THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 5 EECOEDAN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF FACULTIES VOLUME II, NUMBER 1PREFACE TO ADVISORY COMMITTEEREPORT ON HOUSINGDecember 22, 1967The Faculty Advisory Committee on Student Residences and Facilities — commonly known as theBlum Committee after its chairman, Walter J.Blum, Professor of Law — reported to the Presidentin May of 1965. A lengthy summary of the Reportappeared in the Maroon of May 28, 1965. In carrying out its commission, the Committee talked withmany members of the faculty, with administrativeofficers, and with many students. While the Reportitself has been read by a good number of facultyand students, until the creation of the UniversityRecord, it has not seemed practical to publish theentire Report with its Supplementary Report ofNovember 15, 1965.A number of changes have occurred since theCommittee first reported. At the time the Committee was originally commissioned, HutchinsonCommons and the Reynolds Club area were tentatively committed to the use of the Music Department. When an architectural study revealed thatconverting these areas for academic use was notpracticable, the President asked the Committeewhether this change had any effect on other recommendations in their first report. In response, theCommittee issued a Supplementary Report on November 15, 1965, in which they considered this andother matters. Other subsequent changes in thelast two and one-half years (some of which arementioned below) have made obsolete certain partsof the original Report — particularly the statisticsin both the "Inventory of student housing" and thelist of "Campus facilities available to students."Also, as we might expect, enrollment and the demand for housing have not changed in quite theways anticipated by the Committee. Finally, otherchanges in facilities have been made which are inkeeping with particular recommendations of theCommittee. It is useful to review here some ofthose changes.One of the major conceptions of the Blum Committee Reports Was a complex of academic-athletic-housing facilities to the north of the present quadrangle. In response, the University asked the distinguished architect, Edward Larrabee Barnes, to CONTENTS / January 23, 19681 Preface to Advisory Committee Reporton Housingby Charles D. O'Connell3 Advisory Committee Report on Housing21 Supplementary Report of AdvisoryCommittee on Housing33 1967-68 Humanities Fellows33 Vacancies in University Housing34 Honorary Degrees34 Enrico Fermi Institute34 Tuition Increase for 1968-69work with the Blum Committee and to design sucha complex in an area which had been set aside forthis purpose — an area extending from Greenwood toCottage Grove, 55th to 56th Street. After readingthe report, and working on a continuing basis withmembers of the Blum Committee, Mr. Barnesevolved a plan which calls for housing for singlestudents, some married students and faculty; athletic fields and a gymnasium; and a Music-Art-Theatre complex. As it has evolved, the BarnesPlan is a brilliant architectural statement of theCommittee's recommendations. While this Reportdoes not deal with financial aspects of what hasbeen done, or remains to be done, it is obviousthat fulfillment of the Barnes Plan requires theraising of quite large funds from private donors.Thus far, substantial funds have been pledged bydonors toward the Art Center^ and Art Gallery,and the Theatre Building.Both single and married student housing havecontinued to expand since 1965. The number ofspaces in single student housing, excluding International House, has increased from 1,757 to 2,152with the addition of University House, Boucher,Broadview, 1442 East 59th Street, and 1400 East57th Street. New units have been added to married student housing, and some of the buildingsalready acquired by 1965 have been extensivelyremodeled.The Committee gave a great deal of attention toalready existing student residences. In line withthe Committee's recommendations, floor lounges1were created on each of the upper three floors inthe three units of Woodward Court. Twenty-eightrooms at Pierce Tower and twelve at WoodwardCourt have been converted from doubles to singles.The corridors at both Woodward and Pierce havebeen carpeted, and both residences have been repainted and extensively redecorated. A long, touchyproblem at Woodward Court was settled at theCommittee's encouragement with the introductionof lights in the room closets. Finally, the entireinterior of Blackstone Hall was redecorated andrefurnished, and the lounges at Burton- Judson wererefurnished.Important changes have also taken place ingeneral campus facilities for students. Perhaps themost striking of these have been the completelyremodeled Bandersnatch, a student-managed snackshop now operating in Ida Noyes Hall; and theCoffee Shop and Hutchinson Commons, remodeledby the University and now managed by Stouffers.The members of the Committee take special pleasure, I know, in the reintroduction of "live" service to the C-Shop. The snack bar in the basementof Burton- Judson has been remodeled with probably as attractive facilities as a mechanized operation can hope to have. O'Neill's has brought newvitality to the corner of 61st and Ellis and hasprovided a convenient meeting place for studentsin South Campus and Woodlawn.Fulfillment of the Committee's original plansand their adjustment to changing circumstanceshave required the continuing deliberation of members of the Committee with many students. TheCommittee continues to function primarily throughsubcommittees which have enlisted the services ofstudents. The members of these continuing subcommittees are listed below.As I discussed above, the Subcommittee on theBarnes Plan has met periodically throughout thelast two years to review with the architect thedevelopments of the complex as the planning progressed. This Subcommittee originally consisted offaculty members Joseph Ceithaml, Lloyd Fallers,Gwin Kolb, Joseph Schwab, Karl Weintraub, andWarner Wick, and students Margaret Olsen, GloriaPhares, Lynn Vogel, and Dennis Waldon. Duringthe past year, the student members were AlanBloom, Richard Murray, Rochelle Waldman, andBeatrice Wenban.The Ad Hoc Committee on Hutchinson Commons consisted of faculty members Norton Gins-burg, James Redfield, and Joseph Schwab, andstudents Jeffrey Blum and Peter Rabinowitz. Withthe decision to reintroduce "live" food service inHutchinson Commons, the C-Shop and the Bander- snatch, the Committee met periodically from June,1966, to advise on types of food service, the layout,decorating schemes, and so forth. The student-runBandersnatch and the Stouffers-run HutchinsonCommons and C-Shop are the result of plansworked out with that Committee, both in terms offurnishings and systems of management. The AdHoc Committee continues to meet periodically,now augmented by another group known as £heC-Shop Committee, to review the ongoing operations in Hutchinson Commons and C-Shop. Aseparate student committee on the Bandersnatchhas been in existence since its opening, and a facultycommittee has been appointed to advise the students regarding the guidelines within which theoperation is run. The members of the FacultyAdvisory Committee are Harry Roberts, DallinOaks, and Dr. Richard Moy.The Masters Committee on Freshman Housingconsisted of faculty members Arthur Heiserman,Ole J. Kleppa, Ray Koppelman, Donald Levine,and James Redfield, and student members TomHeagy, Gloria Phares, David Rosenberg, LynnVogel, and Dennis Waldon. They first met in February, 1966, to advise the Dean of Students regarding the possible use of the Broadview orGeorge Williams for freshman students during theacademic year 1966-67. As a result of their recommendations, it was decided not to use the Broadview for freshman housing. Also on their recommendation, a number of first-year men were housedin George Williams (now Chauncy Boucher) during 1966-67, and the layout and furnishings of thefloor lounges in Boucher were decided upon inconsultation with this Committee.There are other areas of change. Plans are moving ahead for a new Stagg Field (part of theBarnes Plan) which should be available in theAutumn of 1968. Pursuant to the Report of theBlum Committee, the President appointed a faculty-student committee to make recommendationsregarding the Bookstore. Many of the specificrecommendations in their initial report have already been acted upon. The committee — composedof faculty members Richard Wade (Chairman),James Lorie, Peter Dembowski (for WilliamRingler, Jr.), and student members Leon Glass andBernie Grofman — continues to serve in its advisorycapacity.Some projects proposed by the Blum Committeehave been set aside for the foreseeable future. Asecond tower for Pierce falls in this category.General enthusiasm for the Barnes Plan and questions about the advisability of another high-risetower combined to give priority to what the mem-2A portion of theBarnes Plan modelshowing the StudentVillage, the MusicBuilding, the ArtCenter and part of theathletic facilities.Aerial view ofthe Barnes Plan model.bers of the Committee originally referred to amongthemselves as "the Village" — a term, incidentally,which Mr. Barnes also uses in describing his housing complex.But as this brief resume indicates, the originalBlum Committee reports helped to shape the improvements in student facilities which have occurred in the two and one-half years since thefirst Blum Report was submitted. In a sense, theobsolescence of these reports is a tribute to theirsoundness and effectiveness.Charles D. O'ConnellDean of Students REPORT OF THEFACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEEON STUDENT RESIDENCESAND FACILITIESThe Faculty Advisory Committee on StudentResidences and Facilities was appointed late inJuly, 1964, with the following members: Walter J.Blum, Professor of Law (Chairman) ; Joseph J.Ceithaml, Professor of Biochemistry and Dean ofStudents, Division of Biological Sciences; Lloyd A.Fallers, Professor of Anthropology; Norton S.Ginsburg, Professor of Geography and AssociateDean of the College; Dr. Clifford W. Gumey, As-3sociate Professor of Medicine; Gwin J. Kolb, Professor of English and Chairman, Department ofEnglish; James E. Miller, Jr., Professor of English; James M. Redfield, Assistant Professor ofthe Committee on Social Thought; Joseph J.Schwab, Professor of Education and WilliamRainey Harper Professor of Natural Sciences;Joshua C. Taylor, Professor of Art and WilliamRainey Harper Professor of Humanities; LeoTreitler, Assistant Professor of Music and Humanities; Karl J. Weintraub, Associate Professorof History; and Warner A. Wick, Professor ofPhilosophy and Dean of Students. James E. Newman, Assistant Professor of History and AssistantDean of Students for Housing and Activities, andJ. Lee Jones, University Architect, were asked towork with the Committee as consultants. TheCommittee was directed to advise the Administration of the University on a program for studentresidences and other facilities in the decade ahead.The boundaries of the matters to be exploredwere never precisely defined, but it was understoodthat the Committee was to interpret its task broadly. This the Committee has done. It has construedthe notion of student facilities liberally — to include not only University-owned enterprises butcommercial establishments in the neighborhood aswell, and to include almost anything which provides nonacademic services for students. Thus theCommittee found itself considering such diverseoperations as the dormitories, the University Bookstore, Jimmy's Tavern and the postal substation.The Committee likewise took a broad view ofthe time span for which it was to render advice.While it dealt with planning for the next ten years,it tried to envisage the impact of its recommendations on the many decades ahead. Decisions madein the near future inescapably would have an impact on the University for a generation or more.The problem of drawing up long-range plans forthe University is only in part a practical and realistic enterprise. The Committee recognized thatany plan for the future is almost certain to bemodified as needs, opportunities, resources and outlook change. However, the Committee thoughtthat it is far better to proceed on the basis of aplan — with the understanding that it necessarily istentative and malleable — than to put up facilitieson a strictly ad hoc basis. A plan at least providesa sense of direction; and the making of a plan atleast calls for asking some of the right questions.And it is always possible that the main conceptionsunderlying a sound plan for development of theUniversity will themselves prove to be durableeven should specific proposals need to be modified. The Committee found, as it began its work, thata number of factors needed to be taken into account :1. In planning for residence halls or housing forunmarried students, the Committee was instructedby the Administration to assume that some 2800additional spaces would be needed by the end ofthe decade, and that this figure probably woulo^have to be adjusted upward somewhat to offsetspaces lost through demolition or conversion ofexisting spaces to other uses. The timetable whichthe Administration projected must be kept in mindin reading the report of the Committee: 250 spaceswere called for by fall, 1966; 350 more spaces byfall, 1967; 400 more spaces by fall, 1968, and anequal number by fall, 1969; and thereafter 275spaces during each of the next succeeding fiveyears.2. The Committee was also directed to assumethat a large increase in enrollment of married students would take place and that the Universitywould try to offer accommodations to about 70 percent of the married student population. About 400additional apartment units would have to be acquired by the University and made availableduring the first half of the decade to accommodatethe existing backlog, the units to be lost by demolition and the anticipated increase in enrollment.Another 150 units would be needed by the end ofthe decade.3. Preliminary planning had already been donefor improving a number of facilities, including theUniversity Bookstore, the athletic facilities formen and women, and Ida Noyes Hall. In each instance, however, the plans had to be reconsideredby the Committee in view of the increase in enrollment which has been projected, and in order tointegrate the particular facility into an over-allplan for student facilities.4. Certain irreversible decisions already hadbeen made regarding student facilities. The Committee was instructed to assume that the ReynoldsClub and Hutchinson Commons were to be converted into quarters for the Music Department andthat at least the first part of that project would begin in the summer of 1965. The Committee wasalso told to assume that the new central librarywould be placed on Stagg Field, and that the newoutdoor track and football-soccer field would belocated at or near the southeast corner of CottageGrove and 55th Street. It was further assumedthat former residence halls in the quadrangle areaof the campus (Gates-Blake and the C-Group)would not be reconverted to residential use, andthat this area was not available for student facili-4ties. It was obvious that most of the existing residence halls — i.e., Pierce, Burton- Judson, Woodward and International House — would continue tobe used for residential purposes. And it was reasonable to assume that the Field House and IdaNoyes Hall would not be torn down.5. The Committee was informed that the areawest of Pierce Tower to the eastern boundary ofthe new track and football-soccer field, between55th and 56th Streets, had been earmarked forstudent housing and new athletic facilities. It wasfurther informed that no sites (with the possibleexception of Culver Hall) between 56th and 59thStreets, Cottage Grove to the Illinois Centraltracks, were available for new student housing, andthat the space in back of Burton- Judson, the MottBuilding and the Kellogg Center had not been allocated to specific uses.The essence of the Committee's task, then, wasto work out an over-all plan for student facilitieswhich would bring those already in existence (suchas Ida Noyes and the Field House) into a meaningful pattern with new facilities which had, almost of necessity, to be located either in the 55thto 56th Street four-block area or in the SouthCampus.Working within the confines of these factors andassumptions, the Committee came to agree uponfive general conceptions which it believes shouldguide the University in the development of studentresidences and facilities during the next decade.They are:First. It is of the utmost importance that theUniversity at least keep pace with the quality ofhousing for unmarried students which has been(and is being) built at other high quality schools;and taking account of some aspects of the neighborhood bordering the University, it is advisablethat we take the lead in developing attractive housing for students. Unfortunately, the last two residences built by the University — Pierce Tower andWoodward Court — suffer badly in comparison withhousing built by other schools with which the University competes for students. Doubtless, the pointwill be heard that students prefer to live in Spartan or slum conditions at a low rental. But the factis that students now in the newer dormitories complain not so much about the high rent as about theinadequacy of the facilities; and no one seriouslycontends that poor quality dorms with low rentalswould serve to attract a large number of desirablestudents to the University or hold them here. Inthe light of these considerations, the Committeerecommends that housing for unmarried studentsshould be of a considerably higher quality than that built here in the recent past. In particular,space per student should be considerably greater;there should be less doubling up in bedrooms; decor should be less institutional; sound conditionsshould be superior; and more generous provisionshould be made for accommodations other thansleeping rooms. Existing facilities in Woodwardand Pierce Tower should be upgraded significantly.All new construction should be planned for greaterflexibility in use: speaking generally, it should beequally suitable for graduates or undergraduatesand for men or women. The new units should be ofsuperior quality — equal to the superiority of thecurriculum.Second. It is highly desirable that housing forunmarried students be located so as to produceflows of student traffic through the campus, including the evening hours. The campus should be rescued from being a ghost town after sunset. Appearances often generate the reality, and a campuswith students walking back and forth throughoutthe day and evening will assist, in developing alivelier student community. The University campusshould not be thought of as consisting of the oldquadrangle, but as encompassing an area from 55thStreet on the north to 61st Street on the south.*It is therefore recommended that housing for unmarried students eventually be spread out between these two boundaries and not be concentrated in any one sector of the campus. The south55th Street area from University to west of Ellisshould early be developed as a combination ofPierce and a second tower, and groups of party-wall, moderate in size, walk-up houses. Snell-Hitchcock and Culver should be completely refurbished into modern dormitories, if academicdemands on them are not overwhelming. WoodwardCourt and International House, of course, shouldremain as dormitories. Later in the decade, a wingshould be added to Burton- Judson on the EllisAvenue side. And still later the area south of theMott Building and the Kellogg Center should bedeveloped into Burton- Judson-type structures orclusters of party-wall individual house units orcombinations of such clusters and a tower or two.This recommended dispersion would tend not onlyto produce a greater flow of student traffic throughthe whole campus, but would be a safeguard againsthaving only one viable center of student activities,located on one fringe or in one corner of thecampus.