7 Responses to Pres Schill nixes plan to expand Schnitzer Art Museum to EWEB over costs

  1. IfYouBuildItTheyWillPark says:

    The current building is beautiful, and they want to abandon it due to lack of parking?? If only there was some other alternative, one that would simultaneously solve one of UO’s biggest long-term headaches. But what could it be?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
    • uomatters says:

      Uh, I confess I didn’t read the story that closely either, but I think the proposal was for the museum to expand to EWEB, not to abandon the current building on campus. Although it is one of my favorites, and would make a lovely home for the economics department.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)
    • Inquiring Minds says:

      Mind boggling why they don’t build a muilti leval garage at the PLC lot. Good access to campus there, museum, Autzen, Hayward (reasonably close).

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +6 (from 6 votes)
      • CSN says:

        Can’t get external funding to build a huge garage.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
        • Environmental necessity says:

          I thought bonding authority was one of the benefits of breaking free of OUS…float a bond, build a large garage, UO isn’t going anywhere, use donations to build new stuff on the now-released surface lot pockets. I am sure traffic flow is an issue, but, you know, every other university in the country has figured it out.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
  2. Art-lover says:

    Check EW’s online version of the story—there are multiple corrections. The museum administration had been interested in the EWEB building for some time to house the Masterworks on Loan program (which is a huge moneymaker for the museum). But according to the corrections, the museum’s leadership council never considered it nor did the UO administration approve (and then reject) the plan. It appears that the author of the piece went to press based on one person’s story that wasn’t verified.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.