Union's Renovations Create Controversy

For more than three centuries, Harvard has been celebrated for its maintenance of historic landmarks. During this past year, however, the University's reputation for architectural preservation has been marred by controversy surrounding the renovation of the Harvard Union.

This year has seen attacks on the University by alumni, architects, Cambridge residents and even faculty members over the Union construction project. The debate has been staged in meetings, newspapers and the court system.

The renovation plan was also the subject of a nationwide media frenzy, with articles, editorials and letters to the editor appearing in The New York Times and The Boston Globe.

The $25 million renovation of the Union and the conversion of the historic site into the new humanities building, the Barker Center, was a goal of the $2.1 billion University Campaign launched in May 1994.

The new humanities center, when completed next spring, will bring many of the humanities departments together under one roof. Currently, these departments are scattered in different buildings throughout the campus.

The most criticized aspect of the renovation plan was the division of the Great Hall, formerly the main dining hall of the Union, into three sections. This plan required the removal of the ceiling of the hall.

When completed, the former Great Hall will have been broken up into two seminar/meeting rooms and a large sky-lit central atrium with a grand staircase linking all the floors of the building.

Alumni Protest

In response to the proposed renovations, a group of more than 40 alumni, concerned by the planned division of the Great Hall, established the Committee to Save the Great Hall of the Harvard Union in late December.

Led by the chair and secretary of the group, Tweed Roosevelt '64 (great-grandson of Theodore Roosevelt, Class of 1880, who donated the antler chandeliers which have illuminated the Great Hall for decades) and H.A. Crosby Forbes '50, the commit- tee members wrote over 100 letters to President Neil L. Rudenstine, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) Jeremy R. Knowles and Director of Planning for FAS Philip J. Parsons.

The committee hoped that the University would reconsider its plans to renovate the hall and tried to persuade the administration to abandon the project through these letters and a series of phone calls and meetings.

"I think the Harvard administration will get a black eye....President Rudenstine will go down as the president who trashed the Great Hall of the Harvard Union," said Ormonde de Kay '45, a member of the committee.

In an effort to stave off the impending renovations, the committee met with Rudenstine and Knowles on February 5.

The meeting resulted in a standoff, with no new compromises or understandings reached by the two sides.

Protests

As renovations on the Union continued, concerned alumni and architects began to take more aggressive actions to convince the University to reconsider its project.

On February 16, protester Michael Adams chained himself to the gate of the Union for nearly two hours, even though the construction workers continued to labor behind him.

Until snow began to fall in the afternoon, the shackled Adams blasted the University's renovation plans, shouted "Preserve the Union" to passers-by and called the renovations "an act of vandalism." This was not the last that Harvard would see of him. Within a few weeks, Adams led a second protest in front of Mass. Hall.

University officials, however, said they were not impressed with Adams' protest, even though, according to the flyers, he holds a degree in preservation from Columbia University.

"I think that it is one thing to stand outside chained for two hours and go home," Parsons later commented. "But it's another thing to spend nine years planning a project around the education for 6,000 students."

The Faculty Joins the Crusade

Members of the University also began to criticize the plans. On February 28, the Department of Architecture of the Graduate School of Design (GSD) joined the efforts of the committee, voting to formally protest the plans.

The objection was lodged as a written complaint to Rudenstine, Knowles and Parsons.

"We urged that the demolition not continue until alternate plans were considered," said Jude W. Leblanc, assistant professor of architecture.

Architecture faculty members charged that their knowledge of structural repairs was not sufficiently drawn upon during the planning process for the renovations.

"The review process did not allow adequate representation from people in the University whose expertise [lies] in renovations and preservation," said K. Michael Hays, professor of architectural theory at the GSD.

Parsons said at the time he was disappointed by the sharp disagreement the issue ignited. "The irony is that the principal motivation behind the project was to create a better sense of academic community," he said.

Representatives from the GSD's Department of Architecture met with the administration twice to discuss the renovation plans then being implemented.

Neither of the meetings, however, led to a compromise between the administration and the architecture faculty.

Legal Battles

With the ceiling of the Great Hall already removed, the Committee to Save the Great Hall of the Harvard Union (now reconstituted as the Harvard Alumni Architectural Review Committee or HAARC) filed for a temporary restraining order.

On March 26, the court ordered the University to halt the renovations until a full hearing could examine the merits of issuing an injunction prohibiting further construction.

"We never wanted it to get to this point, suing our alma mater," said Forbes, now the vice-chair of HAARC. "But here we are. A whole year has gone by, including protests for a year from people who really should have been listened to. Harvard has shown an unwillingness to listen to any of these people, including its own architecture faculty."

The moratorium on construction continued for an entire week until the matter was finally brought to court by HAARC.

On April 2, a lawyer representing HAARC asked a judge in the Middle-sex Superior Court for a preliminary injunction to continue the construction stoppage.

The arguments set forth in court alluded to Harvard's application last year to the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board requesting variances to preserve doors in the Union that are not wheelchair-accessible.

The Board had ruled that a variance was unnecessary in this specific case because the doors were "not open to and used by the public."

The plaintiffs contested this decision, contending that the Massachusetts Historical Commission was, according to statue, required to review the plans for the entire project, including the plans to divide the Great Hall.

Harvard disagreed and tried to convince the judge to lift the ban on construction.

The University's attorney, John K. Felter, told the court that "every day construction is halted, $16,000 is lost," adding that the University's losses had already equaled the salary of one faculty member.

Two days later, the judge denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction to postpone construction.

Although the actual case has not yet reached the court, construction on the Union continues, and the renovations are on schedule to be completed text spring, according to Elizabeth L. Landall, capital projects manager.

