Pratt and Morrow raise mixed reviews
By Suvayu Pant, Contributing Writer
Almost immediately after settling into their rooms in Morrow and Pratt Dormitories, residents were already complaining. However, because many other students are generally happy with their accommodations, it is not entirely clear what the final verdict is on the two renovated dormitories.

Student complaints varied greatly. While some pinpointed minor inconveniences wrought by slight design issues, others reflected on what they consider the dorm's structural failures.

Many residents criticized the placement of towel racks-nailed either too low or hidden inside closets. Students complained that with towels kept inside closets, they are difficult to access. Others added that placing wet towels in a closet of dry clothing is inconvenient.

Pratt resident Laura Alagna '09 acknowledged problems, but said that she is willing to overlook them because they are trivial.

Another common complaint concerned the wooden floors in some of the rooms. Although they are aesthetically pleasing, they are also much more susceptible to damage. Some residents mentioned that parts of their floors are already badly scratched.

According to several students, some of the rooms and floors in both dorms are awkwardly designed. Pratt resident Qingsi Zhu '08 offered a prime example of this problem. "My room is a corner room that is small enough to be justifiably used as an electrical closet" said Zhu. "In fact, it's so small I have to superimpose my three trash bins because there isn't enough room to lay them out individually."

"Some of the corner rooms are really weirdly designed," Stephanie Li '09 of Pratt agreed.

Pratt residents Sakura Noda '09 and Channing Jones '09 both complained about the common rooms on their respective floors. Students complained that the common rooms are either obstructed by oddly placed pillars, or are simply too close to one side of the hallway.

The damage is the result of the leakage from the showers that lie above them. Moreover, shower and faucet handles have already started falling apart. Such flaws have led some residents to conclude that the renovation projects of these dormitories ended prematurely.

Director of Facilities and Planning Management Jim Brassord explained that construction is always a deliberate process. In response to student complaints, Brassord described a typical year-long "break-in period" after project completion, a time during which the building is fine-tuned.

Although some students mentioned the lack of soundproofing as a problem, Brassord said that he himself has not heard any complaints about soundproofing in any of the renovated dorms.

The renovations of Pratt and Morrow are part of a larger scheme, called the Residential Master Plan (RMP), developed in 2001 to upgrade social and program spaces in dormitories. The renovation of first-year dorms last year and current projects happening around campus are all part of the RMP.

More importantly, Brassord described the RMP as an extremely collaborative process between students, physical plant and the faculty. "Input on design attributes was a major factor in how we have addressed [the design of the dorms]," he said. "During the [initial] process, we held meeting with students to get their input on dorm design. Students clearly indicated that the two-room double configuration was a favored living arrangement because of the flexibility it offered."

Brassord also added that Physical Plant consistently holds post-occupancy meetings when they meet with residents to acquire feedback about their living spaces.

Moore and Pratt were designed by the Albany-based architectural firm Sacco and McKiney, which has already worked on numerous projects around campus. The project contractor is the firm Daniel O'Connell's Sons.

Brassord explained that the firms were chosen because of their previous work done at Amherst and other schools across New England. He feels that these companies have done exceedingly well in executing a project that was admittedly difficult. According to Brassord, challenges arose from the incompatibility of Morrow and Pratt's original archaic features-a result of their construction between the 1920s and 30s-with modern student settings.

Although many of the incompatible features have been changed, Brassord mentioned that the renovation was intended to retain the historic fabric of building. The Pratt common room, a preexisting space, is an example of Sacco and McKiney's aesthetic inspiration.

Brassord shared that he is satisfied with the production of the two "high-quality buildings." He attributed the successful outcome to the collaborative effort between students, faculty and staff.

Despite the occasional problems, many Pratt and Morrow residents shared their satisfaction regarding living conditions. According to some students, the positive things about Morrow and Pratt heavily outweigh the minor inconveniences. "The complaints come as a surprise to me. These are beautiful dorms," said James Buchanan '09.

Issue 03, Submitted 2006-09-27 22:09:28