Harvard Impa Comment Letters Feb 2007

Dear Mr. Autler, As a resident of North Allston, I was disturbed to hear of plans to build a 60 foot tall building right in my neighborhood. Due to the shadow this would cause over our street and the lights that may be kept on all night, to name a few issues, I feel this plan is a mistake. Therefore, the BRA should not approve a Harvard Institutional Master Plan Amendment to create the large art building for 224 Western Ave. That is the wrong location for a 60 foot tall, 130,000 square foot building. Harvard owns a lot of other land in Allston where it could build a wonderful big museum. The community will be happy to work with Harvard and the City to find the right location and design the right building. But 224 Western Ave is not the right location and Harvard's development in Allston is too important to allow such an obvious mistake to be made. Thank you very much for your time and, hopefully, your objective analysis. Christine Giraud 131 Franklin St. Allston, MA 02134

______________________________________________________________________ Dear Mr. Autler: I am writing for myself and my mother, both residents of North Brighton, to register our opposition to the plans that Harvard University has for our neighborhood. We do not feel that Harvard is dealing with our community in an honest manner. We also feel that Harvard's plans will not benefit those us who live in the area any where near as much as they claim it will. In fact we both feel that the Boston residents of North Allston and Brighton neighborhoods will suffer negative effects from the Harvard expansion into our community. Sincerely yours, Miss Sheryl Fitzpatrick and Mrs. Corrine Fitzpatrick

______________________________________________________________________ Mr. Autler As an Allston/Brighton resident and homeowner, I’m delighted so many of my neighbors have been commenting on the Harvard Institutional Master Plan Amendment to create the proposed art building at 224 Western Avenue, Allston. Unfortunately for us all, this plan has proven an inauspicious start to the development of “Barry’s Corner” as the gateway to Harvard’s North Allston campus. Simply put, this is the wrong building in the wrong location at the wrong time. The IMPA neither conforms to the North Allston Neighborhood Strategic Plan nor to my individual sense of what proper development in our neighborhood should be. Thanks to years of property acquisitions, Harvard owns many other parcels in Allston which would prove more appropriate for a delightful art museum celebrating the collaboration of the university and the community. But instead, the BRA seems poised to approve a 60-foot tall, 130,000 square foot art building which will have a negative impact on direct abutters, residents of adjacent neighborhoods and the larger Allston/Brighton community. I shudder to think of such a major decision as fait accompli. My sincere hope is that the BRA, city officials, Harvard planners and neighborhood groups can return to the drawing board to develop an art facility that will benefit us all as we move together into the future. Thank you for your consideration.

Ed Perlmutter 65 Montcalm Avenue Brighton MA 02135

______________________________________________________________________ Dear Mr. Autler, I am writing to express my belief that the BRA should NOT approve a Harvard Institutional Master Plan Amendment to create an art building at 224 Western Ave. This is not the appropriate location for a building of this magnitude. Thank you, Diane

______________________________________________________________________ Dear Gerald: I am writing as resident of North Allston to comment on the Harvard University Master Plan. Harvard has stated that they want to build structures that are 125 feet and 110 feet high as part of the Science Center. These are far outside the limits agreed upon by Harvard, the community, and the City of Boston in the North Allston Strategic Plan, a collaborative effort of many years in which Harvard actively participated. That plan called for the preservation of the residential character of the area. In addition, the North Allston Strategic Plan called for public access and benefits to the neighborhood in a working private-public relationship, and increased access to green space and to the Charles River for the neighborhood. However, the Master Plan calls for a "semi-private" courtyard in the Science Center ringed by Harvard buildings and fronted by the Charles River with Soldiers Field Road sunken underground. Not only does this plan exclude the public from the green space of the Science Center, they have usurped the River as part of their campus between the Science Center in Allston, and Memorial Drive and Harvard's Cambridge buildings. Far from giving the neighborhood more access to green space and the river, they seem intent upon claiming the river as part of their campus. My husband and I own a home on Hopedale Street, part of quiet, diverse, attractive, safe neighborhood consisting of Hopedale, Windom, Seattle, Amboy and Rena Streets. Harvard has proposed building "one of the larger and busier streets" in Allston in my neighborhood, with the construction of Stadium Way, just 50 yards from homes on Windom Street. In addition they have proposed extending Rena Street, now a dead-end street, to Stadium Way. They propose two new residential buildings on the west side of Stadium Way, six new academic buildings on the east side of Stadium Way, and an underground garage with 1,970 parking spaces east of Stadium Way. These projects will create noise, air, and visual pollution during construction, and as well as after from additional traffic. This will directly impact my property, which is my biggest investment, as well as my home. In addition, Hopedale Street is a one-way street. We currently have egress to both Cambridge Street as well as to Western Avenue. It is my understanding from the Harvard Master Plan that we will no longer have egress to Western Avenue which is a transportation issue for all the families who live in my neighborhood, as well as a safety issue for fire trucks, ambulances, and police vehicles. Harvard has yet to explain the traffic plan for these proposed streets -- at every meeting I attend Harvard states that they are in the process of planning the traffic routes and will get back to us. When? At what point will we get answers to these important questions? The Harvard Master plan also calls for an Art Building at the intersection of North Harvard and Western Ave., known as Barry’s Corner. The North Allston Strategic Plan called for this area to become a vibrant public space with significant amounts neighborhood-focused retail and

