Union Changes Draw Criticism

For more than three centuries Harvard has been celebrated as a curator of historical architecture. But recently, the University's reputation for historical preservation has been attacked by a number of alumni and architects infuriated by the renovations planned for the Harvard Union.

The $20 million renovation and conversion of the Union into a new humanities center was a goal of the $2.1 billion University Campaign launched in May, 1994.

Currently, the humanities departments are scattered in different buildings throughout the entire campus.

Officials say construction on the 1901 building, planned to begin sometime this winter, complements the January 4 opening of the new first-year dining facilities in the newly renovated Annenberg Hall at Memorial Hall.

Subdividing the Great Hall--now the main dining hall--into three main spaces and reconfiguring the ceiling of the hall are among the changes proposed at the Union.

Compromising a Legacy

Despite officials' claims that restructuring is necessary, critics say these changes fly in the face of Harvard's architectural history.

"The cultural values of the past which form a vital part of a liberal education are not only on the printed page," says Daniel D. Reiff '63, a professor of art history at the State University of New York at Fredonia.

"The very spaces we live in, learn in and draw delight and inspiration from are part of that legacy. Has Har- vard--in its humanities center no less--decided that it is no longer worth the effort to pass on to future generations this part of our culture?"

Reiff and other critics say they are alarmed by the proposed changes to the Union because it is an important example of architecture by the firm of McKim, Mead & White, a firm noted for its grand interiors.

Charles McKim designed a number of projects under the direction of former president Charles W. Eliot, including Johnston Gate and Robinson Hall. In Boston, the firm is best known for landmarks such as the Boston Public Library and Symphony Hall.

Phillip Arsity, an architectural designer and critic, points to the significance of the building as one of the greatest examples of McKim, Mead, & White's interiors.

The subdivision of the Union's Great Hall is at the very heart of much of the controversy surrounding the plans to renovate the building.

Phillip J. Parsons, director of planning for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) argues that the proposed changes will preserve the architectural integrity of the building while revitalizing the space for academic use and making it function as an integral part of the campus.

"[McKim, Mead & White] is a prolific firm which in fact did a lot of institutional work at the time the building was constructed," Parsons says.

Parsons says Goody, Clancy & Associates, the architects charged with the Memorial Hall and Union renovations, looked carefully at McKim's building, attempting various design proposals.

In fact, Parsons says, the firm's initial plans were to keep the hall intact. However, they concluded that "preserving the great hall in its existing condition would not create the kind of lively interactive space that we wanted to create for these departments."

But architectural historians dispute the claim that a restructuring was necessary.

"I believe that the renovation plans which will drastically alter one of the grand spaces of the interior are wrongheaded and misguided," Reiff says.

The Renovations

Goody, Clancy & Associates is the-same Boston firm that won a multitude of awards for their restoration of Harvard Yard under Parsons' direction.

According to architect Joan Goody, their plans call for the subdivision of the great hall into three sections--a grand parlor, a very large seminar room and a large sky lit central atrium-like space with a grand staircase linking all the floors in the building. The rotunda, which now provides students with a secondary dining area, is slated to become a coffee house. (See design below.)

The original fireplace will remain in the large parlor located to the right as will three of the original paneled walls. The large seminar room containing the original second fireplace will be located to the left. Offices and seminar rooms will constitute the remainder of the building.

In contrast, the building's facade will undergo minimal renovations, barring the removal of a 1950s kitchen addition, Goody says.

Parsons and Goody say these renovations remain true to the original intentions of McKim, Mead & White.

In addition, several changes are designed to take advantage of the building's south-facing position.

The skylight will lighten up the great hall and the floor below through a recess in the floor of the atrium. The final renovation plans were reviewed and supported by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the same organization who bestowed the award last year upon Harvard for the restoration of Harvard Yard.

The Dispute

Although Parsons and Goody assure historians that they intend to preserve the building's original look, criticism of the project abounds.

"It is not that we've been insensitive to historical issues in the planning," Parsons says.

But not everyone concurs with Parsons' position. Many alumni and architectural historians have written letters protesting the plans to Goody, Parsons and President Neil L. Rudenstine. And a number of letters of protest have been published in Harvard Magazine.

"They are taking a great piece of art and destroying it.... It's insane," says architect Richard Rice, who graduated from the Graduate School of Design in '73 and from the Business School in '82.

In a letter to Goody, Rice informed her of his intent to stop his alumni contributions to the Graduate School of Design and the Business School in order to "cause the University Facilities people to realize the beauty and wonder of the architecture that has been passed on to them by their predecessors and stop the horrors of your destruction." In the same letter, Rice urged Goody to resign from her work on the Union.

