Annual State of the Fellowship Report The Loeb Fellowship Harvard by chenboying

VIEWS: 162 PAGES: 27

									                             Annual State of the Fellowship Report
                                     The Loeb Fellowship
                              Harvard Graduate School of Design

                             James G. Stockard, Jr., LF’78, Curator

Introduction: A year of change
                It will come as no surprise to any of you that this academic year has been a
somewhat different one in numerous respects. The fall semester included a great deal of
attention to a presidential election that promised to dramatically change the nature of leadership
in America. Arguably, we have elected our first urban president. He has created the first White
House Office of Urban Policy and has appointed cabinet secretaries in fields that impact our built
and natural environment (HUD, Energy, Environment, Transportation, and Education) who are
talented and knowledgeable in their fields and give every indication of pointing us in creative
and sustainable new directions. I hope I do not overstate in saying there is a new optimism afoot
among the practitioners who work in these areas. At the same time, the widespread economic
upheaval has had a major impact on nearly all of us. The GSD and the Loeb Fellowship are no
exception. I must say, however, that in my conversations with alumni/ae Fellows and certainly
those in residence this year, I hear almost nothing but optimism and a commitment to seize the
moment for the possibilities it may hold. We are a resilient bunch and I am happy to share with
you some of the highlights of this remarkable year.

The Loeb Lecture: Change in Newark
                The Loeb Lecture which occurred just before last year‘s Alumni/ae Council
Meeting was delivered by Toni Griffin LF‘98. Toni gave us a multi-layered and insightful view
of Newark, New Jersey where she is the planning director. Newark‘s image is one of a very
troubled city. And, indeed, there are serious issues of poverty, unemployment and abandonment.
But Toni shared with us Newark‘s own version of what we all know to be true – even the most
troubled cities have strengths and assets that can be the foundation for revitalization. She
highlighted Newark‘s ideal location within the New York region, its five institutions of higher
education and health care, and its rich cultural history. Despite the stereotypes, all major crimes
have been reduced in the last three years and cultural facilities such as the New Jersey
Performing Arts Center are drawing new visitors to downtown Newark. Toni also pointed out
that the neglect that has characterized Newark in the past has actually provided Mayor Corey
Booker with major opportunities for new development. The city‘s waterfront, long ignored, has
great potential for commercial and recreational activities. The neighborhoods that have
experienced significant foreclosure or abandonment offer the possibility of acquiring an
inexpensive housing stock and making it available for a population that is beginning to grow
again. And the vacant stores on the commercial corridors present opportunities for new
enterprises that can help revitalize neighborhoods. Toni‘s talk provided a rich glimpse into the
work of a planner who has taken on a very ambitious agenda in a difficult urban environment.
By the time she was done, we all believed Newark could be renewed – and that Toni was the one
to do it. Optimism flowed through those who were there.

Annual Meeting of the Loeb Fellowship Alumni/ae Council: Progress on all fronts
        The Alumni/ae Council Meeting was, once again, a model of efficient work together.
Attendance was higher than usual, and the highlight of the meeting was the good discussion
about the growing grant program of the Council, and the 40th Reunion.
        The day began with reports from the Curator and from the new 2008 Class
Representative, Doug Meffert. Doug reported on a rich and rewarding year for his class. We also
had discussions about the role of Class Reps, about further improving the Fall Field Trip and
about the Council budget. The Council then turned to the Alumni/ae Grant Program. The fund
raising efforts that support this program, led by Ed McNamara, were more successful than ever,
and the matching grant of $5,000 from the Fellowship for money raised above the previous
year‘s total was earned in full. This resulted in the Council allocating more money for grants and
raising the total possible grant to $5,000. This, in turn, produced a wider range of exciting
proposals. Charles McKinney, chair of the evaluation committee for Alumni/ae grants
announced that applications had risen from 3 to 12 this year. There was also a short discussion of
the 40th Reunion which will be occurring on October 7-10, 2010. A planning committee has
been formed to help establish a theme for the Reunion. I shared with the Council that I have
been saving money in the budget each year so groups of Loebs in cities around the country who
would like to hold an event in anticipation of the Reunion might get some assistance from the
Fellowship. More details will be forthcoming.
        The Fellowship was able to announce again that it would offer a $5,000 matching grant
for new funds raised by the Fellowship in the next year. At the same time, Peter Stein offered to
raise another $5,000 in matching funds from among the alumni/ae body to add to the funds
available for the Grant program. It took him approximately 15 minutes to do this with a few
whispered conversations at the break. Thank you Peter, and all those who responded so
        The meeting ended on time and the Council members adjourned for a short break before
an open house and dinner at Doebele House where, it goes without saying, a good time was had
by all.

The Class of 2008 Trip to China: Speaking of change. . .
        For the second time in the last decade, a class of Loebs chose China as the destination for
their annual class trip. This rapidly changing nation, with cities growing in almost unimaginable
ways, is a never-ending source of fascinating observations. As many have argued, they have the
opportunity to avoid some of the mistakes we in parts of the west have made, but that takes a
wisdom and level of leadership that is hard to find. At the same time, their capacity to change
directions when they decide to do so is far greater than ours, given their current system of
governance. The trip was made even more enjoyable by the chance to meet with two influential
Chinese planners who are part of our family. Yan Huang ‘04 is now the chief planner of Beijing,
and she hosted the Class of 2008 for a day in the capital city of China. Later, the Class met Lin
Wang, a newly accepted member of the Class of 2009. She is a deputy chief planner in Shanghai
with interests in historical preservation and public art. Lin planned a day of events in her city for
the Class of 2008 and was pleased to meet some members of the Loeb Family since she had not
been able to come to the Spring Orientation for her class.
        Sadly, I was not able to accompany the Class of 2008 on their trip and so cannot describe
the many rich experiences I heard about when they returned. I refer you to Appendix A for a
lively report on the trip from Christine Saum LF‘08

The Loeb Fellowship Office: A moving target.
        In the middle of the summer, we learned that the Fellowship office would be moving.
Having settled in to the school for a semester, Dean Mostafavi decided that his office would be
better located closer to the core of activities at the school – a wise choice. That move set in
motion a series of other moves that resulted in our relocating to temporary quarters on the third
floor. This was a temporary move because we were ultimately scheduled to occupy portions of
the Dean‘s suite which, of course, would not be available until his new offices were ready and he
could move into them. So Sally and Cindy moved down to room 329 and I relocated to Room
304, a glass box just across the hall from the Dean‘s office. As is often the case with
construction, progress rarely follows the original schedule. At about the same time the Dean‘s
space was finished and he was able to move, the financial crisis hit Harvard full force and all
construction projects were stopped pending further review. At the same time, the MDesS
program was in urgent need of work space for their students – which had previously been in
room 329. We were also feeling the impact of our Fellows having no place to camp at the GSD.
The win-win solution to this quandary was for Sally and Cindy to move a second time – into the
rather spacious Dean‘s reception suite. This gave the MDesS students their space back (329),
and the Loeb Fellows got the Dean‘s old office – the nicest space Loebs have ever had. This
May Sally and Cindy will move once again – up to 508 and I will go to 510 – and the
construction will take place for our new offices. Then, finally, late in June, we will move again
to our new permanent space. Whenever you are in town, please come visit us. We‘ll be easier to
find than we have been this last year. Many thanks to Pat Roberts, Kevin Cahill, Trevor O‘Brien
and Deborah Grohe, who have kept us informed as we have moved along this winding path, and
who have done their best to make this as easy for us as they could.

The Class of 2008-2009: Engagement on many fronts
         The Class of 2009, much like their predecessors, began arriving early in August. Some
who were bringing children wanted to get them settled in before their new school started. Others
simply wanted to get the lay of the land. Each member of the class took advantage of their ―Free
lunch with the Curator‖ in those weeks before the schedules got hectic. Our chats covered plans
for the year, faculty and courses not to be missed, how to find out about special events on the
campus, where to get the best pizza in Cambridge – and everything in between.
         This year‘s Class has been particularly engaged with the GSD and with each other. Their
fall orientation featured the usual activities, including a briefing from me and from Sally,
sessions with the Nieman Fellows and with the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, a Duck Tour
for families, and dinner at Durgin Park just so they would know they were really in Boston. The
Fellows and their families joined Sue and me for dinner at our house and filled the rest of their
time with course shopping and exploration of the campus. At the end of this first week, we all
headed to Maine for the Fall Retreat and the traditional telling of our professional stories. Oh,
and there was bowling. Lots of bowling. Together, not alone.
         Back on the campus, the Fellows hosted the now-traditional dinner for students from the
GSD. We let students know about this opportunity as soon as they arrive on campus and they
sign up to sit at a table with a particular Fellow. Each Fellow gets to meet 10 students at the start
of the year and to talk about their work with them. These meetings are one of the early events
that lead to invitations to speak in classes, meet with student organizations, and advise on course
work or professional futures. The other event that starts Fellows down these same paths is the