community housing. Harvard’s proposed building is mostly private office and curatorial space. Less than 10% of the building is public gallery space, and one of the gallery areas is slated for the roof, overlooking the yards of private homeowners. The public education space in the building seems quite small for its described uses. The "retail" space is a very small café (20 by 30 feet) and gift shop (25 by 20 feet), far less than the needed retail space for this key location. Why has Harvard chosen this area for the Art Building? It seems that there are other locations far better suited, where there could be more gallery space, and more public education space, such as closer to the river on Western Avenue (in the area of the current VW dealership), or next to Harvard Stadium on either the Soldiers Field Road end or the Western Avenue end. This would reserve Barry’s Corner for buildings that maximize its potential and meet neighborhood needs. A “real” museum would be great to have in Allston, but this proposed Art Building does not fit the bill. I am also concerned about the parking situation, and the manner in which Harvard dismisses these concerns by stating they will have a parking garage and that students don't have cars and will use the shuttles and employees will be assigned to remote parking lots and shuttled to the Art Building and the Science Center. I lived in Cambridge for many years between Harvard Square and Porter Square before moving to Allston and saw how Harvard cars and traffic impacted the surrounding neighborhoods. I am currently a Harvard affiliate teaching at the Cambridge Health Alliance. Employees of Cambridge Health Alliance are supposed to use shuttles from remote parking areas; however, the cars of Harvard-affiliated employees are parked throughout the neighborhoods. Finally, Harvard seems to be optioning and acquiring more property in Allston which they let go vacant. This destroys the safety, vibrancy, and economic base of our neighborhood. If Harvard is truly acting in an honest and "good neighbor" manner, they should be transparent about their property options and acquisitions so the City and the neighborhood has the opportunity to make informed decisions about future planning for North Allston and North Brighton based on the interests of the City and the residents of the City, rather than the interests of Harvard. I am truly puzzled at how Harvard can disregard a planning framework in which they actively participated and which generated positive relations between Harvard and the neighborhood. I can only conclude that the many years of meetings, some of which I participated in, were a sham to lull the neighborhood into believing that Harvard cared about preserving the character of our neighborhood and would be good neighbors. If Harvard really wants to be a good neighbor, they can do much better. It is my hope that the City of Boston holds them to this commitment. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Harvard Master Plan. Respectfully Yours, C. Girvani Leerer, Ph.D. Hopedale Street Allston

______________________________________________________________________

Mr. Autler, As a longtime resident of Allston, I am very concerned that the BRA is not considering the requirements of our neighborhood regarding the Harvard Institutional Plan Amendment on many levels. The most immediate concern is the planned Art Museum at Barry's Corner. Harry Mattison and the others on the Task force cogently proved Mon. night at St. Anthony's that there must be a more propitious location for the 130,000 sq ft. building. I fear that the planned location will create more problems than it will solve in integrating this phase of the

