The Hopkins Center

Alumni Letters About—

The following letter, addressed to the editor of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE, has already been distributed by Mr. Kingsley to the Class of 1914 and a considerable number of other alumni. Its publication in the MAGAZINE does not seem clearly called for, in the circumstances, but we are glad to give Mr. Kingsley space to state his views, as we did when the new dormitories were announced.

We publish also a reply to Mr. Kingsley by Prof. Warner Bentley '14h, director of dramatic production at Dartmouth and a member of the Hopkins Center Building Committee.

DEAR MR. WIDMAYER:

If Dartmouth had had a chair of semantics when I was in college, I might now be able to compliment you on your May issue without the risk of giving offense. What I want to say is, that the May issue is a masterpiece of salesmanship or of propaganda, depending upon the viewpoint. Unfortunately, although I think that the word "propaganda" is more accurate in its pristine meaning, that word has come to have such evil connotations that I think "salesmanship" is probably more suitable to convey my meaning. Salesmanship involves the emphasis of features which are attractive to the purchaser and the suppression or glossing over of features which are likely to stimulate sales resistance. It is the purpose of this letter to stress the features you have glossed over.

I have noted that you, Nelson Rockefeller, Victor Borella, John Meek, Dudley Orr, John Dickey, and Richard Olmsted who comprise a single purpose team are all products of Dartmouth in the period embracing the boom-and-bust era of the Hoover-Roosevelt administrations. As such, it is understandable that you would have a viewpoint different in many respects from that of my generation and of the generation of my sons. Consequently, it is understandable that your viewpoint is difficult for me to understand and yet is one which I must recognize as sincerely held, much as I disagree with it.

This sincerity of belief undoubtedly makes you oblivious to what I consider to be a lack of intellectual integrity. Last year, the alumni were informed that the criteria for Hopkins Center were essentially: (1) it should not conflict with the dominance of Dartmouth Row, (2) it should have a large expanse of glass facing north, and (3) that it should bring a fiesh architectural conception to the campus. On the second count, there can be no dispute, and whether the architectural conception is fresh or not, it certainly is fresh to Dartmouth campus. On the first requirement, however, I cannot see how people who use words according to accepted dictionary definitions can find that the design is not in conflict, or is harmonious, with Dartmouth Row. The failure to meet this requirement, which to my mind was the most important of all and was placed at the head of the three criteria, has been mentioned only obliquely in the May issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE. The unsigned article, beginning on page 19, entitled "A New Dimension in Dartmouth Education" states: "Contemporary in design, it will have a special architectural interest because of the care with which Mr. Harrison has related it in scale and materials - largely red brick with white trim - to the present campus structures." If color is the dominating note in architectural harmony, it would be easy to harmonize a pig sty with a cathedral.

In her article, Ann Potter considered it necessary to recognize the existence of the prerequisite that the building should be subject to the dominance of Dartmouth Row and stated: . . standing at right angles, as it will, to old Dartmouth Row, the Center will not be so contemporary or in any sense so drastic as to seem unsuitable in that position." What psychic impulse compelled her to use the words "drastic" and "unsuitable," and to negate their applicability only because of the position of the new building with respect to Dartmouth Row?

Warner Bentley, honestly enthusiastic of the prospect of attaining, at long last, his cherished theater, is entirely silent as to the external aspect of the building. Only Paul Sample boldly attacks the dilemma with the statement, "I personally am happy with a contemporary rather than a traditional style of architecture ... we have the happy anticipation of its being in harmonious relationship to existing structures." I cannot but believe that his statement either uses the word "harmonious" in a sense not understood by me or was written with tongue in cheek.

I assume that Mrs. Potter is not misled when she stated ".. .if the 'people' that Mr. Harrison has in this scale model are in proportion to the building, then it really is a huge place." If the proportions can be thus relied upon, I think that Mr. Harrison or the committee has come up with an excellent concept of the Center, but I think that his placement of buildings and use of glass are out of character with the rest of the College.

Mr. Dickey and Mr. Orr with their "Sidewalk superintendent" (Who ever heard of a creative art being successfully pursued under the supervision of over-the-shoulder rubbernecks?) may like large expanses of glass, but with my limited artistic background, they suggest exhibition buildings, aquaria, and botanical gardens. I do not believe that structures of this sort should be viewed from the steps of Dartmouth Hall or of the tower of Baker.

