I write to echo the concerns of David and Lucinda Anderson and others who have voiced objections to the plans for Cherry Hall and the Faculty House.

I, too, have many memories of these two places and a deep appreciation for the sense of place — indeed of home — that I experience when I am on The Hill. But it is not simply nostalgia or a resistance to change or even sticker shock at the $71 million cost that compels me to speak.

Likely no one would object to upgrades and repairs: the quaint (no, antiquated) bathrooms, perhaps an aging roof or HVAC system, the computer rooms and other tech infrastructure that may be outdated. These and other components of Cherry Hall are, no doubt, in need of attention.

But my examination of the renderings recently shared with the public put me in mind of the trendy aesthetic one sees in an atrium-like lobby of a second-rate hotel, hardly a suitable learning milieu. The architectural maxim “form follows function” seems not to have guided the plans. Should we gut a functioning educational facility in favor of fleeting fashion that may very well prove far less functional, and perhaps sooner rather than later?

I fear it may be too late to salvage the Faculty House, a situation that smacks of neglect. I found this unique structure to be one of several places that I could use for de-stimulation — ironically a purpose listed for sections of the “new and improved” Cherry Hall. The May 1 letter to alumni promises to “honor its history.” I wonder how: A photograph? A plaque? A tombstone fashioned from the mantlepiece?

It is difficult to see how the architectural senecide planned for these venerable structures supports the May 1 letter’s claim that WKU has a “fundamental responsibility to maintain our spaces.”

With hopes that options short of destruction will be considered.

Jan J. Funk

Bowling Green