OMG:
No, I don't want to sacrifice greenspace for yet another building the UW admin will just steal in a few years anyway. Go away.
No, I don't want to sacrifice greenspace for yet another building the UW admin will just steal in a few years anyway. Go away.
Posted on
Saturday, July 7.
You can leave your response.
July 7, 2012 at 9:15 PM
not to mention another building that will probably take forever to be built, so I won't be able to use it anyways.
July 7, 2012 at 10:01 PM
+1 to to previous comment. So sick of construction.
July 7, 2012 at 10:12 PM
^ Do buildings usually take forever to get built? I mean, wasn't QNC an exception? Don't buildings usually only take a year or so?
July 7, 2012 at 10:31 PM
#3 are you new?? In the last five years nothing's taken less than 18 mths, and most ~2 years
July 7, 2012 at 10:42 PM
M3 took less than 18 months.
July 7, 2012 at 10:57 PM
E5 and E6 went up pretty quick considering the size of the buildings.
July 7, 2012 at 11:01 PM
Couple quick things:
- This new building would be built to straddle RCH, so no loss of green space.
- While we're understandably sick of construction (it's only been going non-stop for ~6 years, after all), I'd think that, as students, we'd be OK with this one. None of the other buildings have been dedicated student space...
- #4: As a newly graduated student, who's been around since 2006, I can confirm that QNC WAS an exception. E5/E6/EV3/M3...though there were some delays, none took more than 2 years.
- Finally, to #1: It's exactly that type of thinking that's prevented current students like you from enjoying better facilities. I know UW is all entrepreneurial and individualistic and crap like that, but have some pride in your university! It's not all about you.
July 7, 2012 at 11:15 PM
I'll take some pride in this university when it treats its students not solely as cash flow.
July 8, 2012 at 12:34 AM
I'd just like to know why our SLC building is in the sorry state it is. Isn't that supposed to be the student building?
What exactly do we get out of the student building? More space which our university's administration can hand over to corporate enterprises and then spend years pretending to have been victimized over it?
July 8, 2012 at 11:15 AM
@9 Care to clarify? I honestly have no idea what you mean.
July 8, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Yes, lets treat the students solely as cash flow by building them new buildings to use...
July 8, 2012 at 12:07 PM
To ensure your comments actually go somewhere... go here: http://feds.ca/newstudentbuilding
and sign up here:
http://feds.ca/newstudentbuilding/consultation
July 8, 2012 at 2:07 PM
@11 we are paying for that building not the university... wake up cash cow and realize that your money does not get spent to help you..
July 8, 2012 at 2:33 PM
@13 Even if the buildings were completely funded by the students (the majority of all of the new buildings have been funded by individual donations and government subsidies) I have no problem with them using their revenue to build better facilities for their students.
That's like telling Google not to use their revenue to buy better servers/equipment using revenue they gained from their customers - which would help their customers in the end anyway.
July 8, 2012 at 6:27 PM
@13 Yeah they just treat us as cash cows, that's why we have such great counselling services, services in the SLC, a student building and another one on the table, a 24 hour 365 help desk... the university is a business but it does provide for us. Your "fuck you got mine" attitude towards future student services also isn't helping.
July 8, 2012 at 8:37 PM
> such great counselling services
LOL. LOL. Yeah the FUCK right.
July 8, 2012 at 9:18 PM
Also take into consideration that our university is only been around for about 55 years. Look at universities who have been around longer - they have great campuses. It takes work. I'm okay with it being built because I know future students will get to enjoy it.
As a student who partakes in many aspects of this university, I've been told many times that this potential building will be strictly student space.
If you want your voice heard, go to the focus group sessions (which was linked in a few comments above). Make your voice heard. If you don't go and let your concerns be heard, then stop complaining.
July 8, 2012 at 9:23 PM
If the promise that the space will only be for students is true, I am all for it.
If this turns out like our SLC, where space rapidly gets overtaken either by FEDS or by the businesses operating inside of it, I am not pleased.
@10, a FEDS employee relayed a story to me about Tim Hortons threatening to pull the plug on all its locations unless they got kitchenspace in the SLC. The university responded by evicting some sort of FEDS-run business which used to be there. The story was framed as "I know how you feel for being pushed out of this room in the SLC".
July 8, 2012 at 10:09 PM
I'm sure the University will be happy to grant us the space for 20 or so years if students pay for the vast majority of it.
All I can see is history repeating itself similar to FED hall. Far too dangerous waste of student dollars especially at $50 increase a term.
July 9, 2012 at 7:16 AM
Just so you know, the reason EV3, M3, and one other (E5, I believe) went up so quickly was because they were paid for largely by government funding and had a required end date on them to be able to receive the funding.
July 9, 2012 at 11:07 AM
With a few exceptions, you are all shockingly uninformed and quick to shoot down a building that would improve student life.
I don't know why the admin asks students their opinions at all. You guys just fuck things up. Tyranny of the majority indeed.
July 9, 2012 at 12:09 PM
FED Hall and a new SLC are two functionally different spaces.
FED Hall was very successful, until the province dropped the OAC year from high school. When that happened most of the undergrads went from being able to drink in their first year, to being too young to drink. So the business from the first years who lived next to FED Hall vanished.
The FED Hall spent a number of years trying to revamp their business model, rather unsuccessfully.
A new SLC, generally, would not depend on the same type of business model. Instead, the functionality of the space would be different and expectations on how successful the implementation, or effective the use of space would be vastly different. UW would then likely not see it as a waste of campus space and continue to leave it in the care of FedS.
I don't know the details of the various contracts that were made between FedS and UW for FED Hall. However, to save themselves from being burnt again it would be prudent for Feds to include a stipulation which would reimburse FedS in the event that the UW admin decided to take it over. A form of built-in insurance for Feds. As currently, UW has not provided anything to FedS as a result of their take over of FED Hall.
However, as a grad student, I feel that if there is going to be a new student building on campus, and if we are expected to contribute to it, that the GSA should probably claim ownership over half of it considering that the undergrads already have the entire SLC.
Granted, grad students have offices so we don't really need study space; but we do need to be able to offer some services to our own members, services which FedS already has but refuses to share with the GSA.
July 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM
@16 Awesome argument, have you utilized OPD or Counselling Services? Because I have and was thoroughly pleased.
@18 I've talked to some grad students and long term staff at the SLC (anecdotal evidence I know) but they said the restaurant that sat where the SLC Tim Hortons is now was garbage. Open like 3 hours a day, bad food, bad service, losing money... sort of like Bomber but worse.
We have the opportunity for a new student building. They are literally begging for our input, but so many people are being needlessly aggressive. We get it, you've gone to UW for 2 years and you want to be cynical, but it's not helping anyone.
July 10, 2012 at 1:39 PM
@23. I'm not 16, but I have used counselling services and was anything but impressed. They were rude and nonchalant, and there was so much beauracracy involved in just signing up for a counsellor.