Will New Harvard Be Fair?

To frighten their children, Cambridge mothers warn that the University will erect next door a monstrous barrack-like structure, devoid of Georgian dignity, a sore on the body collegiate, and refuge for ragged scholarship boys.

Fortunately, there is little reason to fear this. Although the Overseers made clear in their recent report that new houses cannot be financed in the once grand style, they also emphasized that the University cannot afford to build sore thumbs.

In a larger, expanded Harvard, Houses ideally will play an increasingly important role in maintaining some "small college atmosphere." Not only must existing houses be strengthened, but the new buildings must compensate for physical limitations dictated by the budget.

In many respects these limitations will be great. It is no longer possible, according to the Overseers, to build Houses with vertical entries, private baths, or the luxuries of Georgian architecture. Instead the new structures must by modern with modified corridors and communal bathrooms.

Since the University has never quibbled over architectural unity, there is little point now to argue the merits of contemporary design when initial cost and upkeep make modernity unavoidable. The only apparent pitfall would be in building something like the Graduate Center, which is pleasing enough to the eye, but was in fact a sounding board.

The Overseers wisely suggested that the new Houses include several private study-rooms grouped around each living room. Even in the present Houses, the living room must often double as a study. In the future, if students cannot enjoy private baths, some degree of privacy should be retained for sleeping and studying.

In the balance, however, it is obvious that merits of the old Houses will outweigh possible attractions of the new. This will certainly be true unless the University allows for certain compensating features.

Physically, the new house should include, as the Overseers suggest, a subterranean parking lot. Students who have cars should have a place to keep them. As recent apartment house construction has proven, below-level parking is highly practical, and parking space beneath the House would compensate for many disadvantages. While the initial cost would be large, the investment would in the long run pay for itself.

Planners of the House should also consider the particular needs of the undergraduate today. For instance, the new houses might include several meeting and committee rooms. Large common rooms may be found obsolete, and late evening grills in demand. Twenty-five years of experience in managing Houses must have left the University with some ideas for improvement.

Perhaps the best opportunity to place the new Houses on a par with the old is through the choice of staff members. A popular and distinguished master, combined with a high-level tutorial staff would be a great attraction. It may be argued, in fact, that the current popularity of Adams House is due almost entirely to non-physical considerations.

By combining architectural compensations with careful selection of staff members, the University can build good houses within the limits of available funds. As the focal point of college life, the House system must not suffer from expansion.