|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, March 14 2001 @ 06:55 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by al. You can view the original
here. Okay. Let's look at the facts. No space. Free money.
For the issue of space, certain questions arise, most notably why the SA chose to implement the master's
programme at this time, given the shortage of space. Furthermore, as anyone in ES can tell you, the shortage
of space is not limited strictly to architecture students. Why, for instance, do Planning, Geography, and ERS master's
students no longer get office space (unlike pretty much every other department in the university)? We need more lab
space, more offices for professors faculty wide, and greater capacity to handle an ever-increasing population of students
(particularly with the double cohort coming through). That said, it was argued that the SA failed to get on the Ontario
SuperBuild fund application because the project did not meet the undergraduate guidelines from the Province. If that was the
case, why did not the entire faculty put in a proposal? Surely a revised application geared towards the growth of the
faculty as a whole would satisfy provincial guidelines (although I am only guessing).
Too many people are thinking within the box. It's an even worse irony in that architects deal every day with the planning and
provision of space. For example, the entire upstairs of South Campus Hall could be turned into studio space, at minimal cost
to the university. The Festival Room is underused as a cafeteria and for the net cost savings I'm sure the university could
give up the small revenues that it gains from renting it out. Furthermore, nice office space could be provided if Alumni
Affairs was moved to another location, perhaps the ground floor of Needles Hall, now that Co-op is getting its own building.
Sure, it's not beautiful, but you can't argue with the location. Capital costs are minimised. The long-term operating costs
associated with moving the school to Cambridge are avoided (no duplication of mechanical servicing, janitorial services, etc.)
as well as the duplication of student services discussed by char. Furthermore, being on-campus, there would be no loss of
services for ES students outside of architecture. After all, many of the services taken for granted by architecture students
are also paid for through funds arising out of the faculty as a whole, and thus must be made available for everyone, not just
those within architecture. Photographic and computer services are perhaps the most obvious instances of this, but the
whole range of activities and projects funded through the ES endowment fund (WESEF) are also there.
Furthermore, the argument has been made that the move is fine because only 3-4% of architecture students take courses
outside the field and about the same percentage from the rest of the univerisity take courses within architecture. Now, the
question remains, is it worth the triage? If the cross-breeding of ideas is so horrendously low, do we not take steps to
better the situation, to aim for, say, 10% or more? Of course, what then constitutes a course "available to outside students"?
Theoretically (and practically, in some cases I am aware of), even structures courses and iconography (generally seen to
be courses strictly for architecture students) have been taken by those outside the school. Anything that limits instead of
broadens the possibilities should be deplored.
So, if you're so concerned about money, then why is the expensive route being taken? There are other ways to solve
the problem than by whoring ourselves out to the corporate beast. What are we whoring? Our academic integrity, the
possibilities for educational and personal growth, friends and relationships... the list goes on. And all this for money, that
most base of desires.
- al.[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
