If the university proceeds with its plans for a new arena on Cook Field, that reputation could be jeopardized, survey respondents said.
On Feb. 19, a site selection committee made up of administrators, alumni, athletic staff and one faculty member recommended that the university move forward with plans to construct an arena to replace Millett Hall on Cook Field. The announcement followed a survey shared with the Miami community soliciting feedback on the Cook Field location, as well as a southwest quad location which would have replaced Williams and Wells Halls, as well as Joyner and Bonham Houses.
Through an independent analysis of the more than 1500 survey responses, obtained through a records request, the Oxford Free Press found that the community is widely opposed to the Cook Field location. More than 300 respondents explicitly opposed both sites or directly questioned the need for a new arena altogether.
As of 10 a.m. Wednesday morning, nearly 2400 people had signed a change.org petition calling on Miami to preserve Cook Field. That represents more than 1.5 times the number of people who took the initial survey within just two days of the survey’s creation.
Among those who indicated a direct preference between the two locations, Southwest Quad was preferred by a factor of more than two to one. More respondents suggested their own locations, advocated for renovating Millett or opposed the project entirely than those who said they preferred Cook Field.
The Free Press’ analysis defined direct preference as responses which used affirmative language (“first choice,” “ideal,” “perfect,” “preferred,” etc.), dichotomies (yes/no, good/bad, like/don’t like, etc.) or comparative language (calling one location “better” or “best,” or the more or most suitable, appropriate, fitting, etc. site).
The Free Press reached out to David Creamer, senior vice president of finance, for comment. Creamer declined an interview, saying University Communications and Marketing (UCM) was handling all arena-related inquiries. Representatives for UCM told the Free Press no one else was authorized to speak on the project, including members of the site selection committee.
‘A travesty and a misstep,’ or the ‘most ideal’ location?
Most opposition to building the new arena on Cook Field centered on damage to Miami’s campus aesthetic and damage to student recreation.
“Farmer” was mentioned 74 times in response to the Cook Field location. While some described the proximity to the business school as a positive, many said that blocking the view of Farmer would make campus less attractive, especially for prospective students.
“Miami is known for the Farmer School of Business,” one respondent wrote. “When driving in … you can look to your right to see the beautiful Farmer School of Business behind beautiful GREEN grass. If you put a stadium right in front of Farmer, you won’t see one of the school’s BIGGEST ASSETS.”
Two respondents directly invoked Robert Frost in describing how they felt an arena would negatively impact the beauty of Miami’s campus. One wrote simply, “You are ruining what Robert Frost said about our campus.”
Respondents referred to “open” and “green” nearly 600 times in the survey. More than 100 people used the terms “aesthetic,” “view” and “scenic,” most frequently in defense of keeping Cook Field as-is.
Students also worried about the loss of an important recreational space on campus. The words “intramural,” “recreation” and “club” were used 381 times throughout the survey. While some respondents wrote that they were open to construction on Cook Field depending on where the new intramural fields would be located, others adamantly opposed moving the fields at all.
In announcing the Cook Field location, the university wrote that it would spend $13 million to relocate the recreational fields to the space in front of Millett Hall itself. One of the university’s primary reasons cited for constructing a new arena has been the idea that Millett is too far from the center of campus, and that relocating the arena will increase attendance.
Other respondents worried about the impact of an arena on parking, particularly for staff who work in the academic buildings near Cook Field.
While some expressed concerns about what the arena would do to traffic, particularly given the double intersection of Patterson Avenue with Spring Street and SR 73, many who preferred the site thought it would cause less congestion than southwest quad. Traffic would be kept to the outskirts of the Mile Square, some respondents reasoned.
Miami also plans to enter a contract with a private developer to build a university-affiliated hotel on Cook Field. Multiple respondents who preferred the Cook Field location included the hotel development as part of their reasoning. Those in favor of Cook Field also saw the location itself as a big positive.
“With it being such an open area, there would be more freedom to design the building how you want,” one person wrote. “It would also be a focal point of campus with two main roads meeting right there.” Some respondents who preferred Cook Field also questioned whether students used the space enough as it is to justify keeping it.
One person called Cook Field the “most ideal” location, saying an arena there would give students greater ability to “support their school and teams” due to the walking distance. The respondent said an arena in this location would be “eye candy,” in opposition to 15 respondents who explicitly stated it would be an “eye sore.”
Despite some positive feedback, the clear preference from the Free Press analysis was against developing Cook Field. Respondents referred to the idea as an “absolute logistical nightmare” and “detrimental to the student experience,” with one writing that if the administration moves forward with the plan, “You can’t ever undo that mistake.”
