Friday, October 24, 1997
A necessary evil, or an evil takeover of our greenery?
CONSTRUCTION: Capital Programs’ sweet talk disheartens
students
By Scott Lunceford
These days, I wake up to the sound of chainsaws and jackhammers.
I walk to campus, rerouted through corridors of chain-link fencing,
only to be hit by the stink of a port-a-potty as its contents are
evacuated by a pump. After class, I try to relax in the shade,
despite the rattle of heavy equipment ringing in my ears.
But this is nothing new. UCLA has been torn up and constantly
under construction since I arrived over a year ago. I was almost
starting to get used to it.
Then, one day, as I walked along Gayley Avenue and saw an ugly
dirt lot where, only the day before, acres of trees and grass had
been, I realized that the dust here would never settle. Disgusted,
I decided it was time to rant. But this soapbox tirade goes beyond
detours and torn-up sidewalks. After all, it is not difficult to
convince readers that this campus is currently in a state of
disaster. My problem concerns the double-speak and sleight of hand
behind all this construction.
Capital Programs continues to corral and detour students like
cattle under the pretext that constant demolition is necessary –
that it is for the good of the university. According to officials,
in order to survive in the highly competitive milieu of student and
faculty recruitment, UCLA must continue to expand. In other words,
in order to maintain its appeal, UCLA must build, build, build.
Perhaps Capital Programs officials have not seen the T-shirts
with "Fuck Construction on Bruin Walk" printed across the front.
Perhaps they have not read the letters in The Bruin written by
imploring, disgusted students. As for me, UCLA, with its clogged
detours and multibillion-dollar construction budget, is so
appealing that I am seriously considering sending my grad school
applications elsewhere. So much for recruitment.
As for the science and research facilities, the UCLA Medical
Center is already top-rated, and the research labs are equipped
well enough for scientists like Paul Boyer and his research
assistants to exercise their talents and earn the Nobel Prize.
In other words, UCLA is adequately developed. Moreover, it is
certainly big enough, comprising nearly 400 acres, most of which is
covered with concrete. At peak hours, there are over 55,000
students and staff on campus. To continue evolving and remain
competitive, the university must stop growing and shift its focus
from physical development back to academic excellence.
Mary G. Anderson, assistant director of design and contracting
for Capital Programs, has said that "the department’s priority is
to keep disruption to a minimum." Based on my experience, the
priority seems to be keeping construction to a maximum. Every time
I find a new route to school that is quiet and unimpeded, it is a
matter of days before it is cordoned off with yellow tape. I can’t
get away from construction – it’s ubiquitous. It is out of
control.
In fact, UCLA planners are so construction-crazed that they have
recently tried to sidestep UCLA’s Long Range Development Plan
(LRDP) in order to rebuild the Morgan Intercollegiate Athletics
Center.
The LRDP was established in 1990 to regulate UCLA’s physical
development and preserve campus green space.
Although the proposed Morgan Center expansion exceeds the LRDP’s
construction allowances for the already-crowded central campus,
Capital Programs would not be discouraged. In a blatantly
self-serving move, officials attempted to amend the LRDP so that it
would allow the transfer of construction allocations from one part
of campus to another. They suggested that square footage from an
underdeveloped parking lot – located in Westwood Village – could be
transferred to central campus, thus allowing the Morgan Center
expansion to proceed. This is so absurd it seems like dark
comedy.
So, when Capital Programs begins sweet-talking about priorities,
you can see why I become suspicious. It’s like the
AT&T-sponsored BruinCard: Don’t tell me you are trying to
improve the academic experience. It insults my intelligence.
And speaking of sweet-talking, former Chancellor Charles E.
Young said he would work to protect UCLA’s "park-like environment."
Take a walk around campus. Close your eyes and listen. The sound of
construction is inescapable. Has UCLA’s parklike environment been
maintained?
While tree-hugging is perhaps passe, the recent destruction of
acres of trees along Gayley Avenue made me sick. And it made Mr.
Young’s statement laughable. UCLA is simply pouring a slab of
cement over its natural setting.
There is no attempt to integrate architecture with the
surrounding environment. For the planners, environmentalism means
little more than landscaping. Greenery is not preserved; it is
trucked in from a nursery.
The bottom line is simply this: If Capital Programs officials
want to spend billions to overdevelop this campus, I can do little
to stop them. I just want them to stop treating me like a chump.
Rather than telling me unchecked construction is for the greater
good of students and staff, tell me the real reasons behind the
frenzy. UCLA has become an oversized vending machine, a processing
plant, an industrial park.
And if the dust ever settles here (I don’t think it will),
students and staff will see a microcosm of Los Angeles, complete
with traffic jams, sluggish administration and patchwork
architecture. They will see the results of a myopic, commercially
minded planning department which – if I chose to be vulgar – I
would say planned the growth of this campus with its head up its
ass.