The Insiders
-
Jan
14
Issue of the Day: Campus Development
Posted by: Neal Yonson | January 14, 2007 | 13 Comments
This post was originally written by Tim Louman-Gardiner.
Welcome to the first of our Issue of the Day series, where we profile an important campus and student issue, and ask our readers, including candidates, to comment on it.
(It’s important to note that the definition of allowable passive campaigning includes “letters to the editor and articles written by… candidates” and “responding to inquiries from the media about elections plans.” Which covers participating in these types of questions.)
Our first: Campus Development
You may have noticed that the campus is a giant construction zone. If you haven’t, you’re probably blind. As with any issue, there are many perspectives. Those who support the (general) development will generally argue:
- Institutional (classroom and lab space, etc) development supports the learning environment, and allows for sustainable development.
- Residential development contributes to the endowment, and generates income for students in the long term. Specifically, the University leases the land for 99-year leases, and develops the property, so people can live there at market rates. The commercial property developers are free to develop how they want, at the prices they want; all that goes to UBC is the land lease money.
- It’s going to build community, by ensuring that people can live, shop, work, and study here, instead of having to go into Vancouver, and this will make a more vibrant campus experience.
- The density will result in less transportation, and a more sustainable community.
Those who generally oppose the development have their arguments as well:
- It destroys student culture, by making us beholden to their interests. For instance, is ACF threatened because residents don’t like the noise in their neighbourhood? And will there be noise complaints by people living near the SUB?
- The development is chewing up green space, and possibly the Farm, which is designated as a future housing reserve. As a result, it’s unsustainably destroying the ecology.
- It’s too expensive, and no students will be able to afford to live there; students should be the priority, since living on campus is beneficial.
- Construction is loud, expensive, and disruptive.
So, what do you think? In particular we invite candidates to comment, but all are welcome. Please, comment. It helps get your ideas out.
What should the AMS position on development be? Which of the arguments do you find persuasive? What would you add? How would you make the case for whichever side you support? Have I merely established a false dichotomy?
Comments
13 Comments so far
Who pays for all this stuff?
US, the students.
“Institutional (classroom and lab space, etc) development supports the learning environment, and allows for sustainable development”
– Institutional developments? What institutional developments? Why are we still using those age old chem labs that leak out yellow stuff from the tap?
– Supports learning enviroment? It’s not the building that is getting the grades, it’s the students abilities and dilligence.
– Like that new commerce building issue, instutional developments are merely excuses for the admins to get even larger gold-plated office.
“Non-residential development contributes to the endowment, and generates income for students in the long term.”
– Long term? How long do we have to wait? Again, where is this money coming from? OUR tuition fees, OUR money from paying for overpriced textbooks. It’s NOT generating income for the students, but rather jacking more of our money and generating income for those up there. It’s a simple chain reaction: More construction –> more money needed for that construction –> increased tuition fees –> larger finacial burden for current and future students.
Futhermore, if UBC really cares about sustainability, why don’t they use some of that money for something more practical like hand air dryers, instead of paper dispensers? The new buildings could have had those installed, but nooo, still paper dispensers. Paper dispensers = more trees wasted + more paper wasted. On the other hand, hand air dryers have a one time installment fee and some electrical fees I guess, but no furthur large extra fees needed and (staying true to UBC sustainability) – no trees wasted.
Obviously, I’m not a biggy fan on the way where campus development is heading now. But don’t get me wrong, campus development is a good thing if it’s veered the right way (e.g. considering poor ventilation where students use dangerous chemicals, new chem labs or at least new chem sink taps anyone? sorry for the science bias, but it’s just an example afterall… :p)
~ Melody Ma, Board of Governers candidate
You had to know I’d chime in on this one…
I find that the areas outside the building see more traffic than the interior, but the building exteriors tend to be ugly, bland or uninspiring, and improvements to the surrounding landscaping (e.g. rain protection for adjacent sidewalks) tend not to happen, or sometimes make things worse by ignoring how people move through the area. I’m hoping that the current well-advertised Vancouver Campus Plan exercise prioritizes open space over buildings, and comes up with a fund to support nicer (and thus more expensive) architecture and landscaping.
On the non-institutional side, one reason I have trouble with the endowment as the overriding priority is that, by developing land in such a way as to piss off students, we’re costing the endowment future alumni donations. The vast majority of the endowment came from these donations, not land leases. I see this as short-term thinking masquerading as long-term thinking.
Another issue is that many research functions are incompatible with residential development. Unless the lab has changed recently, second-year chem students send large quantities of NO2 gas up the fumehood stacks and over the proposed University Boulevard housing site (the research labs are far worse, this is an example only). You should see what NO2 does to stainless steel. If your furniture is disintegrating, your stainless steel sink is rusting, and things smell weird every so often, it’s not hard to imagine that your nagging cough is UBC’s fault and a lawsuit might be in order.
