HARVARD GAZETTE ARCHIVES

Judge Considers Harvard Union Renovation

A Middlesex County Superior Court judge was expected to decide today whether Harvard can move forward with plans to transform the Harvard Union into a Humanities Center.

In the meantime, the judge allowed some aspects of the construction to proceed, such as clearing demolition debris, painting windows, and removing ductwork. The work does not affect the controversial "great hall," a former student dining room in the Union.

On March 26, a judge granted a temporary restraining order after a lawsuit was filed by a group calling itself the Harvard Alumni Architectural Review Committee (an unincorporated association) and 19 individuals who include 13 alumni. The group has launched a publicity and lobbying campaign about the project and is seeking a preliminary injunction to halt construction.

Each day of delay this week costs Harvard $16,000 to keep the construction ready to resume, according to Harvard officials. Those costs would mount if the hold-up continues; for example, a delay until May 2 could jeopardize the contract and cost Harvard $1.5 million cumulatively.

The project, under discussion since 1987, aims to bring together a number of humanities departments and programs now scattered around the University and to foster intellectual exchange. The Union would be the centerpiece of a humanities complex that also includes Boylston Hall in the Yard.

Harvard intends to adapt the McKim, Mead & White building to meet today's needs while retaining much of its historic character and architectural detail, including wood paneling, cornices, fireplaces, portraits, and memorial plaques. The architectural design by Goody, Clancy & Associates calls for reconfiguring the "great hall" into two large meeting rooms for seminars, talks, and social events.

On Tuesday, Superior Court Judge Isaac Borenstein heard arguments from both sides, took the matter under advisement, and said he would try to issue an opinion by today on the preliminary injunction request.

The arguments revolved around whether the project underwent the appropriate historical reviews before construction began in February.

The alumni group said the Massachusetts Historical Commission (also named as a defendant, along with the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board) should have reviewed the entire Union project after Harvard applied for a variance regarding the size of several doors.

Harvard argued that such a review was unnecessary because the Access Board determined that no variance was needed.

"A preliminary injunction would not only have dire financial consequences . . . but would prevent Harvard from achieving its objective of enhancing teaching and research in the humanities," said Jeremy Knowles, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, in his court affidavit.