IAs the site for the house of the College dean: President Emeritus Nathan M. Pusey '28 reportedly felt strongly the dean should live near the Square. He directed studies into various sites, including the Fly Club lot, which was closely examined but then passed over for another lot on DeWolfe and Grant Streets. Eventually, however, the whole project was scrapped.
IAs the site for a parking garage: Harold L. Goyette, director of Harvard's Planning Office, says the city has urged use of the area for parking, but Harvard, he said, is not "favorably disposed." Goyette also notes that parking lot operation costs "substantial amounts"--not to mention paving, which he sees as an "eyesore" and a "detriment to the environment." Also opposed to a parking lot in the area is Donald C. Moulton, assistant vice president for community affairs, who cites a joint Harvard-Cambridge study that he says favors parking areas on the periphery of the Square, not in pockets off of the Square.
IAs the site for a Museum of Man affiliated with the Peabody Museum: According to Goyette, the proposal for such a museum remains in the early discussion stage since funds are not plentiful. Goyette also suggests the lot 81 site is not desirable for a museum that would draw large numbers of visitors.
IAs the site for additional undergraduate housing or possibly for inclusion in rebuilding of the south side of Mt. Auburn St.: Both possibilities have been studied as part of the University's long-range planning efforts, Goyette says.
As a Harvard administrator tied specifically to the purchase of lot 81 in 1956 and involved generally in how the University uses its real estate, Dean Whitlock voices with confidence his theories about Harvard's hands-off policy toward 52-58 Mt. Auburn St. Whitlock maintains that Harvard's allowing the Fly free and privileged use of the land--to "have its cake and eat it too"--results from "a combination of a perceptual deficit and a lack of long-range planning" on the University's part, a one-two punch he hopes the Bok administration is correcting.
Whitlock often complains about Harvard's long-range planning efforts, and this gives him a chance to illustrate his theories. Elaborating on the "perceptual deficit" Whitlock says he believes the inequity of the arrangement with the Fly, though "so obvious," never gained notice because "nobody ever talked about it [the land]" and "nobody ever thinks about it." It is, he adds, "simply that people didn't see."
Whitlock concedes the "hard-to-defend" privileges of the Fly offer grist for a conspiracy theory mill, and briefly he evokes visions of monied Fly Club alumni pulling strings with Mass Hall buddies to kill plans for the land. But he then discounts such a theory: "I was too close to it," he says, to miss such machinations.
Over in Holyoke Center, Goyette offers a stronger defense of its non-policy toward lot 81. He stresses what he believes is the crucial value of the land (it's "very important," he stresses) to the University and insists that the land is "simply in a holding pattern," waiting to fill its major role "some time in the future."
In the meantime, Goyette says, Harvard has simply left the land in the hands of the Fly, saving the University maintenance costs while allowing the club use of the land. The deal has been "mutually beneficial," he says. "Somebody's got to maintain it at some substantial cost," Goyette adds, and having the Fly be that somebody proves an "economy" to Harvard.
What maintenance the club does do, Fly trustee Whiteside maintains, is merely the logical extension of its having a lawnmower there for its own small yard. The Fly, he said, "might as well do the rest of the lawn" while it cuts its own. Is the cost of this maintenance high? "Good God, no," Whiteside answers.
Goyette's defense of the plot's 19-year holding pattern extends to the aesthetics of the current set-up. "Many say it's very delightful to have an open space as it now exists"--a space, he said, that can be "viewed and enjoyed by all who walk by." However, the fence that surrounds the property is backed up in many places by tall bushes and creeping ivy that prevent one from getting a clear view of the area. The Mt. Auburn St. side is completely obscured, as is the northern half of the Plympton St. frontage.
No one, neither Harvard's planners nor Harvard's administrators, can say for sure whether Harvard's most prominent croquet court, lot 81, will emerge from the limbo that swallowed it after the commuter center plan faltered. Indications are that no long-term commitment of the land can be expected in the next five to ten years. The interim version of the planning office's "Long Range Plan for Harvard University and Radcliffe College in Cambridge and Allston" classifies the lot as being without any "foreseeable" prospect for future development. Supratik Bose, manager of long range planning, believes that Red Line subway extension work will force many cars down Mt. Auburn, making it an unsuitable site for a building.
What will happen then to the land until Harvard finds the "important use" Goyette talks about? Moulton (who says he "couldn't say for sure" who uses the land) admits the lot has never been completely studied for an interim use, and he promises that if the area is not expected to see a major use for an "extended period of time," it will be analyzed for an interim use. But the final choice, he adds, might not differ from the present set up.
One alternative for lot 81 is suggested in the interim long-range planning report, which classifies the land as a "potential pedestrian precinct," making it one of the targets for a possible "major effort to improve the existing outdoor space environment." However, the interim report (issued in June 1974 and scheduled for a final release late this fall) also says such an effort "will require funding beyond the regular maintenance budget."
Such budgetary problems emerge in Goyette's unenthusiastic opinion of converting the plot into a park. He centers his objections around the "substantial" initial cost (for walks, lighting, and benches) and the "substantial costs" of maintenance (for caretaking, electricity, policing, and trash collection). Goyette ventures an estimate of $20,000 for the initial expenditure and several thousand dollars annually thereafter.
Moulton takes a more open stand on the land's future. While an analysis of interim proposals might favor the current arrangement, it could just as well lead to creating a park with benches for reading and sitting and a volleyball net for recreation, he said. Public interest, he added, will hasten a decision on the park's destiny.
But in the meantime the land will remain in the hands of the Fly Club, adding more time to a 19-year record of unequal access.