Forge Ahead With Art Museum

Of all the neighborhoods that ring Harvard’s Cambridge campus, few have suffered from the University’s ugly and misguided building schemes more than Riverside. It has been forced to bear such architectural atrocities as Mather House and Peabody Terrace, which tower over the low-set homes of the neighborhood and block any view of the Charles.

In light of this history, it is not surprising that residents have reacted angrily to the University’s plan to build a modern art museum or additional housing at the location of Mahoney’s Garden Center on Memorial Drive. Although the residents have legitimate concerns that the University take their views into account, the recent proposal by the Riverside Study Committee to rezone the Mahoney’s site is an irresponsible threat on the neighborhood’s part. The committee was created by the city council last spring to help Harvard and local residents work out a plan acceptable to both parties. Instead, the committee has suggested that the site be rezoned to set a height limit of 24 feet on any new building constructed at the site, effectively preventing the University from going ahead with its plans.

Some residents have said that their goal is to make the site into a park and hope to do so by having the city of Cambridge declare “eminent domain” and forcibly buy the property back from Harvard. Although such an extreme move is unlikely, that it was even proposed shows the deep distrust and anger that local residents feel toward the University. Harvard must not be deterred by this opposition; it should continue to push forward with a full-sized art museum and make sure the museum and the amenities it offers do more to help the neighborhood than to further antagonize it.

Many residents have complained that the presence of a Harvard museum would increase traffic in the neighborhood and make it even more difficult to find a place to park. These concerns are valid, and the University should include public parking under the museum to alleviate the parking crunch that already exists. The current proposal for the museum calls for approximately 80 parking spaces. Many more will be needed to satisfy the residents’ needs, not to mention those of the museum’s visitors and staff. The University should also do its best to make the museum welcoming to local residents—it should include a space open to the public, as well as free seminars, exhibitions and special activities for children. The University should fight the rezoning drive and build on the site not to spite its neighbors in Riverside, but to show them that the University can be a positive force in the community. After all, an art museum is not another Peabody Terrace.

Dissent: Build Museum in Allston

Harvard’s intention to build a three-story modern art museum in the middle of the Riverside residential community shows that town-gown problems are not always the fault of over-zealous neighborhood activists. Harvard often errs on the side of too much development at inopportune times with seemingly arbitrary reasoning. The current plan, which would bring an estimated 700 visitors at peak times to visit a three-story museum that houses approximately 80 parking spaces for 170 staff members, shows that Harvard has made little effort to accommodate neighbors’ concerns.

The University must learn to pick its battles. With the acquisition of hundreds of acres of land in Allston, and with plans to move other museums across the river, there is no need for Harvard to build a new museum in Cambridge. The people of Riverside must have a voice in planning their community; they have rooted their families and their lives in that neighborhood.

Community frustrations are exacerbated when representatives of the Office of Community Relations—which has very little control over design or real estate planning and therefore cannot negotiate in a give-and-take relationship with neighbors—are sent to community board meetings simply to advocate predetermined and largely non-negotiable designs. When community boards voice these concerns, they are often mischaracterized as “obstructionist” because their only recourse is to send Harvard back to the proverbial drawing board. They do this not because of spite, but because the people holding the pencil seldom consult with them before designs are in near-final form.

Given the ongoing trouble with the Center for Government and International Studies tunnel, this is not the time for Harvard to be waging battles that promise only small benefits for the University but major costs for neighbors. The University should respect the needs of the Riverside community and resolve to bargain, in earnest, with the people of Cambridge.

—Blake Jennelle ’04,

Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero ’04 and Benjamin J. Toff ’05