Forty-one percent. Less than half of all undergraduates at the University live on Grounds; keep in mind, the figure itself is artificially high, as it includes first-years for whom on-Grounds accommodations are mandatory. Over the years, the University has grown undeniably distant from the original Jeffersonian goal of an Academical Village, a community in which students and faculty live and learn in unison. Though the University’s commitment to that vision remains strong in principle and in practice to a degree, the despairingly low percentage of students living in on-Grounds housing indicates our housing system has, for the clear majority of students, failed to live up to Jefferson’s original vision. In response to recent events at the University, my fellow writer Mary Russo highlighted the need for a program of off-Grounds Resident Advisors in order to provide students living off Grounds with the advising resources and safety students living on Grounds might take for granted. While the idea is certainly a strong one, it is equally important for the University to make new strides in ensuring that affordable, on-Grounds housing options remain viable for future upperclassmen.
Admittedly, the University’s burgeoning population has, over the years, presented numerous logistical obstacles to the fulfillment of our founding vision. The University’s proximity to Charlottesville, for one, has made eastward expansion a rather limited enterprise. That being said, the physical expansion of the University has been marked by a curious and seemingly haphazard sequence of developments. Compared to the aesthetically grand and invaluably practical organization of the Lawn, the rest of the University has developed in a sort of sprawl, expanding in various directions, some of which have separated sizeable portions of the University from Central Grounds. Granted, the development of the University has been limited by existing infrastructure and housing; yet even considering such restraints, more could have been done to maintain a high rate of students living on Grounds. The relative dearth of affordable, on-Grounds housing options for upperclassmen seems in itself to limit the degree to which the original vision of an “Academical Village” can be realized, or at the very least respected.
In light of the Jeffersonian vision of an “Academical Village,” and in comparison to peer universities, the University fares rather poorly when it comes to the percentage of undergraduates living in on-Grounds housing. In most of the Ivy League, the percentage of undergraduates living in college housing hovers in the region of 90-98 percent. Even at peer public universities such as the University of North Carolina, considerably more students — roughly 54 percent of undergraduates — live in college housing. I admit that, in the scheme of things, the percentage of students living in University housing might seem to be a rather insignificant issue, yet as the University community continues to grow apart physically there are bound to be consequences of a cultural nature. Though reestablishing sustained on-Grounds living as an essential part of the University experience will by no means serve as a cure-all for the community’s social ills, it would at the very least emphasize a renewed commitment to Jefferson’s original principle.
Admittedly, little can be done to alter the current organization of Grounds in order to create a living environment that might more closely match the idea of an “Academical Village.” It may be slightly idealistic to think a community this size can tangibly realize this idea, yet it is certainly practical to suggest the University has considerable room for improvement in terms of creating additional accommodations and incentives for upperclassmen to remain in on-Grounds housing. At the very least, the University can endeavor to construct new on-Grounds housing so upperclassmen of the future might have a more realistic and affordable opportunity of living on Grounds in the manner Jefferson intended.
On that note, a new exercise currently being conducted by the Architecture School seeks to explore the Ivy Road/Route 250 interchange as a possible area for additional on-Grounds housing. Though the exercise itself is purely academic and not meant to suggest any future plans for that area, the idea itself is constructive. Increasing the percentage of undergraduates living in on-Grounds housing will require an innovative approach, one that prioritizes research into potential new areas for the development of affordable on-Grounds housing. For a University that prides itself on the originality and design of its Central Grounds, it would surely be both a realistic and worthwhile goal to increase the percentage of students living in on-Grounds housing into the 50 percent range (for a start).
It may be quite idealistic to envision a community of close to 15,000 undergraduates all living in a close-knit (and admittedly densely populated), modern “Academical Village;” yet when many students have to take buses or other forms of transportation in order to reach Jefferson’s original Grounds, the intangible benefits which those Grounds offer may be lost in transit.
Conor Kelly is an Opinion Columnist for the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at c.kelly@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 16 hours agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 3 days agoWe need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
EDITORIAL: Reckon consistently with our history
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoUntil these bureaucracies have proven willing to commit to change outright, it is up to us, students and Charlottesville residents, to continue pushing for that change.
