Claiton University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledge

According to the author, The Claiton University is in need of housing for its students. The author further mentions various ways by which he can recover the cost of the new building. However, his belief that the cost will be recovered seems unwarranted, as he makes few assumptions that are quite baseless and uncertain.

Initially the author states that the Claiton University needs an affordable housing for its students. Being an educational organization, it requires a building that is quite simple and well-organized. Hence, hiring a 'famous' architect for this task seems unreasonable. This will unnecessarily increase cost of building it. Also the author mentions the architect to be experimental. But the university requires a simple housing and not a grand palatial building for its students to live in.

Next, he fails to mention whether the housing is to be built in the university campus or off-campus. If it is built in a university campus, will the university be allowing the tourist to visit the building? Basically tourists may not be very willing to visit a building, although built by a famous architect, which is just a students' accommodation apartment.

Also, generally, buildings that are cultural heritage are allowed to be visited by tourists and appropriate visiting fees are extracted from them. But, whether it will right to extract money from tourists for visiting a students' housing wherein the students are currently staying, is a question. The author also considers that the cost of building the housing will be recovered from the visitor's pockets. However, first of all it is uncertain whether tourists will be visiting the place and being built by a renowned architect the building will certainly incur a high building cost. Hence it will take years to recover this money from the visitors' fee. Till then, its maintenance and repairing cost is sure to increase.

The author assumes that new students will be attracted to the university on the basis of the new housing facility. However new students will be attracted not by a grand housing facilities but by quality education provided in the university. Also, new students may prefer to stay in off-campus apartments and not in the students' housing. In this case, the authors argument that the cost of the building will be covered from the students rent, becomes baseless.

Lastly, the author mentions that the current need for the housing facility is lesser than the estimated accommodation of the building. Hence, the rent received from the students will be considerably less than actual cost expected. According to the author, if this space is utilized as the office space, he fails to mention whether it will be occupied by the university office staff or by people unassociated with the university. If the university staff accommodates this space, no substantial amount of rent can be received from them. If the unassociated people accommodate this space, it may not be appropriate for them to do so, considering their activities may cause a disturbance to the students?

All-in-all, the author needs to rethink about the solution he offers regarding building the housing facility, taking into consideration various factors like the actual requirements of the university, the total cost incurred, and the recovery measures. Overall, the decision seems to be an incorrect one and the argument quite flawed with various factor left unthought-of.