University of Virginia Library

Rotunda Resurrection

If it seems incongruous to many that the
Department of Housing and Urban
Development should have over $1 million to
spend on the restoration of the Rotunda, we
are not surprised. It seemed a cause strangely
uncorrelated with the purpose of HUD to us,
too, and not a few doubts about the
justification of such an expenditure have
lurked in our minds since the festivities at
Monticello last Friday.

For many years the University, especially
President Shannon, Architecture Professor
Frederick Nichols, and Executive Assistant to
the President Francis L. Berkeley, Jr. have
been quietly soliciting funds for the
restoration of the Rotunda to a functional
role at the center of the University. While
there have been many individual gifts, there
was never available an amount even remotely
approaching the expense of undertaking a major
reconstruction of the Rotunda. But the Cary
D. Langhorne Trust had, for several years,
made it known it would contribute a
substantial sum on a dollar-for-dollar
matching basis if another contributor could
be found.

Enter HUD. It seems that the Department
of Housing and Urban Development has been
criticized throughout the country for what
Mr. Berkeley calls 'bull-dozing history" in the
process of urban development. Whether this
has been a major problem, we do not pretend
to know. But a fund was established at HUD
for "historical preservation' in order to show
the dedication of the government to the
preservation of important historical buildings,
while, at the same time, destroying important
historical blights and creating living units for
the poor.

Early this year, the administration learned
of the possible interest of HUD in
contributing to the Rotunda restoration. With
uncommon dispatch, the funds were made
available and the ceremonies were held just
last week.

So much for "how." It is the "why" to
which we must address ourselves. Why, for
instance, does the University feel that the
Rotunda restoration is the top priority
project of the University for 1976
bicentennial? Why is the present plan
seemingly so oriented to the use of the
Rotunda as an administration building? Why
could not the $2.1 million be used for some
more concretely beneficent purpose?

Starting with our last question, it seems
that despite the ethics of using so large an
HUD grant for this purpose, the money was
never intended to be used for any urban
development. The HUD grant was for the
purpose of historical preservation, and the
Langhorne Trust was specifically earmarked
for restoration of the Grounds. If we had not
received it, the HUD money would have gone to the
restoration of some other old building, not to
housing the poor. So, if HUD has determined
to give a million dollars away, we see no
reason to feel guilty just because we received
it.

The answer to the second question is more
evasive. We feel that the University must
carefully guard against the very real danger of
the Rotunda's becoming an office building
with less interest and accessibility than it
presently has as a silo. In general, we cannot
fault the specific architectural plans of the
restorers. They have, we are confident,
expended years and much effort in assuring
the exactness of the plans to the ideas of Mr.
Jefferson still in University records, and to
the best contributions of the interim
restorers.

While there would be no reason to siphon
HUD funds from a beneficiary which could
reap tangible good just to "honor the memory
of Mr. Jefferson," it is right, we feel, that the
Rotunda be restored to the Jeffersonian
interior now that it has been decided to
restore it at all. Any further remodeling that
would ignore the plans and ideas of Jefferson
would do injustice, not to the man's memory, but
to the unity of the architecture which was his
final accomplishment.

And why was this restoration so
important? We hope that other things (ie.
curriculum reform, library improvement,
tenure policy review) are the real priorities of
the administrators. But we can not fault their
acceptance of this unique opportunity to
make a contribution to the aesthetic quality
of the Grounds. Something had to be done
about the hollowness of the Rotunda, both
physically and spiritually. Now that it will be
no longer hollow physically, we hope that the
entire University makes certain that its
function will never stagnate to the point that
it is again a spiritual void.

Only with the use of students and faculty,
and with the increased awe of tourists and
visionaries like its original architect, will the
Rotunda ever really be a center for the
University. $2.1 million can nicely redecorate
a building, but only unselfish intra-university
dialogue will insure its proper use.