Harvard Allston Campus with the neighborhood. The various neighborhood organizations have diligently and faithfully worked to facilitate Harvard's encroachment in Allston to the contentment of all. Thus far, Harvard has exhibited little interest other than rhetorical and transparent rationalizations for not altering their plans as good neighbor would be expected to do. As a City employee, I would hope that City officials and folks at the BRA would consider the ramifications of a discontented neighborhood. I do not believe that this is the legacy that the City wants for this development. We can do better. Regards, Bruce Boccardy Department of Neighborhood Development

______________________________________________________________________

Dear Gerald, Please consider my comments and opposition to Harvard University's IMPA projects in Allston. As many people have noted, there is great potential for Harvard and Allston to be neighbors in a mutually beneficial manner. However, these proposed amendments are a worrisome departure from years of community planning represented in the North Allston Strategic Plan. Harvard's proposal in the IMPA and the recently presented information on the IMP call into question the meaning of IMP's and collaborative planning if proposal such as these are allowed. Harvard's presentations have not provided sufficient detail on many important issues, and they refer to their plans as 'frameworks" that can change at any time. If that is the case, and it is understandable that they might be at such a planning stage, then the BRA should not approve the IMPA. The community deserves a plan that is detailed enough to be reviewed and evaluated by the BRA and community. While it is reasonable to address unexpected circumstances, accepting the premise that a plan can change rather significantly and at any time seems to be the wrong starting point. The IMPA should be consistent with the future IMP, which also needs far more detail and explanation. The theoretical benefits of the proposed buildings seem to disproportionately favor Harvard. I agree with comments you have received from many people in writing and in person at various meetings. The following list is the main concerns I would address: *The height and size of the buildings are inappropriate for the area and inconsistent with the NASP. Harvard owns substantial acreage in Boston and Cambridge, and there must be areas better suited for buildings of this size. Height restrictions are an important factor in maintaining the scale and feel of our residential neighborhood. * The proposed buildings will generate visitors and traffic in excess of the activity level compatible with a residential area. * The new network of streets will dramatically alter a quiet, safe and diverse neighborhood through the creation of traffic volume and patterns that undermine the neighborhood feel to our current streets. * It is not clear that the activity in theses buildings will be of significant benefit to the community as posited. The jobs and programs will understandably be focusing on the needs of Harvard; the ratio of gallery space to other space in the Art Building program is a clear example of this reality. Transforming our neighborhood to accommodate hundreds of workers and visitors and their cars is not an attractive option. It will be even less appealing if the Science Center conducts research that generates disruptive protests * Many of my neighbors have protested that Harvard's descriptions of semi-private and public

spaces are not realistic; these are spaces for Harvard's use. I share the concerns over practical problems and design features that have been pointed out in various meetings. Certainly current practices by Harvard and local residents suggest that the existing open areas are not public spaces. The public use of the recreation areas by the Charles River is entirely different than the public's use of Harvard’s “public spaces." Though I imagine Harvard has many cafeterias in existing buildings, I do not believe they serve as neighborhood restaurants for Cambridge or Allston. As noted in other comments, this is quite understandable, but it does suggest we cannot consider these public resources or amenities. I am pleased to hear the intersection of Western Ave and North Harvard St called "Barry's Corner," though I worry about this given other names for communities that no longer exist. Retaining a name but obliterating a community is not what we want from any of our institutional neighbors or from our city government. Although many of us still call certain streets "the West End," the West End community is long gone from those streets. There is an unhappy and not too distant history of removing people from their homes in Barry's Corner and many of us hope that we do not repeat that history. This truly is a chance to show that we can create a shared community that preserves our neighborhood while welcoming Harvard. I hope that you will take these concerns most seriously as you proceed with decisions and processes that may dramatically alter this neighborhood. Allston has been my family home for many years and I hope that many families are able to make this home because there is a neighborhood to join and enjoy. Karen Smith 70 Athol St. Allston, MA 02134

