A proposal to turn the area around Cambridge Common into a "historic district" may force the Graduate School of Education to abandon an extensive building program on land along Appian Way (across from Longfellow Hall) for which it recently paid more than $1 million.

A special committee appointed last spring by the City Council has urged that the Common, several buildings in Harvard Yard, a large part of Radcliffe Yard, and the buildings on the land bought by the Graduate School be declared historic sites because "they are landmarks that tend strongly to give our city a distinctive character and mold the public image of it."

According to legislation passed by the Massachusetts Assembly in 1960, "no building or structure shall be erected, reconstructed or demolished within a historic district unless an application for such action is approved by the permanent historic district commission." In addition to preserving an actual historic area itself, the law is intended to prevent the construction of new buildings around the area if they might destroy the "overall historic atmosphere."

The committee report will not be released until the end of the month, but the CRIMSON learned yesterday that its provisions may create serious problems for the University.

The Massachusetts law authorizing the creation of historic districts also provides that in such areas not even a "sign, light fence, or wall shall in any way be altered, removed, or erected without the permission of the historic district commission."

University officials have indicated that besides halting construction of badly needed facilities for the School of Education, creation of a historic district could hamper maintenance and upkeep of existing buildings within the district. Massachusetts, Harvard, Hollis, Lionel, and Mower Halls, Holden Chapel, Phillips Brooks House, Littauer Center, and all buildings on the Garden St. side of Radcliffe Yard would be affected.

May Charge Opportunism

If the University does oppose the creation of a historic district, however, many people in Cambridge will charge Harvard with opportunism because of its role in the John Briston Sullivan affair last spring.

Cambridge did not move to create the historical area until Sullivan, a Cambridge real-estate developer, attempted last year to construct a high-rise office building on stilts on a corner of the Common directly across from Harvard Yard. The University joined with several other groups to oppose Sullivan, because his proposed building would ruin the historic and aesthetic nature of the Common.

Sullivan was finally prohibited from erecting the stilts building when Gov. John A. Volpe vetoed a bill which would have given Cambridge the necessary State authority to sell the land. University opposition to the building and desire to see the historic unity of the Common preserved were considered major reasons for Volpe's veto.

Sullivan Dissents From Report

Sullivan apparently has still not abandoned hopes of obtaining the Peabody Sq. section of the Common for his building. When the historic district committee was formed, Mayor Edward A. Crane of Cambridge made Sullivan a member, and in the committee report, Sullivan dissents from the majority opinion and recommends that Peabody Sq. not be included as part of the historic area.

The present report, issued by the Committee in early March, is only tentative and subject to considerable revision. The Committee will hold a public hearing late in April and will then submit a final report to the City Council. After another hearing, the Council will vote and must pass the measure by a two-thirds majority.

The Committee also recommended the creation of three other historic areas, but none of them affect University property.