Over the course of two years, a debate quietly unfolded over a development proposal on Stadium Road, just steps from central Grounds. In February, this controversy became public for the first time with the rapid demolition and clearing of a massive parcel of land that will ultimately house the VERVE student apartment complex. The demolished property, a small 62-unit complex, will be replaced by the new tallest building in the city. With 12 stories and 463 units, the development will permanently tarnish the landscape of the University and the greater Charlottesville area. For years to come, VERVE should serve as a striking warning against compromising on zoning procedures in pursuit of a quick fix to one of Charlottesville’s most complicated problems — housing.
In addition to compromising on housing, it is worth noting that a 12-story building directly next to the University will undoubtedly have negative impacts on the historical aesthetics. This did not go entirely unnoticed as VERVE neared approval — Architect for the University Alice Raucher wrote a letter warning of the detrimental visual effects of having a high-rise in such close proximity to architecturally and historically significant landmarks. These include the Academical Village, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. This was evidently not enough to stall the project. Neither was the presence of a house at 104 Stadium Road that was protected by the city for its historical significance — the protection was waived, and the house demolished. As the University’s stakeholders, we should use VERVE as a reminder to be more vigilant defenders of the architecture that makes our university unique. After all, as times change, the iconic architecture of the University is its most indestructible characteristic.
The glaring size and design of VERVE will not only prove an eyesore but will directly impact how prospective students and tourists experience the University. The simple value of a visually appealing Grounds is rarely acknowledged only because it is so universally accepted. Though surface-level, opposing a project for its ugliness is a valid argument. This is particularly true for universities, where visual appeal is a very real point of value — there is a reason why the University bothers to put columns in front of its buildings. Furthermore, as a dominating feature of the Charlottesville landscape, University-related developments should at least be held to the standard of not being visually destructive to Charlottesville. With this project, city officials have allowed a national real estate company to upend the local landscape in the pursuit of a quick profit.
Charlottesville will suffer aesthetically from VERVE, but might students benefit from increased housing supply? Such a hope would be shortsighted. Amid continuously increasing class sizes, VERVE appears to be driven by increasing student demand rather than an attempt to provide cheaper options. And student rent prices are functions of numerous moving parts, including enrollment numbers and the proportion of students living on Grounds — both which are factors which are likely to change in coming years. Much like a futile attempt to solve traffic by adding one more lane to the highway, it is foolish to expect this mega-complex to be the one that finally solves student housing costs. VERVE’s long-term impact on student housing affordability is far from clear — the only guarantee is the lasting presence of the building itself.
Moreover, VERVE is an unsustainable solution, not only for students, but for Charlottesville and its residents as well. The challenge of student housing demand driving up rent for Charlottesville residents is very real, but it is hypocritical for the city to expect VERVE to remedy this problem. VERVE was presented as a starting point for city-wide affordable housing, but VERVE markets itself specifically as student housing. While VERVE may shift student demand closer to Grounds, whether housing market effects will outweigh the harms of the University’s expanding presence is a gamble Charlottesville residents may not wish to take. With 400 additional student housing units, and as the first Flats- or Standard-style megacomplex in the JPA area, VERVE is effectively a privatized adaptation of the University expansion that Charlottesville residents have come to dread. The root of their problems comes from being priced out by a University that has grown to dominate the city, and VERVE will only exacerbate this process.
Given these downsides, how were Charlottesville officials persuaded to approve VERVE? Subtext, the firm behind the project, promised to pay $6.8 million into the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund in exchange for the city’s approval of the development. Make no mistake — this funding is genuinely valuable for the city’s affordable housing efforts. But when a company attaches a multi-million-dollar donation to a project proposal, it is advisable to question the project’s implications. Though the proposal does dedicate funding toward affordable housing, it will not actually provide any affordable housing itself. Meanwhile, student benefits will be short-term at best, and the Charlottesville and University landscapes will be degraded in the process. The bottom line is that this project is not a home run but a tradeoff. Unless we wish to rival New York’s skyline, it should be clear that more of these compromises will not be a sustainable way to address Charlottesville’s housing challenges.
Nathaniel Carter is a senior associate opinion editor who writes about health, technology and environment for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions represented in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.
Read More
SCHENBERG: Our foreign students and colleagues deserve better
2 days agoI pray that we will not persecute now and atone later.
DUTTENHOFER: Is growth-based learning actually helping us grow?
By Lucy Duttenhofer | 2 days agoWhile the department’s pursuit of curricular innovation is commendable, the implementation approach raises serious ethical concerns.
FREED: Do not be fooled — the Trump administration is not fighting antisemitism
By Dan Freed | 3 days agoGiven the tenuous connection to battling antisemitism, we are left to assume that the Trump administration is actually interested in censoring a certain set of departments which promote multiculturalism and global literacy.
