Site for new Arts Library raises concerns

Site for new Arts Library raises concerns

Proposal aims for more construction in North Campus

By Michael Howerton

Contention, excitement, confusion and outrage have been sparked
by a proposal to construct a new Arts Library in North Campus.

The library, proposed by the Arts Library Planning Committee to
Chancellor Charles Young, would be an arts facility consolidating
the collections of the arts, music, architecture, film and
television and art special collections along with newer technology
and more user space.

"The proposal embodies a vision of an arts library that many on
campus think would be a great advantage to all," said Alfred
Willis, the arts librarian. "We are talking about a really
wonderful facility. It will be the envy of the world ­ almost
everyone understands that."

The need for such a facility on campus is great, said Gloria
Werner, campus librarian.

"I have a vision of what a library should be at the turn of the
next century and we don’t have it," she said. "We have top notch
collections, but not a place to house them."

Although there is great excitement among library staff about the
new facility, others have issued criticism of the proposal. They
are angry about the way the university develops its proposals,
disagree with the proposed site location and question whether a new
facility should be built at all.

The recommendation to construct the facility south of Bunche
Hall, between Bunche and Perloff Hall, has invoked the ire of many
in the geography department, located in the lower floors of Bunche,
and prompted two geography graduate students to send a memorandum
to the university attacking the proposal.

"I will not stay here for my Ph.D. if they go ahead with this
proposal," said Catherine Rich, one of the graduate students who
formulated the memorandum. "This is my work environment. When all
the green spaces are taken away it becomes unpleasant."

The placement of the arts facility next to Bunche is seen by
some as a violation and invasion of social science territory.

"There is already a location with a building for the arts," said
Marilyn Raphael, assistant geography professor, referring to
Dickson Hall. "There is something wrong here. We need to preserve
the open space that we have and use what we have as efficiently as
possible."

Part of the proposal for placing the library facility away from
Dickson is the objective of creating not just an Arts Library, but
a center for the arts that would be accessible and available to the
whole campus.

Explaining that a great deal of the people who use the Arts
Library are students from the social sciences and humanities,
Willis said it would be beneficial to locate the new facility
closer to the social sciences and in a central location to all
potential users.

"Our interest was to enhance the synergy between the library
units," he said. "Everyone involved agreed that the site should be
equidistant from the buildings in which the primary users of the
library would be located."

By emphasizing the connection to other departments, Willis said
he hoped that, "The facility will be less and less identified with
the arts departments and more with the campus at large."

However, Travis Longcore, a geology graduate student who, along
with Rich, composed the memorandum attacking the proposal, said
that this decision was made without the consultation of anyone in
the social sciences. Those in Bunche whom he has spoken with think
the plan is a terrible idea, Longcore said.

"If the Arts Committee has the opinion that they should be among
the social sciences, they should consult the social sciences," Rich
said.

"There is a lot wrong with the way the university goes about
this process," he said, expressing anger that no one in the social
sciences was asked for input and then it was presented as something
everybody wanted.

"We would like them to reverse their position on this project
and in general open the decision-making process for construction
campus wide," he said.

If the facility is going to be for the arts it would make sense
to locate it near Dickson to reinforce that area of campus as a
center for the arts, Longcore said.

Locating the facility near Dickson was considered by the
committee proposal, but rejected because of earthquake damage to
Dickson. Seismic repairs will require extensive construction,
possibly even demolition, creating lots of noise and mess in the
area that will pose a nuisance to the people housed in the new
facility.

Longcore argues that this is the reason why the facility needs
to be placed near Dickson. If they will begin major construction on
Dickson, he reasoned, why not build the facility in that area and
incorporate it into the necessary construction.

"Dickson is the least objectionable site for the new facility,"
Longcore said. "If we are to take the university at their word and
agree that the library needs this and the best thing to do is
construct (a new facility), in the midst of a financial crisis,
then it seems the more logical and least objectionable site would
be Dickson."

But to place the new facility next to Bunche, Longcore said,
just shows that "the university does not put value on its open
space." Far from creating cohesion among the departments, he said
it fosters resentment rather than community.

"We are tapping into feelings that are felt campus wide. People
are emotionally devastated by the constant construction and assault
on the environment," he said, adding that if the proposal is
implemented, he will consider leaving UCLA.

