Court Decision Allows Union Renovations

In a stinging setback for local preservationists, a Cambridge judge ruled yesterday that the University may move forward with plans to renovate the Harvard Union.

The Middlesex Superior Court denied an alumni group's request for an injunction that would have postponed construction on the building until the matter could be resolved in trial.

A temporary restraining order had prevented construction on the Union for the last nine days, costing the University nearly $150,000.

The alumni group, known as the Harvard Alumni Architectural Review Committee (HAARC), has led a three-month crusade against the University's plans to divide the Great Hall of the Union into three sections.

The alumni, who have already made a motion to reconsider the judge's decision, vowed to fight on.

"We are not quitting," said Roger S. Webb, vice-chair and treasurer of HAARC.

But University officials were satisfied that plans for a new humanities center can continue.

"I am very pleased that the judge...found no merit in the case against Harvard," said Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles.

The University was permitted to perform limited construction during the past week, but renovations will now proceed on a more regular schedule, according to University Attorney Robert B. Donin.

But at least one member of HAARC is fearful that construction will continue with increased speed.

"We have every reason to expect that Harvard will go right back to demolishing the Great Hall tomorrow morning," Webb said.

Webb pointed to the destruction of Carey Cage, a University weight-training facility, which was accomplished in just a few days last November.

"If they do what they did on Carey Cage, they will go right ahead and trash [the Union]," Webb said. "They have already done a good job on smashing up the whole ceiling."

Donin denied that the University would accelerate the renovations as a result of the court's decision.

The Battle

The legal issue at stake yesterday focused on Harvard's application last year to the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board for variances to permit the University to retain four doors in the Union that are by law too narrow for disabled individuals.

The board had ruled that variances were not required.

The plaintiffs, who included the alumni group and assorted architects and preservationists, disagreed with the board. They also contended that the Massachusetts Historical Commission is required to review the plans for the entire project as a result of the state Architectural Access Board's ruling.

The judge's ruling, however, emphatically rejected the alumni group's claims.

"The plaintiffs have not shown that there is a likelihood that they would prevail on the merits," Judge Isaac Borenstein wrote in his decision.

"They have also not shown that they would be irreparably harmed if the injunction is not granted nor that any harm the plaintiffs might suffer outweighs the harm to the defendants," he added.

Knowles and Donin were particularly pleased that Borenstein had judged that the University was conscious of its duty to preserve its architectural heritage.

"Although the changes to the Great Hall will be extensive, Harvard has taken steps to protect the historically and architecturally significant features of the building," Borenstein wrote.

The judge pointed to Harvard's consultations with the Cambridge Historical Commission and the hiring of "noted architectural preservation firm" Goody, Clancy & Associates as evidence of Harvard's efforts.

"We believed from the beginning that we had sought and received every necessary approval to carry out this renovation which is so important to academic life of Harvard," Donin said.

Even if it ultimately loses the battle for the Great Hall, members of HAARC said they intend to continue its mission as an oversight committee in the future.

"I think Harvard enjoys a privileged status in the city of Cambridge, in terms of not having all of its historic properties under full jurisdiction of the Cambridge Historical Commission," Webb said. "That is something we would like to look into.

The Battle

The legal issue at stake yesterday focused on Harvard's application last year to the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board for variances to permit the University to retain four doors in the Union that are by law too narrow for disabled individuals.

The board had ruled that variances were not required.

The plaintiffs, who included the alumni group and assorted architects and preservationists, disagreed with the board. They also contended that the Massachusetts Historical Commission is required to review the plans for the entire project as a result of the state Architectural Access Board's ruling.

The judge's ruling, however, emphatically rejected the alumni group's claims.

"The plaintiffs have not shown that there is a likelihood that they would prevail on the merits," Judge Isaac Borenstein wrote in his decision.

"They have also not shown that they would be irreparably harmed if the injunction is not granted nor that any harm the plaintiffs might suffer outweighs the harm to the defendants," he added.

Knowles and Donin were particularly pleased that Borenstein had judged that the University was conscious of its duty to preserve its architectural heritage.

"Although the changes to the Great Hall will be extensive, Harvard has taken steps to protect the historically and architecturally significant features of the building," Borenstein wrote.

The judge pointed to Harvard's consultations with the Cambridge Historical Commission and the hiring of "noted architectural preservation firm" Goody, Clancy & Associates as evidence of Harvard's efforts.

"We believed from the beginning that we had sought and received every necessary approval to carry out this renovation which is so important to academic life of Harvard," Donin said.

Even if it ultimately loses the battle for the Great Hall, members of HAARC said they intend to continue its mission as an oversight committee in the future.

"I think Harvard enjoys a privileged status in the city of Cambridge, in terms of not having all of its historic properties under full jurisdiction of the Cambridge Historical Commission," Webb said. "That is something we would like to look into.