"A Harvard Beautiful"

(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters but under special conditions, at the request of the writer, names will be with-held.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

It has been my privilege to observe the development by my father's architectural firm of the group plan of several colleges, first on paper, then in reality. Two of these, like Harvard, have had to adjust themselves to existing structures, but have yet succeeded in presenting a symmetrical whole. It is, therefore, astonishing to realize that it has been left to a committee of the Student Council to suggest what should have been solved in the office of Coolidge, Shepley, Bullfinch, and Abbott. It is not my purpose to criticize the work of this capable firm (although they have designed a second story for the new gymnasium which seem like an afterthought instead of an integral part of the building), but I do believe that any firm with the prospect of eleven million dollars of work for an institution should devote a considerable time to the completed future project, and not allow objections to the cost on the part of the University to be sufficient cause for waiving a better plan. Objections of such sort can be diplomatically overcome. The Student Council committee has shown rare wisdom is insisting on the proper procedure. Although their rough sketch shows defects (for instance, the chapel would probably be better situated where the second housing unit is planned, and an octagon might prove more suitable for the lot on which the fourth unit is to go, since there must be ready access to the new yard) these will vanish under such attention as the committee hopes to bring to the matter. The architects may well look to their laurels when undergraduates show more discernment than they have.

There is only one objection. The committee regrets changes in the Yard The policy of preserving architectural nightmares because of some sentimental tradition has developed in this country into pure fetishism. States, cities, and institutions alike meet it. If the beauty of buildings that could be designed to supplant Matthew, Weld, Boylston, Emerson, etc., is not sufficiently justification of the destruction of the monstrosities, why not have the Engineering School build the future Harvard? They might do a good job. If the Yard is to be kept in its primeval state, why not tear everything out except Holden, Harvard, Massachusetts, and University, restoring the plazza to the last, of course? The little quadrangles that have been made along the edge of the Yard are one of its most interesting features. A completely cloistered Yard would be no detriment. Until Memorial Hall has inspired a 'Rugby Chapel' I shall persist in advocating a Harvard beautiful.

(Name withheld by request.)