In South Campus, TRIUMF has a fenced-off yard full of “hot” stainless steel (i.e. radioactive) and squirrels routinely stash nuts in the high-radiation areas within the facility. If people are living a block away, they’ll eventually realize this. Decommissioning TRIUMF will take 50 years once the thing closes. What happens if UBC has to buy back large tracts of now-developed land in order to continue doing research?
Yet another concern here is the lack of expansion space. UBC is home to TRIUMF, “Canada’s National Nuclear Lab” (and the world’s largest cyclotron) in part because we had space for it. If the federal government ever tries to create a network of national labs as the US DoE has, we won’t have room. We could certainly build something out in Mission or Agassiz, but that prevents interaction with the local researchers and sharing of resources.
I don’t think anyone would have a problem with building student, faculty or staff housing, but I have rather serious concerns about building housing for people who don’t know what a university is. I’d love to put that component on hold to re-evaluate some priorities and potential fallout, but I don’t know how realistic that is. It’s a bit annoying, though, that all of this is being done both on students’ behalf and over their sustained objections.
In general, the greater someone’s connection with UBC, the less priority they attach to the endowment. Great things could be done with the endowment, but I don’t see it as being worth it in the case of land leases for people with no connection to UBC.
Finally, the endowment probably needs a bit more explanation: the money (about $900M at present) is invested, and is required to grow with inflation. Anything above inflation can be harvested (about 5% of the total value each year), and is used for things like scholarships, research chairs, and matching funds for building buildings — the intent is funding things that would not otherwise be funded. How that money is distributed is set, in broad terms, by BoG, but the specifics aren’t and there’s no obvious mechanism for student input other than the BoG reps.
At the risk of giving someone ideas, the obvious extension of the logic behind growing the endowment through land leases would be to move UBC-V to some unpopulated valley up past Squamish, and lease off the Point Grey site. The replacement value of our buildings should be around $7 billion, and our 996 acres of land, worth $8M per acre without the buildings, would yield about $8 billion, but the servicing is already in place and most of the buildings could be reused. We might well make $5 billion in profit from such a move. I’m sure people would pay millions for a view home in sturdy Waffle Heights…
–Darren Peets
You had to know I’d chime in on this one…
I find that the areas outside the building see more traffic than the interior, but the building exteriors tend to be ugly, bland or uninspiring, and improvements to the surrounding landscaping (e.g. rain protection for adjacent sidewalks) tend not to happen, or sometimes make things worse by ignoring how people move through the area. I’m hoping that the current well-advertised Vancouver Campus Plan exercise prioritizes open space over buildings, and comes up with a fund to support nicer (and thus more expensive) architecture and landscaping.
On the non-institutional side, one reason I have trouble with the endowment as the overriding priority is that, by developing land in such a way as to piss off students, we’re costing the endowment future alumni donations. The vast majority of the endowment came from these donations, not land leases. I see this as short-term thinking masquerading as long-term thinking.
Another issue is that many research functions are incompatible with residential development. Unless the lab has changed recently, second-year chem students send large quantities of NO2 gas up the fumehood stacks and over the proposed University Boulevard housing site (the research labs are far worse, this is an example only). You should see what NO2 does to stainless steel. If your furniture is disintegrating, your stainless steel sink is rusting, and things smell weird every so often, it’s not hard to imagine that your nagging cough is UBC’s fault and a lawsuit might be in order.
In South Campus, TRIUMF has a fenced-off yard full of “hot” stainless steel (i.e. radioactive) and squirrels routinely stash nuts in the high-radiation areas within the facility. If people are living a block away, they’ll eventually realize this. Decommissioning TRIUMF will take 50 years once the thing closes. What happens if UBC has to buy back large tracts of now-developed land in order to continue doing research?
Yet another concern here is the lack of expansion space. UBC is home to TRIUMF, “Canada’s National Nuclear Lab” (and the world’s largest cyclotron) in part because we had space for it. If the federal government ever tries to create a network of national labs as the US DoE has, we won’t have room. We could certainly build something out in Mission or Agassiz, but that prevents interaction with the local researchers and sharing of resources.
I don’t think anyone would have a problem with building student, faculty or staff housing, but I have rather serious concerns about building housing for people who don’t know what a university is. I’d love to put that component on hold to re-evaluate some priorities and potential fallout, but I don’t know how realistic that is. It’s a bit annoying, though, that all of this is being done both on students’ behalf and over their sustained objections.
In general, the greater someone’s connection with UBC, the less priority they attach to the endowment. Great things could be done with the endowment, but I don’t see it as being worth it in the case of land leases for people with no connection to UBC.
Finally, the endowment probably needs a bit more explanation: the money (about $900M at present) is invested, and is required to grow with inflation. Anything above inflation can be harvested (about 5% of the total value each year), and is used for things like scholarships, research chairs, and matching funds for building buildings — the intent is funding things that would not otherwise be funded. How that money is distributed is set, in broad terms, by BoG, but the specifics aren’t and there’s no obvious mechanism for student input other than the BoG reps.
