Searching for a College in Allston

Top Harvard administrators embraced plans this year to shift the University’s center from the Yard to the Charles River by constructing a second undergraduate campus in Allston.

The proposal would mark the most ambitious physical expansion in Harvard’s 368-year history.

Harvard’s campus of the future will likely include between three and eight undergraduate Houses, a science hub and the public health and education schools, in addition to the business school, graduate housing and the athletic facilities that already occupy some of the University’s Allston land.

The undeveloped parts of Harvard’s vast 341-acre Allston holdings are composed of a tollbooth and stretch of the Massachusetts Turnpike, a truckyard, a railyard and a few dilapidated storefronts—in short, an encumbered industrial wasteland.

While the University has not begun clearing the land, planners’ visions for the new campus have already started to take shape.

Last July, Whitehead Professor of Political Philosophy and Senior Advisor to the President Dennis F. Thompson presented an outline of this plan at a retreat attended by top administrators and deans, including University President Lawrence H. Summers.

The plans first became public when The Crimson and The Boston Globe reported the meeting in early September.

Summers outlined a more detailed version of this proposal with his comments in an October letter to the community, confirming that other plans for Allston, like centering the land around a graduate school campus, were off the table.

The letter laid out the “planning assumptions” for four major areas: culture and urban life, science and technology, professional schools and undergraduate life.

Summers’ letter also announced the formation of four task forces to study possibilities for development in those fields.

In their monthly meeting the day the plans were released, faculty voiced concerns ranging from a lack of consultation in the planning process to the issue of splitting the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ (FAS) science departments between the two banks of the Charles.

The task forces have been meeting since the fall, and released a set of reports last month that embraced the existing plan while adding details to the vision. Most significantly, the undergraduate life group encouraged the College to move student dormitories from the Quad, constructing three to eight Allston Houses instead.

Last Friday, the University selected Cooper, Robertson & Partners, in conjunction with Laurie Olin and Frank O.

Gehry, as the master planner to lay out a framework for Allston development.

While they will inherit the reports of these four committees detailing possibilities for Allston, many facets of the campus’ implementation—including obtaining community approval and faculty support—must be worked out before breaking ground in the next five to 10 years.

GO SOUTH, YOUNG MAN

While the idea of undergraduate housing began the year as the most tentative of the Allston tenets, it has emerged as the eventual anchor of the campus.

It was described as the most speculative idea both in the July presentation and in Summers’ October letter.

Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby declined to discuss the proposal in his October letter to the Faculty about Allston “because the possibility of undergraduate housing in Allston is in the rather more distant future,” he wrote in an October e-mail. And Summers said new undergraduate housing would not be constructed in the next decade.

But the possibility of Houses in Allston seems nearly certain now that the task force charged with considering undergraduate life across the river has concluded that having a “critical mass” of at least 25 percent of undergraduates in Allston is “crucial” to creating a thriving campus.

The group’s vision would make Allston an extension of the College’s historic Cambridge acreage rather than a distinct second campus by moving Quad residents across the river.

The committee also found that situating those Houses across the river is “essential,” even though it would probably displace some of the athletics facilities near the Charles.

Both University Provost Steven E. Hyman and Summers said they were gratified that the faculty had embraced the undergraduate housing plan.

“The task force got very excited about the idea,” Hyman said. “Undergraduates kind of give life to everything, and people saw the mutual benefit and the notion of students being closer to each other along the river and being potentially closer to new educational facilities.”

Undergraduate Council President Matthew W. Mahan ’05, who served on the committee, said he opposed housing undergraduates in three separate areas.

“Any plan that leaves undergraduates at the Quad and puts others in Allston is unacceptable,” he said.

He added that although he is “skeptical of any plan to put Houses in Allston,” the plan could improve the current housing structure—provided that the University demonstrates “a very serious commitment to undergraduate life.”

The estimated costs for the proposed scenarios range from $173 million for three Allston Houses to $462 million for eight. The report also lists strengths of some options—like ameliorating residential overcrowding in Cambridge and accommodating potential growth of the College—and points out pitfalls of others, such as transportation issues and negative effects on Quad alums.

The University has not begun to discuss its housing plans with Allston neighbors and officials, according to Vice President for Government, Community and Public Affairs Alan J. Stone.