"The highest point of the building, the stage house for the theater, is set well back and is connected with the front of the Center by a graceful, curving line." The stage house for the theater resembles nothing so much as a grain elevator. It towers above the rest of the structure. Built of red brick with white trim or not, it cannot be a thing of beauty and is a cruel balance for the Baker Tower. If this whole concept must be placed at the southeast corner of the green, then the theater should be placed as close to Lebanon Street as possible so that the unsightly stage house will be in the background rather than dominating the entire scene.

Through accident, as you intimate, or by intent, the long period of time elapsing from submission of this design to the trustees in December and its publication in the May issue precludes prompt printing of comment in the ALUMNI MAGAZINE, for undoubtedly your June issue is already in the hands of the printer and, if memory serves me right, you will not have another issue until October. Thus, the negative side of the argument is likely to be stale before the view of those few men who have learned to think for themselves and have expressed their comment finds itself in type.

As an architectural critic, 1 have no training other than the ability to use common sense. As a corporate counsellor, I have somewhat wider experience. One of the first considerations given to any course of action should be to weigh the consequences of possible failure as opposed to success. The course of action subject to the lesser risk is the one usually dictated by prudence. In the present instance, the college is faced with the alternative of building at a critical location a structure which differs drastically from any other building on the campus. The existence of such a structure is bound to stir controversy which is likely to be unhealthy for the college. Warning of this controversy was given last year when the appointment of Harrison and Abramowitz as architects for this project was first announced.

On the other hand, the construction of the same facilities in another dress could be made harmonious with the rest of the campus without stirring bitterness. Even those who would prefer a different dress would soon become reconciled, whereas those who prefer to cling to the old traditions would be pleased from the outset. Of the two courses of action, the one with the less risk to the welfare of Dartmouth College (the preservation of which is the duty of the administration and the trustees) is clearly the one least calculated to arouse bitterness and dissension.

Harrison has abundantly proved his boldness and imagination. His place in architecture is secure. He has not, in this instance, demonstrated a mastery of restraint. Here was his opportunity to design a structure of traditional beauty, and he has failed. Should the College participate in this failure? The answer is the same as the answer to another question: Would the Rockefellers place a structure like Hopkins Center in the heart of Williamsburg, Virginia?

EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Kingsley's intimation that the Hopkins Center Issue was purposely delayed is as groundless as his assumption that alumni letters about the Center would not appear until next fall. As was explained to Mr. Kingsley in a letter dated April 17, the Hopkins Center Issue was scheduled for the earliest possible month, once we knew that the revised plans, the architect's model and the renderings would be ready to en- able us to give the alumni an accurate and detailed story of this important new project.

A Reply to Mr. Kingsley by Warner Bentley '14h

DEAR CHUCK:

Being an honorary member of the Class of 1914 (which honor I prize highly) I received your communication to the members of the Class regarding the architecture of the Hopkins Center.

I dislike to find myself in disagreement with you, but to keep the records straight, I think that 1 should tell you that, although I said nothing in my article in the May issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE about the outside appearance of the building, this is not to be interpreted as a disapproval on my part of the design. On the contrary, I think that it is one of the most functional, exciting, and honest buildings that I have ever seen. I get a new thrill out of it every time I look at the plans and the model. I am confident in my own mind that after the building is up it will bring real renown to Dartmouth College and that most of our alumni will point to it with pride.

The Hopkins Center Building Committee has worked hard and long on the concept of the services of the Center and the plans to best carry out this concept. We honestly don't see how we could accomplish inside the building what Mr. Harrison, in our opinion, has done so magnificently if we were to use a compromised architecture or an imitation Georgian design.

Some of the statements in your letter lead me to believe that you may have the impression that the building committee did not have a completely free choice in the selection of the architect. I think you should know that the committee spent a good deal of time looking at examples of the work of several architects. Without any outside suggestions whatever, we were completely unanimous in the opinion that if we could get him, Wallace Harrison would be the man who could best do the job as we wanted to have it done. We are now unanimous in our opinion that Dartmouth was extremely fortunate to have Mr. Harrison accept this commission and we are convinced that our faith in his ability has been more than justified.