presentations to the school of their work. This occurs in groups of two or three and these
sessions, held at noon or at 6 are increasingly well attended. In addition, these short talks
provide a chance for Fellows who are a little behind the curve on electronic presentation
techniques to learn something from their classmates who are experienced at such matters.
        A delightful feature event of the fall for new Fellows is the now traditional dinner and
tour of the South End with Ken Kruckemeyer ‘82 and Barbara Knecht ‘93. Ken (along with
other guests) leads a richly annotated walk through one of Boston‘s most interesting and diverse
neighborhoods where he and other Loebs have been actively involved for over 40 years. Our
path eventually leads back to Ken and Barbara‘s warm and welcoming townhouse for a dinner
that always involves a number of other South End neighbors. It is the best imaginable
introduction to Boston for the Fellows who are new to the city. And those of us who have lived
here awhile always learn something new about how a neighborhood really works.
        Other fall events included the opening reception for an exhibit at MIT mounted by
Damon Rich ‘07; breakfast with Executive Dean Pat Roberts to learn how the GSD works; a
ribbon-cutting for the organic soil restoration work T. Fleisher ‘08 has led Harvard Buildings and
Grounds to undertake for Harvard Yard; and a day-long symposium with the SPURS Fellows of
MIT focusing on Just Redevelopment in Urban Places.
        Once a week, the Loebs join Sally and me for the Loeb Seminar. This activity has a
different incarnation each year, depending on the desires of the current class. The Class of ‘09
chose to use the time for a blend of guests, presentations of their own work to each other, and
time for planning their annual class trip. Among the guests in the fall were Deidre Schmidt ‘08
who provided some early advice on how to use the Fellowship most effectively; Ann Beha ‘88
who spoke of building a woman-led architectural practice in the area of historic preservation and
how that practice has changed over the years; and Simeon Bruner and Emily Axelrod who spoke
of the standards they use for the Rudy Bruner Award for Great Urban Places.
        Many Loebs attended events of national interest that occurred in Boston this year. The
Cultural Landscape Foundation opened an exhibit and its Founder and Executive Director,
Charles Birnbaum ‘98 was here to speak and greet new Loebs. Nearly all the members of the
class attended some part of the Green Building Council‘s Annual Convention at which Gail
Vittori ‘99 was elected President of the Board. Gail hosted a reception for Boston Loebs and the
Class of ‗09 at the Convention.
        The Loeb Memorial Luncheon was a great success, as always. This year, for the first
time, we held the lunch at the Institute for Human Centered Design. This is a dedicated
organization that conducts research, design testing and product generation for the universal
design field. Barbara Knecht ‘93 is a consultant to the organization and suggested it would be a
good place for both a convenient lunch and a chance to learn about the important work of this
group. It was great to see so many Boston area Loebs and we were hosted very warmly.
        Lest anyone think this class was all business, I should note that the group came together
in many wonderful social and family ways as well. Of particular note in the fall were barbecues
featuring the cooking of Jim Brown ‘09 and Isabel Dutra as well as India ‘09 and Peter Lee. Not
to be outdone, Lin Wang hosted a wonderful Chinese luncheon in the fall while her husband was
here to assist with the cooking. Many of the class members gathered to attend The Game in the
cold of the late fall. (For the uninitiated, The Game is the annual Harvard/Yale football game.
While the attendant hoopla is world class, many among our number would debate actively the
question of whether those two Universities play anything that could actually be called football.)
We celebrated the coronation of a new king in Bhutan with Doughy Yangki ‘09, and new

elections in Canada with Heather Tremain ‘09. And, of course, there was a great deal of election
watching at Doebele and Strobel houses on the first Tuesday in November. The traditional
holiday party at Doebele House brought together many of the people the Fellows had met in the
fall and was a festive end to the first part of the Class of ‗09‘s year.
         The Winter Retreat is the fulcrum of the year for each class. We travel west to North
Adams, Massachusetts where we are given a guided trip through the Massachusetts Museum of
Contemporary Art by the architect of the spectacular renovations (FOF Simeon Bruner) and one
of the curators at the museum. This year we had a chance to view the remarkable new exhibit of
works by Sol LeWitt. We also spend an evening at the Eclipse Mill, an artist‘s live-work
development on the edge of North Adams. We have dinner with a number of the artists and then
visit their home/studios to view their work. This year we also had a short talk by New Yorker
writer Elizabeth Kolbert who shared her work on climate change with us. In between these
events, the class discusses its plans for the class trip and also shares with each other their
experience of the fall and their plans for the spring. This is a point in the year when many
Fellows turn their thinking from how to use the Fellowship in the best possible way to ideas
about how they will shape their working life in the future. Fellows also know each other well
enough that they can provide helpful feedback to classmates, including probing questions and
honest appraisals of skills about which someone may be too modest. It‘s a rich event for the
         The spring did not result in much slow-down for the Class of 2009. The Loeb Seminar
featured guests Mark Maloney, former Director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, who
spoke about his new venture Boston World Partnership, and Peter Stein who described his work
in preserving forests throughout the nation. David Lee, FAIA, a former faculty member at the
GSD came to speak about his firm‘s work and their development as one of the leading
architectural partnerships in the nation, which happens to be led by two men of color. We also
had Ronn Richards as a guest. He is the Executive Director of the Cleveland Foundation where
India Lee ‘09 works and he shared his extremely creative and progressive ideas about the role of
a Foundation in leading change in our cities and metropolitan regions.
         The GSD also benefitted from several symposia, lectures, and brown bag talks by
member of the Class of 2009. More about those later. But one new series of events owes its
integration into the life of the Fellowship to Sally Young. Sally has, for many years, been a
board member and a moving force behind the Arsenal Center for the Arts in her home
community of Watertown. This year they began a series of talks featuring comments from two
different artists or an artist and a commentator. Sally tapped Roger Cummings, Ed Morris and
Susannah Sayler for these events and they were very well received.
         John Werner invited the Fellows to join him and a wide array of Boston‘s most
thoughtful people for an evening of discussions about improving the quality of life for the youth
of our city. Roger Cummings led a class of junior high students in designing athletic shoes so
they could explore their artistic talents in an unusual arena that connected with some of their
other interests. We also spent an engaging evening with Jim Brown and Isabel Dutra looking at
his art work that was being bundled up and sent to San Diego for an exhibit of art by architects of
that city. We loved Jim‘s small, intricate insertions into old ammunition boxes.
         Another activity engaged a number of members of this class and deserves more attention
than it has been given in earlier editions of these annual reports. For several years now, the
Nieman Fellowship has permitted Loebs to join their own Fellows in their Fiction Writing Class.
Many of our Fellows and Affiliates have greatly enjoyed this opportunity and several have been

star pupils of the instructor, novelist Ann Bernays. In response, the Loeb Fellowship began a
drawing class, taught by the remarkable Anne McGhee of the GSD. We open that class to
Nieman Fellows and their Affiliates. Each of these classes is very popular and this year was no
exception. Many Fellows of both programs began to explore their talents in one or the other of
these areas and others took their already considerable skills to a new level.
         In summary, this has been a very rich and engaging year for members of the Class of ‘09.
They have spoken in classes, served on juries and been lunch partners for more students than I
can count. They have worked to deepen their skills, they have explored new areas of thought
they had not realized would arise for them this year, and they have been generous with their time
for all the parts of the GSD. In every way, they have enhanced the reputation of the Loeb
Fellowship and they have made even clearer the ways in which the Fellowship serves the larger
GSD community.
         This report, of course, is from the point of view of your faithful Curator. For a Fellow‘s
eye view of the year, please see Appendix B, the annual report of the newest of our class
representatives, Jim Brown of the Class of 2009.

The 11th Annual Alumni/ae Trip to a Great American Place: Albuquerque and Santa Fe
teach us about cultural history, land use, and water.
        On the second weekend of October every year, you‘re going to find a group of Loeb
Fellowship Alumni/ae in some great American place. They‘ll be getting a tour of a few of the
most interesting parts of that place and hearing stories of both great successes and missed
opportunities. They‘ll be led by a number of the most thoughtful people from that community,
some of whom will be their fellow Alumni/ae. They will be asking probing questions, offering
ideas and puzzling with each other over the issues of that environment. And, of course, they will
also be eating well, catching up with old friends from the Fellowship and making some new
ones. It‘s an altogether wonderful weekend.
        This year, the largest group of Fellows ever could be found in the wonderfully diverse
and fascinating cities of Albuquerque and Santa Fe – our first time ever in the great Rocky
Mountain Southwest. Our hosts were Moises Gonzales‘08, Frank Martinez ‘80, Ruben Martinez
‗02, Steve Oles ‘82, Bob Ross ‘82, and Arnie Valdez ‘00. In true Loeb fashion, they both
showed us some excellent projects and left us with a provocative set of questions with which to
wrestle. Because many of you were on that trip, I will not add more pages to this report with a
long story of our weekend together. But for those of you who would like to know more about
our excursion to the great southwest, please see Appendix C attached to this report.
        I hope we will have as large and interested a group next year when our Fall Field Trip
will take us to Birmingham, Alabama where we will be hosted by Cathy Crenshaw ‘07 and
Philip Morris ‘84. It is another place where there is much to be learned and some surprises await
those of us who formed our last impression of that great city of the south in the 60s. Join us.

