mit faculty newletter, vol. xxv no. 3, january/february 2013 · 2020. 9. 14. · mit faculty...

in this special issue we focus on MIT 2030 and the up-zoningpetition submitted by MITIMCo (MIT Investment Management Company) to the Cityof Cambridge. Many of the articles are reprints from past issues of the FacultyNewsletter. New material includes our editorial and an “Interview with MIT 2030Task Force Chair Tom Kochan,” below.

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XXV No. 3January/February 2013

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

continued on page 12

Concerns Over theLack of GraduateStudent Housing inthe MIT 2030 Plan

Interview with MIT2030 Task ForceChair Tom Kochan

continued on page 21

Honoring Vera Kistiakowsky (p. 14)

Brian Spatocco

A S O F T H I S W R I T I N G M I T I M C O

(MIT Investment ManagementCompany) has made two presentations ofits revised up-zoning petition for the eastend of the campus, one to the CambridgePlanning Board on January 15, and theother to the Ordinance Committee of theCambridge City Council on January 24.This explicit plan for major commercialconstruction on the MIT campus hasnever been presented, discussed ordebated at a regular meeting of the MITfaculty.

The up-zoning petition for 26 acres ofcampus land is dominated by new con-struction of two very large commercialoffice buildings filling the open areabetween Main Street and Amherst Street,and a 300-foot tower with market rateresidences across Main Street andBroadway, at the One Broadway site

EditorialMITIMCo Petition Goes ForwardWithout Faculty AssessmentPlaces Commercial Real Estate

Before Housing and Research Needs

continued on page 3

Reprinted from the MIT Faculty Newsletter,Vol. XXIV No. 5, May/June 2012.

IntroductionPROM PTE D AN D MOTIVATE D by therecent remarks of our President-ElectRafael Reif when he noted, “A time oftransition should also be a time for reflec-tion – a time to assess where we are andwhere we are going,” I write today todiscuss a very serious external threat tothe way our Institute does business andhow our community lives. Specifically,during my two years of service as theGraduate Student Council’s (GSC)Housing and Community Affairs (HCA)co-chair and a member of the KendallSquare Advisory Committee, I havedeveloped significant concerns regardingthe availability and accessibility ofhousing in surrounding regions as well as

Special Edition

T H E F O L LOW I N G I N T E RV I E W

between the Faculty Newsletter (FNL) andTom Kochan (TK), the Chair of the TaskForce on Community Engagement in 2030Planning, was held on January 17, 2013.[See page 24 of this issue for the completereport of the Task Force.]

FNL: Maybe we could start with you givinga brief background on the formation of theTask Force and its role as you see it.

TK: When the new provost took office, hewas clearly concerned that the faculty nothad a voice in the Kendall Square devel-opment process, and particularly that thevoice of the experts on the faculty whowork on these issues professionally hadn’tbeen heard. And so our primary role wasto provide advice to the provost onwhether to move forward with the rezon-

2

Vol. XXV No. 3 January/February 2013

Robert BerwickElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

Olivier de WeckAeronautics & Astronautics/Engineering Systems

Ernst G. FrankelMechanical Engineering

*Jean E. JacksonAnthropology

*Gordon KaufmanManagement Science/Statistics

*Jonathan King (Chair) Biology

*Helen Elaine LeeWriting and Humanistic Studies

*Stephen J. LippardChemistry

Seth LloydMechanical Engineering

Fred MoavenzadehCivil & Environmental Engineering/Engineering Systems

James OrlinSloan School of Management

Ruth PerryLiterature Section

George Verghese (Secretary)Electrical Engineering & Computer Science

Patrick Henry WinstonElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

David LewisManaging Editor

*Editorial Subcommittee for this issue

AddressMIT Faculty NewsletterBldg. 11-268Cambridge, MA 02139

Websitehttp://web.mit.edu/fnl

Telephone 617-253-7303Fax 617-253-0458E-mail [email protected]

Subscriptions$15/year on campus$25/year off campus

01 Concerns Over the Lack of Graduate Student Housing in the MIT 2030 PlanBrian Spatocco

01 Interview with MIT 2030 Task Force Chair Tom Kochan

Editorial 01 MITIMCo Petition Goes Forward Without Faculty Assessment

From The 04 Task Force on Community Engagement Faculty Chair with 2030 Planning

Samuel M. Allen

06 Twenty to Thirty Questions About MIT 2030 Caroline A. Jones and the SAPiens

10 A Brief History of MIT’s Land Acquisition PoliciesO. R. Simha

14 Opening Doors: Honoring Physics Professor Emerita Vera Kistiakowsky

15 Graduate Student Association: Pressing Issues for Graduate Students Soulaymane Kachani

16 Graduate Student Life, Research Productivity, and the MITIMCo ProposalJonathan King

18 MIT 2030: A Capital Planning Framework for the FutureIsrael Ruiz, Martin Schmidt

Editorial 20 Save MIT Campus Land for Academic, Not Commercial, Uses

24 Report of the Task Force on Community Engagement in 2030 Planning on Development of MIT- Owned Property in Kendall Square

M.I.T. Numbers 28 Research Expenditures FY2012

contentsThe MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Photo credit: Page 1: David Lewis. Pictured (l-r): Prof. Jonathan King, Prof. Edmund Bertschinger, Prof. of Physics Emerita Vera

Kistiakowsky (holding framed forum poster), Prof. Mary-Lou Pardue, Prof. Lisa Steiner, Vera's daughter Prof. Karen Fischer of

Brown University Geological Sciences (holding collage, gift of FNL Editorial Board). Page 3: David Lewis.

MIT Faculty NewsletterJanuary/February 2013

3

(NE corner of Broadway and 3rd Street).Of these more than 900,000 square feet ofnew construction, none is explicitly ear-marked for graduate housing, postdoc-toral or junior faculty housing, orinstructional, research, or other academicneeds. We are disappointed thatMITIMCo has still failed to provide accu-rate images of their 3-D model to thefaculty, and has not notified faculty of thepublic presentations.

Among the main positive impacts ofthe up-zoning petition would be anincreased flow of rental/lease income tothe MIT Corporation, estimated to be inthe range of $20-$30 M/year, andincreased street level landscaping.

Impacts that we view as negativeinclude: a) Lack of housing to address theneeds of some of the 4,000 graduate stu-dents forced to find housing off campus;b) increased pressure on those graduatestudents with respect to housing due tothe influx of office workers housed in thenew buildings; c) increased traffic in thearea without any increase in street or Tcapacity; and d) loss of campus space anddiminution of campus character andintegrity as a leading academic institution,as the area is integrated into the KendallSquare commercial complex, as proposedby MITIMCo. These office structures willcontrast negatively with the lower skylineof the MIT campus, shadowing nearbybuildings and partially blocking the skyfrom the Koch/Biology/Stata quadrangleand Medical Center and Media Labplazas. Though MITIMCo has focused onthe benefits to the Kendall Square com-munity, we feel that these commercialtowers will undermine rather thanenhance MIT as a university community.

No analysis has been presented of howthe rental income might compensate forthe loss of productivity as thousands ofgraduate students continue to commute,probably from longer distances, ratherthan being on or near site. As rents in thearea increase – more than 7% last year –

graduate students are being forced to livefarther and farther from campus or suffera decreased standard of living. The pres-sure on graduate student housing hasbeen clearly articulated by the studentsthemselves, and this information filtersout to those prospective students whocome for interviews. To what extent willcontinuing to ignore graduate studentneeds increase the difficulty in recruitingthe best students, compared to campuseslike Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, andRockefeller? These institutions provide fora larger fraction of graduate studenthousing needs and have recently addedsignificant graduate student housing ontheir campuses.

For those of us who have seen theMITIMCo model (see below), it is clearwhy the administration has not yet

acceded to a full presentation at a facultymeeting. The proposed commercialbuildings are too large and too tall; theydwarf and shadow other campus build-ings, undermining the integrity of thisarea of the campus.

The proposed office buildings largelyreflect MITIMCo’s interest in maximizingrental income stream. The rental sums aresmall compared with MIT’s overall R&Dbudget (see “M.I.T. Numbers,” backpage). With 40-60-year leases, similar tothe ones negotiated with Pfizer andNovartis, the ability to regain this valuablecampus space will be sharply limited. TheMITIMCo model appears to us to under-value MIT’s future research and instruc-

tional needs. For example, the model doesnot account for the opportunity costs oflosing future federal and industrial grants,owing to the lack of research space and/orinstructional space.

MIT faculty and graduate students areamong the most important stakeholdersin decisions on the development of ourcampus. To be excluded from examiningand debating the proposal presented tothe City undermines the faculty and grad-uate students’ ability to fulfill theirresponsibilities as core members of theMIT community. We appreciate the workof the Provost’s Task Force onCommunity Engagement in 2030Planning on Development of MIT-Owned Property in Kendall Square.However, we note sadly than no signifi-cant “community engagement” process

has been set in place. The 12-18 monthhousing needs assessment described byMIT Executive Vice President andTreasurer Israel Ruiz at that January 15City of Cambridge Planning Boardmeeting will only yield feedback after con-struction decisions have been made.

The Faculty Policy Committee (FPC)currently reviews the agenda of facultymeetings. The FPC should insist that theMITIMCo petition be presented at a formalmeeting of the faculty, with circulation ofthe details to all faculty, including financialexpectations, in advance. Equal time needsto be provided for analysis, critiques, andalternative proposals at the meeting(s).

Editorial Subcommittee

MITIMCo Petition Goes Forwardcontinued from page 1

Photograph of MITIMCo Model of Proposed Kendall Square Construction Presented at City of Cambridge Planning Board Meeting on January 15

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXV No. 3

4

Samuel M. AllenFrom The Faculty ChairTask Force on Community Engagementwith 2030 Planning

Reprinted from the MIT Faculty Newsletter,Vol. XXV No. 2, November/December 2012.

MY B IGG E ST AS PI RATION I N takingon the role of Chair of the Faculty hasbeen to improve faculty/administrationcommunication, collaboration, and trust.Whether justified or not, many facultyhad told me they felt that important deci-sions were made by “the administration”before faculty had the opportunity toprovide their perspective on the issues.Examples included initiating major inter-national initiatives, launching MITx, andparticipation in the MIT 2030 planningprocess. A major faculty concern was thebelief that faculty should have a say indecisions that would have a significantimpact on how faculty members spendtheir working hours.

Over the past summer the new admin-istration took a major step towardencouraging faculty engagement byannouncing the formation of the TaskForce on Community Engagement in2030 Planning, a group of eight seniorfaculty with diverse perspectives, to con-sider and make recommendations on twotopics. First, should MIT re-file its “up-zoning” petition with the City ofCambridge, seeking to increase thedensity of development around KendallSquare? Second, how should the MITcommunity provide input to long-rangeplanning encompassing the entirecampus?

What factors led to formation of theTask Force? From my direct experience, Ican identify a few:

1. Several lively discussions at meetings ofthe Faculty Policy Committee duringthe 2011–12 academic year focused

attention on the fact that among ourfaculty there are numerous experts inurban design, city planning, and realestate, yet only Adele Santos, Dean ofArchitecture and Planning, had beenincluded in the 2030 planning activities.

2. Significant attention over several yearswas given in the Faculty Newsletter tofaculty concerns about the develop-ment of Kendall Square.

3. A plea was made at the May 2012faculty meeting to broaden the discus-sion of Kendall Square development toinclude more faculty input.

4. A Faculty Forum held in July 2012 wasdevoted to Kendall Square planningand a number of colleagues expressedconcerns about the very limited engage-ment with the planning process.

Would the Task Force have beenformed without the faculty having spokenout? It seems unlikely. Would it have beenformed without an attitude of respecttoward the faculty on the part of theadministration? Again, I doubt it.

The Task Force’s creation is a tangiblesign that the administration values facultyengagement in decision-making. This issomething that the faculty have longexpected. Not too long ago, as part of myConflict Resolution studies at UMassBoston, I had the occasion to review the1988 report, “Report of the Committee onReorganization and Closing of AcademicUnits: Learning from the ABSExperience.” [This report makes for veryinteresting reading, as it chronicles anespecially low point in MIT administra-tion/faculty relations. It is available at:

orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/pnr.] Thisreport was prepared by an ad hoc facultycommittee in response to the way inwhich the decision to close theDepartment of Applied BiologicalSciences was implemented. I was struckwith the current relevance of a portion ofthe report’s conclusion:

“It is the view of this committee, and webelieve of the faculty at large, that a key tothe success of the Institute has been themaintenance of a system of shared gover-nance. Few of the MIT faculty see themselvesin an employee/employer relationship to theAdministration. Rather, most feel that theAdministration and faculty share a jointresponsibility for sustaining the excellence ofthe Institute. They expect that, when impor-tant choices arise about mission or internalorganization, they will naturally be involvedin the process leading up to decisions and inthe planning of implementation.”

The administration’s recent decision toform the Task Force on CommunityEngagement with 2030 Planning is anaffirmation of this principle of sharedgovernance.

