Housing Harvard: Changes in Cambridge Dorm Developments

Map of Harvard College, 1938.

The development of Harvard College’s identity and growth would be virtually impossible to triangulate through a simple series of photos and maps. With almost 400 years of life, the College has witnessed and played a significant role in some of the most iconic and impactful social movements, foreign involvements, and economic changes of America’s history. Harvard Square has reflected the growth and development of the College, but the College has also reflected the centuries of changes that have given us the Harvard Square we know today. I wanted to frame my discussion of the changing and dynamic relationship between Harvard College and Harvard Square through the perspective of dorm culture, architecture, and development at the College since the nineteenth century, specifically through a discussion centered on the creation of the “Gold Coast” dormitories today mostly associated with Adams House. In the 1938 map above, Adams House and Claverly Hall are noticeably labelled down Mt. Auburn St., as at this point in Harvard’s history, it had begun to acquire the privately-owned “Gold Coast” dormitories that had originally intended to house the wealthiest of Harvard’s student body. 

The Gold Coast, c. 1910.

From the late nineteenth to the early twentieth centuries, the area south of Harvard Yard was mostly made up of luxurious buildings housing exclusive clubs and privately-owned dormitories for the college’s wealthier students. With so many of these top-of-the-line developments clustered along Mt. Auburn St., the area was dubbed the Gold Coast. While the College focused on expanding and sharpening the sophistication of its educational facilities under President Charles W. Eliot, architecture and building development firms seized the opportunity to capitalize off the growing trend of moving to these private and “modernized” dormitories while studying at Harvard, especially since Harvard only provided enough housing to accommodate 1/4 of the student body at the time. In the 1910 photograph above, Claverly, Randolph, Old Russel and Westmorly Halls are shown in order from left to right, all of which today are a part of Adams House.  

Claverly Hall, 1938.

My Sketch of Claverly Hall!

Claverly Hall was the first of the “Gold Coast” private dormitories to be built, with construction completed in 1893. The exclusive dormitory was named after the ancestral estate of Charles Delevan Wetmore's family back in England. Wetmore was a founding member of the famed American architecture firm Warren & Wetmore, and he commissioned the construction of Claverly Hall in the early 1890’s. Although Claverly was commissioned by Wetmore, the design of the building was entrusted to local Cambridge architect George Fogerty. Claverly was originally designed with fifty-five suites, each with a private bath, and it was equipped with the most modern of housing features at the time, including steam heat. Harvard purchased the building in 1920, alongside a handful of other Gold Coast dormitories, and despite the exclusivity and luxury that the hall was intentionally built to reflect, now it is just one of many residential buildings that undergraduates are randomly assigned to live in as part of the house lottery system. For many years it was used as housing for sophomores who had not been accepted into one of the original “River Houses”,  today it is an undergraduate residence associated with Adams House. Fogerty was also the architect of one of the lesser-known private dormitory developments of the time, Ware Hall. Ware Hall, pictured below, was completed in 1893 at around the same time as Claverly. In addition to being one of the rare examples of private dormitories built to cater to Harvard College undergraduates that isn’t closer to Harvard Yard, like the Gold Coast dormitories, it was also the first of these developments to include a passenger elevator. Ware Hall is also rare in that it is one of the few private dormitory developments of the late nineteenth century that was built for Harvard students yet not acquired by the College at some point in time. It is currently not a part of the Harvard University Housing system, as it has remained in private ownership still operates as a residential apartment building. 

Ware Hall

Apley Court in New York Tribune, 1897. 

Although most Gold Coast dormitories have been unified into the housing system and associated with Adams House, not all of them were unified under a singular house shield. A newspaper page clipping from a November 1897 publication of the New York Tribune, pictured above, mentions the construction of Apley Court, one of the “New Dormitories for Harvard Men in Cambridge”. Built as a private dormitory in 1897, a few years after the development of Claverly, Apley Court is also a part of the original set of “Gold Coast” dorms, yet not a part of Adams House. Harvard purchased Apley in 1920 alongside the other “Gold Coast” dorms, but today it maintains a more individual house identity as one of the few first year dorms located outside of Harvard Yard that incoming freshmen are randomly assigned to. Below, I have included some personal photos I took of the interior of Apley Court— the sophisticated use of marble across the entrance, and detail in the hand-carved adornments above the sconce lights across the foyer offer just a glimpse at the absolute luxury that was embedded in the structure of the dormitory. Amongst excited discussions between pre-frosh of what first-year dorm they might be assigned, one of the most popular facts that students will remind one another of is how Apley Court, “has a marble staircase, and claw-foot tubs!”