Humanities faculty are slated to move into the new Barker Center in the summer of 1997.

Although the final stage of the case will not be heard in court until sometime in July, Forbes said that the matter may already be settled in practice, since the construction would be almost irreversible by the court date.

However, HAARC intends to continue its work of preserving architecture at Harvard by maintaining a standing committee at all times.

Forbes believes that the University will not look back on its decision with fond memories. "In the not-so-distant future, a lot of people, alumni and administrators are going to look back at this whole episode with great regret and wonder how it could have happened."

But Parsons said the finished building will speak for itself. "I hope the people who are upset about this, whose point of view I respect, will be reconciled and will realize that [the project] was not taken carelessly and without due consideration."Drawing courtesy of Director of Planning for FAS Phillip J. ParsonsAn artist's rendering of the Great Hall of the Harvard Union after renovations are completed.

The committee hoped that the University would reconsider its plans to renovate the hall and tried to persuade the administration to abandon the project through these letters and a series of phone calls and meetings.

"I think the Harvard administration will get a black eye....President Rudenstine will go down as the president who trashed the Great Hall of the Harvard Union," said Ormonde de Kay '45, a member of the committee.

In an effort to stave off the impending renovations, the committee met with Rudenstine and Knowles on February 5.

The meeting resulted in a standoff, with no new compromises or understandings reached by the two sides.

Protests

As renovations on the Union continued, concerned alumni and architects began to take more aggressive actions to convince the University to reconsider its project.

On February 16, protester Michael Adams chained himself to the gate of the Union for nearly two hours, even though the construction workers continued to labor behind him.

Until snow began to fall in the afternoon, the shackled Adams blasted the University's renovation plans, shouted "Preserve the Union" to passers-by and called the renovations "an act of vandalism." This was not the last that Harvard would see of him. Within a few weeks, Adams led a second protest in front of Mass. Hall.

University officials, however, said they were not impressed with Adams' protest, even though, according to the flyers, he holds a degree in preservation from Columbia University.

"I think that it is one thing to stand outside chained for two hours and go home," Parsons later commented. "But it's another thing to spend nine years planning a project around the education for 6,000 students."

The Faculty Joins the Crusade

Members of the University also began to criticize the plans. On February 28, the Department of Architecture of the Graduate School of Design (GSD) joined the efforts of the committee, voting to formally protest the plans.

The objection was lodged as a written complaint to Rudenstine, Knowles and Parsons.

"We urged that the demolition not continue until alternate plans were considered," said Jude W. Leblanc, assistant professor of architecture.

Architecture faculty members charged that their knowledge of structural repairs was not sufficiently drawn upon during the planning process for the renovations.

"The review process did not allow adequate representation from people in the University whose expertise [lies] in renovations and preservation," said K. Michael Hays, professor of architectural theory at the GSD.

Parsons said at the time he was disappointed by the sharp disagreement the issue ignited. "The irony is that the principal motivation behind the project was to create a better sense of academic community," he said.

Representatives from the GSD's Department of Architecture met with the administration twice to discuss the renovation plans then being implemented.

Neither of the meetings, however, led to a compromise between the administration and the architecture faculty.

Legal Battles

With the ceiling of the Great Hall already removed, the Committee to Save the Great Hall of the Harvard Union (now reconstituted as the Harvard Alumni Architectural Review Committee or HAARC) filed for a temporary restraining order.

On March 26, the court ordered the University to halt the renovations until a full hearing could examine the merits of issuing an injunction prohibiting further construction.

"We never wanted it to get to this point, suing our alma mater," said Forbes, now the vice-chair of HAARC. "But here we are. A whole year has gone by, including protests for a year from people who really should have been listened to. Harvard has shown an unwillingness to listen to any of these people, including its own architecture faculty."

The moratorium on construction continued for an entire week until the matter was finally brought to court by HAARC.

On April 2, a lawyer representing HAARC asked a judge in the Middle-sex Superior Court for a preliminary injunction to continue the construction stoppage.

The arguments set forth in court alluded to Harvard's application last year to the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board requesting variances to preserve doors in the Union that are not wheelchair-accessible.

The Board had ruled that a variance was unnecessary in this specific case because the doors were "not open to and used by the public."

The plaintiffs contested this decision, contending that the Massachusetts Historical Commission was, according to statue, required to review the plans for the entire project, including the plans to divide the Great Hall.

Harvard disagreed and tried to convince the judge to lift the ban on construction.

The University's attorney, John K. Felter, told the court that "every day construction is halted, $16,000 is lost," adding that the University's losses had already equaled the salary of one faculty member.

Two days later, the judge denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction to postpone construction.

Although the actual case has not yet reached the court, construction on the Union continues, and the renovations are on schedule to be completed text spring, according to Elizabeth L. Landall, capital projects manager.

Humanities faculty are slated to move into the new Barker Center in the summer of 1997.

Although the final stage of the case will not be heard in court until sometime in July, Forbes said that the matter may already be settled in practice, since the construction would be almost irreversible by the court date.

However, HAARC intends to continue its work of preserving architecture at Harvard by maintaining a standing committee at all times.

Forbes believes that the University will not look back on its decision with fond memories. "In the not-so-distant future, a lot of people, alumni and administrators are going to look back at this whole episode with great regret and wonder how it could have happened."

But Parsons said the finished building will speak for itself. "I hope the people who are upset about this, whose point of view I respect, will be reconciled and will realize that [the project] was not taken carelessly and without due consideration."Drawing courtesy of Director of Planning for FAS Phillip J. ParsonsAn artist's rendering of the Great Hall of the Harvard Union after renovations are completed.