ANDREWS CONTROVERSY

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I know Mr. Andrews well and have had occasion over the past years to work with him closely at the University of Toronto. He was, of course, the architect of Scarborough College, which, by the way, is an integral part of the University of Toronto. In addition, he has been for a number of years the chairman of a planning committee that has drawn up a scheme for the entire campus. Last summer it was my responsibility to take to the Board of Governors a recommendation that he be made Chairman of the Department of Architecture, and there is no recommendation that I have taken with more personal enthusiasm.

In the initial CRIMSON news article there was a brief summary of general response to Scarborough College. The article made the point that the professional response was enthusiastic, but it suggested that the response of students and staff was negative and sharply critical. It is always difficult to give a fair assessment of public opinion, especially in the area of architecture. It is my impression, however, that there was great enthusiasm among the students and staff, certainly among those who have an interest in architecture and were prepared to welcome innovation.

The student attitude can best be judged by the decision of the Student Government to ask Mr. Andrews to design their new Student Union building. Subsequently, you printed a letter from Mr. Robert Yelton, a second year student in the Graduate School of Design, in which he criticized the appointment of a single architect and maintained that there should be an inter-disciplinary group drawn from such disciplines as sociology, economics, politics, and psychology to work out "a comprehensive approach to the design of the environment."

I am sympathetic to Mr. Yelton's point of view, but I suggest that this is exactly the approach that Mr. Andrews will take. He is strongly opposed to the concept of architecture as objet d'art. He believes very intensely that design is only a means of embodying the total function of a building. He is immensely sensitive to the needs of the users of a building, and he constantly sees a building as part of a larger social environment. I think what you will get from Mr. Andrews is the kind of approach that Mr. Yelton describes without the cumbrous committee structure that, in all likelihood, would simply result in a consensus of mediocrity. Claude T. Bissell   President   University of Toronto