Proposal potential train rec

By Ashley Schofield

Just in case you didn’t already know, voting for the rec center
will take place tomorrow and Thursday.

If you haven’t noticed the onslaught of Rec Center 2012
promotion around campus, open your eyes.

It’s everywhere, and I hope some sort of attention was retained
with a $17,000 marketing campaign.

Team 2012 – the group of students informing the campus about the
proposal – jumped on the promotional campaign after the academic
senate approved the marketing measures last spring.

The preliminary market assessment began with two rounds of
student focus groups on May 3, as posted and found on
reccenter2012.com. Content of the focus studies evaluated if a rec
center is ideal, if it’s what students want and if it’s what Cal
Poly needs.

Participation in the focus groups was not marketed so well,
though. The sessions were announced about two weeks prior to the
event and only posted around the Bronco Student Center area,
according to Chris Wyrick, ASI president.

Only 31 students were sampled. In the first group, 10 out of the
19 students were Greek, and in the second round six out of 12 were
in a fraternity.

According to collegeboard.com, 2 percent of men on campus join
fraternities at Cal Poly and 1 percent of women join sororities.
Doesn’t seem like an accurate sampling of students.

ASI also had strong representation in both focus groups, with
seven of the 19 being ASI constituents in the first group, and nine
of the 12 in the second.

ASI is considered a neutral group of students emphasizing the
need for students to exercise their voices, charged with
encouraging others to become informed of correct rec center
facts.

I wonder when promoting became a neutral measure. I don’t think
it has been an unbiased campaign at all. Seems as if the only
people that really know all the “true facts” of the proposal,
clearing up the many controversial ideologies about it, are
ASI-related.

If you are one such student that has been in the dark about the
rec center, then maybe that’s a sign you don’t want one on campus.
You are the perfect example of why

I think the proposal is not suitable for our student body, nor
the solution to Cal Poly’s “social problems.”

As a commuter campus – as we are commonly referred to – the
school is thought to have no campus culture. I think we have a
culture and wonder why it needs a facelift.

California State Universities are known to cater to commuters
from surrounding areas – Cal Poly actually isn’t even really a
commuter campus according to CSU standards.

According to Wikipedia, “more prestigious urban campuses attract
a wider demographic.” As the third most diverse school in the
nation, Cal Poly definitely falls into a broad mix of different
entities.

I am unsure one rec center can be the common thread among us
all.

People come to school, leave for work and chase some short of
social life. If it’s off campus, then so be it.

In a “learn by doing” campus, students live in reality. They
work, so they may not be able to be engaged on campus.

And why do they work? Because they’re trying to get by as
college students and afford tuition.

And what will the rec center do? Raise student fees. I don’t
want to drone on about the budget and rising fees, but fact is it’s
a huge hardship many are facing.

An extra $149 a quarter is a week and a half of groceries, which
is much needed when cash flow is tight and the dollar doesn’t
appear to be getting any better.

The center may not be economical, but it’s prided on its future
sustainability. It seems like a bunch of fluff to me, though.

The lack of air conditioning is one of the major complaints
about the existing Darlene May Gym. The new rec center is planning
on using natural ventilation to go green, but it seems we’re
already utilizing that modem.

The building is seeking to be silver certified in Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design. There are four levels of LEED
certification, and silver happens to be the third best. I wonder
why, for a state-of-the-art building, we are not striving for
platinum, which is the best.

I do commend them on implementing waterless urinals though –
which save about 2.3 million liters of water each year according to
gizmag.com, a Web site covering innovative technologies.

Voting yes on the rec center opens more than a window for
construction – it opens a large door.

A temporary building that costs $800,000 is going to be built
prior to construction of the rec center to house the existing
bodies that use the Darlene May, such as the kinesiology and dance
departments.

With the second phase of the residential suites going up, it is
going to be a heyday for construction. The new suites are also
removing parking lot G and a part of lot N for a new outdoor
quad.

Great. Less parking and a third quad. If the proposal does go
through, there is talk of another parking garage in lot K to ease
our parking woes. Joy, more construction.

The last major thing I hesitate about the rec center is its
location. How many people really are down by the Darlene May? The
failure of BroncoFresh in the BSC is a good example of how low
visibility can kill a bright idea. This year’s PolyFresh seems to
be doing fine because it has a better location.

Location and timing can be everything. I wonder if now is the
appropriate time to vote.

The rec center definitely won’t be your window to a better
future because 2012 excludes current students, except aspiring
sixth years. But will it even be for future Broncos?

  • Show Comments (0)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

comment *

  • name *

  • email *

  • website *

You May Also Like

College of Engineering hosts lecture series

By Guadalupe Pinedo The College of Engineering has been committed to providing students with ...

Red Folder an opportunity to help students

By Daniel Flores The Red Folder, an informational guide given to faculty and staff ...

Faculty and staff attend diversity workshop

By Jessica Wang Cal Poly Pomona faculty gathered for a talk by a prominent ...