In one letter to Harvard Magazine, Reiff wrote, "The remodeling plan is more than just unworthy of Harvard. ...I think alumni deserve an explanation of this planned barbarism."

In another letter to the magazine, D. Grahame Smith '45 criticized the plans, saying, "The proposed new parlors look like an over-designed subway concourse."

Richard C. Byron '50 wrote to Rudenstine asking him not to change the great hall.

"Some things have to be sacrosanct," Byron said. "I can't believe they don't realize this. What kind of skewed value systems do they have?"

The controversy over the plans reached The Boston Globe as well, which ran a story on the renovations in late October, characterizing the renovations as "plans to turn the Georgian-style Freshman Union building into offices."

Parsons and Goody say descriptions such as these have inflamed the debate over the Union's renovations, adding that no one expected such feedback over the remodeling plans.

"I think that there are a slew of McKim, Mead & White specialists who would be pained to see anything changed," Goody says. "There is a small group that feels strongly and receives a maximum amount of publicity."

But a letter to Rudenstine from Keith N. Morgan, president of the Society of Architectural Historians and a professor of art history at Boston University, argues that the University should make the necessary changes to the Union, barring changes to the great hall.

"The Harvard Union is a building of national importance, and more importantly a building which established the character of Harvard architecture for the first third of this century," Morgan wrote.

Quoting novelist Henry James, Morgan urged Rudenstine to reconsider the changes.

"If the professors and students in the Humanities seek greater intellectual and social interaction why not preserve that 'great grave noble hall' which still fulfills its original mission so well," Morgan wrote.

Nature of the Union

In order to understand the position of the University and the architects, Parsons says the restoration of the Union and the restoration of Memorial Hall must be seen as a package of inseparable projects.

Both were deteriorating, inactive buildings in central locations. After being renovated, both will become focal points full of lively interaction, he says.

Planners say the new center sits at the apex of a V-configuration of humanities buildings, with the museums of Quincy St. on one side and a line of humanities buildings from Boylston Hall to Widener Library on the other.

Memorial Hall, originally designed as a dining hall, war memorial and theater, will now resume that function after years of use as a lecture hall and open space, Parsons says.

The restoration of Memorial Hall was contingent upon the restoration of the Union, Parsons adds.

The Union was originally built in 1901-2 with a gift of $150,000. According to historian Margaret H. Floyd, author of a book on Harvard architectural history, the building was intended to provide a gathering place for students who could not afford to dine at the private clubs frequented by many Harvard students at that time. The plans for renovation were then designed in order to fulfill the intent originally conceived.

Parsons agrees that the original intention of the building was to provide a sense of community.

"I don't think you [achieve this] by having a huge vaulted space in the middle of the building," Parsons says.

Parsons says the best way to preserve historical significance of buildings is to find new uses for old structures.

"Otherwise these buildings become burdensome," he adds.

Goody says the new plans remain true to the original intent, by dividing the great hall and creating a central circulation space.

"Instead of a kind of basement space that has a sense of being second class, the grand stair connecting the lowest floor to the highest floor, is a way of bringing faculty and students together," Goody says.

"In our hurried world, people meet while traveling to and from places and this plan will encourage this faculty interaction," she adds.

In the Details

In addition to concerns over the subdivision of the great hall, alumni and architects have also said that other historic details may be lost in the renovation.

"Even if they have to cut [the hall] into three rooms, the best solution would be not to change the ceiling or the wall paneling. Any alteration should be done with the greatest sensitivity to the historic labric and should have as little impact as possible," Reiff says.

Reiff refers to the plans to alter the original plaster relief that now constitutes the ceiling. The renovations will create a skylight in the new ceiling, while raising one section and lowering another. Some of the original wood paneling will also be discarded.

But Parsons says every effort is being made to appease these concerns. The ceiling will be lifted six inches to avoid damaging the molding and much of the original paneling will be preserved.

Critics also charge that the stairway being created in the central space further interrupts the once huge expanse.

Still, the architects point out they will try to preserve as many architectual details as possible. These include the memorial plaques and the moose head and antlers of deer killed by President Theodore Roosevelt, class of 1880.

Seeing a Pattern

Although Parsons has been acknowledged for his work preserving the Yard during recent renovations, several architectural critics have charged that recent decisions by Harvard planners fail to take historical concern into account.

On November 24, Carey Cage, an athletic structure designed by Langford Warren, an apprentice of renowned architect H.H. Richardson, was razed to make room for a new athletic facility.

Architectural historians criticized the decision, saying Harvard had failed to preserve an important structure.

Douglass Shand Tucci '72, author of Built in Boston, a book of architectural history, said the decision to raze the cage was ill-conceived.

