MONOPOLY

The article by Mr. Pond, Chairman of the School of Landscape Architecture, on the subject of the disposition of the new housing units finds many faults with the details of the Student Council plan, as might be expected when an authority views the suggestions of laymen. The objections, however, deal with the superficial aspects of the plan, and seem to find no fault with the report's basic idea of a more or less cloistered second Yard.

Moreover, "no plan for the development of the region between Mount Auburn Street and the Charles River should be considered which is not the result of long study, and of planning ahead for the future," writes Chairman Pond. After stating its hypothesis of a new and second Yard, the Council report reads, "The plan attached is merely a rough sketch intended to portray the Council's ideas. It does not pretend to be final or entirely accurate. The whole scheme should be gone over by competent architectural and landscape advisors. It is the basic idea which we consider sound." By advancing in this concluding paragraph practically the same major premise advocated by Mr. Pond, the Council has shielded its main suggestion somewhat from the vigourousness of the attack.

The major inference to be drawn from the two analogous statements is the unanimity of opinion that too much consideration cannot be given such an important building program as that ahead of the University. The Harvard of the future is concerned much more than the Harvard of today. Any hasty one-sided consideration of the impending architectural lay-out is likely to cause many unforeseen difficulties.

In the last analysis, the problem rests in the hands of the architects. Furthermore, the importance of the project deserves all procurable attention from as many sources as possible. The monopoly of the University's physical development should by no means be intrusted to a single firm until it has made a strenuous effort to present a satisfactory solution of the controversial location of units. A competition for such a mammoth contract would draw forth valuable suggestions from a wide variety of competent sources. Such a procedure is the only way to procure the adequate consideration emphasized so strongly by both the report and the authoritative criticism of it.