The Task Force completed its report[available at: orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/pnr] on the up-zoning petition in mid-October, and I had the privilege to presentthe main findings of the report at theOctober faculty meeting. [The Task ForceChair, Tom Kochan, was out of town thatday.] Faculty received copies of the reportby e-mail shortly after the faculty meetingconcluded. Quoting from the report:

“The Task Force’s key finding was that theKendall Square design proposed byMITIMCo [the MIT Investment


5

Management Company] falls short of MITlevel expectations, standards, and aspirationswe have for the future of the campus. We canand must do better and we suggest optionsfor improving the design. We believe theseoptions can be considered and implementedin the design phase after the up-zoning peti-tion is approved. For this reason, and becausea number of City officials are anxious toreceive MIT’s petition, we support filing thepetition now, provided that:

1. A comprehensive urban design plan forEast Campus is developed in the post up-zoning stage but before any buildingstarts. This has not been done yet andneeds to be done as part of the planningfor Kendall Square development.

2. Our faculty Task Force or a similar groupparticipates directly in the developmentof the East Campus plan and KendallSquare project design.

3. The plan and design of Kendall Square isevaluated against a broader set of princi-ples than just return on investment prin-ciples that reflect the things we valuewhen designing academic space andspaces for student use.”

All of the feedback I’ve received on thecontents of the report has been very posi-tive. This includes faculty who had beenmost vocal in expressing concerns withthe Kendall Square development processand several members of the FacultyNewsletter’s Editorial Board.

The Task Force is now engaged inweekly meetings, working with MITIMCoplanners and members of the MITadministration, to discuss and evaluaterevisions to the plan presented with theprior up-zoning petition, filed with thecity in April 2011. Our aim is to develop aframework for a design that addresses theconcerns of the Task Force, which when

complete will accompany a new up-zoning request. I am hopeful that thisthree-way collaborative process will resultin a much-improved design for MIT’s realestate east of Ames Street, which includesa dramatic and functional eastern gatewayto the campus.

The Task Force will continue its effortsthis fall, including making a recommen-dation about community engagementwith planning for the entire MIT campus.

The Task Force’s formation, breadth offaculty expertise and viewpoints, andprogress to date bode well for serving as amodel for future engagement of the com-munity in MIT’s decision-making processes.Much remains to be accomplished before Iam willing to call this an unqualified success,but I am very hopeful.

Samuel M. Allen is a Professor in theDepartment of Materials Science andEngineering and Faculty Chair([email protected]).

The area within the dashed lines comprises the portion of campus considered in the Institute’s up-zoning petition that was submitted to the City of Cambridge in April 2011.

Source: MITIMCo


6

Reprinted from the MIT Faculty Newsletter,Vol. XXIV No. 2, November/December 2011.

M I T 2 0 3 0 R E P R E S E N T S A boldbeginning for a comprehensive plan thatanticipates the renovation of MIT’s agingfacilities and produces a map of its futureresearch priorities and expansion needs.As emphasized by its original authors,MIT 2030 “is a process, not a plan.” A planis now needed, one focused on the coreeducational priorities of the Instituterather than driven by real-estate develop-ment paradigms.

We advocate that the administrationtake full advantage of the professional andresearch expertise of its faculty, and openthe MIT 2030 process to its communityfor wide-ranging input and needed modi-fication. We know that this more trans-parent, collaborative, and openengagement works: such a process con-tributed to a smooth financial response tothe world-wide economic crisis, and thatkind of engagement will help convert theMIT 2030 “process” to a visionary plan.

The following questions purposefullydo not add up to a single opinion, butweave together suggestions and concernsbased on our research in design and plan-ning. We urge consideration of commu-nity and housing issues, quality of life,and integration with regional plans thatare not evident in the current MIT 2030[web.mit.edu/mit2030] and KendallSquare Initiative [www.kendallsquareini-tiative.org] Websites. We also advocatefor an open and transparent process informulating a viable plan for MIT’sfuture.

1) MIT 2030 is insistently “not a plan, buta process,” an appropriate demurral when

research objectives, tools, and methodschange as rapidly as they do on the edge ofinnovation. But not having a plan is not along-term solution. How can the shiftingprojections of spatial needs become a flex-ible, achievable, visionary plan, withattention to views, perimeters, gateways,24-hour life, and community?

2) The MIT 2030 documentation isdriven primarily by programmaticimperatives and economic considerationsthat can be captured quantitatively; howcan MIT 2030 better reflect qualities andconsider broader spatial constructs thataddress life at the Institute? How can MIT2030 both address and build community,making MIT an even more desirableplace to be?

3) What does MIT want to be 20-30 yearsfrom now? What are the existing typologiesof built and open space, and of landscape?How can we produce a long-range visionthat does not simply see space as a “left-over” to be filled by more buildings, or rawmaterial for real estate? MIT, of all places,

should be intelligently adventurous.4) Can the need for housing in Cambridge

be incorporated into MIT 2030, in part-nership with the state and city, to foster adense residential development on theperipheries of MIT property? This wouldcreate a more diverse environment, sup-porting shops, eating places and a 24-hour life, which adding only academicspace and more non-MIT research facili-ties cannot provide.

5) Image projection is one of MIT’s majorissues, which MIT 2030 could address.How can our physical structures andinformational infrastructures better com-municate the sense of the MIT spirit toour students, our local community, andthe world? Can we partner with the Cityof Cambridge in its current study ofCentral Square, to address the fact that theapproach to MIT along Mass. Ave. (fromLafayette Square) is the least successfulpart of this major thoroughfare?

6) The MIT 2030 flyover reflects MIT’shistorical orientation toward the CharlesRiver. Can we turn 180 degrees and re-conceptualize MIT’s orientation? How

Caroline A. Jones*Twenty to Thirty Questions About MIT 2030

offered to the MIT community by the SAPiens (an assemblage ofarchitects, planners, and historians in SA+P – the School ofArchitecture and Planning)

The MIT 2030 documentation is driven primarily byprogrammatic imperatives and economic considerationsthat can be captured quantitatively; how can MIT 2030better reflect qualities and consider broader spatialconstructs that address life at the Institute? How canMIT 2030 both address and build community, makingMIT an even more desirable place to be?


7

might its 21st century developmentengage with the City of Cambridge,including our neighbors in publichousing as well as commercial firms? Canwe begin to clarify the difference betweenthe historic core and the West side,between edges such as Memorial Drive orspines such as Vassar Street? Whichareas/places are those of lively interactionand which are for nature and tranquility?How does technology and innovative con-struction factor into the open space andlandscape design?

7) Where is design in the MIT 2030 plan?It seems that design is still considered adecoration to be applied in the final stagesof individual buildings. By contrast, archi-tects see design as a fundamental compo-nent of large-scale conceptualization:urban planning, relations to energysystems, coordination of green integu-ment, and instigations of lasting culturalchange. A bias for design would help theMIT 2030 plan become less bureaucraticand more visionary.

8) Should we accept MIT 2030’s concep-tion of the Institute as a series of separatebuildings, or use the planning process torecall the genius of Bosworth’s originaland highly flexible idea? The original 1913designs envisioned a grand intercon-nected structure conceived in oppositionto the idea of the normative collegecampus (a stretch of land populated byindependent buildings with separatefunctions). MIT’s 1913 facility, the largestacademic structure in the world when itwas built, remained highly adaptive andflexible for half a century. Today’s Biomedicallabs are vastly different from Humanitiesbuildings, but can the original flexibilitybe recaptured? As buildings become moreand more specialized they will becomemore self-limiting.

9) Almost every building on campus iscentered in on itself, and on its own inter-nal corridors. How can we improve larger-scale continuities across the campus,across building lobbies, and courtyards?(Such continuities can concern themselves

with materials, vegetation, rainwater man-agement, etc.) The purpose would be tothink of the Institute as a set of dynamicfunctions and integrated spaces ratherthan fragmented ones, an integration thatwill not produce itself automatically.

10) MIT encompasses both practical andsymbolic spaces – how will MIT 2030think through both of these imperatives?Unlike the traditional university, MIT hasmany courts (not a “quad”) and manyspaces that exist at an unprecedentedscale. This scale often dwarfs existingbuildings – as in the West Campus areabounded by Saarinen, Aalto, and Hollstructures (with the dorms stretchingbeyond to Sidney Street, etc.). Can wereconfigure the sport fields to integratethe structures that surround their chainlink perimeter into a unified sub-campusenvironment, or even consume some oftheir space for social activitybuildings? How can this otherwise feature-less domain-in-between be given identity andsymbolic meaning?

11) Will the current plan accommodatethe tactical choices of the last fivedecades, in which buildings have beenput here or there, each dedicated to a spe-cific purpose (and each in a completelydifferent design language)? Or, since spe-cific purposes and even interdisciplinarygroupings are doomed to become obso-lete, can we use MIT 2030 to urge arethinking of the building as a unit?The recently completed North Court is apromising beginning – can it beimproved from a simple crossing of walk-ways and be reconceived as a quad con-ceptually enhancing Killian Court?

12) What would happen if we couldimagine the MIT environment as a seriesof outside spaces reconfigured to link andintegrate the separated buildings onceagain? Perhaps in some remedial way thespace around and behind the Calder

could be redesigned so that the Killian,McDermott, and North Courts wouldconstitute an inner spine that then couldget linked to the new sites to the north.One thinks of Olmsted’s famous concep-tion of an “emerald necklace” forBoston. Adding a few trees here and thereto the front of buildings is not enough; weneed to understand how public spaceknits life, work, and learning together asinterrelated activities. We can begin byvaluing, enhancing, and structuring theinterstitial public spaces that we have.

13) How might the “campus landscape”be creatively re-envisioned as an “urbanecosystem?” The MIT 2030 profile fea-tures an emergent Great Circle around theNorth Court with a strong emphasis onbiological and allied sciences. How mightthis area of campus, and other areas,become “ecological laboratories” whereexperimentation extends beyond the wallsof the buildings? The bioswale behindStata might be a beginning, but howmight MIT move toward dramatic instru-mentation and experimentation in thecampus as a living, learning laboratory?

14) The CSX railway corridor, whichdefines MIT’s northern border, is both abarrier and a potential resource. How canthe MIT property on the other side of therail lines be woven into the rest of the

Where is design in the MIT 2030 plan? It seems thatdesign is still considered a decoration to be applied inthe final stages of individual buildings. By contrast,architects see design as a fundamental component oflarge-scale conceptualization: urban planning, relationsto energy systems, coordination of green integument,and instigations of lasting cultural change.

continued on next page


8

campus, particularly for pedestrians?There is presently no access to those areasafter Mass. Ave., yet there are gaps in thewall defined by Metropolitan Storage,West Garage, etc. MIT owns the air rightssome eight meters above the rail corridor,which can yield a very large volume offloor space for campus and other expan-sion (as in the example of the Brain andCognitive Science building) and changethe form of both the campus andMassachusetts Avenue.

15) In a related question, how can the tra-ditionally internal focus of MIT buildingsand the “transportation” conception ofthe outdoor spaces (crosswalks, sidewalks,asphalt) be radically rethought? How canthe planning process encourage the prolif-eration of external openings, buffer zones,and vital small businesses (cafes, galleries,bookstores) or even non-governmentaland international organizations and not-for-profits that will mesh public and uni-versity spaces, contributing to the life ofour wider community?

16) What can we do to integrate addi-tional programs into the campus, in orderto enliven its spaces when there are noclasses or in the evening, and in doing soincrease a sense of liveliness, safety, andsecurity? Can spaces and zones for public/university partnerships be incorporatedinto the plan? Can MIT partner with theCity or non-profit cultural groups toensure that its peripheries and surround-ing community areas become green, well-lit, and comfortable to be in at all hours?

17) MIT is neither a fully urban universitynor a traditional campus built on themonastery model – how can its status as asprawling institution with urban edges beleveraged to bring “contaminant urban-ity” within reach of students and faculty?A different kind of investment and urbanvision, not based on current real estatemodels, will be needed if MIT is to enable

more than a food court culture. (Thevibrant restaurants that have grown up inthe non-MIT-owned stretch of MainStreet offer a living laboratory for thisquestion to be tested.)

18) Can the MIT 2030 process serve toreopen questions with Boston, theCommonwealth of Massachusetts, andthe federal government about the pro-posed Boston inner urban ring publictransportation corridor (which wouldcross the river at the BU Bridge andconnect the Green and Red Lines)? TheCSX rail corridor (referenced above) iscrucial to this circular route, and MITmust keep on advocating for this metro-politan expansion as part of its long-termplans. Unlike Harvard but more like Tufts,MIT has at least two main access points:Mass. Ave. and the Kendall “T.” Can MIT2030 aggressively conceptualize the CSXrail corridor in order to rethink and rein-vent these urban nodes?

19) Why are we not conceiving an internalcirculation system for our increasinglysprawling campus, allowing the membersof the community to traverse it morequickly? Can we investigate moving side-walks? Shared bicycles? An internal taxisystem with small electric cars in dedi-cated lanes across the courtyards? TheTech Shuttle does not seem to be servingthese needs.

