Memorial Hall To Be Topped By New Tower

More than 42 years after fire destroyed the 70-foot tall tower of Memorial Hall, the University has decided to replace it.

The $4 million project will literally cap off the University's five-year, $2.1 billion Capital Campaign, now more than 90 percent complete with one year to go. The Campaign has provided for renovations to Memorial Hall, as well as the creation of Loker Commons and the Barker Center.

The tower burned Sept. 6, 1956, ironically in a restoration effort, when the acetylene torch of a worker set the structure ablaze. Its restoration will begin in June and conclude within a period of one to two years.

"Since 1956 this great building has suffered the ugly indignity of truncation," wrote Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles in an e-mail message. "Is it not a fitting end to the century and to the Campaign that Memorial Hall should be restored to its proper glory?"

The University has long contemplated this massive project.

"Early in the Campaign, we promised ourselves that by the end of the drive, we would not only have completed the restoration of Memorial Hall as it stands, but also undertake to rebuild its tower," said President Neil L. Rudenstine in a statement released by the Harvard News Office.

Architects, contractors and a number of Harvard officials have spent a year "knee-deep in the issue of how do we build it," said Elizabeth L. Randall, project manager for the tower.

The reconstruction has been a long time in coming, as the fire coincided with a move away from the type of architecture the building epitomized.

"It was fashionable at that time to deplore the decorative grandeur and the Victorian excess," Knowles noted.

Indeed, at that time the Boston Herald termed Memorial Hall the "most frightening building in Greater Boston," urging that the building be razed or a modern tower constructed.

Harvard is not listening.

Construction will not replicate the tower as itwas when it burned--copperclad and adorned withclocks on all sides. Rather, the building willmirror its 1878 appearance, with colored slate tomatch the roof and a bevy of copper crockets,pinnacles, parapets, fenestrals and finials.

Aside from minor changes, the building willremain loyal to the original design, Randall said.Months have been spent examining archived photos,estimating colors and perfecting myriad slopes andmeasurements.

Those familiar with Harvard's history who werecontacted yesterday appeared to be pleased thatthe tower will be reappearing on Harvard'ssignature edifice.

"Well glory be!" said Kenan Professor ofGovernment Harvey C. Mansfield '53. "We've beenwaiting a long, long time for the pinnacle ofMemorial Hall to reappear, and Harvard will bemuch improved when it returns."

The renovation elicited some strong approval inUniversity Hall as well.

"I hate looking at it the way it is now. It's afabulous building. It will be a knockout once thetower is back on," said Secretary of the FacultyJohn B. Fox '59.

Even some of those once critical of the"frightful" building have had their opinionschanged over time.

Francis E. Donovan '59-'61, who wrote a"scathing dissertation" in his first year on "whata horrible monstrosity [the tower] is," has had achange of heart.

"I am now 61 years old and totally devoted tothe idea of restoring it. I think it's a wonderfulidea," Donovan said.

University officials have dealt delicately withthe monstrous project, conscious of the fact thatthe renovation does nothing to address spaceissues at the College.

To that end, all funds for theproject--including a $2 million gift fromKatherine B. Loker, widow of Donald P. Loker '25,and another significant gift from Design Schoolalumnus Graham D. Gund--have been earmarked forthe project.

"[The tower is] basically frivolous, but it isHarvard's icon and to spend money that isavailable to spend elsewhere is probablyimprudent, but if you've got money on hand, spendit." said David A. Zewinski '76, associate deanfor physical resources and planning in the Facultyof Arts and Sciences.

Development officials maintain that the tower'scompletion does not "go against the grain of whatare clearly well-defined [Campaign] priorities,"said Roger P. Cheever '67, associate dean fordevelopment.

Student leaders said yesterday that the projectreflects a poor decision by University officials,who they said should first address the need forincreased space.

