November 4, 2003  
Volume 97, Issue 36  

Front Page >> Editorial & Opinions > Editorial

Sections

> News
> Editorial & Opinions
> Arts & Entertainment
> Campus Life
> Sports

Archives

> Archives
> Search Archive:
> Browse By Date:

More Stuff

> Photo Gallery
> Comics
> Contests
> Links

Talk to Us

> About Us
> Submit Letter
> Volunteers
> Advertising
> Gazette Alumni Society

EDITORIAL & OPINIONS

Awning ugly, motion uglier

Although the University Students's Council has attempted to beautify the Concrete Beach, controversy has quickly arisen over the presence of the big purple awning.

Science councillor Jennifer Yach is putting forth a motion at tonight's USC meeting to have the purple awning covering the staircase to the basement shops of the University Community Centre removed. The expected cost of the motion, should it pass through council, would run the USC approximately $12,000, in addition to $6,000 denoting potential sales losses for shops and stores in the UCC basement. (We have no idea how they reach that figure).

Of course, the purple awning does little to "beautify" the Concrete Beach and students have criticized its presence since the day it was initially installed. However, this is little reason to pay an exorbitant amount of student dollars to have it removed. This issue should have been addressed in the planning stages of the Beach's renovations before the money was spent in the first place.

The purpose of the awning is to provide a snow cover for the staircase, which is an unquestionably good idea. The problem is however, that the awning, hanging eight feet in the air above the staircase, may or may not be useful. Again, this issue should have been dealt with during planning stages in order to save time, money and hassle.

To be perfectly honest -does it really matter? The USC and its councillors should occupy their time with more meaningful endeavors, as opposed to ones dealing with purely esthetic features on campus most students don't give a damn about.

Ironically, Yach is the same councillor who last year opposed the dental plan, arguing it would cost students too much money. However, she is now completely unopposed to spending $12,000 for aesthetic purposes as opposed to something useful.

Also, the $6,000 projected loss is unfounded seeing as the awning has only been in place for approximately two months. There is little reason to believe the presence or absence of the awning would have any effect on sales in any of the shops in the UCC basement. The awning does provide advertisement for these operations, but students will use these services regardless of some purple roof.

Given all the negative "publicity" the big purple monster has received, or at least the student reaction to it as gauged by The Gazette, we wouldn't be surprised to see the motion actually pass. But to be sure, the motion is unlikely to pass now that we've pointed out its stupidity. Many of those councillors can be such sheep. Bah.to it as gauged by The Gazette, we wouldn't be surprised to see the motion actually pass. But to be sure, the motion is unlikely to pass now that we've pointed out its stupidity. Many of those councillors can be such sheep. Bah.nts will use these services regardless of some purple roof.

 

 

Editorial & Opinions Links

     
© 2003 The Gazette  
BluThng Productions