University of Virginia Library

Brian Siegel

Library: Plan Vs. Purpose

Since Alderman Library was
built in the 1930's, it has become
increasingly evident that one large
library can no longer serve the
University community. Many of the
major institutions—Harvard,
Stanford, Berkeley, Illinois, and
North Carolina, for example—have
new undergraduate libraries on
their campuses.

Controversy over the size and
design of the new Law School was
widely publicized last year.
However, a proposal to convert
Clark Hall into an undergraduate
library, if indeed it was only a
proposal, received no student
attention at all. It is odd how
students are absent from the
bargaining process when they are so
involved in the planning of all new
structures at the University.

Since the term "undergraduate
library" is nebulous at best, student
interest should be avid on this plan.
It is most certainly in the interest
of the undergraduate student body
to express whether it wants its own
separate library facilities and, if so,
what these facilities should include.

Assuming for a moment that
everyone eagerly anticipates the
coming of an undergraduate library
that will offer additional reader
space and perhaps several special
services such as an audio-visual
center, is Clark Hall necessarily the
best place for it?

Seat Shortage

Someone definitely thinks so,
according to the University's
present plans. The truth is, as with
so many other things here, Clark
Hall is already too small for the
planned undergraduate library. And
the Law School has not even moved
out yet.

At present there are
approximately 7,500
undergraduates at the University
who require 2,500 library seats to
meet the standard of seating
one-third of them. According to a
report on the library made last
year, up to 1,000 of these seats
should be provided in Alderman.

At any rate, a modest estimate
of the number of seats needed in an
undergraduate library for a student
body of the present size is 1,500.
This means that at the standard of
25 square feet per reader, an
undergraduate library would
require 37,500 square feet of reader
space for today's student body.

To point out that this 37,500
square feet of area does not include
any space for stacks, offices, or any
special services is unnecessary since
the net total area of Clark Hall is
only 34,500 square feet.

The possibility remains that
Clark Hall can be "opened up" —
that is, completely torn apart and
remodeled inside—to provide the
extra space needed for an
undergraduate library.

In 1963, Russell Bailey was
retained by the University to make
a general survey and
recommendations for the growth of
the University library system.
Bailey's recommendation was that
the undergraduate library should be
placed next to Alderman, on the
site of the old Biology Building.

Everywhere that new
undergraduate libraries are being
built, they are located near the
main library building. There are
very practical reasons for this.

Stay Close

If the undergraduate library is
close to the main library, the cost
of duplicating materials is less and
the probability is greater that the
undergraduate collection
maintained can be much smaller.

If the undergraduate library is in
close proximity to the main
building, it is more convenient for
undergraduates to go beyond its
limited collection to the larger,
more extensive graduate
collections.

In addition, it would be a
convenience to faculty and
graduate students who must search
out second copies of the books
kept in Alderman.

Speak Now

All departments in the library
need more room immediately and
for future expansion. It is not clear
why anyone would propose a
facility that would not alleviate our
present needs, much less those that
are anticipated in the near future.

Now, everyone who has ever
tried to study in Alderman knows
of the University's urgent need for
more library space. The questions
remain: what kind of facilities will
we get? How much will we get? And
when will we get them?

Since time is essential in
planning this new facility, we must
be careful to plan as thoroughly as
possible, judging all the alternatives.
As the planning progresses,
alternate plans will be foregone,
leaving little room for change in the
later stages.

It may be easier to wait and
demonstrate against a firm plan
which can be criticized for its
weaknesses rather than to
demonstrate for an idea of what
you think is needed. The outcome,
however, will not be in your favor.