In which Our Hero breaks his previous posting frequency record
Hello everyone.
I thought you might appreciate seeing the letter I have emailed to Jason Elderhurst in response to the Union's proposal to redevelop the Mary Cook Lounge. For those of you who care about such things, the missive may be read below:
Dear Mr. Elderhurst,
I was most disappointed to see that once again the Student Union proposes to abolish the last remaining unbookable naturally-lit student space on the Second Floor of Union House, the Mary Cook Lounge. This has been proposed many times in the past, and has always been rejected after consultation with affected students, for a range of excellent reasons.
This space is actually very heavily utilised by a wide range of UMSUL Clubs and Societies. As it is not bookable space, all comers are welcome at all times; anyone may enjoy the comfortable couch-type seating and natural light without the noise of the food court. These are attractive features unavailable anywhere else in Union House. It is also the only part of Union House where students can regularly be found using the space right up until Union House's closing time (as Union House's security can attest!)
The proposal to replace this communal space with two bookable rooms is flawed for several reasons. Firstly, the addition of these rooms interposing between the windows and the rest of the second floor concourse area will necessarily reduce the natural light available on the concourse, even if floor-to-ceiling glass walls without blinds or curtains are used to separate the meeting rooms from the concourse. This will reduce the amenity of the concourse area to that found on the first floor of Union House outside the Union Theatre and Clubs & Societies Office, a far less popular space. Of course, it is likely that blinds or curtains are proposed so that the rooms can be made more private; this will inevitably result in them being closed for much of the time, denying the flow of natural light into the concourse entirely.
Secondly, the additional proposed rooms are of dubious value and usefulness. Rooms that occupy less than half of the current Mary Cook Lounge's floorspace will not be suitable for use by Clubs & Societies due to their extremely limited size - no more than 6 to 10 people could be seated in such a space, once the need for tables or other furniture is satisfied. While there is a need on campus for such small meeting rooms, this need is actually well satisfied by faculty facilities. In particular, the Baillieu Library has a large number of meeting rooms of this size that are freely available to students and staff. Perhaps the Student Union would be better served by advertising these facilities instead.
Furthermore, the existing bookable space is underutilised except at peak times (at lunchtime and the immediately following hours). Typically, during this peak usage, the 2nd Floor bookable rooms host groups that could not be accomodated by the proposed rooms, while the Mary Cook Lounge is also being heavily utilised. However, the Mary Cook Lounge's heavy utilisation continues beyond the peak booking times of the Joe Napolitano and Undergraduate Lounges. During other times, while the bookable rooms are underutilised, there is no conflict. Destroying such a popular space in order to add tiny rooms that cannot be heavily used is essentially stealing common space for the benefit of people who will only use the space for a couple of hours a week, if at all.
It is postulated that these additional rooms will increase UMSUL's ability to offer Short Courses. While this may be true, it ignores the fact that Short Courses do not constitute the only users of Union House. Even now, Short Courses regularly claim the entirety of the Union's bookable space in the evenings for weeks at a time. Last year, I regularly ran UMSUL-affiliated club events in the concourse area and Mary Cook Lounge due to a complete lack of bookable space, even though many of the rooms booked by Short Courses were never actually used! To allocate even more common student space preferentially to those who pay for Short Courses would aggravate the situation, especially considering the Short Course organisers' history of inefficiently booking spaces (which are then obviously denied to other users) which they fail to actually use.
Finally, there is already a shortage of common student space in Union House. This is extremely visible in wet weather, when the entirety of the second floor becomes extremely crowded. To further reduce the common space while the student population continues to grow would result in even worse crowding.
Thank you for your attention, I look forward to your response.
David Hopkins
P.S: I do have a suggestion for a better investment by UMSUL's Building Services section. The Frank Tate building is a fine example of Art Deco architecture in Melbourne, but has been allowed to become sadly derelict. Please, UMSUL, show some respect to this building (and encourage its use by students) by giving it the maintenance it deserves! In particular, the exterior walls are desperately in need of fresh paint; the ancient, flaking paintwork makes it look like an abandoned building. This is hardly the standard we should expect of one of Australia's finest universities (or the student body thereof).