20) The retrofitting of our existing build-ing stock will be a major challenge in

order to meet our own evolving sustain-ability standards. Can the MIT 2030 planto cost, design, and sequence this bedynamically connected to the substantialcutting edge research being produced byour urbanists, engineers, and building

technologists around questions of sus-tainability?

21) MIT has the top-ranked UrbanStudies Program in the world; can thisresearch capacity be better utilized forthe conversion of MIT 2030 to a plan?How can MIT use the assets of its facultyand students to drive a more deliberativedevelopment process that avoids theclassic town/gown problems? Is it timeto have a strong urban designer come in,to give MIT 2030 a compelling visualnarrative?

22) The challenge of improving theinterface between the campus and thesurrounding community once seemed tofall within the purview of the MITExecutive Vice President for the physicalplant (who was given oversight of MITreal estate holdings). Is this charge nowpart of new EVP Israel Ruiz’s portfolio?Can the process for “moving to a plan” beclarified along with this new leadership?What has happened to the previous plan-ning proposals (from current facultysuch as Dennis Frenchman to outsidearchitect Robert Venturi)? Can these pro-posals be shared with the communityand opened to campus-wide debate anddiscussion?

Twenty to Thirty Questions About MIT 2030Jones, from preceding page

MIT is neither a fully urban university nor a traditionalcampus built on the monastery model – how can itsstatus as a sprawling institution with urban edges beleveraged to bring “contaminant urbanity” within reach ofstudents and faculty? A different kind of investment andurban vision, not based on current real estate models,will be needed if MIT is to enable more than a foodcourt culture.


9

23) Can the current plans for KendallSquare be reopened in light of MIT 2030?This major portal to the Institute sets upmuch bigger stakes than can be addressedby a few banners and signs. Kendall can bea laboratory for all the questions we havebeen asking: How can the Instituteencourage a more porous and yeastyurban edge? How can MIT partner withthe city to produce a destination that willallow students and faculty to engage withthe community? How can we produce thecircumstances for MIT culture (art,experiment, performance, science) tointerface with small-scale entrepreneurialurbanity (coffeehouses, performancespaces, the Kendall Cinema)?

24) The Kendall Square plan as it standsdoes present a vision for this importantgateway to the MIT campus. Can this planbe reconfigured to incorporate more thanreal estate and commercialism in its brief?A revised plan for Kendall Square shouldview architectural design as a tool thattransforms space and environments

through unprecedented ideas. We notethat the following words are missing fromthe current plan:

• civic• public• identity • invention• innovation• transformation

How can the Kendall plan better confrontthe civic, public, and iconic missions ofmaterializing the ambitions of a globalinstitution?

25) Both Kendall and MIT 2030 suggest aprocess driven by development rather thanwell-informed planning; the model antici-pates future revenues based on an unend-ing stream of real estate partners. How canMIT better utilize its collective intelligence(economic and urbanist)? Planners canthink through and visualize different eco-nomic contingencies, they can do timemodels based on good data already in

hand for the campus, city, region, andnation. Time taken now will save timewasted later, if these data can be tapped.

26) Discussions about an integratedcampus life have long included debatesabout faculty housing (especially foryoung faculty), about daycare, aboutschools (possibly associated with MIT likethe BU Academy), a viable faculty club,and so forth. How can MIT 2030 accom-modate a vision for housing related toMIT? Without such a vision we risk beingsurrounded by high-end condominiums,service industries, and office space, withthe campus a factory that producesworkers for the companies around it.

The firm of Elkus Manfredi Architects’ rendering of Kendall Square as presented to the City in March 2011 and illustrated on the MIT 2030 Website

*Caroline A. Jones, a Professor in theDepartment of Architecture ([email protected]),solicited a range of views from a collectivecalled here the SAPiens: School of Architectureand Planning faculty Stanford Anderson, JulianBeinart, Eran Ben-Joseph, Alexander D'Hooghe,John Fernandez, Dennis Frenchman, DavidHodes Friedman, Amy K. Glasmeier, MarkJarzombek, Nasser Rabbat, Bish Sanyal, NaderTehrani, Gediminas Urbonas, and Lawrence Vale.


10

Reprinted from the MIT Faculty Newsletter,Vol. XXIV No. 2, November/December 2011.

I N 1912, FRANCI S HART, the sixthtreasurer of MIT, oversaw the purchase of46 acres of land in Cambridge for the newcampus. The purchase cost was$775,000 or $17,000 per acre. Shortlythereafter, Coleman du Pont, a member ofthe MIT Corporation, argued for additionalland acquisitions and arranged for theacquisition of land west of MassachusettsAvenue for MIT’s future growth. Additionalland was purchased in the years that fol-lowed, for either immediate academic useor for investment use on an interim basis,awaiting the need for academic purposes.

These properties and others that followedwere purchased with the intent of leasingthem “as is” and if any improvements weremade they would be covered by tenantleases. The intent was to have the leaseincome write down the capital cost of theproperty, so that when it came time totransfer it into the academic category itscost would be low. The funds used to makethese purchases of property scheduled tobe held for future academic expansionwere held in Pool C, current investedfunds, rather than endowment funds.Thereby enabling below market transfers ofproperty to academic use when needed.

In addition, MIT solicited gifts of propertyfrom both the federal government and pri-vate companies, which were added to ourland inventory without a capital cost. AfterWWII, the federal government transferredseveral buildings to MIT that had beenacquired during wartime and were nowsurplus to the government’s needs. Inaddition, the Nabisco Company gifted toMIT a property on Albany Street thatallowed for the expansion of the Magnetand Fusion Laboratories. In similar fash-ion, the Atlantic Richfield Companydonated land on Massachusetts Avenueto MIT for Institute purposes. Many of thetenants of these low cost real estateinvestments were MIT faculty startupswho were able to afford the simple, lowcost space as they struggled to get theircompanies going.

A Long-Range PlanIn 1960, the Institute’s Long Range

Planning Committee commissioned thenewly established Planning Office to pre-pare a long-range plan for MIT, a plan thatwould deal not only with the then currentbuilding priorities, but would provide inte-grated strategies for the academic, residen-tial, social, financial, and community rela-tions needs of the Institute for the next 40years. This time frame reflected the expect-ed period of service for a newly tenured fac-ulty member. A key component of that effortwas a land acquisition plan identifying thearea that MIT should acquire for its long-term institutional needs and would ultimate-ly remove from the tax rolls. A parallel effortin this plan identified nearby areas whereMIT could assist the City in rebuilding itsthen dismal economic base, and replenishand enhance the City’s tax base. TheTechnology Square initiative was the firstexample of this policy. Simultaneous withMIT’s planning efforts, the City ofCambridge Planning Board and itsCitizen’s Advisory Committee had under-taken a review of the City’s plan and zoningordinance. MIT, working closely with theCity, was able to establish that the logicalareas for MIT expansion would remainsouth of Main Street and Sidney Street, andthat the Institute would seek to focus itsefforts at economic renewal for the Citynorth of Main Street and Sidney Street. Thisplan was enshrined in 1965 in the PlanningBoard’s publication “Land Use Goals forthe City of Cambridge,” as well as later inthe designation of an Institutional district forMIT in the Cambridge zoning ordinance.

Kendall Square Urban Renewal ProjectBy 1965, the initial success of theTechnology Square project attracted theattention of a team from NASA that wascharged with establishing an electronicsresearch center in the Boston area. Theirinterest in being close to MIT and otherinstitutions led to a Cambridge proposal,backed by MIT, to initiate the KendallSquare Urban Renewal Project that wouldclear much of the antiquated industrialbuildings in Kendall Square, provide a sitefor NASA’s needs, and reserve a 13-acrearea for private development. Their precar-ious financial condition in those days gavethe City pause, until MIT agreed to utilize aspecial provision of the urban renewal lawthat enabled Cambridge to have the valueof MIT land and buildings purchased with-

in a mile of the project area transferred toits account. Ultimately, this amounted to asum of $6.2 million in credits that the fed-eral government awarded the City ofCambridge, and made it possible forCambridge to undertake the project with-out financial risk. MIT, in turn, was requiredto commit itself to using the propertiesthat had been certified for these credits foreducational, research, and service purpos-es. MIT provided, as required by law, cam-pus development plans for these proper-ties, which were duly approved by the CityCouncil in 1965 and 1967. While all ofthese MIT sites lay outside the officialboundaries of the urban renewal projectarea, they did meet the federal require-ments and they also lay within the areathat had been established by theCambridge Planning Board and MIT asthe districts in which the Institute wouldconcentrate its campus development.

Since MIT would have to assemble the remain-ing land to fulfill this plan on the open market, itwas clear from the outset that the implementa-tion of the land acquisition plan would take along time; as much as 40 to 50 years. That pro-jection has been painfully accurate.

The implementation of the plan was theresponsibility of a real estate group in theMIT Treasurer’s Office. From time to time itsenergies were diverted to tasks that includ-ed MIT’s commitment to develop badlyneeded elderly housing for the CambridgeHousing Authority in 1971, and later for thecompletion of the land assembly required torationalize the properties acquired from theSimplex Wire and Cable Company onwhich the University Park Project would bebuilt. Notwithstanding those challenges, theInstitute was fortunate to have as itsTreasurer Glenn Strehle ’58, who placedPhillip Trussell ’56, an alumnus with deeployalty to the Institute and considerable realestate experience, in charge of the RealEstate Office. As an MIT staff officer,Trussell worked in close cooperation withthe Planning Office to implement the long-range Institute land assembly plan, as wellas lead the development of the UniversityPark project. This 20-year effort did not pro-duce significant short-term gains but isnow, with its combination of office, labora-tory, retail space, and over 650 units ofhousing, an important source of the higher

A Brief History of MIT’s Land Acquisition Policies


11

returns reported by the management com-pany’s real estate group. University Park isalso one of the City’s major taxpayers.

A Change in FocusThe change in the Real Estate Office’sfocus begins with the change in leadershipof the MIT Treasurer’s Office in the late1990s. When Allan Bufferd becameTreasurer, the focus of the Institute’s landacquisition program shifted from onewhose primary goal was the assembling ofland for future academic purposes, to onewhose primary goal was the managementand development of these properties tomaximize the return on investment, untilsuch time as it was needed for academicpurposes. At that time it could be pur-chased by the academic budget at its mar-ket value. The argument for this shift in pol-icy was, to some degree, based on theview that private real estate developers inthe vicinity of the Institute were profitingfrom the economic stimulation provided byMIT faculty and students, and that MITshould also seek to enjoy the possibilitiesfor significant returns in real estate devel-opment. In addition, the rising costs of landacquisition resulting in part from MIT’searly initiatives in Tech Square andUniversity Park and the growing success ofdevelopments in Kendall Square, suggest-ed a different “more business-like” view ofthe management of MIT’s land assets.

In a report prepared by the PlanningOffice in 1998, the issue was broughtinto sharp focus, when it pointed out theconflict between priorities for ensuringthe continuity of the academic landreserve program and the pursuit of invest-ment opportunities. The report stated thatone of the results of this shift was that theInstitute had failed to acquire some impor-tant properties that were key to its aca-demic future, because the return oninvestment was not high enough to meettheir benchmark for returns. The focuswas now clearly on purchasing propertyfor the investment portfolio, rather thanthe academic expansion portfolio. A num-ber of recommendations were made tofree the Treasurer to make land acquisi-tions for future academic needs, by pro-viding a different financing mechanismthat favored the needs of the academicland acquisition program. But, to date,this has not occurred.

MIT Investment Management CompanyIn the years that followed, Stephen Marshbecame the Director of the MIT RealEstate Office and, with the establishmentof the Investment Management Companyin 2004, land acquisition and manage-ment policies took a very different turn.The former MIT staff members of theTreasurer’s Office now became employ-ees of a separate MIT InvestmentManagement Company (MITIMCo). Theirnew levels of compensation were basedon market standards for investment man-agers and their total compensation basedon incentives for performance. While thisarrangement has become a commonpractice for some universities whoseendowment is principally in equities andother similar investments, it was new toMIT. A key result of this arrangement isthat the investment real estate group’semployees, whose incomes are based inpart on performance, were encouraged toseek maximum return for any landresource under their supervision.

In addition, the new MIT administration,under President Hockfield, called for theacceleration of improvements to the envi-ronment in East Campus between theSloan School and the MedicalDepartment. A plan for this area had beenprepared in 1998 consistent with MIT’slong-range academic, service, and envi-ronmental goals, but it was awaiting thecompletion of key land purchases beforegoing forward. It would have permitted thedevelopment of 600,000 to 800,000 sq.ft. of space for academic and research useand provided for over 115,000 sq. ft. inretail area. In addition, it provided for thedevelopment of 400 units of housing onthe Sloan School campus and a newgreen court for East Campus.

As noted above, Mr. Marsh and his col-leagues in the investment company have pro-posed to the City and the MIT community anew development plan for these propertiesthat had heretofore been reserved for aca-demic use. He submitted an amendment tothe zoning ordinance that would allow theaddition of approximately one million squarefeet of additional development. This develop-ment would be characterized by a series ofseparate buildings dominated by a 25-storyoffice/laboratory tower for commercial clientsto be located adjacent to the Kendall T Stop.

