Recent Comments
- JS said “One part is missing: Radical innovators are purged. Cleveland is great for taking what other ...” on Reason.tv’s series on Saving Cleveland
- JS said “..."Cleveland has nothing to learn from other communities’ experiences ..." Take the Drew Carey/Reason response. ...” on The value of learning from others
- John Polk said “As you know, this is a widely-used tool by many Chambers of Commerce and economic ...” on The value of learning from others
- JS said “And the link is http://www.e4s.o~ Be sure to ask business applications questions about technical nutrients, ...” on Biomimicry: Sustainable Design & Innovation
- JS said “This can be an interesting element to go into an overall picture of economic climate. ...” on Magazine thinks Ohio has the highest potential for growth
- About BDP Comments
Meta
Derek Arnold · A Love Letter to President Schwartz
July 3rd, 2008
Steven Litt, the PD’s architecture writer wrote a post about the legacy of outgoing Cleveland State University President Michael Schwartz. His analysis was centered around, no surprise, the new architecture that was a part of Cleveland State’s Campus.
Litt’s praise is based on the replacement of some of the more drab elements of CSU’s campus:
That plan envisioned transforming CSU into a residential campus packed with amenities and street-friendly buildings that would spark an urban revival on fallow acres around the campus. It’s very much like what other universities are doing across the country, from Yale and the University of Pennsylvania to Notre Dame and Ohio State University.
Cleveland State has since committed roughly $280 million on its own or in partnership with developers to build 11 projects, all by different architects, but all aimed at piercing the university’s hard, concrete shell.
I think that the buildings that got replaced (especially the University Center) needed to be replaced (I can’t wait to see Rhodes Tower go the way of the dodo) but an aggressive (and necessary) physical plant redevelopment does not a good university president make.
CSU attempted to be more exclusive under the tutelage of President Schwartz. Why did this garner support when being an open and inclusive university did not. That is more the fault of the community and not the University. When the barriers (financial, social and economic) to higher education are getting higher, Schwartz’s CSU seemed to proceed undaunted.
Don’t get me wrong, nothing is wrong with higher standards at public universities in particular and public institutions in general but isn’t it the university’s job to educate those who come for that purpose? Not just those that can afford it or are already capable?