Dear Mr. Autler,

The amendment should be rejected because the proposed Art Center bears no resemblance (barring the use of the word, "art") to the project for which the IMPA was submitted. If Harvard wants a warehouse for its collection, it owns enough vacant buildings in North Allston and Brighton to fulfill such a need. The building as shown meets neither the current zoning code nor the North Allston Neighborhood Strategic Plan framework. Reject the amendment. The current proposal is for the Art Center to be an anchor for "Barry's Corner." If so, it is sorely lacking in public benefit or attraction. Such a project must be considered as part of the new IMP, not as an amendment to the old one. Reject the amendment. Based on objections voiced by the community at recent Task Force meetings, this amendment is not the appropriate vehicle for such substantial and out-of-the-blue projects. The Art Center and the Science Center are a substantial proportion of the development planned for the next decade and must be considered as part of the IMPNF and not be "slipped in" as an amendment to an outdated IMP. There are too many unanswered questions on the impact from these projects, from massing to parking to traffic to construction to benefits to just what the new campus is really going to be. Reject the amendment. It is worth noting that the Art Center is being suggested for the so-called Barry's Corner, the name of the neighborhood bulldozed decades ago with the help of the BRA. Let's not go there again! Years were spent on the NANSP and Harvard's proposed IMP. We must begin with these documents to build a consensus amongst Harvard, the City and the neighborhood on what is best for all. We can all be winners here; right now this looks like a loser.

David G. Evans 11 Guilford Street Allston, MA 02134

To: Gerald Autler - Boston Redevelopment Authority Fr: Tim McHale 102 Litchfield St., N. Brighton Please receive these comments regarding the University's IMPA projects The Science Complex and Art Center. 1. The original IMPA seeks acceptance to extend current IMP status to three parcels of land - a 500,000 sf science complex, a 90,000sf arts center, and a 24,000 sf of renovated structure, multi use arts facility, including performance space. However, the IMPA morphed into only two parcels of land - the science center, which grew to close to 700,000 sf of buildings, and the art center which grew from a renovated 24,000 sf building to 130,000 sf of a brand new building. The third parcel, used for public performance was jettisoned. Can the IMPA be seriously taken when the community and BRA was advised one way and Harvard submits another? Does this radical change deviate from the norms and rigors of BRA policy? There was no consultation with the community as to the re-location and re-design of these buildings. Adding roughly 850,000 sf into a community should bring with it opportunities for the neighborhood to weigh in on citing and urban design issues. This has not happened. Rather Harvard has singularly designed and submitted these designs for pure reaction from the community when instead it could've built relationship and creative promise through proper interaction with the neighborhood. Comment: Reject the IMPA. 2. The BRA's scoping determination published June 15, 2006 and addressed to Kathy Spiegelman of Harvard's Allston Development Group (ADG) requests some very definitive requirements before the IMPA can be approved. Of paramount note is the fact that the IMPA, the two projects, had to show a compatibility with the University's master plan, the IMP. The IMP notification form submitted last month was an attempt to show the City and neighborhood just that. However, upon closer examination, it did not pass muster. Harvard, through its own admission calls it a framework that could change any minute and that there is no systematic or thoughtful sequencing of building construction scheduled. There was no definitiveness to this plan, only concepts. How can a community or City planning agency expect to evaluate significant projects against the vagaries of a framework? We know from present experience that Harvard's definition of a “framework" a la the NANSP, is to be regarded only as a tool that meets Harvard’s use and betterment. Comment: Reject the IMPA 3. The IMPA was to address the concerns and requirements of the NANSP, a document authored by the BRA, the community, and Harvard over a period of four years in which we collectively reasoned and shaped the future of our neighborhood. The IMPA disregards much of the spirit of the NANSP, e.g. a) height limits, 35' max west of Barry's Corner and 95' east of Barry's; IMPA buildings are 60’ and 125' respectively. b) massing of building, the NANSP shows smaller, friendlier footprints of buildings while the IMPA and IMPNF show buildings with much larger footprints, eating up valuable open space and creating a heavy, crowded feel. c) Barry's Corner - the melting pot between Harvard and the community does not exist in the IMPA or in the IMPNF. This is the showpiece to the world and Harvard chooses not to address it even in its 50 year plan. d) Open space planning is Harvard centric and completely ignores the community. These are just a few items where the NANSP and IMPA disconnect. Other issues of transportation, layout and scale of roadways in the Hopedale neighborhood, interim uses of

