UA in the news

[Dr Z]

That design is amazing!!!

Kool. I would like to see them carry some of that design over to the buildings that it is connecting. That way it visually connects the structures and doesn't just look like a cool bridge that might look out of place with it's surroundings.

[vmd9]

I always thought they should change the Q on the top of the tower to something more fitting for UA...

either that or the UA logo they have on the Polsky building.

[MDZip]

Been looking for some pictures for the Bridge Design competition (the Quaker Inn Bridge over the tracks) and this all I can find.

MU Junior (and finalist) submitted this concept...

Also interesting to point out that Forbes magazine has listed the Quaker Inn as one the country's most unique hotels.

UA Article

Might be a nice design but is that bridge on or off campus?

[Dr Z]

Might be a nice design but is that bridge on or off campus?

[Jake]

Yes, they can't get rid of Mannie Neemer for quite a while and he and Harry Jackson (Odd Corner) would have to go. Mannie is behind the plasma center and Harry is next to it. We can't touch either of them for a while. No arena will go there, unless we start to build it in 15 or 20 years.

UA might not be able to, but someone else could and then in turn sell it to UA.

Sorry, when I said "touch", I was referring to using eminent domain. If Mannie or Harry for that matter, wanted to sell, UA could be a buyer just as much as any other person or entity. So, I guess that could be a possiblility. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be a probability. And, while the location would be nice for an arena, I'd rather have a new arena on the same side of the street as the bulk of the campus. Students crossing Exchange to get to their arena seems kind of community college to me.

So, community college....

Apples and oranges big time!

I'm just saying you better get on their board and say "You can't have that Arena, students will have to cross a street."

and all I am saying is apples and oranges big time.

[Jake]

I always thought they should change the Q on the top of the tower to something more fitting for UA...

either that or the UA logo they have on the Polsky building.

I agree. and UA is going to have to do more than construct a bridge to make Quaker Square look like a true part of the campus. Aesthetically speaking, bridges and overpasses have their limitations. Also, logos alone do not make a building look integrated to the campus. You can slap all the logos you want on the stupid Polsky building and it will never look like part of the real campus.

[vmd9]

Not sure what you are talking about....Polsky and Quaker are definitely a part of Campus last time I checked? they are on the map? we have classes there? It's no different than Folk Hall or Gallucci...Just because you have to go over a bridge it makes no difference. I guess when I cross the bridge from robs to simmons hall I'm leaving campus?

[tbozeglav]

Im 50/50 on the UA logo on top of Quaker Square... Sure it'd be an awesome advertisement piece, but this is a historical landmark we are talking about here.

Not sure if many of you are aware, but UA did change Quaker Square's logo around a bit to highlight the "u" in Quaker and "a" in Square" and aligned them like the UA logo... they have it as a sign on the building coming down broadway. It looks cool and with those letters gold/yellow and the rest blue, it really gives you the idea it's a UA property

[vmd9]

Im 50/50 on the UA logo on top of Quaker Square... Sure it'd be an awesome advertisement piece, but this is a historical landmark we are talking about here.

Not sure if many of you are aware, but UA did change Quaker Square's logo around a bit to highlight the "u" in Quaker and "a" in Square" and aligned them like the UA logo... they have it as a sign on the building coming down broadway. It looks cool and with those letters gold/yellow and the rest blue, it really gives you the idea it's a UA property

Well it's a 4 sided sign atop the tower. Maybe on the East/West Sides they can put a UA logo and leave a Q on the North/South sides. That would make the UA logo visible from route 8.

[g-mann17]

I agree. and UA is going to have to do more than construct a bridge to make Quaker Square look like a true part of the campus. Aesthetically speaking, bridges and overpasses have their limitations. Also, logos alone do not make a building look integrated to the campus. You can slap all the logos you want on the stupid Polsky building and it will never look like part of the real campus.

I agree Jake, until they move the Polsky building and Quaker Inn conspicuously into the center of campus, they will not truly be a part of campus.

[vmd9]

I agree. and UA is going to have to do more than construct a bridge to make Quaker Square look like a true part of the campus. Aesthetically speaking, bridges and overpasses have their limitations. Also, logos alone do not make a building look integrated to the campus. You can slap all the logos you want on the stupid Polsky building and it will never look like part of the real campus.