Citing controversial additions of loading-bays to Memorial Hall and the decision to divide the Union's great hall, Shand-Tucci said:

"History is important to Harvard. Even the crudest person would realize that it's not good for Harvard to be dumping on its history in this way."

Still, Harvard officials say they hope to preserve the historical integrity of buildings while at the same time making them useful in a modern academic setting.

"We have a wonderfully rich heritage, how do we use it to best serve the present?," Parson asks. "It is important not to be slaves to the preservation movement."CrimsonGabrielle Page WilsonThe Harvard Union, in an early photo, before the sides were added to the rotunda (top). Students lunch yesterday in the Union dining hall (right).

Reiff and other critics say they are alarmed by the proposed changes to the Union because it is an important example of architecture by the firm of McKim, Mead & White, a firm noted for its grand interiors.

Charles McKim designed a number of projects under the direction of former president Charles W. Eliot, including Johnston Gate and Robinson Hall. In Boston, the firm is best known for landmarks such as the Boston Public Library and Symphony Hall.

Phillip Arsity, an architectural designer and critic, points to the significance of the building as one of the greatest examples of McKim, Mead, & White's interiors.

The subdivision of the Union's Great Hall is at the very heart of much of the controversy surrounding the plans to renovate the building.

Phillip J. Parsons, director of planning for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) argues that the proposed changes will preserve the architectural integrity of the building while revitalizing the space for academic use and making it function as an integral part of the campus.

"[McKim, Mead & White] is a prolific firm which in fact did a lot of institutional work at the time the building was constructed," Parsons says.

Parsons says Goody, Clancy & Associates, the architects charged with the Memorial Hall and Union renovations, looked carefully at McKim's building, attempting various design proposals.

In fact, Parsons says, the firm's initial plans were to keep the hall intact. However, they concluded that "preserving the great hall in its existing condition would not create the kind of lively interactive space that we wanted to create for these departments."

But architectural historians dispute the claim that a restructuring was necessary.

"I believe that the renovation plans which will drastically alter one of the grand spaces of the interior are wrongheaded and misguided," Reiff says.

The Renovations

Goody, Clancy & Associates is the-same Boston firm that won a multitude of awards for their restoration of Harvard Yard under Parsons' direction.

According to architect Joan Goody, their plans call for the subdivision of the great hall into three sections--a grand parlor, a very large seminar room and a large sky lit central atrium-like space with a grand staircase linking all the floors in the building. The rotunda, which now provides students with a secondary dining area, is slated to become a coffee house. (See design below.)

The original fireplace will remain in the large parlor located to the right as will three of the original paneled walls. The large seminar room containing the original second fireplace will be located to the left. Offices and seminar rooms will constitute the remainder of the building.

In contrast, the building's facade will undergo minimal renovations, barring the removal of a 1950s kitchen addition, Goody says.

Parsons and Goody say these renovations remain true to the original intentions of McKim, Mead & White.

In addition, several changes are designed to take advantage of the building's south-facing position.

The skylight will lighten up the great hall and the floor below through a recess in the floor of the atrium. The final renovation plans were reviewed and supported by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the same organization who bestowed the award last year upon Harvard for the restoration of Harvard Yard.

The Dispute

Although Parsons and Goody assure historians that they intend to preserve the building's original look, criticism of the project abounds.

"It is not that we've been insensitive to historical issues in the planning," Parsons says.

But not everyone concurs with Parsons' position. Many alumni and architectural historians have written letters protesting the plans to Goody, Parsons and President Neil L. Rudenstine. And a number of letters of protest have been published in Harvard Magazine.

"They are taking a great piece of art and destroying it.... It's insane," says architect Richard Rice, who graduated from the Graduate School of Design in '73 and from the Business School in '82.

In a letter to Goody, Rice informed her of his intent to stop his alumni contributions to the Graduate School of Design and the Business School in order to "cause the University Facilities people to realize the beauty and wonder of the architecture that has been passed on to them by their predecessors and stop the horrors of your destruction." In the same letter, Rice urged Goody to resign from her work on the Union.

In one letter to Harvard Magazine, Reiff wrote, "The remodeling plan is more than just unworthy of Harvard. ...I think alumni deserve an explanation of this planned barbarism."

In another letter to the magazine, D. Grahame Smith '45 criticized the plans, saying, "The proposed new parlors look like an over-designed subway concourse."

Richard C. Byron '50 wrote to Rudenstine asking him not to change the great hall.

"Some things have to be sacrosanct," Byron said. "I can't believe they don't realize this. What kind of skewed value systems do they have?"

The controversy over the plans reached The Boston Globe as well, which ran a story on the renovations in late October, characterizing the renovations as "plans to turn the Georgian-style Freshman Union building into offices."

