Shady Situation

For many a harried instructor or teaching fellow who jolts toward the University by MTA from the out-lying -bury's and -ville's of Boston each morning, Commencement orations about the Cambridge "community of scholars" have a certain hollow ring. Instead of the academic sanctuary envisioned by 19th century Harvard presidents, the University too often now is a place where the younger Faculty member spends his day between 9 and 5 like any other commuter. The high rents and poor housing in the neighborhood drive him to suburbia.

It was as a partial solution to this housing problem that the Administration not long ago proposed to lease out the historic old Shady Hill estate to an insurance company for the construction of a large apartment building. In exchange for taxes on the land, Harvard would give up rights to this property for a half century or more, and the insurance company would use the rents from the apartments to pay off its investment. First options on the apartments would go to junior members of the Faculty.

But there are some very uncertain aspects to this scheme. The most important is whether a teaching fellow or an instructor would be willing to pay the 100-plus dollars a month rent for a one-bedroom apartment. While plans for the building have not yet been drawn, architects say it is impossible to build decent new housing which would rent for any less in this area. Yet this figure represents over a third of an instructor's salary. Were such a project built, the insurance company would probably find the University options unfilled and the rooms occupied by its own executives.

Filling the apartments with Faculty members more senior--assistant and associate professors--would also be difficult. For even academics tend to multiply, and as families bulge, so does the rent. Also, with growing children, a house with a lawn seems infinitely more attractive than a confined, though plush, apartment.

If the Administration decides definitely to use the Shady Hill property for faculty housing, there are two possible ways it can make sure the land actually goes to that use. The first--and the only way to attract junior Faculty members--would be for the University to subsidize the building itself, and thereby lower the rent of the $75-$85 which these men can afford. Yet this would be an expensive proposition at a time when other more important projects are on the drydocks awaiting the flood of Corporation cash.

The second alternative would be to give up the idea of an apartment building altogether and divide the land into a dozen or so individual lots. Modern homes could be placed on them and rented out to senior Faculty members for $165-$175 a month. Senior men could afford this rent, and the individual lots would give them room to raise their families. Of the two alternatives, this one seems the most practical, for the entire cost of the project could be borne by outside investors. And there would almost certainly be a ready demand for the homes from Faculty members. But this alternative would mean giving up the ideal of housing younger men. While at least one phase of the problem would be solved, the instructors and teaching fellows would still hang grumbling on the subway straps.