[TreesAndBirds]

My problem with Stanford's expansion plans, past and present, is that it is not clear to me how these new buildings are producing more graduates than before. A 4 fold expansion in sq ft has produced no similar rise in graduates. Much, if not most of the expansion has been in research and lab space. That would be great if it were effective. However, the result I have seen so far has been a vastly underutilized set of buildings that are poorly maintained after they built. I am not at all opposed to expansion once it is clear that we are using what we have fully and wisely.
It would appear to me that lots of the building occurs because many successful people want to donate money to Stanford, and they want their name on it. An endowed chair doesn't have the same flash as a building, and nobody wants to turn down money.  So we get another building. It is not really a planned event, it is a target of opportunity. Some of the building was undoubtedly necessary to replace and augment older structures. However, what we have now is all out proportion to what Stanford can use effectively, IMHO.

+1

Re 99% of the country wanting Stanford in their backyard....that is very likely true. Of course 99%'of the country would probably build hotels and condos along highway 1 and develop the foothills with large housing complexes. Just because Stanford has done tremendous things doesnt mean that more moderation/limits isnt appropriate. There is no shortage of jobs in the area, so the fact that Stanford can bring more jobs isnt quite as important as it was 50 years ago. We have different issues now than we used to have, and different issues than much of the rest of the country has. There is a reason that just about every city in the country other than in Northern Cal is bidding for Amazon's new HQ. We're in a different situation.

[TreesAndBirds]

My problem with Stanford's expansion plans, past and present, is that it is not clear to me how these new buildings are producing more graduates than before. A 4 fold expansion in sq ft has produced no similar rise in graduates. Much, if not most of the expansion has been in research and lab space. That would be great if it were effective. However, the result I have seen so far has been a vastly underutilized set of buildings that are poorly maintained after they built. I am not at all opposed to expansion once it is clear that we are using what we have fully and wisely.
It would appear to me that lots of the building occurs because many successful people want to donate money to Stanford, and they want their name on it. An endowed chair doesn't have the same flash as a building, and nobody wants to turn down money.  So we get another building. It is not really a planned event, it is a target of opportunity. Some of the building was undoubtedly necessary to replace and augment older structures. However, what we have now is all out proportion to what Stanford can use effectively, IMHO.

+1

Re 99% of the country wanting Stanford in their backyard....that is very likely true. Of course 99%'of the country would probably build hotels and condos along highway 1 and develop the foothills with large housing complexes. Just because Stanford has done tremendous things doesnt mean that more moderation/limits isnt appropriate. There is no shortage of jobs in the area, so the fact that Stanford can bring more jobs isnt quite as important as it was 50 years ago. We have different issues now than we used to have, and different issues than much of the rest of the country has. There is a reason that just about every city in the country other than in Northern Cal is bidding for Amazon's new HQ. We're in a different situation.