In Defence of the Queen's Centre

This should've been posted a while back, but it's been a busy few weeks and I only feel like procrastinating now.

On March 4th, Queen's Board of Trustees approved in principle with the go-ahead of the creation of the Queen's Centre, a projected $230 million dollar to expand our student life facilities, upgrade our athletic facilities and provide the School of Physical Education with new facilities.

On a late Saturday night later in the month, I was spectator to a lively debate on the merits of spending so much money on non-academic facilities. I wish I could've been much better help to the lone defender at the time (sorry Lisa, my bad). But here now, my spirited defence.

1) The size of the project is throwing people off. I think if this was actually 3 or 4 separate projects being proposed over a longer time scale, fewer people would object. What some people might fail to realize is that we're actually constructing 5 new buildings: new multipurpose arena, pool, student life centre, athletic and leisure facility and a building to house classrooms and labs for the School of Phys Ed. This became one big project because of how current buildings are situated.

2) The cost. Average that out over 5 buildings and that's around $40-50 million. Additional costs are being incurred because the site isn't level (min. 4m gradient from one end to the other) and a lot of the facilities had to be buried below grade so that all the buildings could fit in with the rest of the surrounding buildings and maintain the campus' character. Add the need for underground parking and the cost goes up. I'm sure it would be cheaper if the facilities became 5-6 floors high...but then it'd just look terrible on the campus.

3) I'd be really surprised if the student life issue raises its head within 30-50 years of its completion. I don't presume to know what students want that far into the future, but based on the decor of the JDUC and some of the little-used equipment in the PEC, that seems to be the timeframe where upgrades or renovations may be needed.

4) Martin argues that Queen's is known for academics and nothing else. Why can't we be known for more than that? We've had championship sports individuals and teams in the past so why shouldn't we build on that? Top-grade athletic facilities won't just be used by the athletes alone. Besides, aren't we trying to promote an active and healthy lifestyle? Shouldn't we provide the facilities to accomodate that objective?

5) Why can't Queen's be known for its academics AND athletics AND student life? We all say that the best part of university isn't the classes but what you do outside? So why shouldn't we provide the facilities to enhance that? Can't we attract both top students, top athletes and top student athletes? Most people in my urban planning program are not from Queen's and they are quite surprised when they see a lack of areas for social gathering The Queen's Centre is one project attempting to improve upon that.

6) I hate using a comparison with UofT, but they are now contemplating a new student life facility (albeit current projections are a $29 million facility) because a survey of US and Canadian campuses found negative responses to their student life facilities. My point is not that 'hey, UofT's responding to surveys and rankings too!' Rather, it's that students probably do also consider the type of facilities available to them outside of classes when picking universities. This is particularly pertinent to Queen's, since frankly, there's not much to do in Kingston.

The true question becomes, should students who will probably never have the chance to use the facilities be asked to pay for it? It's a tough question to answer. I would be willing to pay for it only because my university experience has been so rich and I personally feel morally obligated to ensure that future students have the opportunity to receive the same, if not better experience. That being said, I realize there are income equity issues in this matter and the fact that few people would agree with me. One half-hearted argument would be that students now are paying for the facilities that their children would be using if they went to Queen's.

I don't know what's better, having students pay for it now (so that it costs less in the long run because of the lesser need to borrow to pay for construction and inflation effects) or have the students who will actually use it pay for it (but having to pay more because of more borrowing for construction costs and thus, the interest incurred).

The debate ensues as the schematics are being drawn up. Love to hear your comments.