A public forum was held on UCLA’s proposal to demolish the Faculty Center and replace it with a hotel/conference center. Most – not all - of the public comments and questions opposed the project or raised issues with it. Comments were made by neighborhood residents, local hotel operators, faculty and emeriti, and students. The forum began with comments in support of the project by EVC Scott Waugh. Chancellor Block joined the forum about half way through and indicated he had had airplane trouble that caused his late arrival. The chancellor in brief comments echoed the remarks of EVC Waugh.
Below are audios of the forum, divided into six parts. (The audios are actually videos with a still picture from the forum for technical reasons.) Speakers identified themselves before making remarks. In a few cases, comments or questions were called from the audience without use of the official microphone and may not be audible.
There were repeated references to the high room costs that seemed to be the basis of the project's revenue forecasts. These high prices did not seem realistic either to the hotel operators or to faculty experienced in attending or hosting academic conferences. There were also questions raised about the Luskin gift, specifically whether it was dedicated precisely to the project as described or whether there was flexibility. See last night’s post on that issue. http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2011/04/faculty-center-issue-fungibility-and.html Other concerns raised involved traffic, adverse effect on local business and tax revenue, priority in light of the state/UC budget crisis (whether the money might be better spent on other purposes), and the value of the existing Faculty Center structure to faculty.
As expected, administration spokespersons indicated that there would be a “pause” while the project was re-studied. A precise time frame for the pause was not specified in response to a question. However, it was said at one point that it could be 30 days or 300 days – whatever was needed. Yours truly would opine that given what has occurred to date, if the pause lasted only 30 days – or any short period – the external damage to UCLA would be severe. Internally, there would also be severe harm, given the CPB's negative review of the project, the negative reviews by other Academic Senate committees, and negative votes by members of the Faculty Center (which includes administrators among its members) and various academic departments.
Below are the audios:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6 (end)
2 comments:
A Fable Found on a Faculty Center Table
There was once a Chancellor of a great university, a wise and prudent man. His Senior Advisor came to him one day and said, “Sir, I know how to make our great University visible to the world, and earn a tidy profit too.”
“And how would we do that?” the Chancellor asked.
The Senior Advisor smiled. “Sir, we will build a Hotel & Conference center in the heart of our campus. It will rise high, Sir, with rooms for over 250 guests, each of whom will pay 250 dollars a night (and perhaps a lot more), which will repay the bonds we will issue to finance it. Oh,” he added, “and one of our loyal alumni has given many millions of dollars for the benefit of the university and its students. This--when it becomes available--will pay for a portion of the construction.”
“And where would we locate this Hotel & Conference Center?”
“Where the old Faculty Center stands, Sir, right in the middle of the campus. The Center is a ramshackle heirloom from the distant past, and between us, Sir, those who use it are mostly heirlooms too. We will demolish it and build the Hotel & Conference Center in its place.”
“And won’t they protest? -- the heirlooms, that is?”
“Leave that to me, Sir. We’ll offer them a new Faculty Club in the Hotel. As for vocal opposition--let me handle that, Sir. ”
The Senior Advisor left. Being a wise man, the Chancellor liked to see things for himself. Alone, he left his office and walked to the nearby village. It was a lovely day, he thought, as he passed several fine hotels, and noticed that a new hotel was planned on the edge of campus. Is another hotel really needed?, he asked himself. And will it pay for itself?
On his way back the Chancellor talked to many people. Among them was a professor, whom he asked about the Advisor’s plan. “Well,” said the professor, a scientist, “we already have an auditorium in our new building, Chancellor, but a Conference Center would be welcome. What we also need, Sir, are state-of-the-art videoconferencing terminals. They’re faster and cheaper, you know. But I’m not sure that our campus is the place for a hotel.”
Finally, the Chancellor reached the building that was to be destroyed, the Faculty Center. He was a lover of fine buildings, and the first thing he noticed was that though a bit shabby it was a classic example of mid-century California ranch architecture. Its distinguished architect had designed several iconic public buildings in the 1950’s. But this place was in fact residential, more like a capacious home. Wood was everywhere. Around him in the airy dining room young people and old were engaged in vigorous conversation. Others were lunching in sunny patios, and through floor-to-ceiling glass he could see roses and vistas of snowy mountains. In other rooms tables were being laid for meetings and conferences. It was a building conceived by, paid for by, and dedicated to the Faculty, a building that for fifty years had welcomed their weddings and memorials as well as their scholarly conferences. It was alive with memories of the people who made this a great university. The Chancellor wondered if all this should be sacrificed for the profit that might come from the new Hotel.
After a few days he announced his decision. It had three parts.
First, there would be no Hotel on campus.
Second, a new Conference Center, with terminals for video conferences, would be built elsewhere, nearer the village and its hotels.
continued in next comment
=======
Paul Sheats
Part 2
Third, the original Faculty Center would be preserved in its present location, and a portion of the gift would be used to endow it, and to refurbish it inside and out, adding up-to-date videoconferencing terminals and amenities, but keeping it true to its period.
The Senior Advisor protested, but the Chancellor remained firm, and the original building stands today, alive with good talk and shared ideas, a testament to the Faculty who built it and the students they taught, as well as to those enjoying it today and those who will come tomorrow. A great university, the Chancellor believed, honors its own past.
===
Paul Sheats
Post a Comment