I thought you might appreciate seeing the letter I have emailed to Jason Elderhurst in response to the Union's proposal to redevelop the Mary Cook Lounge. For those of you who care about such things, the missive may be read below:
Dear Mr. Elderhurst,
I was most disappointed to see that once again the Student Union proposes to abolish the last remaining unbookable naturally-lit student space on the Second Floor of Union House, the Mary Cook Lounge. This has been proposed many times in the past, and has always been rejected after consultation with affected students, for a range of excellent reasons.
This space is actually very heavily utilised by a wide range of UMSUL Clubs and Societies. As it is not bookable space, all comers are welcome at all times; anyone may enjoy the comfortable couch-type seating and natural light without the noise of the food court. These are attractive features unavailable anywhere else in Union House. It is also the only part of Union House where students can regularly be found using the space right up until Union House's closing time (as Union House's security can attest!)
The proposal to replace this communal space with two bookable rooms is flawed for several reasons. Firstly, the addition of these rooms interposing between the windows and the rest of the second floor concourse area will necessarily reduce the natural light available on the concourse, even if floor-to-ceiling glass walls without blinds or curtains are used to separate the meeting rooms from the concourse. This will reduce the amenity of the concourse area to that found on the first floor of Union House outside the Union Theatre and Clubs & Societies Office, a far less popular space. Of course, it is likely that blinds or curtains are proposed so that the rooms can be made more private; this will inevitably result in them being closed for much of the time, denying the flow of natural light into the concourse entirely.
Secondly, the additional proposed rooms are of dubious value and usefulness. Rooms that occupy less than half of the current Mary Cook Lounge's floorspace will not be suitable for use by Clubs & Societies due to their extremely limited size - no more than 6 to 10 people could be seated in such a space, once the need for tables or other furniture is satisfied. While there is a need on campus for such small meeting rooms, this need is actually well satisfied by faculty facilities. In particular, the Baillieu Library has a large number of meeting rooms of this size that are freely available to students and staff. Perhaps the Student Union would be better served by advertising these facilities instead.
Furthermore, the existing bookable space is underutilised except at peak times (at lunchtime and the immediately following hours). Typically, during this peak usage, the 2nd Floor bookable rooms host groups that could not be accomodated by the proposed rooms, while the Mary Cook Lounge is also being heavily utilised. However, the Mary Cook Lounge's heavy utilisation continues beyond the peak booking times of the Joe Napolitano and Undergraduate Lounges. During other times, while the bookable rooms are underutilised, there is no conflict. Destroying such a popular space in order to add tiny rooms that cannot be heavily used is essentially stealing common space for the benefit of people who will only use the space for a couple of hours a week, if at all.
It is postulated that these additional rooms will increase UMSUL's ability to offer Short Courses. While this may be true, it ignores the fact that Short Courses do not constitute the only users of Union House. Even now, Short Courses regularly claim the entirety of the Union's bookable space in the evenings for weeks at a time. Last year, I regularly ran UMSUL-affiliated club events in the concourse area and Mary Cook Lounge due to a complete lack of bookable space, even though many of the rooms booked by Short Courses were never actually used! To allocate even more common student space preferentially to those who pay for Short Courses would aggravate the situation, especially considering the Short Course organisers' history of inefficiently booking spaces (which are then obviously denied to other users) which they fail to actually use.
Finally, there is already a shortage of common student space in Union House. This is extremely visible in wet weather, when the entirety of the second floor becomes extremely crowded. To further reduce the common space while the student population continues to grow would result in even worse crowding.
Thank you for your attention, I look forward to your response.
David Hopkins
P.S: I do have a suggestion for a better investment by UMSUL's Building Services section. The Frank Tate building is a fine example of Art Deco architecture in Melbourne, but has been allowed to become sadly derelict. Please, UMSUL, show some respect to this building (and encourage its use by students) by giving it the maintenance it deserves! In particular, the exterior walls are desperately in need of fresh paint; the ancient, flaking paintwork makes it look like an abandoned building. This is hardly the standard we should expect of one of Australia's finest universities (or the student body thereof).