Cambridge Council Hears Talk On New City-Wide Zoning Plan

In a jam-packed, smoke-filled room, the Cambridge City Council met last night hear arguments for and against a proposed city-wide re-zoning that has been in works for several years and that could affect the University in three areas.

The affected sites include land north of the Law School, slated for increased construction: Observatory Hill, where the University might now be to construct buildings up to 85 feet high: and the area south of Dunster House, Harvard does not own, but which might be re-zoned to include the unlimited slated for adjacent University land.

Although the plan's first draft laid severe restrictions on Harvard, the proposal presented last night drew Administration approval. In a written statement, Charles P. Whitlock, Assistant to the President for Civic Affairs, termed the present 1943 zoning ordinances obsolete and endorsed the new proposal as adequate.

Although many interests indicated support, the University, drew opposition from all three areas.

Attorney Phillip M. Cronin '53 protested that the Cambridge Planning Board had "spot-zoned" the Observatory Hill area in order that Harvard might construct apartment buildings there. Downgrading of the "high-class" residential area was unwarranted since 1943 and had been done with total disregard for his 252 clients, he declared.

Cronin also asserted the University's responsibility to maintain the land in its present status as a park where children ski in winter and play "baseball and football" in summer. The site is private, however, and these games technically represent trespassing.

In a "footnote" to Cronin's argument, Mrs. Ruth H. Munn asked that the area be kept at least as "an open space." Construction of apartments there "would be against everything the University teaches," she observed.

The affected sites include land north of the Law School, slated for increased construction: Observatory Hill, where the University might now be to construct buildings up to 85 feet high: and the area south of Dunster House, Harvard does not own, but which might be re-zoned to include the unlimited slated for adjacent University land.

Although the plan's first draft laid severe restrictions on Harvard, the proposal presented last night drew Administration approval. In a written statement, Charles P. Whitlock, Assistant to the President for Civic Affairs, termed the present 1943 zoning ordinances obsolete and endorsed the new proposal as adequate.

Although many interests indicated support, the University, drew opposition from all three areas.

Attorney Phillip M. Cronin '53 protested that the Cambridge Planning Board had "spot-zoned" the Observatory Hill area in order that Harvard might construct apartment buildings there. Downgrading of the "high-class" residential area was unwarranted since 1943 and had been done with total disregard for his 252 clients, he declared.

Cronin also asserted the University's responsibility to maintain the land in its present status as a park where children ski in winter and play "baseball and football" in summer. The site is private, however, and these games technically represent trespassing.

In a "footnote" to Cronin's argument, Mrs. Ruth H. Munn asked that the area be kept at least as "an open space." Construction of apartments there "would be against everything the University teaches," she observed.

Although the plan's first draft laid severe restrictions on Harvard, the proposal presented last night drew Administration approval. In a written statement, Charles P. Whitlock, Assistant to the President for Civic Affairs, termed the present 1943 zoning ordinances obsolete and endorsed the new proposal as adequate.

Although many interests indicated support, the University, drew opposition from all three areas.

Attorney Phillip M. Cronin '53 protested that the Cambridge Planning Board had "spot-zoned" the Observatory Hill area in order that Harvard might construct apartment buildings there. Downgrading of the "high-class" residential area was unwarranted since 1943 and had been done with total disregard for his 252 clients, he declared.

Cronin also asserted the University's responsibility to maintain the land in its present status as a park where children ski in winter and play "baseball and football" in summer. The site is private, however, and these games technically represent trespassing.

In a "footnote" to Cronin's argument, Mrs. Ruth H. Munn asked that the area be kept at least as "an open space." Construction of apartments there "would be against everything the University teaches," she observed.