You asked a question about our "sidewalk superintendent" principle. We have been assured by those who know most about these things that some of the world's greatest art has been produced under observation of the passerby. Perhaps the most outstanding historic antecedent for this aspect of the Hopkins Center is the Agora of Athens where artists and artisans went about their creative work in the principal market place of goods and ideas. And very good work they produced! The artistic vitality of Athens was certainly in some measure due to this "everyday" aspect which creative art had in the lives of all Athenians. Our effort is to create this same "everyday" aspect of creative art in the lives of all Dartmouth undergraduates; the "sidewalk superintendent" principle is a key part of that effort.

In your last sentence you mentioned Williamsburg. The Williamsburg Corporation has just recently opened a new information center and motor lodge which is of a contemporary design. It is a beautiful layout, both inside and outside. Also, the Jamestown Festival Corporation has built a completely contemporary building to house all of their wonderful exhibits of 17th century Virginia and 16th and 17th century England, including the original copy of the Magna Carta.

I do not presume to think that these remarks will convert you to the use of contemporary architecture for the Hopkins Center. I do hope that what I have said will make you feel that the decisions of the Building Committee have been honest and that they are reasonable according to the convictions of those of us who will be charged with making this building really serve the College now and in the years to come.

Other Letters

To THE EDITOR:

Praise, instead of protest, is all I have to offer on a major topic that certainly deserves - and gets - full and fervent discussion, these days, among men most easily moved, each by his own affectionate concern for Dartmouth.

I was there, on the campus, when the fireworks began with the first public presentation of finalized plans for the new Hopkins Center - its social, educational, undergraduate and Alumni aspects - its visualizations and a complete scale-model. Since then, I have received from various second-hand sources no less than six copies of a circular letter set in motion by a contemporary campus-pal and fraternity brother of mine, with whom I'd love to spend a long evening talking-out the near-half-century that Dartmouth has been "part of us" - down to this date.

Normally, my reply would have gone directly to the author of that letter but, by the time I got hold of his address with the copy he asked a Classmate to forward my way, I had so many copies from other contributors, I needed a little "extra circulation" myself. I need it simply to say that, personally, I find no salient point in the argument and program there set forth with which I can agree - save only the evident depth and sincerity of the author's devotion and concern for the welfare of Dartmouth College motivating it all.

So - please accept another old grad's three-cents-worth on the subject. To save space, I shall not argue with him here nor reason-why.

Thinking of the centuries, rather than of my generation, Hopkins Center — as presented - seems to have the ingenuity and distinction to be today's marker for Dartmouth's third century. I am satisfied to have it keyed to the purity of line and classic rectangularity of Old Dartmouth Row, which was "modern" in her first one. To have it take shape from materials, engineering technology and today's respected concepts of convenience and design that two hundred years have made possible, I am content.

As a $7 million construction job of plantimprovement, this appears to be a sort of long-considered, carefully adjudicated "Supreme Court Decision" for the solution of many Dartmouth problems. For the College, the students, the Alumni and Dartmouth's ever-widening world of influential service, Hopkins Center will do much to complete and amend the Hanover Inn side - the socialand commercial side, let's say — of the campus rectangle.

Architecturally, I harbor no lurking fears for the future. Housing an inspired combination of functions and facilities, this complex of four co-ordinated buildings spaciously arranged in one imaginative, indoor-outdoor structure - will "carry the campus" all the way back, behind South Main Street stores, to modern Dartmouth's first adequate lecture-auditorium and arena-stage fronting on Lebanon Street. Architecturally, X can believe - and predict — it will "do more" for the development of down-town Hanover in the next twenty years than anything that's happened in living-Alumni lifetimes.

Close onto the witching hour of some June evening, maybe you have left a talkative crowd and stood, all alone, on that campus before the Phoenix-like purity of Dartmouth Hall - purity of line, color and tradition! Maybe you scarcely realized - but now you will remember — how gently you were being shut away from the years and everything else roundabout by the cool darkness closing in about the persistent youth and glow of Old Dartmouth - and that within you.

I hate to disturb your reverie, but let me ask: did it bother you then — or does it disturb you now — to think of the Romanesque arches and architecture of Rollins Chapel on the one side and Wilson Hall, proudly "modern" marker of Richard Hovey's day, on the other?

Tradition is a precious and venerable possession - but not so much, I think, for the drawing of precise plans and specifications as for the solid, enduring and significant substance it provides for men to build on... and to build on and on.

Northwood Center, N. H.

