Harvard is willing to pay great sums to get its bridge. According to Peter L. Walsh, public relations director for the Museum, bridge construction alone would cost about $1 million. The Museum also proposes to spend an additional $300,000 creating a small plaza and avenue of trees to improve the streetscape surrounding the bridge, and would pay the City of Cambridge an annual fee of approximately $16,000 in "air rights," for the right to build over Broadway.

Walsh says that before the Mid-Cambridge neighbors deliberated over the connector proposal, Museum representatives met regularly with community members to discuss the plans, and sent a mailing to all Mid-Cambridge residents, detailing the design and listing its pros and cons. The mailing cost about $2500.

About 30 percent of the general public who visit the art museum are Cambridge residents; more than 1000 of them hold memberships. But opponents of the bridge say that it would be large and obtrusive, blocking light and distracting motorists. Some feel that the University's willingness to pay $16,000 in "air rights" is an implicit admission that the bridge would be intrusive.

Members of the Neighborhood Association have also voiced fears that the connector would serve as a precedent for other organizations that want to build bridges. One similar bridge about a mile away already spans Broadway, connecting Draper Laboratory buildings in Kendall Square.

Walsh says, "the bridge is very noticeable, but the intersection is ugly. A lot of the objections are not architectural, but have to do with feelings about Harvard and our role in the community."

"One community misconception is that the bridge is strictly for our convenience," Walsh adds.

The Museum has explored the alternative of building a tunnel to connect the buildings, but rejected the idea because it was impractical and expensive. Because of the water, telephone and sewage lines buried beneath Broadway, a tunnel could be no more than eight feet high and would be placed so deep underground that the general public would not be able to use it.

The Itch To Expand

As far back as the early 1970s, officials at the Fogg were considering expansion ideas. Blueprints were drawn up and funds raised in the early '80s, but President Bok abruptly cancelled the project early in 1982, saying the complex needed a larger endowment to ensure operating costs would be covered. After protests throughout the art community and more fundraising, the expansion plans were revitalized. Finally, on September 19, 1983, Harvard announced the reorganization of its museum complex into three facilities under one central administration, and construction of the Sackler began.

"The Fogg building had become a rabbit's warren, with offices divided and subdivided," Rosenfield says, "And Dr. Sackler said, 'Why think small?'"

Dr. Arthur M. Sackler, the Museum's principle benefactor, is a research physician, an international medical publisher and a collector of Oriental art. His charitable contributions include major donations to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City and to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. His gift is the largest single contribution ever made to Harvard for its art museums.

Harvard entrusted the job of designing the new building to James Stirling, a prominent London architect. But the great variety of buildings surrounding the site posed terrible aesthetic problems. Walsh explains that "the architect's opinion was that there was nothing you could build on this site that would harmonize."

The eclectic range of neighborhood structures include the Neo-Georgian style Fogg Museum, built in 1927; stark, aggresively modern Gund Hall; and high Gothic Memorial Hall. Stirling attempted to integrate the discordant themes of the area into the building, striping the outside of the building with bands of red and grey to echo the red, yellow and green tiles of Memorial Hall, for example.

Parking Garage Or Warehouse?

Museum officials agree unanimously that they are pleased with the result of Stirling's effort, but outside the community, reception of the Sackler is less than enthusiastic.