Rec center rock

Make way for sexy six-packs and the end to the freshman 15. Chico State’s Wildcat Activity Center is headed toward construction.

“Things are moving so fast, it’s hard to keep up,” said Chris Porter, vice president of facilities and services for the Associated Students.

The recreation center will be built thanks to a $350-per-year fee students approved in March 2005 to be collected beginning in fall 2008, the year the center is expected to be completed.

Porter, who’ll have long since graduated when the center’s doors open, spent much of last week in meetings with architects, construction managers and representatives from both the A.S. and the university. Large architectural drawings show how the rec center will fit into the university’s 20-year Master Plan, situated at the edge of campus adjacent land currently occupied by houses, but acquired by the university for future projects.

The 110,000-square-foot, environmentally friendly center will be located along Cherry Street between First and Second streets, taking the place of two soon-to-be demolished warehouses. Chico State President Paul Zingg has promised to secure at least an additional $5 million, allowing for a center costing more than the $55 million quoted during the election, Porter said.

The Wildcat Activity Center will include a 16,000-square-foot weight-training and fitness area, basketball courts and a 15,000-square-foot pool that could be split in two to include both a lap pool and recreational swim area.

The rec center was a long time coming, having been defeated in a high-profile 2001 election and then put on the back burner for four years while A.S. leaders licked their wounds and focused on other projects.

With its first effort, the A.S. leadership came out of the gate with a hefty project plan that included a concert facility, raised track, child care area and pro shop. The project would have cost students about $320 a semester—less than the ultimately approved project—but they’d start paying right away. And, despite pleas from student environmentalists, there was no “green” component to the project.

Students organized an opposition drive saying the project would ultimately cost $208 million, not the stated $65 million. Newspapers editorialized against it and local fitness center owners spent thousands on a campaign to turn the student vote against the center, saying students who would never get to use the center would spend more than $1,200 on it. Students, showing their second-largest turnout ever, shot down the center with a 65-percent “no” vote.

Just as the A.S. was regrouping for another effort in spring 2003, university administration successfully pushed to get student leaders on board a sports referendum instead. (That effort succeeded in May 2002.)

Finally, rec center supporters came back with a more-modest proposal, backed strongly by then-university President Manuel Esteban. It has almost everything students indicated, by way of a professional survey, that they want (a juice bar, for example) and nothing they don’t (racquetball courts.)

In March 2005, the special election referendum easily won with 67 percent voting “yes.”

Porter said there are benefits to being late to the rec center game. “We’re so far behind the ball in that regard, but the good thing is we get to learn from everyone else’s mistakes,” he said. “We’re not pioneering the rec center.”

Porter said Chico State is one of the few campuses that don’t have an activity center, and having one helps attract students and promotes healthy living for those already here.

“When students come here for summer orientation, they ask, ‘Where is the rec center?’ “ Porter said. “They want to know where they can play. We have virtually no recreation space now,” he said, save for some outdoor courts and grassy areas, and a 1,000-square-foot weight room in Acker Gym usually monopolized by student athletes.

Tony DeLuca, owner of Fit One Athletic Clubs, said he was never worried about competition from a campus rec center, and in fact he supports its construction.

“We’ve know this was coming for years and years,” said DeLuca, whose membership is dominated by families and non-students. “Every one of us [club owners] had the opportunity to change our business model.

“It really isn’t going to affect us. There’s more than enough to go around,” he said.

The architect on the project is Sasaki, a firm out of San Francisco, joined by construction managers John F. Otto, Inc. of Sacramento. Projects on state university campuses used to have to go to the lowest bidder, but after a series of mini-scandals, including the cost-overruns and contractor disputes that marked the A.S.-funded Bell Memorial Union, which opened a year late in 2001, the CSU loosen up the rules. Porter said the A.S. and university heard pitches from several firms and picked the aforementioned companies based on their proposals and attitudes.

“We’re very satisfied,” Porter said. “From day one they were professing ‘working with students and keeping the communication lines open.’ They are very accessible. They treat us like we are the money-paying clients, which we are.”

The firms are also experienced in “green” buildings, conforming to the specifications of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program, a part of the U.S. Green Building Council.

Porter said the building will at the least be LEED-certified silver; possibly gold. The ratings take into account a variety of Earth-sparing measures, including limited use of raw materials, efficient use of water and renewable energy.

“It’s an increased expenditure, but in the end it will pay off,” Porter said, both financially through energy savings and through invaluable educational opportunities.

“The best part of it is, it’s very open,” he said of the design, and as soon as students walk in they’ll see people working out, swimming or playing basketball. “You see an active building.”

Light will stream into the building from nearly every angle, progressive ventilation systems will let it “breathe” and other details down to the type of glue used in the carpeting combine to create a “sustainable” building, the CSU’s new approach to construction projects.

Also in the budget is a center director. The A.S. is already advertising for an experienced individual to direct the Wildcat Activity Center, at a salary of nearly $65,000 a year.

The A.S. has floated bonds to get things rolling, since under the “don’t pay until you can play” campaign students won’t be assessed the fees until the center opens.

Porter said the fall 2008 opening is a promise, not a target. “It’s a very aggressive schedule and we are on top of it.”