Loeb Fellowship Sponsored Events
        Again this year, the Loeb Fellowship sponsored a number of events that provided a
platform for Fellows and friends of the Fellowship to share their insights with the public, or that
stimulated interesting conversations among various constituencies concerned with the built and
natural environment. Early in October, we helped kick off the school year with a reception for
Women in Design, a student-led organization at the GSD. Initiated by Sally Young several years
ago, this event has become a tradition over the last several years that women students, faculty

members and Loeb Fellows and alumnae look forward to each fall. While there are no formal
presentations, the attendees introduce themselves and then a very rich and pointed dialogue
ensues. Men are also welcome, of course, but the focus is on women making their way in the
design professions. Our Fellows (current and earlier years) are a very substantial resource for the
younger women students.
                In November, we had a visit from Professor Wu Jiang, the Planning Director of
Shanghai. He is chief of the office for which Lin Wang‘09 works. In addition to a dinner at
Doebele House with the Class of ‘09, we sponsored a Brown Bag lunch for students at the GSD.
The room was packed for his detailed description of the history of planning in Shanghai and the
strategies they are pursuing to deal with its explosive growth in the 21st Century. He shares the
view of many western planners that Shanghai should reject accommodation to the automobile as
the core planning principle of his city. But the pressures are great to give in to this ―dream. We
got a glimpse of what he and Lin are up against—and how much he values her work.
         In December we sponsored the first of our two Loeb/BSA lectures for this year. Rick
Dimino ‘91, former transportation chief for the City of Boston and current Executive Director of
A Better City, gave an engaging talk at the Boston Public Library. He spoke about the ways in
which our city can grow sustainably and particularly the ways to link public transportation to the
patterns of growth we want. Rich with illustrations, Rick‘s talk spurred a lively dialogue with
the audience and after the formal talk was over he was surrounded by guests until they ran us out
of the hall. Rick also teaches at the GSD and we were very pleased the BSA selected him from
our list of alumni/ae as a speaker.
         In February, we were delighted to welcome Albie Sachs back to the GSD. Albie is a
Justice of the Constitutional Court in South Africa. In addition to his role as a distinguished
jurist, Albie played a major role in the program development, architect selection process, design
review, and art selection for the new Constitutional Court Building. His video and talk about the
art and architecture of the Building – its symbolism, the diversity it draws from, and its rich
engagement with all the population of South Africa was inspiring and enlightening. Rarely does
the GSD community hear from such a thoughtful layperson who responds to our work so
articulately and also demands the best from us is such a warm and powerful way. Students,
faculty, and Loebs who attended the lecture were transfixed by the strong statement of this vital
building from its chief ‗curator‖. We were honored to have Albie at the GSD for a second time in
the past two years.
         In January, Antonio DiMambro ‘87 gave the second Loeb/BSA lecture at the Boston
Public Library. Again there was a packed house. And again, the audience was rewarded with an
engaging and pointed talk about sustainability in the world of architecture. Antonio showed
numerous projects, both his own and others, that illustrated what we have done wrong in the
distant and recent past and what we might be able to do better if we would only take seriously
the changes that are occurring on our planet.
         In March, we really began to hit our stride. First it was Heather Tremain ‘09, this year‘s
Lincoln/Loeb Fellow presenting her lecture at the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy. Heather
gave a very probing report on various forms of public support for green-building and other
sustainability policies. She compared the strong top-down policies of the state of California with
the much gentler bottom-up approach of the state of Connecticut and the participatory approach
of her home city of Vancouver, British Columbia. Her insightful comments were very useful for
an audience full of people who would like to influence policy in their own places. Next Ed
Morris ‘09 and Susannah Sayler ‘09 arranged for the artist Eve Mosher to make a presentation at

the GSD about her High Water Line project in New York where she painted a line on the city
streets to show the consequences of the sea level rise that is likely as a result of global climate
change. This talk drew the interest of a large number of students.
         As the calendar turned to April, the pace did not slow. Camilla Ween ‘08, in town for her
seat on the Selection Committee, gave a very well attended talk which we sponsored with the
Urban Planning and Design Department. She discussed climate change in London and the
policies the city is undertaking to cope with that reality. She described Great Britain‘s strong
hierarchy of policy guidance for its cities – European Union high level standards, UK National
Planning Policy, regional plans for each major city, and Local Development Frameworks. Each
of these must fit with the level above it. And each layer of planning must to leave room for the
level below it to make increasingly specific plans that fit its particular context. London has taken
on the goal of reducing its CO2 emissions by 60% by 2025 along with other very ambitious
goals. Camilla then showed us six local projects that help to implement these goals. In the end,
she advocated for a strong mayor, but decentralized planning and decision-making authority.
Above all, she believes that long range vision is critical for this process. The many students in
the audience were full of questions for Camilla and she answered them in the very
straightforward manner that is her trademark.
         Camilla also gave a lecture in Judith Grant Long‘s class about the ways in which London
is preparing for the Olympic Games. The impact of the Olympics on the host cities is an
important area of research for Judith so she also sought out Jair Lynch ‘06, who is a member of
the US Olympic Committee (as well as a former Silver Medal winner in Gymnastics) for a
lecture in the same class.
         Later in the month, we joined GSD Green Design in sponsoring a panel discussion
entitled Beyond Generalization: Implementing Sustainability. The participants were India Pierce
Lee ‘09, Ed Morris ‘09, and Susannah Sayler ‘09. Students wanted to know about the specifics
of green building and other sustainable solutions – how do you finance them, how do you get
political support, how do you convince developers to build them? The Loebs had many ideas and
shared some of their specific projects with the students. The obvious ease the students felt with
India, Ed and Susannah spoke volumes about the way this class has made itself available to the
students at the GSD.
         This was followed by Rob Lane‘s symposium entitled Mapping/Networks: Exploring the
Intersection of Electronic Media, Public Process and Design. Rob invited several experts who
have worked on building new high-tech systems for aiding the participatory planning process
(e.g. Community Viz). He also invited several leaders in the community organizing field,
including our own Bill Traynor ‘99. Kennedy Smith ‘06 and Damon Rich ‘07 were invitees who
straddled both fields. This symposium featured three talks for the general public on Thursday
evening and then a discussion for invited participants on Friday. The dialogue was very
thoughtful and new ideas flowed freely around the room. On the one hand, all agreed that putting
more information in the hands of citizens could only improve the quality of discussions in the
public arena. On the other hand, it has to be the right information, available in a way that lay
people can use easily. Rob pushed all the participants to think about how the more accessible
forms of software (e.g. Facebook, YouTube, etc.) might be used for these purposes. All of us in
the room found our minds wandering into the new possibilities suggested by the discussants
throughout the day.
         Rob also contributed a very detailed exhibit to the GSD‘s increasingly thoughtful lobby
gallery space regarding the redevelopment of major urban highway corridors. As we prepare for

a new era in which the car takes up less space in the city, numerous opportunities for
redevelopment and reconnection exist beside and over these canyons of division. He looked at
several sites along the Massachusetts Turnpike inside Route 128. His work raises important
questions about density, air rights, and other important topics around urban revitalization. This
exhibit was mounted on the ―Elevator Wall‖ that features exhibits of Loeb Fellows as well as
other special small shows each year.
        As the year draws to a close, we all look forward to the Annual Loeb GSD lecture. This
year it will be presented by Randy Gragg ‘06 who will report on the remarkable event he
produced in Portland this past fall. He brought together landscape architects, dancers, artists,
historians and architects to discuss the importance of the Forecourt Fountain that Lawrence
Halprin designed for the city and the collaboration he enjoyed at the time with his wife, Anna
Halprin, the choreographer. By all accounts, the event, which featured speakers, dancers, and
lively audience participation was an extremely stimulating activity for the city and it will be a
rare treat to hear about it directly from Randy.
        This list of activities sponsored by the Loeb Fellowship is an indication of the substantial
support we are able to provide to the GSD and to the professional community in Boston. It does
not count all the contributions our Fellows, current and alumni/ae, make on their own. Of course,
I have no way of knowing about them all, but here are a few examples. Peter Vanderwarker ‘97
lectured at the Boston Athenaeum and exhibited a new series of photographs of prominent
Bostonians. Kevin Cavanaugh ‘08 came to serve on a jury at the GSD. India Pierce Lee‘09
detailed the extensive and innovative planning being led by the Cleveland Foundation in her
home town for the BSA as part of their Placemaking Network series. India and Heather Tremain
‘09 made presentations to the Cambridge Community Development Department. Jair Lynch ‘06
and Martha Welborne ‘92 served on the jury for the Rudy Bruner Award. And when the GSD
launched a major symposium on Ecological Urbanism, several of this year‘s Fellows were called
on to lead discussion panels (Lin Wang, Heather Tremain, Ed Morris and Susannah Sayler). The
―Elevator Wall‖ portion of the Gund Hall Gallery also featured three of Susannah‘s large format
photographs about the consequences of global climate change that drew very focused attention.
The Dean has indicated a desire to retain these photographs for the permanent collection of the
GSD. More and more our Fellows are finding ways to contribute to the important dialogues that
will shape our built and natural environment in the coming years.

A point of personal privilege: The Marriage of Kennedy Smith and Leslie Goransson
        This is a short paragraph about one of my great personal pleasures of the year. Late in
the summer, Kennedy Smith ‘06 called and said she and her long time partner, Leslie Goransson
had decided to get formally married and would come to Massachusetts so they could do so
legally. She asked if I knew someone who could do that and I told her that anybody in the state
could marry them by securing a one-day ―Solemnizer‘s License‖. I was greatly honored that
they asked me to undertake this wonderful role for them. On a sunny October 8th, we borrowed
the beautiful garden at the Center for European Studies (the former Busch-Reisinger Museum)
and I had the great privilege of helping Kennedy and Leslie renew their vows. That was special.

