The SMH carried an interesting opinion piece today about the changes happening to Sydney Uni under the campus 2010 project — I honestly didn’t expect to see anything like that in the Herald because this is more the purview of a communist campus newspaper with nothing better to talk about. That aside, I don’t quite agree with the author’s viewpoint. The main point of contention is that Sydney Uni lost something valuable in its recent construction frenzy. Let’s examine that a little closer. To build the School of Information Technologies building (which I’m very happy to use), we lost a small lawn. Stephen Roberts lecture theatre, which was razed to give way to the Great Law Faculty Ditch, was hardly a work of art. And I’m sure no one will miss the tin sheds that once stood where the USyd Central building is now being erected. I suppose we might miss the trees on Eastern Avenue, but I sure won’t miss the cars — the pedestrianisation of that part of campus could only encourage a larger number of activities on the shiny new pavement. If anything, the modernisation of main campus adds value instead of taking it away, because you can have first class facilities and sip your latte in the shadows of a sandstone archway. Although it could be seen as copying other universities, the truth of the matter is that each major period of development has left its own particular style on the campus, and this major revamp is no different.
In other news, it has been 10 years since Hong Kong reverted to Chinese sovereignty. It’s a bit of a pet subject for me, and the Economist ran a special report on the past, the present and the future. Basically, it argued that Hong Kong deserves democracy along with its other freedoms, partly to stop its freedoms from getting whittled away, and that China lost a potential experiment in democracy. That’s all nice and good, but it’s wishful thinking and commentary on how to make the best of the situation would’ve been more productive.
Recent Comments