Complete, unformatted text of the SHPC report

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Undergraduate Education and Student Affairs
Arthur C. Smith
Dean for Undergraduate Education and Student Affairs

MEMORANDUM
From: Arthur C. Smith
Re: Report of the Strategic Housing Planning Committee
Date: January 9, 1995
Room 7-133, 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 253-6776

I am writing to describe the context in which I hope you will consider
the report of the Strategic Housing Planning Committee which is
attached. You should be aware that the only decision that has been
taken thus far is to move ahead with the engineering analysis of those
needs of Senior House that are independent of use or ultimate
configuration (e.g. heating, air conditioning, electric service, fire
alarms, etc.).

The report and its recommendations are one part of the input that will
go into a decision about the next steps in improving student housing
at MIT.  I urge that you read it carefully and completely. It contains
the results of extensive work by the committee and gives useful
information as well as the committee's recommendations.

Another vital part of the input required before a decision is made
will be the ideas and needs of students. There will be a variety of
opportunities for students to affect the decision process.

* I expect to meet with both undergraduate and graduate students for
the purpose of exchanging information and views.

* Meetings with the Strategic Housing Planning Committee may be
arranged as well.

* Written responses to the report from student groups or individuals
will be another way to affect the process. Such responses can be
addressed to me in 7-133 or sent to acsmith@mit.edu and I will share
them with those who have the responsibility for making the final
decisions about housing, i.e. the President, Provost and Senior Vice
President.

* The Corporation Visiting Committee on Undergraduate Education and
Student Affairs will meet in mid-February and will constitute an
important forum where student opinion and concern will be heard.

Many students have expressed their concern about the decision making
process and their desire to take part. The month of January and the
first part of February will be a time to do that. By working together
on this issue, I believe that we can achieve substantial improvements
in the living environment for students and set a pattern for future
progress.

-------
STRATEGIC HOUSING PLANNING COMMITTEE

Robert M. Randolph, Chair
December, 1994

SENIOR HOUSE

INTRODUCTION

The charge given this Committee in early November focused on
renovating Senior House with emphasis on how and when. Over the course
of the time we have been working together, our focus has been
broader. We found that turning to the issue of Senior House was
salutary in that it sharpened our focus, but we also found that seeing
Senior House in isolation failed to do justice to the complex issues
we must deal with over the next half-decade. Therefore what follows is
at once more comprehensive and complicated. Any course of action will
have short term negative implications with resulting ire among our
constituent communities of interest. There is no way to avoid the ire,
but there is also no reason not to be prepared and able to spell out
the long term benefits of acting with both compassion and vision. The
emotional content of the conversation is better understood if the
following points are kept in mind:

1. Data gathered by the senior survey conducted under the auspices of
the ODUESA suggest that the living group is the primary source of
social interaction and personal support for undergraduates, and that
among the most important elements of a living group are: adequate
private living spaces, maintaining good physical condition of the
facilities, and a sense of community. These were also areas where
there was some significant disparity between relative importance and
degree of fulfillment.

2. Similarly, the general evaluation of undergraduate housing
undertaken by the UA indicates "...that most undergraduates are quite
satisfied with MIT housing, but that there are problems that need to
be remedied." (p. 3) among those problems is the need to renovate
several dormitories (especially Senior House, Baker, and Random Hall).

3. Tentative conclusions from the fall 1994 graduate housing issues
report prepared by the GSC state that the main reasons for choosing to
live in on-campus housing are: convenience (both location and
administration), cost, private room, living on campus, safety, and
sense of community. These responses are also consistent with the
graduate student housing and transportation survey undertaken in 1980.

The report that follows is informed by this understanding of student
housing.  It begins with facts as the Committee understands them and
moves to conclusions that have the support of the Committee. For the
sake of ease, however, we are producing the conclusions at the outset
so that they inform the reader working through the report. (It would
have been easier for us if we could have begun with conclusions firmly
in hand; alas, we could not!)

