Space
When you compare life at Furman with life at most other college campuses, one clear difference is apparent - space . During class change at Furman our sidewalks and pathways are rarely crowded. The half-mile trek from Johns Hall to the PAC causes some students to be late and is a common complaint of the tardy. And what about the 15-minute walk from the distant North Village apartments to the PAC; makes you want to get a bicycle. Our 750-acre campus, designed primarily for motor vehicles, puts lots of space between buildings. Students at Furman have nearly 1/3 of an acre allocated to them which can take a good bit of time to negotiate. At Arizona State University with about 50,000 students on 700 acres, your 1/100th of an acre is approximately four parking spaces. During class change at ASU you sometimes wonder if you are in Times Square in New York City.
If you divide the number of square feet of building space on a campus by the number of students attending, you quickly see that Furman students “live in the suburbs”. Simple calculations show that Furman students enjoy nearly twice the heated and cooled space as their counterparts in SC public colleges. In fact, to accommodate the nearly 2500 motor vehicles Furman students bring to campus (94% of student body), Furman offers more parking spaces per student than any school you can find. And, most of our parking spaces are wider and the majority of our motor vehicles are bigger than any place in the world. Space; we have a lot of it at Furman. It’s a shame that we have to restrict motor vehicle use during prime class times. But, fewer accidents occur now than in the past and maybe some body fat has been shed along the way. And, how about those environmental benefits!
Our upperclass students (note that upperclass has two meanings here) live in apartments, mostly by themselves in a private room. Private rooms are nice in a hospital where you can be free to deal with your own disorders. Spending 2/5’s of your college life in a private room, however, could cause some disorders like hermit’s disease or solitaryitis. We need time alone and a private living space is nice, but why not spend more time in the woods or in the library and enjoy other people when you can.
I certainly hope that the next generation of home buyers will follow a different model than currently exists. The average size of a new home these days is three times greater than 50 years ago, and fewer people live in that average home. Amongst the affluent this desire for a bigger home than one could ever use is growing. The National Association of Home Builders gives an award each year for the best designed new home. Last year this whopping suburban monstrosity was over 5000 square feet and marketed towards aging baby boomers whose children had left the home. According to the building team, the trend in homes for this demographic is lots of square feet heavily subdivided into many smaller rooms and cubbies, contrary to the great room and recreation room designs a few years ago. To paraphrase the NAHB-we want to appeal to a married couple who don’t really like each by offering plenty of private space so they won’t have to see one another.
Space is certainly nice and I’m pleased to have more than I need, well, except for my office. But, I find I live in my office so maybe that is OK.
Furman University
6 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (6)
Travel from just one end of the Pennsylvania Turnpike to the other, approx. 300 miles, 1/10th the length of our country, and you will see vast areas of wilderness and unpopulated woodlands and fields. It is only the densely packed cities of Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and Philadelphia that fill a small dot of the available space throughout the wilds of PA.
Space is really not a problem, nor will it be in the future.
Radical environmentalist thinking that wants to restrict the "American Dream" in every way imaginable from cars, land, eating, drinking and smoking, that is the problem in America.
However, there are some unavoidable facts. 1) The earth is an oblate spheroid and therefore finite. 2) it is a blue planet, only 29% is land. 3) Most of the land does not favor cultivation as deserts cover 20% and perpetual ice another 10%. 4) Global population doubled in 39 years and is ~6.5 billion adding hundreds of million people a day.
This works down to an diminishing average of 4.5 productive acres/ person, even though the average American uses 24 acres (see http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp). We would need several earths if everyone lived like we do. Go to Goa and ask if space is a problem. The vast majority who will answer you most fervently won’t be irrational environmentalists but people trying to live on a couple bucks a day.
To say space will never be a problem given an exponentially growing human population 1) dismisses some well-accepted notions like the earth is round and deserts are not good locations for agriculture or urban centers (though people still try to grow cotton and rice in deserts) and 2) ignores standard of living for billions of people. I do not think anything I have said so far is illogical or radical. But if you disagree with my figures and conclusion, let’s discuss.
1) Wilderness as defined by the Wilderness act of 1964 is “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” That is to say, the most of what we think is as wilderness most likely is not from a stringent interpretation of this definition as there is not a pristine place on the surface of this earth untouched by man (perhaps the under-ice lake in Antarctica). For example, polar bears in the artic have detectable levels of DDT and Mercury in their fat. If we are more lenient in definition, we still run into habitat fragmentation which one of the greatest threats to biodiversity.
2) I am not personally against the “American Dream” of a comfortable life but I have to question its tradition definition. We as a country are more affluent than ever before but studies have shown we are no more happier for it. If anything, we are more depressed and dissatisfied. To paraphrase the bible, “he who dies with the most toys still dies.” So I question if we are chasing the right thing. I think we need to redefine what the “American Dream” not to be “more is better” but to be “more of what really matters in life.” See http://www.newdream.org/
Sure, it flies in the face of our materialistic society and the mind set of our economy, yet I do not think this concept, if embraced on a societal level, would hurt our economy or live uncomfortably. There is a difference between growth and development. We can indefinitely develop but not grow.
There are so many areas in this big, brave world where well meaning, but misguided, individuals and groups wish to relieve pain and suffering and starvation and disease by simply "giving" the items of need to people.
These people may or may not be thankful for what was given to them, but when the gift is gone, or sadly in many third world dictatorships the gift is redirected to officials and their families with no regard for the truly needy...when this happens we have "taught" those in need nothing except how to hold out their hands for more.
We need to work to improve the freedom and liberty in many of the world's countries that are at the core of the poverty and despair and I believe, not unlike America in the beginnings of European colonization (sorry for that reference to white man theivery as some would see it), these countries would begin to flourish under the very God-given rights that Americans found to be a foundation from which we built our bountiful Republic.
Restricting Americans freedoms by the use of governmental enforced regulations will do nothing to serve the needs or lack there of for people in Goa, Darfur, The Congo, N. Korea or anywhere else in this world. Limiting my size home, my size car, my size anything will only bring us down to others unacceptable level, not raise them to ours!
Call this social activism what you will, it can result in governmental regulations that will restrict an individuals use of his/her property.
This blog is generating the thought, the debate and an exchange of ideas that, I believe, simply point out that one persons ethically, morally developed views, may, in turn, walk all over someone elses ideas of their rights.
When you have worked many years to build whatever you call your idea of the American Dream you can become somewhat protective of the freedoms you have enjoyed while creating your dream. You realize, like it or not, that we live in a very competitive, capitalistic society (and I don't mean that in a bad way) and personal success often relies on making the other guy squirm in his seat.