logic you preach does not go hand in hand with what the architect (i.e. urban planner) recommended. But hey, what do they know? They only study this stuff for a living.

 

Furthermore, UA is an URBAN campus. It's not Kent or Penn State. UA will and should not function as some compound in the middle of the city. A healthy and vibrant city core will enhance the experience for UA students. To do so the university and the city need to work together to combine their resources. A downtown arena would be next to Akron's entertainment district, which is appealing to students. It's called critical mass. Heck, Akron already has facilities downtown that are just as far from the center of campus as a downtown arena would be. Maybe we should get rid of that pesky Polsky Building so that the city can't get tax dollars from a potential street level business that might go in there  :roll:

 

Ever been to Madison, Wisconsin? It's probably the model city to compare for having a good blend of campus meets downtown. If you ever have you may have noticed how the arena there is on the edge of campus where it meets the downtown business district, not in the center. Madison is vibrant because the university and the city have amenities that work off one another, not because they are isolated entities.

 

For those who have not noticed, UA's campus is partly in downtown. By UA buying and occupying buildings within the downtown area UA actually gave up the boundary lines between downtown and campus. Therefore putting another UA building downtown would still have it on the UA campus. If UA let's go of the polsky building and parking deck along with Quaker square and it's other buildings that are downtown and move those services to designated campus buildings then UA will no longer be a part of downtown but will then have a boundary set in place.

The Polsky Building and Quaker Square are obsolete department stores and hotel and UA has saved both. That said, it is one thing for UA to re purpose obsolete retail buildings and quite another for the UA to build a brand new $80,000,000 arena in the off campus downtown area. Polsky and its parking deck are at best annexes to the campus and not campus propper. They are both lame excuses for calling downtown campus. Proximity be damned . If Polsky is part of the campus then so is the rubber bowl by comparison. UA did not give up its true boundaries by saving these rat traps. The architect who recommends that UA blob itself into downtown Akron is not the end all and be all of what should happen to the campus. It is just input and it is garbage and I and many people have the right to have our say so about it. I will not follow another blind Akron pied piper.

 

Whether UA is not this or that type of university is immaterial, it is an entity true to itself and to advocate that it builds its new arena off campus is just a slick way to say that The University of Akron and its campus is not worthy of having both an on campus football stadium as well as an on campus multipurpose arena. We have arrived and we deserve both and even more.

 

As Dr. Paul Martin said before he died, "you ain't seen nothin yet".

 

UA did not garner increased enrollment and respect by being some obtuse wall flower hidden amidst the so-called entertainment district of downtown Akron (which by the way, doesn't exist).

 

UA is the dog and downtown is the tail. And the tail does not wag the dog.

Neither UA nor Akron is a "tail" or a "dog."

 

That said, I don't really have a dog (even a tail of one) in this fight.  I'm curious as to the source of the strength of Tom's feelings on the issue ... a bad experience downtown at some point, a personal animosity towards someone in city government, or a direct financial stake in having a new arena located on campus as opposed to farther west (e.g., someone with a financial stake in a business on East Exchange), perhaps.  I have no idea.

 

I'm inclined to side with the architect/planner who suggested blurring the lines between the campus and the rest of downtown, and given the university's presence west of the railroad tracks already, it seems that the university is leaning that way on its own, too.  This is particularly true if you count student-friendly or student-oriented venues west of the tracks that aren't official university properties, e.g., 22 Exchange and some of the more student-friendly bars and restaurants along Main.  That said, that's a more general point; with respect to the arena specifically, I don't see any burning reasons going in either direction as to why it should or shouldn't be located downtown.  I'd be more inclined to say that it should be located wherever they can get enough contiguous land supported by enough utilities and other infrastructure to support it, whether that's on campus or off.  As others have already noted, the distance between downtown and the campus is minimal.  (At OSU, the distance between central campus and the Schottenstein Center was a pretty long and healthy walk.)

 

Question to those who have more background following this issue: These architect's plans or whatever from however long ago ... did they hypothesize a specific site for the basketball arena downtown (e.g., across Main from Canal Park)?  I'm coming up with very little Googling, which suggests that this issue is largely academic for the time being, anyway, but I'm curious as to what might have been put on ice and stowed away for when demand and the economy begin to heat up again.

 

Question to those who have more background following this issue: These architect's plans or whatever from however long ago ... did they hypothesize a specific site for the basketball arena downtown (e.g., across Main from Canal Park)?  I'm coming up with very little Googling, which suggests that this issue is largely academic for the time being, anyway, but I'm curious as to what might have been put on ice and stowed away for when demand and the economy begin to heat up again.

