Take Action
Perspectives on Development
Current Development Plan
Planned development zone.
The Hillock was chosen as the relocation site for displaced Facilities Management buildings primarily based on cost. Convenience, aesthetics, and environmental impact played a secondary role, with environmental impact considered least of all. The consequence is that a number of cheap, unattractive buildings and parking lots will replace 9 acres of pristine terrace gravel forest on campus. This directly contradicts the Facilities Master Plan (FMP)1, which directs the University to:
- Plan the built and natural environment in a way that preserves the beauty of the campus and protects the environment;
- Reduce the number of automobiles on campus and eliminate vehicular congestion to the extent possible while promoting unimpeded movement across the campus;
- Reinforce the campus's role as a good neighbor in the larger community by the careful development of sites on the campus periphery or in outlying areas that link us to the community; and
- Preserve the architectural heritage of the campus and enhance it through open spaces, gathering places, vistas of green lawn and trees, and groupings of buildings that promote a sense of community.
In light of the FMP, how can anyone possibly justify replacing a rare forest on campus with parking lots and service buildings?
The Administration's Response
Facilities Management has responded to critics of the Hillock development by lauding the virtues of East Campus. East Campus has been widely touted as a "green development project", with provisions for stormwater management and pervious surfaces. According to The VP of Administrative Affairs Ann Wylie has stated, "Building shopping, entertainment and 1300 student beds within walking distance of the west campus will also lessen the need for transportation...", thereby theoretically decreasing carbon emissions due to commuters.
This argument is essentially a black-and-white, false dilemma. Administrators make it seem that this is a choice between developing the Hillock, or not allowing the East Campus project to be realized. The truth is, most of us are excited about East Campus and would like to see it happen. However, we believe that you cannot simply "offset" damage to the environment in one place (bulldozing the Hillock) by making provisions in another (East Campus). An alternative location can be found that would preserve the forest while simultaneously reaping the environmental and economic benefits of East Campus - if only the University would be willing to spend a little more.
Alternatives
Sample alternative development site (Lot 11B). Google Street View 2009.
A number of alternatives have been proposed, but all have been rejected because of the arbitrary ceiling that has been placed on the cost of moving the Facilities Management buildings. For example, many of the parking facilities and offices could be built vertically in the form of garages and office buildings. This would decrease the acreage needed, and the facilities could then be fit into on one of the many smaller, already developed sites around campus. These sites include parking lots which could be eliminated in accordance with point 2 of the FMP. If the University is truly committed to their role as an "environmental steward", then a way could be found to raise the additional money needed to build attractive, durable buildings somewhere other than the forest.
Official Administrative and Student Documents >