What’s under the foreskin of the Tower O’ Excellence’s “heroic wood”?

While our General Counsel’s Public Records Office is still stonewalling requests for the Hayward Field lease agreement between UO and Phit LLC, today Duck spokesperson Tobin Klinger told the RG that UO is no longer in control:

… The privately funded rebuild of the stadium is being led by Nike co-founder Phil Knight, with the UO transferring the land to a private Knight-controlled LLC for the duration of construction. As a result, Klinger acknowledged that UO officials didn’t have input on the latest round of design changes. …

The Hayward website notes “Its perforated metal skin and steel form flare upward and outward to resemble a …”

Well, you get the idea. And what will be under the foreskin of this “heroic wood” egofice? A living room. Really?


Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to What’s under the foreskin of the Tower O’ Excellence’s “heroic wood”?

  1. honest Uncle Bernie says:

    Does this have anything to do with that “morning wood” that my young nephews keep asking me about?

  2. Dog says:

    I assume that wood is the salvaged wood from the overall Hayward Field destruction.

  3. A duck says:

    Sophomoric, I love it!

  4. Eugenenative says:

    It’s pretty obvious that the actual stadium and tower will look nothing like that artist’s rendering.

  5. Charlie says:

    A public venue becomes private. How about that? Hell of a precedent. What next? The EMU? Library? Maybe they can transform PLC into market rate apartments!

    • Dumpster Fire says:

      My understanding is that the process of transferring control of the property has happened with previous Phil projects and the motivation is that it changes the rules for the construction process.

      • UofoGrad says:

        Yes, the rules the process changes is no unions.

        Well, and no taste.

      • Charlie says:

        So if budget overruns occur, does that mean the public won’t be notified? Oh, I forgot, this is supposedly going to be privately financed. Anyone know just who and how this project does get funded?

    • a buck says:

      to get out of contracting and hiring laws for state entities PHIT et al lease the land for like a buck and then return it when the construction is complete. BS? Yea, but they have been doing it for quite a few projects now… I expect the PHIT campus will be the same deal, Uncle Phil don’t like to be told what to do just ask Dave and OUS.

    • Dog says:

      Fuck Global Trust

      What about local trust?

    • trumplackey says:

      There are a lot of ideas in Schill’s talk: some good, some bad. It hardly seems necessary to posit anti-intellectualism as a cause of animus against higher education when the lack of viewpoint diversity is obvious and appears to be a complete explanation in itself. When I was in college (long ago), one could reasonably expect to encounter and hear the ideas of those on the right as well as the left, and it was a valuable part of my education. I’m sure UO has a few closeted conservatives, but I’m not aware of anyone who publicly argues in favor of those ideas. To my eyes, that lack of balance _is_ anti-intellectualism.

      His best point is that universities need to do a better job of communicating their value, both to their students and to the country as a whole. For STEM disciplines, business, economics, etc., that’s relatively straightforward. Others will have a difficult road, sometimes rather deservedly so.

  6. Environmental necessity says:

    Can we please stop with the idiotic whining that there are no conservatives on campus?

    I hear conservative’s views from students and colleagues all the time, and am fine with, and don’t run to UO Matters because I hear views with which I disagree, like so many conservatives here do.

    The university is run as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nike, including working around unions and planning rules, and only the ideologically-neutral (sciences) or the business empire receive anything close to adequate funding. Our sugar daddy bankrolls conservative causes across the state, including rolling back taxes and removing UO from state control so that he a few compadres can call the shots.

    For 300 years only the conservative, white, male, owning-class views were perpetuated at our colleges and universities. Indeed, in the main, only their children were educated at colleges and universities. That legacy is slowly waning, but only slowly, and still the dominant orientation on most campuses.

    Now, for the last 50 years or so there are a few other voices permitted on campus and the conservative cowards get all pearl-clutchy because their era of unchallenged dominance is now becoming merely an era of challenged dominance.

    If you want conservative views only (or much more than you find here), go to one of the hundreds of religious or conservative institutions that don’t even pretend to embrace ideological diversity.

    At least you conservative pearl-clutchers could have a shred of credibility if you ever criticized those institutions, or the Koch-funded disaster at George Mason, or all the conservative schools across the south, or Hillsdale or Wheaton, etc.

    Bunch of frickin’ whiny propagandists, some of whom are liberals gaslit into self-flagellation. It is, frankly, embarrassing.

    It is also of a piece with a highly-coordinated and well-funded effort by the right to beat back even the smallest vestiges of progress on campus over the last few decades.

    • trumplackey says:

      +8 of 8–seems diverse to me. :-)

    • trumplackey says:

      For the record, who would the community suggest as the serious and intellectual conservative voices at UO? I’m looking for a Buckley or Will, or at least a Peterson. Please name three or five professors whose classes I should eavesdrop on. Someone I might read on Quillette.

      Also, keeping score, I’m apparently an idiot, whiny (x2), a tattler (to UOM), conservative (in 2018, yes), white and male (guilty), “owning-class” (ha!), a coward, “pearl-clutchy” (x2), lacking in credibility, a propagandist, gaslit, self-flagellating, embarrassing, and against progress. Clearly beyond salvation, anyway…

  7. Dog says:

    Please forgive:

    Dogs are Ignorant

    1) I don’t know what “pearl-clutchy” means and I wouldn’t recognize a “pearl-clutchter” – do they wear special hats?

    2) I personally have never seen a “gaslit self-flagellation” even though I have tried to smell them out cause that would be a great YouTube video – plenty of likes there, dogs live for likes

    3) In the context of HigherEducation, this dog also doesn’t understand what a conservative is and what a liberal is. This dog only sees ambiguity about almost all issues taught in