Construction has become a regular part of campus life. The sight of cranes and the beeping of large equipment seem to be everywhere. Although these disruptions are often accepted as necessary for the evolution of UT, it is crucial to acknowledge the sustainability costs and potential alternatives of these projects.
There are several consequences to these large-scale construction projects. Obviously, there are the physical obstructions of closed-off areas and heavy machinery, but this is not the only way construction interrupts students’ daily lives. The renovations near Patton Hall have caused significant audible and visible distractions.
“I teach a class right there, and oftentimes the construction noise is so loud that I have to pause class,” said Jules Elkins, director of sustainability studies. “The noise pollution can be really upsetting.”
While the effects on student life are important, there is a wider environmental impact to consider.
Even with regulations in place, the larger issue of these projects’ sustainability remains. While the construction may not have an immediate negative effect on its surroundings, the fundamental consequences of constructing a completely new building have significant downstream effects.
“The building industry is a huge consumer of cement and steel, which are huge CO2 emitters,” Elkins said. “Concrete itself contributes a full 8% of global emissions.”
In addition to the cost of resources, the energy required by the equipment has its own environmental impact.
“A lot of the equipment operates on diesel, which is really dangerous from a health perspective,” Elkins said.
Given these consequences of construction, it is essential that UT makes substantial efforts to be sustainable with its developments. To their credit, UT has achieved several additional certifications for sustainability. Multiple UT buildings have been certified for Leadership on Energy and Environmental Design.
“This is a certification process, and it’s basically this idea that you’re trying to reduce energy use, trying to use better (and) safer materials,” Elkins said. “If you go on to the website about Patton Hall and look at its sustainability features, you’ll see it’s a LEED Gold building.”
But no matter how much effort is put into sustainable building, the best way to limit the damage of construction is not to build at all.
Renovation and the repurposing of existing buildings are potential methods of preventing environmental cost. The argument for renovation ties back to the reality that construction requires an abundant amount of resources, so it’s crucial that officials ask themselves if building is needed or not.
“When it comes to construction, I always look at it from a perspective of: ‘One, is it necessary? Are we creating more classrooms just because, or do we need the expansion?’ Then I also take into account, ‘Are there other alternatives?’” civil engineering junior Pedro Guzman said.
With these considerations, it becomes clear which pathway is more environmentally advantageous.
“Doing retrofitting and redesign is, from an environmental or embodied carbon perspective, unequivocally the better choice,” Elkins said.
Of course, it would be outrageous to say that UT should never have a new building again, but it remains critical that the University is aware of the massive waste it can create. Before officials get excited about a new shiny landmark, they should take a step back to weigh the risks and prioritize the campus that is already here.
Stark is a chemical engineering sophomore from Orange County, California.
