By
The Wildcat Opinions Board
Question: Should the University of Arizona sell the old Christopher City property to private developers?
Answer: No.
Think this answer is deceptively simple?
It's not. Three plainly sensible reasons make it apparent that UA should rezone, not sell the Christopher City property.
First, the site could be used for mixed housing. The UA could construct single-family homes for graduate students, as well as apartments open to all UA students. While Jefferson Commons may not provide the best example, the complex does prove that it is possible to establish a large UA undergraduate community off campus. Perhaps it could help alleviate the UA's predicted undergraduate housing shortage and ease tensions with surrounding neighbors who fear big business development.
Second, in conjunction with housing, the UA could work with businesses to provide services for the new Christopher City residents. From bookstores to coffee shops, businesses could help foster a sense of community and provide meeting spots for residents.
A UA-operated businesses could be integrated, as well. A $2.50 movie theater is an especially interesting idea when one also considers the plight of UA's beloved Gallagher Theatre.
Third, the entire project could be used as a practical training ground for architecture, planning and landscaping architecture students - similar to South Tucson's South Sixth Avenue project. Real world projects provide an education that classrooms are unable to recreate. The new development could be a shining example of urban planning.
So the question now becomes, why does the UA want to sell the property to private developers? If the UA is especially concerned about economic factors here, clearly the Christopher City site could serve as an income generating property by working with businesses.
Then, there is the issue that precipitated the entire situation: mold on the property. Toxic mold was found in some units in the complex, but it hadn't infected the entire parcel of land. It hadn't even infected the entire complex, but with the complex torn down, the threat of toxic mold has been removed.
It's doubtful, however, that these are the reasons behind the desire to sell the property. It seems that the only reason to dispense of the property is a desire not to hold it. While that's certainly legitimate, it's also shortsighted.
The UA has an opportunity to plan for the future and create an example of responsible urban development for Tucson. While none of these suggested uses for the property need be implemented immediately, the UA needs to keep its options open. The best way to do that is to retain ownership of the Christopher City property.
Staff Editorials represent the collaborative stance of the Wildcat Opinions Board.