To THE EDITOR:

I received the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine a few days ago. I was very much surprised to see the pictures of the planned Hopkins Center.

I cannot understand how the Trustees and the planning board could have accepted such a type of building for the campus of Dartmouth College. As far as I am concerned, it is completely out of place in what is now a beautiful New England town.

One reason Butterfield Hall was torn down was because it was not in keeping with the other buildings and this is certainly much worse than that.

There are several college grads in this small town I am in and I have not heard a single favorable comment.

A Harvard man asked me, "Is this to be a complete shopping center or only a supermarket."

I simply cannot understand this type of architecture as in keeping with Dartmouth Row.

I am sure it will have an adverse effect on Alumni Fund raising.

'Lest the old traditions fail."

Jaffrey Center, N. H.

To THE EDITOR:

May I express my deep regret and deeper disappointment for the design of the Hopkins Center. Through this building the Administration had a rare opportunity to add nobility and beauty to the campus of Dartmouth College. The Center as planned adds only discord. The sheer bulk and stark expanse of the projected structure will be in jarring contrast with the quiet simplicity of the Old Row and the balanced mass and tower of the Library.

One may admit the Harrison plan extremely functional and perhaps even admirable in its class. But while tubular steel furniture is comfortable, functional, and even lovely in line I would not admit it to my 250-year-old Cape Cod house; I would not hang a Picasso reproduction between an Anton Roux watercolor and a Currier print; and even the most ardent admirers of "contemporary" architecture consider its use improper in proximity to buildings of older patterns.

My regret goes beyond this violation of a principle of architecture. In an educational institution of nearly two centuries' standing one expects sobriety, balance, and appreciation of the permanent. By its failure to rise to the presented opportunity the Administration indicates a juvenile tendency to abandon the sound and proven and to favor new and untried trends, exciting through their novelty. One may welcome change, but one may not support revolution.

In this Commonwealth legislation has lately authorized the establishment of "Historical Districts" in which all change must be in harmony with the existing order. May I urge that the Dartmouth College campus be considered and maintained as such a region.

Dennis, Mass.

To THE EDITOR:

I am sure that this will be only one of many letters you will receive protesting against the disfigurement of the Dartmouth campus by the starkly modern Hopkins Center as pictured in the recent issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE.

Alumni have been assured, ever since the original idea of a Hopkins Center was conceived, that the final plan would be "in harmony with Dartmouth Row," and with the traditional Colonial atmosphere of the Hanover community. I am at a loss to see how anyone with any aesthetic sense can see any harmonious relationship between the planned exterior of the new building and the campus as it now stands.

Designing the United Nations headquarters in the modern style is one thing, since that is an entity in itself, but to inject a building of such bold contemporary design into an elm-shaded New England scene is prostitution of the worst sort.

When the Chapel, old Butterfield, Wilson and Culver Halls were built, the architects thought they were improving the campus by injecting architecture popular at the moment. Time has proved how quickly these designs became passe, and how much more attractive the community would have been if traditional Colonial designs had been used at that time. History will repeat itself and the architecture of 1957 will, 75 years from now, be as outmoded as the cupolas and gingerbread ornamentation of the 1870's, while Dartmouth Row will continue to live in the hearts of Dartmouth men as one of the finest examples of college architecture in America.

The voice of Dartmouth alumni should have greater weight in the selection of the exterior design for the Hopkins Center. The interior can be just as functional as the present plans provide without violating the promise that the exterior appearance of the building would be in harmony with the traditional Hanover scene.

I suggest that a poll be taken to allow other alumni to express themselves on this point.

New York, N. Y.

To THE EDITOR:

I wonder if the critics of the architecture of the projected Hopkins Center have actually seen the wonderful model of the Center itself? If they had, they would notice a generous corner of the Hanover Inn included, and they would be able to see how charmingly, through use of red brick, the old and the new styles blend together.

I have recently had the occasion to add some new furniture in my home, and in a group with a beautiful Governor Winthrop desk nothing seemed to go so well as a pair of severely modern Italian chairs.

I predict that when the Hopkins Center has been in place for a couple of years, with its newness worn down a little and its planting grown up around it, it will look as though it has been part of the campus we love since forever.

New York, N. Y.

To THE EDITOR:

Any Dartmouth man who loves the College becomes disturbed from time to time by changes of one kind and another, and I am deeply disturbed by the trend toward modernistic architecture within the College.