Since a substantial part of this area hadbeen certified by MIT to the City ofCambridge and to the federal governmentfor exclusive use as educational facilitiesas part of the underlying financing of theKendall Square Urban Renewal area, Mr.Marsh was informed of the potential con-flict between his proposal and theInstitute’s past commitments. The issuewas raised of the prospective conflictbetween future academic space needsthat required the transfer of investmentland to the academic portfolio, and thereduced revenues to the City ofCambridge when the projected high taxvalued real estate was removed from thetax roles in the future. MITIMCo’sresponse was to claim that the currentinventory of development rights for aca-demic purposes would be preserved inthe campus area in this proposal througha variety of mechanisms, primarily thedemolition of existing buildings, possiblyincluding the 270 apartments at 100Memorial Drive, and through the develop-ment of high rise buildings. Since highrise buildings for academic and researchpurposes have proven to be problematicat MIT – as witnessed by the EarthSciences Building – to depend on thattype of solution for the future needs care-ful scrutiny.

More troubling, has been the view held byMIT’s General Counsel that the Institute’scommitments to use the properties thatMIT had certified to the federal govern-ment and the Cambridge City Council foreducational purposes was no longer inforce, based on a letter from the deputycounsel of the regional office at HUD, aletter which indicated that the federal gov-ernment had no mechanism to enforcethis agreement, since the project hadbeen closed out with the City ofCambridge in 1984. This view is troublingfor at least two reasons. First, the govern-ment has in effect admitted that it did notperform its due diligence in ensuring thatMIT was in compliance with its commit-ments when the project contract withCambridge was closed out. Nor, in fact,did the City of Cambridge ensure thatMIT was in compliance at that or anyother time.

O. R. SimhaFormer MIT Planning Director


12

the higher order effects this will have onboth the faculty and student communitiesat MIT.

To be very clear, our institute hasshown significant commitment over thelast decade with regards to its develop-ment of housing and support of our resi-dential communities. In spite of theseefforts, we now face unprecedented exter-nal market forces which have the power toirrevocably damage the ways and places inwhich we live. Thus, if we aim to be pre-emptive, rather than simply reactionary,in addressing the rapid changes that areincreasingly taking place around us Ipropose here that we begin a collaborativeconversation among students, faculty,staff, and administrators to set forth avision for how our communities aredefined and how to sustain our vibrantand invaluable residential community inan ever-changing housing market.

Although most of our statistics havecome from studies of and on behalf of thegraduate student community, I believethere exist far more commonalitiesbetween the faculty and graduate com-munities than we might otherwiseacknowledge. For starters, approximately62% of graduate students live off campus.This amounts to over 4,000 graduate stu-dents living primarily in the cities ofCambridge (59%), Boston (13%), andSomerville (11%) [percentages are of thetotal number of students who live offcampus (4051). Numbers have an error ofapproximately +/- 2%] – the same neigh-borhoods in which a majority of facultyand staff currently reside. In addition tobeing neighbors, our demographics existsomewhere between undergraduates andfaculty in terms of our internationaldiversity (38% international), our maritalstatuses (31.6% with spouses or partners),and the number of households withdependents (~7% with dependents). Inother words, we frequently reside wherefaculty live, with families, and in adjacentstations of life. Thus, I hope that some ofmy message may find resonance with

many among the faculty.To get straight to the point: It is our

belief that, if left unchecked, theCambridge rental housing crisis will notonly have a profound effect on the qualityof life of our many off-campus MIT com-munity members, but it may alsomarkedly impact our ability to attract thetalent as well as maintain the level of pro-ductivity which fuel our academic pur-

suits. For these reasons, I propose that anhonest and frank conversation begin nowin order to equip us strategically tomanage the exogenous market as well asguide our current and future campus(and abutting land) development in thebest interests of our communities.

Understanding Off-Campus HousingThere are some who might cringe at myuse of the word “crisis,” noting that thehousing market is one which experiencesdifferent cycles and characteristic relax-ation times than would the demand onother land resources for commercial orindustrial uses. Though I would acknowl-edge that the housing market is indeedparticularly complex and dependent on anumber of inputs, I believe that all quan-titative indicators available speak to anincreasingly troubling trend: It is becom-ing nearly impossible to find, let aloneafford, housing in the City of Cambridge.This issue of availability and affordability

is poignantly demonstrated if we look atthe aggregated listings of rentals inCambridge and adjacent cities over thelast seven years. The data, collected by theMIT Off-Campus Housing Office, showsa 75% decline in the average number oflistings from a constant monthly samplingof the rental agencies in the area.

This trend is reinforced if we look atthe rental vacancy rates in the regions sur-

rounding MIT. Specifically, over the lastdecade, we have witnessed one of the mostprecipitous declines in vacancy rates inthe Northeast. While MIT and real estatedevelopers have expanded enrollment andcommercialized the lands ensconcingMIT, respectively, the housing marketlagged seriously behind. We are now facedwith a situation in which demand israpidly outpacing supply and those whowe’ve spent so much time and moneytrying to attract to the City of Cambridgeor MIT have little choice but to take upresidence (and pay taxes) elsewhere. Forcomparison, the rental vacancy rates inManhattan, and surrounding universitieslike Columbia and NYU, were hoveringsomewhere around 1.08% less than a yearago. In other words, it is likely just as hardnow to find an apartment in Cambridgeas it is in Manhattan.

Unsurprisingly, with decreasing supplyoften comes increasing prices. If we nor-malize back to 2007 we can see the diver-

Concerns Over Graduate Student HousingSpatocco, from page 1


13

gence between rent inflation in the imme-diate area (black and blue) and that of thesurrounding three-state region of Boston-Brockton-Nashua as measured in theBureau of Labor Statistics’ CPI calcula-tions (red).

If we then look at the real prices paidby graduate students as measured in the2007 and 2011 Cost of Living (CoL)Surveys conducted by the Office of theProvost/Institutional Research and jointlyfunded by the Graduate Student Counciland the Office of the Dean for GraduateEducation, we can tease out specificincreases experienced by various sub-groups or for different types of housing.

From this we can see that rents forSingle Off-Campus graduate studentshave increased an average of 4.23% peryear over the last four years. This is signifi-cantly higher than the ~1% increasesmeasured by the CPI data. As our Cost ofLiving and Off-Campus data sets are themost updated and complete publicly avail-able housing data (and inform our StipendRecommendation processes), we can saywith a high degree of confidence that thedevelopment and gentrification ofCambridge has resulted in an environ-ment that is not hospitable to a large pro-portion of our community. Thus, thediscussion around whether one should usethe word “crisis” is really a distraction fromthe quantifiable reality: Our community isincreasingly unable to live in the vibrantnexus of technology and entrepreneurshipthat we have developed for them.

Why should we care?I would assert that living next to one’splace of work is not simply a luxury, butcritical to research productivity in manyfields core to MITs portfolio, such as thelife sciences. To the first point, we knowfrom numerous studies that graduate stu-dents not only work late, but also returnhome by foot and most frequently alone(approximately > 80% travel alone). Thereason for this is that approximately 50%of graduates will depart from the lab after7:00 PM, a time at which a vast majorityof MBTA transportation options (Bus

Lines 64, 68, and 85) connecting the sur-rounding neighborhoods shut down. Putsimply, the nature and expectations ofmany community members’ jobs –working late hours in the lab, office,design studio, etc. – is one which is not atall accommodated by the 9-to-5 infra-structure built for the nonacademic

world. As a result, the ability to live awalking distance from campus is impor-tant to the safety, well-being, and qualityof life of the graduate and faculty commu-nity. In addition, the nature of research ischanging to one in which research time-lines are more fickle and demanding. Ifthe NIH’s expansion over the last decadeis any indicator, we’re likely conductingsignificantly more bio-related research atthe Institute than we were several decadesago. With this fundamental shift inresearch focus has come a commensuratechange in the way/times in which ourpopulation works. It is not unusual forgraduates or young faculty to return to thelab after dinner repeatedly until sunrise inorder to tend to some cell culture orgrowth. Thus we need to ask ourselves: Dowe really expect these students and facultyto commute from Arlington orWatertown several times in a night or arewe okay with the increasing number offutons we’ve begun to see in our labs andoffices?

A final point worth mentioning is theeffect that increasing housing prices anddecreasing availabilities may have upon

MIT’s competitiveness in attracting thebest and brightest graduate students. First,we have to recognize the evolving expecta-tions for housing which students are nowcarrying into their graduate school selec-tion. Residences like Simmons andMaseeh Hall are excellent examples ofhow our drive to provide elegant, conven-

ient, and fully equipped residences toundergraduates has grown in recent years,particularly in reference to the rest of ourundergraduate housing portfolio.Similarly, we have recognized this trendand our recent graduate housing stock(SP, Ashdown, Warehouse) reflects thischanging sentiment. Thus, prior to enter-ing, graduates are being increasinglycourted and coddled by their undergrad-uate institutions and as a result are unsur-prisingly looking for more than arun-down two-bedroom shack inWatertown.

On top of this, we also have to be con-scious of the fact that the graduate popu-lation, like that of the faculty, isincreasingly international. For thesegroups, the ability to acquire either on-campus housing or nearby off-campushousing is of extremely high priority, par-ticularly for those with no experience inour country, let alone the skills to apart-ment hunt in the surrounding cities. As aresult, both our incoming domestic aswell as international communities placeextremely high value on the ability to live



14

comfortably and close to campus. Alaissez-faire approach to off-campushousing will not help and may jeopardizeour ability to attract and retain the greatminds that have built our reputation andwill hopefully advance our mission in thefuture.

ConclusionIt would be uncharacteristic of the GSC toconclude this piece only having pointed tothe problem and having made a couple ofconcerned remarks. Instead, I write thistoday as a call to action. With the MIT2030 framework being opened to com-munity input, an unprecedented degree ofundergraduate-graduate-faculty commu-nication, and the transition to a newadministration at the Institute, I wouldlike to end by calling upon the leaders ofthe student, faculty, staff, and administra-tors to begin candid and public discus-sions on what their vision for a residentialcommunity welcoming to the academiclooks like and how we can work togetherto most effectively address the unprece-

dented external influences raised in thisarticle. There is no better juncture than

now to begin engaging both existingstructures (e.g., ODGE/DSL, InstituteCommittees, Facilities) as well as poten-tially developing new bodies whichfurther mobilize our members at a moregrassroots level. Specifically, I propose theformation of a Student-Faculty-Administration working group whosecharge would be to propose a vision foroff-campus communities and outline

actions to guide us in this uncertain andunkind market. Though this won’t be

easy, no MIT-worthy challenge ever is. If,indeed, our greatest common strength isin our inspired experimentalism, then Isee no reason why, in this case, we shouldshy away from the great living lab that isMIT.

Concerns Over Graduate Student HousingSpatocco, from preceding page

Cumulative Off-Campus Housing

Cost of Living Data

Consumer PriceIndex Data

Brian Spatocco is a third-year graduatestudent in Materials Science and is thePresident of the Graduate Student Council([email protected]).

Opening Doors: Honoring PhysicsProfessor Emerita Vera Kistiakowsky

A F O R U M H O N O R I N G MIT FacultyNewsletter Founder and PhysicsProfessor Emerita Vera Kistiakowskywas held on January 11, 2013. A physi-cist, teacher, mother, daughter, andmoral leader, in addition to her long-time work at MIT, Prof. Kistiakowskyestablished the Status of Women projectin the American Physical Society, andwas a founder of American Women inScience.

Co-sponsored by the Technology andCulture Forum, the MIT Department ofPhysics, and the Faculty Newsletter, thoseoffering praise and warm anecdotesincluded Prof. Edmund Bertschinger,Chair of the MIT Department ofPhysics, Vera’s daughter Prof. KarenFischer (Brown University GeologicalSciences), Prof. Lisa Steiner and Prof.Mary-Lou Pardue from the MITDepartment of Biology, and Prof. of

Biology and FNL Editorial Board ChairJonathan King.

Vera spoke briefly, recalling both theearly days of the Faculty Newsletter andother MIT experiences, as well as personalmemories of her life-long joy of mountainclimbing. Prof. Kistiakowsky was pre-sented with both a framed poster memo-rializing the event, and a collage ofphotographs and other memorabiliaassembled by her friends and family.


15

Soulaymane KachaniGraduate Student Association:Pressing Issues for Graduate Students

Reprinted from the MIT Faculty Newsletter,Vol. XIII No. 2, October/November 2000.

OVE R TH E PAST FIVE YEAR S, thecost of living for MIT students hasincreased dramatically. Stipends, however,have not. We are now in a situation wheregraduate students can barely break even atthe end of each month, simply afterpaying for rent and feeding.

The Institute is being made aware of thisproblem. Recently, the MIT senior admin-istration has been trying to address thisissue. For example, the approval of con-struction for the NW30 and the Sydney-Pacific dormitories will remove some ofthe pressure on the tight Cambridge andSomerville housing markets and willprovide nearly 900 graduate studentsopportunities for more affordablehousing close to campus.

