By David Dyck and Kelly Thoreson
A Student Union Building has been on the minds of undergraduates for years. How come we never hear about it?
Eleven per cent of undergraduate students determined the fate of a $65-million project this year. The Build SFU referendum question, calling for a levy and appropriation of funds to construct a student union building at SFU’s Burnaby campus, passed with only 190 more votes in support of the project than against it. This project will affect students attending SFU starting in 2014, when the levy will be introduced; students in upcoming years, with an even higher levy and on-campus construction; and students for generations to come with the presence of a student union building. Despite the long-term ramifications of this project, however, only 2,196 students bothered to vote on it.
Student space has been a long-standing issue at SFU, with student sentiments made evident through surveys regularly conducted on undergraduate students. The Canadian University Survey Consortium (CUSC) conducts surveys on all undergraduate students from participating universities every three years and covers a wide range of students’ university experiences. Institutions can then compare their results against others across Canada. SFU’s Undergraduate Student Survey, on the other hand, looks at SFU undergraduates every year and shifts its focus depending on which issues require data. For instance, until 2008 the survey was very focused on academic concerns and has only recently shifted to analyze broader issues faced by SFU undergraduates. CUSC sends out 1,000 surveys to randomly selected undergraduate students from each university and often receives fewer than 500 responses from each institution. By contrast, the SFU Undergraduate Student Survey sends surveys to all SFU undergraduates and typically receives around 5,000 responses each year.
CUSC’s reports indicate that SFU students are less satisfied than students from similar universities — typically mid-size institutions that offer both undergraduate and graduate programs, such as UVic or Ryerson — in regards to access to both social and study space. In 2011, 71 per cent of SFU respondents were satisfied with social and informal meeting places on campus and 69 per cent were satisfied with study spaces. Compare this to 76 per cent of students from similar universities who reported being satisfied with social and informal meeting places on campus and 71 per cent who were satisfied with study spaces. This trend was even more pronounced in 2008 when only 53 per cent of SFU participants reported satisfaction with social and informal meeting places and 51 per cent reported satisfaction with study spaces — compared to students from similar universities claiming 74 per cent and 68 per cent satisfaction with these spaces, respectively.
The SFU Undergraduate Student Survey confirms these findings indicating student dissatisfaction with space on campus. When asked what single thing SFU could do to improve student experience, improving facilities has been one of the top three responses since this question was first asked in 2008. Student comments reveal that their concerns with facilities sometimes have more to do with the state of campus bathrooms or the sad abundance of concrete than with student space; however, an overwhelming number of responses indicate that students are unsatisfied with space — particularly for studying — on campus. While a SUB might not directly help to solve this issue, it could help to divert students away from designated study spaces by providing somewhere for students to go between classes other than the library. Furthermore, building plans for the SUB are still being negotiated — which means that study space may even be included in the new building.
The SUB isn’t purported to only solve issues of space, however. As a central meeting place, a SUB is also intended to foster a sense of community, or — as KC Bell, SFU’s director of special projects, wrote in a 2005 memo — function as the “non-academic heart of the institution”. Bell notes that the Maggie Benston Centre was intended to fulfil many of the traditional functions of a SUB, but it fell far from short when “virtually none of the community-building purposes [were] attempted or met” — which is one of his reasons for recommending a SUB. Among what Bell lists as being successful in student union buildings are clubs rooms, multi-faith centres, student programming offices, a women’s lounge, First Nations student centre, and a graduate student centre, as well as amenities like study and lounge space, a movie theatre, and a food court.
Just like facilities, suggestions for improvements to student life and campus community have consistently made the top three responses to what single thing SFU could do to improve student life in SFU’s Undergraduate Student Survey. Some students even suggested that a SUB be built in their responses to this question. Based on findings from CUSC, these issues surrounding community and student life appear to be unique to SFU. In 2011, 53 per cent of SFU respondents indicated that community on campus required improvement, compared to 39 per cent of students from similar universities. Similarly, 49 per cent of SFU respondents said that opportunities for a social life required improvement, compared to only 36 per cent of students from similar universities. In 2008, 63 per cent of SFU respondents claimed that a sense of campus community required improvement, and 50 per cent reported that opportunities for social life required improvement — compared to 37 and 30 per cent of students from similar universities who felt similarly about these issues, respectively.