I agree Jake, until they move the Polsky building and Quaker Inn conspicuously into the center of campus, they will not truly be a part of campus.

But how will they build "a true on-campus basketball arena" if they moved quaker square and polsky onto campus? even though they already are.

Nevermind I forgot they are building the fictional arena downtown...

Jake needs to understand that college campuses expand. UA will build wherever they want, and acquire buildings wherever they want, and Jake getting all mad about that accomplishes nothing. Take a look at this photo....

this is what the campus of the University of Akron used to look like. They have expanded quite a bit since then, which makes it safe to say they will continue to do so. They have crossed roads, highways, and railroads. Students live downtown, on spicer, Fir Hill, Buchtel, everywhere. There are dorms all across campus and well at quaker square too. Folk Hall used to be a car dealership, Gallucci used to be Holiday Inn, Quaker used to be a factory. Do all the buildings look the same all across campus? no! but that makes it unique. Just be proud that UA is growing and getting better every day. It's a good time to be a part of this school and you'd be surprised that growing up in PA, I never heard of UA. But by my senior year in high school our class had over 10 students coming here. We are willing to pay double everyone else just to be a part of this school. No matter where the arena is built, or any other building for that matter. It will be OURS! and it will be a part of the University of Akron.

[tbozeglav]

...There are dorms all across campus and well at quaker square too. Folk Hall used to be a car dealership, Gallucci used to be Holiday Inn, Quaker used to be a factory...

Well... kinda... lets put it this way: it was a car dealership, but never had a single car in its showroom before UA bought it.

In regards to your entire post, I AGREE!

[Jake]

Not sure what you are talking about....Polsky and Quaker are definitely a part of Campus last time I checked? they are on the map? we have classes there? It's no different than Folk Hall or Gallucci...Just because you have to go over a bridge it makes no difference. I guess when I cross the bridge from robs to simmons hall I'm leaving campus?

I can see Quaker being a part of the campus but definitely not Polsky. It's more than being about bridges. Polsky looks like a downtown department store and always will. It will never look like a part of a real university campus. Simmons and robs look on campus for more reasons than having a bridge between them. My point is that bridges alone do not impart a campus look. Other ingredients have to be there. That's why no one has a problem with the bridge between two obvious on-campus buildings like Simmons and Robs. Bridges make things convenient. They don't necessarily make things look integrated or part of the campus.

[Jake]

I agree. and UA is going to have to do more than construct a bridge to make Quaker Square look like a true part of the campus. Aesthetically speaking, bridges and overpasses have their limitations. Also, logos alone do not make a building look integrated to the campus. You can slap all the logos you want on the stupid Polsky building and it will never look like part of the real campus.

I agree Jake, until they move the Polsky building and Quaker Inn conspicuously into the center of campus, they will not truly be a part of campus.

But how will they build "a true on-campus basketball arena" if they moved quaker square and polsky onto campus? even though they already are.

Nevermind I forgot they are building the fictional arena downtown...

Jake needs to understand that college campuses expand. UA will build wherever they want, and acquire buildings wherever they want, and Jake getting all mad about that accomplishes nothing. Take a look at this photo....

this is what the campus of the University of Akron used to look like. They have expanded quite a bit since then, which makes it safe to say they will continue to do so. They have crossed roads, highways, and railroads. Students live downtown, on spicer, Fir Hill, Buchtel, everywhere. There are dorms all across campus and well at quaker square too. Folk Hall used to be a car dealership, Gallucci used to be Holiday Inn, Quaker used to be a factory. Do all the buildings look the same all across campus? no! but that makes it unique. Just be proud that UA is growing and getting better every day. It's a good time to be a part of this school and you'd be surprised that growing up in PA, I never heard of UA. But by my senior year in high school our class had over 10 students coming here. We are willing to pay double everyone else just to be a part of this school. No matter where the arena is built, or any other building for that matter. It will be OURS! and it will be a part of the University of Akron.

Stop being ridiculous. You know full well that I am all for UA expanding. Stop playing games.

