Middle Grounds: Second-Year On-Grounds Housing

Pro: Enforcing On-Grounds Housing for Second-Years Will Lead to Better Housing Quality, Protection from Off-Grounds Risks, and an Enhanced Community

A major topic of recent discussion has been the potential future requirement for second year students to live on-Grounds. While first years are already required to live in University accommodations, a large number of second years sign leases in the surrounding communities, as on-Grounds apartments are often seen as undesirable. However, with the University steadily laying the groundwork for this major policy shift by challenging the status of existing residential colleges, and constructing new buildings, increasing scrutiny has been placed on the ramifications of such a move. Increased housing quality, an improved UVA community, fewer risks for students, and improvements for the local community are all substantial reasons on their own for mandating on-Grounds housing for second years, yet together make the necessity overwhelming.

First and foremost on the minds of many UVA students is the quality of housing provided by the University. As is, the vast majority of upperclassmen apartment buildings are old, lacking in facilities, and far from Central Grounds. With Bond- and now Gaston and Ramazani, the upperclassmen population of UVA (which is about 3/4ths of the student body) has finally received a fraction of the quality of first-year buildings. Both Old and New dorms have received major renovations within the last one to two decades- though Motel dorms and Gooch/Dillard are unpopular for a reason. Bice was built in 1972, Lambeth in 1972, and while it is difficult to determine the construction dates for Copeley and Faulkner, they pale in comparison to UVA’s newest constructions. On-Grounds housing is extremely unattractive for students, and the distance and lack of facilities make life substantially more difficult for upperclassmen living there. It is no wonder that most seek other options for lower prices and better amenities. Because this policy will necessitate building new upperclassmen housing and renovating older buildings, UVA will drastically improve the quality of life for many of its students and increase UVA’s attractiveness for both highschool graduates and upperclassmen transfer students.

This new construction will be necessary since UVA lacks at least 1,500 beds if all existing upperclassmen housing were dedicated to 2nd years- and this would leave no rooms for 3rd or 4th years. As reported by the Cavalier Daily, even turning all residential colleges into housing for 2nd years would be inadequate. However, constructing new apartments is absolutely necessary for UVA, and will greatly improve UVA’s broader sense of community. Developing empty lots and increasing density at UVA will improve walkability, social connections, and the sense of community at UVA. Currently, with students living both on and off campus, there is a literal disconnect in the student body. Additionally, especially with suite-style dorms, roommate and suitemate groups will help many students form closer bonds with existing friends, or otherwise make new friends. Another potential issue that cannot be ignored is the steadily increasing UVA student population. By constructing more housing, UVA can avoid the potential disaster many other universities have faced, where a lack of new construction results in students housed in hotels and casinos, or even being paid to delay enrollment. These benefits to UVA’s community and sense of liveliness cannot be understated.

Another major benefit for the UVA student body will come in the form of safety and protection from exploitation off-Grounds, as well as the other issues that inevitably arise when first years sign leases a month after starting at the University. Many first years are ultimately forced to room with people they barely know in order to sign leases before they are all taken by second or third years. I’ve personally heard of many issues between students who signed leases together after barely even meeting just weeks before, in a mad rush to obtain a coveted off-Grounds spot. Furthermore, I’ve heard anecdotes of students signing up for terrible living conditions from exploitative landlords, renting out basements to fresh-out-of-highschool 17-year-olds who need to find housing practically a full year before they’d start their second year. UVA has a responsibility to protect its students from a market specifically designed to take advantage of them. Put literally, first year students in their first or second months of university aren’t in a position to make such important and life-changing decisions, at least when UVA can provide a safe, secure, closer, and just all-around better alternative. Of course, these UVA provided alternatives are rare (Bond, Ramazani, and Gaston), but more construction before making the policy shift can resolve that issue. In addition, UVA can waive costs for students depending on their financial situation, and with more housing options, UVA can put its billions of dollars to use, bettering the lives and finances of students in need.

The most significant and undeniable argument in favor of second-year on-Grounds housing is the impact of UVA students on the broader Charlottesville community. As many news reports have explained, the flood of UVA students into the surrounding communities has resulted in a flood of cash, driving up costs for those who have lived in Charlottesville for many generations. Currently, “more than half of renters in Charlottesville are cost-burdened”- a term to describe circumstances where “more than 30 percent of their income goes to rent.” Many students understandably rely on their parents for rent, and many are from wealthier areas such as Northern Virginia. As a result, Charlottesville residents cannot hope to compete for places to live when prices are geared towards wealthier outsiders rather than the average salaries in Charlottesville. UVA can relieve some of this burden on the local community by removing a significant portion of the upward pressure on prices. Universities tend to have complicated relationships with their local community: bringing wealth, jobs, and development, but often at the expense of local quality of life. UVA can go a long way towards improving its ties with Charlottesville by reducing the housing burden on the rest of the community.