Bruner/Loeb Forums
        In the fall, we continued the planning we have been doing for a year about future
Bruner/Loeb Forums. We spent a considerable amount of time with Rick Lowe‘02 and some of
his colleagues working on a version of a Forum for Transforma, the arts effort he and others

have originated in New Orleans. We will bring Loeb Fellows together to help evaluate the
projects Transforma has funded to determine the role they have played in the rebuilding of the
city. We will also help them look at the larger question of the role of the arts in situations where
communities have been broken apart by disasters of some kind. This event will probably happen
sometime next year. We had discussions with Loebs in Detroit, Cleveland and San Diego about
the possibility of their hosting Bruner/ Loeb Forums in their cities. The Mayor of Miami is also
interested in this possibility after serving on a Rudy Bruner Award committee with two Loebs
and learning about the Forums.
         In the spring we launched our first Forum in a year and a half. It was held in New
Orleans and was hosted by Doug Meffert ‘08. The Forum was entitled Urban Adaptability:
Sustaining Place in a Dynamic Environment. The presentations included talks from Armando
Carbonell ‘93, Tracy Metz ‘07, Mary Means ‘82, Coleman Coker ‘94 and David Perkes ‘04 and
featured a lunchtime keynote from Majora Carter on Green Jobs and Social Justice. The
morning talks concentrated on the overall role of government in implementing a green agenda
for cities. In the afternoon, speakers detailed case studies of best practices at the building,
neighborhood and city-wide levels. Audience members, who had good questions, included
students, practitioners and public officials. The presentations were excellent and will be
available soon on the Bruner/Loeb website (

Special Celebration: Phil Freelon chosen to design a Museum on the National Mall.
        Every year Loeb Alumni/ae accomplish extraordinary things in their careers, making
differences in the lives of people and places everywhere. It is unusual for me to comment on a
particular achievement in this report. But I hope you will agree with me that this feels special.
Phil Freelon‘90 FAIA, along with David Adjaye, has been chosen to design the National
Museum of African American History and Culture. This building, located on a very prominent
site near the Washington Monument on the Mall in Washington, DC, will be a part of the
Smithsonian Institute. Phil and his team prevailed in an international competition. It is both a
singular honor and a great challenge to be asked to design a place which will, at the same time,
speak with pride to the enormous contributions of African Americans to the building of our
national culture while helping us deal with perhaps our greatest failing as a society. It is a richly
deserved honor for Phil and the outstanding firm he has built in North Carolina. Phil will be in
his regular seat at the Alumni/ae Council meeting because he is receiving the Thomas Jefferson
Award from the AIA at their national convention in San Francisco. This award recognizes
excellence in the planning and design of architecturally distinguished public buildings. I know all
Loeb Fellows everywhere join me in congratulating this member of our extended family.

The Application and Selection Process 2009 – More applicants, tougher decisions.
        Like almost every academic institution in the nation, our applications were up this year.
Our pool is normally about 80 per year. The first Monday in January found a stack of 101
applications on our desk. We had a wonderful selection committee this year, which included
Paul Anderson (Architecture, yr. 1), Laurie Beckelman (LF‘88 At-Large, yr. 1), Susan Fainstein
(Planning and Urban Design, yr.2), Patti Gallagher (LF‘00 At-Large, yr. 2), Mark Mulligan
(Architecture, yr.1), Paula Meijerink (Landscape Architecture, yr.2), Jim Trulove (LF‘94 At-
Large, Yr.3), Camilla Ween, (LF‘08 Last Class Seat). They worked very hard to select our next
class of Loeb Fellows. Here‘s what they had to work with.
        Of the 101 applications, 56 were from men and 45 from women. 20 of the candidates

were North American people of color as best we can tell, and 18 were from outside the U.S. The
applicants came from 26 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and 14 different countries.
There are still five of our 20 largest American cities (Charlotte, Fort Worth, Indianapolis,
Jacksonville and Memphis) where we have no Fellows currently in residence, thus making it
difficult to get good nominees. 52 applicants said they first heard of the Fellowship from an
alumna/us of the program, so if there is no one in a particular place, it‘s more difficult to find the
first good candidate. We did have an applicant from Indianapolis this year (where we had a
successful outreach event in the fall). We will hold outreach events in other target cities in the
near future. We were able to generate interest in several cities where we held recent outreach
events (Albuquerque, Charleston, SC and Los Angeles). We had 14 candidates from those sites.
         The average age of all candidates was 45.6 (range = 32-62). As always, we confronted
the question of ―What is mid-career?‖ There were, in my judgment, several very good candidates
who were in their 50s. While we have never had rigid age limits for the Fellowship, I continue to
feel very strongly that the Loeb must be for people who have at least 10-15 years left in their
careers. The program has never been meant as a reward for a great career that is coming to a
close, and we should not start that practice now. At the same time, the span of a person‘s
working life has changed a great deal in the last 30 years, especially as women have entered the
work force on a different time schedule than the ―traditional‖ one. In the final analysis, we have
to treat each case on its own terms and make individual decisions.
         As to employer, 28 of the applicants worked for public agencies, 25 were in for-profit
organizations, 21 worked for themselves and 27 collected a paycheck from a non-profit entity.
Our pool was particularly rich this year in the number of candidates who considered themselves
architects (21), planners (19), arts administrators (16), artists (11), and developers (5).

The 39th Class of Loeb Fellows – The Class of 2010: Strong leaders ready to do more.
        Rob Bleiberg is the Executive Director of the Mesa Land Trust (MLT) in Grand Junction,
Colorado. He is a leader in the vital movement to conserve land for ecological, environmental
and social reasons. MLT holds permanent use easements for over 53,000 acres of land in the
western part of Colorado and eastern Utah. ,These conservation agreements ensure the long term
preservation of significant natural habitat, productive farmland, scenic open space, and
greenbelts between communities that contribute to the quality of life and unique sense of place
that define Colorado's Western Slope. Rob will study real estate development economics,
environmental strategy and non-profit governance during his Fellowship.
        Patricia Leigh Brown is a contributing writer for the New York Times and Architectural
Digest who works from her home base in San Francisco. She writes feature pieces, which often
begin on the front page of the Times, about the cultural landscape, vernacular architecture and
the relationship between people and place. Recently, Patti has written about the political and
social evolution of the suburbs, specifically the ―ethno-burbs‖ as well as planning and historic
preservation in China. She is interested in exploring the demographic transformation of
suburbia, and will concentrate on urban planning, landscape architecture, civic engagement and
urban events during her Fellowship.
        Julie Campoli is a landscape architect and author whose work has focused on analyzing
urban form and the relationships between place and culture and the landscape and human
settlements. She is the author of several books about this topic, including Visualizing Density,
co-authored with aerial photographer Alex MacLean and produced as part of a multi-phased
research project sponsored by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Julie is also an active

consultant on large scale landscape planning and on the matter of density, and has an active
training practice in the area of understanding density. She plans to study urban planning, real
estate development and environmental sustainability during her Fellowship.
         Michael Creasey is the Superintendant of the Lowell National Historical Park, a strong
model for the urban parks that comprise many of our National Park sites. His National Park
Service (NPS) career has involved planning and management of partnership parks and heritage
areas. As Executive Director of the Blackstone Valley Heritage Corridor Commission, he
developed a framework for connecting people to place that led to preservation strategies and
interpretation of a significant landscape, Michael sees tremendous opportunities for the NPS to
lead efforts that preserve whole landscapes and reach a broad segment of society. He plans to
explore models for establishing a national strategy/system for landscape conservation during his
         Jose de Filippi has just completed a third term as the Mayor of Diadema, Brazil.
Diadema located in the metropolitan area of Sao Paulo, had a reputation as a place of violence,
inadequate housing and little economic potential. Under Jose‘s leadership major changes have
occurred. He focused particularly on innovative programs to reduce violence and on cooperative
ways to renew the favelas within his community. Trained as an engineer, Jose believes good
design can have a major impact on the livability of a city. Jose will study urban planning and
revitalization and design during his Fellowship.
         Donna Graves is an arts and cultural heritage consultant and urban historian. She has
worked with cities and community groups to document and activate their histories. She directed
the Rosie the Riveter Memorial project for Richmond, California, which honors women‘s labor
during World War II. Donna‘s efforts led to the expansion of this project into a National Park
interpreting the diverse social history of the American WWII home front. She is currently
director of a statewide project, ―Preserving California‘s Japantowns,‖ which has surveyed
historic resources in nearly fifty communities. Donna will study architecture and urban planning
tools for supporting community preservation during her Fellowship.
         Weiwen Huang is Director of the Department of Urban and Architecture Design,
Shenzhen National Planning Bureau. His city, near Hong Kong, has grown from 100,000 to
10,000,000 in the last 25 years. He is very concerned that in this rush to grow, developers have
dominated the thinking and how the city is shaped and that the city they are building is not
sustainable. He is equally disturbed by the over-emphasis on the car and lack of attention to air
pollution and sprawl. Weiwen is anxious to know how western nations have dealt with these
issues and will study urban and regional planning during his Fellowship.
         Gil Kelley was, until recently, the Director of Planning for Portland, Oregon and prior to
that he served in the same role in Berkeley, California. During his tenure, Portland preserved and
redeveloped its riverfront for public access, created a new in-town neighborhood (Pearl District),
began the dense, sustainable, mixed use development of the South Waterfront, and installed an
award-winning streetcar system linking inner-city neighborhoods. Gil is a recognized advocate
for cities leading the way on climate change. While at the GSD Gil will explore what makes an
―intentional city‖ and possible dimensions of ―new governance", where leaders, developers,
designers and citizens work together more effectively to create great urban places.
         Neal Morris is a developer in New Orleans. He was determined, before Katrina, to build
comprehensive housing developments at a higher density and in a wider range of locations than
is typically found in New Orleans. He thinks this is now critical in a Post-Katrina environment.
 Neal focuses on housing solutions for the working poor and all of his developments include

community spaces for resident services. He is concerned about the zoning ordinance and other
regulations in New Orleans and is involved in efforts to re-write them and to change the
regulatory environment. At the GSD Neal will study design and urban development, to improve
the quality of his work and to set a good example for developers in the Gulf Coast region.
         Peter Steinbrueck FAIA, principal of Steinbrueck Urban Strategies, LLC, is an architect
who recently completed a third successful term as a Seattle City Councilor. Peter has lead
efforts to advance cutting edge sustainable practices in the Pacific Northwest. He played a major
role in revamping citywide zoning to become more sustainable, and creating a new ―Livability
Plan‖ for Seattle‘s urban core, to foster growth of vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods and a more
pedestrian-friendly downtown. He has been an effective civic advocate for tearing down a
crumbling elevated highway that separates the city from the bay of Puget Sound, Peter will study
the politics, principles and best practices of urban sustainability in the U.S. while at the GSD.