Parsons and Goody say descriptions such as these have inflamed the debate over the Union's renovations, adding that no one expected such feedback over the remodeling plans.

"I think that there are a slew of McKim, Mead & White specialists who would be pained to see anything changed," Goody says. "There is a small group that feels strongly and receives a maximum amount of publicity."

But a letter to Rudenstine from Keith N. Morgan, president of the Society of Architectural Historians and a professor of art history at Boston University, argues that the University should make the necessary changes to the Union, barring changes to the great hall.

"The Harvard Union is a building of national importance, and more importantly a building which established the character of Harvard architecture for the first third of this century," Morgan wrote.

Quoting novelist Henry James, Morgan urged Rudenstine to reconsider the changes.

"If the professors and students in the Humanities seek greater intellectual and social interaction why not preserve that 'great grave noble hall' which still fulfills its original mission so well," Morgan wrote.

Nature of the Union

In order to understand the position of the University and the architects, Parsons says the restoration of the Union and the restoration of Memorial Hall must be seen as a package of inseparable projects.

Both were deteriorating, inactive buildings in central locations. After being renovated, both will become focal points full of lively interaction, he says.

Planners say the new center sits at the apex of a V-configuration of humanities buildings, with the museums of Quincy St. on one side and a line of humanities buildings from Boylston Hall to Widener Library on the other.

Memorial Hall, originally designed as a dining hall, war memorial and theater, will now resume that function after years of use as a lecture hall and open space, Parsons says.

The restoration of Memorial Hall was contingent upon the restoration of the Union, Parsons adds.

The Union was originally built in 1901-2 with a gift of $150,000. According to historian Margaret H. Floyd, author of a book on Harvard architectural history, the building was intended to provide a gathering place for students who could not afford to dine at the private clubs frequented by many Harvard students at that time. The plans for renovation were then designed in order to fulfill the intent originally conceived.

Parsons agrees that the original intention of the building was to provide a sense of community.

"I don't think you [achieve this] by having a huge vaulted space in the middle of the building," Parsons says.

Parsons says the best way to preserve historical significance of buildings is to find new uses for old structures.

"Otherwise these buildings become burdensome," he adds.

Goody says the new plans remain true to the original intent, by dividing the great hall and creating a central circulation space.

"Instead of a kind of basement space that has a sense of being second class, the grand stair connecting the lowest floor to the highest floor, is a way of bringing faculty and students together," Goody says.

"In our hurried world, people meet while traveling to and from places and this plan will encourage this faculty interaction," she adds.

In the Details

In addition to concerns over the subdivision of the great hall, alumni and architects have also said that other historic details may be lost in the renovation.

"Even if they have to cut [the hall] into three rooms, the best solution would be not to change the ceiling or the wall paneling. Any alteration should be done with the greatest sensitivity to the historic labric and should have as little impact as possible," Reiff says.

Reiff refers to the plans to alter the original plaster relief that now constitutes the ceiling. The renovations will create a skylight in the new ceiling, while raising one section and lowering another. Some of the original wood paneling will also be discarded.

But Parsons says every effort is being made to appease these concerns. The ceiling will be lifted six inches to avoid damaging the molding and much of the original paneling will be preserved.

Critics also charge that the stairway being created in the central space further interrupts the once huge expanse.

Still, the architects point out they will try to preserve as many architectual details as possible. These include the memorial plaques and the moose head and antlers of deer killed by President Theodore Roosevelt, class of 1880.

Seeing a Pattern

Although Parsons has been acknowledged for his work preserving the Yard during recent renovations, several architectural critics have charged that recent decisions by Harvard planners fail to take historical concern into account.

On November 24, Carey Cage, an athletic structure designed by Langford Warren, an apprentice of renowned architect H.H. Richardson, was razed to make room for a new athletic facility.

Architectural historians criticized the decision, saying Harvard had failed to preserve an important structure.

Douglass Shand Tucci '72, author of Built in Boston, a book of architectural history, said the decision to raze the cage was ill-conceived.

Citing controversial additions of loading-bays to Memorial Hall and the decision to divide the Union's great hall, Shand-Tucci said:

"History is important to Harvard. Even the crudest person would realize that it's not good for Harvard to be dumping on its history in this way."

Still, Harvard officials say they hope to preserve the historical integrity of buildings while at the same time making them useful in a modern academic setting.

"We have a wonderfully rich heritage, how do we use it to best serve the present?," Parson asks. "It is important not to be slaves to the preservation movement."CrimsonGabrielle Page WilsonThe Harvard Union, in an early photo, before the sides were added to the rotunda (top). Students lunch yesterday in the Union dining hall (right).