The proponents of what may aptly be called henhouse modern talk much about functionalism, presumably because it is the only virtue their buildings possess. If, to serve its purpose, a building must be harsh and stark in appearance, and entirely out of harmony with its fellows and its countryside, then architects are evidently not so clever as they should be.

The proposed Hopkins Center will be a graceless affront to the architectural face of the College. Such a building is not only severe (which may also be said of Colonial) but downright forbidding. Age can hallow it only if it becomes so overgrown with ivy as to make its lines indistinguishable.

Someone made a mistake years ago when Rollins Chapel was designed. But even that was not so glaring an error, for at least Rollins can lay claim to some architectural tradition.

What has become of Dartmouth's feeling for tradition, her sense of the her at-oneness with the New Hampshire hills?

How sick and tired we'll all be of this temporary craze for modernism in architecture twenty years from now!

New Rochelle, N. Y.

To THE EDITOR:

Exciting is the word for the new Hopkins Center. At last Dartmouth is breaking the ties with its past, its tradition, its heritage. Let us continue to move forward by demolishing Dartmouth Row and replacing it with a building as inspiring and beautiful as the new Hopkins Center.

Fredonia, N. Y.

To THE EDITOR;

This is to register an emphatic second to the letter to you of May 20 by Mr. Charles Kingsley '14, concerning the proposed Hopkins Center. Mr. Kingsley's letter describes accurately, I am sure, the sentiments of a good many alumni as to the propriety of such architecture on the Dartmouth campus.

The idea that this building as proposed will not clash with Dartmouth Row and the Baker Library is absurd. And I am unable to see how the fact that Mr. Harrison designed the U.N. and Rockefeller Center buildings (or the trylon and perisphere) automatically "qualifies" him to design for Dartmouth. Is there, perchance, some connection I have missed?

Jens Fredrick Larson knew what would harmonize with the traditions as well as the architecture of the College, and designed accordingly. It is most unfortunate that the present administration — to say nothing of architect Harrison - does not have the same perception.

It is perfectly possible to provide the needed facilities without making the building look like an addition to Miami University - where, incidentally, they don't have to heat acres of glass at 30 below zero.

If the administration persists in approving the present plans for Hopkins Center, I think it will not be easy to obtain the unanimous support of what up to now has been the most loyal alumni body in the country.

Pittsburgh, Pa.

To THE EDITOR:

Forsaking the alumni reticence that normally goes hand in hand with satisfaction over College policies, I wish to express my enthusiasm for the proposed Hopkins Center. The use of the structure will make a profound contribution to important intangible aspects of the Dartmouth experience. In addition, the building itself is characteristic and symbolic of these same aspects.

The first of these intangibles is Dartmouth's desire to create a climate in which students develop the characteristics of what has been referred to as the "Well Rounded Individual." This is not a "Jack of All Trades and Master of None" proposition but is an attempt to develop the "Master of Some" who in addition possesses a familiarity with a breadth of human interests and endeavors. This breadth not only increases the individual's enjoyment of life and his broad contribution to his society but places at his disposal the tools with which to put his "Master's Knowledge" to a wider and more beneficial use. To contribute to this purpose in the fullest measure the Center incorporates a new design technique. The structure does not, in a passive sense, merely enclose space in order to make it available for individual activities but carries beyond this into an active role where, by providing for a relationship between these activities, it creates an "... aesthetic and social crossroads. By this relating of creativity, and the appreciation of creativity, to the main social stream of the College, the Center will uniquely serve the ideal of the "Well Rounded Individual." It will produce a forum for demonstrating by personal experience the fact that the social and creative experiences each find fuller meaning and give fuller satisfaction when in close relationship with each other.

The building's design, in an architectural style that allows for the fullest sweep of the imagination, speaks boldly of the importance of creativity and does not incorporate the mistake of 'flatly demonstrating by its own lack of imagination that creativity is for fields other than architecture.

The second of the intangibles is a quality discussed by President Dickey in his Convocation Address of last fall. This intangible is the development within each individual of an ability to attain the fine human balance between ". .. an instinct for independence and a sense of community." At Dartmouth a cause and effect of this ability is the existing climate of appreciation for individuality and initiative which thrives and is a part of the group context known as the Dartmouth 'Spirit. In a broader sense this balance is attained in any human situation when there exists a combination of first, a pride and loyalty for the group where the loyalty smothers neither individuality nor initiative and where second, individuality flourishes but does not reach the excesses that result in an impairment of the ability for group action. By bringing into intimate contact the enjoyment of creativity and the group identity of the Dartmouth Fellowship, the Center will make an outstanding contribution to the realization of this balance.