*The campus might be thought of for some purposesas reaching north of 55th Street in view of the fact thatcertain University housing units are located north ofthat line.5Third. In addition to developing an increasingflow of student traffic through the campus, it isimportant to give students the feeling that thereare many and diverse opportunities for extracurricular activities on the campus and that thereis more than just one spot for "student life." TheCommittee believes that centers of activity do notcompete with one another but rather tend to support one another by raising the entire level of student participation and interest. Therefore, theCommittee recommends that at least two studentcenters of extracurricular activity should be developed. In the Midway sector of the campus, IdaNoyes Hall should be reconstituted into the centerfor student organizations and the home of studenttheatrical activities. As part of that program, atasteful, inviting, and well-stocked new bookstoreshould be located in the block immediately to thewest of the Ida Noyes-Woodward Court block.The second center, in the northern sector of thecampus, should be developed in the 55th to 56thStreet area. In this new complex, there should beathletic facilities which will be social hubs and attract students from all parts of the campus. Possibly a repertory theater should be located nearby.As part of the later development of residencesfor unmarried students behind the Mott Buildingand the Kellogg Conference Center, another centerfor extracurricular activities should be established.The campus would then have three focal areas forstudent life. Each of these should have its own"cluster of activities and characteristics to make itdistinctive and complementary in an over-all campus plan. The major functional principle of thenorth area (55th to 56th Streets) should be itsassociation with the athletic facilities. The majorfunctional principle of the Ida Noyes-WoodwardCourt complex should be its concentration on organized student activities (other than athletic endeavors). The major organizing principle for acomplex in the south campus area should be determined at a later date, after the other two centersare in operation.In a metropolitan campus which is hemmed inby neighborhood problems, it is especially important that athletic facilities be adequate. The University has fallen far behind in this respect. Bart-lett Gym is outmoded and too small even for theexisting student population, let alone for the anticipated increase. When the outdoor track andmain playing field are relocated, Bartlett will betoo far removed from these adjuncts. Women'sathletic facilities in Ida Noyes fail virtually everytest, and the problem is aggravated because theLaboratory School pre-empts prime time. Since World War II the women have lacked a suitableplaying field. The swimming pools in Bartlett andIda Noyes are marginal at best and wholly out-of-date. To correct these deficiencies, a new men'sgym should be built convenient to the new outdoortrack and main playing field. Bartlett should be reconditioned to house athletic facilities for women,and an adjacent playing field should be created tothe north and west of the building for the exclusive use of women. In or near the new men's athletic area, there should be a large-scale, all-campusnatatorium, a year-round ice skating rink, andmodern bowling alleys. In short, the University'sathletic facilities should keep pace with its intellectual growth and its educational standards.Fourth. Hyde Park should be developed as anatural area for married student housing. TheCommittee recommends that the University shouldgradually add to the facilities it has made available in the 51st to 53rd Street area of northeastHyde Park. In addition, three new areas should bedeveloped for married student housing: (1) acorridor of accommodations extending north onGreenwood and University to Hyde Park Boulevard; (2) the block south of the 53rd Street Shopping Center (Woodlawn to Kimbark, 53rd to 54thStreets); and (3) the area immediately north of55th Street, from Greenwood to Drexel.Fifth. Privately owned commercial facilities adjacent to or near the campus should be regarded asessential ingredients in student life. No matterhow rich the offering, institutional facilities alonewill not provide students with a well-balancedchoice of activities and services. The Committeetherefore recommends that the University aid inencouraging suitable commercial developments inseveral locations near and about campus. Amongthe locations deserving such attention are: 61st andEllis; 57th east of Kimbark; and 55th and Woodlawn.It is these five general conceptions which informand unite the particular recommendations of theCommittee. The particular recommendations, however, must be taken subject to an important caveat.Although they are often stated in positive and unqualified terms, the details are intended essentiallyas illustrations or targets in implementing the general conceptions. For the most part, the Committee did not have access to architectural studies orto cost estimates; and it is quite likely that someof the combinations of details recommended by theCommittee will turn out to be impractical. Nevertheless, these particular recommendations shouldserve to convey the sense and thrust of the Committee's main lines of advice.6Finally, the Committee wishes to emphasize thatutmost care should be taken in announcing plansfor student residences and facilities. New arrangements have a high potential for arousing studentsuspicions and antagonisms because misunderstandings can easily arise. The Committee has consultedmore than a hundred students in the course of developing its various proposals. It is recommendedthat this process of consultation be continued asrevisions of the plans emerge.Background Data1. Inventory of student housing. At the beginning of the academic year 1964-65, the Universityhoused about 2210 unmarried students in its residence halls and in International House. About 1240(55 per cent) of these students were undergraduates; and of these, about 740 (60 per cent) weremen and about 500 (40 per cent) were women.The remaining 970 students were graduates. Ofthese, about 720 (74 per cent) were men and about250 (26 per cent) were women. The distributionof these 2210 unmarried students among the residence halls was as follows:Met i WomenCapacity Under grad/Grad Under grad/GradBurton-Judson 345 211 134Pierce Tower 328 328Snell-Hitchcock 182 52 1305400 Greenwood 100 12 88Laughlin Hall 77 77Harper Surf 70 55 15Blackstone Hall 76 76Woodward 489 127 3625518 Ellis 90 90Sub-total 1757 730 429 493 105InternationalHouse* 453 10 291 7 145Total 2210 740 720 500 250* University of Chicago students only.The undergraduates in the residence halls constituted about 55 per cent of all undergraduates oncampus. The graduates in the residence halls constituted about 22 per cent of all graduate studentson campus.The University, as of September 1, 1965, willprovide 968 housing units for married students. Itis estimated that more than 90 per cent of theseunits will be occupied by graduate students; theremaining 10 per cent will be occupied by staffmembers and undergraduates. It appears that themarried students housed in University-owned unitsconstitute about 50 per cent of all married students on the campus. The largest concentration ofUniversity units for graduate students is in thearea between 53rd Street and Hyde Park Boulevard, running from Kimbark to Harper. The next largest concentration is in the area immediatelywest of the present campus — an area which isslated for conversion to academic use.The number and size of University-owned unitsfor married student housing as of September 1,1965, will be as follows: (This summary takes account of acquisitions now in process and proposedtransfers to the Lutherans, but does not take account of possible conversions of University-ownedproperties to married student housing use.)0-Bedroom 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom TotalFurnished 120 151 2 3 276Unfurnished 39 470 137 46 692Total Units 159 621 139 49 9682. Campus facilities available to students (otherthan housing and athletic items). As of January 1,1965, campus facilities available to students or student organizations included the following: (Thislist does not cover housing, facilities in dormitories which are not generally open to the whole student body, athletic facilities, or commercial establishment located near campus.)TheatresMandel Hall (seats 1066)International House Theatre (seats 630)Reynolds Club Theatre (seats 180)Ida Noyes Theatre (obsolete)Auditoriums (in addition to theatres)Law (seats 465)Breasted Hall (seats 272)Rosenwald 2 (seats 180)Social Science 122 (seats 178)Large Meeting Rooms (other than regular classrooms)The North and South Lounges of the ReynoldsClub and the Cloister Club at Ida Noyes. (Canbe used for receptions of 200-300 or be set upfor a meeting of 100-200.)Smaller Meeting Rooms (other than regular classrooms)The East Lounge and the Library of Ida NoyesHall (each seats 50)On- Campus Places Serving Full MealsBillings CafeteriaInternational House CafeteriaWoodward Commons (lunch only)On-Campus Places Serving SnacksThe C-ShopSwift Coffee ShopThe Hangout (in Ida Noyes Hall)7Offices for Student OrganizationsOffices in Ida Noyes for: Publications (Maroon,Cap & Gown, Particle), Student Government,Festival of the Arts, Folk Festival and so on.Offices in Reynolds Club for WUCB, Blackfriarsand University Theatre.Miscellaneous Facilities in Reynolds ClubBroadcasting Studios for WUCBBarber ShopRecreation room with pool tablesDesk (sells cigarettes)Miscellaneous Facilities in Ida NoyesDesk (sells cigarettes)TV roomDance room (used for rehearsing musical comediesand for women's physical education)Bowling Alleys (two lanes, non-mechanized)Lexington StudioFacilities for students to work in water colors, oils,sculpture.Chapel HouseOffices for four religious organizations; one meeting room with kitchen attached.Housing for Unmarried Students — a Second PierceTowerAs noted in the Introduction, the Committeestrongly recommends that housing for unmarriedstudents be spread out around the campus and notbe concentrated in one or two areas. New housingshould be developed west of Pierce Tower and onthe South Campus, and the present dormitories(with the possible exceptions of Hitchcock andSnell) should be retained. The Committee firmlyholds that the next stage should be construction ofresidences in the area west of Pierce Tower. Theseshould consist of (1) party-wall, moderate-in-size,individual walk-up houses of the type described inthe next section of this report, and (2) a secondtower, but only if it is a substantial improvementover the existing tower and in essence satisfies thestandards which are detailed below.A pressing question is whether a second tower ora cluster of low-rise units should be built first. TheCommittee believes that this question might be answered by the practicalities involved. The need for250 additional accommodations for unmarried students by fall, 1966 is urgent. If a satisfactorytower can be ready by that time, but not a satisfactory cluster of low-rise houses, the tower shouldbe built first. Similarly, the low-rise cluster shouldbe undertaken first if it, and not a satisfactorytower, can be constructed in time. The question of priority is more difficult if it isassumed that both can be in operation by fall,1966. In that event, a majority of the Committeerecommend that the second tower be placed aheadof the low-rise units. The considerations leading tothis conclusion are that (1) the low-rise units, withwhich the University has had no experience, shouldbe designed carefully and after ample consultationwith an appropriate advisory group of faculty personnel, and (2) the placement and style of theunits could better be determined after a site planfor the whole of the Greenwood to Cottage Grove,55th to 56th Street area has been worked out andapproved.In the unhappy event that neither a satisfactorytower nor a low-rise cluster could be readied byfall, 1966, the Committee recommends that bothbe developed for occupancy in fall, 1967.But, to repeat, in no event should a secondtower be built unless it is substantially better thanPierce. The Committee believes it is important thata second tower should embody fundamental improvements in the design of student rooms, in thehouse lounges, and in other common room space.The Committee's detailed recommendations as toa second Pierce Tower are as follows:1. Size and capacity. The Committee assumesthat the over-all dimensions of the new towerwould approximate those of the present building orbe slightly larger. On this assumption, it shouldcontain four houses, each occupying two floors asin the existing tower, or possibly three floors. Thenumber of residents in each two-story houseshould, however, be reduced from the present population of eighty to one of about fifty to sixty;three-story houses might accommodate as many asseventy-five to eighty persons. Over-all, the proposed tower should have a capacity of from 240-260 as compared with 320 in the present tower.2. Student rooms. The one-room double, whichis the predominant room unit in the present tower,should be eliminated. There should be only twotypes of rooms — the one-room single and a three-room suite for two people. The Committee recommends for each two-story house about forty-fivesingle rooms and ten suites (for twenty occupants).The single rooms should be considerably largerthan the present singles in Pierce and should approach the size of the present doubles. Many (butnot all) of the one-room singles should be placed inpairs, or perhaps even in triples, with double parallel connecting doors (preferably of the slidingvariety) between the rooms. This would enable twoneighbors to put both beds into one room and bothdesks into another to make their own suite or to8have an arrangement of adjoining bedrooms whichwould afford considerable privacy. If three roomswere so adjoined, a triple suite could be created.Since any connecting door arrangement could in-involve excessive sound leakage through the doors,the Committee wishes to emphasize that specialacoustical precautions must be taken to make thescheme feasible.The three-room suite for two students shouldhave a large living room with two adjoining smallstudy -bedrooms. The latter need only be largeenough to contain a bed, desk, dresser, and perhaps an easy chair. Entry should be by way of theliving room only.To the extent practicable, rooms should be ofsomewhat different shapes. Perhaps jogs in thehallways would allow for more variety. The textureof the building materials, the color schemes, andthe design and fabric of the furniture in the student rooms should give a greater feeling of warmththan those used at Woodward or Pierce. There is aquestion whether the height of the student roomsshould be increased; an increase would be desirable but not if other important aspects would haveto be sacrificed. Since it is possible that either menor women may live in the tower, the size of theclosets should be increased, more drawer spaceshould be included, and a full-length mirror shouldbe provided (perhaps on the back of the closetdoor in the room, or even in the hallway or bathroom). There should be more electric current andmore outlets in each room than in the first tower.An acceptable minimum would seem to be at leasta double outlet on each wall and 10 amperes perroom so that students would be able to use electric blankets, portable TV's and other such electrical appliances. The lighting of the rooms in theexisting tower is inadequate. Whether the additionof an overhead light or use of more floor or walllamps is the best solution to this problem is notclear to the Committee. There should be a picturemolding in each room and a telephone outlet for aprivate phone if one is desired.3. Quarters for resident heads and assistantresident heads. The living space for the residenthead and the assistant heads should also be morecommodious than in the present tower. The suitesas they now exist have a living room with Pullmankitchen, a small bedroom, and a small bathroom.All these rooms should be larger. Moreover, thereshould be added another room, about the size ofthe bedroom, to which the head's wife might retreat when her husband was entertaining studentsor which the head himself might use as a study. Itwould be desirable to so place the head's suite as to provide the head with some privacy in his comings and goings. The assistant resident head atpresent has only one of the standard single rooms.He should have a large room — large enough for himto entertain ten to twelve students at one time.The room should contain some built-in kitchenequipment — a small refrigerator, stove, and sink —for him to use for entertaining.4. Student bathrooms and related areas. There isa question whether to continue the present systemof having one large bathroom for each floor orwhether this might better be broken up. The conclusion of the Committee is that one large bathroom is satisfactory provided that it is not longand narrow, but that private bathrooms for a pairor group of rooms is equally desirable. The mostimportant considerations are that the ventilationbe good and that noise from the bathroom not becommunicated to the corridors and student rooms.• The present facilities in Pierce are unsatisfactoryin these respects. Furthermore, there should be onebathtub as standard equipment on each floor.Lights should be so placed that those addicted tobathroom reading may be able to do so.Some facility should be provided on each floorfor women to wash out drip-dry garments andhang them up. Bathrooms should not be plannedto accommodate this purpose. Women also need aroom for ironing clothes; perhaps the two functions could be served in the same area.5. House facilities. The Committee recommendsthat the core of the tower — where the houselounge, practice room, typing room, laundry roomare now located — be modified considerably. Thepractice rooms, study rooms, typing rooms andlaundry should be moved out of this area into thebasement. The relocation would allow room for alarger lounge which would be a more importantcenter of activity. This lounge space should bebroken up to get away from the bare rectangularly of the present structure. This could be achievedby using coves, alcoves, and nooks. There shouldbe a smaller room opening off the main lounge(i.e., the only access would be from the main lounge)which would hold ten to twelve students. This wouldbe a natural place for smaller groups within the houseto congregate. There should be other small roomsoff the lounge — and definitely one that wouldhold four or five persons. The public telephonesand a drinking fountain should be in alcoves offthis main lounge. There should be a small tea pantry or kitchenette accessible from the main loungeand usable in conjunction with the main lounge orwith the small room holding ten to twelve students.In general, it is important that the whole lounge9area be brighter, warmer, more inviting than is thecase now in Pierce. The house lounges should notbe simple replicates of one another; variety amongthem is desirable.On the second floor of each two-story house,there should be a small "seminar" room, with ablackboard and study table. This should be largeenough for four or five students to work in together. In each house there should also be a storage room for house equipment, preferably on thefirst level near the elevator stop.To encourage movement between the floors ofthe house, there should be a small interior openstairway — not in the house lounge. This would bein addition to the regular, public stairway whichruns up the entire building and is enclosed according to code requirements. The interior stairwaywould be a private stairway for the members of thehouse.6. Dining facilities. The Committee has foundthat the main dining room of the present tower isquite satisfactory. The private dining room is ofabout the right size but would be more pleasant ifit were in a space where there could be some windows or if it were otherwise more cheerful. Theacoustics in the main dining room are excellent.Those in the private dining room are very poor.7. General lounge. The general lounge on thesecond floor of Pierce now serves essentially as acorridor linking the entrance and dining area withthe tower. It has not been functional as a lounge,and there has been general dissatisfaction with it.Conditions of use have