The Board of Visitors recently approved a $22.9 million plan to renovate the roof and columns of the Rotunda. To put that into perspective, that amount of money is equivalent to more 2,000 in-state student tuitions - or about half of a class - for this academic year. Maybe we are all jaded at the thought of millions of dollars being poured into an unconvincing project, but that is not what worries me most about this announcement. What concerns me is that for an institution that places such emphasis on character, thought and integrity, the University has repeatedly dropped the ball on carrying out these virtues. The Rotunda renovation is the latest example of how glitter is encouraged over substance.
The Sept. 14 press release states that the purpose of the renovation is to fix the cracks in the column capitals and to replace an outdated roof. Safety seems like a reasonable aim to worry about, but according to the press release, "there are no imminent structural concerns, [University Architect David] Neuman told the board's Buildings and Grounds Committee." I would like to give the Board the benefit of the doubt and assume that this extremely expensive project is a preventative measure against potentially dangerous weathering. But the price tag of recent Lawn renovation decisions have not been flattering to University leadership.
In one instance of shallow spending, a 2008 Richmond Times-Dispatch article explained that the old fire mantels and window sashes were going to be "replaced with more historically accurate design." The average cost of renovating each room: $11,000. The parapet addition to Pavilion X was added just recently for $2 million. Granted, the money was raised through private donations, but the fact that so much was spent on historical accuracy showed that the motive behind these decisions had no substance. If history has shown us that past Lawn renovations were basically interior design projects, and if there are no imminent structural concerns, then I am led to believe that this Rotunda project likely will follow that pattern.
The most disappointing aspect of this project is that the Rotunda is a symbol representing Jeffersonian ideals - yet it is being used in almost the exact opposite fashion. The Rotunda was created as a library and was made the centerpiece on Grounds during a time when other universities were still centered around churches and religion. The Rotunda was a symbol of defiance toward religious authority and tradition. The main argument for preserving the Rotunda runs counter to its purpose. Too many people are elevating the building to an unjustified pedestal, almost turning it into a shrine. And such people certainly will not put up with any changes to it - unless they involve air conditioning.
Jeffersonian ideals do not need a physical structure to be passed on. A building cannot contain the character of the University community, a grassy strip cannot teach students to think and statues and plaques do not bestow integrity. In the case of preserving the Rotunda, we are asked to speak only of these ideals and practices superficially. We have already stripped the Rotunda of its original purpose. It is no longer a realization of Jefferson's "dreams for a system of public education, the ideal of the power of the freedom of the human mind" because it has lost all intellectual associations, as fourth-year architectural history major and Lawn Resident Brian Cofrancesco stated. It is now a social building for meet and greets, which is acceptable - but not for that maintenance price tag.
Construction can be done tastefully, practically and responsibly. The South Lawn Project presents a mix of Roman and modern architecture and serves to further education. At $105 million, the entire South Lawn Project cost only about four times more than preserving the Rotunda. What price will be considered too much to justify saving a building? If $22.9 million is not that price, will there ever be a limit? But can the Rotunda finance itself over the long run by attracting more students to the University? I would guess not, since a minority realize the significance of the Rotunda, or University architecture in general, before they arrive as first-year students. Of that portion, I doubt many students accepted admission based primarily on the historical significance of the Rotunda.
As of right now, the only real reason - save a few falling pieces from the columns - for the Rotunda project is to keep its aesthetic value. But as Thomas Jefferson said, "material abundance without character is the path of destruction."
Hung Vu's is an opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at h.vu@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | 9 hours agoAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | 3 days agoIt is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
ELJAZZAR: Advising changes are a step toward student success
By Farah Eljazzar | December 10, 2024With the long history of student complaints regarding advising in the College, it is commendable that the University administration is committed to responding to student concerns and prioritizing student academic well-being.
