University plans to develop woodlands

Professors and student leaders are asking university administrators to reconsider their decision to develop 11 acres of woodlands, saying it would harm the environment and deprive the university of a valuable teaching space.

The university's decision to move several departments, including University Police, to the Wooded Hillock area behind the greenhouses near Comcast Center to clear space for East Campus development illustrates the balance the university needs to make between trying to stay environmentally friendly and continuing to grow.

"It's an unacceptable decision, and we are demanding that they really look into this," said SGA Senior Vice President Joanna Calabrese, who emphasized she was not speaking on behalf of the SGA as a whole. The SGA will vote next week on a bill asking the administration to explore alternatives to the hillock.

The bill cites the environmental impact to the area, which is sometimes used for classroom instruction, and alleges conflicts with the goals of the university's Facilities Master Plan for growth.

But the university already investigated other sites, and scrapping the plan would waste hundreds of thousands of dollars and several months of work, said Associate Vice President for Facilities Management Frank Brewer.

A university committee explored about eight sites before settling on the hillock, weighing issues such as the environment, cost and the accessibility of the location in relation to the rest of thecampus, Brewer said.

"You just don't have that kind of land anywhere, really," he said.

Calabrese said she had talked to between five and 10 staff and faculty members who were concerned about eliminating the woodlands.

Jack Sullivan, an associate professor of plant science and landscape architecture, said the university had not fulfilled its duty to consider the environmental impact of the relocation.

"[The university is] not looking at this in a very environmentally friendly way," he said. "They're really just developing it as a developer would."

Sullivan said he had not used the space for classroom instruction but he knew of several professors who had.

"It's not clear to me why they have stuck to this decision," said Sullivan, who said he had presented alternatives to the hillock to the administration. "It's not clear to me how they came to this decision in any comprehensive planning sense ... The whole process seems to be somewhat flaweed, and the rationale is just not that clear."

The remainder of the site could still be used for classroom activities after the 11 acres necessary for the project are developed, Brewer said. He said the development area probably made up a third to a fourth of hillock's space.

But Calabrese said the development would likely affect the rest of the hillock.

"When you chop down 11 acres of trees, it's going to affect the land that's sitting there. ... It'll have an impact on the environment," Calabrese said. "My assumption is that the diversity of the entire area and the entire space will be impacted by this."

The site was selected for several reasons, including the cost of developing the site, the amount of space available on the site, its relative proximity to campus and the out-of-the-way nature of the area, Brewer said. He said the prefabricated buildings being used to house the departments are "not particularly attractive."

"They do not look like campus buildings," Brewer said. "You don't want to look at these facilities from the front door."

Calabrese and SGA Outlying Commuter Legislator Steve Glickman, who sponsored the bill, said they were not convinced by the visibility argument.

"I completely agree that the aesthetics do need to come into play, but there are also other areas that are not the middle of campus," Glickman said.

In the bill, legislators assert that the development conflicts with the university's goals of preserving the environment and green spaces around the campus as outlined in the Facilities Master Plan and with the university's goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2015.

Brewer countered that the master plan "is fundamentally about the growth of the university."

"The purpose of our master plan is to create goals to be sought after earnestly, but those goals all have to be balanced when you're making a particular decision," he added.

Brewer and Interim Vice President for Administrative Affairs Ann Wylie said the university was doing its best to reduce its environmental impact but growth is necessary for the university.

"I think [sustainability] is something that we strongly believe [in]. But we are also a university that cannot stop its growth," Wylie said. "We've been here 150 years, and we're going to be here 150 years more. We have to have a plan whereby we can utilize the land the state has given us for education purposes."

The development will have some green elements, Brewer said, pointing to the university's attempt to achieve LEED Silver certification for some of the relocated buildings and the university's dedication to a tree bank, whereby trees cleared for construction are counterbalanced by trees the university promises not to remove. LEED is a system that rates the environmental impact of construction projects.

Development is a balancing act, Brewer said, but the hillock was the best site available.

"If you begin with the premise that the East Campus development is a good idea, then you have a lot of stuff here that you have to move somewhere," Brewer said. "And the question is what's the best location all things considered."

But Calabrese had another view on the issue.

"My estimate is that they just worry about their image. After making a decision, it being overturned is embarrassing," Calabrese said. "After claiming to have investigated seriously, to have to do it again is embarrassing."

coxdbk@gmail.com