In addition the design of the building gives testimony to the efforts of Mr. Harrison, President Dickey, and the Building Committee in striving to attain this balance in the structure itself. The Center represents an attempt to give new expression to the building of auditoriums, studios, and social areas. It demonstrates a desire to make an original contribution to the Dartmouth community of buildings. At the same time, however, it is also designed with a keen sense of responsibility towards this same group of buildings so that its individuality will contribute to, not detract from, the enjoyment of the whole.

The focal point of the campus, Dartmouth Hall and its Row, is conscientiously retained as the center of attraction and the Hopkins Center is rendered in a manner that overshadows no building on the campus. The beauty, romance, and sense of unity of the total campus will not be lessened. At the same time, the Center will add to the richness of the experience to be derived from the campus as a whole since the viewer who passes from the initial enjoyment of the total scene to a study of the individual buildings will not be met by repetition in style. On this second level of observation, the artistic expression in the Center, indicative of the aspirations of the age in which it was conceived and constructed, will provide a fresh human experience both in our time and in the decades to come. As a structure of originality that only enriches and does not detract, the Hopkins Center testifies to the attainability of the balance between "... an instinct for independence and a sense of community."

Hingham, Mass.

To THE EDITOR:

I have just received ray copy of the May issue of the DARTMOUTH ALUMNI MAGAZINE.

I am happy to learn that Hanover is to have a new "factory-to-You" furniture mart, - or is it a colossal super-market?

Succeeding generations will find the Hopkins Center as incongruously grotesque as we found Rollins Chapel.

Dartmouth has turned into the wrong lane.

Tradition, long the pride of Dartmouth men, has been dealt a death blow.

An impartial survey among all alumni and others who love Dartmouth will reveal widespread dissatisfaction and bitterness.

Kansas City, Mo.

To THE EDITOR:

Mr. Harrison's design for the Hopkins Center impresses me as thoroughly bad. The front it will present to the campus is extremely weak for a building of its size, and its profile from the east resembles a series of barns among which someone has dropped a small factory.

I see no reason why the functions of the Hopkins Center could not have been provided by a group of four colonial structures. The College would be justified in abandoning its dominant architectural style only if, as in the case of Yale or Princeton, it had become unbearably expensive, or if it were innately in poor taste. Neither of these is true of Dartmouth. The cost of colonial architecture is not prohibitive, and with the exception of the previous violations of this style, the College could hardly be more attractive.

Stanford, Calif.

To THE EDITOR:

When I look at the blueprint of the Hopkins Center. . . and visualize it as a part of Dartmouth College... I find myself thinking, "What a giant step forward Dartmouth and its men are taking!"

And yet, when I look at its strikingly beautiful front door" ... and visualize it as a part of the Dartmouth Common... I find myself thinking, "Is this the beginning of the end (architecturally) for Rev. Wheelock's college on the hill'?"

I think back to the 1920's. Surely Dartmouth sought and secured the latest in lighting, heating, seating, flooring, acoustical and building facilities at the time. But while both Baker Library and Dartmouth Hall were far roomier, more "modern" and more functional than the facilities which they replaced, they were compatible with such old campus favorites as Crosby Hall and the others.

It is true that the Baker Tower certainly has taken the spotlight away from any other building as one approaches town . .. and the white brick of Dartmouth and Reed Halls overshadows the other buildings on the campus. But, through the years, haven't they always set the pea green freshman to dreaming of Eleazar, Daniel and the others?

In i960, the spotlight will unquestionably Center.

I recognize the research, respect the judgment, and appreciate the talent which have made this dream come true. And since the very finest architectural minds, the College and Dartmouth men everywhere are in accord with this dream, I sincerely believe it must be in the College's best interest.

But being a dreamer myself, I wonder where the spotlight will be focused on the .Dartmouth Common of 1970 and 1980? Will it center on other buildings which reflect the Hopkins Center?

If this be the dream of the experts, the College and the majority of its men, may I raise a small protest in advance this time?

Norwalk, Conn.