University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

'Slanted Analysis' Hinders Efforts To Find Solutions

Your right to publish Kevin
"Jack Anderson" Mannix's
fulminations on confidential
documents is unquestioned.
The Cavalier Daily's position,
however, is not analogous to
that of the Washington Post,
and you betrayed your
responsibility to the University
Community when you
published Mannix's
vainglorious expose before
release of the Future
Committee's report.

Mannix's article did not
reveal information which
authorities had attempted to
suppress. Rather, he presented
an obviously slanted analysis of
a subcommittee report to the
Future Committee.

That group, which is hardly
homogeneous, has worked all
year to prepare recommendations
on a highly controversial
subject, and its final report
surely would have been
impossible to suppress.

Mannix refuses to recognize
that difficult problems
involving conflicting
considerations require
compromise solutions, which
are not easily reached in public
deliberations. The silence
which he regards as "extreme"
is much more responsible than
the latest diatribe of a onetime
politico who lost his faith in
student representatives when
he ceased to be one.

Your unfortunate decision
to publish his complaint during
the Future Committee's
deliberations, before its full
report can be studied, can only
hinder its efforts to find
solutions which everyone can
live with.

Kiss-Off

It is my hope that
Thursday's Lambeth Field
article in which Mr. Wagner so
heartily endorsed the scheme
will in no way reflect upon the
teaching of design in the
School of Architecture.

The general consensus
among my classmates, many
professors, and myself is that
the proposed scheme is devoid
of any architectural merit and
is just short of an abomination.

Certainly the design saves
and preserves the
amphitheatre, but for what
use? Is it to sit mouldering,
only to collect dust? Has it no
other value than as a museum
piece? The whole point of the
preservation of a piece of
architecture is to use it in a
new way, not isolate it as some
arcane relic.

The approach of Sasaki et al
could not have done a greater
injustice if they had torn it
down. Their bland and
monotonous scheme with its
high rise "focal point" and sea
of asphalt parking lot is at best
a mediocre solution for a
second year design student.

Mr. Wagner's belief that
"closely spaced pine trees will
cut out half the noise" (from
trains) is absolutely ludicrous.
And his hope that the train
noise will pass over the bottom
two floors of the building is
absurd. Sound travels in
spherical waves, not in a
straight line, as any high school
physics student knows.

If that is not enough insult
to the teaching program of the
architecture school, Mr.
Wagner further states that they
will "just have to get used to
the noise." This is the rankest
form of cop-out. It is not
human and therefore an
unrealistic approach to design.
It is the architect's duty to
improve these situations, not
throw up his arms with an
accommodating kiss-off attitude.

One of the more humorous
aspects of the proposal is the
architects' contention that the
buildings take a turn at the
commons and head toward the
University. They do nothing of
the kind, they head straight for
those damned railroad tracks.

As for parking in the
University Hall parking lot,
picture yourself carrying a bag
or two of groceries across
Emmet Street at 4:30 or 5
p.m. and up eleven floors (even
with a pedestrian bridge
imminent this is too much to
ask.)

As for Miss McDermott, is
she any relation to Mme.
LaFarge....is she any relation to
anything?

The scheme in fact, as
shown in the CD photograph,
looks as though it's giving the
Rotunda the finger.