Campus recreation survey puts Dillon on agenda

Correction appended

Sixty-two percent of students believe that the University should dedicate resources to a significant renovation of Dillon Gym even if other major development projects are delayed as a result, according to the USG’s campus recreation survey, the results of which were released at last night’s USG Senate meeting. Roughly 1,560 undergraduates responded to the survey.

“We were very happy with that number because it really showed [how important improvement to Dillon is to students],” Undergraduate Life Committee chair Arthur Levy ’10 said at last night’s USG meeting.

USG president Josh Weinstein ’09 noted that the survey is an important step in working with administrators to improve Dillon.

“It’s really important that students continue to voice their concerns because it really does matter and really does have an impact,” Weinstein said in an interview. “Students being vocal about Dillon Gym through the USG, in an organized, methodical manner is a really big change.”

The USG’s effort to address the deficiencies of Dillon comes after years of debate over the priority of overhauling the University’s main recreational facility for non-varsity athletes. While $600,000 was spent in summer 2005 on a revamping of the gym’s facilities, a major overhaul has been tabled for several years.

Though the survey results indicate that undergraduates want a “large-scale” renovation of Dillon, the USG plans to focus on what Weinstein called in an interview “quick wins,” immediate goals that can be accomplished “right now.”

Former USG president Rob Biederman ’08, who has been a critic of Dillon’s inadequacies, noted in an interview that “the survey is a good idea in so far as ... it should express pretty widespread discontent with Dillon.”

Biederman added, however, that though the survey will not alert the administration to the inadequacies of Dillon for the first time, this is “the first time the administration has heard en masse from the student body on the issue.”

“President Tilghman is already aware that Dillon is inadequate,” he said, noting that the University organized focus groups and hired a consultancy in 2005 to explore the issue but ultimately decided not to implement major renovations at the time.

Tilghman noted at a question-and-answer session with Biederman’s administration last January that the University is aware of the overcrowding in Dillon Gym, and that it is the USG’s role is “to keep [the administration] apprised of the areas of the University where you think we’re not doing as well as we should.”

U-Councilor Liz Rosen ’10 stressed the survey’s importance.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

“Right now Dillon is not on the University’s list of major [projects],” she said in an interview. “Without this type of data to back up what student representatives are saying ... we don’t have quite as much credibility or legitimacy.”

Results and recommendations

The University’s Capital Plan has allocated $10 million for small-scale renovations of Dillon Gym, scheduled to take place over the next five years, Executive Vice President Mark Burstein told The Daily Princetonian in February. “We have always planned for renovations of Dillon Gym,” he said.

The first of these renovations will begin the next fiscal year, David Leach, associate director of athletics for campus recreation, said in an e-mail, explaining that the amount of money currently allotted for Dillon renovation and maintenance is not enough to accommodate student demand for expansion.

The $10 million is less than one-tenth of what it would cost to do a major renovation, Rosen said, though she acknowledged that the money set aside is a significant amount to be put toward the short-term changes under consideration.

Vice President for Campus Life Janet Dickerson and University architect Jon Hlafter ’61 could not be reached for comment.

One key concern is the availability and variety of cardio equipment in Stephens Fitness Center, Rosen said, explaining that the ratio of StairMasters to treadmills, for example, does not reflect current demand for the two types of equipment.

“In the next year ... I’m hoping that we’ll see space created to house additional equipment because we are an expanding university, and [we’re] already having overcrowding problems,” Rosen said.

The survey results indicate that 46 percent of respondents wait in line “every time” they use treadmills, and 88 percent of respondents wait “sometimes” or “every time” to use an elliptical machine.

Rosen added that another concern is having only one entrance to Dillon Gym, forcing students in residences like Whitman College and Pyne Hall to walk around to the north side to enter.

According to the survey, 67 percent of respondents “would be likely to regularly use Stephens if there were more points of access.”

Leach said that the University is “looking to identify space within the existing Dillon Gym to place more cardio equipment.”

Biederman noted that the hardball squash courts are used by neither the general student body nor the varsity or club squash teams and that these rooms could be filled over the summer with roughly 15 or 20 exercise machines each. He estimated the cost of such a project at $10,000.

Locker rooms, likewise, could be converted to hold more cardio equipment, Rosen said in an interview, explaining that they are “unusually large and unused” space. The USG is recommending that the number of lockers be reduced, based on the finding that 45 percent of respondents never use them.

Rosen, however, said that the administration has told the USG that changing the locker rooms is relatively difficult from an engineering perspective.

Four in 10 respondents said they would regularly use Stephens if it were open from midnight to 2 a.m. on weekdays. The USG recently successfully lobbied for a pilot program to extend Stephens’ closing time on Saturdays from 7:45 p.m. to 11:45 p.m.

Though the focus of the USG’s recommendations is on short-term changes, the recommendations released at last night’s meeting “strongly encourage the necessity of incorporating a large-scale renovation of Dillon Gym, by way of expansion into the Pit” on the south side of Dillon.

A history of discontents

The shortcomings of Dillon Gym have been a focal point of concern on campus for years.

As part of the University’s 2004 Task Force on Health and Well-Being, Dillon received a refinished gymnasium floor, a renovated martial arts room and shock-absorbent flooring under the fitness equipment in Stephens Fitness Center.

Biederman noted that at the time the University was examining possible renovations to Dillon in 2005, projects with the Arts and Transit Neighborhood and Firestone renovations were “not on the radar,” and the University thought it had a lot of time and money to devote to Dillon renovations.

Ultimately, however, “more drastic renovation [of Dillon] was required than they believed [and the] scope of the project [was] more than they could ... take on [at the time],” he explained.

A USG survey of student priorities in October 2007 found that about 56 percent of respondents care most about “recreational facilities.”

Correction

This article originally identified Arthur Levy '10 as a U-Councilor, when he is in fact the Undergraduate Life Committee chair. The Daily Princetonian regrets the error.