October 23, 2013 was an exciting day in the history of the University: the first of several openings of the new and improved Talley Student Union. To mark the occasion, guest columnist Ishan Raval wrote “Remembering Talley’s Murky History” to share the origins of the project through his eyes.

There is no denying that some students were not pleased with the decision to move forward with the project. Rally 4 Talley placed a lot of emphasis on the idea of a shiny new building, something most of the students at the time would likely never experience. When Campus Enterprises was formed after the referendum, I had a greater role in sharing the story of Talley and spent a lot of time talking to disenchanted students who felt similar to Raval. What I learned was this: If they had known more about the dire condition of the existing Talley, they may have felt differently about supporting the project. 

First, Talley was too small and too old to adequately serve today’s burgeoning student body, and it had been that way for a long time.

Take the old Talley Food Court, for example. There was a real need for more modern, comfortable food service spaces that would take pressure off the Atrium and Case Dining Hall, but electrical, plumbing and space constraints wouldn’t allow for it. Campus dining was transitioning to operate under the jurisdiction of the Wake County Health Department and was required to meet the more stringent regulations applied to restaurants. While the cooking equipment met code, the Talley Student Center itself required significant remodeling to meet today’s standards for number of sinks, plumbing connections, lighting levels, refrigerated storage and flooring. The Wake County Health Department and the N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources agreed to allow the existing Talley food services to operate “as is” while the new food services were constructed. 

Imagine the issues University Dining would have had if there had been no promise of a new Talley because correcting these problems would have been no easy task, which brings me to the second reason: Talley was deteriorating quickly. The building was suffering system failures that had the potential to be catastrophic if not addressed properly.  For example:

The electrical system was at maximum capacity and unable to support needed upgrades to the building. Portable panels had to be brought in to facilitate events in the ballroom and outdoors.

The plumbing system was deteriorating and had resulted in failures that required services and areas be closed during repairs. Plus, it lacked control points, which meant water to the whole building had to be turned off to make a plumbing repair. This affected Price Music Center’s water supply as well.

The HVAC system had numerous issues that drew unconditioned air into the building, wasting energy to heat and cool the outside air that entered the building every time a door was opened.

Fire sprinklers existed only in the kitchen areas, not any others.

The elevators were failing.

Asbestos in the building made even simple changes or upgrades to the building costly due to the abatement required.

ADA standards were adopted long after the building was opened, so compliance was awkward in many places and borderline in others (e.g. the ramp on Cates Avenue, which was very steep).

The N.C. State Bookstore building, which was located next to the old Talley, was suffering similar issues in terms of space, systems and facility degradation. It had settled significantly, and it would have cost millions of dollars to repair it and bring it up to modern code. Even then, it would not have been adequate for the bookstore operations, which would have to go somewhere else in order to serve the current and future student population.

The outward bookstore operation belied the troubles it faced to serve students, especially during book sales at the beginning of each semester. Space constraints dictated it operate out of five tractor trailer trucks parked in the tight loading area behind the building to meet the demand.

Raval led readers to believe that 56.6 percent of students agreed that the building needed to be replaced, but only 38.4 percent were willing to support it with student fees. In reality, less than 10 percent of the student body voted in the referendum, so the number of students actively against the project was slightly more than 5 percent.  Regardless, the results of the vote were actively considered by student leaders, the Chancellor, the Board of Trustees and the UNC Board of Governors, along with other factors, including the dire condition of the existing facilities and the needs of tens of thousands of students who will pass through our University over the decades to come.  

I hope that by experiencing the first parts of the new Talley, we can all appreciate the decision our student leaders and administration made to move forward.

Jennifer Gilmore

Director, Marketing Communication, Campus Enterprises Divison