CONCLUSIONS

1. We recommend that in the immediate future we retain Senior House in
our undergraduate housing inventory for the following reasons and
under the following conditions:

a. Reasons
1. Senior House as undergraduate housing will allow us to end
undergraduate dormitory crowding;
2. Senior House as undergraduate housing will allow us to restore
flexibility in the undergraduate housing system;
3. Senior House as undergraduate housing will facilitate other needed
renovations.

b. Conditions
1. renovations begin as quickly as possible; therefore, a feasibility
study that tells us whether or not the building can be renovated in a
summer should begin immediately with a renovations schedule firmly
established. Such a study is not dependent on ultimate use of the
building;
2. a flexible design that allows adaptation for other uses in future
years, e.g., undergraduates now, but eventually graduate use;
3. there is serious exploration of whether or not programs like ESG,
Concourse, or ISP could be housed in Senior House thus creating a
residential base for all or some of these freshmen year programs;
4. flexible design include ample common space and would include
exploration of the summer use option.

2. We recommend that Ashdown become an undergraduate residence under
the following conditions:

a. this is a pragmatic decision and not based on any grand scheme to
move all undergraduates to the west side of campus;

b. if Senior house is not renovated in the summer of '95, we suggest
reserving a portion of Ashdown in the fall of 1995 and reassigning a
portion of Westgate for new single graduate housing. There are
currently 25 single occupants of studio apartments and the number
could be increased to 50 apartments designated for use as
doubles. Such moves would:
1. restore flexibility to the undergraduate housing system while
ending crowding;
2. take the edge off disruption in housing options for entering
graduate students.

c. if Senior House renovations must begin this summer and the dorm be
out of use for the coming academic year, we should reserve a larger
portion of Ashdown exploring whether or not our unique programs for
freshman might not be housed there. Such a move would:
1. house Senior House residents and take the edge off crowding for the
fall of '95;
2. in the short term be the most financially feasible option given the
cost of new undergraduate housing and would allow us to mitigate
crowding;
3. mean less graduate housing disruption as undergraduates would
return to Senior House upon completion of renovations and graduates
could remain in Ashdown until the new graduate housing is available;
when new housing is complete, graduates in Ashdown would move and
Ashdown would become an undergraduate dorm with appropriate
renovations.

3. We recommend that the process for creating a new multi-use housing
community at Sidney and Pacific in the northwest quadrant begin
immediately. This is not dependent on what is done with Senior
House. Given the disruption of current housing for graduate students
in even the most favorable of scenarios, it is critical to begin
Sidney and Pacific immediately:
a. students should be invited to help recreate the best benefits of
Ashdown;
b. this move would reaffirm MIT's commitment to provide housing in
Cambridge and would establish an important presence on this parcel;
c. this move would replace by 1997 the capacity lost with Ashdown;
d. this move would support existing housing presence in the northwest
area.

4. Further study:
a. look more closely at the future for East Campus residence halls;
b. study the graduate tutor model and the Housemaster system; 
c. give serious attention to the determination of an optimal
undergraduate class size;
d. residence life issues for both graduates and undergraduates;
program development for Senior House, Sidney and Pacific, Edgerton,
including academic presence, dining issues, transportation and safety
concerns;
e. develop a financial plan to under gird the housing changes we will
need to make over the next decade.

A. FACTS

We cannot isolate conversation about Senior House because the issue of
housing is part of a system that affects the Institute across the
boundaries separating matters related to housing, enrollment and
tuition revenue. Each of these components is administered by a
separate part of the Institute. Enrollment numbers affect housing;
decrease enrollment and issues of crowding become less critical, but
the income stream from tuition decreases. While obvious, these facts
mean that some of the options offered in this report are not the
expected responses to the question: "What do we do about Senior
House?" For example, the implications of taking Senior House off line
for a year are mitigated if enrollment in the freshman class
declines. BUT next year even with Senior House on line, we anticipate
crowding in the 190 range. Crowding as an issue at the undergraduate
level is a primary influence on our recommendations.

It is a fact that currently we have an existing structural imbalance
in our housing system. The demand exceeds our housing stock. This
occurs at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. For graduate
students MIT has long maintained a goal of housing 50% of our enrolled
students. We have reached only the 30% level. For undergraduates we
promise housing for all entering students and guarantee it for eight
terms. In the current system we have a pain threshold at about 135
crowds. Beyond that it really hurts the undergraduate experience,
i.e., common space is appropriated, rooms become unbearably crowded,
etc. In addition there is no financial or other incentive to
uncrowd. Your rent is actually less if you are in a crowded room; some
of these rooms are crowded each year so there is a sense of normalcy
to living in these circumstances. This has the unintended consequence
of a decline in revenue in our housing income stream. The time of
greatest stress on the system is during the first five weeks of the
fall term; housing is in flux during this time and we have less
reliable data than we will have later in the year.