Campus community really contributes to a sense of belonging at university. In response to what single thing SFU could do to improve student experience, an SFU Undergraduate Student Survey respondent wrote, “Increase and Improve [sic] the sense of community and school spirit. This is the core aspect of university life that SFU fails to meet. Student after Student [sic] lack the emotional attachment to the campus and dismiss it as simply a place where they are forced to go and regurgitate information. However, if emphasis was placed on creating a stronger sense of pride and spirit within SFU, students would be able to embrace the campus as their own and allow them to fully enjoy the dynamic experiences that entails [sic] the post-secondary experience.” In CUSC’s findings on students’ sense of belonging at their university, SFU students consistently disagreed more with the sentiment that they felt a sense of belonging on campus than their peers from similar universities.
The conversation surrounding campus community and student space hasn’t escaped the watchful — if forgetful — eye of the SFSS, either. In an attempt to foster student space on campus with an eye towards a SUB, the SFSS initiated the space expansion fund in 1989. The space expansion fund is $15 collected from students every semester, which has accumulated to around $3 million, according to the SFSS website. There have subsequently been several consultations surrounding a possible student union building, with the knowledge that the university would not foot all of the costs of such a building.
In 2007, the society, with assistance from SFU administration, crafted a pre-planning study, which took a close look at the kind of SUB they would like to see. Part of the problem identified was that 84 per cent of student space was concentrated in five buildings: the Maggie Benston Centre (MBC), the AQ, West Mall Centre, the transportation centre, and the Applied Science Building. Of that 84 per cent, the MBC accounted for 40 per cent of total student space at SFU Burnaby.
By-and-large, the idea that the MBC just isn’t enough space and doesn’t fulfil the mandate of a SUB has been reflected by students and student representatives. In 2008, students were asked what they would like to see in a SUB. Answers included another pub, women’s space, a party room, and a health centre. Only six people attended this consultation, which was advertised using Facebook.
Maggie Benston Centre: The SUB that wasn’t
The MBC accounts for 40 per cent of student space on the Burnaby campus. The SFSS helped fund the renovations of the building with $8 million, and they lease space from the university in the building.
The MBC was intended to be a “one-stop-shop” for services provided by the University and the SFSS. However, it doesn’t act as a focal point of campus community for several reasons. First of all, the majority of student space is used for offices and support. Furthermore, all of the spaces intended for students in the MBC are spread over four floors.
KC Bell, SFU’s director of special projects, wrote in a 2005 memo that “virtually none of the community-building purposes [were] attempted or met” that could make the MBC a more successful stand-in for a student union building.
The MBC doesn’t function as the heart of the campus like a SUB is purported to be able to do. This is largely due to the lack of comfortable gathering spaces — among other issues. If you have ever walked through the MBC, it is obvious that it is not exactly serving the functions of a SUB like the ones at UBC or UVic.
The most important distinction between the MBC and the planned SUB is ownership. The MBC is owned by the university and leased to the SFSS, while the SUB will be owned by the SFSS.
There have also been surveys done by the university and the SFSS about what kinds of space students want on campus. In a 2007 proposal to enhance student life, a research group commissioned by SFU conducted a survey asking students about what they wanted. Of the 105 students who responded to the question, “Regarding study areas, what makes the area most attractive?”, 65 respondents stated that it was a vacant area as opposed to back to back or side by side seating. Only 34 answered the follow-up question, “why?”, 22 of whom gave the answer “peace and quiet”.
The most recent space survey done by the SFSS was earlier this year. Although the questions were not directly SUB-related, based on 225 responses, 156 said that they preferred individual study space, consistent with the 2007 survey of students who said that peace and quiet was the most important thing they looked for. Following individual study space came group study space, lounge and social space, and recreational space, in that order.
This survey was done in the wake of the controversial recommendation from the SFSS space committee to evict the Simon Fraser Public Interest Research Group (SFPIRG) after their lease was up. The committee argued that the prime real estate that the SFPIRG offices hold would be better suited as more general student space, which is lacking on campus. After protest from SFPIRG, the SFSS agreed to switch gears and do a broad consultation about what kind of space students want. The results, as you can see, were pretty much the same as they’ve always been.
The SFPIRG problem is part of a larger problem here at SFU: the fragmented organization of campus groups. The Rotunda groups are in the Rotunda, the SFSS is in MBC, The Peak is squirrelled away next to forum chambers, and many departmental student union offices are in the AQ. These are all groups that ideally would, and on many other campuses do, work together in close proximity. Instead of going to a single place to choose how to engage in our community, we have to seek out specific places on our own. It isn’t the most community-oriented strategy, and it leads to apathy. If you’re lucky enough to be a part of a student organization, your experience isn’t typical here at SFU. No wonder most people want more study space; it’s all they came up the hill to do anyways.
Now that we’ve decided to pay for it, it’s time for us to decide what we want the SUB to look like for the next batch of SFU students — and maybe even with more than 11 per cent of students’ input.