He added that the Harvard’s community relations team will face a challenge in making Houses palatable to Allston residents. Both Quad and River neighbors have complained about the noisy disruption caused by the presence of undergraduates.

“All universities that are in neighborhood settings have this issue,” Stone said. “Part of it is reality that undergraduates love music and love late hours, keep weird hours. And part of it is probably unfounded in the sense that you can’t generalize about an entire group from some instances.”

The report included results from a long survey that solicited students’ preferences for housing attributes in Allston without asking whether students supported the housing move.

The survey found that distance from the Yard dramatically impacts student life. River House residents are more than twice as likely to return to their dorms in the middle of the day as Quad residents. Quad residents are 10 times as likely to take a shuttle to class, while River residents are 50 percent more likely to exercise outdoors.

Students’ top three demands for Allston amenities were more varied: late-night eating options, a student center and a better fitness center.

The report also recommends considering substantial improvements to Harvard’s athletic facilities—which will likely move further from the river to accommodate the new Houses.

Summers said Scalise and other athletics officials have raised concerns about the quality of the University’s varsity athletics facilities, including Harvard Stadium.

The report also suggests construction of improved and more extensive undergraduate arts facilities in Allston.

Thompson, who chaired the Allston life task force, said planners reached a consensus about the need to expand arts facilities.

“Everybody agreed that one of the things we need to do in Allston is to make up for some of the deficiencies in undergraduate arts space—dance, theater, practice rooms,” he said. “We need to do more in Cambridge but there’s not a lot of room.”

In conjunction with the new performance space, the undergraduate life group noted that the Departments of Music and Visual and Environmental Studies could be moved. They also considered moving student services like University Health Services and constructing a student center to bolster life across the Charles.

While most major classes would remain in Cambridge, the task force recommended that some afternoon classes, such as seminars and science labs, be held in Allston.

THE BACK (BUNSEN) BURNER?

The academic focal point of the new campus will be a science hub of at least 1 million square feet, adding a third science “locus” to Cambridge and the University’s medical facilities in Longwood.

FAS science departments are jockeying for what little space remains in their current Cambridge home. While a few new buildings are on the way, Summers wrote in his October letter that the University will still need more and newer facilities, noting that Allston would include “new kinds of space” for the sciences.

“Even assuming we fulfill those plans over the next several years, we will before long confront an insufficiency of space for science,” he wrote.

Professor of Astronomy Alyssa A. Goodman, who served on the provost’s science committee last year, said in September that the future of science lies in interdisciplinary research, which administrators say the new space could facilitate.

“One of the biggest problems that Steve Hyman kept talking about [was] that future science is so interdisciplinary,” she said. “Certainly the boundaries between departments that exist today aren’t going to exist in the future.”

But some professors said they worry Allston would hamper interdisciplinary research. While science faculty acknowledge that they need more room, many have expressed concerns that splitting FAS science between both banks of the Charles could sever important interdepartmental connections.

“Splitting the sciences—that’s ridiculous [and] totally untenable,” Charles M. Marcus, professor of physics and a former member of the provost’s Advisory Group on Science, said in an interview last August, before Summers released his plan for a science hub in Allston.

Throughout the year, scientists expressed their separation anxiety and complained about not being consulted adequately in the planning process. Some seized on a February town hall meeting intended to solicit science proposals as a chance to voice their discontent to Kirby and other administrators.

During the year, the science and technology task force investigated 70 proposals for interdisciplinary work in Allston suggested by faculty, recommending 13 “promising areas of inquiry”: stem cell research, innovative computing, engineering and applied science, origins of life, quantum science, systems neuroscience, systems biology, chemical biology, global health, microbial science, environmental science, clinical research and collaborative science.

Such a science campus could attract outside firms in areas like biotechnology as well, as MIT has in Kendall Square. The idea was initially trumpeted as Allston consideration began a few years ago but has been downplayed over the past year.

Hyman, who chaired the science group, said his committee would solicit new science proposals in the fall. Although faculty are eager to begin building the proposed centers, no time frame has yet emerged for science construction, he said.

“My scientists want to start digging tomorrow,” Hyman said.

He added that Allston would allow planners to “really think about new kinds of labs” that would allow professors to break out of the current mold of lab classes.

“They’re very cookbook,” Hyman said. “It’s not the way science happens.”

FOLLOW THE LEADERS?

The committee charged with exploring the role of graduate schools in Allston endorsed the October plan of moving the education school from Cambridge and public health school from Longwood.