 

Renditions I've seen had it adjacent to the Mayflower, with the idea that Mayflower would be repurposed dorm space.

 

I'm glad you brought up the Schottenstien Center, Grammarye. The reason I favor a UA arena downtown is because of the far greater potential for private spinoff development. I think the much better model to follow would be the C-bus Arena District. The lonely Schott has virtually nothing interesting around it. UA campus would be better served with green space imho.

p.s. not to speak for Tom, but from the moment I moved to Akron in 1990 I was told that the Mayor  hated the school, and vice versa.  A lot of that sentiment lives on.

 

Not sure how true or blown out of proportion that was, but I'd guess that any animosity that exists would be a result of the the mayor (D) vs. UA Board of Directors ®. 

 

Politics in Akron is straight up war.

Hmm.  I actually thought the Mayflower had potential as a restored market-rate apartment complex, in the same vein as Canal Square.  However, it could work as a UA dormitory as well, of course.

The reason I favor a UA arena downtown is because of the far greater potential for private spinoff development. I think the much better model to follow would be the C-bus Arena District. The lonely Schott has virtually nothing interesting around it. UA campus would be better served with green space imho.

 

I agree. Going down that path simply follows other examples of successful urban areas, including those that are adjacent to a campus. Amazingly enough Tom does not seem to recognize all of the bars, restaurants, Lock 3 Park, and the baseball stadium as an entertainment district for some reason. It sure seems like one to me! Students are and will be drawn to downtown because it's set up to be the main entertainment hub in the city, which also happens to be next to campus in this case. Downtown has overtaken the "Zip Strip" on Exchange because frankly it contains a far superior stretch of businesses and urban infrastructure for such a purpose.

 

That being said I would certainly like to see improvements along Exchange, and I hope those dorms going in around the stadium have street level retail. The campus needs more day-to-day neighborhood amenities.

 

Good points about the green space too. I like UA's commons area, but the campus could use more green space/park area.

The reason why the Schottenstein Center is a far walk from other OSU campus locations is simply because OSU has a much larger campus than UA. The Schottenstein Center is on the OSU campus simply because it is an OSU facility. And that is the only compelling reason why I feel a UA facility should be on the UA campus. It is precisely why UA built a UA football stadium on the UA campus. It makes no sense for the UA to build a brand new multipurpose arena off its campus. You can talk about "minimal distance from campus" or "adjacent to the campus" all you want. You are missing the big picture when you bring up those factors. A UA arena needs to be on campus and look on campus. It will not look like part of the campus if it is downtown.

 

UA deserves to look more and more like it has a real campus and not an extension of downtown Akron. And, yes whoever said that the mayor hates UA is right on the money. Why...because Dr. Proenza gets things done and as a result has created a beautiful green campus. When most people see that, they are elated and edify UA. But the mayor and some of his typical old school Akron cronies look at it and get jealous because they can't develop downtown like Proenza developed UA. Instead, they want to emasculate the UA (blur its distinctions from the rest of the city) and then steal its facilities in order to trick people into thinking that a UA facility is not a UA facility but a downtown municipal facility. This is why the mayor was livid over UA locating its football stadium on the campus. He wanted UA to build it downtown so he can falsely claim credit for it. It is exactly what the city does with UA's performing arts hall (E.J. Thomas)

 

A UA arena belongs on the UA campus next to the UA football stadium and not downtown next to a municipal baseball stadium. And it is OK to believe that downtown Akron has an entertainment district if you want to. Even if that were true (and it is not) university facilities don't need to be in the downtown area just because it supposedly has an entertainment district. The two entities can remain separate and at the same time have a successful interdependant relationship.

 

And to claim that UA is not like other schools and therefore doesn't need to have its facilities on its campus is just a fancy way to slight the university implying that Akron is not worthy of having a real university with a real campus.

 

Also, UA has big plans to create more green space on the campus while at the same time constructing other auxiliary buildings such as new dorms as well as academic and research facilties.

 

To claim that UA should put its structures off the campus because it needs more green space on the campus doesn't make sense. Both green space and new buildings can coexist on the campus. UA is not as land locked as some believe. Downtown needs to stay downtown and develop itself while UA stays UA and not become some illegitimate and unethical pot of gold for city hall. :clap:

Neither UA nor Akron is a "tail" or a "dog."

 

Ever hear of the word analogy? How about metaphor?

I'll grant that the Schottenstein Center can fairly be said to be on the OSU campus, just as you said, because the campus is so large.

