In the wake of Hamilton College’s Campus Master Plan, students voice both enthusiasm and concern. Designed as a roadmap for campus development over the next decades, the plan involves ambitious projects, such as expanding student housing, while proposing controversial changes, such as the introduction of a centralized dining hall. As discussions unfold surrounding sites such as the Days-Massolo Cultural Center (DMC) and the Afro-Latin Cultural Center (ALCC), students grapple with the balance between innovation and preservation.
In contrast to other renovation plans such as Root Hall, which focused on a single renovation, the Campus Master Plan focuses on more long-term changes to campus. According to the campus master plan website, this encompasses a “10+ year roadmap for development and improvement of the physical campus.”
The planning procedure for the Campus Master Plan started with a visit from Sasaki, an architectural design firm that specializes in designing college campuses on April 24 2023. During this planning process, which lasted from March to Dec. of 2023, the Sasaki planning team underwent three phases; they assessed the physical campus environment, established consensus on a preferred direction and published final planning reports to inform the campus community.
Mike Klapmeyer, Associate Vice President for Facilities and Planning, spoke about the motivators for implementing the Campus Master Plan. He said, “The College had previously completed discrete studies for athletics, student housing and landscaping, but had no comprehensive plan for campus renewal and expansion. Rather than a piecemeal approach, we engaged Sasaki as a partner to help us gather data and strategize on the needs and sequencing of future projects.”
Of the many suggestions outlined in the Campus Master Plan, the proposed changes to increase the overall availability of housing with a new dorm, was widely praised by the community. As outlined in the Open Forum on Feb. 9, 2024, “student enrollment growth has outpaced the addition of residential space in the last decade, limiting surge capacity and prompting the conversion of lounge spaces and employee housing to student rooms.” Currently, the Campus Master Plan recommends the introduction of a new student apartment facility and a new semi-suite-style residence hall holding a total of 338 beds.
Ashley Beck ’26 supported the housing improvements in the Campus Master Plan. For instance, in relation to the Bundy East and West Residence Halls, she said, “Bundy is the worst dorm on campus. It’s far away. It’s disgusting. I think their plan to fix Bundy up and turn [it] into apartment-style suites would at least make Bundy a nice place to live.”
Lucy Naughton ’24 echoed Beck’s opinions on the proposed housing improvements as part of the Campus Master Plan. She explained, “I definitely think we need more housing, I think housing is a huge problem and it has been for my entire time here. I think it’s way overdue for them to build new dorms and apartments, so I’m happy with that.”
Despite the praise for housing, students expressed major concerns about the introduction of a new centralized dining hall on College Hill Road. In the current iteration, plans are in place to construct a new dining hall in the current location of the Days-Massolo Cultural Center (DMC), the Afro-Latin Cultural Center (ALCC) and the Philosophy House.
Klapmeyer, who described the implementation of the centralized dining hall as the “most critiqued aspect of the plan,” noted that as a result of community feedback, the current dining hall plan has changed, driving some confusion among students and faculty.
He said that, taking into account community feedback, the current plan keeps McEwen Dining Hall, while creating a new space for Diner and Soper Commons. Soper Commons and Diner, to Klapmeyer, “suffers from insufficient space for seating and service.”
Some students raised concerns about losing Howard Diner’s unique atmosphere, as a non-traditional, ’50s diner style dining option. Klapmeyer notes that their plan included an “expanded diner within the consolidated facility, that maintains its unique character and operates independently.”
In the current plans, Soper Commons is to be replaced with a Learning Commons that consolidates aspects of ALEX, the Career Center, and the Registrar’s Office. Emily Boviero ’24 took concern with the removal of dining spaces with the proposed addition of the centralized dining hall. She said, “I don’t think they should take away another dining hall. I think they should add another because there is really no net gain. You’re just taking one and then adding another one in. There needs to be more places on campus to live and eat.”
Similarly, Naughton said that while she agreed that the dining on campus needed to be improved, she echoed Boviero’s criticism of replacing current buildings. She said, “I also think we do need some sort of improvement of the dining halls. I don’t know if we necessarily need to knock one down and rebuild it. There’s a problem with finding seating, so I would just say I think that maybe the dining halls should be expanded, or they should add a new one in addition to the ones we already have.”
The relocation of the DMC, the ALCC, and the Philosophy House represented a major point of contention, especially for students who are currently involved in the DMC affinity organizations on campus. In the current version of the Campus Master Plan, a new Affinity Group Village at Anderson-Connell Alumni Center is proposed to replace the DMC and the ALCC. By expanding Anderson Connell, the Affinity Group Village intends to “meet the needs of current and future cultural identity and spiritual and religious life groups.” Additionally, plans are proposed to renovate and expand Benedict Hall for the Philosophy department.
According to the Days-Massolo Center website, a building that once held the Computer Science department, was converted into the Days-Massolo Center (DMC), named after trustees Drew Days and Art Massolo, in 2011. This occurred after seven student activists, as part of the Social Justice Initiative (SJI), advocated for the creation of a Cultural Education Center (CEC). This serves as a physical space for cultural and identity-based organizations on campus to facilitate programming and learn about justice-based issues.
Jun Reiss ’26, the current interim president of the Asian Student Union (ASU) and incoming Cluster Lead for the DMC, criticized the administrative handling of the Affinity Group Village. He said, “I was at a conference at Vassar recently with their Asian Student Union. They said something similar had happened to them a couple of years back and that their [cultural diversity] building had become sort of devoid of all personality. People use it as a multicultural center but it was mostly a facet of the administration, and it wasn’t really a safe space for students of color, queer students, and marginalized students.”