Diversity: A new initiative of the GSD and continued emphasis by our program
        The GSD is not a very diverse place, especially with regard to African American and
Hispanic students and faculty. This has been the case for many years. This year, Dean
Mostafavi has begun an effort to change that. First, he formed a committee of staff, students and
faculty, led by Professor Jonathan Levi and Dean of Students Laura Snowdon who would advise
him on a Dean‘s Diversity Initiative. I was asked to serve on that committee. However, given
the nature of the faculty at this time, the only African Americans on the committee are the two
students, and Carlos Reyes of the Student Services Office, who staffs the committee is the only
Hispanic member. We have met a few times and have been working on writing a diversity
policy statement and on outreach to potential students. We have also spent considerable time on
the establishment of an annual studio of some kind to honor the man many consider the Dean of
African American architects, Max Bond, who recently died. Hoping to delve further into the
question of how the GSD can become a leader in diversity matters, Dean Mostafavi invited a
number of African American architects to come to the GSD for what he termed a ―Diversity
Summit‖. In addition to two Deans of sister architectural schools and former GSD teacher David
Lee, the other attendees were Steven Lewis, ‘07, Toni Griffin ‘98, Allison Williams ‘87 and
Maurice Cox ‘05. I was pleased that our Loeb family was asked to be such a prominent part of
these discussions. The Dean acknowledged the long distance the GSD has to travel to be a
leader in diversifying the design fields and the schools that train people for those fields. The
invited guests were strong in their advocacy, but more than willing to be helpful. At one point,
the Dean asked for help in identifying potential candidates of color that could be added to the
pools for various faculty searches. Steve Lewis started typing and within a few minutes, the
group had a list of 32 names for the Dean. They had many other far-ranging suggestions as well.
This is only a beginning of the effort here, but I am hopeful this is an area where the GSD will
make substantial progress in the next few years. And I hope the Fellowship can continue to
provide leadership in this effort.
        Meanwhile, we have more work to do within our own program. I was very pleased with
the selection process this year except for one factor. We did not attract enough strong candidates
of color and that resulted in a class that is less diverse than we would all like. There have been
strong efforts to increase the number of applicants of color in our pool. But they have not been
enough. Maurice Cox ‘05, Reese Fayde ‘79, Phil Freelon ‘90, Cheryl Hughes ‘04, Steve Lewis
‘07, and Josephine Ramirez ‘03 have been especially diligent in helping us devise strategies for
attracting minority candidates and in speaking to specific individuals to encourage them to apply.

But we must do more. I hold myself most accountable for finding ways to communicate with the
professionals in our fields who will increase the diversity of our classes. All alumni/ae should
consider themselves specially deputized to reach out to excellent practitioners of color that they
might speak to or alert us to. I am always anxious to have a conversation with any candidate to
help them prepare the best application they can. I would also appreciate suggestions for outreach
strategies that might attract more candidates of color. I know such people are out there. I believe
many of them would benefit from the experience of the Loeb Fellowship and the networks of
which they would become a part. Our school and our Fellowship can only be a complete
educational environment if it includes the full range of professional and cultural diversity that
makes up the world we want to help shape. We need to leave no stone unturned in making the
Loeb Fellowship known to great professionals who can increase this diversity.

Outreach Events: Beijing, Albuquerque, Indianapolis, Charleston and Los Angeles
        We held five outreach events this year. Two were imbedded in other activities and three
were stand-alone sessions aimed at spreading the word about the Fellowship to places where we
are less well known.
        As always, we hold modest outreach events during the spring Class Trip and the fall
Alumni/ae trip. We use these receptions both to thank those from the communities we have
visited and to pass on a description of the Fellowship so they might become candidates or
nominate good practitioners from their homes. When the Class of 2008 was in China, they
hosted such an event in Beijing along with Yan Huang ‘04. While on the Fall Field Trip, we
used our opening reception at the University of New Mexico School of Architecture and
Planning for the same purpose. We believe each of these events produced applicants for the
program this year.
        Stand-alone events were held in Indianapolis, Los Angeles and Charleston, South
Carolina. In Indianapolis we were greatly aided by the former mayor of the city, Bart Peterson.
I had met him while he was at the Institute of Politics for a semester and he was most helpful in
suggesting invitees and a wonderful restaurant in which to host a dinner. We had a candidate
from Indianapolis this year and I am confident we will have others in the future. The Los
Angeles event was a most elegant reception in one of the rooms of the original Dorothy Chandler
Pavilion hosted by Josephine Ramirez. It was particularly targeted to Hispanic and African
American candidates and was very successful. Several candidates emerged from this event and
two were finalists this year. Finally, we held a small reception in Charleston with legendary
Mayor Joseph Riley serving as a co-host. Several applicants emerged from this interesting
community and one was a finalist.
        I do believe events of this kind where we host modest sized receptions or dinners are an
effective way to spread the word about the Fellowship. They are certainly more cost effective
than the large receptions we used to feature. However, in our current budget-cutting mode, it is
not likely I can travel as much in the coming year as I have in the past. One way to continue to
undertake outreach of this nature but without so much travel cost is for alumni/ae to host these
events and serve as the spokesperson for the Fellowship when you are in a place that merits such
efforts. The two targets that are highest in our priorities right now are cities where we have no
Fellows or where we are significantly underrepresented and locations where we can reach out
particularly effectively to excellent candidates of color. I renew my invitation to alumni/ae to let
us know of such opportunities so we can plan effectively for continuing outreach.

The Fellowship Budget for 2009-2010 – Holding the core of the program intact while
trimming some of the recently added amenities.
        This year, I must write a rather dramatically different segment of this report than I have
been accustomed to writing in recent years. I‘m sure it will come as no surprise to any of the
Alumni/ae that we must reduce our budget next year. Our endowment, like all others at Harvard
is managed by a central organization. That group, as many of you know, has been extraordinarily
successful over the past decade or so, often growing the endowment by 10-25% in a given year.
Even last year, the year before the current crisis hit, they achieved a 9% growth rate while other
large institutions were lucky to break 5% and many lost money. This year, however, Harvard‘s
endowment, like everyone else‘s has taken a very large hit. We have been asked to reduce our
budget by 10% for next year (FY2010). And we have been warned that we should expect to
make further reductions of at least that much in the following year.
        Fortunately, the generous distributions by the University over the last several years have
left our budget in a position where its core is surrounded by a number of amenities that can be
cut back in this period of austerity without doing damage to the basic elements of the Fellowship
program. There will still be ten Loeb Fellows in 2010 and almost assuredly in 2011 as well. We
will continue to provide a modest stipend (though we are not able to increase it as we would have
liked), and housing for all the Fellows. There will still be weekly dinners (though the wine
steward will have a little less money to deal with) and a class trip. We anticipate being able to
continue to support the Fall Field Trip as we have in the past. Some of the other activities will
be cut back or eliminated. We will have to end the short-lived child care subsidies, and we will
have more modest receptions for Loeb-sponsored events. There may only be one Bruner/Loeb
Forum next year. The Jury Fund and the Lecture Fund, which we used to sponsor additional
connections between Loeb Fellows and the GSD will be reduced, though not eliminated. Sally
and I will not be able to be quite as generous at hosting alumni/ae dinners as we have been in the
past. And so on. Perhaps the biggest impact will be felt in our loss of Cindy Fallows. By now
all of you know that she will be leaving us in June of this year and the hiring freeze throughout
the University will not allow us to replace her. That loss will be felt in many ways, about which
more later.
        Overall, we are fortunate. We will have to tighten our belt, but the experience we can
offer the Class of 2010 and its successors will not be substantially damaged in my opinion.
Thanks once again to John and Frances Loeb‘s generosity, our Fellowship will continue to

A Senior Loeb Fellow: Dr. Ulrich Beck of the University of Munich
        Earlier this year (before the implications of the financial crunch were clear), I received a
request from Dean Mostafavi. He wanted to invite an activist scholar, Dr. Ulrich Beck to spend
two weeks at the GSD giving lectures and interacting with students and faculty. But he could not
find a corner of the school‘s budget from which to fund this invitation. Feeling that Dr. Beck
might have a great deal to share with the practitioners of the Loeb Fellowship, he asked if we
would be willing to sponsor his visit to the GSD. Because we continue to look for ways to
integrate our Fellowship with the School, I agreed that we could support Dr. Beck‘s residency.
For administrative purposes, he will be referred to as a Senior Loeb Fellow. He will have dinner
with the Fellows and lead one of the Loeb Seminars while he is here. There may be other ways
in which he interacts with the Fellowship depending on schedule and interest. Dr. Beck is a
sociologist and a prolific writer whose books have ranged across a set of issues that are certainly

of interest to the Fellowship. His latest work is entitled World of Risk: Climate Change,
Terrorism and the Financial Crisis. We look forward to his time at the school (probably in the
fall semester) and to the exploration of this new joint activity with the larger GSD community.

