SHPC Report: Options

1. Reduce demand: there are several options that relate to current policies:
   a. class size may be decreased from 50 to 75 students and crowding will be eliminated over four years and kept below pain level next year. Senior House could then be renovated without crowding going above the pain threshold. The revenue impact of such decision is obvious;
   b. access policies can be changed:
   1. only six terms of housing for undergrads guaranteed instead of eight;
   2. transfer students may not be given housing;
   3. 5th year undergrads will not be given housing;
   4. graduate housing guarantees could be reevaluated.
   
   c. in any case, it is time for a serious cost/benefit analysis of marginal demand vs. capacity, i.e., is it really that expensive if we cut class size?
2. Capacity options for graduates in the near term include:
   a. internal to MIT:
   1. Sidney/Pacific and other MIT land ASAP;
   2. Eastgate second tower; additional project elements are needed before this can go forward;
   3. additional northwest sites;
   4. Real Estate Office: purchase, rent?
   5. Westgate Tower (efficiencies) 50 out of 90 units up to 100 bed spaces for single graduate students.
   
   b. external:
   1. Cambridge/Boston rentals: options are varied, but this is an open market solution and involves no MIT presence; transportation may be needed.
3. Capacity options for undergraduates:
   a. short-term:
   1. keeping Senior House on line and crowding at current level
   2. Ashdown 50% or less up to 200 beds
   3. New ILG (sorority) 25 to 50 beds
   
   b. long-term/resolve imbalance ('96 forward):
   1. New ILG 25 beds
   2. Ashdown all for undergraduates 400+ beds
   3. new residences (Vassar St.)
4. Senior House Options:
   a. when: to renovate in the summer of '95 poses real risks given the short time frame no matter who occupies the building when it is complete;
   b. renovate in '96: some preparations might cut down the time involved; passage of time allows a more thorough planning process for the renovations and more community ownership;
   c. who: graduate students are on a 12-month contract and use by graduate students means that use during the summer is not possible; undergraduate use with the option of the building being used during the summer for conferences is possible if renovations are done with outside use in mind; summer occupancy might generate income for the support of programs in the renovated residence;
   d. multi-use design: immediate for undergraduates and summer use; long term redefine should needs change;
   e. program: obscured in the conversation about what might happen to Senior House is the reality that a new building will be a different building. A new building will not be used as the old building has been; seeing the building in terms of use by undergraduates or graduates obscures the fact that the environment will be substantially different in a renovated structure. The program that emerges as with the new building itself must be developed with input from students and under the guidance of the ODUESA/RCA.

• SHPC home page
• articles about the SHPC in The Tech
• archive of electronic mail messages on various mailing lists regarding the work of the SHPC
• members of the SHPC