The Law School, which would have anchored a professional school-focused Allston campus, will remain in Cambridge, much to the relief of first-year Dean Elena Kagan and her faculty.

The public health school has already outgrown its dated, overcrowded Longwood compound. It already faces a shortage of 100,000 square feet, a deficit that is projected to grow substantially over the coming years.

“We have a severe space crunch...it’s a matter even of survival,” Professor of Bioengineering and Physiology Jeffrey J. Fredberg said in September.

From a physical planning perspective, moving to Allston is a “no-brainer,” according to Associate Dean of Administration and Operations Paul S. Riccardi.

“It makes all the sense in the world,” he said.

The education school faces a similar space crunch at its Garden Street campus.

“Generally speaking, we want to move to Allston,” Dean Ellen Condliffe Lagemann said in an interview last spring. “Our physical plant is currently constraining what we want to do. We really need new space.”

She said a dire need for more classrooms is holding the school back.

“We have classes where some students must sit on the floor,” Lagemann wrote in an October e-mail. “The list [of space needs] is long.”

The professional schools’ task force report also suggests fostering interschool collaboration, potentially through programs aimed at promoting leadership, and constructing a shared conference center that could host executive education programs and University-wide events.

FORGING A CAMPUS

Professors and students have long insisted that if they are to move, the University must make a commitment to building a lively commercial presence in Allston around the campus of the future.

The Allston life group endorsed the idea of encouraging retail along North Harvard Street and other major Allston roadways.

It recommended improving existing shuttle services and river crossings and suggested considering building a new bridge, installing a tram, creating a rail line from Allston to the Longwood medical campus in Boston or enhancing the bridge on John F. Kennedy Street to become a “Ponte Vecchio on the Charles,” to mirror the historic shop-lined Florentine bridge.

Thompson, who led the committee, said last month that while some of the options may seem unlikely, the committee only put its weight behind plans that were “win-win.”

“We put them there because we think they really will have benefits for the community as well as for Harvard,” he said. “We didn’t put any options that we thought a reasonable member of the community would reject.”

He added that the committee was very impressed by a potential SMRTram vehicle that could hold 60 people and run both ways in an eight-foot-wide lane.

“The only problem is that it doesn’t exist yet,” Thompson said, adding that engineers have said the vehicle may be a feasible option in the near future.

The task force also recommended that planners investigate the less feasible proposals of constructing a new bridge by Soldiers Field Road and developing a regional transportation center, with commuter rail, a T stop and Harvard shuttle stops, in the area.

The committee looked at three cultural scenarios ranging from merely moving the Museum of Natural History to creating a “museum of the world” that would combine the natural history museum, Peabody Museum and Harvard University Art Museums into a complex that would “exhibit 90 percent of the history of the world.”

The Allston life report echoed the undergraduate life report in calling for extensive performing and artistic space.

The group contemplated modeling new graduate housing along the lines of the undergraduate House system rather than apartments. Members eyed the Quad as valuable space that would allow the University to meet its commitment to offering housing to 50 percent of its graduate students without requiring further graduate housing in Allston.

Stone said that although the plans have not been discussed with residents, Summers’ friendship with Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino would help smooth the path.

“I think at this point the mayor and the president have a very good relationship and hopefully that will help in the long road ahead,” Stone said.

While the road ahead may be long, the committees this year have begun to chart a map, with professional schools and science construction likely to begin in the next decade and undergraduate housing to follow.

As Cooper, Robertson takes over physical planning, they will begin to work with Harvard planners and faculty to lay out a framework for development. Allston Initiative Director and chief University planner Kathy A. Spiegelman said Friday she expected the firm would deliver some concrete plan for development within 18 months.

Summers said the team stood out to the committee because “of their experience in doing this kind of work in academic communities experience on working on urban community problems in terms of the world class team they’ve assembled with Frank Gehry and Laurie Olin.”

And Professor in the Practice of Urban Design Alex Krieger, a member of the committee, said Summers can’t wait to get started and had encouraged the committee to conclude its search rapidly.

“Larry’s been pushing for beginning development sooner—pushing us to conclude the search,” he said.

—Staff writer Stephen M. Marks can be reached at marks@fas.harvard.edu.

—Staff writer Lauren A. E. Schuker can be reached at schuker@fas.harvard.edu.