The 40th Reunion – Forty years back (1970) and forty years ahead (2050). What did/do we
see? What did/do we want? What did/do we need to do to achieve those goals?
         We continue to plan for a gala 40th Reunion on the weekend of October 8-12, 2010. A
small committee has met twice by phone and begun to lay out plans for that very special
occasion. As some will recall, we had been putting money aside to assist local groups of Loebs
in holding events before the Reunion leading up to it. It is unclear whether we can do that now
or not, though I would not discourage discussions about such events. Among the thoughts
people have had for the reunion are efforts to learn as much as we can about what each other is
doing, perhaps using electronic media. We might ask Fellows to interview others or help them
make small videos about their work. We are also committed to finding remarkable people to
share this event with us as speakers or provocateurs or performers or other ways of stimulating
our thinking. We have not settled on a particular theme yet, but we do believe it makes sense to
look both backward to the times of the Fellowship‘s founding and forward to the middle of this
century. By then our built and natural environment will surely be different than it is now and we
want to be in the forefront of what that looks like. So we want to use this occasion not just to
wring our hands about how hard it will be, but to discuss what it is we want to do to influence the
environment of that time. All thoughts are welcome.

Cindy Fallows: A fond farewell
        As many of you know by now, a very valued member of the administrative team of the
Loeb Fellowship, Cindy Fallows, will be leaving us on June 30 of this year. Cindy is going to
get married and move to join her husband, Glenn, in New Hampshire. Simply put, we will miss
her enormously. Cindy joined us 8 years ago, coming over from the English Department. I‘m
pretty sure she didn‘t know what the Loeb Fellowship was, but she liked Sally and Sally liked
her. And it would bring her a little closer to the world of art, one of her loves and an arena where
she has some very rich skills. But I think it‘s fair to say that Cindy fell in love with the Loeb
Fellowship. At least that what it seems like. As the years have gone by, and our program has
expanded Cindy has taken on more and more responsibilities. Not only does she do the
thankless tasks of taking care of the bookkeeping and much of the paperwork, but she has
created and manages the monthly newsletter, she coordinates the Fall Field Trip and she
coordinates many of the outreach events. She keeps the directory up to date, works with the
designer to create the Class poster and Face Book every year and handles the press releases when
the Fellows are selected. And I could go on. Just as important, she is a great colleague, loves
each class of Fellows and does everything she can to make them feel at home here. Cindy is a
very calming presence around the office when things get a little crazy. Sally and I are both very
happy for Cindy as she starts off on the next phase of her life. We wish her only the best. But we
hope she will always keep a place in her heart for the Loeb Fellowship and she has a standing
invitation to every reunion we ever have. Thank you, Cindy, for all you have done for the Loeb

     Many of you know that I always end this slightly overlong epistle with thank-yous. It

could not possibly be any other way. We are all fortunate to be a part of this wonderful, life-
changing Fellowship. But it is embedded in a good-sized professional school which is a part of a
very large University. I do not have to tell many of you that the nature of those other institutions
and the people who administer them can make an enormous difference in the way our program
functions. For our part, we are very lucky on that score. Drew Faust has set a tone in her
presidency that emphasizes many of the values we hold dear as Loeb Fellows. She is working to
make Harvard a better neighbor, and had made sustainability a hallmark of her administration
(―Green is the new Crimson‖ say the banners all over campus). It is particularly gratifying to see
the pictures of her with our own T Fleisher‘08 looking over the organic lawn restoration project
that he helped the University design which is modeled on the program he developed at Battery
Park City over the past 15 years. The University no longer uses any artificial fertilizers anywhere
in Harvard Yard and the program is spreading to many other schools year by year.
         Here in our own school, Dean Mohsen Mostafavi has been very supportive of our
program. For the first time in my 12 years here I was asked to come and present the Fellowship
to a full faculty meeting. It was clear that many Faculty members (especially the newer ones)
did not know much about the Fellowship and the Dean made it clear he values our presence in
the school and wanted to foster more connections between us and other parts of the GSD. He
had a most engaging dinner with the Class of ‘09 at Doebele House earlier this year, and has
always responded in the most positive way to anything I have asked of him for our program. As
you saw from the paragraph above on diversity, he is also coming to rely on Loeb Fellows for
leadership roles in connection with school policies. We clearly have a friend in the Dean‘s office.
         Pat Roberts, who now carries the title of Executive Dean, is our rock. Sally or I can
always turn to her for sound advice about navigating the intricacies of this complex academic
institution and she is a big fan of the Fellows every year. In this particular year of many moves,
Kevin Cahill and Trevor O‘Brien have done everything they possibly could to make our situation
tolerable. They deserve our great thanks. Steve Ervin and his staff in the Computer Resources
Department keep our electronic systems working nearly flawlessly – not easy since I have the
help desk on speed dial and I can only imagine the creative excuses for other activities which
demand their attention when their caller ID reveals it‘s Stockard on the other end of the line.
Hugh Wilburn and his staff in the Library, especially Mary Daniels of the Special Collections
and Sarah Dickinson go out of their way every year to make the Loeb Fellows feel welcome to
the school. And then there is that great FOF (Friend of the Fellowship) Doug Cogger, who
somehow makes every presentation come out looking good, no matter how late we get him our
power point, or how many different audio/visual effects we want for our talks. We are indeed
lucky to be in the midst of all these talented and helpful people.
         Finally, guess what. Sally Young created more good ideas for the Fellowship, got more
done than ever, and connected us with more people in more places than ever before. Oh, did I
say that last year, and the year before and, indeed, for the last 11 years? Well, I‘ve been right
every time. Occasionally, with a sly wink on her face, Sally introduces herself as the Co-Curator
or the Deputy Curator of the Loeb Fellowship. And that is exactly true. I am more grateful than
I can tell you for her colleague-ship in this great enterprise.
         As I have for the last dozen years, I close this report in great confidence that, were John
and ―Peter‖ Loeb with us today, they would be prouder than ever of this great gift of theirs. By
making such an impact on all our lives, they have made an impact on the cities and the natural
places of our nation, and now the world. I‘m sure they would be pleased.

                                          Appendix A
                          A report of the Class of 2008 Trip to China
                                  By Christine Saum LF’08
        Dazhalan, in the Qianmen district south of Beijing‘s Tiananmen Square, has been
described as a hutong (lane) with a ―heady jumble of shops,‖ including some of the oldest stores
in the city. So it was puzzling when the taxi driver stopped in the middle of the street and waved
vaguely at a construction site nearby. Through a gap in the fence we could see a broad new street
lined with modern, mixed-use buildings whose design reflected the architectural characteristics
of old Beijing. A lone trolley car waited in the middle of the street to take visitors to the designer
shops that would be opening in a few weeks. This is the Beijing we had come to see: a place that
is changing so fast that a feature described in a guidebook may no longer exist, or if it does, the
subway line to reach it may be so new that it doesn‘t appear on any map. When the 2007–2008
class of Loeb Fellows from Harvard University‘s Graduate School of Design met for the first
time in May 2007 to discuss options for the study trip that would conclude a year at Harvard the
following spring, we quickly agreed on a number of criteria. We were looking for a place where
change was happening now; a place where a visit five years before or hence would be a different
experience; a place dealing with significant environmental, transportation, and housing
challenges; a place looking for ways to preserve some of its past while moving into the future;
and a place where it was possible to see the role that outside designers and consultants were
playing. Most of all, the Loeb Fellows were looking for a place where they could be inspired by
the leadership and vision they would experience. China quickly moved to the top of the list of
places to be considered.
        What we found in our visits to Shanghai and Beijing in May 2008 were places full of
contradictions. With our guides Yan Huang (LF 2003), director of the Beijing Municipal
Planning Commission, and Lin Wang (LF 2009), deputy director of Historical Areas, Urban
Design, and Urban Sculpture for the Shanghai Urban Planning Bureau, we saw a nation whose
environmental woes are well known, but whose vision of a green future at times put the United
States to shame. It was a fascinating insight into a nation experiencing staggering rates of
urbanization as thousands move from the countryside to the cities every day, and whose
challenges in providing the housing and infrastructure to accommodate those new citizens
are unparalleled in human history.

