Major Renovations For Houses

Harvard’s historic Houses often need more than a simple bandage to mend their cracks. The reality of preserving these living spaces, dining halls, and communities was an issue the College had to face for the first time in the early 1980s.

The Harvard undergraduate housing system, initiated in 1931 under University President Abbott L. Lowell, class of 1877, was an ideal solution for student life, but inevitably presented the University with ongoing structural considerations. Housing renovations are nearly as old as the Houses themselves—simply put, from the moment a building is finished, it is on a slow, but sure, path towards deterioration.

So in 1982, 50 years after the birth of the houses, the College embarked on a $35 million residential renovation—the largest in University history up until that point. The ambitious plans were beset with complicating factors: the accommodation of current students, the funding of such a large-scale project, and the establishment of realistic time frames would not be simple.

But the renovations were needed because of the state of the Houses—a bandage would simply not do the trick.

DECONSTRUCTING CONSTRUCTIONS

In May 1982, the College began its projected seven-year plan with reconstructions of Lowell House and half of Winthrop House.

The project came on the heels of a study commissioned the previous spring that recommended consistent maintenance and repair to preserve the historic buildings, which, until the 50th anniversary of the undergraduate House system in 1981, had not received either. The neglect of the Houses was apparent in the overheated rooms, poor plumbing, and peeling paint, The Crimson reported.

The first phase of the project—estimated to have cost $2 million—began with construction in Lowell and Winthrop because the University believed work there could be finished before September, Associate Dean of the College Martha Coburn predicted. But renovations continued into the fall term of 1982.

“We’re starting on a modest scale in order that we learn it properly and don’t get ourselves in a pickle,” Coburn said.

According to current Dean of Freshmen Thomas A. Dingman ’67, who was then the assistant dean for housing, renovations of the other River Houses occurred during the following summers. Coburn emphasized the importance of flexibility in construction, such as a summer building schedule, as a way to avoid inconvenience in housing students, and to allow for the postponement of certain work at any time.

Following River House renovations, the Quad underwent its own $32 million renovation project beginning in July 1985 and ending in the fall of 1987, heralding what The Crimson referred to as “The Year of the Quad.”

QUALITY CONCERN

At the time of the Lowell and Winthrop renovations, Lowell House Master William H. Bossert ’59 expressed reservations about the monumental task that lied ahead.

“A great deal of planning needs to be done before the planned summer renovations can be initiated and completed on schedule,” he said then. “I should know more in two weeks—­in fact, if I don’t, nothing’s going to happen here.”

Though Lowell and Winthrop ostensibly served as housing renovation test trials, the quality of work was unsatisfactory, The Crimson reported at the time.

In an interview last week, Bossert said the renovations “cheapened Lowell House outrageously” with poor aluminum, “institutional” circuit wire molding, and “cheap plastic things.”

The resulting inadequate interior renovations and faulty fire alarm system, Bossert said, were results of insufficient planning and time constraints.

The College’s renovations were “intense, but they were intensely mistaken,” Bossert said last week. Bossert can recount anecdote after anecdote in which he worked with his wife and John B. Fox Jr. ’59, then-dean of the College, to directly counter these negative changes, like when the three stopped a gun-tractor from destroying a decorative row of bricks on the second floor of Lowell.

The renovations were further complicated by the growing distances between administration, faculty, and students, leading to unaddressed conflicts and decreasing consultation with “the people who cared,” Bossert said.

CONSTRUCTING PERSPECTIVES

This venture into the complex world of renovations necessitated that the College define its housing priorities for the first time.

Fox said he became “very keen” on not asking people what they wanted. Students’ specific requests regarding housing conditions often generate quick cures that last a mere three years, Fox said recently.

Instead of such insubstantial fixes, renovations should preserve the architectural integrity of a building by not catering to the trends of the time or equalizing Harvard’s various Houses, said Fox, who described himself as “a bit of a preservationist.”

“You should have ongoing renovations all the time on a small scale,” Fox said, instead of massive projects every 25 years. Because many universities have excessive confidence in the longevity of their buildings, Fox maintained that such consistent structural construction is often lacking.

Though Fox favored small ongoing maintenance and updates at the time, the dilapidated conditions of the 50-year-old Houses necessitated the large scale renovation of the 1980s, he said recently.

“I had hoped that once that work was done at that time, it would be possible to keep the Houses in good order with relatively small repairs and improvements along the way,” said Fox, emphasizing the distinction between renovations and improvements.

Though routine maintenance work can way to stave off larger construction projects, the College should “expect that at some point, you may have to commit to a bigger period of time” to confront larger problems from a wider perspective, Dingman said last week.

HOUSING FOR THE FUTURE

This past April, the College announced plans for the largest renovation of upperclass Houses in the history of the House system. The 15-year project is estimated to cost over $1 billion, and would completely restructure the internal architecture of the Houses while maintaining the historic exteriors.

Bossert said that he is “very apprehensive” about the planned project. The College, he said, must carefully consider the balance involved in renovating a House created in the early 20th century for a student body living in the present day.

“The idea of turning some of the older Houses that were designed in a different time, for a different clientele, into modern corridor-oriented living areas is really a mistake,” Bossert said.

But the College needs to look both forward and backward, said 1980s Kirkland House Master Donald A. Pfister, adding that the housing needs of students are constantly changing. Different eras generate different student needs, and such changes necessitate an overarching view of current housing renovations.

“How are these renovations going to accommodate not only what’s right now,” Pfister said, “but what becomes part of the future and grows within these communities?”

—Staff Writer Esther I. Yi can be reached at estheryi@fas.harvard.edu.