Apley Court Foyer Details.

Apley Court Entryway Staircase.

Efforts to democratize Harvard College’s housing and residential system in the early twentieth century led to the university’s strategic acquisition of Gold Coast dormitories like Claverly Hall and Apley in 1920, demonstrating a change in attitude towards social understandings of class inequality and issues of housing accessibility and unity. It is interesting to consider changes in societal attitudes towards architectural styles, ideas of luxury, and the notion of intentional exclusivity when analyzing the development of Harvard’s housing system. When Gold Coast dormitories like Claverly Hall and Apley Court were first built, their attention to ornate detail, craftsmanship, and the world of the privilege made them attractive and desirable to the majority of the student body, despite only being accessible to some. Following the university’s acquisition of these old-world markers of wealth in the twentieth century, modern and more “democratic” styles of architecture began to infiltrate the market as examples of more advanced building styles, and these structures were not as desirable as the newly developed houses along the river. This made it even more difficult for Adams House to develop a hearty house culture, since the dorms that were compared to the “newer” purpose-built River Houses were eventually unified to make up the house’s layout. Despite the struggles that Adams had in developing itself as an attractive dorm, today, its distance relative to the Yard, its old-world sophistication and connection to prestige and Harvard history make it one of the more preferred dorms across Harvard, further demonstrating how architectural and societal changes across Harvard have impacted the social fabric around the school as well.

In regard to the Agendas for City Council, the Planning Board, the Cambridge Historical Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals, in general, I noticed quite an emphasis placed on the health of the foliage of Cambridge, efforts to manage the walkability and attractiveness of the city, and also an emphasis on making the city a more welcoming and inclusive environment for all of its inabitants, not just those that can afford to live comfortably in Cambridge. In the City Council agenda, there were consistent references made to parking/zoning laws, trees, and the ecological landscape (specifically Daheny Park) of the city. I was also interested in the mentioning of the Cambridge Street Code: Rules and Etiquette. Personally, I felt most represented and personally affected by item 21-36: Report on developing a holistic plan for managing the traffic and congestion in the Alewife area, made by Councillor Nolan and Vice Mayor Mallon (O-2) from 5/17/2021. As an Alewife resident, I have seen how the area around the center of Alewife gets extremely congested and can delay traffic for more than 25 minutes at a time, and I was surprised at how there seems to still not be a report on the item despite it being there since last year. Some were even not resolved since 2016? The most recent Planning Board agenda I could find was for last week, and a well put-together PowerPoint of more than 60 slides was presented at the virtual meeting, focused on ensuring that Cambridge Street is welcoming, green, affordable, and inclusive. The Historical Commission’s agenda also seemed to not have been updated, the one I found was from September 30th, and I emailed inquiring about an updated version but I’m yet to hear back. The Historical Commission has been analyzing demolition plans, and I found it interesting that not all old buildings are preserved, even if they’re of sound quality. Harvard’s own Adams House restoration project was referenced, which goes to show how it is still a cultural symbol and artifact of the city, not just university property, and will naturally be referenced consistently by organizations like the Historical Commission. The individual items listed by the BZA were the most unique, and I was struck by a case concerning a resident that is attempting to appeal the city’s demand that she remove the chicken coop in her backyard due to a city ordinance. Nearby residents had complained about the chickens, but the resident is justifying her ownership of them by discussing how they are essentially service animals and a form of adequate therapy for her autistic son. I completely sided with the resident’s well-prepared appeal, and I believe this was a segment across all of the agendas and minutes that really shows how over-regulation of the city’s landscape can also be a negative impact to the daily lives and even emotional well being of the same residents that these organizations should be representing.