Daphne Cerrato ’26, co-president of La Vanguardia (LV), described the significance of the DMC and ALCC to her as a student of color. She explained, “I don’t agree with the idea of moving those spaces because those are two places built and made for people of color and underrepresented groups. I feel like removing those spaces is just a really big stab in the back. You just so happened to remove the two spaces that are primarily used by people of color.”
To many student leaders of DMC affinity groups, spaces like the DMC and ALCC hold historical significance for them. Naughton, past co-chair of the Center for Intersectional Feminism (CIF), describes the importance of space. She said, “It feels good knowing that people with similar values to you and want to see the same changes on campus as you will be in that same room after you graduate. I think that demolishing the DMC sends the message that we’re just starting over as opposed to just building upon the history that we have.”
Despite student concerns about displacement, many of the DMC student leaders interviewed were open to making improvements to the spaces. Some leaders suggested making improvements to the existing buildings as an alternative to constructing new ones.
Cerrato emphasized the difference between rebuilding and removal. She said, “I totally agree that a lot of buildings on campus need to be renovated. Do I think the DMC is one of them? Sure… But I am never upset with a little makeover. At the end of the day, it’s not just a rebuilding of the DMC. It’s a removal with completely different spaces being introduced there.”
Naughton agreed with Cerrato’s point, proposing renovations that mirrored Root Hall. She said, “I don’t think everything needs to stay the same. For example, I think it would be much better if they renovated the DMC and maybe added new rooms…They renovated Root and it’s completely different but they kept the building because there’s some semblance of history. It could be a similar thing.”
Boviero, the current Programming Lead for the DMC, further echoed these points. She said, “I think the DMC holds so much historical significance and I think tearing it down doesn’t sit right with me. I understand that they want to make a bigger building [and] just make it more contemporary, but this building is so important to so many groups of people.”
While students held many concerns about the Campus Master Plan, many also described the shortcomings in the feedback process for student opinions. In particular, interviewees mentioned the lack of opportunities students had to attend feedback sessions.
Jackson Strout ’24, class president and chair of the Residential Life and Safety Committee of SGA, described the inaccessible time slot used for the Feb. feedback session. Strout explained that many students were in class during the afternoon feedback session in Feb. He said, “The effort was good. The execution was not…When you have meetings at those times, you’re basically saying to everyone [that] we don’t want any of you to go.”
While Strout initially described the campus community to be relatively unaware of the Campus Master Plan, he described the efforts taken by himself and Facilities to advertise it to students through methods such as billboards. Strout said, “At the end of the second meeting, I was like ‘Hey, can we put these boards everywhere?’ and they put it up everywhere so people were aware of the plan. Actually being able to see it and walk past it is huge, and I’d say the reception was not good.”
Beck, an active observer of the Campus Master Plan since Spring 2023, critiqued the initial communication process but acknowledged that communication was getting better. Beck said, “In the beginning, it was a little rough because they were only communicating through email…Now, they’re really starting to explore other ways of getting community involvement. I think as students, we have to have this responsibility of being aware, and Facilities Management has an obligation on their end to reach out.”
The Community Conversion on April 24 to discuss the Campus Plan, represented another opportunity for campus community members to express criticisms of the Campus Master Plan. During the event, a ‘world café style’ format was implemented where students rotated between tables with the following topics: living space design, cultural spaces, religious spaces, an affinity village, digital innovation center, third places and building community and accessibility. Student conversation facilitators and faculty members were in charge of leading discussions while taking notes on student concerns.
Luke Resetarits ’27, a community conversation facilitator and event planner, described the community conversation to be a success. He said, “The goal was to hear the voices of students and faculty. I think it was a huge success and that was shown by just how many people showed up.”
A central debate that emerged since the introduction of the Campus Master Plan was the degree to which buildings should be changed or preserved for the purposes of significance. To some students, the two are not mutually exclusive to one another. Teddy Gercken ’27, for instance, describes campus renovation projects at other universities. “Look at [the University of Chicago]. They did massive renovations to a lot of their old historic building[s], and they continue to look old and historic… It would really be a shame to bulldoze [buildings] in the name of newer and better when we could [renovate existing buildings].”
Strout echoes this point, saying, “One of the biggest things I’ve heard overall is that people don’t necessarily want new things. They want the things that already exist to be bigger and better. Like you can make the Little Pub bigger and better.”
To follow up, Beck expressed the need to improve the physical accessibility of existing buildings on campus. Beck said, “We need to think more creatively as a Hamilton community and really figure out how to use our space to make these new ideas happen while preserving the spaces that we [already] have. If you’re going to add on to them, find ways to make them more accessible, so that more people can use them.”
Though students may have various complaints about the Campus Master Plan, Klapmeyer emphasized that proposals for facilities are merely concepts and not meant to imply predetermination. He said, “Decisions involving specific locations, exterior aesthetics and interior programming will occur much later as part of a deliberate design process and will involve the collaboration and perspectives of key stakeholders. Though the formal planning process has concluded, the conversations continue.”
Beck echoed Klapmeyer’s point. She said, “I don’t think they were prepared for the feedback. I think we’ve gotten such a strong response against this centralized dining hall that would take the place of the DMC, ALCC and Philosophy House.”
Beck also emphasized the need for continued community engagement throughout the planning process. To Beck, “One of the most important parts of this process is to not give up hope…I think if the Hamilton community really stands up for the ideas that they believe in, in the end, we have a really good shot of seeing the Hamilton that we want to see.”
To read more about and submit feedback for the Campus Master Plan, visit
https://hamilton.engage.sasaki.com/