Harvard owned and vacant buildings, public realm uses, and community benefits are vaguely or not at all addressed by the IMPA. Comment: Reject the IMPA 4. The Science Complex - is too massive, too high, and too blocked in. It does not put on a friendly face to the neighborhood and exudes a standoffish attitude to the community. First floor amenities are off limits to the community as well as the rest of the building. The size of the buildings is out of scale with what the community vision is and the new proposed roadways will change the character of the neighborhood it abuts. The shape of the courtyard is sharp vs. rounded and does not feel inviting. The environmental questions of what happens inside the building is another question the community needs to understand. Comment: Reject the IMPA 5. The Arts Center - Harvard has made an attempt to involve the community in this building and merits recognition. However, what type of thinking involves a 24,000 sf rehab, to a 90,000 sf rehab, to a 130,000 sf new construction? It seems the proponent is throwing a dart on the wall and wherever it lands is what they'll build. It seems that the University can not make up its mind or that it'll take what it can opportunistically get! The citing of the building is inappropriate. It shoe horns itself into an existing neighborhood, Its height exceeds the understanding in the NANSP, and does not meet the expectations of being the "anchor" the proponent suggests to bring Barry's Corner into a thriving commercial, residential, cultural mecca. Other sites should be explored with the community to insure that this very important asset to the community is well utilized. As site that overlooks the Smith Ball Filed would be better. Comment: Reject the IMPA 6. MEPA Review - has not occurred and should be coincidental with the scoping and early comment periods of the Article 80 process. Harvard has not embarked on the path yet and gives vague answers when queried. A satisfactory review must occur in tandem with the City prior to any approval. Comment: Reject the IMPA 7. On a more personal note, I want to address the relationship Harvard has cultivated with the community. Having sacrificed, committed, and become intimate with the University through the NANSP over the last six years, today I see shifting sands. Six years ago the University proclaimed an open book policy, a transparency of motivation, and an ideology of inclusion that the community and Harvard would share excellence. That is not my sense today. I sense the drumming of real estate warriors who possess infinite means to achieve their goals. I sense the unabashed competitive practices of a hungry developer whose quest is to win, win, and then win again. The whole reason for this expansion is to win. To be competitive with other schools, and win. It is not surprising than to see the public faces of Harvard with this attitude either. The drivers of this philosophy are not the urban planners, astute architects, and visionaries we sat through many meetings with to develop a comprehensive NANSP. The drivers of this win all philosophy are the shoulder to the wheel employees of the University that have only the University in mind, and perhaps unguided from above as the University has been headless for some time. The one sided, secretive, self absorbed institution that has bullied its way through Cambridge neighborhoods for years has directed its sights on Allston Brighton. No longer do I see the "Partner", the "New Harvard", or "forget the past" let's clean the slate". The new paradigm transfixed into this community member's mind six years ago has been replaced by the results of the University's actions of late. Actions that exclude, diminish, and repel the work of the NANSP. Harvard is squandering the good will it built with the NANSP. It is time to reflect on what makes us all tick, what mistakes have been made, and to take the steps to ensure each other’s success in the Allston Brighton Community. Comment: Reject the IMPA until the University takes stock and a bold new stand to work with the neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, Tim McHale Tim McHale 102 Litchfield St. Brighton, MA 02135

Dear Mr. Autler: "There goes the neighborhood." That's the phrase that comes to mind when I think about the proposed art building that Harvard University wants to build in Allston. The plans as they do not take into consideration any of the needs of the neighborhood or its residents. As proposed, this building will be a jarring eyesore in the area. Tall and big, with no attempt to have it mesh into its surroundings. If built as planned, the area will sure to become "Oh, you know that block with big, ugly Harvard building." It's incredibly ironic that of all things, an art building is being proposed in such a manner that is aesthetically and architecturally unappealing. Moreover, this whole plan reinforces Harvard's lip service about wanting to serve not only Harvard, but also the area residents. This plan totally contradicts all the rhetoric we've heard. As a resident of Allston/Brighton, I'm probably more familiar with the area in question than you are. That said, come see it for yourself. It won't take you long to see that the plan is NOT in the area's best interest. Redevelopment should ADD to the given area, not simply CHANGE it. Please stop this project as is and send Harvard back to the drawing board. Very truly yours, Paul R. Dixon 65 Montcalm Avenue Brighton, MA 02135-2840

