<p>Athletic fields, current Business School site, on the Allston (Boston) side of the River are options.</p>
<p>Either a new bridge, or a tunnel running from Harvard Square on the Cambridge side to near Harvard Stadium in Allston, may be necessary for access. Monumental design problems involved.</p>
<p>Byerly, would you mind telling us what house you were in?</p>
<p>Thanks for posting this...I can't believe they'd build new houses...</p>
<p>It will take years - and $ billions - to complete the project. A fringe benefit will be the ability to expand the student body by up to 20%.</p>
<p>benefit? 5 new houses sounds like a 40% increase.<br>
Harvard is going to become the Cornell of Cambridge.</p>
<br>
<p>benefit? 5 new houses sounds like a 40% increase. </p>
<br>
<p>Five newly built houses only means a net gain of two; all of these Allston plans contemplate giving the Quad to grad schools.</p>
<p>8 new houses - 3 quad houses = 5 net gain.</p>
<p>The study referenced in the Crimson article is the Undergraduate Life Task Force report that came out a year ago. Here's the link:</p>
<p>It reports on four options for undergraduate housing in Allston, two that involve no growth in undergraduate population, two that involve growth from 6500 to 8000, phased in over 20 years. So far as I can tell, the 8000 number was just a nice round number used to illustrate the "growth scenario" options. The task force does not recommend that the College increase its undergraduate population (nor is that decision within the task force's jurisdiction anyway), it simply reports how Allston might play a role in accommodating growth if that's what the College decides to do.</p>
<p>Option 4 (the second of the growth scenario options) assumes up to eight new undergraduate Houses in Allston. Three of these would replace the Quad houses, one would replace an existing Cambridge House (which would be turned into freshman housing to accommodate the increase in the freshman population), one would be used to permit more space per student across the House system generally, and three would accommodate the increase in the upper classman population.</p>
<p>But the University is still far from making any decisions on any of this, and they have certainly not come to any decision about increasing the undergraduate population at this point.</p>
<p>Good lord....where is the space along the river for this?? Doesn't seem like there is a square inch free...</p>
<p>Some athletic structures will have to be torn down and replaced, most likely. I'd be surprised to see them displace the Business School.</p>
<p>I think the logistical obstacles to 7-8 new Houses along the river in Allston will prove insuperable. I also don't see them increasing the undergrad population by that much, if at all.</p>
<p>My betting is on 3-4 new Allston Houses, replacing the Quad Houses (which will become graduate student housing - so much for the alleged "priority" given to graduate students at Harvard). With none completed before my son graduates in 2009. :)</p>
<p>I disagree. An increase of between 10-20% in the undergraduate student body is a key element in Summers' long-term plan. He is committed to increasing international enrollment, and does not want to do so at the expense of domestic candidates.</p>
<p>While its always fun to speculate, Id be very surprised to see any real growth in undergrad population in the near term (i.e., the next five to ten years or so). Maybe a little around the edges, which they could accommodate by having a greater number of students take a semester abroad. But I know they are focused near term on reducing the student to faculty ratio without diluting faculty quality, a goal that is obviously made that much harder if theres any significant growth in undergrad population.</p>
<p>In the longer term, who knows. I think there would be pretty strong resistance to it from a number of sources. And if they do ultimately decide to increase the undergrad population, I doubt it will be by means of eight Allston Houses more likely theyd go with three to four and just keep undergrads in the Quad Houses too.</p>
<p>I do not share your assumptions in any respect, except that the construction necessary to facilitate expansion is 5-10 years away. </p>
<p>The capital drive to help raise the money will take at least 5 yrs, and won't be launched until next year.</p>
<p>It would be very boring if you shared my assumptions. The wonderful thing about a debate like this is that we won't know who's right for another five or ten years. ;)</p>
<p>Oh, I think the plans will have firmed up much sooner than that, although the construction phase will be protracted.</p>
<p>Harvard has SO much money. IMO they are diluting the undergrad experience by adding more people.</p>
<p>What do you think is the "magic number"?</p>
<p>40 yrs ago, it was 4,200.</p>
<p>Now it is 6,600; does this mean it is "diluted?</p>
<p>Obviously the school has advanced in the last 40 years, but if there could be 4,200 students instead of 6,600, yes, I would say its an advantage. Also, there is a critical number when a school gets too big (probably around 6-7,000) and this creates the needs for infrastuctures that in my opinion detracts from the overall experience. I know many Princeton alumni staunchly opposed to their expansion efforts for this reason. Peronally, I believe size is why Princeton/ Dartmouth have such strong and loyal alumni and offer such strong undergrad experiences.</p>
<p>Why not go to a LAC then? By your logic their alumni should be even MORE loyal and the undergrad experience even stronger.</p>