I see yet another "masterplan" was included with the last Bulletin (11 January).
The last one I saw had the Science car park remodelled as a woodland walk, and must have cost thousands just to produce. As usual, nothing came of it.
So I am naturally disturbed at yet another "plan" coming out and the enormous costs involved just to produce it.
If, like the last one, nothing comes of this new masterplan, can I suggest that a significant saving might be made by curtailing these unnecessary and costly activities and maybe spending more money on academic posts, where it will be well spent and used?
Mick Henry, Chemistry
David Kirkwood, Director of Estates, replies:
I'm happy to reassure Mick that this is not "another masterplan" and, far from incurring additional costs, it has already saved us both time and money.
As the pull-out on campus development in the last Bulletin says, this is the very same masterplan that was developed in 2004. It does exactly what we said it would do - provide a framework for the development of the campus over the next 30 years.
It has already been extremely useful for streamlining discussion with the local council and other planning bodies. This represents a way of saving money as we develop the campus - by not incurring unnecessary additional planning time and costs every time we move forward with a new building.
And the fact that we have built Swanborough, and are now proceeding with the new teaching building, and are now developing plans for North Field and the new academic building - all sites identified for development on the masterplan - demonstrates that a great deal has already come from it.
The masterplan does indeed provide the concept for a new green space and buildings where we currently have the Science car park; as part of a 30-year vision for the campus, that's the right way to be thinking.
You can read more about the campus development plans at www.sussex.ac.uk/efm/projects.
Am I just being a grumpy old man, or is “wayfinding strategy” not the most appalling neologism ( Bulletin 11 January, ‘New map design’)? What's wrong with “guide” or “directions”?
Please let's use plain English wherever possible, and avoid the gobbledygook beloved by consultants.
Incidentally, what's the difference between a “mapping design” and a “map”?
Dr Roger Luther, Mathematics
A pedant writes:
“Wayfinding” actually has pretty respectable historic and academic roots. At its simplest it means “how people find their way” - and it is therefore more than just a “guide” or “directions”.
“Mapping design” means “how we design our maps” - and again is therefore more than just a fancy synonym for “map”. Roger will be pleased that we did however avoid using the term “cartographic symbology”.