Dear Mr. Autler, I am deeply troubled by Harvard's plan to build its new "museum" at 224 Western Avenue. Harvard's attempt to squish this "museum" (or art closet) into Barry's Corner makes me question how much of a commitment Harvard really has to our North Allston community. The total amount of available "public" space is woefully inadequate for much of anything, let alone a shop and café. Is the shop going to be a gift shop selling expensive trinkets to a community that has little need for them? Is the café going to be run by a vendor that has won a contract to sell overpriced lowquality coffee and snacks with limited operating hours? Harvard must commit to clear plans that will be of benefit to both communities – not just hollow generalized promises of how it will make North Allston better and then present a detailed list of what the benefits are for the Harvard community. As an employee of the university, I can tell you that even in semi-private places where I might "belong" I often don't feel welcome, so I'm not sure how the "semi-private" areas the university proposes are going to welcome anyone from the surrounding community. As an artist I would also hope that the new Museum in its more appropriate location (NOT Barry's Corner), will implement true community outreach programs. These programs should be wider in scope than programs like the MFA's Art Van, and more affordable than the MFA's prohibitively expensive "Studio Art" classes. Also, if the university really wants to do the right thing, it might consider how a school like RISD expanded their museum without overpowering its surroundings (residential or not) while simultaneously creating a world-class facility - they might also have a look to their community outreach and family programs for some inspiration…

Lastly, there is a lack of affordable studio space (or any studio space) in the North Allston/Lower Allston area. Harvard should be able to offer some of its properties that won't be developed for several years as affordable artist spaces. Let's bring some life into these vacant buildings! I think there is tremendous potential for the North Allston community and Harvard to work together to create an even better place for all of us, but only if Harvard is truly interested in being an active member of the whole community. Respectfully Submitted, T.S. Bonn 84 Franklin Street

Dear Gerald and members of the BRA: We attended the February 12th meeting at St. Anthony's School Hall regarding Harvard's proposal to erect a new building at 224 Western Avenue, Allston. From the brief description's outlined in Harvard's preliminary plans, we are not in favor of this construction due to the following: -

The building is too tall and large to fit in the lot space.

-

There are not enough adequate parking spaces available for museum staff and /or visitors.

The public cafe and display areas are too small, making us wonder if, in fact, it will actually be a supersize warehouse space. Access and egress to the building will further complicate traffic delays and congestion in an already busy intersection due to the adjacent gas station, Dunkin Donuts, Harvard Business School building Teele Hall and Smith's Park. Construction of this magnitude over an estimated 15 month period will be a tremendous hardship on the abutting residential homes on Franklin and Mead Streets. The people who reside in these homes are elderly, young children and Harvard students. It will also greatly overshadow these homes if a building of this scale is allowed to be built on this site. An agreement and firm commitment from Harvard should be written with specific details regarding budget and staffing for outreach museum programs to the Allston community and schools, rather than vague generalizations that never materialize. For example, the Harvard Athletic department has provided only one-time or once-a-year events to their facilities, such as one football game/per year, one ice skating party/per year. -

Hiring opportunities at the museum should be given to qualified Allston residents.

Sincerely, Paula and Robert Alexander 226 North Harvard Street

Dear Members of the BRA, I am writing to let the BRA know that I strongly oppose the Harvard institutional master plan amendment to create the museum that Harvard proposed for 224 Western Ave. While I endorse the idea of a Harvard museum in Allston this parcel of land is not large enough for the proposed building. Harvard has many other places it could build something this large. I look foreword to having Harvard as a more active neighbor and can imagine many benefits to the neighborhood through the expansion. I urge Harvard to consider the following: job creation, space and

programs for local artists and access for all community members. Harvard should work with the community to find a better suited space for the proposed museum. Sincerely, Elizabeth Donovan

