University of Virginia Library

Proposed Dining Facility Offers Convenience, Controversy

By PAT GRANEY

If all goes as expected for
the proposed Observatory Hill
Dining Facility, students will
soon enjoy the convenience of a
new, spacious and pleasant
cafeteria, and the responsibility
of helping retire a $939,000
bond.

Current projections call for
the completion of the facility
by May 1974. The project will
be funded in part by local
funds ($239,000), but
principally through a floating
bond of $939,000 over a
period of about 20 years.

Last Tuesday the S.R. Gay
Construction Company
submitted an apparent low bid
of $996,800 for construction
of the proposed facility. But, it
was later disclosed that the bid,
which was significantly less
than the projected $1,178,000,
did not include certain areas of
mechanical cost.

Plans for the facility were
begun a "couple" of years ago,
after many students
complained about the lack of a
cafeteria in the dorm area. The
facility will include dining
facilities, replacing Newcomb
Hall's Contract, office space,
and a recreational center. Many
hope that this will create a
"residential college"
atmosphere.

"It is a facility, if it is done
right, that will provide far
more uses that simply a dining
hall," Vice President for
Student Affairs D. Alan
Williams asserted. "It will
provide a unity and a social
center in the dormitories that
we have been missing."

Although the new facility
will provide convenient and
attractive eating facilities, in
recent months the project
has become controversial.

Many students are
concerned about 1) what would
happen if popularity at the
facility waned and Food
Services was unable to meet
financial commitments, 2) how
the loss of about $40,000 in
rent from Contract would
affect University Union which
currently receives the rent
through Newcomb Hall, and
3)whether there is really a need
for such a facility.

Plans To Raise Prices

Under current plans, Food
Services will make up
differences after the $939,000
bond has been floated to the
public by raising the Contract
ticket price about four dollars
if current popularity trends
continue. Yet many fear the
University would be forced to
make Contract mandatory to
meet financial commitments if
patronage waned.

If popularity dropped,
"Food Services would scream
for help, "Director Bernard C.
Fontana asserted. "Just how
the University would provide
that help I don't know, but we
do know that the bonds will
have to be paid. The most
obvious solution to me would
be to make a compulsory
"board" plan which the
students don't want, and I
don't want."

Dim Prospects

Fortunately the prospects
for this solution are dim,
according to University
Business Manager Richard F.
Shutts. "You can't say it
wouldn't happen, but it is
highly unlikely. With a growing
first-year class which may soon
reach 3,000, at least one half
of the people usually eat
there."

"Really, I am
worrying about the other way
around, that 1,500 won't be
enough."

University Planning
Director Werner K. Sensbach
echoed his concern for
students. "We must be very
careful to decide what will be
best for students. We want to
avoid accepting a bid which
might increase tuition or board
for the students."

Many University
administrators, however, have
expressed confidence in the
project, and would be
"opposed" to any mandatory
programs. "There is a fair
confidence in the new
Observatory dining hall," Mr.
Williams said. "When a bonding
is involved, the University must
believe that bond will be
met. It is possible, like in the
case of the dormitories, to
make the contract compulsory,
but only as an absolute last
resort."

Planners for the project
have discussed several
possibilities if the funding for
the new cafeteria failed. Mr.
Williams cited the flexibility of
the building as essential for
expansion to meet any
immediate needs.

Residential College Atmosphere

"A residential college
atmosphere might provide all
kinds of possibilities, where we
could create a board-dormitory
plan, or we might possibly
create a straight-out
construction fee in the tuition
like other institutions." Other
alternatives include making one
half of the dining room into a
pay cafeteria, private
endowment or alumni funds.

When Contract moves from
Newcomb Hall, the Union will
lose about $40,000 that Food
Services pays annually in rent
at six per cent of the gross sales
for Contracts space in the
building. Hopefully, the loss

will be made up immediately
by renting the space.

Sources indicate that space
may be filled by the expanding
Bookstore which would
presumably move into the
Grill, and the Grill would move
into Contract's present
location. No decision has been
made, however, about the
vacancy. Food Services does
plan to leave the "service area"
and equipment in Newcomb
Hall pending a need to reopen
the cafeteria.

Mr. Williams said that the
decision would probably not
be made until plans of Peabody
Hall were complete and the
Rathskeller had been given a
chance to "prove itself."

Even though bids have been
returned, many students have
expressed some doubt about
the need for the new facility.
Will it be used, do people want
to walk back to the dormitory
area for lunch?

"It is a facility that will
meet a definite need of
convenience in the dorm area,"
Mr. Williams said, "The prime
reason for the facility is that an
overwhelming percentage of
people eating on contract live
in the dormitories.

Despite the many problems
now which merit some
consideration, the project will
hopefully create a sorely
needed space where dormitory
residents might convene.
Unfortunately with the
ever-expanding University, the
demand may exceed the supply
before the facility is completed
next spring.