The Stadium, and adjacent new dorms, Exchange Street and Honors Dorms, the new Polymer Research Center, Student Rec Center, Quaker Square, Buchtel, Carroll and Coleman Commons and the planned expansion south of E. Exchange and the planned expansion east of the stadium and west of route 8 are all great ways UA has been expanding the campus. And it needs to continue its expansion in the planful, contiguous and integrated manner it has been doing. In no way will UA expand with lack of planning and forethought as you so recklessly advocate. The university did not get where it is now by just plopping a building here, there and everywhere as you think it should. You can't splatter the campus all over the city and expect people to see UA as a real campus. Your view of UA is something people would not take seriously. With your logic, the Rubber Bowl would be just fine since it has a UA label and "is ours" and "part of the University of Akron".

And, stop obsessing over the location of an arena.

Now, let's take a look at the historical portrait of the early campus. By the way, thanks for providing it. By doing so, you help to make my point. If you notice, the areas in front of and to the the left and right of Buchtel Hall now contain Leigh and Zook Halls. Just behind Buchtel Hall and the student building is land that eventually would become a neighborhood. Later, UA took that area and used urban renewal funds to create Lee R. Jackson Field. Then as we now know, UA appropriately and contiguously expanded to the east of Jackson Field and added The rec center, Natatorium, Field House and of course the ON CAMPUS football stadium and new student housing. The area west of the old Olin Hall is now Auburn Science Center and west of that is the Chemistry Building and lab. West of that is now West Hall, E.J. Thomas and Guzetta Halls, the Law School, Cunninham Building and Business Administration Building (the actual front door to the campus) and where the true campus ends. Then to the north of Buchtel and Kolbe Hall is the current Bierce Library, Ritchie, Orr, Sisler McFawn, Spanton and Bulger Residence Halls along with Robertson Dining Hall (Robs), the New Honors Complex, College of Arts and Science, Simmons and more. Then west of Memorial Hall UA took out the fire station and made parking only to later add Rhodes Gymnasium (not an arena). Then across from Rhodes, UA rebuilt the New Olin Hall

Thanks for providing a very good example of the type of contiguous expansion that I've been talking about and the University of Akron is committed to build on.

[vmd9]

You are an idiot. The Rubber Bowl was obviously not part of campus and no one ever said it was. But it still belonged to UA. There's a difference between having to drive 5 miles to get to the RB, or crossing the street to Polsky or Quaker. They aren't scattering buildings all over the city? and YOU are the one obsessing about the arena. I could care less, and honestly I don't think it will be built in 10 years, if ever. You find ways to bring that up with every topic. I actually have a life...

[Jake]

You are an idiot. The Rubber Bowl was obviously not part of campus and no one ever said it was. But it still belonged to UA. There's a difference between having to drive 5 miles to get to the RB, or crossing the street to Polsky or Quaker. They aren't scattering buildings all over the city? and YOU are the one obsessing about the arena. I could care less, and honestly I don't think it will be built in 10 years, if ever. You find ways to bring that up with every topic. I actually have a life...

You need to take a chill pill and act like you have the life you claim to possess. Wow! you sound like one piece of work. No the UA is not scattering building all over the city and I am one who doesn't want them to start. But you seem to want them to. Also, as far as the rubber bowl is concerned, the claim was as long as it is "ours" and belongs to UA, location doesn't matter. I am challenging those qualifications by pointing out that the RB has those qualifications and it doesn' make it a part of the campus. Proximity was a factor brought up after the fact by you. And, proximity alone does not make a campus facility look on campus. Continuity and integration are far more important because they lend to the visual sense of a campus which is what most people rely upon when looking at a campus. Too many Akronites such as you are always willing to settle for second or third best when it comes to having a real university in our midst. And BTW, the phrase is " I couldn't care less."

And, actually, I don't bring up the arena at every topic.

[zippy5]

yeah, vmd, quit obsessing over the new arena, geez man.

[Jake]

I agree. and UA is going to have to do more than construct a bridge to make Quaker Square look like a true part of the campus. Aesthetically speaking, bridges and overpasses have their limitations. Also, logos alone do not make a building look integrated to the campus. You can slap all the logos you want on the stupid Polsky building and it will never look like part of the real campus.

I agree Jake, until they move the Polsky building and Quaker Inn conspicuously into the center of campus, they will not truly be a part of campus.