At the risk of giving someone ideas, the obvious extension of the logic behind growing the endowment through land leases would be to move UBC-V to some unpopulated valley up past Squamish, and lease off the Point Grey site. The replacement value of our buildings should be around $7 billion, and our 996 acres of land, worth $8M per acre without the buildings, would yield about $8 billion, but the servicing is already in place and most of the buildings could be reused. We might well make $5 billion in profit from such a move. I’m sure people would pay millions for a view home in sturdy Waffle Heights…
–Darren Peets
I’m not a candidate, but here’s what I think the AMS’ stance should be: it depends.
Although I hate to say it, I have to admit I’ve been generally impressed with some of the campus development that has been happening. For example:
– Barber Centre – while I miss having a library (and have for the past few years) I think the new facility is great. It’s comfy, students are using it, and it doesn’t feel like the inside of a nuclear sub anymore.
– Chemistry and “ReNew” – gutting an old building to upgrade everything and make it more sustainable? Sounds good to me.
– Market housing – I like that a number of the new developments have secondary suites that are being rented to students – it’s nice to know we’re not being completely ignored. Also, projects like the Panhellenic House and Fraser Hall are an interesting experiment, showing that maybe private developers can provide student housing… granted it’s not nearly as cheap as residence, but I wouldn’t call it totally unaffordable.
– building community – always a good thing. And if development means that I get more choice in coffee shops or don’t have to leave campus to go to Shoppers, I’m content.
There are however some things I definitely DISlike. While some concessions have been made for students, the focus seems to be largely on million-dollar condos and fast cash. And UBC is burning through it’s “free land” at an astounding rate, which doesn’t seem very wise. Especially when they do things like put a new parkade up over what could be prime housing land. Teaching facilities are falling into disrepair, “informal learning” spaces and social spaces are pretty much non-existent, and students are being convinced that they need to start paying for these things themselves (see: Sauder referendum). I think it would be handy to stop just making compromises for students, and instead take a long hard look at what this development is trying to achieve.
Also – I was kind of interested to see what University Boulevard could have become. Too bad it’s in the shitter.
I’m not a candidate, but here’s what I think the AMS’ stance should be: it depends.
Although I hate to say it, I have to admit I’ve been generally impressed with some of the campus development that has been happening. For example:
– Barber Centre – while I miss having a library (and have for the past few years) I think the new facility is great. It’s comfy, students are using it, and it doesn’t feel like the inside of a nuclear sub anymore.
– Chemistry and “ReNew” – gutting an old building to upgrade everything and make it more sustainable? Sounds good to me.
– Market housing – I like that a number of the new developments have secondary suites that are being rented to students – it’s nice to know we’re not being completely ignored. Also, projects like the Panhellenic House and Fraser Hall are an interesting experiment, showing that maybe private developers can provide student housing… granted it’s not nearly as cheap as residence, but I wouldn’t call it totally unaffordable.
– building community – always a good thing. And if development means that I get more choice in coffee shops or don’t have to leave campus to go to Shoppers, I’m content.
There are however some things I definitely DISlike. While some concessions have been made for students, the focus seems to be largely on million-dollar condos and fast cash. And UBC is burning through it’s “free land” at an astounding rate, which doesn’t seem very wise. Especially when they do things like put a new parkade up over what could be prime housing land. Teaching facilities are falling into disrepair, “informal learning” spaces and social spaces are pretty much non-existent, and students are being convinced that they need to start paying for these things themselves (see: Sauder referendum). I think it would be handy to stop just making compromises for students, and instead take a long hard look at what this development is trying to achieve.
Also – I was kind of interested to see what University Boulevard could have become. Too bad it’s in the shitter.
Isn’t it ironic that we pay for the buildings, operations and the salaries of UBC staff, and yet our only voice about the descisions made on this campus is through 2 student reps. on B.o.G?
Isn’t it ironic that we pay for the buildings, operations and the salaries of UBC staff, and yet our only voice about the descisions made on this campus is through 2 student reps. on B.o.G?
Well, we pay a quarter of those costs and there are 3 students on a 21 person board, so yes there should probably be two more. I say drop the faculty and staff reps.
Well, we pay a quarter of those costs and there are 3 students on a 21 person board, so yes there should probably be two more. I say drop the faculty and staff reps.
I 2nd that!
I 2nd that!
With all due respect, Melody, I suggest you do some research into your stances before you campaign on them, whether seriously or not. There are nuanced arguments to be made around campus development, but the arguments you are putting forther lead in only one direction – administrators and governors who think, sometimes rightly, that students can’t be bothered to educate themselves on how the university works and aren’t worth having a genuine debate with because they’re not operating in the same sphere of reality.
With all due respect, Melody, I suggest you do some research into your stances before you campaign on them, whether seriously or not. There are nuanced arguments to be made around campus development, but the arguments you are putting forther lead in only one direction – administrators and governors who think, sometimes rightly, that students can’t be bothered to educate themselves on how the university works and aren’t worth having a genuine debate with because they’re not operating in the same sphere of reality.