When the $353 million, 375,000-square-foot University Center opened in the fall of 2013, many New Schoolers looked forward to a state of the art building that would be the heart of the University. With 58 classrooms, a cafeteria, an auditorium, and new library space — not to mention an eight-story, 600-bed dormitory atop it — the new University social hub stands tall on the corner of 14th and Fifth ave.

But what the University Center does not offer are faculty offices.

University administrators point out that the new building was built largely for students, not faculty. “From the beginning, the new building was meant to compensate for the university’s shortage of communal, public, social, unscheduled spaces and to provide instructional space needed for academic programs,” said Lia Gartner, the New School’s Vice President for Design Construction and Facilities Management.

In contrast, the facilities in the new building available to the University’s 2,000 part-time and full-time faculty members are limited to a faculty and staff lounge as well as a faculty center, a space solely for faculty where they have access to a computer work station, private phone booths, a kitchenette and tables for working.

“[I use the faculty center for] eating and grading and socializing,” said Katayoun Charmany, Lang Maths and Science professor, in an email reply to an informal survey the Free Press sent out to 35 randomly selected faculty member from across the University. Although, only 13 responded, their replies did follow a number of common threads.

Only three out of the 13 replies stated that they used the faculty center and faculty lounge.

A faculty member who chose to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of speaking out about this topic, said, “Private offices for full-time faculty are an essential part of the academic infrastructure of the university. To create situations where faculty are disincentivized to use their offices (sharing, no windows, restricted access times, etc.) is to undermine the sense of intellectual community and intellectual and pedagogic production at the university.”

A similar opinion was shared by another anonymous faculty member who said they did not have an office despite being a full-time faculty member. “The lack of office space makes me feel disconnected from the school and my students.”

In the initial floor plans of the UC, found on the school’s website, floor 4 was supposed to house 13 offices. While those offices do exist, they do not belong to faculty but are instead for career counseling.

Over four years ago, when the planning for the new building began, TNS brought in outside consultants from IDEO, a design and innovation consulting firm, to help coordinate a University wide decision making process around what the UC will provide the community. It was a lengthy process in which community wide meetings were held every month for almost two years.

Michael Joy, Director of Campus Planning, said that during the planning process the University Facilities Committee was formed in order to make sure that representation from all areas of the school were involved. “Everyone was invited to the design planning meetings. Deans of the various schools would elect representation or suggest who be invited. It came from the schools who exactly should be at the meeting.”

Despite there being representatives from across the University, faculty offices were never included in the final plans, even though office space at TNS has been an issue for many years.

One of the anonymous faculty members has an office located in the Lang 12th Street building and rated their office a 3 out of 5 on a scale of satisfaction with the space. Despite being relatively satisfied with the office, the faculty member had a lot to say about how the university treats the situation as a whole. “Currently, faculty feel like they are being increasingly forced into sub-standard arrangements with a negative impact on their research and teaching and on the sense of community at the university. There is great inequality in the way offices are distributed. This should not be a race to the bottom. All full-time faculty deserve private offices.”

But Gartner seems to see it differently. When asked why there were no faculty offices included in the buildings design, Gartner said, “The building’s design contemplated the presence in the building of the faculty involved in teaching there and a space was provided to support their activities there temporarily, rather than the kind of permanent working homes that are private faculty offices.”

While the lack of adequate office space is an issue for all divisions of the University, some faculty are happy with the space they have. David Carroll, a professor of media design, is lucky enough to have an office in the 79 Fifth Avenue building, which he describes as having great views but no privacy since he shares his office with other faculty members.

When asked what he thinks the university can do to address office inequities, Carroll replied in an email saying, “More shareable (not shared) private office that can be booked on short-notice for short-term use. Basically, Airbnb for faculty office for when you need a quick place for private, sensitive conversations. That’s when shared and public spaces fail to serve our needs.”

While the issue continues to be a point of contention between faculty and administration, Gartner made sure to point out that, “None have expressed to me dislike of the space, nor have I heard complaints conveyed by others. I would welcome feedback of any kind and we are prepared to continue to improve the space with specific feasible suggestions.”

But despite what Gartner says, there is obvious frustration amongst faculty over the lack of attention to office space. One of the anonymous faculty members ended by saying, “The university needs to take faculty office space more seriously.”