More On Sert

To the Editors of the Crimson:

Fortunately, the latest editorial criticizing Dean Sert's buildings cannot be taken seriously, not because it was flippant but because it was whining, irresponsible, and ignored pertinent facts. It stated unreasonable opinions in the manner of a college senior who should be past adolescence. The editorial annoyed me not because I am a disciple of Sert, or any other architect, but because it did not state relevant architectural facts.

A fact of life for Cambridge architects is the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Weil should go read it. He may bitch about it, but as it now stands it designates in Article III, Section 1, 2 the Holyoke Center block as a Business B District (Class 9). Article V, Section 2 requires Business B District buildings to fulfill the 4.0 ratio of floor area to lot area. There are no other demensional requirements. Article V means that a building covering the full lot can be no higher than four stories, a building covering one half of the lot can be no higher than eight stories, a building covering one eight of the lot can be no higher than thirty-two stories, and so on. There are no requirements to provide parking.

A careful perusal of the following information reveals Dean Sert's consideration for pedestrians, parking, sun, trees, and space.

The Zoning Ordinance

Lot Size:

No restrictions

Floor Area:

Permitted - 342,400 sq. ft.

Lot Coverage:

Permitted - 100%

Parking Spaces:

Required - (0) cars

Cubic Volume:

Required - the 4.0 ratio

The Holyoke Center

Lot Size:

85,600 sq. ft.

Floor Area:

Designed - 320,000 sq. ft.

Lot Coverage:

Designed - 46.3%

(covers 39,600 sq. ft.)

Parking Spaces:

Designed - 156 cars

Cubic Volume:

Designed - 4.1 million cu. ft.

(The above information is readily available at the usual University sources for those interested enough to ask for it.)

The Holyoke Center does not belong to Dean Sert and is not in his back yard; it is on the property of a University one of whose aims is the education and civilization of Mr. Weil, among others. If the Holyoke Center were a low four stories Mr. Weil would like its height, but would probably complain that is was not airy enough since it pushed him into the street. So he would again write an editorial requesting "something spacious and airy" and "uncluttered" which presumably means a vacant parking lot of 85,600 sq. ft. adjacent to Harvard Square. The four million cubic feet of desperately needed University-owned space would then be placed below the vacant parking lot or in the Harvard Stadium. Such solutions would remove the eyesore.

I will patiently wait for the answer. In the meanwhile the Holyoke Center will be completed and Mr. Weil may notice that twice as much of a bad thing can be half as bad.

In the duration he might also outgrow his paranoid delusion that there exists a secret brotherhood among architects whose cosa nostra is the clever foisting of "cheap", "disfiguring", "sleazy", "hideous", "bad", "unsightly", "unbalanced", "ugly", "monstrous", and (finally) "unattractive" buildings upon the architecturally uneducated public among whom Mr. Weil is the example par excellence. K. Paul Zygas '64

MR. WEIL REPLIES: What I wrote was not an editorial, but the expression of my personal views. I do not question the ingenuity of some of Dean Sert's ideas--such as diffused light--or the value of such things as parking, trees, and space. I only ask if a building cannot take care of these things and still be attractive.