Poll of Married Students Prepares Way for 400-Apartment Dormitory

A surprise trend in the responses to a questionnaire for married students has cleared the way for a proposed 400-apartment complex south of Dunster House.

University officials distributed the questionnaire to 7000 married students and junior Faculty members last spring. Results compiled from 4100 returned forms were released yesterday.

The most important question concerned the rent students were willing to pay. A majority said they would accept a fee of $110 a month, only $10 less than a rent which would permit the dormitories to pay for themselves, once completed. The administration had feared that most of the students would ask for a figure around $85 a month.

A rent of $110 would cover an apartment including living-dining room, kitchen bath, and one bedroom. The questionnaire results indicated that most of the units in the dormitories will be of this type, rather than those with two and three bedrooms or "efficiency apartments" with only a single main room and a bathroom.

Charles P. Whitlock, assistant to the president for civic affairs, said yesterday that one reason for the low appeal of efficiency apartments was that Cambridge already offers a great many of these.

In a related section, the questionnaire asked reasons for dissatisfaction with students' present arrangements. Most couples singled out poor maintenance and deteriorated conditions, rather than cost, as the major factors.

A second unexpected response came on a question asking. "If you lived within 15 minutes of Harvard Yard, and if you own an automobile now, would you still keep one?" Eighty per cent of the couples said they would.

Parking for Cars

Whitlock pointed out that the University would have to provide parking space for these cars. This costs $2500 for each car above ground, and, if the parking areas are put underneath buildings, as in the case of the Health Center, costs can rise to $8000 per car-space.

President Pusey has stated that the dormitories should include community facilities, such as laundries or groceries, and the response on this idea was heavily favorable, though not always unified. In the section on recreational facilities, for example, undergraduates preferred tennis courts over an indoor pool; graduate students were neutral, and faculty members preferred the pool.