Making No Little Plans in Shanghai
         In 1990, Shanghai had a population of 13 million. Across the Huangpu River from the
Bund, the Pudong area was mostly farmland. Today, the city has a population of 18.45 million,
and it is expected to reach 25 million by 2020. Traditional neighborhoods are disappearing and
being replaced with high-rise apartment buildings. The GDP of the Pudong alone is the size of a
small country. And then there‘s the automobile. According to recent news reports, in 2002 there
were 142,801 private cars in Shanghai; in 2006 there were more than 600,000; and in 2010 the
number is projected to be 1.5 million. That requires a lot of change in the built environment.
         Big growth calls for big plans, and Daniel Burnham would not have been disappointed
with Shanghai‘s vision for the future. Wu Jiang, deputy director of the Shanghai Urban Planning
Bureau, described the plan: nine new cities of between 300,000 and 500,000 people; 60 new
towns of between 50,000 and 100,000; and 600 new agriculture-based villages, all to be located
in outer areas of the city‘s existing 660 square kilometer boundaries. These new cities will

provide housing for new residents and relieve overcrowding in the central city, where half of the
current population lives. Building enough housing for a population the size of the city of Omaha
every year for the next eleven years is ambitious, but the plan aims to transform Shanghai,
already the largest city in China, into both a world economic and financial center and a livable
        Transportation is the key to this economic engine. The big moves are impressive
enough—a new international airport that already serves about 35 million passengers annually
and is expected to reach 80 million by 2015, and a new deepwater shipping port that quickly
became the world‘s busiest by tonnage. But the creation of enough public transportation to offset
increased car ownership will be essential to maintaining livability. By building a system of
expressways with ten spokes and three ring roads, and 17 new subway lines, the city hopes to
accomplish its ―15-30-60‖ goals: key points in the city should be connected to expressways that
are reachable within 15 minutes; the new satellite cities should be reachable from downtown
within 30 minutes; and any two points within the city should be reachable within 60 minutes. In
addition, a 350 km/hour high-speed rail will link Shanghai to the neighboring city of Hangzhou
and to Beijing.
        Another essential element of Shanghai‘s livability strategy is its plan for a series of parks
and greenways. The city traditionally has had very little in the way of public open space, so the
plan envisions many small parks, with no household more than 500 meters from a place where
family members can exercise or take their children to play. According to Dr. Wu, the city has
already increased the amount of landscaped space from ¼ square meters per person to 12 square
meters per person since 1990, and as a result the average temperature has dropped 5 percent.
        Dr. Wu also pointed out that all this infrastructure for roads and parks needs to be built
now, before the city is further developed and the opportunity to set aside land for parks and
transportation rights of way is lost. The Loeb Fellows, however, were at a loss to understand how
the government planned to pay for all this. After all, we kept hearing that China, in spite of its
growth, is still a poor country. One answer came later, during a seminar hosted by the Peking
University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy in Beijing. At a
panel discussion among U.S. and Chinese scholars, John Mikesell, a visiting professor from the
University of Indiana at Bloomington, explained that this new infrastructure was being paid by
fees from developers when they acquire the right to develop land, all of which remains under the
ownership of the state. What is less clear is whether future lease payments will support the
upkeep for this infrastructure.

Transforming Housing and Neighborhoods
        Until fairly recently, housing in China was owned by and rented from the state or state-
owned enterprises at rates significantly lower than the cost of maintaining it. Most housing stock
was comprised of traditional neighborhoods known in Shanghai as lilong, or lane neighborhoods,
a low-rise housing type that evolved as a blend of the European row house and the Chinese
courtyard house. These neighborhoods provided physical security and a strong sense of
community, but living conditions in the lilong were often crowded and the houses in poor repair.
Housing reform in the mid-1990s allowed many Chinese to purchase the unit they already
occupied, but did not address the problem of substandard housing and housing shortages.
        During a tour of lilong with locally based historian Patrick Conley, the Loeb Fellows
were invited into a traditional Shanghai home. While the underlying building typology could be
used as a model for high-density, low-rise housing, it was easy to understand why renovating

entire neighborhoods of these individually owned homes is not the solution to Shanghai‘s
housing crisis. Those who want to stay in the lilong are primarily the elderly, because younger
Chinese are eager for housing with modern amenities. As a result, many of the lilong are being
demolished to make way for new development, and residents are relocating to new high-rise
apartments, often outside the city center. However, few lower- and middle-class Chinese can
afford even subsidized housing units (see Duda, Zhang, and Dong 2005), so the Loeb Fellows
wondered how those who were displaced could afford new housing. According to Boston
architect Ben Thompson, whose Xintiandi mixed-use development replaced one of these
neighborhoods but retained much of its architectural character and details, it is the developers
who are footing the bill. When redevelopment occurs, developers are required to compensate
residents at a rate equivalent to the value of their current square footage in the new development.
This money can then be used to acquire a new home. According to city officials, however, this
system has not been successful in providing housing for the poorest 20 percent of the city‘s
residents, so the government is exploring strategies for housing that segment of society

Preservation versus Reconstruction
        Unique structures and cultural icons are benefitting from creative adaptive reuse, often
involving arts uses, as a result of increased government funding for historic preservation.
Shanghai‘s former slaughterhouse, for example, has been reborn as 1933 (the year it was built)
Old Millfun, a creative ―lifestyle center.‖ It is an Art Deco marvel with austere concrete chutes
and sluices crisscrossing a central atrium space, making it look like something out of a sci-fi
movie. In Beijing, the ornate polychrome eaves and lintels of Imperial Palace buildings within
the Forbidden City all received fresh coats of paint in anticipation of the Olympics. But it is the
dense fabric of small-scale domestic and commercial structures that gives a city its unique
character, and the fate of those neighborhoods in Shanghai and Beijing is much less certain. In
the United States, preservation efforts are guided by the Secretary of the Interior‘s Standards
for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Failure to comply with these standards makes a project
ineligible for various federal tax credits created to promote preservation. The standards state that
preservation should begin by preserving those elements that are essential to maintaining the
building‘s historic character. If necessary, repairs should be carried out with the least possible
amount of intervention. Only if preservation and repair are impossible should character-defining
elements be replaced with new materials. In China, however, what constitutes preservation is
open to interpretation. In Shanghai, there are 12 historic districts, compromising 25-30 percent
of the old city, and 2,138 buildings have protected status. Beijing has 25 historic districts, and
approximately 35 percent of the city is protected. But in the Dazhalan project cited above,
preservation means tearing down original urban fabric and replacing it with new structures
designed by internationally recognized architects in the character of what was there 50 or 60
years ago. Preservation of traditional courtyard-house neighborhoods sometimes involves
demolishing the existing houses and reconstructing them with modern materials. Inevitably,
something is lost in the translation.
        The preservation of historic neighborhoods is problematic, however. To western eyes, the
narrow lanes and tile roofs represent a vision of China that many Chinese themselves are eager to
leave behind. Houses that date back to before the 1949 revolution are a reminder of a feudal
society, and long years of deferred maintenance by local housing authorities have resulted in
often slum-like living conditions. But ultimately the biggest threat to the hutong of Beijing and
the lilong of Shanghai may be the underlying government ownership of the land. The payments

received from developers for long-term ground leases and development rights are an important
source of income for local governments. Improving Environmental Quality Any lingering doubt
as to whether the air in Beijing is as bad as reported can be dispelled by a day of bicycling
around the city. Like Los Angeles, Beijing is flanked by mountains that hold the polluted air over
the city, like a bowl. Some sources of the problem are natural, such as the yellow dust that blows
in from the Gobi desert in the spring. Others are manmade, such as exhaust from the rapidly
expanding number of automobiles in the city. But many traditional lilong neighborhoods in
Shanghai are being replaced by new housing developments by the Chinese to make the 2008
Olympics the ―Green Olympics‖ resulted in buildings and a landscape that use rainwater for
landscaping, heat water with solar energy, and implement other energy efficiency strategies.
Shanghai‘s 2010 World Expo is intended to gather best practices for livable cities from around
the world. During the last several years both cities have planted millions of fully grown trees
along roadways and in city parks, and many buildings are crowned with solar water heaters. But
there is always more that could be done. At the panel discussion at the Peking University–
Lincoln Institute Center, Loeb Fellow Eric T. Fleisher described how Battery Park City in New
York City maintains all its parks organically. In response, Professor Shiqiu Zhang of the Peking
University School of Environmental Science and Engineering noted that before the development
of chemical fertilizers, all gardening was done organically. ―That‘s how we did it here fifty years
ago, but we don‘t do it now.‖ And while Shanghai has made it extremely expensive to get a
permit for a new car, Beijing has not. As a result, while rush hour traffic on the elevated
highways around Shanghai is bad, the gridlock on Beijing city streets is constant. Still, one gets
the sense that in contrast to the United States, where one can still find people who question
whether global warming is a problem and what is causing it, the Chinese are tackling the
problem head on.

Architectural Distinctions
         Shanghai is to New York as Beijing is to Washington. It was difficult to avoid making
the comparison. By reputation, Shanghai is chic and exciting; Beijing is provincial and a little
dull. Shanghai is all about business; Beijing is all about bureaucracy. Shanghai has skyscrapers;
Beijing has a height limit on buildings in the city center. But one thing Beijing has that Shanghai
does not have is stunning twenty-first-century Olympic architecture and great historic and
cultural monuments. Shanghai developed as a major city in the mid-nineteenth century, only
after it became a treaty port where foreign governments could base their trading activities, so
many of its most distinctive older buildings date from that era. While western ―starchitects‖ have
been accused of using China as a playground for their most outrageous ideas, the Loeb Fellows
generally were enthralled by the quality of the design they saw in Beijing. On a tour of Olympic
facilities with Yan Huang, who oversaw much of the planning for the Olympics, doubts about
much-publicized and debated venues such as the Bird‘s Nest and the Bubble Building were
dispelled by first-hand experience. And according to Loeb Fellow Edward Lifson (2008),
―Beijing Airport‘s new Terminal Three by the UK‘s Norman Foster and Partners is not only
perhaps the most beautiful airport in the world, it‘s one of the most beautiful buildings of any
kind in the world.‖ Qingyun Ma, principal of the Shanghai architectural firm MADA and also
dean of the University of Southern California School of Architecture, explained that architectural
practice in China is dominated by architectural institutes—quasi-governmental organizations
whose participation is required in any project that needs government approval. Small, innovative
firms like MADA must partner with one of the institutes if they are to have any hope of winning

major commissions, but then they may find that they lose control of the design process once the
commission has been awarded. Up-and-coming architects in Beijing probably have the same
problem, but the famous international architects who have designed many of the major new
buildings in the lead-up to the Beijing Olympics are much less likely to be subject to such