improved somewhat as aresult of putting up dividers. It might be improvedfurther if it were broken up into three enclosed butinterconnected lounges, with a traffic corridor beside them. There is a strong possibility that thislounge might be much more useful as it now standsif there were women in the second tower. The present lounge clearly presents a problem which callsfor particular attention by the architect.8. Basement area. In considering the basementarea, the Committee proceeded on the assumptionthat only 20 to 25 per cent of the basement of thesecond tower will be needed for service facilities. Italso assumed that the facilities mentioned belowcan be allocated to an appropriate place in eitherbasement; that is, some of the services now located in the basement of the first tower might berelocated in the second to make way for other uses.The Committee recommends that the snack barbe enlarged to make it adequate for use by theresidents of both towers. If possible, it would bedesirable to add an adjoining room where studentsmight dance. If the present snack bar cannot be enlarged, a larger one should be included in the second tower, and the existing bar converted to another use.There should also be a variety of music rooms:(a) a large room equipped with a hi-fi set to beused as a music listening room; (b) music practicerooms large enough to be used by a quintet or sextet; (c) fairly small music practice rooms withroom for a soloist and an accompanist to work.The practice rooms should have double-glass windows in the doors so that a student wishing to usea room could check to see if it were free withoutinterrupting someone already practicing.There should be an arts and crafts workshop.This should be a fairly large room equipped withsynthetic north skylight lighting and perhaps withalcoves where wet plaster objects might be leftovernight, and a great deal of shelf space whereprojects might be left for longer periods of time.The workshop would serve both towers and shouldbe large enough to do so. There should be hand-powered tools in it.There should be a television room — preferablytwo rooms so that students might have some variety in their viewing (perhaps a single room couldbe so designed as to allow for operating two sets atone time).The basement should contain the coin-operatedwashing and drying machines (moved out of thetower) and a room for vending machines.There should be a large area for recreationalequipment — ping-pong tables and perhaps pool andbilliards — two or three handball courts, and a darkroom for the photographers.It is important that there also be a large roomwith a round table for twenty to twenty-four people, and a blackboard. This would be used formeetings and discussions — perhaps even for formalclasses. In the basement, or perhaps somewhereelse in the building, there should be a place to showmovies, with a built-in 16 mm. movie projector.This might well be a large room that could be usedas a drama theatre, concert hall or party room.9. Penthouse and guest rooms. The penthouse onthe present tower has not proved practical as a library. It is suggested that this space might be madeinto a guest suite, in the new tpwer, to be used byvisiting professors, lecturers or other distinguishedor notable guests. The space in the old tower mightbe turned into a meeting room for tower activities.There is no need to duplicate the guest rooms nowon the second floor of Pierce if the present onesare adequate to service both towers.10. Elevators and stairways. Some arrangementshould be worked out through which men's houses10and women's houses could peacefully coexist in thenew tower. That is, stairways and elevators shouldbe so devised that one or more houses could be designed for women with some reasonable certaintythat only women would have access to that house.This might be possible with a separate elevator foreach of the top three houses.11. Acoustical qualities. The Committee wishesto emphasize the very great importance it placesupon the resolution of acoustical problems. It isessential that a distracting degree of noise shouldnot leak through the walls of the student rooms,that it not enter the rooms from the hallways, thatit not enter the hallways from the lounge and thebathroom. It is especially important to direct theattention of the architect to the problems in thepresent tower. The acoustical difficulties there areomnipresent, but they are primarily vertical in nature. That is, sounds from the fourth floor may wellskip up to the sixth or seventh floor, and thosefrom the bathroom reverberate in many unexpected places. Students have aptly described thetower as a giant tuning fork: strike it in the rightplace and noise vibrates throughout the structure.Incidentally, all of the urinals in the tower nowflush mechanically at the same time, setting up aconsiderable roar. Something would be accomplished if the rhythm were broken.12. Surrounding area. The Committee recommends that there be an adjacent garden withflower beds, trees, and walks. And sufficient spaceshould be provided for the parking of cars and thestorage of bikes and scooters.Unmarried Student Housing: Development ofHousing in the New AreaHigh priority should be given to developinghousing in the area — here called the New Area — ¦west of Pierce Tower (or towers), between 55thand 56th Streets. The area should be devoted tohousing and new athletic facilities. One possibilityis to concentrate the housing in the eastern end ofthe area (which would reach to a line about one-half block west of Ingleside) and to concentratethe athletic facilities on the western end. Anotherpossibility is to scatter the housing more broadly inthe area and to intermix housing and certain athletic facilities. The advice of a site planner isneeded on this central question.The program recommended by the Committeefor the New Area, which is set out below, is independent of the construction of a second PierceTower. However, if the second tower is built, it isassumed that the development of facilities in theNew Area would be integrated with both towers. If the second tower is not built, the assumption isthat the site designated for it would be treated asan extension of the New Area and the enlargedarea would be integrated with the existing tower.1. General conception. The Committee recommends that there eventually be accommodationsfor some 1300 students in the New Area (almost1900, if two towers of Pierce are included). Thecentral conception of the Committee is that a series of communities should be developed within thearea, starting with the community of the house(with forty to sixty members), going on to that ofa cluster of houses (with perhaps 200 to 300 residents), and then to the large and necessarily loosecommunity encompassing all of the residents of thearea. In the Committee's view, it is important thatthe community at each level not be self-contained.Rather each should meet only a portion of the student's needs, encouraging him to move out intolarger and larger worlds. The spirit of the University and of the neighborhood of Hyde Park hasalways encouraged this kind of openness. To fosterthat spirit, the New Area itself should be soplanned as to discourage an excess of autarchicaltendencies within its borders. The planning shouldattempt to counteract the danger that concentration of so many undergraduate students geographically might lead to the development of a self-contained "student culture," isolated from the restof the campus. At the same time, however, thelayout of the New Area must take account ofsecurity conditions in the neighborhood. The siteplan must not invite forays by those intent on doing harm and it must facilitate safeguarding residents without the employment of a large securityforce.The Committee recognizes that there likely willbe tension between security demands and a layoutwhich imparts a sense of opening the New Areaonto the University community generally. At thisstage, the Committee can do no more than presentthe challenge of reconciling the two objectives. Itis hoped that an ingenious combination of buildings, walls, passageways, courtyards can capturethe best of both values.2. Guidelines. The Committee recommends thatthe following guidelines be followed in developingthe New Area:a) Each house (of forty to sixty residents)should have some — but not all — of the commonrooms and facilities needed for a pleasant andstimulating life. Some of the additional facilitiesshould be provided for in the cluster of housesand others should be designed for all of the residents of the area.11b) It is desirable that some of the needs of theresidents be served by facilities adjacent to ornear the area rather than within it.c) While the residential accommodations shouldbe planned primarily for undergraduates, there isa distinct advantage in having some graduate students live in the area. The residences to be builtin the early phases will likely be occupied by undergraduates, but these units should be equallycongenial to graduate and undergraduate students.Flexibility in this respect is important since thecomposition of the student body is not likely toremain fixed.d) There should be housing within the area foryounger married members of the faculty.e) Activities and functions should be establishedin and around the area which will draw to it members of the University community who do not reside there./) Some facilities in — or near — the area shouldbe of a kind which will attract not only membersof the University community but visitors not associated with the University.g) Plans for the area should be made on theassumption that the development will take placein stages, but the phasing should be such that atno time will the residents have legitimate causeto feel they are in an outpost of the campus.h) The New Area should be viewed as a majordrawing card. It should definitely not be thoughtof as merely a utility area in which the job ofhousing students is discharged. The area shouldbe treated as a major asset of the University —one which will assist substantially in attractingstudents and making each feel that life at theschool is both comfortable and rewarding. In brief,the New Area should be a showpiece, of which theUniversity can and will be proud.3. The undergraduate house. The basic unit ofconstruction for undergraduate housing in the NewArea should be individual houses formed into alarge cluster through the sharing of a common wallor walls. The houses should have relatively smallpopulations in order to achieve maximum flexibility, a quality which rates the highest priority inplanning student housing. It is recommended thateach house hold from forty to sixty students, andthere be four to six houses to a cluster. The Committee leaves the house size open within the forty-to sixty-range to allow considerable diversity inphysical arrangements from house to house. Nohouse should exceed four floors (not counting abasement or English basement).It is important to emphasize that individualhouses should be designed to be equally accom modating to either a group of men or a group ofwomen, and to either a group of undergraduatesor a group of graduate students.a) Student rooms and bathrooms. The Committee recommends that all student rooms be located upstairs and that most of the student roomsbe suites. There should be some conventional one-room singles, but no one-room doubles of the kindnow prevalent in some of the residence halls. Thepattern of suite favored is that of a large livingroom with two adjacent study-sleeping rooms. Thestudy-sleeping rooms should be either singles ordoubles, with the living room then being sharedby either two or four students. Two-student unitsrather than four-student units should predominate.The size of the accommodations would, of course,vary with the number of occupants. The entry tothe suite would be through the living room. Thereshould be an area within each suite where the occupants could have a small refrigerator and a hotplate. The rooms should at least have a doubleelectrical outlet on each wall and the circuitryshould be sufficient to handle not only the refrigerator and hot plate but other electrical appliances such as irons, electric blankets and smallTV sets. There should be an outlet where a phonemight be installed, if desired. If possible, the living rooms of each two suites should adjoin, andthere should be a connecting door that could beopened to make the whole area into one largesuite. Through some means such as this, the Committee would like to achieve the sense of spaciousness and openness that characterizes the olderHyde Park apartments, so well regarded by students.It is assumed that the corridors in each housewill necessarily be short. The monotonous corridor, which is an affliction to the spirit in mostresidence halls, should be avoided.There is no need to have a small lounge on eachfloor. Students are likely to gather in the livingrooms of their own suites rather than use such alounge, and it would be best to plan the livingrooms in the suites to accommodate small gatherings.Bathrooms should be associated with some groupor groups of suites, thus avoiding the use of agang bathroom. It is important that the acousticsbe such as to isolate the bathroom noises from theliving quarters.Special attention should be paid to acoustics ingeneral and an effort should be made to keepsounds originating in public rooms from disturbing students in their own rooms.b) Accommodations for resident head and as-12sistant head. A suite of rooms should be providedfor the resident head, preferably in the area wherestudents are living, rather than on the groundfloor. This suite should have a living room, a kitchenette, a bedroom, a study, and bath. In thelarger houses — those in the upper reaches of theforty- to sixty-range — there should also be a roomfor an assistant resident head. This should be largeenough for the assistant to entertain a dozen orso students, and should contain a Pullman-typekitchenette.c) Common rooms. There should be two largecommon rooms for each house, located downstairs.One would be a central living room — the "houselounge" — large enough to hold every resident ofthe house, although, if need be, in a crowded manner. This ordinarily would be the central gathering place for the residents, and should be equippedwith a coffee maker, a newspaper rack, and thelike. It would also be used for house meetings, coffee hours, and parties. Normally it would not beused for protracted study. The second sitting roomshould be smaller than the first and should be designed on the assumption that at least during someparts of the day it would be open to the oppositesex. Semi -private alcoves and coves in the smallerlounge would be desirable. It would also be advantageous to have the two lounges so placed thatthey could be joined together for traffic to flowbetween them in case of a party or a very largemeeting. There should be a small kitchenette ("teapantry") adjacent to the lounges to be used inpreparing refreshments for parties and also as aplace where residents might keep supplies for coffee hours or snacks.d) Dining room. The Committee prefers thateach house have its own dining room, althoughall of the individual dining rooms in a cluster ofhouses would be serviced from a common kitchen.This arrangement might call for having each dining room in an English basement, close to thecommon kitchen. In addition to the house diningroom — large enough to hold all of the residents atone sitting — each house should have a small private dining room. Normally, those using this private dining room would have food prepared forthem in the regular kitchen, but there should bea small kitchenette attached to this room so that agroup of students could occasionally cook theiiown meals.Despite its first preference for having a regulardining room in each house, the Committee seesmerit in a single dining facility for several suchhouses — perhaps at the 200-300 community level—and asks that the architect consider such a facility as an alternative to the separate dining rooms. Thelarger dining hall might be designed so as to havewithin it several sub-areas identified fairly clearly.Each one of these sub-areas might then be used bya given house for dining. The spatial arrangementswithin such a hall should be flexible enough to permit its use as a unified area for purposes otherthan dining.The dining rooms — whether located at the houseor unit level — should double as study rooms. Thismeans that the serving and storage areas shouldbe so constructed that they can be locked off fromthe dining room.4. The cluster of houses. Certain facilities shouldbe provided for each cluster of houses. These include: a central desk with mail room and messagecenter, a small waiting room, a hi-fi listeningroom, a seminar room or two with blackboard andperhaps a round table, a game room, a room forcoin-operated vending machines and another forcoin-operated washers and dryers, storage spacefor trunks and suitcases, some undesignated spacewhich could serve any of a number of purposes(including those associated with housekeeping anddining service), and space for storage of bikes andmotor scooters. It is possible that some of thesefacilities should be at the level of the New Areaas a whole rather than at the cluster of houses; itis also possible that some of them might be incorporated into the individual houses. These matters can be resolved more intelligently after preliminary plans have been sketched out by thearchitect.5. Other housing in the New Area. The Committee expects that some of the "undergraduate-type" houses will be assigned to unmarried graduate students in order to have within the area amore heterogeneous population. In addition, theCommittee recommends that some thirty to fiftyapartment units be built in the area. These shouldbe designed for use by younger married membersof the faculty or by married students. Apartmentunits should accommodate families with one, two,or three children.6. Other facilities in or near the New Area. TheCommittee endorses the University's tentativegeneral plan of locating the main athletic facilitiesand playing fields for men in or adjacent to theNew Area. These facilities would, if properlyplanned, greatly assist in making the new housingan integral part of the campus and in attracting tothe area a large number of students who do not* reside there.A few of these athletic facilities should, if possible, be located among the housing units in the13New Area itself to prevent it from being regardedas purely residential. Further, all the new athleticfacilities in or near the New Area should be soplaced as to make an architectural unity of thenew playing fields and the new housing.Recommendations concerning the new athleticfacilities are dealt with in a later part of this report.The New Area (including the new athletic facilities) should be serviced by a coffee shop wherestudents can go to see and be seen, to feel themselves part of a larger community. The coffee shopshould be large enough to seat 200 or more customers. In conjunction with it, there should beprovisions for outdoor eating. Heating lamps, nowin use elsewhere and which would make it possible to eat outside in Chicago about seven monthsa year, should be used. Within the general vicinityof the New Area, there should be smaller placesto eat, including perhaps a patisserie, which wouldappeal not only to residents of the area but tograduate students using the new library as well.There might be a small snack bar in conjunctionwith the ice-skating rink. Wherever possible, thesesmall eating facilities should be student-operated.A repertory theatre should be located near theNew Area, if feasible. One advantageous spot appears to be the north side of 55th Street at Greenwood. Commercial facilities should be availablenot far from the theatre.There may be need in this part of campus fora meeting place that could on occasion be usedfor large gatherings. Consideration should be givento the possibility of adapting to such a use somespace in the area which ordinarily is devoted toother purposes.7. Arrangements of buildings, grounds and parking. Every effort should be made to import intothe New Area the more pleasant features and atmosphere of the old campus. There is much meritin the irregularly shaped quadrangles, partiallyenclosed although connected through passagewaysand archways to adjacent or continuous quadrangles. (A good example would be the little courtin front of Gates-Blake connected with 59thStreet by the Classics arch and to the library quadrangle by the Bond Chapel maze.) It is also highlydesirable that there be open green spaces and gardens within the New Area. The clusters of residences should not have a crowded appearance orimpart the feeling of regimentation.If feasible, adequate parking should be provided underground. The below-grade parking wouldservice Pierce Tower (or towers) and might alsoservice the proposed new library building, the FieldHouse, and the proposed repertory theatre. 