 

However, that's hardly the only way of doing things, nor do I think that OSU is somehow more special because its main campus in Columbus is largely contiguous than if it expanded to some new space in Weinland Park or the Iuka area or wherever without gobbling up all the land in between in order to stay contiguous.

 

For examples of major universities (far larger and more prestigious than UA) that successfully intersperses university and non-university land and buildings, see the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and NYU in New York City.

 

The University of Pennsylvania and its Siamese twin, Drexel University, in Philadelphia used to have a fairly distinct campus (as between Philly proper, anyway), but that's begun to blur in the last decade.  I hardly think that the prestige or image of either school has suffered materially from that development.  George Washington University in Washington, D.C. sprawls out for a few blocks (not many, but a few) from its central campus.  The University of Illinois-Chicago has its main campus separated from its medical school and university medical center by several blocks of Chicago--not many, but not really more than what we're talking about here.  And the Georgetown University Law Center is a *long* way off through D.C. from the main Georgetown campus.

 

Implicit in your statement that UA "deserves to look more like it has a real campus" are the two assumptions, both questionable, that (a) the university currently does not look like it has such a campus, and (b) that having such an image is an unequivocally good thing for the school.  I think the university's campus is very visible already from multiple directions and quite distinct amid the urban fabric of the rest of downtown.  I had a friend in from Atlanta this past weekend, who had never been to Akron before, who immediately pointed at the campus as soon as we got off I-76 and started heading north on Broadway and asked (in the way that people ask when they already know the answer) if that was the university.  She didn't really need me to confirm it.  Therefore, I'd say that the university already "looks ... like it has a real campus."  Likewise, given that there are numerous other universities, including extremely prestigious universities (plus M*ch*g*n ...) in urban areas that integrate well into their urban environments without the vicious clash between town and gown that you seem to be trying to stoke, I don't think that your assumption that a unified campus is always preferable (particularly when the alternative is just a couple of blocks, most of which the university could acquire at a later date anyway) is particularly well-founded, either.

 

Yes, I've heard of analogy and metaphor.  I was simply rejecting the analogy of either the university or the city being the "dog" or the "tail," which would imply one simply does what the other says.  Neither is the case.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The campuses you mention do not blur their distinction with the greater city. Some indeed have sub-campuses like UM but they still keep their integrity. None of them go into downtown proper with individual facilities causing people to be tricked into thinking the university facility is not one. Akron is notorious for doing the opposite. The goal in Akron is to erase UA's presence and trick people into thinking that a UA facility is a municipal one. It is a long standing calculated shell game which makes both UA and the city look bogus.

 

And I suspect that you and others are well aware of this game because you are part of the game.

 

Please do not put words in my mouth. Yes, UA looks distinct currently because of the efforts made in the past ten years. What is implicit in my statement is that some in city politics want to erase that distinction and I say we need to increase that distinction and not be satisfied with the status quo. Our growth is great and it is not enough. Like Dr Martin said, "you ain't seen nothing yet".

 

Oh, and by the way, the term "Town-and-Gown" refers to a university's intellectual and academic relationship with its surrounding community and not incestuous relationships with downtown politicians and retailers regarding the location of university holdings.

 

Go ZIPS

In the news and media section of the UA website I found an article from May 2009 entitled "UA to maintain hotel operations at Quaker." Here is an excerpt.

 

 

"Dr. Luis M. Proenza, president of The University of Akron, says he and Mayor Plusquellic will continue to work together to create an environment that will benefit downtown and the community as a whole.

 

“The City of Akron needs a great hotel downtown and the university is responding to those needs,” Proenza said. “The university remains a committed partner with the city – not just with Quaker Square, but also on such important ventures as the University Park Alliance, the Biomedical Corridor, BioInnovation Institute of Akron and a potential downtown arena being discussed. While the city works to secure additional hotel operations, we have the opportunity to continue to attract more visitors to this historic property, making it even more appealing to conduct business in downtown Akron.”"

 

Hmm.. Let's review. The president of the University is in discussions with the mayor on a possible "downtown" arena. Seems like UA and the city have a common goal when it comes to an arena that benefits UA and the community. That's from the mouth of Dr. Proenza confirming UA is exploring a downtown arena.

 

http://www.uakron.edu/about_ua/news_media/news_details.dot?newsId=561422

I am not putting words in your mouth.  I am simply not taking your words at face value, because your naked (and incomprehensible) animosity towards the city gives me every right not to do so.  You're the one putting words in others' mouths when you say: "The goal in Akron is to erase UA's presence and trick people into thinking that a UA facility is a municipal one. It is a long standing calculated shell game which makes both UA and the city look bogus."

