Hamilton Hall - SOLD

[Andrew Cusack]

[s]someone wrote on 00:50, 11th Jul 2004:
Not a whisper of this was brought up over the year, and then the Uni pulls it over the summer...

Nothing official was said, but it was reported in the Mitre as early as March.

You can download the March 2 edition from here: http://www.andrewcusack.com/mitre/


[hr]
http://www.andrewcusack.com

[portense]

What's so bad about selling Hamilton, I ask.

[Anyone]

[s]someone wrote on 00:50, 11th Jul 2004:

Not in my role as Association Officer (not like we can accomplish anything) I'm starting a "save hamilton" movement.


Is that because you cant achieve anything? Or maybe because you chose a position that is just for pretentious jumped up Wan*ers who think that being "Chair of the Union" will mean any thing in the real world..

[Midget]

Are you from College Gate?

[me]

[s]someone wrote on 00:50, 11th Jul 2004:
I'm really pissed off. Like, really [i]really pissed off. Not a whisper of this was brought up over the year, and then the Uni pulls it over the summer... kind of like how they tried to do the whole rent rises thing.

Not in my role as Association Officer (not like we can accomplish anything) I'm starting a "save hamilton" movement.

http://www.geocities.com/someone/hamilton.html

Here you go. Forgive the stupid background on the page. Shall we begin?

[/i]

Yet another F***ing wannabe president jumping on a residence campaign just to get popular and noticed.

Cant you try and get elected on your policys?

[Midget]

I'd say "Stopping the University from screwing us over" isn't a bad policy.

[tintin]

It makes me SO ANGRY to see this sort of thing. 20 million pounds is the sort of amount that provides a stop-gap rather than a solution to underfunding problems. Once the money has been spent, it's gone. Meanwhile, bl**dy American developers march in to steal YET ANOTHER part of OUR heritage. It sure as hell won't be St. Andrews residents who can afford those new flats. It will be more wealthy incomrs, pushing up property prices even more.

I am astounded that the Community Council did not do anything to oppose this sale.

[Cain]

[s]Andrew Cusack wrote on 03:08, 11th Jul 2004:
Nothing [i]official was said, but it was reported in the Mitre as early as March.
[/i]

at the risk of getting into a pointless game of oneupmanship, i knew about this since just after easter in the 2002-03 year, from a mate i know who works in chemistry.

it really annoys me how the uni are pretending to be so surprised in the press release about this unexpected and uninvited offer. especialyl when it's so insultingly low. like tintin says, it's a stop gap.

[hr]
I will diminish, and go into fourth year, and remain Cain

[Association President]

Just to clear things up, and before some one misunderstands and thinks they’re homeless in September, Hamilton has not been sold yet. The article states that the university are looking at selling it in 2006. “University finance director Derek Watson has been instructed by the university court to enter into an exclusivity agreement with the US development company after it made an unsolicited offer.” What this means is the university cannot talk to anyone else to allow the bidders to make there own enquiries into the building. This will result in Hamilton remaining a hall for the next academic year and probably the year after.

I must say I will be sad to see Hamilton go as will many people have enjoyed time spent there (living or visiting people who did). What we must not lose sight of is that it wasn't the sandstone facing or the views over the 18th that made Hamilton Hall valuable to students, it was the community atmosphere and spirit.

If, as looks likely, the university does sell, what Ben (Director of Representation), Seth (SRC Accommodation Officer) and I are all agreed on is that students must still have the widest possible choice of what type of accommodation they live in. The offer that has been made to the university is such that it cannot be ignored, and while many of us have enjoyed pointing it out to friends and family whenever the television cameras come to visit, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is that the physical building is not the most important factor in this debate. The commitment to AT LEAST replace the capacity is to be welcomed, but the university must ensure that there is no reduction in the range and diversity of accommodation on offer.

Ben, Seth and I will be looking into what the possible replacements are. We are absolutely committed to focusing the university on building accommodation that is designed to house students and not simply conferences. As for concerns over how good the deal is financially, we discovered last year how good Derek Watson is at squeezing every last penny out of people but we will be taking advice from every possible source to make sure this is the best deal that we can get.

Simon Atkins

[flossy]

So how are the places at Hamilton going to eb replaced? I heard something about building a new hall but does anyone know what style of accommodation would be built (e.g. will it be like Hamilton or DRA or New Hall etc)?

[Association President]

[s]flossy wrote on 19:10, 12th Jul 2004:
So how are the places at Hamilton going to eb replaced? I heard something about building a new hall but does anyone know what style of accommodation would be built (e.g. will it be like Hamilton or DRA or New Hall etc)?