It is a fact that housing for a given year must be available by August
15; later availability is not helpful since students will have made
other arrangements. Senior House currently houses 169 students and
Ashdown houses 420 students. Huntington Hall gave us 60 undergraduate
beds plus space for tutors. The Huntington Hall option will not be
available in the fall of 1995.  Given current enrollment levels and
assuming a normal rush, that means in the fall of 1995 we will see
crowds well above the pain threshold as defined by Dean Art Smith. The
numbers could be approaching 200 crowds.

It is a fact that Senior House needs to be renovated. All
parties--students, administration, other constituents, aware of the
state of the building recognize that work needs to be done to improve
the living environment. The building is not fully ADA compliant. In
1992 renovations were made at a cost of $450,000 just in order to keep
the building on line. Given the lack of an overarching plan these
renovations illustrate the costs of shortsighted policy.  It needs
also to be noted that while the systems in Senior House are old and
outdated, they are not in imminent danger of failing, i.e., the heat
works if you are willing to keep your windows open as a means of
moderating its excesses!

B. ASSUMPTIONS

This report is based on several assumptions drawn from the facts as we
have outlined them. We assume no change in current graduate student
housing demand.  There are those who argue that graduate student
enrollment will decline in the immediate future. We cannot predict,
but it is also clear that the tasks graduate students do will still
need to be done and if the number of post-doctorate appointments
increases, those individuals will still need housing. It is important,
therefore, that new housing be as flexible as possible and that
renovations where possible allow the option of several uses, e.g.,
graduate housing, undergraduate housing, etc. We assume that MIT will
continue to attempt to house 50% of our graduate students.

In this report undergraduate admissions is a dependent variable. The
undergraduate class size will be determined by our housing policies or
by our need for tuition revenue. If we wish tuition revenue to remain
the same we will have to provide housing. The dominoes fall in several
directions if we decide to lower class size, cut housing guarantees,
etc.

Two important related facts need to be noted: first, despite extended
conversation we have never said that MIT as an institution should have
an undergraduate community of a given size. Second, we are seeing
indications of stress in the system in other areas such as the need
for HASS lotteries, enrollments in Biology that are pushing capacity,
classroom availability, testing capacities, etc., that indicate we may
be approaching an upper enrollment limit unless we are willing to make
additional accommodations in terms of teaching faculty, classroom
space, etc. A serious cost analysis is called for, a study that asks:
"How big should MIT be?" but it is beyond the scope of this Committee.

For the purposes of this study we are also assuming no change in the
current Housemaster/Graduate tutor model in our residences. The
presence of tutors in simple housing terms means that 71 spaces with
room for up to 142 undergraduate beds is occupied; our current system
could be changed to include undergraduate tutors, but this implies
changes in the Housemaster role and has broad implications beyond the
scope of this Committee's charge.

C. GOALS

The goals we see as primary are as follows. They are the goals of this
Committee and do not necessarily reflect the goals students would
articulate or at least we do not assume that our goals are broadly
held. We believe them to be wise and helpful in charting our course.

l. Eliminate crowding: We wish to see undergraduate crowding a thing
of the past. Too often we go into the academic year stepping into a
roller coaster wondering if we will ever level out. The new working
group has stabilized our thinking about enrollment, but crowding below
135 has become so common that it is almost accepted as the status
quo. We think it time that crowding be eliminated.

2. Restore System Flexibility: We think it important that the
undergraduate housing stock give us some flexibility in order to allow
the Institute to deal with renovations system wide, e.g., Baker needs
work, Burton-Connor is not far behind. Within a short time Random Hall
will be taken off line and unless the money for new construction makes
a quick appearance, we will have a housing imbalance for the
foreseeable future.

3. Enhance Quality of Life: We think quality of life issues for both
undergraduates and graduates are worthy of attention. Renovations and
new graduate housing will allow for students to give us clear pictures
of their interests/needs/desires; we then have to make hard decisions
about what we are going to do. It should be remembered that the
construction of Edgerton Hall involved serious student advice and the
current voices being raised beg us not to build another Edgerton or
Tang; student input and informed administrative decision making
strikes the needed balance.

