On Thursday, February 11, 2016, the University of Washington (UW) Board of Regents will decide what course to officially pursue regarding the construction of the Computer Science and Engineering Building II (CSE II). Based on the recently released Final Supplemental Enivronmental Impact Statement and in preparation for the upcoming Board of Regents Meeting, the administration has published their recommendations which can be found here.

While the recommendations come as no surprise, they certainly are disappointing. Comments regarding the Nuclear Reactor Building (More Hall Annex) are as follows:

The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) analyzed five alternative designs/locations on two sites, plus the no action alternative. The preferred alternative on Site 16C is the only alternative that meets the programmatic needs of the CSE Department. However, the preferred alternative produces the most significant adverse impact on historic resources because it requires removal of More Hall Annex, which is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places, and is nominated for designation as a City of Seattle Landmark. The Administration received and reviewed many comments to the Draft SEIS that expressed the position that the Annex, because of its historic value, should be retained on site and the CSE II building constructed on Site 14C, next to the UW Club.
— Page 3
Incorporating the More Hall Annex into the new building would damage the building’s design, compromising both our program and our ability to fundraise for the new building . . . What would we tell potential donors, particularly the potential naming-rights donors whom we will ask to donate tens of millions of dollars? Will they want their name on a building that will satisfy no one’s goals, neither within the CSE program itself nor within the historic preservation community that values the Annex as it is? Even if re-purposing were feasible from a design point of view (which it is not), and even if we could raise the private funds to execute a badly compromised design (which we believe we cannot), would students, faculty, and staff be comfortable working in a facility that once housed a nuclear reactor and experienced a radiation-related accident? Would the UW be comfortable asking them to do so?
— Page 9-10

Save the Reactor: To clarify, the preservation community does value the building as it is, but does not prefer that the building remain vacant and unused. Buildings convey their significance most effectively when they are an active and useful part of a community and when they are able to contribute a sense of history to the present narrative.

Two alternatives studied in the EIS would require the new CSE II building to wrap around and preserve the More Hall Annex for use by the CSE program. Unfortunately, such construction would not only compromise the historic integrity of the Annex, it would make CSE II less useful and attractive, and would require us to make use of the cold, unattractive, and environmentally questionable space within the Annex. Our building must be attractive for people to work in for long hours . . . 
— Page 10

Save the Reactor: The emphasis on analyzing the building based on its the "attractiveness" (or alleged lack thereof) is an insufficient critique as it is completely subjective. The historic and architectural significance of the building are the essential factors, not the present interpretation of taste.

Failure to approve the preferred alternative site at this time will seriously harm CSE, putting a halt to the department’s remarkable trajectory. It will also harm all of UW’s students by reducing our capacity to educate them in the latest technology that is required for everyone in the modern world.
— Page 10
Based on the investigations that have been conducted, the Administration concludes that the educational needs of the University and the CSE Department outweigh the value of preserving the Annex, a building for which the University has no reasonable use.
— Page 11