Report Raises Questions on Craigie

An official document of the University's real estate management operation raises questions about the necessity of parts of the $2.5-million renovation planned for a Harvard-owned apartment building on Mt. Auburn St.

The document, which Harvard Real Estate (HRE) officials yesterday confirmed is a capital needs assessment of the Craigie Arms Apartments prepared in February 1981 for internal HRE use, lists only $156.000 of repair work for the 85-year-old structure.

The Crimson obtained the report this week from a source who asked not to be identified.

Harvard's current plan would convert the building's 59 units into primarily luxury housing, with 14 apartments subsidized by government funds for the low and moderate income tenants who occupied Craigie Arms until this fall.

In December, the Cambridge Rent Control Board--which according to the city's rent control laws must grant the University special permits to take the apartments from the tight rental housing market--refused to approve the project in a 3-2 vote.

HRE officials said yesterday that the current proposal remains the only feasible plan for restoring the deteriorating structure, located near the Mt. Auburn St. post office. They added that the 1981 assessment does not represent an alternative plan.

The assessment "describes a series of minimum repairs designed to slow down the deterioration of the building for a short period of time," said HRE Vice President Robert A. Silverman. He added that the current plan is "a rather through rehabilitation project to make it sanitary and habitable for years to come."

Silverman said similar assessments were made of all HRE-controlled properties at around the same time. Their purpose is "to tell [HRE] what buildings need immediate attention and what buildings can wait for capital work," he added.

The work mentioned in the assessment, which was completed several months before Craigie tenants filed a rent board complaint that began more than a year of negotiation with Harvard, was not undertaken because it was determined to be insufficient, Silverman said. He added that HRE began soliciting outside consulting at that time.

The Cambridge Rent Control Task Force, a coalition of seven city tenants' groups, has opposed the University's proposal, arguing before the rent board that the granting of removal permits is contrary to the specified goal of the city's rent control ordinances, namely, the protection of low and moderate-income tenants.

Specifically, the task force has said in hearings that Harvard's plan represents the most extreme rehabilitation possible, adding that less-substantial repairs could maintain Craigie Arms in its present rental use.

Task Force Spokesman Michael Turk agreed last night that the 1981 assessment did not represent a viable replacement for the current plan, but he added that it did indicate that some type of alternative is possible.

"It is a mistake to create the dichotomy between a grandiose $2.5 million project or putting $150.000 in." explained Turk. "Spending three times [$150.000] might go a long way to shoring up the building for more than a few years" and preserve the low and moderate use, he added.

According to rent board formulas. If the University carried out only $156.000 in repairs, rents in Craigie Arms would increase by only $36, Silverman said yesterday.

Because the scope of the work in the as assessment and the current plan differ drastically, many items now proposed do not appear on the 1981 document. But several items are comparable.

The most significant cost difference appears on repairs to the roof-which became a principal part of the task force's argument when one of the University's experts testified he did not find structural damage there. The 1981 document called for resurfacing the roof at a cost of $30.000, while the current plan recommends completely rebuilding the area at a cost of $120.000.

Silverman said the roof example points out "the difference between the band-aid approach and a true rehabilitation."

He added that no other formal plan has been presented to the rent board by the task force or any other group.

Turk said the price differences for the roof repair demonstrate that the University is determined to renovate the building completely, regardless of cost or the effect on the market.

"In embryonic form, consideration of what work has to be done and what work doesn't is a proposal," he said. "It is not the question of the building and is it still there, but who lives there."

Another example is the estimates for window screen replacements. The 1981 report states the cost of replacing 94 screens as $1500. The current plan calls for a $16.000 expenditure for screens.

Silverman and Public Relations Director David Rosen. HRE's spokesman, said yesterday that the University is still pursuing the current plan, despite the rent board's December refusal and a subsequent vote not to reconsider the original decision.

"We feel the proposal we put forth is the most sensible and are very reluctant to abandon that approach," said Silverman.