8. Priorities. The Committee wishes to emphasize four aspects of its recommendations concerning the New Area:a) The development of the New Area shouldbe regarded as an excellent opportunity for creating an exciting asset which will enhance the powerof the University to attract students. The plan forthe area should provide a notable answer to thepressing problem of sensibly housing students ina cosmopolitan environment.b) The housing in the New Area should bevaried and flexible. It should be equally congenialto men and women and to undergraduate and graduate students. The Committee has not concerneditself with the question whether the Universityshould adopt a policy of building houses with theintention of leasing them to fraternities. It is tobe noted, however, that housing units of the typerecommended by the Committee could easily beadapted to use by fraternities. Such flexibility isin any event desirable.c) The New Area should be planned as awhole, even though it is to be built in stages, andthe over-all plan for it should be tied in closelywith the development of adjacent or neighboringfacilities. It is especially important that the development of new athletic facilities be integratedwith plans for the New Area.d) The University should not be satisfied withmerely a good plan for the area. It should seek forthe best.Unmarried Student Housing: Existing FacilitiesThe Committee is of the opinion that WoodwardCourt and Pierce Tower must be substantiallyupgraded if the University is to develop attractiveaccommodations for undergraduate students. Nodoubt it can be shown that the University obtained"bargains" when it built these structures, in thesense that it received good values for the dollarsexpended. But the Committee's view is that bargains in dormitories do not serve the best interestsof the University. As stressed in the immediatelypreceding section covering the New Area, housing for undergraduates should not be merely utilitarian. It must be recognized that, on our campus,a large part of undergraduate life centers aroundthe residence halls and these units should beplanned accordingly.1. Woodward Court. Woodward has majorshortcomings but the Committee believes that itcan be improved greatly without making costlystructural - changes. Specifically the Committeerecommends:a) A floor lounge should be created in the center of each floor of each house.14The present house lounges on the first floor ofeach house are not adequate; the house unit istoo large to allow a very real feeling of "belonging" or of loyalty to develop. The first-floor loungeis too far from most rooms to serve as a casualmeeting place except for first-floor people. On theupper floors, all meetings, parties and informalgatherings must be held in the hallway or in astudent's room if the group is not too large. Thenoise that results is often disturbing to others onthe floor, but there is no alternative, except thefirst-floor lounge or basement recreation rooms.But since people who live together tend to identifymost immediately with their floor, it is not reasonable to expect that they should go off the floorif they want to congregate in any number. A floorlounge would encourage a feeling of "belonging" tothe smaller, more manageable floor unit; it wouldprovide an area to make noise, listen to music,type, etc., without bothering a roommate who mayhave other plans (like sleeping) ; it would providea space for floor meetings and parties (snacks andexam feeds) now held in the hallway; and, mostimportantly, it would tend to encourage peopleon a floor to become better acquainted. At presentthe two ends of a hallway are often differentworlds.The suggested floor lounge should consist ofat least two double rooms (with separating wallremoved) in the center of each floor, furnishedwith comfortable chairs, couches, a typing tableand chair, card table, and reading lamps. Soundproof walls are absolutely essential if ill will on thefloor is to be avoided. The lounge should be carpeted, and should contain a sink, small refrigeratorand small stove for floor functions. At least oneof the closets should be retained for storing floorproperty.b) More single rooms should be created byturning some of the present doubles into singles.c) All hallways should be carpeted. The carpeting on the second floor of Rickert has reducednoise significantly and has made that area a warmer, less harsh place to live.d) More drawer space should be provided inall rooms. At present each occupant has two deepand two shallow drawers built into his or her desk.Additional drawer space, probably in each closet,would simplify storage problems. Trunks nowused to store sweaters and other clothing couldthen remain in the basement.e) Light fixtures in closets should be installed.The single overhead fixture in each room leavesclosets dark./) The main house lounges on the first floorshould be equipped with more durable and suit able furniture. The decor should be calculatedto pep up the lounges.g) Acoustical properties of the dining roomsshould be improved substantially.h) The practice rooms in the basement shouldbe soundproofed. In general, the study and recreation rooms in the basement should be redecorated to make them more attractive.2. Pierce Tower. Pierce likewise has majorshortcomings which, for the most part, can beremedied without structural changes being made.The Committee recommends:a) Efforts should be made to reduce the noisetransmission in some parts of the hallways andfrom the lounges to the hallways. In addition, thenoise from the washrooms should be better contained.b) The occupancy should be reduced substantially by making some of the present doubles intosingles.c) The house lounges should be made warmerby changing the furnishings and decor. Possibly abalcony could be installed on one side of eachlounge.d) The downstairs lounge should be restructured so as to make it more attractive to students.e) A better use for the penthouse suite andthe roof should be found. Perhaps it could be developed into a social center for the New Area.Consideration should be given to providing accesswhich does not require going through the publiccorridor of the seventh- and eighth-floor house (i.e.,Shorey House).Inasmuch as Harry Weese has been commissioned to draw up preliminary plans for a secondPierce Tower, it seems desirable to have him re-study the existing Tower at the same time. Thereis a clear advantage in thinking about the twotowers as an integrated unit.In view of the tight undergraduate housing situation which is likely to prevail in the fall of 1965,the Committee suggests that the undoubling ofrooms in both Woodward and Pierce be postponeduntil new housing facilities are ready for occupancy, hopefully in the fall of 1966. Other recommended changes, however, should be studied andacted upon as sdbn as possible.3. Bur ton- Judson. The Committee believes thatBurton- Judson has withstood the test of time well.No alteration in the layout seems to be needed.The recent improvement in the snack bar satisfiesa recommendation the Committee was prepared tooffer. The basement game room is anything butattractive; it is dirty, poorly lit and badlyequipped. The furnishings in the lounges detract15from the quality of the building. They should beimproved.4. Other residence halls. The Committee did notinvestigate Blackstone Hall, Laughlin House, 5400Greenwood, or Harper Surf.5. Furnishing and decoration of student residences and facilities generally. In the judgment ofthe Committee, the University generally has scoredlow in furnishing and decorating dormitories andstudent facilities. The level of achievement is uneven from building to building, and sometimes itis uneven within a particular building. One gets theimpression that, especially in the refurnishing ofolder structures, little thought is given to selectingitems which are both durable and in harmony withthe surroundings. To deal with this condition, theCommittee recommends that a continuing advisory committee on interiors be appointed and thatit be called upon to give advice whenever studentresidences or other facilities are to be furnishedor redecorated. This advisory committee shouldbe composed partly of faculty members who havea flair for aesthetics and partly of administrativepersonnel who are responsible for operation of thefacilities. It is suggested that such an advisorycommittee should have continuing access to theservices of an outside consultant who has specialcompetence in the field.Unmarried Student Housing — The Second Half ofthe DecadeIf the second tower of Pierce and the residencesin the New Area are constructed along the linesrecommended by the Committee, and if the suggested improvements are made to Woodward andthe present Pierce Tower, a need will still existfor some 1400 to 1500 more spaces for single students by 1974, assuming that expansion proceedsaccording to estimates. The Committee has madea survey of possible sites for additional construction and finds that there are four possibilitieswhich invite attention. The first is to gut and rebuild buildings in the north quadrangle (Snell-Hitchcock, Culver); the second is to acquire anduse blocks (or parts of blocks) between Greenwood and Ellis, 54th to 55th Street, and Ellis toDrexel, 54th Place to 55th Street; the third is toadd a wing to Burton- Judson ; the fourth is todevelop a new complex on the South Campus, onthe blocks now partially occupied by the MottBuilding and the Center for Continuing Education.The majority of the Committee favors the rebuilding of Snell-Hitchcock and Culver to makethem fireproof residences. The chief argumentsfor such amove are the value of continuing to use at least a few traditional University buildings forhousing, and (more importantly) the advantage ofhaving people on campus in the evening. The conversion of Gates-Blake and the C-Group to officespace has depopulated the campus after 5:00 p.m.to a notable (and lamentable) degree. The rehabilitation of Snell-Hitchcock and the conversionof Culver would contribute to evening traffic. Somemembers of the Committee dissent from this recommendation on the ground that since these buildings are close to the proposed new library, theyshould be used for offices for members of theDivision of the Humanities. The Committee as awhole recognizes that the University may needthese buildings for such a purpose; but the majority urges that conversion of Snell-Hitchcockto office use be taken only if it can be shown thatsatisfactory alternative office space is not available. A reconditioned Snell-Hitchcock and Culverwould house about 150 students comfortably. Ifother buildings in the north quadrangle area arelater vacated, the Committee suggests that, iffeasible, they too should be converted to residential use, provided that Snell and Hitchcock areretained as residence halls.The Committee recommends that the spacesouth of the Center for Continuing Education andthe Mott Building be reserved for future expansion of unmarried student housing. (In the meantime, this area, once it has been cleared, can beused for athletic facilities, including perhaps avarsity baseball diamond.) This rather large areamight be developed as another complex of party-wall, moderate-in-size, low-rise individual houses,or a combination of such a complex and towerresidences — that is, a smaller version of PierceTower and the proposed New Area on 55th Street— or it could be developed along the general pattern of the Burton- Judson structures. On the basisof estimates prepared by J. Lee Jones, it wouldbe possible to house comfortably over 2200 students in tower-type structures. A combination oftowers and party-wall, low-rise houses could bearranged to accommodate about 1200 studentscomfortably. The Committee is of the opinion thatsuch a combination is more desirable than a groupof towers alone.In making this last recommendation, the Committee is mindful of the security problem whichnow exists along 61st Street and to the south ofit. Several factors, however, are relevant in thisconnection. The University has been able to maintain a high level of protection around Burton-Judson, and the situation seems to be improving.A greater mass of students in the 60th to 61st16Street area would in itself contribute to securityconditions. The South Campus plan should allowthe security forces to operate more efficiently. And,finally, it is to be hoped that as of the time thisadditional housing is needed, the Woodlawn community will have improved somewhat. It is not tobe inferred that the security problem is likely todisappear; on the contrary, the Committee assumesthat it will continue, but that it will have becomemore manageable by, say, 1970.The Committee further recommends that a wingbe built extending to the south from Burton- Judsonin such a way as not to destroy the playing field.This could house about 200 students comfortably.The recommended project south of the. MottBuilding and the Center for Continuing Educationshould be constructed before a wing is added toBurton- Judson. If the Hitchcock-Snell-Culver area,the Burton-Judson area, and the Mott-KelloggCenter area are developed according to the Committee's suggested standards, a total of about 1550single students could be housed. This is slightlymore than the target figure.The fourth area which was considered is theland north of 55th Street between Greenwood andDrexel. This is highly desirable space — largely notowned today by the University — which will *ad-join the campus once the library and New Areahave been built. The Committee believes it urgentthat the University acquire these blocks soon. Butinasmuch as the area could be better used forother purposes than single student housing, theCommittee recommends that it not be earmarkedfor that purpose.Married Student HousingThe Committee foresees the need for some 600additional units in the next five years, of whichsome 300 units will be required by the end ofthree years. Roughly one-half of the 600 unitsshould have two or more bedrooms. The otherhalf should be either 1 -bedroom, unfurnishedapartments or 0-bedroom, furnished units. (The1 -bedroom apartment is preferable but in manycases the furnished studio apartment is a suitablesubstitute.) The emphasis in acquisitions shouldbe on walk-up rather than elevator buildings because the most pressing need is for large apartments for families with children and the walk-upsseem to be more economical.The Committee recommends that three areas besingled out for future acquisitions for the MarriedStudent Housing Program. First, the block between Ellis and Ingleside from 55th Street to54th Place has several buildings which are recom mended for purchase. There are about 125 unitshere, the majority of them suitable for marriedstudents. The Committee urges that this entireblock be acquired by the University, even if itshould not turn out to be suitable for marriedstudent housing.The second area recommended for developmentis Greenwood and University Avenues from 55thStreet to the approaches of Hyde Park Boulevard.The Committee recognizes that the northernprovince of this territory is not completely suitable at the moment for housing students, andtherefore recommends that, to the extent practicable, the expansion move northward throughacquisition of more-or-less contiguous or neighboring buildings rather than by leap-frogging. It isimportant that pockets of students not feel cutoff from other student families or Universityfamilies. There are about 225 suitable and perhapsavailable units on these streets.«The Committee envisages that in a few yearsthere will be a "University-oriented" corridor running from Greenwood to Woodlawn, 55th Streetto Hyde Park Boulevard. It will be important toservice this with expanded campus bus service andto cover it adequately with University Securityprotection.The third area which the Committee suggestsbe marked for acquisition of buildings for marriedstudent housing is the block bounded by 54th and53rd Streets and by Woodlawn and Kimbark.There are good sized buildings at each of thecorners on 53rd Street and other smaller but suitable buildings. It is estimated that 100 appropriateunits could be acquired in this block.It should be noted that the Committee suggeststhat a relatively small number of units for juniorfaculty members or married students should bebuilt in the New Area.By judicious expansion, the Greenwood-Wood-lawn corridor and the Woodlawn-Kimbark areacould be made to take care of foreseeable married student housing needs for the full decadeahead.The Committee recognizes that 53rd and 51stStreets around the Fairfax and Piccadilly arehighly desirable and that it would be well to addfurther students to what is already a "studentcluster." If and when suitable buildings come onthe market, they should be acquired. The Piccadilly would lend itself well to conversion into married student housing. However, most of the remaining units in that neighborhood are small, efficiency apartments and not particularly suitablefor our needs. About 1100 units in the area could17be converted to large apartments, but only throughvery extensive and expensive remodeling. TheCommittee notes that this possibility exists, but itconsiders the steps noted above as more desirableand practicable.It has also been proposed that construction ofnew, high-rise married student housing be undertaken on 47th Street, between Ellis and Greenwood. The Committee believes that this wouldbe highly unwise and is definitely opposed to placing students so far from campus and on a frontierthat is still to be brought under control.One aspect of the Committee's program for developing married student housing in northwestHyde Park calls for comment. It has been saidthat the area is unsuitable for such use becauseof the existing racial imbalance at the KozminskiPublic School which serves that area. The Committee is acquainted with the enrollment in Kozminski, but it believes that the stated objectionis wide of the mark in that it fails to take accountof changes which are most likely to occur in thenext few years. Of course, it would be unreasonable now to compel married students who havechildren of school age to live in the Kozminskidistrict if they are dissatisfied with the school situation; but fortunately the number of families inthis category will no doubt remain small enoughto accommodate them elsewhere. The outlook,however, is that new housing and other changesin the area will significantly alter the racial composition of the school. Within a handful of yearsit is realistic to expect that Kozminski will becomea well-balanced integrated school, and that it willbe attractive to married students, with childrenof school years.In brief, the Committee is of the opinion thatnorthwest Hyde Park is a natural area for development of married student housing.Finally, the Committee wishes to note its approval of the units for married student housingwhich it visited.Redevelopment of Ida Noyes Hall1. General background concerning Ida Noyes.Development of the 55th to 56th Street NewArea along the lines suggested by the Committeewill tend to make it into a major center of student activity. It is important for several reasonsthat there be a second such center, in the campusbordering the Midway to the north.a) The New Area is somewhat removed fromany of the classrooms.b) A large number of students will, even afterdevelopment of the New Area, continue to live in International House, Woodward, Burton- Judsonand Blackstone Hall, and these units are a considerable distance from the New Area.c) Concentrating student activities in one areamay cause other parts of the campus to