Opposition to the University's proposed housing project at Shady Hill remained vehement and virtually unanimous last night among those living immediately around the tentative site.

Significantly, these are the people who will testify in the near future before the board which must rule on the University's request for re-zoning of the residential area to allow multi-family dwelling units.

A canvas of Shady Hill residents yesterday revealed two groups among the opposition. One segment maintains that the plan, while good in theory, is unfeasible in practice, while another opposes the whole idea.

Chief spokesman for the first group, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. '38, professor of History, spoke against the plan to build a seven-to-ten story apartment and a series of garden apartments to provide low-cost housing for members of the faculty, at the meeting with President Pusey on Tuesday. He expressed doubt that the apartments as shown would be within the financial range of most young faculty members.

Although Schlesinger, who lives at 109 Irving St., may be too far from the site to testify, he was supported by several families who are within the area.

Wilcox Opposed

Mrs. Edward T. Wilcox, wife of the Assistant Director of the Office of Study Council, who lives at 63 Francis St., said "If the building would be of no profit to Harvard or the young faculty but only to the insurance company, then why do it?"

Mrs. Wilcox said her husband, who plans to appear at the zoning board hearing, would oppose re-zoning unless evidence was presented that young faculty families would be using the new units.

Another facet of the "unsuitable" argu- ment was raised by Mrs. King Upton of 73 Francis St., who said "young faculty are too profile to live in one and two room apartments."

Similar objections came from two other Francis St. residents, one of whom cited the $115 a month rent figure as top expensive for young faculty members, and objected to the architecture as being faddish.

Like Schlesinger and Mrs. Wilcox, however, she said that it was unrealistic to expect the property to remain vacant. "You cannot expect to keep it as a shrine to old Cambridge," Mrs. Wilcox said.

The second Francis St. resident, Mrs. Charles Warner, also used the cost argument, saying "it would turn into another 100 Memorial Drive--built for M.I.T. faculty and filled with young insurance executives."

Mrs. Warner recommended the use of the Observatory area and said "It would not bother anyone there--I am furious."

This argument was almost the same as that used by more adamant opponents, including the woman closest to the proposed apartment, who described herself as "dumbstruck and against it." Like most of the others in the area she based her opposition on the possible damage to the neighborhood.

The most violent opponent in the area was Mrs. Charles Sandoz, who listed automobiles of the estimated 120 new families and the "desperately cheap houses for such a nice neighborhood" among her objections.

Creeping Apartmentism

She also voiced fears that other housing projects might be built if the law were changed and pointed to an earlier Hillel House request for permission to rent rooms as an example of creeping apartmentism.

Although Hillel was stopped, Mrs. Sandoz said, "President Pusey looked determined. I don't know if we can stop him.