Dear Mr. Autler, I think BRA should not approve the Harvard Institutional Master Plan Amendment, but I'll spare you a listing of reasons. They've already been so well spelled out by Allston people. I am not a resident of North Allston or Brighton, or even of Boston. I live in lower Cambridgeport. Harvard University's development plans for North Allston & Brighton will affect my neighborhood - and plenty of other neighborhoods around Greater Boston, and around the country. Even other neighborhoods elsewhere around the planet: For BRA to not use its legal purview to disapprove this amendment would send a poor message not only to the Allston-Harvard negotiations, but to many other community-institutional negotiations: *

in this nation

o

[e.g. Harlem & Colombia, or New Haven's Dixwell neighborhood & Yale],

*

and on earth

o [e.g. the Yushima neighborhood & Tokyo University, or the Spandauer neighborhood in Berlin Germany (that city's Jewish quarter) & Humboldt University]; * and to so many other valuable urban neighborhoods constantly bargaining with valuable universities. We all know BRA's decision cannot be an exclusively "objective" analysis of Harvard's amendment: Your agency acts and reacts within our cultural, legal, and political ecosystem (our "global-urban ecosystem"). This ecosystem is now exerting diverse pressures on the BRA. But these are minor pressures compared to the dazzling tension that a silly decision by BRA will goad. BRA's decision has wider audiences than the citizens of North Allston & Brighton, but they will be the ones to suffer immediately by a silly decision. A "natural ecosystem" can perhaps restore itself from devastation, but not an urban ecosystem: Once destroyed, an urban neighborhood like theirs never again naturally regenerates. Apply your stewardship! Thanks for your attention. Chris Weller 160 Chestnut St. Cambridge, MA 02139

Dear Gerald, I just want to add my personal comments to those of the Task Force regarding Harvard’s pending IMPA. As we discussed on Monday, I start by strongly objecting to the process by which this IMPA includes the current art building, despite the dramatic changes of scale, location, and purpose, with all the implications for transportation, urban design principles, and so forth that implies. If in this first instance Harvard is able to reshape the rules of procedure so radically, it would bode very ill for the future of our planning process. I would therefore urge you to instruct them to withdraw the art building from this IMPA. On more substantive issues:

1. The roadways · Stadium Way as drawn is still too undefined. Harvard’s engineer was unable to tell us on Jan 24 what its distance from houses on Windom St. would be. All questions of noise barriers and other mitigations are similarly undefined. The intersections with Hopedale St. and other neighborhood streets—a completely crucial question for local residents—are unplanned. · Harvard needs to explain why the extension of East Drive eastward from western Ave to Cambridge St, which appears in the new IMPNF, passing between Genzyme and CSX, would not fulfill the major purpose of the bypass road, taking traffic from the Mass Pike directly to Harvard’s Western Ave campus sites without impinging on the residential neighborhood · Rena St. extension: Harvard has been very vague about ways to keep this small street from becoming a major throughway to its science yard. ‘We’ll talk with residents’ is not an answer. 2. Science complex · Excessive height is not mitigated as yet by any substantial community benefit · Street-level animation, needed to comply with urban design principle of Western Ave as ‘main street,’ is vague and unsatisfactory as yet · Inadequate resolution of roadway questions (above) makes transportation/access questionable. Harvard should consider entrance to the east, further from residential neighborhood and not dependent on a ‘Stadium Way’ design 3. Art Building · Too large for site, height violates Framework guidelines and impinges on neighboring houses, not just abutters on N Harvard and Franklin but effective ‘abutters’ on Mead and Riverdale streets · Insufficient public use for prominent site in heart of Barry’s Corner: primary function is art collection, conservation and study, an academic use; exhibit space is small (‘museum’ is a misleading name attached to this project); ‘educational’ and ‘multi-purpose’ rooms are very small; art education programs are of limited value and limited in scope by inadequate facilities (see below); café and bookstore are also too small, and probably too specialized, to be of real public benefit · Harvard acknowledges not considering other, more appropriate sites; this speaks to the procedural problem (above), that this proposal is a hasty amendment to address a problem in the original IMPA filing—a terrible process for a permanent and major component of the overall community design · Public benefits are poorly specified and limited: education is a major expressed desire of the community and art education an acute need as the Gardner school has NO art program and the community has many artists but very little studio space. Harvard should consider complementing its own art building proposal with a substantial investment in art education and studio space, along with dedicated funding for art educators, particularly for school-age children, in order to leverage substantial community benefits from what is, as proposed, a primarily institutional project. To build the proposed design, with absolutely no room for expansion, would make this substantial community benefit idea impossible before the benefits topic has any real discussion. Harvard should consider a greatly expanded art building on a different site with substantially more space for community art and education. In sum, Harvard should address major concerns with the first two parts of this IMPA, but should remove the art building project altogether, so that it can take the time to consider the complicated relationship of site and public function to produce a satisfactory project. This one is too important to do in this hasty and inadequate fashion. Yours truly, Brent Whelan Allston resident and Task Force member

