Behind the Walls, Under the Floor

This year marked the fiftieth anniversary of the undergraduate House system at Harvard. But the opportunity to celebrate the history of what one House master calls "the only thing that makes the Harvard undergraduate experience bearable" was largely missed. Instead of dressing up the Houses for a grand, festive occasion, the College sent in teams of building experts from as far away as St. Louis armed with scientific x-ray, ultra-sonic and infra-red machines to examine the structure and mechanical workings of the Houses. The reason: The anniversary was more than a milestone for a unique system of college living. It also signaled a half-century of age, which translates into wear, tear and a problem requiring increasing attention.

Since 1931, the House system--enlarged in 1960 with the additions onto Leverett and Qunicy, and a decade later with the construction of Mather and Currier--has provided undergraduates with a dining hall, library and an intellectual and social base they can call their own. But, in recent years and with growing regularity, Houses have also been a domain for faulty heat and plumbing, peeling paint and plaster and some of the College's biggest headaches. "Some rooms are 100 degrees, some are ten. I have one roommate who uses a space heater. Another one keeps his window open," J. Marc Chapus '81, says, recalling winter heating at Winthrop.

Recognizing the fact that the Houses and other buildings are in disrepair, College administrators have nevertheless been limited in what they can do. Faced with a College-wide budgetary squeeze and pressure to keep annual tuition as low as possible, administrators have deferred maintainance on the Houses and buildings, doing only essential repair work. "We know we're not putting enough work into buildings, but the neglect isn't so much that any building is going to fall down," Melissa D. Gerrity, associate dean of the Faculty for financial affairs, explains.

Gerrity and others, however, foreseepotential long-term problems from putting off work. When do repairs delayed become essential? they ask. And, when that time comes, will the work be needed be more costly than the original repairs deferred? For J. Lawrence Joyce, director of Buildings and Grounds (B&G), the answer is clear. "There's no question that putting things off means spending more money later on," he says.

In addition to possible future problems with delaying repairs, the overcrowding of houses may accelerate deterioration even more in years to come. Thomas A. Dingman '67, assistant of the College for the House system, explains that a "slight falling off" in the number of undergraduates taking annual leaves of absence along with larger classes due to more high school students accepting admittance in recent years has causel a housing shortage. The College has placed a proportionate number of the additional students in each of the residential houses, Dingman says, and the additional use of the facilities wears on the Houses.

In the light of the budgetary and overcrowding problems, and the mechanical and interior failings, the absence of jubilant festivity at the Houses this year is perhaps understandable. But the lack of celebration should not suggest complete dissatisfaction with the House system among students, nor paralysis in the search for a solution among administrators.

Many students quality their complaints about failing heat and chipping paint by saying they largely enjoy the quality of life and atmosphere within their Houses. Despite problems with heat, Chapus says he "wouldn't live anywhere else" besides Winthrop. John O. Murphy '81, a resident of South House, says he has problems with getting hot water but adds that on the whole the custodial "staff has been very responsive."

And administrators hope the situation will improve. Pressed for funds at present, the House system expects to gain $12 million earmarked for it in the $250 million Harvard Campaign fund drive, which will end in 1984. And that's where the x-ray machines and experts from St. Louis come in.

This year, under the direction of Martha Coburn, associate dean of the College, the College hired two firms to "conduct an analytical study of existing conditions" in parts of four Houses--Adams, Lowell, South House and Winthrop, Robert Thomas, coordinator of the study and director of Harvard's Construction Management Division, says. For several months, Steffen and Associates from St. Louis and Fogarty and Associates, a Massachusetts-based firm, studied the mechanical and structural conditions. The two groups this week present their preliminary findings to College officials.

How these findings will eventually differ from last year's report by Dober and Associates which recommended renovations of more than $50 million is not known for sure. But, officials says, the nature of this year's study is more detailed and specific than the Dober report, which one official termed "quite global." Some officials fear that the highly analytical quality of the report will bear more bad news: that renovations may cost even more than the figures suggested by the Dober report. But Coburn and others see the study as a potentially beneficial, alerting the College to specific steps which may be taken to improve the Houses both mechanically and structurally. The study marks a shift to a more detailed method of tackling the housing problem, Coburn says. "What we're really gearing toward is a revision of policy, rather than renovations," she adds.

Poor conditions created by the passage of time and maintainance deferral persist in areas of the College beyond the Houses--and so do corrective efforts. One principal concern of the Faculty is renovating Sever Hall, once among the University's most famed works of architecture. "Sever has just been let go," Gerrity says, adding that to allow for easy repairs for the 103-year-old building, Sever will close in 1983. The renovations will be similar to those done in Robinson Hall, Joyce says, adding, "Robinson has come out pretty nicely."

The efforts of Gerrity and Coburn suggest that solutions to the deterioration problems of Harvard pipes, radiators, wires, plaster, paint, brick and mortar exist, but the money dilemma lingers. Solutions to the problems, if found, will need funding--much more, many suspect, than the $12 million earmarked for the Houses in the capital fund drive. And raising more dollars, especially for important, but unglamorous and invisible mechanical work, will be hard. "Nobody's going to give a lot of money to something that already has someone else's name on it," Oscar Handlin, director of the University Library and Pforzheimer University Professor, says. Thomas M. Reardon, director of the Harvard Campaign and University development, agrees that alumni may be less likely to donate money for new pipes and wirings. "People like to give something specific that would not have been built without them," he says, adding that donors are, as a result, more apt to donate to education projects where they perceive "the future's going to be."

