Okay, so we make a windowed building that houses 1000+ fewer students and those 1000 are just left to the wolves, paying more elsewhere or joining the depressing ranks of the UC homeless? I’m not thinking ideally, I’m recognizing that the real world has real opportunity costs to every decision and nothing happens in a vacuum. I hate the CA real estate situation as much as anyone but short-term solutions have to be realistic and long-term ones… may never happen.
The lack of windows is not a required monetary tradeoff here. It is a deliberate ideological choice on the part of the donor. While I can't say for certain that every student's sleeping space could be given windows while keeping the same occupancy, your argument makes a false dichotomy.
reply