|
|
|
Not the time for pricey rec center at State
September 30, 2009 6:04 PM
|
||
|
Health and fitness is an important aspect of life to the students at SF State. The location of the campus allows for five-mile runs around Lake Merced, hikes up Fort Funston and complete access to the two gyms and the recreation center on campus. However, in the middle of a failing economy, SF State administration and the campus recreation department are pushing for a $93 million brand spanking new Recreation and Wellness Center. The supposed reason for building this center is so students would be able to get involved in new athletic opportunities with the additional space. The current recreational area is shared by the kinesiology department, athletics and campus recreation. If students vote yes during the online voting process -- and the matter may not even be put to a student vote -- then in 2014, a 100,000-square-foot space will be added at the northwest corner of campus where the library annexes are currently located. The price of this addition? Student tuition will slowly creep up every semester, starting with an automatic $35 fee until 2014. Once the center is built, the price will escalate to a startling $160 per semester in the name of health and wellness. In other words, more space to exercise indoors means lighter wallets and more headaches for students who are already struggling with the furlough days and constant fee increases every semester. Since when did being healthy and exercising have to cost so much? The city of San Francisco has prized itself on the numerous marathons, outdoor yoga practices and free parks and trails. If there needs to be more room to exercise then students can just take a step off campus. A new recreation center would look very pretty and all, however, a new building is not needed at the moment. Teachers need jobs, furloughs need to stop and classes need to be created. If students have the ability to come together and vote to pay millions for a recreation center, then students should vote to put their money into the development of more classes. SF State administration and the recreation, parks and tourism department should take a step back, relax and wait for the economy to pick back up. Maybe 2014 should be the date for the online voting rather than the opening day of the center. Until then, let's all go outside, expand our lungs and pump up our muscles with the free fresh air and outdoor land the earth has to offer.
»
|
ADVERTISEMENT
COMMENTS
Aaron Goodman said October 3, 2009 11:47 PM
Agree, reverse the SFSU masterplan, and make SFSU maintain and care for the land they purchased for open space use. (See the former Parkmerced open space lot, which could be rennovated, re-used for open fields, a community/student rec-open meeting hall, and switch the hardpaving to garden areas for students... Much better than another "creative-arts" center which will cost millions and remove OPEN SPACE needed for students and community members of Parkmerced... The ASI increases are due to the SFSU Foundations purchases... Pay attention your fees will continue upward due to this issue.
POST A COMMENT
| |
|
|
|
 |
||
 |
|
|
 | ||
| BACK TO TOP | Copyright © 2008 [X]press | Journalism Department - San Francisco State University |
The purchased lot that the SFSU Foundation bought from Parkmerced, without "loss-of-use" compensation to the Parkmerced neighborhood, or general notification, is a great example of why the ASI center should be reconsidered. The community building along FONT could be revitalized as a joint community center available to students and Parkmerced residents, the fields opened for pubic access, a garden, area and park setting with play-structures or a fitness course area, could be built on the blacktop, maintenance and cleaning of the hard-top areas, (glass everywhere), tennis courts, and ugly fencing replaced with low-scale nicer looking ammenities, benches, a student/community garden, possible small dog-run, and lots of community based low-scale, low cost improvements that allow for student and neighborhood excercise and enjoyment. Instead of a new "creative-arts-center" and student well-ness center building(s), priorities seem to lose track of how short term work can be a larger benefit, at less costs, and be a more environmentally based positive solution. Demand that the Masterplan involve student and community needs, and not developer/consultant/administration greed. The existing creative arts center and the new one co-sponsored at city college by SFSU, should be sufficient... There are much better uses for the existing Font open space site, in addition to the need for open space for the Parkmerced community of students, families, seniors and disabled. Build something needed in the community... not a legacy project for corrigan.