losevitality for student life.d) The University simply needs more facilitiesfor student activities. The problem is complicatedby the decision, already taken, to make over theReynolds Club and the C-Shop into a new centerfor the Music Department. The functions presently housed there must be relocated.e) It is generally desirable to have student traffic moving between the peripheries of the campus,especially after 5:00 in the evening.A central concern of the Committee was thefrequently raised point that Ida Noyes is too faroff the beaten path to be a satisfactory studentcenter. It is clear that the building has not been alively center of student life for some time andthat it does not draw crowds comparable to thosethat frequent the C-Shop and the Reynolds Club.The Committee believes, however, that the inferior usage of Ida Noyes is not inherent in thegeography or logistics of the situation. As a matter of fact, the building has been used intensivelyfor the limited functions assigned to it in the pastdecade. In this period, it has housed offices ofstudent organizations (the Maroon, Student Government, Cap & Gown, and so on) and providedmeeting rooms for student groups. Anyone whohas tried to set up a meeting in Ida Noyes onshort notice can testify to the fact that the facilities are used all the time. But there have not beenactivities there that would draw the individual student to the building — except for a meeting or towork on the Maroon or on a Student Governmentproject. Moreover, the building until quite recentlywas allowed to run down and even today thereisn't a comfortable piece of furniture in the wholeplace. To some extent, too, Ida Noyes* has beendowngraded by students because of its reputationand campus folkways, and to some extent it suffersbecause it is regarded largely as a woman's gym(which is used a great deal by high school girls).The Committee believes that Ida Noyes can berefurbished and made into a most attractive place,that a critical mass of people can be attractedthere by providing a sufficient number of activities, that campus patterns can be altered byproper planning and "public relations" and thatin the context of the expanded campus plan, IdaNoyes can be developed into a great asset for theUniversity. It should be noted that the buildingis not much 'farther from most classrooms than18is the Reynolds Club, that it is accessible fromseveral sides, and that it once was a vital student center. The feeling of distance between IdaNoyes and the main quadrangle can be reducedsubstantially by developing routes which avoid theMidway. In the past, for example, there was aheavily used footpath running south of BreastedHall and Chapel House. The Committee suggeststhat some such route be reopened and that propersafety precautions for crossing Woodlawn Avenuebe arranged. To further tie Ida Noyes into therest of the campus, a major entrance into thebuilding from the north should be added.The Committee also wishes to stress the importance of relocating the bookstore near IdaNoyes — perhaps on the Lexington Hall site or onthe southwest corner of Woodlawn and 58th Street.At one time, the Committee investigated the possibility of putting the bookstore operation intothe basement and a new wing of Ida Noyes. Thisarrangement would contribute substantially tovitalizing the whole Ida Noyes development. Butanalysis of the basement area indicates that spaceconditions are not suitable. It is the Committee'sjudgment that a nearby site for the bookstore islikely to be almost as effective in contributing tothe use of Ida Noyes.It must be emphasized that merely "fixing up"Ida a little bit is doomed to failure. The Committee's judgment about it as a center — and theCommittee's recommendation concerning it — ispredicated on the assumption that a full-scale program of development, along the lines to be described, will be pushed forward. If for any reasononly halfway measures can be taken, the Committee suggests that an alternative center for student activities be found.Finally, the Committee has been impressed thatstudents who do use the building now have greataffection for it. Ida Noyes is a building of character, the kind of character that cannot be reproduced today and that appeals to the innate conservatism of the college student. All who haveknown the building have fallen under its spell;the task is to have things going on within whichwill draw students to it. And in revitalizing thebuilding, it is important not to destroy its character. Alterations and modifications should preservethe style of the existing structure. Equally important, the furnishings, decoration and lightingshould be both functional and in keeping withthat style.2. Timing matters. Of course, there would bea striking advantage if the whole Ida Noyes development could be undertaken at once. But this is obviously impossible. The Committee's plan ispredicated on the evacuation of Women's PhysicalEducation to Bartlett so that the whole of IdaNoyes is available for student activities. Women'sPhysical Education cannot be moved out untilBartlett is made available, and that must wait forconstruction of new facilities for men. Moreover, itwill take time to work up plans for redoing thoseparts of Ida Noyes not devoted to women's athletics and for determining how much additionalspace might be needed in a new wing. In themeantime, there is immediate need to provide acoffee shop to take the place of the present C-Shop, which is slated to be closed permanentlysome time during the summer of 1965.Faced with these considerations, the Committee recommends that the Ida Noyes developmentbe divided into the following steps:First. Revised plans for a new Coffee Shop inthe old Cloister Club kitchen area should bedrawn immediately and work started on it as soonas possible. Completion date must be not laterthan the opening of the Autumn Quarter of 1965.Second. Rough plans for the entire developmentof Ida Noyes should be drawn now, on the assumption that all women's athletic facilities willbe withdrawn from the building, and on thefurther assumption that a new wing on the northeast corner will be added if more space is needed.Third. Final plans for the portion of the building not now devoted to athletic use should bedrawn as soon as the over-all rough developmentplan has been approved, and work on the reconstruction of that portion should go forward as soonas possible. It should be borne in mind that thereis need to relocate activities now in the ReynoldsClub (such as the barber shop and billiard room)before work on remodeling that area begins. Ifsuch work starts during the summer of 1965(which seems to be a distinct possibility), thepressure on taking this "third" step in Ida Noyeswill be great and time will be short.Fourth. The drawing of final plans for the building of a new wing on Ida Noyes should begin assoon as the University is in a position to make thenecessary commitment of funds.Fifth. Final plans and work on the portion ofthe building now devoted to athletic facilitiesshould be undertaken as soon as provisions havebeen made for converting Bartlett for use bywomen and for accommodating the physical education needs- of the high school.3. The Coffee Shop. The Committee reviewedthe plans already drawn by Harry Weese for a newCoffee Shop to be located in the old kitchen area19of the Ida Noyes Cloister Club. It recommendsthat these plans be brought up-to-date and translated into action immediately. In our judgment,when the whole Ida Noyes development has proceeded far enough, such a facility will become apopular meeting and eating place, especially atnight. In the early stages of the Ida Noyes development, the shop may well not be self-sustaining,particularly if the old C-Shop is still in operation.It is difficult to predict how long the transition willtake, especially in view of the uncertainties regarding the timetable for the Ida Noyes development.The Committee makes these additional suggestions which have bearing on the design of theCoffee Shop:a) The physical layout should be based on theassumption that "live" food service will be featured, including, if feasible, service of near beeror malt beverage.b) Food-dispensing machines should be availablebut not highly visible.c) Entrance arrangements should be based onthe assumption that the Shop will be open fromearly morning to late at night.d) There should be access to the Cloister Clubwhich would enable the overflow to spill out intoand be seated there.e) There should be a doorway leading to an outdoor terrace area, which should be heated by overhead electric units so as to enable outdoor eatingduring the autumn and spring./) The layout for the Coffee Shop should be coordinated with future plans for a new wing on IdaNoyes.4. The over-all plan for Ida Noyes. The Committee suggests that the over-all plan for the fulldevelopment of Ida Noyes accommodate the facilities and functions which are described below. Someof these must be incorporated in what previouslyhas been referred to as the "third step," in view ofthe present needs and the possibility that the Reynolds Club area will soon be converted to MusicDepartment purposes. These high-priority items aremarked with an asterisk. Only by laying out arough over-all plan can it be determined whether anew wing (and how extensive a wing) will beneeded. High-priority items should not be assignedto the new wing unless the Administration sees itsway clear to starting on such a wing in the nearfuture.Meeting Rooms, Offices and Clubrooms1. Four meeting rooms of the size of the presentEast Lounge. There should be a small kitchen unit adjacent to each which can be used for preparingrefreshments.*2. One conference room with a long table seating up to sixteen people. It is intended that thisroom could be reserved by any student group.3. A suite of offices for Student Government.There should be two offices, each large enough tohold two desks and chairs for visitors. Thereshould also be a workroom large enough to holdsix desks, a worktable about ten feet long, and atier of large (12" square) file cabinets. There willbe a good deal of traffic in and out of this room,and people will tend to cluster in it in small conversational groups. Thus, there should be plenty ofmilling space.4. A suite of rooms for the "Maroon." Thereshould be a large workroom similar to that described above for the Student Government. Thiswould be the copy room. Adjacent to this thereshould be two offices for editors — each largeenough for a desk and three chairs for guests.There should also be a separate office— largeenough for three desks — for the business staff.Finally, a "morgue" — a room with space fortwelve to fifteen sets of files (12" X 12", threehigh) — is needed.5. A suite of rooms for the Student Activitiesstaff. Three offices for members of the directionalstaff are needed. Each should be large enough for adesk and for ten chairs. That is, each of the staffshould be able to hold a meeting in his office withup to ten students. Adjacent to these offices, thereshould be a reception room where three secretariescould have their desks and where two or three students could wait comfortably for appointments.There should also be a smaller room — largeenough for a desk and three visitors' chairs andthree sets of files (12" X 12", three high). Thiswould be for the auditor. Finally, there is need fora room which would contain a w machine, amimeograph machine, the paper supplies for theStudent Activities offices, and files. This should beabout 250 square feet in size.Note: The Student Government and Student ActivitiesOffices should be as close together as possible.6. There should be offices for twelve other organizations. Each should be able to hold threedesks, three large files (12" X 12", three tiers),and some milling space.*7. There should be one large room where filescould be kept of organizations which do not haveoffices. This should accommodate forty files(12" X 12", three tiers).8. Clubrooms. There should be four clubrooms,each furnished as a private lounge, and each suit-20able for use by fifteen persons. There should be akitchenette nearby.9. Studio for WUCB. Here the need is forthree rooms taking up 800 square feet of space.The details are technical but specifications areavailable.10. There should be a dark room, close to thepublications offices, for exclusive use of the officialpublications, and a second dark room for individual use.11. There should be space for the religious organizations (which are now in Chapel House).They will need four offices, each large enough tohold a meeting of ten; and a meeting room forsixty with a small kitchenette attached. Theserooms should be clustered.Lounge and Recreational Facilities1. Lounges. There is a need for a large lounge(approaching the size of the present ReynoldsClub lounges) with comfortable chairs around theperiphery and study tables in the center. Thisroom should have a fireplace and should containnewspapers from the United States and Britain,magazines, and scholarly journals from the University Press. In addition, the present swimming poolat the northwest corner of the building might wellbe converted into a lounge and coffee room withaccess to the adjacent patio and garden*2. Commuter facilities. There should be lockersfor forty students. In addition, there should bethree "day rooms"— that is, small rooms with aconnecting shower, available to commuters.3. Billiard room with twelve tables (either poolor billiards) and space as well for six ping-pong tables.*4. Bowling alleys. There should be six to tenalleys .fNote: The poolroom and bowling alleys should be closetogether so that a single cashier could serve both facilities.5. Television room, set up for twenty viewers*6. Dance room. The present Cloister Club areacould be kept for dances or room might be foundelsewhere in the building.*The Theatre ComplexThe University Theatre (i.e., the student theatre) should be moved into the gymnasium area.The theatre should be designed to provide formaximum flexibility — to accommodate theatre-in-the-round, three-quarter apron staging or prosceni-t Bowling facilities are not needed in Ida Noyes ifthey are included in the New Area, as recommendedunder Athletic and Recreational Facilities. um-style staging. Seating should be provided for250-275 people. There should be a green room, acostume room, a large room (with high ceiling)for building sets and plenty of storage space. Adjacent to the theatre should be a room largeenough to use for rehearsing a forthcoming production while the current show is being presented,or for an informal class. There should also be threeoffices for the theatre staff.The details of the theatre will have to be developed with the University Theatre staff as plansproceed. This description is intended only to givethe architect a general idea of what is required.There should be a ticket office to handle ticketsnot only for University Theatre but also for othercampus and off-campus events. There should alsobe a checkroom with space to handle both the University Theatre audience and the regular traffic inIda Noyes.Facilities for the Broader Public1. The principal University information centershould be centrally located in the building.2. Ida Noyes should be the principal terminalfor the campus bus. The information center wouldsell bus tickets and give information on busschedules.3) There should be a central University bulletinboard. This should be large enough to have separate panels for announcements about lectures andconcerts, varsity and intramural sports, and"Woodworth Tree" type announcements.4) The Reynolds Club barber shop should berelocated in Ida Noyes. The present barber shophas seven chairs. Provision should be made forten chairs in the new shop.5) There should be a beauty parlor with spacefor five operators.6) The branch post office should be moved intoIda Noyes. This now has 1,000 square feet — thisspace should be adequate even for a larger University population.7) Possibly the Faculty Exchange, which has800 square feet, should be moved into Ida. Thisspace would be adequate for the future.Note: The post office and Faculty Exchange should beclose to one another and also close to the delivery entrance.8. Possibly the Travel Bureau should be movedinto Ida Noyes. It now has 250 square feet but iscrowded. It could use up to 500 square feet.Service AreasThere. is need for storage and work space forthe housekeeping staff. The expanded facilities21would seem to call for a service staff of six housemen and four maids, plus a supervisor. The supervisor should have a small office with a desk andthree or four chairs. There should be a lockerroom for the men and one for the women. A workroom with power tools for the house staff is neededas is plenty of storage space for furniture, rugsand heavy equipment. There should be a serviceelevator to transport furniture and other heavyitems between the basement and the upper floors.Storage space is needed for the Shapiro collection — that is, for 700 pictures. (There are 450 nowand it will grow.)5. Conclusion. The Committee strongly believesthat particular attention should be paid to the manner in which the new Coffee Shop and the IdaNoyes development is announced and explained tothe students. To avoid misunderstandings and topromote the acceptance of the new Ida Noyescenter, it is imperative that the project be placedin the proper context of the whole campus plan.Members of the Committee have discussed thesesuggested plans with groups of students in an informal way and have found that acceptance ofthem is generally high — once the plans are understood.The University BookstoreIn suggesting a plan for revitalizing Ida NoyesHall, the Committee recommended that the University Bookstore be so placed as to develop aline of traffic from the classrooms, faculty officesand libraries on the main quadrangle to Ida NoyesHall. On the basis of a preliminary evaluation, theLexington Hall site appears to be most desirable.It would lend itself to the development of a storebuilt on two levels, with the first level underground, and the second level set back a considerable distance from the street. Such an arrangementwould result in a structure which would not seriously obstruct the view of Rockefeller Chapel. Thebasement level could extend back into the "ChapelHill," and forward toward University Avenue,thus achieving a large area.Locating the bookstore on the Lexington Hallsite might have several drawbacks: (1) too muchvehicular and foot traffic might take place nearthe present's house; (2) it might not be possible to provide adequate parking facilities forcustomers of the store; (3) it might be difficultto develop satisfactory routes for the ingress andegress of delivery trucks. In the face of theseconsiderations, the Committee suggests that thesouthwest corner of 58th Street and WoodlawnAvenue (where the Music Department and ChapelHouse now stand) be explored as an alternative site for the bookstore. As compared to LexingtonHall, this site is only slightly further away fromthe central quadrangle area, and it would serve almost as effectively to create traffic patterns to IdaNoyes. Moreover, it has the advantage of openingup very promising possibilities for the developmentof the 58th and Woodlawn area.The Committee suggests that these alternativesites be studied in conjunction with structures nowin the block and with future plans for the OrientalInstitute. It might well be desirable to provide forfootpaths in the interior of the block and perhapsto close University Avenue from 58th to 59thStreet, thus tying the Chapel block more closelyto the main Quadrangle.The Committee accepts the necessity for including general merchandise in the new bookstore foreconomic reasons, but it urges that several pointsbe kept in mind. First, the focus must be on thebook department. The University should seek tohave the best book department in the UnitedStates. Second, the book department should bephysically separated from general merchandise,and the building should be so designed that thebook department is immediately visible and predominant to anyone entering the store. Third, thereshould be no food sold and no provision for theselling of food. It would be acceptable to have asmall coffee bar, but there should be no sandwiches, ice cream, soft drinks and the