"I'm concerned about what this says about thefundraising priorities of the university," wroteUndergraduate Council President Noah Z. Seton '00in an e-mail message. "Certainly there aredonors...who care about undergraduate life at theschool, and those donors could be convinced thattheir money would be best used to construct astudent center."

Council Vice President Kamil E. Redmond '00said it is "absurd that Harvard draws ondonors...to fund a project which has no immediatebenefit for students."

"I think just the opposite," Mansfield said. "Ithink it's good to spend money on something thatis only beautiful." He cited William James Hall,the Science Center and the Holyoke Center asexamples of "unadorned utility."

Project Manager Randall also disagreed withopponents of the renovation, pointing out "a wholegroup of people think it's a crying shame that wehaven't done it since 1956."

Construction on the project will begin inmid-June.

The tower will be assembled in eight sectionsoff-site and the 20-ton pieces will be hoistedinto place

Harvard is not listening.

Construction will not replicate the tower as itwas when it burned--copperclad and adorned withclocks on all sides. Rather, the building willmirror its 1878 appearance, with colored slate tomatch the roof and a bevy of copper crockets,pinnacles, parapets, fenestrals and finials.

Aside from minor changes, the building willremain loyal to the original design, Randall said.Months have been spent examining archived photos,estimating colors and perfecting myriad slopes andmeasurements.

Those familiar with Harvard's history who werecontacted yesterday appeared to be pleased thatthe tower will be reappearing on Harvard'ssignature edifice.

"Well glory be!" said Kenan Professor ofGovernment Harvey C. Mansfield '53. "We've beenwaiting a long, long time for the pinnacle ofMemorial Hall to reappear, and Harvard will bemuch improved when it returns."

The renovation elicited some strong approval inUniversity Hall as well.

"I hate looking at it the way it is now. It's afabulous building. It will be a knockout once thetower is back on," said Secretary of the FacultyJohn B. Fox '59.

Even some of those once critical of the"frightful" building have had their opinionschanged over time.

Francis E. Donovan '59-'61, who wrote a"scathing dissertation" in his first year on "whata horrible monstrosity [the tower] is," has had achange of heart.

"I am now 61 years old and totally devoted tothe idea of restoring it. I think it's a wonderfulidea," Donovan said.

University officials have dealt delicately withthe monstrous project, conscious of the fact thatthe renovation does nothing to address spaceissues at the College.

To that end, all funds for theproject--including a $2 million gift fromKatherine B. Loker, widow of Donald P. Loker '25,and another significant gift from Design Schoolalumnus Graham D. Gund--have been earmarked forthe project.

"[The tower is] basically frivolous, but it isHarvard's icon and to spend money that isavailable to spend elsewhere is probablyimprudent, but if you've got money on hand, spendit." said David A. Zewinski '76, associate deanfor physical resources and planning in the Facultyof Arts and Sciences.

Development officials maintain that the tower'scompletion does not "go against the grain of whatare clearly well-defined [Campaign] priorities,"said Roger P. Cheever '67, associate dean fordevelopment.

Student leaders said yesterday that the projectreflects a poor decision by University officials,who they said should first address the need forincreased space.

"I'm concerned about what this says about thefundraising priorities of the university," wroteUndergraduate Council President Noah Z. Seton '00in an e-mail message. "Certainly there aredonors...who care about undergraduate life at theschool, and those donors could be convinced thattheir money would be best used to construct astudent center."

Council Vice President Kamil E. Redmond '00said it is "absurd that Harvard draws ondonors...to fund a project which has no immediatebenefit for students."

"I think just the opposite," Mansfield said. "Ithink it's good to spend money on something thatis only beautiful." He cited William James Hall,the Science Center and the Holyoke Center asexamples of "unadorned utility."

Project Manager Randall also disagreed withopponents of the renovation, pointing out "a wholegroup of people think it's a crying shame that wehaven't done it since 1956."

Construction on the project will begin inmid-June.

The tower will be assembled in eight sectionsoff-site and the 20-ton pieces will be hoistedinto place