But the future of funding more mundane renovations in the Houses and academic buildings may become brighter, James A. Davis, master of Winthrop House and chairman of the Sociology department, points out that there is "good news demographically" concerning "notoriously generous" Harvard alumni. "Our oldest alumni now have experience in the House system. And they're the most generous," Davis says. This may be an advantage in the capital fund drive where, Reardon says, alumni may choose to direct money to a particular facet of Harvard life.

And while some try to raise revenue, others try to cut costs--for example, Richard G. Leahy, associate dean of the Faculty for resources, Leahy and others including Michael Lichten, assistant energy coordinator for the Faculty, are changing residential and academic buildings to save energy consumption and increase mechanical efficiency. By aiming for what Lichten calls "cost-avoidance"--keeping energy bills at a rate far below increasing fuel costs--the Faculty budget may have more money to devote to renovations because of a reduced energy burden.

Initial results from work done at Leverett House and Thayer Hall make Leahy and Lichten hopeful of substantial savings across the University. In the Leverett Towers, where the target was a wasteful ventilation system, fuel consumption was cut 17 per cent for the year, Lichten says. Thayer, he adds, recorded a 24-per-cent reduction in fuel use after the installation of better insulation and adjustable valves with thermostats on all of the dorm's radiators. The valves have also all but ended the problem of erratic heating in rooms, Leahy adds, saying he's seen the proof from his University Hall office window. As the seasons changed each year from fall to winter, the heat in the Yard dorms would go on--and windows would open, Leahy recalls. This year, the windows in Thayer remained shut. And across the Yard, in Stoughton, where workmen installed valves in all but the top floor, windows remained closed as well--except for those at the top.

Leahy anticipates greater saving across campus next winter following the installation of 4000 more valves. In addition to continued work in residential buildings, the academic structures--particularly the Science Center, William James Hall, the new biochem labs, the biology labs and chemistry labs, which together consume 70 per cent of the energy used by the College--will also receive attention. In the Science Center and William James, efforts will include alterations in ventilation systems which circulate more air than necessary. In the labs, fume hoods--which are "intensely energy wasteful," according to Leahy--will be altered to become more economical. A myriad of additional renovations to these buildings and others aim at meeting Dean Rosovsky's target of a 50-per-cent reduction in fuel consumption within five years, Leahy says. If realized, the energy savings will free up lots of money for repairs and maintainance, officials anticipate.

While Leahy searches for energy reductions and Coburn and Gerrity scramble for viable repair plans, more extensive work is taking place across the Charles. This Monday, the Business School will begin several major renovation programs. Most notable is what Paul H. Lapointe, assistant dean of the B-School, calls a "complete renovation and mechanical overhaul" of Chase Hall, a B-School dorm, at a cost of $5.6 million--almost half of what is set aside for the entire undergraduate House system from the Harvard Campaign. The changes in Chase follow previous alteration projects in McCulloch Hall in 1978 ($3.5 million) and Mellon Hall in 1976 ($4 million). In sharp contrast to the hosing and money shortages felt by the College, the B-School will be reducing the number of beds in Chase from 155 to 127, filling the newly-made space with a private bath for each room.

Citing "plumbing which is 50 years old" and a design which allows radiators in only one room of two-room suites, Lapointe's call for change echoes those heard throughout the House system. Except the B-School has the money to improve housing and more. As the changes in Chase take place, improvements of classrooms and bathrooms--what Lapointe calls a general "redecorating and refurbishing"--will occur in the final stage of a $2 million project in Aldrich Hall. "We want to really dress then up so they'll endure another 40 or 50 years," Lapointe says.

Many College officials believe that the B-School's effective, lucrative use of its facilities during the summer--executive education programs and the like--help pay for the renovations. But west of the B-School, across North Harvard St., is another instance of development far different from the stagnation felt in recent years at the College. While the College has scrambled to save a buck, the athletic department has vigorously updated facilities--which, according to John P. Reardon '60, director of athletics, were dubbed the second worst in the East some years ago. Their method has been simple: an outpouring of cash. Prior to the capital fund drive (from which the department stands to gain an additional $10 million), the athletic department held its own drive in connection with the development office. The fruits of their efforts; a renovated Bright Hockey Center ($2.9 million); Blodgett Pool ($4 million) and the Indoor Track and Tennis Building ($4 million). Now in the works is the reconstruction of Briggs Cage, which will include two basketball courts and a first-of-its-kind astro-turf rug which Reardon says will "float out" of its nine-foot deep pit supported by air.

Meanwhile, the House system sits, ages and waits. Waits for the findings of Steffen and Fogarty. Waits for the initiatives of Coburn and Fox. And waits for money. No one knows for sure what advice will come from the study which "did everything but take Winthrop apart brick from brick," according to Davis, or what new repair work energy-slashing measures and $12 million will allow. But Dr. Warren E. C. Wacker, master of South House and Oliver Professor of Hygiene, sees the new study presenting "both a challenge and an opportunity to upgrade the place, to make it more liveable and economical in the long run," Wacker adds.

The narrow line between deterioration and danger and the tenuous link connecting history and simply old age are best seen as the House system celebrates its golden anniversary. "We're beyond the era of gentlemen needing suites and stables for their horses," Davis says. "There's no need to return to that era of housing. But at some point the run-down quality becomes a real problem."