like.The manager of the bookstore, Eugene L. Miller, projects the need for a bookstore of 36,000square feet. The Committee has some doubts asto whether this is large enough to house a generalbook department of the size and quality that iscalled for. This question can be resolved only after coming to grips with a number of questions.For example, how many titles should be kept instock (and on the shelves) in the various subjectmatters — history, law, sociology and so on? Howmany and what kind of foreign books should becarried? How many paperbound volumes should becarried — especially in view of the virtual certaintythat the volume of paperback publications willmultiply many times in the coming years?To develop some rough guidelines on such questions, the Committee, through the cooperation ofthe Director of the University Libraries, HermanFussier, drew on the knowledge of various members of the Library staff. The Committee soughtto get from this source a very quick and roughjudgment on the possible number of titles thatought to be carried in a good University of Chicago Bookstore, ignoring space costs and the question of investment in inventory and inventoryturnover. This estimate was thought needed for22the purpose of determining whether a building of36 000 square feet would be adequate to housean excellent book department. Mr. Fussier reported, on the basis of an effort that is "probablystatistically unreliable," that for "a good bookstore stock of current, domestic, fairly high qualityliterature, somewhere between 12,000 and 24,000titles would represent a rather strong collectionof material now in print from American publishers." He comments further that "the additionfor foreign and English imprints would probablyadd between 10 and 20. per cent to this total, butwe have no reliable statistical indication of thisestimate."It is the Committee's understanding that a stockof this size could be adequately handled in a building of 36,000 square feet, provided that enoughspace were allocated to the general book department. Further investigation into this whole question is obviously in order.The matter of economics has been much in themind of the Committee. The manager of the bookstore is of the opinion that the book departmentcan be greatly increased without operating at adeficit. He is almost certain that a department ofany size can be run on a break-even or profit basis,provided that the bookstore does not have to carrythe burden of fully amortizing the constructioncosts. The bookstore could, on its own, finance abuilding which would have an expanded book department. But it might not be able to self-financea building which accommodated an elegant andoutstanding book operation. Several members ofthe Committee are strongly of the opinion that afine bookstore is such a vital academic necessitythat it should be operated on a subsidy basis, ifnecessary.The Committee is concerned with the location,size, and general format of the bookstore. Butthere are obviously many matters of detail aboutoperation of the store which call for ongoing review and attention which are beyond the scope ofthis Committee. In general, the analogue for thebookstore, as a continuing operation, is the University Press. Following out that analogue, theCommittee recommends the appointment of afaculty advisory board for the bookstore. The function of that board would be to consult with themanager on the operation of the general book department and on other policy problems as theyarise.Athletic and Recreational Facilities1. Background considerations. In stating itsviews on the development of student housing inthe 55th to 56th Street New Area, and on the re- vitalization of Ida Noyes as a center for studentorganization activities, the Committee noted thatthe University's athletic facilities necessarily willhave to be replanned. Numerous considerations leadto the conclusion that only a radical restructuringof athletic facilities will be compatible with existing campus development plans and with expectations regarding future enrollment levels.First. Stagg Field will be the site of the newlibrary building, and therefore the track and soccer-football field will have to be relocated, presumably at the Cottage Grove end of the NewArea.Second. Bartlett Gymnasium is inadequate toaccommodate existing demands in all phases ofthe Athletic Department's program. Unless moregymnasium space is built, an increase in enrollment will result in cutting down the athletic program to fit Bartlett. Moreover, after the trackand soccer-football field have been moved, Bartlett will be too distant to service these new facilities properly.Third. Apart from the deficiencies in Bartlett,there are an inadequate number of playing fieldsfor the intramural Softball and touch-football programs, and not enough basketball courts to supportthe present intramural basketball program. Theseshortages will be aggravated as enrollment increases.Fourth. Women's athletic facilities in Ida Noyesare both inadequate and impoverished. Doubtlessthis is a key reason why the students regard thewomen's athletic program as being dismal.Fifth. The University has not had a playing fieldfor women's sports since the middle forties whenDudley Field was given over to temporary housing. A well-balanced athletic program for womenis not feasible without a suitable playing field.Sixth. Both the swimming pool in Ida Noyesand the pool in Bartlett are outmoded and unattractive. They are marginal as far as health andsanitation are concerned. And they are not constructed so as to permit their development intopotential social centers.Seventh. The University and the surroundingneighborhood lack several types of recreationalfacilities which could give a great lift to studentlife on campus. Especially needed are modernbowling alleys, an ice skating rink with artificiallymade ice, and squash and handball courts.These considerations form the background forthe Committee's recommendations regarding athletic and recreational facilities.2. General features of the recommended plan.The general plan proposed by the Committee isas follows:23a) Relocate the track and soccer-football fieldin the western end of the New Area.b) Construct a new men's gymnasium adjacentto or near the new track and soccer-football field.c) Recondition and convert Bartlett into thewomen's athletic center. All women's athletic facilities should be moved out of Ida Noyes.d) Make the area to the north and west ofBartlett (up to the line of the new library site)into a women's playing field.e) Construct a natatorium as an adjunct of thenew men's gymnasium. The natatorium should bein a separate wing, be large enough to accommodate several swimming programs simultaneously,be built so as to open on several sides during warmweather, and be planned as an all-campus social-recreational facility./) Construct a set of modern bowling alleysand an artificially cooled ice skating rink in theNew Area. These might be in the same building orin different structures; it might even be possibleand advisable to locate the bowling alleys in thebasement of a dining hall. In any event, thesefacilities should be designed to serve as socialcenters for students. A coffee shop perhaps shouldbe developed in connection with either or both ofthem. There is a question whether the ice skatingrink should be in a covered structure or shouldbe an open but sheltered unit. The advantage seemsto lie with a covered rink; but, if feasible, itshould be planned and laid out in such a way thatthere will be a constant flow of students alongsidewho might be attracted to stop and watch. Possiblya glass side facing a main footpath would accomplish this goal; or possibly the rink should beroofed over but not be fully enclosed on the sides.It has been suggested that an enclosed rink bebuilt by the city near the campus as part of thenew outer-drive plan. If that development occurs,an outdoor campus rink (with artificial ice)might serve University needs better than a covered rink.g) Provide for a number of touch football andsoftball fields, tennis courts, volleyball courts,badminton courts, putting and pitching greens inthe New Area.h) Plan the New Area on the assumption thatthe varsity hardball diamond will be located elsewhere. Before the New Area is fully developed,space might be available in it for such a diamond.A temporary location there would not be objectionable as long as it did not impede the orderlydevelopment of the area according to plan. Thereafter the land to the south of the Mott Buildingand the Kellogg Conference Center would seem tooffer another suitable temporary site for the base ball diamond once clearance has been completeThe Committee, in planning for unmarried student housing, recommended that this part of theSouth Campus area be reserved for later housingexpansion. Interim use for sports is consistentwith that recommendation. To accommodate thevarsity baseball team in such an interim period, itwould appear to be advisable to construct a smalltemporary building adjoining the field to houselockers and showers.i) Make the varsity tennis courts at 58th Streetand University into first-rate courts.;) Make maximum permissible use of the Midway in the intramural touch football and softballprograms.k) Capitalize more on the boating potentialitiesoffered by the nearby presence of Lake Michigan.An effort should be made to explore the possibilityof keeping a fleet of small University-owned sailing boats in the harbor in Jackson Park. If thisshould prove to be feasible, sailing might welldevelop into an attractive feature of the University's recreation program./) Investigate the possibility of replacing theMidway Stables, which will, unfortunately, disappear with the South Campus development. Perhaps the Armory on Cottage Grove at 53 rd Street,which at one time contained excellent facilitiesfor horses, could be utilized on some basis as ariding school. Another possibility is to encouragethe city to build a stable in the Jackson Park area.3. Recommended guidelines and standards forathletic and recreational facilities. The Committeesuggests that several principles be borne in mindas specific plans are prepared for new athletic andrecreational facilities :a) The athletic facilities in the New Area shouldbe planned as an integral part of that area; andthat area should be laid out as an interesting andpleasant place in which to live and walk about,and it should be conceived as an integral part ofthe whole campus.b) It is essential that open areas be maintainedthroughout the New Area, even though space isshort. Space is itself an important facility and mustnot be skimped. The Committee refers here, ofcourse, to open space related meaningfully to adjacent buildings and not to open plots of land.c) In the New Area the residential units shouldbe interspersed in an organic way with athleticand recreational facilities. The athletic fields andfacilities near or among the residential units shouldbe of a nature compatible with a residential community, and should be located so as not to disturb occupants of sleeping or study rooms.d) It may be that a shortage of space in the24New Area will call for limiting the athletic facilities to be built there. In that event some of thefacilities hereafter suggested should be locatedelsewhere rather than adopt the alternative of reducing the quality or over-all number of the facilities. The Committee feels strongly that cornersshould not be cut either with respect to the number of facilities or the quality of individual facilities.e) Many of the proposed athletic facilities willhave a multiple function, fitting into one or more ofthe following programs: the teaching program ofrequired physical education; the intramural program; the varsity program of intercollegiate competition ; informal, recreational use by students,faculty, and staff; recreational use by the generalUniversity community. It is important that eachnew component be designed to serve well all usesfor which it is intended./) Space being short and gymnasia and playingfields being by nature large, it is advisable that allpractical space-saving measures be studied. Forexample, the new men's gymnasium might be designed to cover a minimum of ground space byrising three or four stories, and some facilities (suchas tennis courts) might be placed on the roofs ofbuildings.4. Outdoor facilities recommended for the NewArea. The Committee recommends that the NewArea be planned to contain the following outdoorfacilities, to the extent that their inclusion is feasible in the light of the student housing development suggested for the area:a) One 440-yard running track, to have a 180-yard straightaway, to be 32 feet wide on straightaway, and to be 28 feet wide on the curve.b) Four touch football fields, each 120 feet X240 feet.c) Four softball fields, each in the shape of afan with a 200-foot maximum spread. (The samearea is to be used for touch football and softballfields. The two types of fields can overlap sincethey will be used at different seasons.)d) Ten regulation-size varsity tennis courts.e) One soccer-football field (to be placed inside the track).5. New gymnasium and natatorium recommendedfor the New Area. The Committee recommendsthat the new men's gymnasium and all-campusswimming pool, which it suggests for inclusion inthe New Area, be planned to incorporate the following features: (The details of the specificationshave been worked out in cooperation with the Athletic Department.) Square FeetRequiredFour (4) basketball courts, 50' X 74' X 40'high, with 3' sidelines and 10' endlines .21,375Space for pull-out bleachers for seating ofapproximately 2,500 persons 4,000Ten (10) squash courts, 18£' X 32' X 18'high (592 square feet each) 5,920Two (2) handball courts, 23' X 46' X 23'high (1,058 square feet each) 2,116Gymnastics room, 75' X 88' x 24' high. . . 6,600Wrestling and judo room, 50' X 75' X 12'high 3,750Fencing room, 70' X 80' X 12' high (clear) 5,600Weight-training room, 35' X 50' X 10'high 1,750Equipment storage (to be used with basketball courts and located adjacent tocourts) 35' X 50' X 14' high 1,750Conference and meeting room, 20' X 20' . . 400Intramural department suite, one room 15'X 15', one room 10' X 15' 375Staff area: total of ten (10) offices, 10' X15' each 1,500Athletic director's facilities:One office for business manager, 10' X12'One office for director, 15' X 15'One office for waiting room, reception,secretary, 15' X 20' 645Laundry room, 30' X 30'. . 900Uniform storage room, 45' X 70'. 3,150Dressing and locker facilities:Men — locker and bench dressing area6,200 lockers, 12" X 12" X 24"500 lockers, 12" X 12" X 72"300 lockers, 12" X 12" X 12" 32,000Women — 50 lockers and dressing area(for swimming and judo only) 800Toilets:Men 1,000Women (swimming and judo) 150Showers:Men . 1,200Women (swimming and judo) 300Visiting team rooms, four (4) 30' X 40'. . 4,800Training room, 25' X 50' 1,250Service elevator with receiving space, trashremoval, and janitor's storage 600Staff lockers, showers, toilets 30' X 30' . . . 900Classroom and game room for four tabletennis 30' X 60'. 1,800One "L" shaped pool, 82' 6" X 45' withaverage 4' depth and diving pool extension 35' X 32' X 16' deep. Includemovable pool bulkhead and wall closureand lifeguard stands. Curb and walkways to be 10' wide. Clear ceiling heightto be 22'. 110' X 100' 11,000Storage for pool maintenance equipmentand accessories 200Pool spectator seating for 300 persons. . . . 1,000Pool director's office and First Aid Station 200117,0316. Other recreational facilities in the New Area.The following specifications (worked out in cooperation with the Athletic Department) are recommended as guidelines in preparing plans for anice skating rink and for bowling alleys in the NewArea. (Note: One possibility is to incorporate the25ice skating rink, bowling alleys and ground crewshop into a single structure. It might better preserve the openness of the area, however, to housethem separately. The bowling alleys, for example,might be placed in the basement of a coffee shopor some other facility.)A. Ice Skating. (Starred items should beindoors; the other items probablyshould be enclosed or under cover, butas previously indicated, might be outdoors.)Square FeetRequiredRink, 225' X 85', with 10' additionalside and end walkways 25,725Spectator area for 500 persons 1,500^Director's office and First Aid Station,10' X 20' 200*Skate-changing area 600*Box lockers— 130, 12" X 18" X 22",room size 20' X 30' 600*Skate check-out room, 20' X 40' 800*Snack room (canteen), 20' X 30'. . . . 600*Rink maintenance equipment and storage room, 20' X 20' 400^Service area, trash removal and janitor's storage 300Total net area 30,725B. BowlingTwelve-lane alley including bowlers'seating 7,200Pin storage and tool area, 10' X -50' . . . 500Control desk 100Check-out room, coat room and storage, 20' X 30' 600Office, 12' X 12' 144Snack room (canteen), 20' X 30'. . 600Total net area 9,144C. Ground Crew ShopStorage for two trucks and one jeepLarge machine storage — gang lawnmowers, rollers, etc.Small machine and tool storageLarge shop workroomOutside athletic equipment storage —hurdles, crossbars, etc.Locker, shower and toiletTotal net area 8,0007. Future expansion of athletic facilities. Theathletic fields which presumably can be fitted intothe New Area will not be adequate to serve allneeds if the full projected expansion of studentenrollment at the University materializes. Theshortages will be even more acute if parts of theMidway become unavailable for University athletics. This problem is not immediately pressing;the facilities for athletics outlined in this reportshould be adequate for another six or seven years,at the very least. But the problem of future expansion is troublesome because there does not appear to be any wholly satisfactory solution, andit would be a mistake to assume that the problemwill disappear. While the Committee has not found a practicalsolution, it offers the following conjectures asan aid to further thought on the problem:a) The area of Washington Park immediatelywest of the projected new playing field (55th to56th Street) would be a convenient location forcertain types of organized sports activities. However, the area is now used as a formal garden, andit seems unlikely that it will be turned into agreen suitable for games. There would be an increased security risk in moving athletic activitiesinto Washington Park now. But in years to comethe situation might change enough to warrant looking into this possibility.b) The area south of the American Bar Center(Woodlawn to University on 60th Street) is suitable for development as a small playing field. Afield here would be strategically located if thearea south of the Mott Building and Kellogg Center were developed in the future, as suggested bythe Committee, for undergraduate housing. TheCommittee understands that some of the land inback of the American Bar Center has tentativelybeen set aside for expansion of that Center, Perhaps a relatively small strip can be retained forcompatible athletic use.c) The area on both sides of Drexel immediately north of 55th Street might be acquired bythe University and reserved for development forathletic use. It is the Committee's view, however,that the area is better suited for married studentand faculty housing. Future events might indicatethat on this point the Committee's crystal ball wascloudy. But in any case the University should markthis area for early acquisition.d) Conceivably, arrangements could be madewith the Park District for the University to useadditional space on the Midway for athletic purposes.e) The University might explore the possibilityof using facilities in Jackson Park, especially forvarsity baseball. The Park has several good diamonds./) The University, in any event, should followclosely developments at South Shore Country Club.Commercial Establishments in or near the CampusAreaThe Committee is impressed with the need forlocating various commercial establishments, notoperated by the University, on or near the campus.Students from time to time wish to get away froman institutional atmosphere. No matter how wellrun and designed they are, University-run establishments are regarded by students as part of theinstitution. While it is true that Chicago is full of26ivate shops and stores