Dear Gerald Autler, My name is Jake Carman and I am a resident of Easton st in Lower Allston. I am very concerned about almost everything that Harvard is planning for our neighborhood. I hope you can seriously consider the comments of myself and of my neighbors, as I know many others share my concerns. Please remember that this is our home that we are discussing and commenting on. I first want to start by saying that I strongly disagree with the process Harvard has used. I do not feel like they have made enough of an effort to include the community in the decision making process. I think using fake real estate company names to buy up such large portions of our neighborhood without informing us is dishonest. Until recently, Harvard only distributed information in English, when it is clear that in North Brighton and Allston many people do not speak English. This is extremely exclusionary. Furthermore, while we have been asking Harvard questions and sending them comments for over a year, they have not responded to a single one. This is not a conversation, I do not feel they respect us. They need to earn our respect if they wish to be accepted into our neighborhood, not break our trust as they have. I am concerned with the art "museum." I feel that because Cambridge residents refused to let Harvard build a storage facility and call it a museum in their neighborhood, Harvard has decided to move it to Allston. If Harvard really wanted to build a museum in our neighborhood, and make space for locals to display art as well as take free art lessons, then I'd be all for it. However, with less that 10% of the floor space for display, and a height that is definitely too tall for the good of those who live in the neighborhood, there is no reason why the community would want such a building at Barry's Corner. Harvard needs to go back and think of another location for their art museum. As it stands, it will not be a public space, and it does not belong at Barry's corner. With all the property they own in Allston/Brighton, I'm sure they can find a more suitable location. I am concerned with the Science Complex. Harvard needs to disclose exactly what kind of research they will be doing. I have heard they will be experimenting with cloning as well as vivisection. Our community needs to know what this research will entail. If they will experiment on live animals (as vivisection implies), what types of animals they will use, what will the living conditions of these animals be, what specific techniques will they use, will the animals suffer and/or die, what will the aims of their research be, and who will benefit from this research. I'm sure Harvard will be developing patents there as well; will they be taxed for the profit these patents generate? Also, what will the environmental effects of the complex be? Will there be more pollution in the Charles, and a giant smoke stack like Harvard has at Genzyme? Will Harvard be working with dangerous Biochemicals or any other possible hazards to the health of its workers, of residents of our neighborhood, or of the environment? I think that until all of this information is disclosed, considered by the community, and a dialogue started, construction on such a complex should not begin. I am concerned for my neighbors at the Charlesview Apartments. I think that the way Harvard has dealt with the residents there can be characterized as dishonest at best. I am concerned that Harvard will either force them to move without their consent, or build their campus around Charlesview, driving residents out one by one with years of loud construction as they make the Charlesview an island in a sea of concrete. I am concerned that Harvard has not been honest with the residents about the conditions of the new Charlesview they wish to build: the number of parking spaces per unit, if pets will be allowed, how many new units will be created, and how many of these units will be affordable. Harvard needs to explain everything to the residents in all of the languages that they speak, and listen to what they have to say. I am concerned about the word "semi-public" space. I think Harvard should be honest and say private when they mean private, and public when they mean public. Space enclosed completely with their buildings is clearly not for public use. I am concerned with what will become of our neighborhood during the construction period. What time of day will work begin, and when will it end? How does Harvard expect their workers to find parking without taking away parking from the residents? Clearly, Lower Allston is not accessible enough by public transit for the workers to come and go that way. They will have to park their trucks so that they will have their tools at hand, so where will they park?

I hope that with all of the projects Harvard wishes to build for themselves, they will use some of their fortune to build the public spaces that the neighbors want. I know there have been many comments from our community about what we think Harvard can do for us, so let's hear from Harvard about these requests. Mr. Autler, thank you so much for taking your time to read over all of these comments and considering them thoroughly when you make your decision. I hope the BRA will act to ensure the interests and rights of the Allston/Brighton community are protected. sincerely, Jake Carman Resident of Easton Street, member of the Allston/Brighton Neighborhood Assembly