If you'd stop being juvenile perhaps you could understand adult thinking and not be so intellectually dishonest. Really, you argue like an eight year old. I'm just greatful this blog doesn't represent any genuine example of those who support UA. The answer to the Polsky building is for UA to sell it or at least use it as some sort of auxiliary administrative building only. The answer for QS is for UA to make it look more integrated.

Your failed attempt at wit and sarcasm really makes you look very stupid and small.

[g-mann17]

Your failed attempt at wit and sarcasm really makes you look very stupid and small.

Coming from a person who opens with insults in every rebuttal.

[Jake]

Your failed attempt at wit and sarcasm really makes you look very stupid and small.

Coming from a person who opens with insults in every rebuttal.

Actually, I don't but you seem pretty good at starting a fight.

[vmd9]

I agree. and UA is going to have to do more than construct a bridge to make Quaker Square look like a true part of the campus. Aesthetically speaking, bridges and overpasses have their limitations. Also, logos alone do not make a building look integrated to the campus. You can slap all the logos you want on the stupid Polsky building and it will never look like part of the real campus.

I agree Jake, until they move the Polsky building and Quaker Inn conspicuously into the center of campus, they will not truly be a part of campus.

If you'd stop being juvenile perhaps you could understand adult thinking and not be so intellectually dishonest. Really, you argue like an eight year old. I'm just greatful this blog doesn't represent any genuine example of those who support UA. The answer to the Polsky building is for. The answer for QS is for UA to make it look more integrated.

Your failed attempt at wit and sarcasm really makes you look very stupid and small.

Actually I don't think anyone has a problem with Quaker Square or Polsky, except for you. But you seem to have a problem with everything, and everyone...

Why would UA want to sell polsky? just because it's across the street? thats a good idea. I had to cross the street today to get to InfoCision Stadium. I guess the best thing to do with the stadium is for UA to sell it. I had to cross a parking lot to get to the Union today, should probably sell it too.

[ZachTheZip]

Polsky is a college in and of itself. Summit College. It's in the middle of downtown because it's used for so many workforce development programs. It's for convenience that it is where it is. The people who enroll in those programs don't want to have to navigate a college campus to take their classes. They want everything to be right there, and Polsky provides that.

Think of Polsky as a branch campus like Wayne or Medina. It's perfect the way it is. Most colleges have something like this in the downtown of their closest metro area. The only difference with Akron is that downtown happens to be a short walk from the main campus.

[g-mann17]

Polsky is a college in and of itself. Summit College. It's in the middle of downtown because it's used for so many workforce development programs. It's for convenience that it is where it is. The people who enroll in those programs don't want to have to navigate a college campus to take their classes. They want everything to be right there, and Polsky provides that.

Think of Polsky as a branch campus like Wayne or Medina. It's perfect the way it is. Most colleges have something like this in the downtown of their closest metro area. The only difference with Akron is that downtown happens to be a short walk from the main campus.

There are several University programs in Polsky, not just Summit College (this includes CBA programs). University Park (which encompasses the campus) is a downtown neighborhood. Downtown isn't a "short walk" because the campus is already downtown. Campus spreads from Rt. 8 (not downtown) to Broadway & Wolf Ledges (downtown).

Downtown is everything between Wolf Ledges and 59 and from North St. to the Bridgestone Technical Center (the old one not the new one).

The proximity with downtown is the beauty of Akron's campus. You can feel like you are in the middle of park and a 5 minute walk later you're in a nice city setting with cultural and food options. The downtown/Broadway corridor is a good relationship builder for the university and the city.

There are just some people who still hold on to the old 30's program of moving the campus to Good Park. And making it some detached entity of its own.

[Jake]

Polsky is a college in and of itself. Summit College. It's in the middle of downtown because it's used for so many workforce development programs. It's for convenience that it is where it is. The people who enroll in those programs don't want to have to navigate a college campus to take their classes. They want everything to be right there, and Polsky provides that.

Think of Polsky as a branch campus like Wayne or Medina. It's perfect the way it is. Most colleges have something like this in the downtown of their closest metro area. The only difference with Akron is that downtown happens to be a short walk from the main campus.

