This week, the residents and members of the Huntington Avenue YMCA hit a major setback in their efforts to block the renovation and conversion of the historic building into a new set of Northeastern dorms. The Boston Landmarks Commission unanimously declined to raise the level of historical significance of the building and to declare it a landmark of the city.
Throughout Northeastern’s attempts to revamp the building, residents have raised objections asserting the concerns and wishes of the YMCA’s membership and clientele were being belittled, ignored and dismissed in the name of increased profits. This could mean a lot of trouble for Northeastern, as an agreement with the city requires the university to drastically expand housing. The YMCA expansion would add hundreds of new beds for students.
The agreement with the city comes out of the need for Northeastern to file an Institutional Master Plan every ten years which serves to guide its direction, expansion and function. After complaints from long-suffering Mission Hill residents and under pressure to control its expanding student population, Northeastern increased police patrols, promised to house more students on-campus and launched the Northeastern P.L.E.D.G.E. program.
Implemented this past September, P.L.E.D.G.E. aims to encourage students residing on Mission Hill to forge subservient relations with long-time residents. Working with the Mission Hill Problem Property Task Force, an organization fronted by City Councilor Michael Ross, the university threatens students who raise disturbances on the Hill with academic sanctions.
The university, facing increasing pressure from Mission Hill to control its students, turned to the YMCA as a potential dormitory location. In acquiescing to the demands of Mission Hill, Northeastern has turned upon the members of the YMCA, foisting rowdy students into an existing community with little input from existing members. The university clearly sees the members of the YMCA as a less serious impediment than the residents of Mission Hill, and angering them poses the least political fallout from their current situation.
The News did not support the building of the new dormitory atop the YMCA when it was first proposed. It also does not support the decision to require all sophomores to live in on-campus housing, which is furthering the need for on-campus dorms.
What we do recognize, however, is the tough situation the university is in, albeit one they have engendered of their own volition. With time running out to increase housing, the university finds itself stuck in its current course. The News did not support bringing a shovel to this situation, nor did it support digging this hole. Seeing as there appears to be no ladder available, the best course of action is for the administration to see this plan through and, in the future, consider being a better neighbor.
