This week we launch a new
Press column―“Harvard By Design.” Harvard has many planning processes, conducted on varying schedules, which, taken together, prescribe action plans spanning years, even decades. The processes, and the plans that document their results, have a common objective―making (or keeping) Harvard the kind of town its residents want. They serve as blueprints to guide elected officials as they prioritize and direct town resources within annual budgets.
In coming weeks, “Harvard By Design” will review each plan, including the planning period, the responsible planners, plan highlights, and prescribed actions. A permanent section will be established on harvardpress.com under “About Harvard: Harvard Wiki,” carrying the summary as reported here, together with the full text of plans.
Following a look at the master plans, we will review the Open Space and Recreation Plan, the Affordable Housing Plan, the Town Center Action Plan, the Bare Hill Pond Watershed Management Plan, and the many school needs studies that have preceded building projects.
The Press welcomes suggestions for additional planning processes to be included in “Harvard By Design.”
Harvard’s first master plan was produced in 1969 by renowned landscape architect Charles W. Eliot II in a 20-month engagement with the Harvard Planning Board. At the time, there were no laws on the book mandating affordable housing, but Eliot’s plan forecast significant housing development for Harvard. Ironically, the same year Eliot finished Harvard’s master plan, the state legislature enacted Chapter 40B, authorizing comprehensive permits to bypass local zoning in municipalities with less than 10 percent affordable housing.
Eliot encouraged a management (zoning) approach that would concentrate development while preserving common areas and open space. In 1968 Harvard owned less than 300 acres of land, most of it used for municipal services and school buildings. Four years after Eliot’s plan was completed, the Harvard Conservation Trust (HCT) was born, and according to the 2002 update, since the early 1970s the Harvard Conservation Commission and HCT have acquired or obtained restrictions on more than 2,000 acres of open space which, together with land owned by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, represents 21 percent of Harvard land area that will never be developed.
Eliot foresaw the need for commercial development to expand the tax base and provide needed services to residents, but was concerned that development in the Ayer Road C District would become a “ … commercial strip replete with scattered, uncoordinated businesses and industrial development.” He thought Harvard should create a local nonprofit corporation to implement the master plan for Ayer Road rather than waiting for private developers. Harvard adopted some of Eliot’s proposals for C District development, but the larger vision―and the principles it embraced―never materialized.
In 1988, Michael Oman of Connery Associates worked for 18 months with a Town Plan Committee and some 40 subcommittee members to update the original plan, producing the Harvard Town Plan. The 1988 update documented significant growth, but many of its recommendations were similar to Eliot’s. The update acknowledged that many problems foreseen by Eliot’s plan had indeed come true, and could have been mitigated if Eliot’s recommendations had been followed.
Both plans were preceded by surveys of Harvard households, and despite passage of time, residents in both surveys shared similar values and beliefs about the town, cherishing clean natural resources, rural atmosphere and farms, and generally taking a dim view of apartments and industrial development.
The 1988 plan suggested strong differences of opinion from 1969 about affordable housing, business development, or “change” of any kind. It suggests that much of the difference was attributable to the number of new residents resulting from growth, who having recently arrived, were passionate to keep things as they were when they made the investment to be in Harvard. Longer-term residents were more inclined to favor such attributes as a “broad socio-economic mix” and “managed” rather than “no” growth. The 1988 update suggested taking a step back from C District development and recommending a reduction in total development authorized. Key assertions of the 1988 plan included:
- Development regulations should account for the carrying capacity of land and natural resources.
- Residential development should provide more types of housing than single-family homes.
- Three major assets in Harvard warrant extraordinary protection: groundwater, the Town Center, and the Bare Hill Pond watershed.
- Open space protection is central to the quality of Harvard’s natural resources, the maintenance of its rural character, and the continuation of agriculture.
- If developed to its full potential, the C District would be incompatible with Harvard’s town character and municipal capacity.
- Streets should be maintained for safety, but there should be no widening or significant alterations to the “country road” quality of Harvard’s rural areas.
- Managing growth requires adequate administration, timely communication, and collaborative efforts by government and the private sector.
Actions suggested in the 1988 update were significantly affected by the U.S. Army’s intent to close Fort Devens, announced a scant two years after adoption of the 1988 Harvard Town Plan.
Coming next: Master Plan 2002