The proposal submitted to Young did not examine the
environmental impact of the facility in detail. It was only
intended to determine the cost of the project and to requested that
it be part of the chancellor’s capital campaign, said Werner.

The implementation of the proposal is still a while away, said
Charles Oakley, campus architect and head of design and
construction.

"We don’t have a project yet. We need to raise money and it is
pretty speculative at this point," he said.

The ability to implement any plan to build the art facility is
entirely dependent on the university’s ability to raise the money.
UCLA’s fundraising hinges largely on $9 million coming through the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to supplement the
earthquake damage on Dickson, explained Mark Horne, Capital
Planning project director for the art facility.

"We have proposed a report to FEMA about Dickson Tower," Oakley
said. "If (Dickson) is to be redone, we need a place to put the
people. While a temporary project is possible (to house people and
materials during construction), we have discussed with FEMA about
giving money for a staging area that will become permanent."

The $9 million from FEMA will hopefully trigger the construction
of the facility, said Werner. He added that by using the federal
funds to construct the first phase of a permanent facility, the
money won’t be wasted on a temporary one. The facility is estimated
to cost a total of $31.4 million, according to the library
committee proposal.

Cautioning that this is all just speculative at this point,
Oakley said that FEMA has still to approve the funds for this
project. Even if the funds do come in from FEMA, Horne said,
getting the plan underway is a long road.

"There are three steps to the environmental review," Horne
explained. "First, there needs to be an initial study to determine
that there are no significant effects or those that exist can be
mitigated, in regards to the 1990 Long Range Development Plan."

If the initial study determines that no detrimental
environmental effects are caused by the project then a negative
declaration is filed with the state, he said.

Secondly, a 30-day period review process begins when the project
is open to public comment and then finally, it is presented to the
regents for site approval and planning, he said.

"We are still in the initial stage," he said. "We are still a
couple of months away from filing the negative declaration."

Longcore said that this project contradicts the outlines for
campus development in the 1990 development plan.

"They are just filling in all open space and doing it without
following their own planning procedures of the development plan,
which says to value greenery and pedestrian space," he said.

Rich questioned the validity of a possible negative declaration
for the Bunche site.

"We will pick apart their negative declaration," she said. "This
is ridiculous. This is not construction, but destruction of one of
the places on campus that I like best."

To Rich, the proposal is not about a new art facility.

"This is not a library issue," she said. "This is a campus
environment issue. The administration does not seem to recognize
the importance of the campus environment in attracting and keeping
faculty, graduate students and undergraduates."

Even though the plan will not be finalized for at least a few
more months, Longcore said that the time to try to stop this
facility from being constructed is now.

"It makes sense to comment on this before it is so far out of
the station that it can’t be stopped," he said. "For the
administration to say that it is premature to criticize the
pre-proposal is ducking the issue. It’s entirely appropriate for us
to comment on their decision of a site."

Despite the recommendation of the Bunche site by the proposal,
Sarah Jensen, associate director for design and project management
for Capital Programs, said that other sites are still under
consideration for the facility.

"I don’t see anyone as being set on that (Bunche) site," she
said. "We are also exploring other sites. The site where the Wight
Gallery is really deserves closer consideration."

However, Horne said that although other sites are indeed still a
possibility and the final site will not be decided until the
project is approved by the University of California Regents, it is
the Bunche site that the environmental impact assessment is being
done for as recommended by the proposal.

Recognizing that the construction of the new facility would add
even more construction to a campus already weary from massive
construction, Horne still said that this project is needed.

"We need to be concerned about the cumulative effects of so much
construction at once," he said. "But the reality is that if we need
to demolish Dickson on one side of Bunche and build on the other
side, there will be lots of noise and dust and hassle, but we need
to do it for greater campus safety."

However, Horne added, if the FEMA funds do not come through, the
facility might not be built at all. In addition, if it is
determined that Dickson does not need to be demolished but can be
externally repaired, the construction of the new facility could be
delayed.

UCLA has the largest population of any UC and the smallest
space, said Oakley. This means developing the campus entails a
special concern for use of space, he said.

"I believe the challenge facing us today at UCLA in the ’90s is
to respond to the increase density demands and improve, not
maintain, but improve the quality of life."

Depending when FEMA makes their decisions and if the funds are
given, Jensen said that the best case scenario was for construction
on the art facility to begin in the early winter of 1996.