 

I really have no dog in this fight.  I've only lived in Akron for maybe 20 months now.  You calling me part of some long-standing "shell game" is risible on multiple levels, particularly given that I've opined (on these boards, no less) that the site between the Kaiser Building and Mayflower that was floated earlier as the possible site for a downtown arena would be an ideal site for a white collar midrise residential complex, along with the conversion of the Mayflower to a midrange residential rental complex a la Canal Square.  The only thing that I've done is acknowledge that it could potentially also work as the site of a university arena, since it already has many parking facilities nearby (both municipal and university), and wide, one-way thoroughfares in Broadway and High that could handle a significant amount of arena traffic; Exchange doesn't have quite the same capacity, notwithstanding that they built the football stadium there.  Since I don't exactly have millions to spend on developing that land myself, my thoughts about putting in residential there are obviously just one lonely citizen's thoughts on the Internet, so I'm always interested in hearing what the people with real money to spend are thinking.  I've also acknowledged that a university arena could fit on the university campus near the football stadium, too; I'm just not going to join your quixotic crusade and say that it "must" be located there because the university "deserves" to have it there and the idea to locate it downtown is motivated by some kind of anti-UA conspiracy.

 

If you want my completely blunt opinion, I don't go for words like "deserves" in urban development, so I won't even say that the university "deserves" a new basketball arena at all.  I don't lose sleep at night lamenting about the JAR, which I've never even been in.  I liked the Schottenstein Center at OSU, but I attended many events in St. John Arena and they were enjoyable, too.  (Ditto the Fairgrounds Coliseum, Nationwide Arena, and other non-OSU facilities.)

 

If there were some demonstrable exogenous benefit to having the arena in one location or another or presenting one image or another--e.g., if it could be proven that bigger and better concerts, shows, conventions, etc. would want to book the arena if it were more prominently the university's venue or more prominently part of the greater Akron municipal fabric--then I might be inclined to take a side.  I doubt that there is any such marginal benefit, however.  The Schottenstein Center and Nationwide Arena are roughly similar in size, and they've both been competing successfully to land major events since they opened.  Being on campus has neither hurt nor helped the Schott; being off campus has neither hurt nor helped Nationwide.  Thus, I think a university arena would work perfectly fine for both university and non-university events whether they located it east or west of the tracks.

Wow! That was certainly a personalization of the issue. If you want to get defensive and hot headed over someone having a different opinion then go ahead. The fact remains that certain city leaders in City Hall and The Anti-University of Akron Beacon Journal have historically been trying to emasculate UA as a means to trick people into thinking that A UA facility belongs to the city of Akron. They've succeeded at doing it with UA's performing arts hall.

 

Again, a new UA arena belongs on the UA campus and not off campus in downtown Akron. The University deserves it and more importantly, UA students deserve it. It's called common sense.

“The university remains a committed partner with the city – not just with Quaker Square, but also on such important ventures as the University Park Alliance, the Biomedical Corridor, BioInnovation Institute of Akron and a potential downtown arena being discussed. " - quote from James Mathews

 

 

Exploring the "potential" for a downtown arena does not mean that it is a done deal. Dr. Proenza is also open to a campus arena as are many others in administration. I've read this article quite some time ago and didn't see it as a sure thing then and certainly even less so now.

 

I've corresponded with Proenza and told him outright that to place an arena downtown is a big mistake that he would soon regret. While I don't feel at liberty to share his specific response, he did indicate that nothing is carved in stone and that my recommendations have been echoed by many who will play a role in the final decision.

 

Oh and by the way, just because UA is an urban university does not mean its campus should roll over and play dead to the city. Many urban universities have beautiful  and credible campuses and don't look like a "compound" within the city. UA is one of those campuses and it has more improvement to come.

 

And, I will not apologize for taking the position that THE UA ARENA MUST BE ON THE UA CAMPUS IN A CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS MANNER. ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.

Soo annoying...I'll be back on this thread when there is actual news about the university. This arena talk is ridiculous. Constantly arguing about it is not going to magically place the arena where we want it. We all have our opinions and we have constantly heard each of them on this thead. I can't wait till this damn thing is built.

 

In other, more relevant news...The University started to tear down the townhouses so they can start construction on the new residence halls. Hopefully we will start to see them going up soon.

I agree. This thread is locked until there is actual news to discuss.