However, the financial loss of the currentMIT housing system is a burden that theadministration is no longer ready to carry.Executive Vice President Curry andChancellor Bacow are working towardsachieving self-sustainability of thehousing system. The plan is to increaseon-campus rents by as much as fivepercent a year for the next five years.Compounding this increase over the fiveyears will constitute a significant chunk ofthe graduate students' stipend.

Then, there is the cost of feeding. Theprice of meals in the MIT dining system(Lobdell, Networks, and Walker) havereached levels higher than neighboringcafes and restaurants (Au Bon Pain,

Rebecca's, Thailand Cafe). Given thatgraduate students spend a large part oftheir time on campus, and dine in thenearest available facilities (i.e., theLobdells and the Rebeccas), another sig-nificant part of the stipend is spentfeeding on campus. Deducting the rentand the cost of meals leaves very little ornothing in terms of pocket money forpurchasing study items (text books, sta-tionery, etc.) and for entertainment.

Other schools similar to MIT, likeStanford and Northwestern, for example,offer significantly higher stipends not onlyto adequately cover for rent and feedingbut also to leave behind more “pocketmoney” for students. This very stark con-trast makes it harder for MIT to attract thebest and brightest graduate students.

The MIT Graduate Student Council(GSC) is advocating an increase in stipendrates. As part of this increase, our numberone priority is to achieve coverage of MIThealth insurance for all graduate students.Other peer institutions already offer thisbenefit to their students. Up to 20-30percent of research grants can help covermedical insurance and decrease the costfor MIT.

Medical insurance coverage and stipendincrease are actively endorsed by Dr. IsaacM. Colbert, dean for Graduate Students,and Dr. Larry Benedict, dean for StudentLife.

The current situation is critical andrequires firm action. A lot of courage isrequired on the part of the faculty and the

senior administration to approve theabove issues. This will prove your genuineconcern for caring about the quality of lifeof graduate students. It will also ease theproblems of recruiting talented students.Please help us achieve this goal.

Recently, the GSC passed a Funding Policyresolution and passed it on to the faculty.If approved by the faculty, this resolutionwill require graduate students who receivefunding from a research advisor to meetwith their advisor, once a term, before TAapplication deadlines, to discuss theirfunding situation. At the meeting, theadvisor would complete a form indicatingif he/she is/not going to fund the studentfor the following term or if he/she is notsure about it. This latter situation mayoccur when a faculty member is not sureof a funding source or when he/she is nottotally satisfied with the performance ofthe student and requires some tasks to beaccomplished before the term ends.

Several departments, like MaterialSciences and Engineering and MechanicalEngineering require such meetings everysemester. These meetings, in addition,pave the way for dialogue between thegraduate students and their advisorsabout funding and other relevant issues.In case there is no funding available orthere is a doubt, students can duly look forother research opportunities or apply forteaching assistantship positions in time.

Please help support this resolution as itwill definitely contribute to a healthyresearch experience.


16

Jonathan KingGraduate Student Life, ResearchProductivity, and the MITIMCo Proposal

Reprinted from the MIT Faculty Newsletter,Vol. XXV No. 2, November/December 2012.

The value of a residential campusF E W FAC U LT Y, S T U D E N T S , O R

administrators doubt the advantage of aresidential campus over a commutercampus for undergraduate education.The ability of students-in-residence tocontinuously interact with each other,with their TAs, with grad students andfaculty in UROP projects, provides adeeply enriched educational environ-ment, compared to a dispersed commut-ing campus. This is even truer forgraduate students. Particularly for thosegraduate students whose theses requirehands-on work (e.g., in biology, chem-istry, chemical engineering, and manyother experimental disciplines), the inter-action of students with each other, withpostdoctoral fellows and research techni-cians, is absolutely critical for optimalresearch productivity. In addition, manygraduate students have to be able to spendextended and irregular time with theirexperiments, unrelated to the rhythms ofthe conventional workday.

The MIT 2030 Task Force report notesthe absence of housing needs or goals inthe MIT 2030 plan, and calls for a study ofhousing needs of MIT graduate students,faculty and staff.

Many leading research universitieshouse a significant fraction of their gradu-ate students on campus. For some strongresearch universities, low graduate studentresidence numbers are misleading, as thecampuses are surrounded by residentialneighborhoods providing graduate

student housing adjacent to campus.Though there are few studies on the rela-tionship between graduate student resi-dences and research productivity, there arevery few full commuter campuses in thetop tier of research universities.

The graduate student housingdilemma

With limited on-campus graduatehousing, more than half of MIT graduatestudents have to secure housing offcampus. Unfortunately, the increased costof housing in Cambridge is causing con-siderable distress for our graduate stu-dents. As described in the May/June issueof this Newsletter [“Concerns Over theLack of Graduate Student Housing in theMIT 2030 Plan”], vacancy rates inCambridge are around 1%, among thelowest in the nation. Given the commer-cial development in Cambridge, housingcosts are very high and increasing signifi-

cantly faster than graduate studentstipends. Graduate students cannotcompete financially with employees ofNovartis, Shire, Pfizer, Microsoft, orGoogle.

One consequence of this is that ourstudents are being pushed further awayfrom the campus, resulting in an everincreasing time spent commuting, andsignificantly decreasing their productivetime on campus. In practice, many stu-dents are limited to housing that is nearthe Red Line or other public transit, withattendant higher rents. Furthermore, asmany faculty know, commuting by carinto and out of Cambridge, across the BUBridge, through the Alewife Brook inter-change, on McGrath Highway, or throughUnion Square, meets with increasing con-gestion. If the proposed developments inKendall Square, Central Square, AlewifeBrook, and North Point – on the order of18,000,000 square feet – are built, the

MIT Graduate Student and Postdoctoral Fellow Populations

Graduate Students1 ~6600Living Off Campus2 ~4000Living In Cambridge2 ~2400

Postdocs3 ~1400

1Current academic year2Prior academic years3Residence data not available for postdoctoral fellows. Most presumably live off campus.

Sources: web.mit.edu/facts/faqs.html; http://web.mit.edu/mitpostdocs/index.html; web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/245/spatocco.html.


17

number of auto trips/day into and out ofCambridge will increase by more than50,000, with a similar increase in Red Lineand bus trips. Given that the Red Line isalready close to saturation point, and thecritical road interchanges are alreadyheavily congested, commuting to andfrom MIT is going to be more and moretime consuming. Thus it is not practicalfor graduate students who have to spendconsiderable time with their experimentsto try to lower their rents by living outsideof Cambridge.

The solution is campus graduatestudent housing

The solution – just as for undergradu-ates – is to build sufficient housing on thecampus. Many of our nation’s leadingresearch universities have followed thispath.

President Vest’s administration lis-tened to the housing concerns of graduatestudents [see: MIT Faculty Newsletter, Vol.13 No. 2, “Pressing Issues for GraduateStudents”] and launched an effort toincrease on-campus graduate studenthousing to 50% of the need. This resultedin the renovation of 224 Albany Streetinto graduate housing and the construc-tion of the Pacific Street housing. Thatwas an important step in the right direc-tion, but the initiative was not sustainedunder President Hockfield. That pathshould be pursued by building additionalgraduate student housing. Campus spaceto the northwest between MassachusettsAvenue and Main Street has already beenleased for 40- and 60-year periods toPfizer and Novartis. That leaves the MITland between Main Street and MemorialDrive on the East Campus as the mostnatural area for new construction of grad-uate residences.

The MITIMCo proposal ignores gradu-ate student housing needs and itsrelation to research productivity

Unfortunately, MIT 2030 and theMITIMCo up-zoning proposal ignorethis need. In particular, the MITIMCoproposal focuses on building commercial

offices on campus land, which will beleased for long terms as a source ofincome. No student housing has beenincluded in any of the MITIMCo presen-tations to the Cambridge Planning Board.This lack of housing was sharply criticizedat the Planning Board hearing by bothrepresentatives of the East Cambridge andKendall Square communities, and byMIT’s Graduate Student Council. It isperhaps not surprising that real estateexecutives who have driven the MITIMCoproposal would be insensitive to issueslike graduate student housing. In addi-tion, there is an intrinsic conflict of inter-est with MITIMCo’s real estate managersreceiving much larger bonuses from long-term commercial leases than from build-ing affordable graduate student housing.These are among the many reasons MITneeds a standing Campus PlanningCommittee of faculty, administrators,

staff, and students, as suggested by thefaculty MIT 2030 Task Force in theirclosing section.

The MIT 2030 plan focuses on theincome generated from the commercialleases. But real estate profits can be real-ized in many venues in the Boston area,

elsewhere in the U.S., and abroad.Graduate student housing is only of useto MIT if it is on the campus or in closeproximity. In addition, a significant frac-tion of MIT income – overhead onresearch grants – depends on graduatestudent productivity. Reducing thequality of life and productivity of a sig-nificant fraction of MIT’s graduate stu-dents has real costs, even though theymay not be easy to assess. At a minimum,the MITIMCo up-zoning proposalshould be put on hold until the Provost’sTask Force on Community Engagementin 2030 Planning has been digested bythe faculty and graduate students, andthe redesign called for has been assessedand adopted.

In particular, the MITIMCo proposal focuses on buildingcommercial offices on campus land, which will be leasedfor long terms as a source of income. No studenthousing has been included in any of the MITIMCopresentations to the Cambridge Planning Board. Thislack of housing was sharply criticized at the PlanningBoard hearing by both representatives of the EastCambridge and Kendall Square communities, and byMIT’s Graduate Student Council.

Jonathan King is a Professor of Biology andChair of the MIT Faculty Newsletter EditorialBoard ([email protected]).


18

Israel RuizMartin Schmidt

MIT 2030: A Capital Planning Frameworkfor the Future

Reprinted from the MIT Faculty Newsletter,Vol. XXIV No. 4, March/April 2012. [Onegraphic omitted due to space constraints.]

TH E NOVE M B E R / D ECE M B E R 2011

issue of the Faculty Newsletter (FNL) fea-tured a number of articles about MIT 2030.We appreciate having this opportunity toreflect on the engagement that hasoccurred to date, and to renew our com-mitment to fully engage the MIT commu-nity in this ongoing conversation.

In listening to the comments and con-cerns of the community regarding MIT 2030,we have heard a couple of overarchingthemes that we wish to address. We agreethat it is of the utmost importance toensure that MIT will pass on an outstand-ing physical campus and surroundingenvironment to future generations, and indoing this we are mindful of two princi-ples moving forward:

1. Ensuring that the academic needs ofMIT remain at the forefront of planningpriorities;

2. Engaging the campus community inMIT’s planning efforts is critical to ourlong-term success.

MIT 2030 is intended to be a frame-work to assist the Institute in makingthoughtful, well-informed choices aboutdevelopment and renewal in the yearsahead for both the campus and the inno-vation district close by. It is intended to beflexible and responsive, to provide struc-ture without limiting possibilities, and toaccommodate new strategic initiatives, asyet unknown, that will need to be sup-ported in the future.

While five projects have emerged asearly areas of planning focus: nano mate-rials, structures and systems (nMaSS),energy and environment, and the renova-tion of E52, Walker Memorial Hall andsections of Building 2 – this is only the

beginning of the many opportunities thatcan be addressed within the MIT 2030framework.

These five initial priorities resultedfrom an extensive planning effort thatbegan with an academic visioning processin 2008. It continued as we worked totranslate the vision into the physical needsof the campus, assessing building condi-tions, and projecting space needs based onprogrammatic requirements and availablecampus capacity. During calendar year2010, close to 50 discussions took place toengage the community about campus andKendall Square planning efforts. Thesemeetings involved Academic Council, anopen faculty forum, numerous discussionswith Deans and Department Heads acrossall five Schools, and planning sessions withSchool of Architecture and Planningfaculty. All of MIT’s senior leadership wereengaged in the planning process. Movingforward, we see many opportunities toengage the faculty more broadly in refin-ing and developing this framework, andwe are committed to seeing that happen.

While MIT 2030 is all about lookingforward, we believe that the instincts thatdrive it are as old as the Institute itself. MIThas long used its physical space not merelyto allow for teaching and research, but alsoto inspire. The Great Dome is there for areason: its architect, William Bosworth,wanted a focal point for the campus thatwould have us all setting our sightsupward. Nearly 100 years after the domewent up, the glass walls in the Media Labinvite fascination, and the composition ofthe Koch Institute for Integrative CancerResearch – half life scientists and half engi-neers – is its own breathtaking statementabout MIT’s belief in the power of conver-gence. The campus has always been aninspiring place, and guided by MIT 2030,we will seek to keep it that way.

Accelerating the Power of Innovation The recent FNL articles may have sug-gested that MIT’s academic campus andour investment properties are in competi-tion, or that we may be losing sight of theprimacy of our academic mission, but webelieve that the two work together toenhance innovation and opportunity. Thearea around MIT is almost unique inhaving MIT as the center of gravity thatattracts innovative talent and companies,from startups to established researchenterprises, to the neighborhood. Thelines between academic disciplines,between academic and industry research,are more porous than ever.

