ARGUMENT #3

ARGUMENT #3 “Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledge that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect’s buildings, so it can be expected that tourists will want to visit this new building. The income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. Furthermore, such a building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. And even though such a building will be much larger than our current need for student housing, part of the building can be used as office space.”

“Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing.” 

Because the need for funding is expressly stated at the beginning of this argument, it can be assumed that Claitown does not have the liquidity to, and therefore should not, commission a famous architect for a necessary housing project. The reasoning and justification for hiring a famous architect is rather flawed – misinterpreting the financial purpose of alumni, miscalculating student and public response, and over-looking at least one more-affordable option.

In the realm of engineering, descriptors like “famous,” “experimental,” and “futuristic” commonly evoke the same financial outcome – expensive! Fame and name-brand is a larger portion of the cost when shopping for goods and services than when settling for the lesser-known options. Frank Lloyd Wright surely received a larger commission for residential architectural services than any house-magazine currently charges for a set of blue prints. Experimental construction techniques and materials, being not widely used and explored or available, mean the cost will be higher. And futuristic buildings are not necessarily a good idea for usually-historic establishments like universities. A futuristic building stands the chance of being an eye-sore in the future. There is thus a more-affordable option that could be explored: rather than hiring a famous architect, is it possible there is an architecture program at Claitown University with students more than ready to try their hand at large-scale residential design?

Alumni generally donate to encourage and fund the continued development of their alma mater, and not so much to bail it out of debt. It is a misinterpretation of the spirit of alumnus donations to think an expensively-designed building will spark a new wave of money. Alumni would be more likely to donate money knowing the school was promoting the success of it’s students in turning inward to find design talent for the housing project. Alumni donating larger sums of money also usually designate how they hope the money will be used, meaning it is not a sure-bet that alumni will fund this project. 

Furthermore, while tourists visit SOME of the architect’s buildings, it cannot be expected that tourists will be interested in visiting a university housing project. This is a miscalculation of the public’s response. It is also a miscalculation of the student’s response to think such a building will attract MORE students. The idea of a new, experimental, and futuristic building would be attractive, but NOT the idea of voyeurism. Students are more than eager to get out from underneath the ever-watchful eye of their parents after graduating from High School. It being a time of transition for students, it is perhaps a mistake to assume students would want to live in a building that has any potential of attracting visitors and tourists. Privacy would likely take precedence. 

Finally, while a larger building could provide office space, there is no mention of the need for office space in the argument.

If Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing, it is taking a severely-crooked path to fulfilling these needs.