“It would be a travesty and a misstep for the administration to use Cook Field as a space for an indoor arena,” one alumnus and current grad student wrote. “It will fundamentally change the geography of campus.”
While the Southwest Quad location was the favored option in the survey, respondents had concerns about an arena there, too. Chief among them were issues regarding traffic and parking, historic preservation of university property like the 1868-constructed Bonham House, and how the plans would impact the Myaamia Center, which was mentioned more than 80 times.
‘Very lopsided’: Respondents question impact of survey
In its email to the community announcing Cook Field as the recommended location on Feb. 19, the university tied the project to the MiamiTHRIVE strategic planning process. “As innovative, students-first ideas and programming move forward … Miami is prioritizing these and other projects that directly benefit students and the community by supporting a vibrant and reinvigorated campus experience.” The arena has not previously been presented to University Senate as part of the MiamiTHRIVE initiative.
The site selection committee included just one faculty member and no students. The alumni on the committee included two former Board members and an athletics donor.
One respondent called out the lack of student representation directly. “Right now it feels very [lopsided],” they wrote, “alumni and staff don’t have their ears on the ground as much as students do.” That respondent went on to say that they liked the idea of a new hotel and hall on Cook Field but wanted to know more about the project.
“How do we know as a community that this survey will impact the community?” asked another respondent who wrote that Cook Field was “sadly” the better option but that the survey felt like “an illusion of choice.”
In an email to the Oxford Free Press, senior director of communications Seth Bauguess wrote that the committee considered responses submitted between Jan. 28 and Feb. 6. The committee met on Feb. 12 to determine its recommendation, and committee members voted unanimously on Cook Field.
Bauguess did not answer questions regarding why the committee did not include students. Bauguess also declined to answer a question regarding the Free Press’ findings that survey respondents opposed the Cook Field location by more than two to one or whether any level of negative response would have changed the ultimate recommendation.
“Our focus will be to make this a student-centered project first and foremost, and that will drive design and amenity choices,” Bauguess wrote.
The Feb. 19 email stated that the university would work closely with student government on the intramural field replacement.
The advantages of Cook Field, according to the university, include a larger site footprint, proximity to the North Parking Garage, traffic control, lack of existing buildings to demolish, “better facilitation for simultaneous dual activities,” proximity to residence halls and the preservation of Southwest Quad for future academic programming expansion. Three of the four buildings on the Southwest Quad location are already slated for demolition in the future. The fourth, Bonham House, is home to the Myaamia Center.
“The committee members were provided with the full set of comments from the public, and they considered the input of the community and other factors in determining their recommendation,” Bauguess wrote. He did not provide further details on how the survey responses were analyzed.
‘Utilize funds in a more prudent manner’: Opposition to a new arena
Maggie Storts is a current fifth generation Miami student. When she filled out the survey in late January, the stakes were personal: Her great-grandfather is John Millett.
Millett served as Miami’s president from 1953 to 1964, a period the university refers to as one of “unprecedented growth” for the university. When a new basketball arena finished construction in 1968, it was named in his honor. Storts says she knows members of her family who never set foot on Miami’s campus until the hall’s dedication, and it’s an important piece of family heritage.
“If the building was demolished, I don’t think it would take away any of the family experiences that we’ve had … but it is definitely a physical manifestation of the impact that John Millett had on campus,” Storts said.
In conversations with other students, Storts said she hasn’t heard from anyone who fully supports plans for a new arena. While she said every building, including Millett, has its life span, students’ perspectives have felt like an afterthought in the discussion about whether to renovate or build anew.
“No one is trying to hurt students, and no one is trying to make living on campus a worse experience,” Storts said. “But … when I think about the people who are excited about this project, it’s not students.”
Multiple survey respondents agreed with Storts’ sentiment, with 250 explicitly calling on the university to renovate Millett Hall itself, put the new arena in the Millett parking lot or front lawn, or abandon the project altogether.
“The administration clearly has not listened or just doesn’t care about anything but more revenue for themselves and bigger bonuses,” one respondent wrote. Another added that “the university should utilize funds in a more prudent manner than on an arena.”
A university administrator estimated the cost of the project at $200 million or more during a December Board of Trustees meeting, while the cost to renovate Millett has been estimated at $80 million.
“For a university that prides itself on top-notch undergraduate teaching and innovative research, spending hundreds of millions on a basketball stadium (while freezing/limiting hires, offering minimal internal research funding, and refusing to pay faculty and staff a livable wage) is an egregious affront to what everyone values about this university,” one person wrote in their response.
This article was first published by the Oxford Free Press. See it online at oxfreepress.com.
About the Author