CHAT MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 17, 2006
Attending: Tony, Deb, Deri, Ginger, Randy, Andrew
Deb opened by stating that she’s not “sold” on mixing frosh/upperclassmen in common areas (possibly could share building but not common areas within pods)
Ginger asked for programmatic reasoning for wanting pods rather
than apartments sim to Pacer Commons – Deri replied that he’s
not sold on “apartments” for any frosh, wants less space between
outer door and bedroom, concerned about frosh’s struggle to
clean additional space – Deb discussed the fact that pods could
give us more opportunities to be “intentional” in our
programming efforts –
Deri said he prefers to think about new building being entirely frosh, which led to a discussion of layouts:
· should do all doubles if all frosh
· should think about “smaller” living rooms and kitchens
Ginger suggested that if we’re thinking about smaller/fewer kitchen facilities, then we should think about requiring more or higher meal plans for frosh/residents, possibly 12 or 14 meals per week – could lower requirement on other end for upperclassmen – new food svc contract will come online in Fall 08, could mandate additional service hours – would coincide with new housing facility, plus renovated/expanded SAC facilities will be open by then –
Randy asked about difficulty of balancing genders within pod setup – he also asked about difficulty of “selling” the idea of “I’m living with 11 other people” –
Tony asked about other spaces that will be needed – brainstorming included:
Tony asked about outdoor amenities, without much discussion –
Tony mentioned the possibility of moving the convenience store from P. Downs to the 1C area of P. Commons in an effort to make that minor food svc location more central to more residents (especially if it offers use of meal plan/declining balance) –
Ginger suggested that if it’s possible to figure out how P. Downs hall office and University Police could share the current office space, then no new construction would be needed at P. Downs – may not be feasible, but should be considered