of all kinds, these do notich campus life unless they are so located as to. effect become adjuncts of the campus. Therefore the Committee urges that the University adoptpolicy of attracting various desirable types of enterprises to certain areas which border on theampus. With this objective in mind, the Committee looked into several possible developments.The Committee considered possible developmentof the commercial block on the north side of 55thStreet between Woodlawn and the fire house(where Jimmy's now stands and where the National Tea Company used to be). The Committeehas been informed that Jimmy's will remain inthis block; the open question is what else shouldbe there. The Committee favors the inclusion ofa food market that would carry high-quality meatsand fresh fruits and vegetables. A local merchantshould be given preference over a national chainoperation, in part because he more likely wouldstay open in the evenings and be friendly to students; but it is recognized that the Real Estate Officemust be free to negotiate with several potentialoccupants, including possibly a local food chainsuch as the Stop and Shop. If the A & P shouldcome in, it should be insisted that there be a prohibition against use of the neo-Williamsburg architecture the company is now affecting. In additionto a high-quality food market, it would be desirable to have a small drugstore with an elegant sodafountain (or perhaps there should be a separate icecream parlor), a small delicatessen with a few tables and high-grade coffee espresso. As for the location of the new building on the site, the Committee favors seeking a variance that would permitit to be placed at the rear of the lot, allowing for aterrace to front on 55th Street.The Committee recommends against including alarge restaurant in this commercial area. It urgesthat steps be taken to keep the Tropical Hut (ora suitable replacement for it) on 57th Street. TheHut serves to keep life on the street during theevening hours.Studies should be undertaken to determinewhether additional commercial facilities at theeastern end of 57th Street would be viable.The Committee also recommends that the University assist in developing the commercial stretchon the south side of 61st Street, at Ellis. Althoughthis commercial center has deteriorated somewhatin recent years, it still is heavily used by the occupants of Burton- Judson and by the Law Schoolpopulation. The opening of the new Social ServiceAdministration Building has already increased theflow of University-generated traffic in the area, andthe projected National Opinion Research Center building is bound to do likewise. Other foreseeabledevelopments under the South Campus Plan, suchas the construction of the Veterans' Administration Hospital and the extension of the facilities ofthe American Bar Center, all point in the samedirection.In passing, the Committee notes that the presentdrugstore arrangement at 61st and Ellis is unsatisfactory. It neither serves as an acceptable eatingplace nor does it provide the proper environmentfor a student hangout. A small prescription drugstore, or perhaps a notion store with a line of nonprescription drugs, might be more in keeping withstudent needs.The most pressing need at this time seems to befor a restaurant, particularly one which would offer a wide variety of takeout dishes and whichwould remain open late in the evening. Such an establishment would fill the need for a noninstitu-tional restaurant, catering to students, on the southside of the Midway. The Committee urges that theUniversity take steps to encourage a suitable restaurant operator to locate in the commercialstretch.ConclusionThis report, the product of one full academicyear's study and discussion, bears the support ofthe entire Committee. Minority positions have developed on one or two details noted in the report,but, on the whole, all members of the Committeesupport its conclusions and recommendations. Tosummarize the various parts of the report wouldbe redundant. Suffice it to say, in closing, that theCommittee urges that the physical setting for student life be as distinguished in its way as the intellectual life of the University is in its sphere.SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THEADVISORY COMMITTEEIn its Report, dated June, 1965, the Faculty Advisory Committee on Student Residences and Facilities stated that it had been directed to makecertain assumptions about the campus. Among theassumptions were that (1) the Reynolds Club andHutchinson Commons were to be converted intoquarters for the Music Department and (2) formerresidence halls in the quadrangle area of the campus . . . would not be reconverted to residentialuse, and that this area was not available for studentfacilities.In early November, 1965, the Committee wasasked by the Administration to explore the meritsof the decisions reflected in these assumptions, andto consider whether alteration of either assump-27tion would lead the Committee to change any ofits recommendations. This Supplementary Reportsets forth the Committee's views on these questions.1. Location of student residences in or near thecentral quadrangle area.a) The Committee recognizes that there aresubstantial advantages in locating student residences near or in the central quadrangle area. Thereis no doubt that such an arrangement would augment the flow of students throughout the campusand make the central area into a livelier place,especially in the evenings. It is reasonable to assume that a larger number of college studentsliving near Harper Library would contribute significantly to building up that library into a centerfor undergraduate study. There is ground for believing that a close proximity of classrooms, library and living quarters would help to set thedaily activities of undergraduates into productivepatterns. The University campus was in factoriginally designed with these advantages in mind,and to some extent they were realized in an earlierperiod.b) In the view of the Committee, however, itis neither practicable to reconstruct the centralarea along such lines, nor desirable to sacrifice theadvantages of the campus pattern developed in themeantime. It would be extremely uneconomic toreconvert to residences any of the old dormitoriesnow in academic use. The conversions were costlyand have resulted in satisfactory academic quarters.A restoration of these buildings to residence usewould entail a double expense: the construction ofnew quarters for the present academic occupants,and a remodeling which complies with a fire codemuch more stringent for residential than for officebuildings. For these reasons, the Committee counsels against any such reconversions.c) The Committee believes it would be a mistake to use for residential purposes any of thefour pieces of land, in or near the central area,now vacant or likely to become vacant soon. Themost inviting site is the tennis court area on theeast end of the central quadrangle. Probably nomore than 200 to 250 students could be housed ina four-story building extending somewhat beyondthe present western boundary of the tennis courts.Despite the many attractions of this spot for student living, the Committee emphatically recommends that the east end of the central quadranglebe left wholly open. Any building on this site,even one embodying a sophisticated use of archways and pillars, would change in a detrimentalway the appearance and "feel" of the campus.Many of the beautiful vistas, for example of the Chapel, would be destroyed and the open character of the area would disappear. If the Committee had to choose between developing the sitefor academic use or for housing, it probably wouldfavor the latter; but it decidedly prefers leavingthe area unencumbered. A second inviting site isthat of Lexington Hall and the adjacent parkinglot. Only a small number of students could beaccommodated here because only a low-rise structure is suitable. Any building of more than onestory (and a set-back story-and-a-half) would entirely destroy the fine view of the Chapel fromthe west. Moreover, the Committee believes thatthis site could be devoted to some better use. It isan excellent location for a bookstore of propersize, so designed that it blends with both theChapel and the Oriental Institute. A third eligiblespace which is likely to become vacant is the present site of the Music Department on the southwest corner of Woodlawn and 58th Street. In itsReport the Committee suggested this site as analternative to the Lexington Hall area for a newbookstore. It now appears that the site has beenearmarked for expansion of the Oriental Instituteand a building to house International Studies. Accepting this recent decision, the Committee desiresto stress that an even more persuasive case nowexists for reserving the Lexington site for thebookstore (unless an even better site can be found).A fourth possible location for new residences onvacant land is the parking lot area immediately tothe south of Woodward Court. It is estimated that250 to 300 students (and more if the east terraceof Ida Noyes is included) could be housed in abuilding the height of Woodward. The Committeeis vigorously opposed to utilizing the site in thismanner. The Woodward area is already overcrowded; the commons area of Woodward is notcapable of expansion, and to build over the parking lot would destroy the beauty of both Ida Noyesand the Woodward complex. The parking lot areais one of the most important open spaces oncampus. If at all possible, the parking lot shouldbe turned into a grassy strip.d) Another approach to providing more studenthousing in or near the central quadrangle is toconvert existing academic or administrative buildings into residential units. In its report the Committee recommended that, subject only to overriding academic needs, buildings in the westernpart of the Hull Court complex be converted toresidences when the present academic occupantsmove into other quarters. The Committee reaffirmsthis suggestion. As residential units, these buildingscould be so arranged as to be operated in conjunction with Snell-Hitchcock. And the Committee28again recommends that high priority be assignedto reconstructing Snell-Hitchcock into modernresidential halls. Two other buildings or groupsof buildings in or near the central quadrangle havenow been considered by the Committee as possiblecandidates for conversion to residences. The mostpromising is the group of buildings immediatelysouth of the Quadrangle Club tennis courts. Theold Beta Theta Pi Fraternity House in the grouphas already been treated in this manner, apparentlywith considerable success. On superficial examination it appears that two and perhaps three otherbuildings in the group (not all of which are nowowned by the University) could be handled insimilar fashion. Conceivably it might be moreeconomical to tear down some or all of the existing structures and erect new low-rise housing unitsin their place. On balance, however, the Committee is not inclined to assign a very high priorityto such use. Not many students could be accommodated (the estimate being about twenty totwenty-five students in each building) , and it seemslikely that the space — assuming that the Universitycould acquire all the buildings — might be betterused for academic purposes, or even for expansionof the Quadrangle Club and its outdoor facilities.The other candidate for conversion into housingis the Administration Building. The Committeefound this possibility to be quite tempting. Thestructure is large enough to accommodate 250 andperhaps as many as 400 students, depending onthe scheme of remodeling adopted. Such a largenumber of students on one side of the main quadrangle would insure a great deal of student movement in the central campus area, and would placea large number of students immediately next tothe College center in Cobb Hall and close to thenew undergraduate library in Harper. Some members of the Committee even saw a distinct advantage in reversing history by fragmenting the location of administration functions, rather than concentrating them in one beehive. But under closerscrutiny the initial attraction of the thought fadedrapidly. The Committee took note of the probablehigh cost of converting the structure, as well asthe apparent lack of suitable places for relocatingthe administrative functions. But, above all, theCommittee was troubled by its awareness that theAdministration Building could not be made intothe type of residential housing which the University urgently needs, particularly for undergraduates. The Committee wishes to reemphasize thatproper housing for unmarried students is a matterof great importance. For a variety of reasons,stressed in its Report, the ability to attract andhold good students is closely connected with the patterns of living which the University can fosterfor these students. The experiences with Pierceand Woodward must serve as lessons. And if theselessons are understood correctly, it would be mostunwise to gamble that the Administration Buildingcould be reworked into housing of which the University would be proud. The building is hardly ashowpiece; the Committee could not imagine thatas a dormitory it would approach being a trumpcard.e) In any event, the Committee must underscore the very serious, even imperious, need foradditional housing for unmarried students. In thesix months since the Committee prepared its Report, the situation has grown still more critical.Some observers, indeed, may argue that there isno housing gap today inasmuch as every studentappears to have been accommodated somewhere.Such an approach must assume that any roomlocated anywhere in or near the University neighborhood and satisfying the city housing code is anacceptable accommodation for our students. Nothing could be less realistic, in the Committee'sjudgment. It is worth repeating that the University, and especially the College, is in direct andvigorous competition for students with institutions which have made great strides in providinghousing that serves to humanize school life andthat promotes a combination of privacy for theindividual and the support of a proper peer group.A well-run Burton- Judson can be a drawing card;a repainted room in some Hyde Park hotel is notlikely to attract students and is more likely torepel their parents./) The seriousness of the existing situation isperhaps most clearly revealed through the following figures: There are now about 5100 full-timeunmarried students on campus. Of these, about2125 are housed in permanent University accommodations (including such "permanent" structuresas 5400 Greenwood Avenue, Laughlin House, andHarper Surf) ; about 200 are housed in temporaryUniversity accommodations (including buildingsslated to come down in the New Area and a hotelearmarked for conversion to married studenthousing); about 300 are housed in neighborhoodaccommodations arranged by the University (including the YMCA and a few apartment hotels);and about 2475 are in accommodations obtainedoutside of University channels. There is thus agap of about 500 units, in that the temporaryunits will soon be lost and the neighborhood accommodations arranged by the University are notsatisfactory under the standards advocated by theCommittee. Actually, the gap is much larger. Atleast 250 unmarried students were unsuccessful in29seeking University accommodations this year; andthis figure probably is an understatement inasmuchas others very likely did not apply after learningthat space was no longer available. When thesedemands are taken into account, the existing gapcan conservatively be placed at 750. Still anotheradjustment is called for. Both Pierce and Woodward are overcrowded, and the Committee hasstrongly recommended that the population in eachbe reduced. In view of the smallness of rooms inPierce, undoubling of many of them is in order.In the case of Woodward, there is a strong need totransform certain student rooms into floor loungesaround which smaller student groupings can bebuilt. Such an upgrading of the existing facilitieswould eliminate another 125 units, increasing thegap at the prevailing enrollment level to 875 unitsfor unmarried students. In the face of this situation, it seems unrealistic to anticipate a furthersubstantial increase in enrollment; surely it isnot reasonable to work towards a continuing growthin the number of students if there are no satisfactory places in which to house them. But thereare strong indications that the University doesanticipate an enrollment gain of 2100 in the nextfive years. If the school is to house the samepercentage of students as it now does, if the increase is divided between graduates and undergraduates as projected, and if the distributionbetween married and unmarried students remainsconstant, an additional 775 unmarried students willhave to be cared for by the end of the five-yearperiod. Thus, unless other housing facilities arebuilt or otherwise made available, the gap forunmarried students will be 1650 five years fromnow. It will be 1525 even if Woodward and Pierceare left in their present unsatisfactory condition.g) Another sign of the very critical housingshortage is the rapidly growing inability of theUniversity to accommodate college students in itspermanent residence halls. If enrollment followsthe projections, and if the dropout rate does notincrease (a doubtful assumption in view of existing housing conditions), the University will beunable to satisfy, in its permanent establishments,the housing needs of those in the first two years ofcollege, unless it forces graduate students out ofthe dormitories (for example, the law studentsnow in Burton Court) or pushes college juniorsand seniors out of these units. Such utterly undesirable moves would soon produce dormitoriescomposed almost exclusively of students in theirfirst two years of college. In the Committee's judgment this would be a tragic mistake. A most important factor in a student's development in college is the ability to associate on a sustained and regular basis with older students who have already reached a higher level of maturity. The"house" system in the dormitories is in large partbased on that proposition. To destroy such underpinnings for orderly maturing is to invite a greaternumber of personality problems and a higher percentage of dropouts or seriously disaffected students. Before moving further in the direction ofsegregating first- and second-year college studentsin the residence halls, the Committee suggests thatthe Administration urgently reconsider whetherfurther expansion of the College is desirable andindeed feasible under such circumstances.h) The Committee wishes to point out thatwhile there admittedly are distinct and importantadvantages in locating student housing in or nearthe central quadrangle, there are countervailingadvantages in scattering such housing over manydifferent parts of the campus. It is now a fact thatthe campus covers a wide area and it is no longerconfined to the old central core. Spreading outstudent housing, if done properly and in conjunction with a satisfactory over-all campus plan, canserve to maximize the flow of student traffic aroundthe campus and to energize life throughout thecampus. The Committee is convinced that there ismuch more danger in concentrating large numbersof students in one area than in judiciously distributing them throughout the whole of the campus.2. Use of the Reynolds Club and HutchinsonCommons.a) There is complete unanimity among membersof the Committee that, given a free choice, itwould be far better to develop the Reynolds Club-Hutchinson Commons area into a student centerrather than a home for the Music Department.This is not to say that the Committee recommendsagainst turning the building over to the MusicDepartment; it is rather to urge that if suitableaccommodations for the Music Department can befound or built elsewhere, the University as a wholewould benefit greatly by developing the buildinginto a well-planned student center.b) A number of factors account for the Committee's conclusion. Looming large is the thoughtthat as the University grows, both in enrollmentand in area, and as it tends to become more fragmented, there is more need than ever for a central place at which students from all parts of theschool can meet and