There will be more built. The details are not yet fixed. The university would prefer DRH style appartments, as you would expect. But that conversation has yet to take place.

[Guest]

How is a few letters going to stop the university?

[Al]

It is good to see the new President leading from the front.

[hr]Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[The Kaiser]

[s]Association President wrote on 19:03, 12th Jul 2004:
What we must not lose sight of is that it wasn't the sandstone facing or the views over the 18th that made Hamilton Hall valuable to students, it was the community atmosphere and spirit.

Oh, very nice.

[RJ Covino]

[s]Al wrote on 22:42, 12th Jul 2004:
It is good to see the new President leading from the front.

Slightly better than him getting behind Preston...

[Anon.]

From the relevant press release at http://calvin.st-andrews.ac.uk/external ... erence=676 :

Mike DiCarlo, one of the development team, said : We are pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with the University our plans to restore this grand building and make it a productive part of St. Andrews.

Productive how, exactly?

"As long time visitors to St. Andrews as well as homeowners in the town,

but not students

it is vitally important to us to preserve the heritage of Hamilton Hall and all it means to the local community, Scotland and the international world of golf."

But not students.

[someone]

[s]Association President wrote on 19:03, 12th Jul 2004:
What we must not lose sight of is that it wasn't the sandstone facing or the views over the 18th that made Hamilton Hall valuable to students, it was the community atmosphere and spirit.

If, as looks likely, the university does sell, what Ben (Director of Representation), Seth (SRC Accommodation Officer) and I are all agreed on is that students must still have the widest possible choice of what type of accommodation they live in ... Ben, Seth and I will be looking into what the possible replacements are. We are absolutely committed to focusing the university on building accommodation that is designed to house students and not simply conferences.

Simon Atkins



[s]Anon. wrote on 23:31, 12th Jul 2004:
From the relevant (UNIVERSITY) press release at http://calvin.st-andrews.ac.uk/external ... erence=676 :

[i]it is vitally important to us to preserve the heritage of Hamilton Hall and all it means to the local community, Scotland and the international world of golf."

But not students.
[/i]


Speaking to the Association President as a student, and not as a colleague:

You and I are sailing different courses here, Mr. Atkins. You're talking about accommodation as the key issue, when that is, in fact, symptomatic of a larger problem (particularly in this case.)

Keep in mind, people, that very little discussion has taken place between the University and the Union/Student Body on matters such as rent rises and this, the most recent accommodation-related action. While I am sure that you, Ben Reilly, and Seth Ewin will do your best to directly address the issue of the "150 beds" in your capacity as officers, the underlying problem is that the University won't even enter a dialogue with students, much less even listen to them. We need to look at that equally as in-depth as we look at how the University plans to build new halls of residence in Crail.

One of last year's sabs spoke to me in the spring about a "bond of trust" that existed between the Union and the Administration, and how each party was expected to behave in such a way that both could trust the other and neither would get screwed, by public embarrassment or other methods. This is an accommodation issue on the surface only. on a more substantial level, it is a matter of the Administration listening to the student body and representation in the Union being able to address these things for (and with) the student body.

Right now, as shown by their concern for the "local community, Scotland, and the international world of golf" (but not students), all students should feel pretty disenfranchised. The fact that no-one in the Union was consulted, and the fact that almost no-one in the Union bothered to get righteously annoyed about this as I (and others) have, is rather disconcerting. A more direct student response is needed to tell the University that we will not tolerate further actions that diminish student quality of life.

[hr]disco inferno.

(And the Association Chair on my better days, in case you were wondering.)

[someone]

[s]Midget wrote on 15:49, 12th Jul 2004:
I'd say "Stopping the University from screwing us over" isn't a bad policy.


Amen.



[hr]
disco inferno.

[RJ Covino]

[s]someone wrote on 23:47, 12th Jul 2004:
The fact that no-one in the Union was consulted

Are you _sure_? I do so love ill-informed righteous indignation. Seems to me that there were a host of student representative types around when the matter got brought up. I spy one Lord Rector, one ever-so-useful Rector's Assessor, one Association President and one Director of Representation on the list of folk attending the meeting...

See http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/court/minute_0504.pdf page 84.

That, my dear Preston, is what I believe the University considers to be adequate consultation.

[Anon.]

[s]RJ Covino wrote on 00:07, 13th Jul 2004:
That, my dear Preston, is what I believe the University considers to be adequate consultation.

The minutes imply that the offer to buy was declined, as on similar previous occasions.