Around Thanksgiving, we give thanks for good things large and small, personal and transcendent. These things are as varied as we are. But almost everyone reading this – we who live in Harvard – should give thanks for what we all share: Harvard’s long tradition of dedicated volunteer self-government, excellent schools, and commitment to conservation and historical preservation; fiscally responsible elected officials and volunteers, attentive to the town’s needs and vigorous in pursuing grants to address those needs; and a shared, deep-seated sense of stewardship for our irreplaceable natural and historic resources. Decades of active work, by official and unofficial groups and by fellow citizens of widely varying political beliefs, have preserved our historic town center and Common, saved hundreds of acres of land for conservation and recreation, maintained our pond and scenic roads, converted Old Bromfield into a much-used and widely acclaimed, historically appropriate modern library, and more.
Many of us are too busy with work and children and the activities of life, to think about such things. Others are so used to the manifold virtues of Harvard that we take the results of countless hours of hidden—and sometimes contentious—hard work for granted as we enjoy their fruits. But now the town is planning to embark on a project that will change the nature of the town center and town Common irretrievably, via a process that has had limited input from relevant boards and interested citizens.
Concern about the content of the Department of Public Works “Complete Streets” plan has led some people to look into how it was developed, which has raised concerns about that process as well. Concerns about the plan are shared by a wide diversity of Harvard residents: farmers and people who live on the Common, old-school liberals and fiscal conservatives, longtime residents and families with young children who are relatively new to town.
We will ask the Select Board, at its Dec. 3 meeting, to defer approval of the current DPW plan and to initiate an accelerated process of public discussion to revise it. Such a process should include representatives of town groups with relevant expertise, like the Historical and Parks and Recreation commissions, whether or not they have formal jurisdiction.
We strongly believe that a revised plan can better preserve the historical integrity of the center and the Common, enhance safety more than the current plan, and fully conform to grant requirements.
A structured, open process
A structured, open process will produce a better plan for the state’s money; there will inevitably be disagreements, and some participants may be disappointed with its results. Whenever a lot of people care about something, they have differing ideas. In large part, democracy exists to address this problem. An open planning process reflects the ideals of democracy, ideals first put into practice in small New England towns, of which Harvard is a vibrant example. We face four general challenges in altering the historic town center:
- Reconciling the criteria governing vehicles with existing roadways, pathways, and parking.
- Maintaining, and enhancing, the fragile vitality of the town center.
- Achieving compatibility with the various forms, materials, and iconography that together create the historical character of the town center and embody the spirit and legacy of Harvard’s citizens.
- Ensuring that diverse opinions are considered, so those whose ideas are not included in the final plan feel that they have been listened to.
Problematic plan
The current DPW plan has several problems. Before listing them, we stress that we are not opposed to sidewalks; sidewalks facilitate pedestrian movement and serve as paths in our rural setting; indeed, sidewalks already go along two-and-a-half sides of the Common and a (poorly maintained) sidewalk—Minister’s Walk—runs between the Bromfield parking lot along the Center Cemetery, past the Congregational Church to the General Store parking lot. This is used by scores of school children every weekday, and by many more people when major events are held on the Common. And we do not advocate turning down the grant.
- The material proposed for the paths around the Common—colored concrete—is incompatible with the historical character of the town center. Paths undulate, molded to the shape of the earth. Asphalt is perfect for this. Asphalt has been used for centuries; indeed, Herodotus claimed it was the mortar for the walls of Babylon. More recently, asphalt is the paving of choice in the Boston Common and across Harvard University. As at our library, brick and stone are used at the entries and thresholds of buildings, with asphalt for both wide and narrow paths. Concrete sidewalks, in contrast, are tensile, brittle, rigid. They have no life. Adding color to concrete creates a theme-park look, artificial and inauthentic. And colored concrete fades irregularly, depending on sunlight and other factors, which will further reduce the historical integrity of town center, for no benefit.
- The current DPW plan proposes widening the sidewalks around the Common from 4 to 5 feet to meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, and will also add a 6-inch interior curb. Such a change will eliminate about 1,000 square feet of grass from our historic Common. We understand that the Select Board and DPW plan to reduce sidewalk width to 4 feet— still compatible with ADA—but it appears that they still intend to add an interior curb. This will reduce the amount of grass eliminated to slightly over 300 square feet, but is an improvement.
- Contrary to statements made by advocates of this plan, we do not believe that pedestrian safety between Still River Road and the face of the General Store and Congregational Church is enhanced. The plan proposes a new sidewalk along Still River Road between parked cars and moving vehicles. Although this will prevent cars from turning into the parking lot from multiple points along Still River Road, using pedestrians as the buffer between parking and active traffic actually impairs safety, and is generally discouraged by traffic engineers. In urban settings, which are full of sidewalks, it is never done. Various barriers, like bollards, a low wall, or raised curbs can be used instead, with curb cuts defining access points.
- Creating a single curb cut off Still River Road in line with the entrance to the Center Cemetery will create considerable congestion. Layouts that provide multiple egress options, rather than channeling all traffic to one point, are better. The current idiosyncratic layout works well, with no reported accidents; acknowledging its merit should inform the plan. Careful study of improved signage and surface treatments would be appropriate, as would the study of a flexible layout (removable bollards) that would facilitate ongoing testing.
- The plan proposes a scored cement concrete truck apron on the northwest corner of the intersection. This is overkill for our rural setting and addresses a problem for which a much less intrusive solution can be developed.
We urge our fellow citizens to join us at the Select Board meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 3, to express support for a pause in the implementation to enable further plan refinement. And please sign the petition at http://chng.it/jQTY2sphdW, signed by well over 200 citizens as of 8 p.m., Monday, Nov. 25, which expresses our ideas.
Ron Ostberg lives on Warren Avenue. Billy Salter is a resident of Elm Street
on the Common.