4. Avoid Disruption: Disruption of student life affecting the academic
year is to be avoided. We are particularly concerned about plans that
presume the ability to complete complex projects by August 15, but it
is also true that changes that affect graduate housing may well impact
their research and class efforts. Where possible disruption should be
minimized.

5. Positive Cost-Benefit., short-term and long-term: Decisions need to
take into account that short-term expenses may be unnecessary if we
have a clear outline of the big picture. We think here of the recent
renovations to Senior House; these cost us financially and in terms of
student good will; an inclusive plan for renovations would have
avoided both the public relations pitfall and the financial
expenditures which are now rendered unnecessary.

6. Maintain Stable Tuition Revenue: We intend to maintain a stable
tuition revenue profile.

7. Increase Revenue Opportunities: By renovating/building with an eye
toward flexibility, we increase potential house revenue for program
support, e.g., rebuilding Senior House in such a way that
accommodating summer conferences will give an income stream that could
be used to support programs in the house during the academic year.

8. Incorporate Student Involvement: The process that unfolds from this
point on should maximize student involvement; initiatives like the
Baker dining program should be encouraged and supported. Student
participation in client teams for both renovations and new
construction is assumed.

D. RISK FACTORS

The decision making process must take into account the following
dangers.  There may well be others.

1. There are extreme financial risks associated with taking a
dormitory off line. The need for new undergraduate housing on the west
side of campus is obvious in our long range plans (assuming that
within a reasonable time Random and Bexley are unavailable), but
recent experience with new undergraduate housing tells us that donors
of housing units are few and far between else we would not have New
House and Next House ( 500 Memorial Drive) and would have Smith Hall
and Jones Quad. (Students have offered that Next House is so named for
the Next Corporation. We smile and go on with our work wishing it were
so.)

2. Issues of schedule/timing: well laid plans that result in housing
not available in time for the fall term of any year will cause major
disruptions both financially and academically. Any decision to do
major renovations over the summer poses serious problems with regard
to Senior House; renovations during the academic year allow for a more
reasoned progression, but the loss of revenue is substantial.

3. There is substantial political risk no matter what course of action
is taken or not taken and no one should minimize the implications. The
political concerns cut several ways, however. Well done housing gives
an advantage in the competition for students courted by others who
offer sun and sand. At the same time we have a need to establish a
presence on the land we have there for housing.

4. The current conversation offers the opportunity to build consensus.
Agreement may be hard to achieve, but given a problem the MIT
community tends to work out reasonable solutions. With some time and
attention the current situation offers the chance for making some real
housing gains that benefit the entire community.

Among our opportunities there are also the benefits of current
momentum. We will lose opportunities if this plan goes dead in the
water while a new Dean is hyena caught :and reengineering options are
being considered.

Other options that we may encourage include attention to new dining
programs, academic presence in the residences, the additional faculty
presence in Edgerton giving a broader academic presence in the
northwest area, and hopefully tying that community in a creative
fashion with a new development at Sidney and Pacific.

5. There is an educational risk inherent in housing changes. Our
decision can have an affect on the educational climate in the
community. Displaced graduate students will be operating under
additional stress; we can expect faculty concern about the
implications for graduate students and questions about the climate for
graduate education. Should we begin renovations but not be able to
complete what we begin on schedule, it will have a ripple effect
though the community and that will affect the learning environment.

6. Risk in not acting: we have the opportunity now to put in place
additional income streams that could benefit the whole housing
system. Designing for multiple use not only raises the option of
letting Senior House serve as a convention center during the summer,
but planning new graduate housing near University Park allows us to
give attention to multi-use housing that might contribute to increased
community by inducing junior faculty into closer proximity to the
campus.

7. The unexpected: there is the risk that Senior House will turn out
to be a more major effort than currently thought, e.g., expenses may
run higher than expected, structurally problems with the building may
become apparent, asbestos may be a greater than expected difficulty.

E. 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.

FINALLY: The Committee will now turn its attention again to the
broader issues that called it into being. We will continue to gather
information to be used as background for the work of a faculty
committee on the undergraduate experience to be convened after the
first of the year.

Stragetic Housing Planning Committee
Robert M. Randolph, Chair
Steve Immerman
Margaret Jablonski
Bob Kaynor
Larry Maguire
Phil Walsh

• 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