Four themes express the vision of MIT2030. (Visit the MIT 2030 Website to learn more about these themes:web.mit.edu/MIT 2030/.)

• Innovation and collaboration • Renovation and renewal • Sustainability • Enhancement of living and learning

The theme of innovation and collabo-ration is the foundation of our campusplanning, and continues MIT’s longstand-ing relationship with industry, which hashelped to transform Kendall Square andhad a great impact on the Cambridgelandscape with developments inTechnology Square and University Park.Kendall Square has become a magnet fortalented people and innovative companieswho understand MIT and want to collab-orate with us. The result is an innovationdistrict able to accelerate the power ofinvention and innovation with an ecosys-tem of small inventive companies andlarger research-intensive organizationsthat are perfectly aligned with ourmission. Together, this ecosystem providesopportunities for advancing the mission


19

of MIT, entering into promising researchcollaborations, offering internship oppor-tunities, and opening employmentoptions for our graduating students.

It should be noted that all parcels thatabut the campus under consideration fordevelopment, whether for academic orinvestment purposes, require the sameoversight process through our governancestructure. This includes review andendorsement by the Committee for theReview of Space Planning (CRSP), theBuilding Committee, and the ExecutiveCommittee, and this process is followedrigorously to ensure that academic inter-ests are protected.

Working together with the BuildingCommittee over these past decades, andwith the oversight of MIT’s leadership, wehave been able to meet the needs of ourfaculty and students for the most advancedlaboratory settings and research environ-ments. Over the years and after carefulanalysis of available parcels and academicneeds, we have been able to offer some landin close proximity to campus for develop-ment by industry over a well-defined time-frame, without seriously limitingopportunities to transfer leased propertyback to the academic plant when needed.

Engaging Each Other in theConversationWe share the belief that MIT 2030’ssuccess depends on it being a true collab-oration between MIT’s faculty and

administration. We also believe thatstudent participation is critical.

As we work to keep pace with theInstitute’s evolving needs, the guiding princi-ples that steered us through the recent finan-cial crisis will continue to guide us here.

We personally know how well MITdoes when we bring people together tosolve problems, having served together asco-chairs of the Institute-wide PlanningTask Force, formed in response to thefinancial crisis of 2008. The Task Force ofover 200 members of the MIT commu-nity was dedicated to finding creativesolutions to the problem of cutting spend-ing. MIT met the challenge successfullybecause it relied on its collective wisdom,with the principles of transparency andinclusiveness assuring an open dialog.

In addition to the five initial areas offocus, we have begun planning for how toinvest in capital renewal, and we lookforward to engaging the community inthis process. We will work to ensure thatall areas of student life are considered, andthat academic and student priorities aremet. The Chancellor and the Dean forStudent Life, as well as the academic andeducation deans, will be integral to thisprocess that will allocate $250M for accel-erated capital renewal over the next threeyears, so that we may begin to address theoverall deferred maintenance backlog.Moving forward, we want to renew andexpand our commitment to ensuring thatengagement occurs around specificcharges and questions that are importantto the Institute and its planning efforts,and that we all benefit by everyone’s col-lective input, ingenuity, and creativity. Aswe work to create ongoing opportunitiesfor greater input we will also find betterways to share the input we receive.

MIT 2030: Moving Forward In reading the recent FNL and editorialsin The Tech we understand that ourfaculty and many of our students have aprofound interest in MIT 2030, and wewelcome the input and collaborationfrom all aspects of our community. Overthe near term faculty and student inputwill be especially important as we begin

the planning process in the areas of teach-ing and learning, residential life and openspace, and as we continue to work to revi-talize Kendall Square.

The Working Group on the Future ofTeaching and Learning Spaces at MIT,chaired by Professor John Brisson, hasbeen convened to create a strategic planfor educational space needs at theInstitute as envisioned by the faculty. Inaddition, Eric Grimson and ChrisColombo have initiated a study of futurerenovation needs for existing studenthousing, including related opportunitiesfor informal learning and discovery.

We are also working with the Chair ofthe Faculty Samuel Allen to create oppor-tunities to engage the Faculty PolicyCommittee and the broader faculty atmonthly Institute faculty meetings or othervenues. We will pursue opportunities fordialog at Deans and Department Headmeetings, and will communicate aboutongoing efforts through future issues of theFaculty Newsletter and increased coveragefrom the MIT News Office.

We will also work to engage students inthese discussions. The editorial in theFebruary 10 edition of The Tech urges stu-dents to take an active interest in 2030,and we echo that sentiment. We will workwith the Chancellor and Deans forGraduate Education, UndergraduateEducation, and Student Life, as well asstudent leadership to create opportunitiesfor students to get involved.

In closing, we want to affirm our com-mitment to creating increased forums foropen dialog and fruitful engagement withthe MIT community about MIT 2030concepts and future directions for ourcampus planning activities. We embracethe opportunities to draw upon theexpertise of the faculty in the planningprocess and to incorporate student inputin the design and character of ourcampus, and we look forward to continu-ing the conversation.

Israel Ruiz is Executive Vice President andTreasurer ([email protected]);Martin Schmidt is a Professor of ElectricalEngineering and Computer Science andAssociate Provost ([email protected]).

SpaceProposals

ProjectProposals

PlanningProposals

CRSP

ProposedCapital

Projects (>$5M)

Building Committee

Executive Committee

MIT 2030Framework

Planning Process


20

Editorial SubcommitteeEditorialSave MIT Campus Land for Academic, Not Commercial, Uses

Reprinted from the MIT Faculty Newsletter,Vol. XXIV No. 5, May/June 2012.

M IT I S M UCH MOR E than the sum ofits classrooms, laboratories, dormitories,and recreational facilities. And yet thisinfrastructure of land and buildings iscritical for our health. We have grave con-cerns over several aspects of the proposalsfrom the MIT Investment ManagementCorporation (MITIMCo) for the pre-dominantly commercial development ofthe east end of the MIT academic campus.

The MITIMCo proposal transfersunique remaining campus land resources– acquired for MIT’s future educationaland research needs – to commercial appli-cations for periods on the order of half acentury. The land available for MIT aca-demic expansion in the north campusbetween Massachusetts Avenue and MainStreet has already been leased to commer-cial tenants for 40- and 60-year periods.The new proposal prepares the way tomake comparable long-term leases onMIT’s precious remaining land resourceson the east end of campus. Future devel-opment of educational, housing, recre-ation, and academic research facilities willbe sharply constrained. This is the lastremaining land available for campus-based uses. Implementation ofMITIMCo’s plan has the potential to doserious and irreversible damage to MIT’sfuture educational and research missions.

We recognize that the MITIMCo devel-opment will generate substantial real estateinvestment returns to MIT’s endowment.However, returns on astute real estate

investment can be had all over the U.S. andin many cities outside the U.S. Land forMIT campus development in Cambridge isunique and irreplaceable. Using it solely togenerate financial returns neglects theenormous opportunity cost incurred if welose MIT’s options for future expansionand development of our current commu-nity learning and living centers. This seemsto us to be fundamentally unsound.

Many of our concerns have been raisedin the Faculty Newsletter, web.mit.edu/fnl/,with articles related to “MIT 2030” byknowledgeable faculty and staff in theNovember/December 2011 issue. Ageneral response from the administrationappeared in the March/April 2012 issue,but the following concerns are not directlyaddressed:

• The plan was developed without properand critical input from MIT’s faculty,staff, and students. The process evenfailed to incorporate the advice andexperience of MIT faculty who arenational experts on urban development.

• The very serious housing needs of ourgraduate students, staff, postdoctoralfellows, and (especially younger) facultyhave been given low priority. In fact, theinitial plan included only 60 units ofhousing, ignoring the serious analysisand request from the Graduate StudentCouncil (GSC) for substantial newhousing, and earning the hostility of ourEast Cambridge neighbors. (See relatedarticle by the GSC president, page 10[page 1 of current issue].)

• The proposal fails to seriously considerthe impact of the resulting tens of thou-sands of increased daily auto and transittrips into and out of Kendall Square onthe ability of MIT faculty, students, andstaff to get to and from the Institute.

• The proposal may violate prior agreementsbetween MIT, the City of Cambridge, andthe federal government, risking substantialliability.

We fear that MITIMCo’s separationfrom responsibility for MIT’s educationaland research integrity has contributed tothe imbalanced proposal. We are also con-cerned that the substantial participationin plan development by individuals whomay stand to gain directly in proportionto the size of the commercial development introduces conflict of inter-est issues, and departs from traditionalMIT decision-making processes.

We believe the MIT Corporation should instruct MITIMCo to refrain from submitting the zoning petition they apparently plan to place before theCambridge Planning Board until there has been a fuller and more careful furtherreview by a faculty committee that includes DUSP representatives as well asstudent and staff constituencies. This will allow a more thorough, thoughtful, long-term plan for irreplaceable land resourcesthat are crucial for MIT’s future.

Editorial Subcommittee (six members ofwhich are Cambridge residents)


21

ing process for Kendall Square and toadvise more generally how faculty inputcould be achieved in the MIT 2030process.

FNL: Do you think that this could havebeen handled more effectively from thebeginning or do you believe that MITIMCo[MIT Investment Management Company]taking the lead was an appropriate way forMIT to approach this type of thing?

TK: I think we all agree it would have beenbetter for the faculty to be working withMITIMCo and other professionals on thestaff right from the beginning, but that’snot what happened. And so when we wereasked to get involved, our approach was toreview where we were and then to go fromthere. To start all over would have been awaste of resources because we have goodprofessionals in MITIMCo and within theadministration who had been working onthis very intensively for quite a while, andwe didn’t want to throw out the goodwork that they had done, nor be limited towhat they had done.

FNL: Then when moving forward withadditional projects or additional planning,would you recommend an Institute-widePlanning Committee or some similar structure?

TK: That’s the issue we’re working onright now. We’re thinking about what theright structure will be for faculty, students,and others in the community importantto the planning process. Exactly whatstructure that will take is something thatwe’ll report on sometime this term.

FNL: Right now the administration makesall the final planning decisions. Do youthink that might change in the future?

TK: On issues like this, all committees areadvisory to the provost and the president,

and that’s appropriate. This is an MITadministrative strategy on how to use itsresources to build the campus, design thecampus and invest in properties close orfar away from the campus. That shouldstay as a president, provost, andCorporation responsibility for this. Thefaculty’s role should be to provide expertadvice and to be taken seriously whilebringing the community’s voice to theprocess.

FNL: So to what extent do you think thevoices of the faculty and the communitywere heard in the MITIMCo planningprocess, and how does the Task Force plan toproceed in the future?

TK: The first and most important thingwas to solicit input in the Task Forcedeliberations, and we heard from manypeople who really care about these issuesand who have expertise on housing, ontransportation, on real estate, on thefuture of the campus. That was prioritynumber one. Priority number two wasmaking sure that our report was dissemi-nated widely to the community and toagain solicit comments, suggestions, reac-tions. OK, that we did. The Provost dis-tributed the report as soon as he got it andhad a chance to read and react to it. Sothat was very positive. We then talked withthe Faculty Policy Committee [FPC]about it. It was also summarized at afaculty meeting, and we continue to meetwith faculty members as we go along. So Ithink we’ve got to do many and variedthings to get faculty input.

FNL: What about using a faculty meetingin particular to solicit input?

TK: We can use faculty meetings, but I’macutely aware that it’s very difficult to get arepresentative sample of faculty to cometo faculty meetings, unless there’s a crisis.We don’t see this as a crisis, but we’regoing to continue to look for ways to getinput – probably more discussion atfaculty meetings, maybe some special

faculty forums as we’ve done in the past,and other ways that faculty can suggest.

FNL: What about the sequence of eventsregarding MITIMCo presenting the up-zoning petition to the City of Cambridge?

TK: The sequence was that we issued thereport to the Provost in the first week ofNovember. The Provost took about aweek to absorb it and talk with his col-leagues, and then was immediately back tous to say he agreed with our analysis andour recommendations and in fact wantedus to go beyond what we recommended,and to work with MITIMCo to see if therecould be modifications of the draft peti-tion that they had in place. And so then wedid work with them pretty intensively forabout a three-week time period, and theydid make modifications right up until afew days before their submission of thepetition. So MITIMCo responded to ourreport at the instruction or request of theProvost, and then they submitted it.

FNL: But that was the second timeMITIMCo presented their petition. Do youthink there might have been a better way tohandle things from the very beginning?

TK: For me that’s all water under the dam.That wasn’t the deck of cards we weredealt in August when the Provost tookoffice and formed the Task Force. Wespent relatively little time looking backand saying what should have happened,because we didn’t think we could changehistory.

FNL: So from what you’re saying now itseems like the Task Force negotiated withMITIMCo – and I’m using that word“negotiated” carefully – because my realquestion is does MIT work for MITIMCo ordoes MITIMCo work for MIT?

