A debate over whether the University of Canterbury should move back into the Christchurch CBD seems to be starting again in the letters pages of the Christchurch Press. With large areas of empty land now appearing in the CBD after the demolition of many broken buildings some local residents see this as an opportunity to move the university back into the city. I disagree.
The current location of the university away from the central city allows for a campus with great green spaces, reasonable parking, and access to a wide variety of accommodation in surrounding areas. Talking to colleagues, this is not the case in most central city universities. Indeed, I know some overseas universities have trouble holding on to new and upcoming staff because they cannot afford central city accommodation and find long commutes a waste of valuable time.
One of the ideas driving the proposal for a move back to the CBD is that it will “revitalise” the central city but I’m not convinced by this argument. I think there needs to be a more detailed explanation of how this will “revitalise” the city. Also, it is all very well considering how moving the university to the CBD will benefit Christchurch, but will it benefit the university enough to make the move worthwhile.
Finally, it has been suggested that moving the university will cost between 1 to 1.5 billion. Surely there are better things this money could be spent on?
I would be interested in other people’s views, particularly those who have worked and studied at different universities. I’ve mainly worked and studied at “suburban” universities (Massey, Canterbury, ANU and Oulu) so might have a bias towards them. Perhaps those who have worked at central city campuses have a different perspective?
Let me know your thoughts.
Having just completed my undergraduate degree at Victoria (in Wellington) I do wonder if cities the size of Christchurch and Wellington really have a large distinction between “suburban” and “central city”.
You’re right to question if the benefit will work two ways as well, as certainly the discourse shouldn’t just be about the revitalisation of the city, but also about the benefits to both the university (as an institution) and the students (as a community). Links with business would seem to be part of the rationalisation but in cities the size of Christchurch even the “suburbs” are pretty close to where the majority of business are taking place – and even then there’s questions about where the business community will end up operating from. So much of both business, and academia are now done in virtual environments so the physical location, to a certain extent, becomes less important.
I guess as a final point perhaps the focus on the central city is somewhat flawed. Promoting a reinvigoration of the entire region – CBD and suburbs seems more sensible. It’s nice to have one central locations that drives a physical region – but I would imagine that having activity in all areas (CBD and suburbs) would provide an environment that is more robust to the huge changes which the city is going to be going through over the next decades. Encouraging the flows of business and community between regions benefits everyone.
I feel that putting all the eggs in one basket enhances the risks of the Christchurch rebuild not being as successful as it could possibly be.
[and all this is before even looking at the cost of relocating the university]