THE

HARVARD GRADUATES' MAGAZINE.

VOL. IV. -JUNE, 1896. —No. 16.

THE UNIVERSITY GROUNDS AND BUILDINGS.

A GREAT number of persons interested in the University find the present condition of its grounds and buildings unsatisfactory, or, more properly speaking, they fear that it may become worse rather than better. It is timely, therefore, to review what is generally known as to the endeavors which have been made toward its improvement at different times and by different people.

So long as the main College Quadrangle remained incomplete the problem was simple, and the vacant spaces around the Yard were gradually filled with buildings. With the expansion of the University, and as the fields to the north of Kirkland Street were gradually occupied, the old feeling that the Yard was the centre of activity still prevailed, and each building - the Scientific School, the Law School, the Gymnasium, the Jefferson Laboratory and the Carey Athletic Building was placed with its entrance front towards the more and more distant College Yard, without regard to the fact that each backed towards the other and formed no part of a harmonious whole. From time to time, however, plans were studied out with more or less care looking to broader effects and a fuller development of the University property. When Memorial Hall was built, Messrs. Ware & Van Brunt devised a scheme for an avenue from its southern transept nearly parallel with Quincy Street across the grounds to their southern boundary at Main Street. This would have made a grand route for processions and a noble approach to Memorial Hall from the city side, and a line of College buildings would have been well placed between it and Quincy Street.

Later, when Sever Hall was built, its architect, Mr. H. H. Richardson, apparently preferred a larger space round that building than would have been afforded between this proposed avenue and Quincy Street. At all events, the new building was placed directly on the proposed avenue. A sketch by this architect indicating what arrangement he suggested of the neighboring building sites now hangs in the College office.

Lastly, when Conant and Perkins halls were built on the entirely unoccupied playing fields, Messrs. Olmsted & Eliot made a plan for their disposition on Holmes Field and for the property in that immediate neighborhood. This plan was not followed, and the buildings were placed farther out on Oxford Street. Perkins Hall very nobly fills one end of Jarvis Field, but probably for some cogent reason Conant Hall occupies a somewhat unsymmetrical relation with its larger neighbor. Afterwards Messrs. Olmsted & Eliot added to the plan just mentioned some further suggestions for the property between Kirkland Street and Jarvis Field.

These schemes are so far as is generally known the nearest approaches that have been made to a general study for the development of the College property. The Corporation have reserved certain areas for library extension or other precise uses, but for the most part each new building has been considered as a unit, and has been placed perhaps where its donor or architect suggested with a view to making that special building as effective as possible. Even the avenue suggested by Messrs. Ware & Van Brunt was devised with a view to enhancing the effect of Memorial Hall, and the grouping planned by Mr. Richardson had mainly in view the best placing of Sever Hall. In short, no broadly studied arrangement looking to the single purpose of developing the whole property to the best advantage has ever been formulated.

In view of this, at their meeting November 6, 1894, the Board of Overseers passed the following vote :

"Resolved (1) That in the opinion of this Board it is very desirable that a complete scheme for the future development of the College property be formulated and adhered to in future work as closely as the progress of events makes possible.

“(2) That in the opinion of this Board greater harmony and excellence

in the design of College buildings would be obtained if all artistic questions where University property is concerned were submitted to a standing advisory committee composed partly of several competent professional men, and partly of members of the Governing Boards of the University.

"(3) That these votes be communicated to the President and Fellows."

This vote was published in the newspapers and favorably commented upon by them. As matter of fact, however, the Board of Overseers could do nothing in this matter but suggest their wishes to the Corporation. The practical initiative lies wholly with the Corporation, and apparently energetic action has seemed to them up to this time undesirable.

It is argued, on one side, that as donors frequently stipulate for certain sites, such a plan as that proposed would be frequently violated. To which it is replied that very few benefactors of the College would insist upon overriding the judgment of competent experts on a matter of taste, or insist upon changing a plan adopted after mature consideration. Almost any donor would prefer a site which was plainly arranged to be effective in relation to other sites rather than one chosen at hap-hazard; and moreover it is evident that if necessary the plan can be broken or made to conform to the wishes of any single donor who proves obtuse to these reasonings.

It is said that a complete study of the subject would necessarily involve the consideration of contiguous properties belonging to other people, and that the market price of desirable lots would thus be increased. In the case of distant and outlying lands this argument might have great weight, but it can be no secret that lands immediately adjoining the College Yard would be welcomed as possessions by the College. The study of the plan would be more difficult but not prevented by these facts. The buildings and avenues would need to be so arranged that they would answer both with and without the acquisition of these lands.

Finally, it is urged that nobody can foresee the future needs of the College in the way of buildings and that a plan which seems fit to-day will be outgrown to-morrow. But if the future needs cannot be outlined, the possibilities of buildings on the present property can be fairly estimated and mapped out. If the buildings cannot be apportioned to different departments, at least main