TK: MITIMCo works for MIT. It reportsto the upper administration through theExecutive Vice President and Treasurer[Israel Ruiz]. And I really expect that to

Interview with Tom Kochancontinued from page 1



22

continue. MITIMCo doesn’t operateindependently. It may have had a differentmandate in the past than it does now.Clearly, MITIMCo has a fiduciary respon-sibility to get the best rate of return theycan on real estate investments. And itshould be held accountable for that, but italso should be held accountable to meetthe kind of criteria that we laid out in theTask Force report regarding academicspace. I think everyone now understandsthat, and that’s the way I think we’re goingforward, and I would say MITIMCoaccepts that view of its role. I think thenegotiations revolved around under whatconditions would it make sense for MITto put a petition before the City ofCambridge and we worked to find a solu-tion that allowed us to go forward giventhe timeliness of the petition and the factthat the City of Cambridge really wantedMIT to come forward now with the peti-tion for its own reasons, and we respectedthat. That was part of our consideration aswell.

FNL: One question that faculty are asking iswhy the seeming “rush to judgement?”What was the need to present the petitionright now?

TK: I think there are three reasons whynow. The first is that the City ofCambridge really wanted MIT to comeforward now. There’s a deep interest in theKendall Square redevelopment projectand the City wants to work with MIT. Sofirst it was demand driven by the City.Second, a lot of hard work had gone intothis process already. We had an opportu-nity to modify both the substance of theproposal and the criteria by which itwould be evaluated. And so we were satis-fied with the response of the administra-tion to the recommendations in ourreport and therefore we said under thoseconditions we should go forward. Andthen the third and maybe equally influen-

tial factor was that we have assurance thatthe faculty will play a key role in the criti-cal design process that will occur once thepetition has been approved. And we werereassured by people in the City and by theprofessionals who understand this process

that it’s that design process where the realspecific planning decisions are made. Andin fact we are right now working on howto design the specific part of the plan thatrelates to what we call the gateway area ofthe Kendall Square development.

FNL: A key question in this developmentprocess is the issue of graduate studenthousing. For many years there have beenconcerns expressed by faculty and studentsabout the need for additional housing onand/or off the campus. During theMITIMCo presentation at the CambridgePlanning Board last Tuesday, Israel Ruizsaid that a 12-18 month committee processwill be needed to assess the needs of gradu-ate student housing at MIT. Given that theTask Force did its work in roughly threemonths, and that the MIT GraduateStudent Council has done a thorough statis-tical analysis that we’ve published in theNewsletter, why would so much time beneeded?

TK: I don’t know exactly how much timeit will take. The key is to do it carefully and

whatever time it takes should be allocated.Housing needs to be looked at in thelarger context of what are the overallneeds of our graduate students and wheredoes housing on or off campus fit? Wehave every assurance from the Provost

that this is going to be a serious study andwill be taken seriously.

FNL: So accepting that we don’t know howlong such a study will take, does that meanthat the design and construction of the pro-posed large commercial buildings in theMITIMCo proposal will be delayed untilthis study is completed?

TK: I think they will go on in parallel.How they play themselves out in terms ofactual timing is yet to be determined.Housing is a campus-wide issue. It’s notjust a Kendall Square issue, and so ifthere’s a report that comes out that sayswe need X more units for studenthousing, then the question is where? Andthat should be part of the overall 2030process. Kendall Square is a part of that.

FNL: My understanding is that the up-zoning petition is specific in certain areassuch as location and height for future con-struction, but that it’s fairly open in terms ofexactly what’s going to go to be built where.Isn’t it going to be difficult to be actually

Interview with Tom Kochancontinued from preceding page

FNL: So accepting that we don’t know how long such astudy [of graduate student housing needs] will take,does that mean that the design and construction of theproposed large commercial buildings in the MITIMCoproposal will be delayed until this study is completed?

TK: I think they will go on in parallel. How they playthemselves out in terms of actual timing is yet to bedetermined. Housing is a campus-wide issue. It’s not justa Kendall Square issue, and so if there’s a report thatcomes out that says we need X more units for studenthousing, then the question is where? And that should bepart of the overall 2030 process. Kendall Square is apart of that.


23

constructing things while the housing studyis going on? What if the study finds thatsome of the land where commercial realestate is being built is needed for housing,for example?

TK: That’s why I said they will go in paral-lel. The design process is going to proba-bly take as long as the study. I don’t have acertain finish date in mind, but thesedesign activities are not carried outovernight. They’re pretty systematic andso they will have to consider what’s theoption for student housing, if any.

FNL: The impression I got from thePlanning Board meeting and from others aswell is that the approval process might stilltake a while (it needs to be passed by theCambridge City Council) and that there isstill quite a bit of flexibility involved beforeconstruction decisions are finalized. What’syour sense of that?

TK: My sense is this is an evolving processand the Planning Board will weigh in andsuggest some things that might be modi-fied or they would like to see modified.And then the City Council can proposechanges and then they can put in modifi-cations as well. So I think all the waythrough the process, it’s subject to change.How that plays out is anybody’s guess.

FNL: Several Cambridge residents spoke atthe Planning Board meeting, and much ofthe concern expressed was related to build-ing heights, location, signage, and the like.How aware do you think the faculty is ofsome of these more specific concerns?

TK: We haven’t gotten any specific inputor critiques of the height of the buildingsor the placement of the buildings because Idon’t think the faculty has engaged at thatspecific level. My sense is that once we startthe design process and we illustrate withvisual, physical mockups and invite peopleto look at them, then we will have lots ofpoints of views expressed. There’s a prettystandard set of protocols in the architec-

ture field, as I’m learning, and there arelikely to be computer-generated and phys-ically built models. And we will have anopportunity to look at what this mightlook like, and maybe move this buildingaround over here and move that overthere, and what would that do to thegateway. Right now what the re-zoningpetition does is it to set a maximum onheight and square footage and all of thosebroad parameters, and the way to thinkabout this is what would be the upperlimits literally of what could be done? Andthen once we have those, then we canthink about what’s the right configuration.

FNL: What about the discussions concern-ing a physical gateway to the Institute?

TK: My hope is that whatever we do wehave a gateway that says you are now atMIT; that they’re at a really innovative andimportant place and that it’s a welcomingfeeling. Those to me are critical features ofthe East Campus and of the gateway. Thatit’s a portal to MIT that’s really a learningportal, that people can understand thehistory of Kendall Square and how it was avibrant manufacturing center a long time,and then evolved to a sort of abandonedset of warehouses and then how it’schanged, has become an innovationcenter and a commercial center and anacademic hub. That it shows that as wecontinue to co-evolve in creative ways, wealways honor the history and the past.

FNL: Finally, there’s been some concernexpressed by the administration aboutgraduate students, or faculty members, orother MIT community members appearingat these public hearings. Any comment onthat?

TK: Well, first any faculty member or anymember of the community should feelfree to exercise his or her right to speak ata community event, because there is nosingle voice for MIT. Second, when doingso, I think there’s a responsibility thatwhen they’re going to speak out that they

first are well informed on exactly what isgoing on here at MIT so that they’re notspeaking in a way that is uninformed. So Ithink there’s a responsibility to be wellinformed, to talk with those of us whohave been involved in the process becausesometimes there’s lots of informal andoff-the-record conversations that havegone on and a lot of work that goes onbehind the scenes that doesn’t show up inthe formal presentation but is reallyimportant. And we can share that infor-mation with people who really do want toget involved.

FNL: Is there anything else you’d like to addbefore we finish?

TK: I think this has been a really helpfulexperience both for the faculty and for theadministration. This was the first majoreffort of the new administration to reachout to the faculty and ask can you provideus advice, can you do it on a timely basis,can you give us your honest and openviews to be well informed by both expertsand the faculty and a broad cross sectionof faculty in general? And I think it’sworked, and I think it gives the President,the Provost, the Chancellor confidence inreaching out to faculty for this kind ofthing in the future. I think it gives the TaskForce and the faculty the sense that this isan administration that really wants thiskind of input and that you can trust themto take it and then make good decisions.And so I hope that this was an example offaculty input, faculty governance, therespect for the administration to have tomake decisions and do their job, and thatwe can go on from there.

FNL: Thanks so much for doing this inter-view, Tom.

TK: Thank you.

To contact Tom e-mail him [email protected]. To contact the full Task Force, e-mail them at: [email protected].


24

Report of the Task Force on CommunityEngagement in 2030 Planning on Development ofMIT- Owned Property in Kendall Square

October 12, 2012

Background T H E TA S K F O R C E O N CommunityEngagement in 2030 Planning, consistingof eight faculty members* was appointedin August, 2012 by Provost Chris Kaiserand asked to provide guidance on upcom-ing decisions related to campus develop-ment within the context of the capitalplanning process known as MIT 2030.Specifically, the Task Force was chargedwith:

1. Providing advice regarding the devel-opment of MIT- owned property inKendall Square.

2. Determining the most effective ways toengage the MIT community in the overallcampus planning process going forward. [The full charge to the Task Force is pro-vided in Appendix 1.]

At present, MIT faces a decision whetherto move forward with submitting a rezon-ing petition to the City of Cambridge forformal approval, which would enable theInstitute to proceed with further plan-ning, design, and construction of a seriesof capital projects in Kendall Squareexpected to span roughly the next tenyears. Specifically, the petition requests an“up- zoning” to increase the permitteddensity of development in the target areato allow taller buildings.

Because of timing considerations relatedto this decision, this report addresses thefirst part of our charge. Specifically, weoffer our recommendations on the ques-tion of whether or not, or under whatconditions, MIT should file the up- zoningpetition with the City of Cambridge toallow development of Kendall Square toproceed.

Later this fall term, we intend to submit afollow- up report that addresses thesecond part of our charge.

Process The Task Force met weekly from earlyAugust through early October 2012.Meetings primarily involved interviewswith stakeholders in the MIT 2030 processin general and in the Kendall Squaredevelopment issues in particular. Thesestakeholders included individuals bothwithin and outside of the MIT commu-nity. [A list of individuals interviewed isprovided in Appendix 2.]

In addition, the Task Force reviewed MITinternal documents related to the devel-opment of MIT- owned property inKendall Square and elsewhere on campus,as well as public documents related todevelopment in relevant areas ofCambridge, in order to better understandthe Institute’s campus planning process aswell as its interaction with the City ofCambridge on these issues.

The Task Force focused primarily on anassessment of the current rezoning peti-tion, involving the 26- acre MIT EastCampus property in Kendall Square pro-posed for development by the MITInvestment Management Company(MITIMCo), a division of MIT thatmanages the Institute’s endowment andreal estate investments. The petition seeksthe City of Cambridge’s permission toallow MIT to add more total gross squarefootage, including taller building heights,than allowed under current zoning in thisarea of the campus. The design conceptthat accompanies the petition includes aset of illustrative building sites for com-mercial office/laboratory use, plus poten-tial academic, retail and residential usesand other improvements.

Findings The following key findings about the up- �zoning petition reflect our discussionswith stakeholders and review of the data:

1. The MIT property that will be affectedby the proposed up- zoning petition is firstand foremost part of the MIT campus, asit lies within the area of Kendall Squaresouth of Main Street that has traditionallydefined one of the Institute’s East Campusboundaries. It is intimately tied to theInstitute’s campus structure and patternsof movement extending from 77Massachusetts Avenue to the SloanSchool. This area of land is also the lastpiece of undeveloped, contiguous campusspace lying between the Charles River,Main Street and Ames Street, with readyaccess to the MBTA Red Line, represent-ing an extremely precious resource.

2. The planning and development processaffecting this part of campus has becomeintertwined with MIT’s commercial realestate investment goals. MIT land devel-opment for investment purposes tradi-tionally has taken place beyond the edgeof what normally is considered to com-prise the MIT campus, often a significantdistance away from the center of campusactivity. Such development seeks to maxi-mize financial returns.

3. Setting aside the question of whethercommercial development is appropriateat this location, financial return shouldnot be the principal criterion of value cre-ation and success for this area of campus.Equally important are criteria related tothe 21st century image of MIT, creation ofa significant eastern gateway to thecampus, the enhancement of student life,and providing opportunities for futureacademic buildings and activities that wehave yet to invent. We also believe these


25

latter considerations, which go to theheart of MIT’s mission, will be moreimportant to sustaining financial returnsto the Institute in the long run.

4. The current rezoning plan (as outlinedby MITIMCo) for development of theKendall Square area falls short of the aspi-rations described above. The Task Forcehas concerns with the single diagram thatMITIMCo has presented as its design pro-posal. We have been reassured byMITIMCo that its proposal is flexible andthat, if the up- zoning is approved, MITretains options to work with the city andsurrounding neighborhoods to alterbuilding heights, densities, and footprints(within the constraints of the zoning) toimprove the project.