There are several University programs in Polsky, not just Summit College (this includes CBA programs). University Park (which encompasses the campus) is a downtown neighborhood. Downtown isn't a "short walk" because the campus is already downtown. Campus spreads from Rt. 8 (not downtown) to Broadway & Wolf Ledges (downtown).

Downtown is everything between Wolf Ledges and 59 and from North St. to the Bridgestone Technical Center (the old one not the new one).

The proximity with downtown is the beauty of Akron's campus. You can feel like you are in the middle of park and a 5 minute walk later you're in a nice city setting with cultural and food options. The downtown/Broadway corridor is a good relationship builder for the university and the city.

There are just some people who still hold on to the old 30's program of moving the campus to Good Park. And making it some detached entity of its own.

While the UA campus is part of University Park, It doesn't follow that all of university park is on the UA campus. And just because part of the UA campus is considered techincally downtown according to the letter of the law and not spirit, that doesn't mean that every bit of downtown is on the UA campus. While all poodles are dogs, not all dogs are poodles.

And all colleges at a university are colleges in and of themselves. That is what universities are about. Summit College is not unique in that regard. It belongs on the UA campus with all the other colleges. It isn't the only college at UA that enjoys a work force develpment relationship with the community.

And Doc Proenza and all of the other progressives who are responsible for making a beautiful true looking campus are not "some people" hanging on to an "old 30s program". So let's stop cooking up lies about those who want a true looking campus. No one wants to move the campus to Good Park. You can tell when soemone's arguments don't hold water when they lie as a means to prop up their weak positions.

There are just some people who still want to see UA go backwards in time when it dissapeared into the greater city as in the days of Hilltop High. All they have to do is look at the UA trail blazer next to the Polsky Building and they will see that it points to the east of the Polsky Building where the true campus is. And all they have to do is climb out of their parochial Akron rat holes and go see other authentic campuses and see that they are indeed entities of their own. Campuses with credibility have this "detached" if you will, quality to them. UA is just starting to look like a legitimate campus and some Akron hillbillies want to go and ruin that. And btw, branch campuses are in another county and not just down the street from the main campus. And what work-force development program is downtown that it requires UA to sit on Main Street? The answer is none. Unless you are talking about those who want to learn how to run the Peanut Shoppe and Barley House in the future. Any business entity that uses UA for its the development of its employees or future employees do not need UA to be just down the street from itself in order to reap its town-and-gown benefits. They couldn't care less if they had to negotiate the campus since they mostly come from the North, West and South anyway. Quit being so desperate by making up such crap.

UA is doing fine and can continue doing fine having a productive relationship with downtown eateries and bars and the rest of the community while it maintains its visual and physical integrity. Having a great looking self-contained campus and working well with the local economy are in no way mutually exclusive objectives with UA as with any other legitimate looking university. The University of Akron as a whole is a good relationship builder with the city. It always has been. It doesn't require some superficial, magical, and so-called, Downtown/Broadway corridor cooked up by a ZN spin doctor for something that is not broken and doesn't require fixing.

[Jake]

I agree. and UA is going to have to do more than construct a bridge to make Quaker Square look like a true part of the campus. Aesthetically speaking, bridges and overpasses have their limitations. Also, logos alone do not make a building look integrated to the campus. You can slap all the logos you want on the stupid Polsky building and it will never look like part of the real campus.

I agree Jake, until they move the Polsky building and Quaker Inn conspicuously into the center of campus, they will not truly be a part of campus.

If you'd stop being juvenile perhaps you could understand adult thinking and not be so intellectually dishonest. Really, you argue like an eight year old. I'm just greatful this blog doesn't represent any genuine example of those who support UA. The answer to the Polsky building is for. The answer for QS is for UA to make it look more integrated.

Your failed attempt at wit and sarcasm really makes you look very stupid and small.

Actually I don't think anyone has a problem with Quaker Square or Polsky, except for you. But you seem to have a problem with everything, and everyone...

Why would UA want to sell polsky? just because it's across the street? thats a good idea. I had to cross the street today to get to InfoCision Stadium. I guess the best thing to do with the stadium is for UA to sell it. I had to cross a parking lot to get to the Union today, should probably sell it too.

Thanks for helping me to make my point about your juvenile and dishonest mentality. I couldn't have illustrated your rabid and pessimistic idiocy any better.