UCLA is buillding way too many dorms.

<p>There are currently six new residential building under construction in the northwest part of the campus, and this is after they built Rieber Terrace and other new building since I left UCLA. They're squeezing buildings into the areas that I didn't think they would construct the building on (the two construction at the hilly area just next to Gayley). </p>

<p>I personally think this takes away too many open space for the community, and too many high rise buildings also take away the beauty of the campus.</p>

<p>Strong spelling of building.
Strong grammar in entire post.</p>

<p>^Weak intelligence of post. Give her some slack. She’s probably an international student.</p>

<p>Under Construction Like Always. (i don’t even know what that building they’re constructing next to the neuroscience building is supposed to be; and i assume they’re going to construct a new engineering building where the old one was.)</p>

<p>Too many people go, and want to go, to UCLA. Something has to give, and in this case, it’s some aesthetic pleasures which are given up so that the crahpton of students who go there can have some place to live. It’s a sad state of affairs, but it doesn’t seem there’s really a better alternative.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t really get this. The beauty of the campus pretty much consists of the academic buildings on north. The dorm conglomeration was pretty ugly to begin with. It’s not like the already existing big concrete boxes were some works of art that are going to get spoiled by more big concrete boxes.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You mean the bombshelter?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>There used to be open space people could use though. Now it’s just about limited to Sunset Rec, which often has a lot of people lounging about.</p>

<p>UCLA has the largest number of students on the smallest campus in the UC system. Most of the dorms, at least for freshman, are doubles being used as triples. If you want open space, UCLA is not the right place.</p>

<p>considering most of the dorm rooms right now are triples in rooms meant for two people, I definitely don’t think they’re building too many dorms.</p>

<p>If these new buildings are meant to convert more triples into doubles, I’m all for it. Most likely though, that is NOT the purpose. IMO, UCLA wants to squeeze as much revenue as possible out of its student body (by bringing in MORE students) in order to either privatize the school (right…) or cover existing costs. </p>

<p>Bottomline is that UCLA needs LESS students, not more… It’s just lowering and lowering its standards every year, just to cover costs, which is why it will potentially crash and burn in the future (hopefully after I graduate…).</p>

<p>^ If UCLA crashes and burns after you graduate how much is your degree worth knowing that you got it at the end of this fine institution’s life when it was taking its last breaths crashing to the ground? Maybe you’d like to rephrase/recant that last statement for your own good.</p>

<p>I don’t want UCLA to crash and burn. After all, it is my alma mater, and I want my UCLA degree to have its value forever. </p>

<p>But I do agree that UCLA does not need to take that many students each year.</p>

<p>The Spanish Inquisition approaches! Recant, overachiever92, recant!</p>

<p>First of all, I said POTENTIALLY “crash and burn”, it hopefully will not. Second of all, let’s just say that my career path doesn’t depend on my alma mater’s future success. The school is doing a phenomenal job running the school on their current budget, but adding more students for future years is such a ridiculously idiotic idea. For example, imagine what the Wooden Center will be like with another 2000 kids squeezing their way in…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Basically exactly the same? The school already has near 40000 students. An additional 2000 wouldn’t make any difference.</p>

<p>Well, I obviously meant that UCLA is planning on adding EXACTLY 2000 students to the school -__-. With the high rises they’re building right now, it will be more like 10,000 extra students.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If it didn’t add more students, the quality of the education would decline. Their only option if UCLA, and berkeley, essentially want to keep their levels of prestige is to pretty much increase tuition and increase the number of OOS students. Now, that’s something that nobody’s happy about, but it’s something that needs to be done. At UCLA’s level, the it’s highly unlikely that it will ‘crash and burn’ even potentially.</p>

<p>I remember reading that UCLA is going to try for a huge fundraising event in its centenary. While the construction is annoying and does seem to remind us of Under Construction Like Always, the results are all pretty impressive (use YRL as an example, although that’s more of a renovation than a construction)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>nah i meant the Wasserman building (super late reply, but as i passed by this building this morning on the bus, i made sure to type a note in my kindle so as to not forget the name. Here’s an article on it:</p>

<p>[The</a> Daily Bruin :: New Edie and Lew Wasserman Building to revamp facilities of Stein Plaza, housing Jules Stein Eye Institute and two departments of the David Geffen School of Medicine](<a href=“http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2010/05/new-edie-and-lew-wasserman-building-revamp-facilit]The”>http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2010/05/new-edie-and-lew-wasserman-building-revamp-facilit)</p>