5. MIT needs to carefully consider theneed for additional campus- servinghousing, especially for graduate students.Concerns were raised with our Task Forcethat there is a need to expand graduatestudent housing either on campus or offcampus in some affordable way. CertainCambridge resident groups also haveexpressed concern for more housing inthis area of the city. MITIMCo’s currentproposal includes provision for 120,000square feet of new housing, tentatively tar-geted for a new building adjacent to OneBroadway in Kendall Square. These will beprimarily market priced units and notlikely within the reach of graduate stu-dents (although Cambridge will requirethat 15% of the units be reserved for lowand moderate income families). At thispoint our Task Force does not have suffi-cient information to judge whether moregraduate student housing is needed on oroff campus and, if so, how much. Nor havepotential housing needs or goals beenincorporated into the MIT 2030 planningprocess to date. Therefore, a study ofhousing needs of graduate students,faculty, and staff should be undertakenwith involvement from these constituentgroups as part of the MIT 2030 process.The study should consider the benefits andcosts of Kendall Square and other on- oroff- campus potential housing sites.

6. The likely traffic impacts of KendallSquare development need further analysisand discussion as well. We heard very dif-ferent views on whether the Kendall Squaredevelopment would affect future trafficflows in the surrounding areas. Again wedo not have sufficient information todecide what the impacts on traffic, parking,use of public transportation, etc. will beand we worry that these issues have not yetbeen studied adequately – particularlyfrom the student point of view – or inte-grated in the Kendall Square design/devel-opment process. MIT has ample faculty,student, and staff expertise to draw on toaddress these questions, and this analysisshould be incorporated into a comprehen-sive planning process for East Campus.

7. The City of Cambridge HistoricalCommission has designated three build-ings on the south side of Main Street ashistorical landmarks that must be pre-served. This significantly constrains thedesign and development options for useof this space for ground floor retail, aca-demic or commercial purposes and limitsthe opportunity to create a landmarkgateway connecting Kendall Square toMIT. Creative options for preserving thehistorical importance and awareness ofthese sites in particular, and of KendallSquare more generally, need to beexplored jointly by MIT and the City.8. The City Manager and the CambridgePlanning Commission have expressedinterest in receiving MIT’s up- zoningpetition soon and look forward toworking closely with MIT in developingthis area in ways that meet the mutualneeds and interests of the City, the MITcommunity, area residents, and currentand future commercial businesses thatwill enhance the area’s reputation as aworld- class hub of innovation.

Conclusions and RecommendationsGiven these findings, we support movingforward with MIT’s submission of therezoning petition provided that:

1. A comprehensive urban design plan forEast Campus is conducted and completed

after the petition is approved but beforeanything is built in the area covered by thepetition. The plan needs to consider alter-natives to the current MITIMCo diagramfor commercial building sites, floor plates,program, heights, and scale of develop-ment, keeping in mind the findingsdescribed above.

2. This Task Force or a similarly consti-tuted faculty group participates directly inthe East Campus planning process anddesign of the Kendall Square project.

and

3. The work of preparing and deliberatinga plan for East Campus, and subsequentdevelopment of the area, includingKendall Square, is guided by a set ofdesign principles, described in the nextsection.

Design Principles/Criteria. Any develop-ment of the parcels under considerationin Kendall Square must honor the follow-ing principles/criteria for evaluatingdesign options and decisions that involveMIT- owned property developed either foracademic purposes or for commercialpurposes (with the possibility that com-mercial may house some academic uses atsome point in the future). Our sense isthat MITIMCo currently evaluates devel-opment opportunities primarily against areturn on investment (ROI) criterion.This is appropriate when property issolely for investment purposes, away fromthe core of the MIT campus. But KendallSquare, with its Red Line MBTA station,clearly has the potential to serve as a newgateway to MIT, similar to the functionnow served by 77 Mass. Ave. to the west.Equally important, much of the propertythat would be developed for commercialtenants could house MIT uses at somepoint in the future. Therefore, it is criticalthat these buildings and the space theycreate on the ground be considered first asa part of the campus designed to supportour students, faculty and staff. To ensurethis, we recommend the following princi-



26

ples to guide decisions about develop-ment and design of this area:

• There must be a gateway to MITworthy of MIT and its aspirations,mission and standards of design excel-lence. The gateway should not just be anentrance, but a physically prominent nodeof activity, equivalent to the function ofMIT’s Lobby 7, containing destinationsrelevant to the MIT community andhelpful to visitors (e.g. an informationoffice) linked to clearly recognizablespaces that support learning and research(e.g. laboratories, studios, classrooms,study and meeting spaces accessible to thepublic). It should connect MIT directly toKendall Square with minimal physicalbarriers or gaps. The gateway should bewelcoming to residents and visitors.

• East Campus buildings and spacesmust create and convey a campus feelingthat serves the needs of the MIT commu-nity in ways that attract people to the areaacross the broad band of hours that typi-fies the rhythm of student, faculty, andstaff life. This means, for example, provid-ing amenities and services for students,faculty, staff and residents, with a minimalcorporate presence (on the campus side),and well- defined public space for peopleto gather, affordable places to eat, bicycleparking, and access, etc. To ensure this, theground floor space on all buildings shouldbe primarily reserved for inviting aca-demic, student life, or retail uses, and nothave a “gated,” privatized character.

• Any commercial space in KendallSquare should serve as an extension ofthe campus and not the other wayaround. The businesses invited to locatethere should complement and supportthe mission of MIT to promote innova-tion and startups and allow maximumaccess to students and faculty forresearch, class projects, and othermutual learning opportunities. KendallSquare should not just be a commercial

or corporate office location thathappens to be adjacent to a university.

• The portion of the developmentintended for commercial use shouldgenerate an appropriate financialreturn to warrant investment of MITendowment funds. However, given thelocation of this development oncampus and the need to support aca-demic and student life, it may not bereasonable to expect the same level ofreturn as that from commercial prop-erty developed in sites removed fromthe campus. Alternatively, it would beappropriate for the Institute to con-sider investing a portion of the incomefrom the Kendall commercial develop-ment into developing the campusspaces, facilities and academic environ-ment planned for the area.

• Design of commercial developmentshould proceed only in the context of acomprehensive plan for the future ofthe East Campus, including its publicrealm, academic, student life, trans-port, and recreational functions, takinginto account potential disposition of allproperty between Main Street and theCharles River. It is not sufficient orprudent to design commercial build-ings in the absence of a systematicanalysis and clear understanding of howthe remainder of the East Campus isintended to evolve. It is important thatample space for future academic expan-sion be reserved in the up- zoning peti-tion. We have not studied this issue insufficient depth to reach a conclusionabout how much space at this point,and, therefore, it is another issue forfurther review and discussion in thepost- up- zoning design phase and planfor East Campus.

Flexibility: Envelope versus Constraints.We have heard from the Cambridge CityManager, MITIMCo, and others that theup- zoning petition would create an“envelope” that would allow for consider-able flexibility in design and developmentoptions going forward. The key con-

straints from the City of Cambridge’sperspective would be limitations onbuilding height, total square footage ofnew development, the need to retainthree historical buildings, and provisionof an appropriate amount of housing.Given these minimal constraints, we needassurance from MIT leadership that theprinciples listed above are acceptable andthe path clear to consider design alterna-tives. Among the options that should beconsidered are:

• Less commercial development in thearea shown as Site 3 on the MITIMCoplan, providing the potential todevelop a significant gateway to thecampus.

• A better defined campus space con-necting to Eastgate and Sloan that ismore closely associated with MainStreet, so there can be sufficient inter-action and permeability to supportcampus activity. This space should alsofacilitate interaction with the rest of theInstitute, which is vital to achieving thegoal of a “One MIT” campus culture.

• More space for academic developmentand student life.

• Reallocation of height and massing tothe edges rather than heart of thecampus area, or a smaller commercialproject overall.

• Alternate sites for commercial officeand housing development that reduceimpact on the campus.

Historic Preservation Options. Wecommend the City and MIT for honoringthe principle that the history and co- evolution of Kendall Square and the MITcampus be preserved, honored, and fea-tured in the design of this site. At the sametime, we are deeply concerned that simplypreserving the three buildings on MainStreet proposed as historic landmarks willsubstantially increase development costsand limit design options for the spaces thesebuildings now occupy. We believe that by

Task Force Reportcontinued from preceding page


27

working together and in consultation withresidents and the business community inthe area, the historic preservation objectivescan be met in creative ways while alsoopening up the space needed to create aworld class gateway to the Institute. Oneway to do so would be to design and build amulti- media supported entrance and infor-mation center that provides a visual, inter-active timeline of the past, current, andfuture contributions of this region to theadvancement of knowledge, industry, andcity life. We urge a joint Cambridge/MITstudy be undertaken of creative options formeeting these objectives.

Process moving forward We commend the Provost and Presidentfor creating this Task Force and providingthe faculty an opportunity to weigh in onthe Kendall Square proposal. As statedearlier, we believe that this Faculty TaskForce, or a similarly constituted groupthat is broadly representative of thefaculty and includes individuals withspecial expertise in design, planning andreal estate economics, should continueinto the post- up- zoning design stage ofthe Kendall Square development processto advise the Provost and President on theacademic issues associated with campusdesign and planning.

We thank the MIT staff, faculty and stu-dents and Cambridge leaders who pro-vided inputs to our work. We look forwardto continuing to work together on futurephases of this important opportunity.

We welcome comments from the MITCommunity and Cambridge neighbors onthis report and/or on our future work as wetake up the second item in our charge from theProvost – considering the best way to engagethe MIT Community in the ongoing develop-ment of the MIT 2030 vision and plan.

Appendix 1 Provost’s Charge to the Task Force

Dear Faculty Colleagues,

The capital planning framework known as

MIT 2030 was launched two years ago toguide the Institute in making decisionsabout campus renewal and development inthe decades ahead, relying on the broadengagement of the campus community tohelp inform these decisions. In recentmonths the effort has begun to transitionfrom planning to implementation, particu-larly for development of MIT- owned landin Kendall Square in ways that continue torevitalize this important area of Cambridgewhile best serving the long- range interests ofthe Institute. To ensure that we maintainconstructive community engagementthrough the implementation process, I haveappointed an ad hoc faculty committee, theTask Force on Community Engagement in2030 Planning, which is charged withadvising me about decisions related specifi-cally to the development of MIT property inKendall Square and about the most effectiveways to engage the MIT community in the2030 decision process generally, goingforward. Members of the Task Force includeThomas Kochan (chair), Samuel Allen,Xavier de Souza Briggs, Peter Fisher,Dennis Frenchman, Lorna Gibson, WilliamWheaton, and Patrick Winston.

The Task Force will begin engaging withmembers of the faculty and other Institutestakeholders on these issues in the weeks andmonths ahead. I want to thank ProfessorKochan and other members of the TaskForce for their willingness to devote theirtime and effort to this process, and I lookforward to our continuing discussionsregarding MIT 2030.

Sincerely,

Chris A. Kaiser

Appendix 2 Individuals interviewed by the TaskForce

Chris Kaiser, ProvostMartin Schmidt, Associate ProvostIsrael Ruiz, Executive Vice President andTreasurer John Reed, Chairman of the MITCorporation

Lawrence Fish, Member of the MITCorporationSteven Marsh, Managing Director, RealEstate, MITIMCoMichael Owu, Director, Real Estate,MITIMCoPatrick Rowe, Associate Director, RealEstate, MITIMCoSarah Gallop, Co- Director, Office ofGovernment and Community RelationsJonathan King, Professor, BiologyEdward Roberts, David Sarnoff Professorof Management of TechnologyNigel Wilson, Professor, Civil andEnvironmental EngineeringFrederick Salvucci, Senior Lecturer,Center for Transportation and Logistics John Attanucci, Research Associate, Civiland Environmental Engineering Pamela Delphenich, Director of CampusPlanning and DesignPeter Roth, Lecturer, Center for RealEstateO. Robert Simha, Research Affiliate,Urban Studies and PlanningRepresentatives of the Graduate StudentCouncilRepresentatives of the UndergraduateAssociationRobert Healy, Cambridge City ManagerTimothy Rowe, CEO, CambridgeInnovation CenterCharles Sullivan, Executive Director,Cambridge Historical Commission

* * * * * * * * * **Task Force Members:Samuel Allen, Materials Science andEngineering; Xavier de Souza Briggs, Urban Studiesand Planning; Peter Fisher, Physics; Dennis Frenchman, Urban Studies andPlanning, Center for Real Estate; Lorna Gibson, Materials Science andEngineering; Thomas Kochan (chair), Management;William Wheaton, Urban Studies andPlanning, Economics, Center for RealEstate; Patrick Winston, Electrical Engineeringand Computer Science; Staff to the Task Force: Douglas Pfeiffer

M.I.T. NumbersResearch Expenditures FY2012


MAJOR Sponsor General MAJOR Sponsor FY2012Federal Department of Defense $117,457,789

Department of Energy $90,940,035Health and Human Services $133,687,332NASA $30,203,575National Science Foundation $81,487,208All Other Federal $18,806,804

Federal Total $472,582,743Non-Federal Industry $109,744,829

Foundations and other Nonprofits $48,373,460State, Local, and Foreign Governments $38,272,515MIT Internal $12,105,763

Non-Federal Total $208,496,567Grand Total $681,079,310

Source: Office of the Provost/Institutional Research

mit faculty newletter, vol. xxv no. 3, january/february 2013 · 2020. 9. 14. · mit faculty...

Documents