Philistines on the Charles

In what is often seen as a battle between David and Goliath, Harvard ironically capitulated to Cambridge residents over the summer and terminated plans to build a modern art museum on the site currently occupied by Mahoney’s Garden Center on Memorial Drive. But in this battle, neither side won.

The concerns of the residents were certainly important. A new art museum would increase Cambridge’s already-existing traffic and parking problems. And it would alter the all-important river view that residents value so highly. But still, the benefits of an art museum outweighed the costs.

An art museum enlivens a neighborhood and has the ability to open lines of communication between communities. It is very unfortunate that the Cambridge community gave up its opportunity for such a cultural and social center. Although the University could have suggested building housing or administrative offices on its property—as it is now doing, since the museum plans have been cancelled—it chose to look toward broadening all of our lives through a beautiful showcase of artistic achievement.

Harvard should have continued to search for a compromise with Cambridge residents to allow the building to exist on the Mahoney’s site. In turn, residents should have kept an open mind toward such a positive development plan. Had reasonable discussion been pursued, an amicable and fair solution could have been reached.

Harvard had already agreed to reduce the height of the building, but to no avail; residents simultaneously demanded a smaller building and more parking spaces inside it. The residents are right that 80 spots is not enough, but they should have compromised with Harvard to remedy this small glitch.

The merits of art are too often ignored, and it seems that since the departure of former University President Neil L. Rudenstine and University Art Museums Director James Cuno, art has increasingly been put on the back burner. If this art museum cannot be built on the Mahoney’s site, plans ought to be made expeditiously to find another location for it.

It is far too easy for both Harvard and Cambridge residents to languish in a standstill that does not help either community. An art museum could have created a lasting partnership between these sides, as well as served an important cultural role in the city we must share.

Dissent: Can't Compromise With Neighbors

The Staff’s admonition that “Harvard should have continued to search for a compromise with Cambridge residents” to build an art museum in the Riverside neighborhood is stunningly naive. The University fought for three years for permission to build a museum on land it owns, which is currently occupied by Mahoney’s Garden Center. Cambridge responded by rezoning the land to outlaw any building taller than 24 feet.

The attitude of the neighbors is best summed up by one remark made at an early meeting, related by Riverside activist Cob Carlson. “If you build it, we’re going to bomb it,” the neighbor said.

Regardless of the Staff’s enthusiastic praise for the community benefits of “a beautiful showcase of artistic achievement,” it is clear that the neighbors had absolutely no interest in perusing the gallery.

—David M. DeBartolo ’03, Daniel P. Mosteller ’03 and Benjamin J. Toff ’05