FOCUS: Past vs. Future - The battle over Smith Hall

Smith Hall is like a child in the middle of a custody battle. On one side are allegations that the University is going to tear the 99-year-old building down to build a "weapons factory." On the other side are protesters stalling with questionable claims and legal wranglings. And in the center of the debate lies Smith, an aging building with an ivy-covered facade. Built in 1892, the former Laboratory of Hygiene sits on 34th Street across from the Furness Building. It is adjacent to Smith Walk, which is lined on either side by other 19th century buildings. The building, which currently houses the History and Sociology of Science Department and the School of Fine Arts, sits where the University hopes to build the Institute of Advanced Science and Technology with a $10 million grant from the Department of Defense. Those who oppose the demolition of Smith Hall use two arguments. The first states that since the University is using Defense Department money to build the new IAST, the new facility will be a "weapons factory." Second is the fact that Smith is a historic building, both due to what advances occured in it scores of years ago and because of its architectural importance. Before the building is razed, the University will have to finish confronting these issues in court and in the community. · It has been almost a year since the legal battles over the Smith Hall site began. These wranglings center around the architecture and history of the building. Supporters of Smith Hall say it was one of the first buildings of its kind and that its functional design is historical in itself. According to an article in the May 1991 Almanac by Michael Lewis, who lectures on architecture at Bryn Mawr College, the building was very modern for its time and was built with its purpose -- to be a medical laboratory -- in mind. Preservationists have also argued that Smith -- along with buildings at Harvard University and Johns Hopkins University -- was where the "German ideal of scientific education and research" first was practiced at a U.S university. These "ideals" included hands-on teaching and experimenting in laboratories, as opposed to traditional lecturing and theoretical discussions. Opponents of the plan to demolish Smith Hall have seized this history and attempted to prevent the University from gaining permission to demolish the building. As plans for the new institute leaked out, several of the people who now oppose the demolition asked the city to designate the building as a historic site. The city did so in October 1989. The University opposed the designation at the time and late last year asked the Philadelphia Historic Preservation Commission for permission to demolish the building. Richard Tyler, a city historic preservation officer, said last week the commission approved the demolition plan because the site met two basic requirements -- the new project was "in the public interest" and using another site would result in significant financial hardship. The State Bureau for Historical Preservation also ruled that the project could be built on the Smith Hall site. Tyler said the University presented a feasibility study which claimed it would cost an extra $17 to $22 million to put the new lab at another location. The project is expected to cost $75 million to complete. Vice Provost for Research Barry Cooperman said the $10 million Defense Department grant, fundraising, state funding and a bond issue will pay for it. After the city commission's decision, a group of students, faculty, alumni and community members calling themselves Friends of Smith Walk appealed the decision to the Licenses and Inspections Review Board. The board sided with the Historic Preservation Commission in a decision earlier this month, giving the University permission to demolish the building. But the University's win does not mean the demolition is certain. The decision can still be appealed to a Philadelphia Common Pleas court by Friends of Smith Walk or other Smith Hall supporters. Robert Kohler, a professor of history and sociology of science and a member of Friends of Smith Walk, said the group will definitely file an appeal. The University must also comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which states that projects which receive federal funds must be reviewed before historic buildings are destroyed. Cooperman said last week the University feels it has a strong case and does not think it will lose the right to use the Smith Hall site in the Section 106 process. The University also told the Philadelphia Historic Commission it will not tear down Smith Hall, even if all the necessary boards give their permission, until the plans for IAST are finalized and funding is secured. "They wanted to avoid the situation that we would tear down a building and turn it into a parking lot," Cooperman said. The administration says that the project is vital and that Smith Hall is the most practical, economical site. Vice President for Facilities Management Art Gravina said the University carefully weighed the costs of various locations, the necessity for the institute to be near similar programs and the importance of preserving many historic buildings before choosing the Smith Hall site. Other sites that were seriously considered included the tennis courts in front of the Palestra and the parking lot for the Laboratory for the Research on the Structure of Matter, Gravina said. These were not chosen because there were "compelling reasons" to put the building next to the Chemistry Building, home of the department which will use much of the proposed Institute. · The second major argument for not tearing down the building will not be brought into the courts, but instead involves trust between the University, its community members and the public. Some opponents to the razing of Smith Hall have questioned the research that will go on in the proposed Institute, saying it will be weapons-related military research because of the use of defense funds. Administrators vehemently deny these allegations. Several have referred to these statements as "inaccurate and misleading" and some have gone as far as saying that they are "demogogic," and that some protesters are raising a red herring. Cooperman added that the very nature of weapons research is contrary to the type of work done at the University because it is applied, rather than theoretical. Researchers generally look for properties and processes instead of seeking to make a product, he said. "Outside clinical fields," Cooperman said, "very little is reduced to practice." The projects already slated to fill the building include studies of healing properties in bones and teeth, work on computer software which can mimic human brains and tests using electricity to reverse the effects of osteoporosis. A correlated issue surround relations with peer institutions, relations some said were hurt when the University broke informal agreements to refrain from competing for federal funds for capital projects. Cooperman said the agreement was based on conditions that started in the 1960s, when many universities were able to obtain funds for capital projects from a "bricks and mortar" fund run by the federal government. But he said private universities have found it more and more difficult to raise funds for these projects since the program was phased out in the early 1970s. The American Association of Universities, a coalition of 50 prominent research institutions, had an informal agreement that the member schools would not lobby through their congressmen and other federal groups for funding because it would result in an inequitable review process. With the current system, schools with powerful congressmen supporting them might be able to get more money for less worthwhile projects. Cooperman acknowledged that the University and other schools have not always adhered to the agreement because alternative funding was difficult to find. "It is not the route we would have preferred," Cooperman said, "but it really comes down to the fact that we have to do what is best for our school." He said that all of the schools would prefer a program through which schools could obtain funding for renewal projects on their campuses and proposals would be examined by a non-political committee. · But the question of what will happen to Smith Hall remains. Kohler said yesterday he thinks the time is perfect for a compromise between the University and the groups who oppose demolition because "things have not gotten nasty yet." "My own personal view is that there is room for compromise. I think everyone has assumed [demolition of Smith Hall] is a done deal," Kohler said. "I don't think it is a done deal." He said that possible compromises would include looking again at the two alternate sites or considering a third -- partially demolishing the Duhring Wing of the Smith building, which is a later addition built in 1898. Kohler said the third possibility is the least desirable from a preservationist's point of view, but it would be better than complete demolition. "[The other options] were rejected at a time when the promoters of this Institute thought they could do anything," Kohler said. "It is clear from their actions that they didn't expect opposition." Kohler predicted that the opposition will increase and compromise would benefit the University because it would avoid "a public relations disaster" and would allow the University to avoid continued legal action. "I sense the bandwagon beginning to roll," Kohler said. "A lot of groups are beginning to take an interest. The issue is about to be reopened."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.