When LSA junior Jeff Kendall first stepped foot in the Central Campus Recreational Building (CCRB), his first impression was that the facilities appeared dated, reminding him of the shabby community center in his hometown of Midland, Mich.

“They really should reconsider how they put it together,” Kendall said. “I think we have a lot of work to do in terms of our recreational facilities, especially at the CCRB. It’s just so dated for such a large school with such great resources.”

Common gripes with the recreational facilities on campus are what led to the creation of the Recreational Sports Task Force, which issued a 91-page report in March recommending major changes to campus recreational facilities. Data was compiled from a survey conducted by the task force starting in fall 2007.

The task force most strongly advocated changes to the CCRB, the North Campus Recreational Building (NCRB) and the Intramural Sports Building (IMSB).

The recommendations made in the report, commissioned by Provost Teresa Sullivan and Vice President of Student Affairs E. Royster Harper, undoubtedly added to the administration’s lengthy list of needs amid financial strife. But many say this call to action is well overdue, especially given the progress made by institutions that compete with Michigan for students.

As a measure of comparison, the task force surveyed the fitness facilities of 11 other universities — seven other Big Ten schools, Stanford, Maryland, Texas and Virginia. To put it lightly, the University of Michigan didn’t measure up.

From the list of 11, only Purdue and Penn State had a lower ratio of square footage per student. Iowa, which plans to open its new $69 million facility later this year, will have well more than double Michigan’s space (17.13 ft. to 6.97 ft.) per student.

The new Ross School of Business boasts a shiny new fitness center which is only available to business students who pay a membership fee. The average University student has to deal with long wait times, an unpleasant atmosphere and antiquated exercise equipment. But demand for better facilities is high and the task force report affirms that the University could whip its fitness centers into shape if it implemented a few changes.

STUFFY, OLD, INADEQUATE

Of the facilities open to all full-time students, the CCRB and NCRB, both built in 1976, represent the cutting edge. According to the report, neither has ever undergone major renovations since being built. All other schools on the list except Penn State have built new facilities since 1983.

The University hasn’t always lagged behind the recreational vanguard. When the IMSB was built in 1928, it was the first intramural building in America. Now, it also doubles as an historic campus landmark — one that students appreciate more from the outside than when they’re fighting for workout space inside.

“I love the old building and its architecture,” said Meghan Milford, a 2007 alum. “It would be sad to see that go, but at the same time, it wasn’t built for this kind of activity. It’s just really outdated.”

The aesthetic relic is a credit to campus architecture but is quite at odds with the concept of providing quality fitness facilities to help students relieve stress. Milford also said ventilation is an issue. And if you’re willing to tolerate the stuffiness for a turn on the elliptical, you’ll only be able to for 30 minutes at a time.

“It just seems like they’re trying to pack more machines in the same amount of area every year,” Milford said. “It just keeps getting tighter and tighter. They are putting machines in racquetball courts, and it’s just like, ‘Come on, expand already.’ ”

Despite its historical place on campus, the IMSB was criticized just as harshly as the other two facilities on campus by a focus group of 2,293 students surveyed by consulting firm Brailsford and Dunlavey in 2003.

Out of the 70 percent of respondents who had visited the IMSB, 38 percent answered that the facilities failed to meet their expectations. Of the 90 percent who had been to the CCRB, more than 50 percent were disappointed. For the NCRB, 48 percent had visited and 27 percent were let down.

The results of the survey led to some modifications within the IMSB and CCRB, such as transforming unused locker room space and racquetball courts into an additional fitness area, but the task force report showed there is much more to be done.

It should also be noted that since 2003, residency on North Campus has greatly escalated, causing student demand for the NCRB to be higher than it was six years ago.

One student employee quoted in the task force report said that “many freshman are constantly shocked” at how inadequate the gyms are for a school with such a strong reputation.

Staff and faculty shared the opinion of the students.