University of Virginia Library

Housing 1971: The Crisis Upon Us

Commentary

By ROBIN LIND

—Ed.)

Greetings and congratulations to
you students who once again have
driven in to attend classes from
Earlysville, Free Union, and Stony
Point to our North, from Cismont,
Zion Crossroads, and Milton to our
East. Ivy, Whitehall, and yes,
Waynesboro in the West, and North
Garden Batesville, and Carter's
Bridge to our South. To you the
housing crisis is not NEWS, you
have already come from those
points of the compass.

Last year there were 10,852 of
us who had to contend with the
housing shortage. This year there
are 12,060. Despite an increased
enrollment of 1,118 students there
has been no corresponding increase
in the number of University
housing units available. Not one.

Housing Units

The are at the present time only
3,532 housing units maintained by
the University. Of these
approximately 2,500 were reserved
for first-year students leaving only
676 units for upper classmen and
320 units for married couples.
Percentage-wise that means that
over 70% of us are on the market
each Spring in a seller's market,
trying to find a place to live.
Whether or not this fact might
upset our ability to attain an
education, in the view of the
administration that's the way it
crumbles, cookie-wise.

For an institution that was
conceived of, in typically brilliant
fashion by Thomas Jefferson, as a
unique institution based on a
residential system where faculty
and students might have social and
intellectual intercourse in an
atmosphere of mutual trust and
respect, we have indeed fallen on
sad times. That an institution that
began with 100% on-grounds
housing in 1826 should fall to a
level of only 42.65% in 138 years is
indeed lamentable, but to think
that it should fall from that figure
in 1964 to less than 30% in just six
years is nothing less than shameful.
And if we are to believe the
projected figures published by the
University we may expect a further
decrease to less than 25% on
grounds housing by 1980, despite
all projected dormitory expansion.
So much for Mr. Jefferson's ideas
of an academical megalopolis.

If, then, the Administration has
committed itself to the commuter
college concept why has it
consistently refused to initiate its
own busing system, forcing the
Student Council to initiate one of
its own accord which lamentably
passed away through lack of
extended funding? If it is committed
to off-grounds housing as the
proper place for students, why then
has it not taken steps to encourage
more University alumni owning
farms within a thirty mile (hundred
mile?) radius to rent cottages in their
beautiful and invigorating
countryside? (Many hundred
already do live on farms.) indeed if
the administration is fully
committed to this policy then why
not encourage and heartily promote
the movement of decentralization
from the aging central grounds that
began with Bobby Canevari's
rustication from Pavilion VIII and
continued with the eviction notice
served on the occupants of Clarke
Hall?

Decentralization

However, if the administration's
plan for decentralization has not
yet calcified, then at what purpose
are they striving? If residential
colleges are indeed to be built at
the Birdwood tract then it would
seem that a busing service be
inevitable. And if a busing service
be inevitable is that why a
commuter college be satisfactory?

What solutions could we
students offer? It is we after all who
must endure the problem. Is it
sensible to suggest that perhaps the
University may be returned to a
residential college concept? Is is
reasonable to suggest that perhaps
the majority of students might be
housed in University controlled
housing by 1980? Is it possible?

You're damn right it's possible?
This University has the potential in
this field as in almost every other,
not just to lead but to excel.

Students like armies travel on
their stomachs. To this end, and
with the knowledge in mind that
congenial radial discourses serve
well the cause of higher education,
Jefferson took considerable care to
look after the "dieting of the
students". Residential colleges are
based on common dormitory and
dining facilities which enable
students to develop as a
homogeneous and communal group
in the constant and diverse
company of their peers. We can
reestablish such a sense here at the
University.

The first task is to halt all
expansion in enrollment
immediately. The next is to solicit
funds from the State (or elsewhere)
for the construction of residential
colleges on the Birdwood tract to
accommodate students and faculty
already enrolled at the University in
the same manner in which the
original grounds were designed to
house both teacher and pupil. The
present dormitories must be
drastically reorganized with
coeducational dormitories
throughout all four years of
residence-not just for first year
students: central dining facilities
must be installed-we will not settle
for the debilitating compromise of
'Hassle' and 'Glass Rat'; and
suitable-faculty quarters must be
designed as integral parts of the
whole.

Return To Functionalism

At the same time central
buildings in and around the grounds
must be restored to the purpose for
which they were intended.
Jefferson did not build monuments,
he built functional practical
buildings. Students and Alumni are
keen to attend the Restoration Ball
each Spring for the purpose of
renovating the Rotunda but
nothing is ever done to it: indeed if
the Rotunda were restored we
could no longer hold the Ball and
wouldn't that be a pity. Few
Professors on the Lawn make full
use of their Pavilions-why not
restore the basements to their
original function of "dieting the
students"? Indeed Pavilion VIII
could easily diet 200 students a
day.

The Hotels on the Range could
also be easily converted as the
faculty members of the Colonnade
have so recently discovered.

Miss Betty Booder's House and
Miss Betty Cocke's House, side by
side facing the Brooks Museum,
should be acquired immediately
and restored to dieting the
students.

And what finer way than to
commemorate Mrs. Carr, who used
to sit as many as 100 students
down to lunch, than by restoring
the house built on her Hill to
dieting the students? Food should
not be the major point of reform
but in case there are those who
think I am going overboard, try
standing in line for the contract
cafeteria when you have to join the
end of the line fifteen minutes after
opening time, standing in the
driveway in the place alotted for
mail pickup!

Or go to Student Health and ask
how many patients are treated each
year for physical and psychological
disorders that stem directly from
protein or vitamin deficiencies. Or
estimate the number of students
who "dine" almost exclusively at
Hardies, McDonald's, and places of
that ilk, on a dally diet of
whammy-burger with side order of
fries. A student who is less than
100% healthy is a bad risk in any
endeavour, let alone education.

Land Grabbing

The University should acquire
the old janitor's property opposite
New Cabell Hall—condemn the land
if we have to, but get it and develop
it ourselves. All new property that
comes on the market within the
precincts of the University should
be purchased immediately and
regardless of price. We have the
alumni who can raise the money if
they are convinced something
constructive will come of it.

And finally we should try to
emulate Thomas Jefferson's ideals
and concepts rather than simply
devote ourselves to slavish copies of
new - classicism. The McCormick
Road Dormitories and Newcomb
Hall are abominations-not to
mention the unconscionable
injustice done James Southall
Wilson in the commemorative pile
erected specifically to block the last
view of Monticello available from
the lawn. The ideal is education at
its most enlightening; the concept is
one of students and faculty
studying, working, and living
together in an atmosphere
conducive to intellectual
development. Massive off-grounds
housing with rampant expansion
and the commuter college does not
belong in Charlottesville.

If the administration continues
to oppose these views, and if the
faculty cannot provide adequate
leadership, and if in the final
analysis the Board of Visitors
abdicate their responsibility to
govern effectively, then it can only
devolve upon the students to
enforce these concepts with rigid
tenacity. And to use any and every
expedient open to them.