Judge to Decide Union's Fate Thursday

A lawyer representing the Harvard Alumni Architectural Review Committee (HAARC) asked a judge in the Middlesex Superior Court yesterday for a preliminary injunction continuing the current halt of all construction on the Harvard Union.

The court heard arguments to determine the merits of halting the renovations until the case can be heard in court and will issue its decision on Thursday.

A temporary restraining order was obtained last Tuesday by HAARC, a group of alums and other individuals concerned over the plans to renovate the Harvard Union.

The greatest source of controversy over these plans has focused on the division of the Union's Great Hall into three sections. This subject has received nation-wide attention over the past months, with coverage by the New York Times and the Boston Globe.

The Hearing

Thomas Bracken, the attorney for the plaintiffs, asked that the injunction be ordered "before more work is done, before the Great Hall is chopped up into three spaces, and before more money is poured into [renovating] a space we are trying to save."

Harvard's attorney John K. Felter, told the court that "every day construction is halted, $16,000 is lost.... The same amount given as a tuition grant to students requiring financial aid."

"This temporary restraining order has brought to a screeching halt eight years of planning and consultation," Felter said, pointing out that losses equal the salary of one faculty member of the University.

"If the restraining order lasts for 30 days, the costs will exceed one million dollars," Felter told the court.

However, HAARC had a different view concerning the significance of the monetary loss of the University.

"It is not [Dean Jeremy R.] Knowles's money, nor [Director of Planning for FAS Phillip J.] Parsons's.... It is the alumni's money," said Bracken, responding to comments by Felter.

Felter went on to categorize HAARC as "a handful of alumni who feel they know best how Harvard should handle its buildings and how it should succeed in fulfilling its educational mission."

Bracken, however, emphasized that the entire Department of Architecture of the Graduate School of Design joined the voices of protest of the plans.

Disputes

The arguments set forth in court yesterday relate to Harvard's application last year to the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board for variances to permit Harvard to keep four doors in the Union that are not wheelchair accessible.

The Board ruled that a variance was unnecessary in this specific case because the doors were "not open to and used by the public."

The plaintiffs contest this decision and contend that the Massachusetts Historical Commission was, according to statute, required to review the plans for the entire project, including the plans to divide the Great Hall.

The act of determining that variances were unnecessary is, in itself, a determination that should prompt the review, Bracken said.

Harvard attempted to dismiss the case on the basis that the plaintiffs waited until last week to file with the court, pointing to one statute and claiming that the plaintiffs were required to file for the injunction within thirty days of the Board's decision.

Although this date would have been over eight months ago, Bracken pointed to the section of the same statute which allowed the plaintiffs to bring the matter before the Superior Court without a time restriction.

Included in the visual aids that the University brought to the court were photos of both the interior and exterior of the Union taken the morning after the restraining order was issued.

Felter argued that the plaintiffs were too late, showing pictures of the ceiling completely removed from the Great Hall.

The University also claimed that, if necessary, the entire issue could be avoided. If Harvard decides to make the four doors in question comply with regulations, the University stated that the plaintiff would have no jurisdiction.

However, the plaintiffs responded that this brash measure would violate the approval that was obtained by the Cambridge Historical Commission for preserving the historic doors.

After the judge did not immediately deny the plaintiffs' requests for an injunction, the University asked the court to allow limited construction on the Union that would not affect the areas in question.

This list was approved by the plaintiffs

Although this date would have been over eight months ago, Bracken pointed to the section of the same statute which allowed the plaintiffs to bring the matter before the Superior Court without a time restriction.

Included in the visual aids that the University brought to the court were photos of both the interior and exterior of the Union taken the morning after the restraining order was issued.

Felter argued that the plaintiffs were too late, showing pictures of the ceiling completely removed from the Great Hall.

The University also claimed that, if necessary, the entire issue could be avoided. If Harvard decides to make the four doors in question comply with regulations, the University stated that the plaintiff would have no jurisdiction.

However, the plaintiffs responded that this brash measure would violate the approval that was obtained by the Cambridge Historical Commission for preserving the historic doors.

After the judge did not immediately deny the plaintiffs' requests for an injunction, the University asked the court to allow limited construction on the Union that would not affect the areas in question.

This list was approved by the plaintiffs