As a proud alumnus of Keenan Hall, Class of 1990, I would like to respond to Mr. Nathaniel Gotcher's letter (Sept. 7, "Stanford and Keenan") suggesting that Keenan Hall (and Stanford Hall) are not worthy of renovation.
His letter suggests that these reinforced concrete structures were meant to temporary and not built to last. He apparently bases this argument on the fact that they needed new windows and are therefore not sustainable. Yet, all the buildings he mentions in the immediate vicinity that meet his standards of acceptability have had their windows replaced and plenty of other renovations done to them. In fact, even our cherished Main Building has had significant renovations to it over the years.
If Mr. Gotcher believes that sustainable means that regular upkeep and maintenance is not required, he has a lot to learn about architecture and how buildings are put together. Mr. Gotcher suggests that a dorm should be easily navigable, sturdy and pleasing on the eyes. Keenan (and Stanford) certainly meet two out of his three criteria and while Keenan may not be the prettiest, it isn't the ugliest on campus, and it makes up for it in the tremendous contributions to student leadership, campus life and intramural sports it has provided over the years — not to mention it has one of the best basements on campus!
Maybe the men of Keenan are driven to excellence to make up for the apparent architectural error that they cherish living in. Please note that this is also the first and last time that I will defend Stanford Hall.
Patrick Perrella
alumnus
Class of 1990
Sept. 9