While some might argue that forcing second years to stay in university-provided housing is unfair or unnecessary, UVA has a great opportunity with this proposal. Increased development of student housing will, by and large, improve the student experience and can potentially revitalize new areas of the university. But more than anything, UVA has the opportunity to significantly improve the lives of the local community and reduce the harm caused by rampant price inflation which can, and will, otherwise have a negative impact on those who make the university possible, and who deserve the ability to live comfortably without being forced out of their hometown.

• Jake Martin

Con: Enforcing On-Grounds Housing for Second-Years Imposes Financial Burdens, Limits Student Freedom, and Prevents Engagement with the Local Community

In many ways, the life of a college student is a time of practice. We try things and fail at them, but only so far as we are open to the possibilities before us. It is perhaps the role of the university, then, not to restrain the student. In a recent debate pertaining to a potential requirement for second-year students to live on-Grounds, I therefore must posit that this would only serve to narrow the scope of experiences available to a given student. There is a certain allure to living in an independent apartment complex or other form of housing while still a student, and the majority of second-years at UVA seem to agree with this notion. As of now, there appears to be a clear consensus among the UVA student body. Forcing students into on-Grounds housing contracts would only create an increasingly discontented population of students, particularly due to other financial and cultural burdens that would follow this new trend, among other personal factors which are unnecessary and limiting.

While it is common knowledge that first-year students are required both to live on-Grounds and to invest in the most comprehensive meal plan at UVA, it is less emphasized in the debate regarding implementing similar requirements for second-years whether the same stipulations would apply. For instance, would second-year students then be forced into a meal plan, along with their mandated on-Grounds housing contract? If so, this seems blatantly problematic, but it would follow the precedent set by residential colleges for upperclassmen. In addition to there being prospectively cheaper accommodations for someone seeking off-Grounds housing, adding the cost of a meal plan on top of this furthers financial discrepancies, especially seeing as there often appears to be general dissatisfaction with UVA dining accommodations. For many, having a financial choice here is of the utmost importance. 

The uncertainty shrouding the possibility of requiring second-year students to live on-Grounds has no bounds. As of now, our university simply does not have enough space to house our current number of on-Grounds student in tandem with the proportion of the second-year class which does not already live on-Grounds. There is current construction underway on additional dorms, like Ramazani House and Gaston House, but it is also true that the university stands to profit from maintaining the housing status quo and to subsequently admit more students, who could be funneled into our increased space for on-Grounds residents. I believe this is more likely to occur than the university would care to reveal. Perhaps it would be a valid course of action for the university to avoid upsetting the economic interaction between its students and the city of Charlottesville, all while generating more money for itself. Allocating our spendings to the construction of two new massive dorms is expected not to be just for show, and thus there is perhaps an underlying intention for this to serve as an investment, the return of which is a greater number of tuition-payers.

Coinciding with the social implications of any university, the college experience should be whatever someone deems appropriate for themself. Nothing is requiring us by law to attend a place of higher education, and to an extent, we should therefore not be forced into anything that does not clearly represent a fundamental facet of the university’s goals for its students. Though UVA clearly states that it aims to produce graduates with specific social and intellectual capabilities, there is nothing inherently asserting a necessity to accentuate housing stipulations.

In terms of limitations on students at UVA, it would clearly be doing us a disservice to advocate for more expansive regulations on how we can spend our money and where we can live. It makes sense for first-years to be as figuratively and literally close to the university as possible, so that they are most inclined to engage with Grounds in a positive and comprehensive way. However, such does not necessarily apply to older students. By their second-year, obviously excluding transfer students, most of us are quite familiar with Grounds and do not have a necessary desire to live on-Grounds for a second year. It is important to keep in mind the adjective necessary, since actually requiring on-Grounds housing for two years would integrally postulate some type of necessity to do so. Such is not what we encounter upon scrutinizing those in favor of this mandate, because there is no way to demonstrate such necessity.

Furthermore, students at UVA should be encouraged to engage with the Charlottesville community, not just the bubble of Grounds itself. Living off-Grounds is a direct way of promoting this broader perspective, rather than confining students to their institution alone. This is yet another reason why mandating second-year on-Grounds housing would ultimately be detrimental—it not only would impact students during these formative years, but Charlottesville as a whole would certainly notice an impact to its culture and economy. Therefore, any argument in favor of this prospect cannot genuinely call into account the economics inherent to its implications. Doing so does not consider that the University of Virginia and the city of Charlottesville have drastically different economic circumstances.

I am firmly against the proposition that second-year students be required by the university to sign contracts for on-Grounds housing. There are numerous cultural, economic, and individualistic aspects to this argument, and perhaps any opposition to it navigates a rather uncertain atmosphere in its own right. We must allow students to live freely, and additionally, the freedom to come into our own as people is pivotal to the path on which we each find ourselves. To live openly, or to be deprived of choice, unnecessarily?

• Beckett Wilkinson