mingle. While the Committeefully endorses plans to foster the emergence ofsmall cohesive groups of students through houseorganizations, and recommends providing socialand recreational facilities in various housing complexes, it also thinks it highly desirable to promote a greater amount of free, easy and less con-30trolled contact among students. A well-designedand wisely operated facility could stimulate a significant degree of mixing between undergraduateand graduate students, and of graduate studentsfrom different disciplines. Of all the places considered by the Committee, the Reynolds Club-Hutchinson Commons building seems to be thebest located for serving this function. As the campus grows to the north and west, and as moremarried students are housed in Hyde Park, thecorner of 57th and University becomes increasinglycentral. The construction of the new graduate library on Stagg Field is likely to increase the flowof students past that corner. Housing for unmarried students in the New Area should also contribute to this traffic pattern. And the same canbe said of putting the women's athletic facilitiesin Bartlett.c) It has been noted that the existing facilitiesin the present Hutchinson Commons-ReynoldsClub area do not seem to be intensively used. Thisis both true and incorrect. The lounges in theReynolds Club are heavily used for group meetingsand the game room in the basement, despite thefact that it is unattractive and poorly equipped,draws a considerable number of students. It istrue that the Commons was not enjoying widepopularity as an eating place when it was shut down,and today the C-Shop, which is usually full tocapacity at noon, is frequently deserted. The Committee believes, however, that it is wrong to interpret these facts as indicating that there is nodemand for a student center at 57th and University. At the time the Commons was closed, it haddeteriorated into an over-institutionalized eatingplace which specialized in trying to cut expenses,and over-all student enrollment was considerablylower than at present. The C-Shop now has become an unattractive room which houses food-dispensing machines of fierce appearance. Thesecond floor of the Reynolds Club is no longerused as part of a student center; and the thirdfloor is occupied entirely by University Theatre.In taking the position that the building is ideal fora student center, the Committee assumes that thiswhole area would be made over into an attractivecenter, in which account was taken of studentneeds and preferences. Only on this basis can afair assessment of its potentialities be made.d) The Committee has not studied in detailhow the building might best be redesigned as astudent center. Nevertheless, several considerations stand out. (1) It would be important andfeasible to reestablish an "all campus" restaurantin the building. Perhaps the old Commons roomshould be reconditioned, with more imaginative attention paid to making it less like the typicalYMCA cafeteria in a small town; or perhaps anew room should be arranged in the basement underthe old Commons. A restaurant in the buildingwould draw heavily, it is believed, from the newgraduate library, and would assist in handling theoverflow from the Quadrangle Club. (2) If theold Commons room is not put back into foodservice, it might be utilized as an excellent lounge,meeting room, and study hall combination, withfurnishings which could be moved out easily topermit the use of the hall for catered "state" dinners and for student parties and dances. It is animpressive room, with definite character — the onlyplace suitable for the historic luncheon thatlaunched the current fund-raising campaign. (3)Appropriate game and recreation facilities shouldbe provided in the building. If the basement underthe Commons is not used as a restaurant, it mightbe turned into an area for modern bowling alleys.Adequate space should be arranged for ping-pong,billiards, and similar indoor sports; and arrangements made for creating attractive chess and cardrooms. (4) The C-Shop should be rescued fromthe increasing horrors of the mechanical age. Itshould be thought of as a place where studentsmeet to gossip and talk throughout the day andfar into the night. Conceivably it might becomethe espresso hangout of the campus. . It needs tohave a distinctive flavor, unmechanized. (5) Thebarber shop should be supplemented with a beautyshop. (6) Perhaps the central University information office should be located in the building; andpossibly the central ticket office for Universityfunctions could be housed in an accessible spot.(7) The existing first-floor lounges in the ReynoldsClub should be rearranged and redecorated, andmade less institutional. These are only a few ofthe lines of thought, among many, which need tobe explored if the building is to be made into astudent center.e) If the great potential of the Reynolds Club-Hutchinson Commons area as a student center isrealized, the plans advocated by the Committeefor Ida Noyes Hall call for some change. But theamount of change is far less than might be expected. The Committee thought of Ida Noyes primarily as a center for organized student activities— such as the publications, the clubs, the dramagroups. Clearly, development of Ida Noyes forsuch purpose would not compete with the development of the Reynolds Club-Hutchinson area as astudent center. The Committee visualizes the latteras being a center for students in their individualcapacities or associating in informal groups. Underthis conception none of the regular student or-31ganizations would be headquartered in or holdtheir meetings in the general student center. IdaNoyes alone would serve these functions./) It is fair to ask whether the degree of studentactivity and level of participation in extracurricularprograms at the University would support two suchdiverse centers. In the Committee's judgment theanswer is clearly in the affirmative, especially if itis assumed that enrollment will grow as projected.When the Committee studied the use of Ida Noyeson the assumption that the Reynolds Club-Hutch-inson Commons area would be given over to theMusic Department, it found that the existingstructure could not house all the various operations which the Committee suggested be includedin a student organizations center. Indeed, theshortage of space was so large that the Committeerecommended that a large new wing be built onthe east side of Ida Noyes, projecting to thenorth. A review of the plans for Ida Noyes indicates that if the Reynolds Club-Hutchinson areais redeveloped as a general student center, IdaNoyes, without an extension (but with the women'sathletic office on the second floor moved elsewhere) ,would be adequate to house all of the organizationalactivities and also include a suitable number oflounges and auxiliary rooms. Ida Noyes, however,would still be deficient if it did not contain a coffeeshop of some sort. Even if the existing C-Shop isconverted into an espresso house or snack bar, theCommittee is of the opinion that a coffee shop,along the lines described in its Report (and alreadydesigned) , is needed in Ida Noyes to make it a successful center of student organizational activities.g) It is also proper to ask whether, in recommending the use of both Reynolds Club-Hutchinsonand Ida Noyes as student centers (although of different types), the Committee is now suggesting thatthere be a larger total amount of space devoted tosuch student facilities than that contemplated in itsReport. In the main, the answer is no. Mention hasalready been made that under the plan now beingrecommended, a new wing on Ida Noyes would notbe needed. It should also be noted that the plan outlined in the Report envisaged a new set of studentfacilities, including a coffee shop and perhaps arestaurant and bowling alleys, in the New Area. Ifthe Reynolds Club-Hutchinson Commons is regenerated as a student center, many of the added facilities suggested for inclusion in the New Area couldbe eliminated from the plans. Thus, the revisionbeing suggested in essence amounts to this: In addition to one center of student activities in the NewArea (built largely around athletic facilities) and asecond one in Ida Noyes (built largely around thestudent organizations), there would be a third one in the Reynolds Club-Hutchinson Commons area(designed as an all-campus meeting and eating placefor students on their own or as members of informal groups). Such an arrangement reinforces theCommittee's basic views that there should be several student centers on campus, that each wouldtend to support the others, that it is overwhelmingly important to provide students with more social and recreational places on campus, and thateach center should have its own distinctive surroundings and organizing principle.h) If the Music Department is not installed inthe Reynolds Club-Hutchinson Commons area, it isassumed that another location for the Departmentwill have to be provided. The selection of a site forsuch an academic use is of course beyond the jurisdiction of this Advisory Committee. It appears appropriate, however, for the Committee to commentthat placing the music building and a concert hallin the New Area would contribute to integrating itmore closely into the campus and preventing itfrom becoming predominantly a dormitory region.To carry this thought further, it might also be mentioned that placing a new drama theatre and a newart gallery in the New Area would likewise havesuch an effect. The full-blown but undeveloped ideaof the Committee is that it would be a great advance if means were uncovered for founding a University Arts Center and if that Center were locatedin the New Area. Offhand, an attractive spot wouldseem to be the south side of 55th Street, immediately to the west of the proposed second residentialtower. Carving out part of the New Area for thispurpose would necessitate making equivalent spaceavailable for the proposed new athletic facilities andthe recommended new clusters of low-rise housing.Such an adjustment might be arranged by redrawing the area now earmarked for athletic facilitiesby extending it approximately one-half block southbetween Cottage Grove and Drexel.i) In the event that the Reynolds Club-Hutchinson Commons building is revived as a student center and Ida Noyes is fully developed as an organizations center, it might be possible to continueusing the athletic facilities portion of Ida Noyes asthe women's gym. The Committee recommendsagainst such a plan. The facilities are inadequatetoday, and with an enlarged student enrollment,they will become even less satisfactory. Moreover,in the process of developing Ida Noyes for an organizations center, it will be necessary to take overthe office space now used by the women's athleticdepartment, further reducing the adequacy of thespace. And in any case it will not be possible toprovide a playing field for women near or adjacentto Ida Noyes.32;) The Committee stands on its recommendationthat the women's athletic program be moved intoBartlett after the new men's gym is ready andBartlett has been renovated. It has been suggestedto the Committee that means might be found tobuild a new women's gym of moderate size in the;New Area, not too far from the proposed new natatorium. The Committee would favor such a plan,provided that an ample field for women was included, and that compensating space for men's athletics was made available, perhaps in the block between Cottage and Maryland, 56th to 57th Streets.k) If a new gym is built for women, Bartlettwould presumably be available for other uses. Inthat event, the Committee suggests that consideration be given to the possibility of moving the bookstore into Bartlett. Because the building would notbe available unless a new gym for women were built(which is unlikely) or unless the women's athleticprogram were kept at Ida Noyes (which is undesirable), the Committee has not undertaken toexplore the feasibility of this suggestion, or tocompare the advantages and disadvantages of theBartlett and Lexington Hall sites for the bookstore./) The Committee notes that if the ReynoldsClub-Hutchinson Commons building is developed asa general student center, and if the women's athletic facilities are moved out of Ida Noyes, muchof the old athletic facilities area of Ida Noyeswrould be available for other uses. Considerationmight then be given to turning over some or all ofthis space for expansion of the athletic program ofthe Laboratory School.1967-68 HUMANITIES FELLOWSFollowing is the list of 33 graduate students whoare currently participating in the University's Humanities Fellowship Program. Established by theBoard of Trustees in 1964, this program providesfinancial support for up to three years for outstanding graduate students pursuing a doctorate degree in the Humanities and related fields in theSocial Sciences. A total of 51 graduate studentshave been supported by the program since its inception.FIRST YEAR FELLOWSRuth Louise Caldwell (Romance Languages)*William Arthur Galston (Political Science)Mark Alan Greenberg (Social Thought)*Janet Helen Johnson (Oriental Languages andCivilizations)*David Scott Kastan (English) *Paul Leo Kedrok (Germanic Languages and Literatures)Harold Nelson (English)Robert John Richard (Sociology)* Andrew Bard Schmookler (Social Thought)Robert H. Streit (Slavic Languages and Literatures)SECOND YEAR FELLOWSCarl John Abbott (History)Mrs. Camilla Bloom Ashley (English)David S. Bolotin (Political Science)Charles N. Fairbanks (Political Science)Eric John Gangloff (Oriental Languages)Martin G. Gellen (English)Mrs. Mimi Still Hall (English)Robert Hammarberg (Linguistics)Andrew W. Lewis (History)William O'Grady (Political Science)Thomas L. Pangle (Political Science)Peter JR.abinowitz (Slavic Languages)t Ellen Ross (Modern European History)Cynthia M. Schave (Germanics)Mrs. Judith Spikes (Romance Languages)Ellen Williams (English)THIRD YEAR FELLOWSJan Maarten Broek (Social Thought)Marc Cogan (Social Thought)Jerrold S. Cooper (Oriental Languages)Michael Harold Finegan (Oriental Languages)Richard L. Gleicher (History)Chauncy Jeffries Mellor, III (Germanic Languages)Edward Tenner (History)VACANCIES IN UNIVERSITY HOUSINGCharles O'Connell, Dean of Students, has announced that housing is immediately available inthe University House System as follows:Undergraduate Men: 30 spaces are immediatelyavailable in University House (5737 University),Boucher, Burton- Judson, Greenwood, Hitchcock,Pierce, Woodward.Undergraduate Women: 19 spaces are immediately available at 1442 E. 59th St., Blackstone,and Woodward.* These are Honorary Fellows for 1967-68. They willreceive financial support under this program beginningin 1968-69.t On leave of absence 1967-68.33Graduate Men: 41 spaces are immediately available at Laughlin, Blackwood Hotel, Broadview,Burton- Judson.Graduate Women: 29 spaces are immediatelyavailable at Blackwood, and Harper Surf.Students seeking housing for the Winter Quartershould contact Edward Turkington, Student Housing Office, Administration 201, Ext. 3402, for further information regarding the above vacancies.Mr. O'Connell also announced that he has beeninformed by the Director of International Housethat there are 15 housing vacancies immediatelyavailable for single graduate men at InternationalHouse. To qualify for such housing, a student mustbe registered full time. Interested students shouldmake inquiries at International House, 1414 E.59th St., or phone Mrs. Beavers at FA 4-8200 forfurther information.Vacancies in University-owned married studenthousing are very scarce at this time but interestedstudents are invited to contact Miss Peggy Young,824 E. 58th St., or phone 752-3644.HONORARY DEGREESThe degree of Doctor of Humane Letters wasawarded at the December 15 convocation to Bennovon Wiese und Kaiserswaldau, Professor of Modern German Language and Literature, Universityof Bonn, Germany: "Literary scholar with noveland wide-ranging interests, influential interpreterof Schiller, stimulating teacher whose seminarsexemplify the highest standards of free academicinquiry."CHANGE OF NAMEAt its meeting December 18, 1967, the Boardof Trustees formally changed the name ofthe Enrico Fermi Institute for NuclearStudies to the Enrico Fermi Institute.CORRECTIONYvette Scalzitti was erroneously listed as anInstructor in the Romance Languages Department in the last issue of The University ofChicago Record. She is an Assistant Professorin the Department.34 THE RECORDIn the November 3 issue of University Record, thepublication list of previous University Records andFaculty News Bulletins was incomplete. The fullpublication history follows:University Record. 1896-1933. At first it was aweekly, but later became a quarterly.Faculty News Bulletin. There were two issues ayear in 1943 and 1944; one in 1947; four issues ayear in 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951; two in 1952; threein 1953; two issues a year in 1954, 1955, 1956,1957, 1958, 1959; three in 1960; two in 1961; andone in 1962.TUITION INCREASE FOR 1968-69The University of Chicago will increase its tuition and fees by $40 per quarter when the AutumnQuarter begins September 30, 1968.As a result, the new tuition will be $700 peracademic quarter for all full-time students, bothgraduate and undergraduate, on the University'smain campus. The increase will bring the totaltuition costs for a normal three-quarter academicyear for full-time students to $2,100.In announcing the new rates, Gilbert L. Lee,Jr., Vice-President for Business and Finance, said:"The increase was made necessary by the continued rise in costs and by certain requirementsthat must be met by the budgets of the University."Charles D. O'Connell, Dean of Students, said:"The University will continue, of course, to maintain its extensive program of student aid; manyof our graduate students are heavily supportedby fellowships and grants. No undergraduate college in the country, as far as I know, has a higherproportion of its students receiving scholarshipassistance. Approximately half receive aid fromthe University, with the average amount about$1,500. If you include outside sources, the figuresshow approximately two-thirds receiving aid."O'Connell pointed out that the present budgetprovides $5,263,000 in student aid funds fromregular University sources.He added, "Even though projected enrollmentreflects a drop because of the demands of theSelective Service, the budget on which we areworking is expected to provide $5,295,000 in student aid funds.", The new tuition rates apply to all areas of theUniversity, with three exceptions. They are theUniversity's Extension Division, and the Execu-tive Program and the 190/MBA program of theGraduate School of Business. Rates for theseareas are still to be determined. They are expectedto show slight increases.Lee also announced that tuition fees will beincreased for The University of Chicago Laboratory School, commencing with the Autumn, 1968term. The increases will be $75 for Kindergartenand Nursery School and $150 for all other grades.The increases bring the tuition to $675 a year in the Kindergarten and Nursery School and to $1,350a year in the other grades.Roald Campbell, Dean of the Graduate Schoolof Education, which has responsibility for theLaboratory School, said:"The School shares the same problems which theUniversity faces in meeting rising costs and inmaintaining standards of excellence."Following is a comparison of the present (1967-68) budget and the tentative working budget for1968-69:Expenditures:Academic (excluding aid)Student aidPlant, business, development and generalEstimated budget savingsTotal ExpendituresIncome excluding unrestricted Campaign Gifts:Student fees^Endowment incomeIncome from patientsGeneral investment income, royalities and other itemsCurrent gifts for budget supportIndirect cost allowances (000 omitted)1967-68 1968-69adopted preliminaryTotal Income from Operations 58,278Underwriting required from unrestricted Campaign for Chicago $48,7625,2639,592(1,100) $49,6905,2959,930(1,155)62,517 63,76020,6737,58916,6493,9883,3366,043 20, 164 (includes tuition increase)7,99016,6494,0403,3916,526Gifts $ 4,239 58,760$ 5,000THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE FACULTIES35I*!O3>owoo%0.osroGfQo3OONS,— o^ a:m i C 3,5 n*^5 0) 1izP> ¦oo 0o - — <*. J• p a >0 I8i22 mCO 1