Making room: MSU reevaluates space for the south campus farms – MSUToday

The Office of the Executive Vice President for Administration Infrastructure Planning and Facilities, in partnership with the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, has launched a significant initiative to safely demolish 22 deteriorating structures across the south campus farms.

The Office of the Executive Vice President for Administration Infrastructure Planning and Facilities, in collaboration with the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, has undertaken a major initiative to demolish 22 deteriorating structures in the south campus farms. This initiative aims to create 66,000 square feet of usable space for future agricultural and educational needs, ensuring a safer environment for students and researchers.

Striking a Balance Between History, Efficiency, and Reusability

Dr. Thomas Glasmacher, interim executive vice president of administration, stated that deciding to remove any structure on campus is always a challenging choice. In the case of the farm district, the goal is to strike a balance between honoring history, ensuring efficiency, and maximizing reusability. It is important to recognize that many of these buildings have far outlived their useful life. The costs associated with maintaining these structures are not justified, and it is more prudent to refocus resources and utilize funds for other strategic projects for the south campus farms.

Utilization of Land from the Project

• Conversion back to farmland for research support by growing hay and corn, essential crops for beef and dairy operations.
• Held as fallow land for future needs that meet updated standards and aid research beneficial to the university mission.
• Intentionally capping utilities in certain locations keeps the infrastructure available for future agricultural development in a sustainable way.

Prioritizing Safety and Sustainability

This initiative prioritizes safety through the careful removal of hazardous materials and the capping of utilities in the affected areas. As part of the project, two barns have been identified for potential salvage. Materials such as cement, bricks, and blocks will be crushed on campus and recycled for use in roads and walkways. By minimizing waste and maximizing resource reuse, the initiative underscores MSU’s commitment to sustainability.

Cost Savings and Resource Allocation

Dan Bollman, Vice President for Strategic Infrastructure, Planning, and Facilities, highlighted that over time, many of MSU’s structures have aged, necessitating decisions regarding maintenance and capital renewal investments. Selective demolition of structures that have outlived their useful life will become increasingly common as the university explores further capital renewal initiatives. By removing these storage buildings, MSU IPF and CANR will avoid $5-7 million in deferred and future maintenance costs, allowing for better allocation of resources for transformative projects, such as the new dairy facility.

Advancing Sustainability and Food Security

The new MSU Dairy Teaching and Research Center, part of a larger effort by Michigan State University to advance sustainability and food security, is a testament to the university’s commitment to modernizing agricultural infrastructure and supporting cutting-edge research. In October 2023, significant renovations to the Plant Sciences Greenhouses and the construction of a state-of-the-art Dairy Cattle Teaching and Research Center were approved, aligning with evolving programmatic needs.

Partnerships for Success

Interim Dean of CANR Dr. Matthew Daum emphasized the importance of effective partnerships with IPF and other units on campus in addressing challenges faced by agricultural facilities. While changes like these can be daunting, these partnerships allow for successes in agricultural facilities and provide the best possible learning experience for students.

Capital Renewal Projects for Growth and Expansion

Looking ahead, capital renewal projects will create opportunities for growth and expansion of teaching, research, and extension facilities within MSU’s existing footprint, minimizing sprawl into the agricultural land base. Balancing reinvestment in existing infrastructure with new development is crucial, especially as the university faces challenges related to deteriorating facilities. IPF is conducting building-by-building analyses to assess repair costs and energy efficiency, supporting future demand models and determining the optimal size and use of university facilities.

For more information on this project, please visit the Infrastructure Planning and Facilities website.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
• SDG 15: Life on Land

The issues highlighted in the article are connected to these SDGs because they involve agricultural and infrastructure development, sustainability, and responsible resource management.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production.
• SDG 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.
• SDG 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated, and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.
• SDG 12.2: By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.
• SDG 15.9: By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies, and accounts.

These targets are relevant to the issues discussed in the article, as they focus on sustainable food production, infrastructure development, urban planning, resource management, and biodiversity conservation.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator for SDG 2.4: Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture.
• Indicator for SDG 9.1: Proportion of the rural population who live within 2 km of an all-season road.
• Indicator for SDG 11.3: Proportion of cities with a direct participation structure of civil society in urban planning and management that operate regularly and democratically.
• Indicator for SDG 12.2: Domestic material consumption per capita.
• Indicator for SDG 15.9: Proportion of important sites for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity that are covered by protected areas, by ecosystem type.

These indicators can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets by assessing the extent of sustainable agriculture, accessibility to infrastructure, participatory urban planning, resource consumption, and biodiversity conservation.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: msutoday.msu.edu