         To experience China today is to experience something both frightening and exciting.
Many in the West are concerned that China is repeating many of the West‘s mistakes, by
poisoning the air and water and by falling in love with the automobile. To a large extent, those
fears are justified. The air is often foul and the traffic is awful. But I also have a sense that the
Chinese people and their government care about these things and are striving for improvement,
maybe more so than in the United States. Private vehicle use and factory operations were
restricted during the Olympics, but some western media reports indicate that many of the worst
polluting factories are being closed permanently. Cars may be multiplying astronomically, but
Beijing and Shanghai are still incredibly bicycle friendly, with lots of dedicated bike lanes.
Everywhere one hears of government plans to improve environmental quality, even while trying
to lift millions of poor Chinese out of poverty. For the good of the planet, let‘s hope they

               Appendix B
A Report on the Year from the Class of 2009
  Jim Brown LF’09, Class Representative

                                         Appendix C
                          A report on the 11th Annual Fall Field Trip
                           Albuquerque and Santa Fe, New Mexico
         We began the weekend with a warm and pleasant reception at the University of New
Mexico‘s School of Architecture and Planning. We were welcomed by Dean Roger Schluntz,
who also led us on a tour of their exciting new home, George Pearl Hall, designed by Antoine
Predock. We were impressed by numerous sustainable elements in the design as well as its
many visual connections among work spaces. It seemed to encourage interaction and
collaboration. At the main event I had a chance to speak about the Fellowship and spread the
word about our unique program. The food was exceptional (a foretaste of the rest of the
weekend) and the energy in our group and our hosts was palpable.
                 On Friday morning, we were introduced to several of the issues that we would
visit frequently throughout the weekend. The first of these was the multicultural reality of New
Mexico. Geraldine Forbes Isias, Director of the Architecture program at UNM spoke to us of
―Town Planning as Sacrament‖. She noted the historical settlement patterns (pueblos) of the
Native American communities that were at home in this place before any Europeans made their
way to the land. She described the ―laying out of grids (by later settlers) as a way of joining
newly annexed New World territories to the ‗Christian community‘‖. She described the
migration patterns of Mexican and other Hispanic families into New Mexico and their efforts to
establish ownership of great swaths of land. The ―legality‖ of their land grant system caused
them to believe it superseded the more informal approach of the tribes of the Native American
population. Phillip Gallegos explained that the land grant process was used as a form of border
protection. If you received a land grant, you had to work the land. That means developing a
community and beginning to think about the defense of that community. That proved to be more
effective than a wall along a border. They developed their communities around plazas located
near rivers for the critical resource of water. Using these plazas as a starting point and an
orientation, cities spread out in a grid fashion. Because of the vital importance of water in this
climate, the Spanish settlers developed a system of asecas, or canals that also helped organize the
street system. By the middle of the 19th century, there were few additional Mexican citizens
moving into New Mexico and Anglo/Americans began taking advantage of the land grant
process to build their own communities. To the pueblo/plaza/aseca determinants of development
patterns were added the orientation to the new superhighways of the 19th century -- the railroads.
All of us began to understand how complex this history was. This part of our nation has an
extremely rich and diverse cultural history, but it has not been without conflict. That conflict
continues in various forms to this day, though we heard about several strong efforts to build
community across those lines.
         Tim Castillo introduced us to two other elements of the New Mexico landscape that had
impacted this place – mining and water. The ―good‖ jobs in the mines attracted workers from
Mexico and from the east. Towns centered on the mines grew and then became ghost towns as
the mines gave out. Fortunes were made and lost in short order. A pattern of nomadic relocation
became common. The forms of memory in family history changed from generation to
generation -- from pride of place and connection to the land to pride of profession or of
enterprise. And as the population grew and the mines required water for their processes, the
demand and the law around this scarce resource began to shape the landscape and the culture of
the southwest. As territories became states, they began to shape these traditions into laws. The

law of water was that the first user as the water came out of the ground had the primary rights to
use it and to control its flow. That made sense when the land was primarily used for agriculture
and mining. But as tiny plazas grew into middle sized villages and then into towns and cities, it
became clear that these traditions would need to change. With the explosion of places like
Albuquerque occurred in the latter half of the 20th century, cities wanted to buy more water. But
this, in turn, made matters difficult for the smaller places and the agricultural interests that still
survived. More diversity and more conflict. Finally, Moises Gonzalez ‘08 provided us with a
broad perspective of the 20th century expansion of Albuquerque and Santa Fe as a natural
outgrowth of these patterns of development. He explained how the low rise development models
preferred by earlier residents caused rampant sprawl as the populations of cities began to grow
rapidly. He offered the hope that the instinct of many generations of Native American and
Hispanic cultures to connect people to the land would eventually help to corral sprawl, settle on
reasonable reductions of demand and distribution of water and let the city be the city while the
surrounding land can be left in its natural state.
         After these invigorating talks, we traveled to the South Valley to see several new housing
developments which represented the first efforts to establishing density in Albuquerque. These
were modest developments, but they were multi-storied, and gathered closely around natural
areas. While Moises acknowledged the beginning nature of these projects, he suggested that
they had been quite popular and that other developers were starting to take notice. Lunch was at
the very interesting National Hispanic Cultural Center where we heard from Chris Wilson who
spoke with great conviction about the role of architects in creating a new paradigm for
architecture in the Southwest. He holds the J.B. Jackson Chair at the University of New Mexico
and is the Director of the Preservation and Regionalism Program there. While advocating for the
saving of important buildings of the 19th and 20th centuries, he believes there is too much
artificial restriction to the design of new structures in this part of the nation. ―Not everything
needs to be adobe‖ he says. Needless to say, the architects in our group were pleased with such a
         Our afternoon was spent in a part of Albuquerque known as Martinez Town. Our guide
was our own Frank Martinez ‗80– and the similarity of names is no coincidence. Frank, born and
raised in this neighborhood, has helped build and sustain a remarkable community revitalization
effort here over the past 30 years. In order to rebuild the neighborhood as a mixed use
community, the residents had to fight off the spread of that blunt instrument of US domestic
policy known as urban renewal. Because parts of the area were brownfields and the census tracts
to which they belonged were statistically a ―pocket of poverty‖, they were an easy target. But
Frank led a planning process that identified a number of changes that could help Martinez Town
thrive again. Our first stop in this quite diverse community was the extremely impressive
WESST Enterprise Center which Frank helped bring to his neighborhood. This is a brand new
building that serves as an incubator for new businesses in Albuquerque. The facility is a LEED
certified building that helps small businesses get started with low rents, shared overhead facilities
and training in running a business. 87% of all businesses that complete an incubator training
programs are still in business five years after their graduation. And this makes sense for the
neighborhood because 85% of the graduates locate within five miles of the Center where they get
their start. Our tour of the building was inspirational. Several businesses are already firmly
planted here and other spaces are being finished for new enterprises. We could sense the energy
that will emerge from this space and the entrepreneurs who will find a nurturing atmosphere for
their best ideas.

         Then we took a walking tour of Martinez Town. We viewed new and renovated homes,
the substantially renovated public housing development and its state of the art Senior Center and
day care program, and the small stores scattered throughout the neighborhood. We walked
through the neighborhood park and noted the expanded and community oriented hospital that
provides both jobs and health care for this mixed income residential neighborhood. We ended
the tour with a warm and hospitable reception at Frank‘s house catered by a local neighborhood
business. Then we walked past the newly renovated Albuquerque High School, now home to a
wide range of residents. Next, we settled in at the community center for a presentation about a
new development for downtown Albuquerque – a multi-purpose event center near a new light
rail station. The proposal featured a 550 room hotel and convention/event facility, a 10-12,000
seat minor league sports arena, 60,000 SF of retail and restaurant space and a residential buffer
zone. The presentation also described a very fast approval process. As with any Loeb group,
there were some questions, both about content and process. A spirited discussion followed. And
the discussion continued through our brief walk to one of the thriving businesses on the edge of
this great place – the Standard Diner – where we had an absolutely wonderful southwestern
dinner. All of us had gotten a remarkably wide-ranging view of this old/new American city and
many of its diverse dimensions.
         On Saturday morning, we were up early to take the bus to nearby Santa Fe. We began our
day at the bustling Farmers Market, recently relocated to its new home in the Railroad Park and
Plaza. For the past 41 years of its existence it had been moving from parking lot to parking lot.
Here in this new location, it was linked with a heritage park, restaurants, art galleries and a stop
on the fast train connecting the city with Albuquerque. This Farmer‘s Market is one of the most
successful in the nation, grossing $2,000,000 for the farmer of the area. In addition, studies show
that for every $1 spent at the Market, another $2-3 is spent in the stores, restaurants and galleries
in the area. We met with the leaders of the Farmer‘s Market Institute, which lobbies for the
industry, conducts a micro-lending program to help new markets get started and provides
training and technical assistance to help farmer‘s operate more efficient operations. Again, we
were confronted with the water issue, as the presenters explained that as a result of old treaties,
New Mexico was still buying up water rights to send that precious liquid to Texas. As a result,
more farm land near Santa Fe lies fallow every year. Some of us spent some time exploring the
new Railroad Park and the art galleries nearby, while others patronized the stalls and tents of the
Market. We closed the morning with a short walk to the Cow Girl Bar and Grill – ―where the
barbeque and the margaritas are like no other‖. We felt obliged to test these claims and the
consensus of our group seemed to support the advertising.
         The afternoon found us at the Mision y Convento at the Plaza Espanola. This is a replica
of the original church built by the Spanish at the San Gabriel settlement in 1598. Within these
cool and art-laden walls, we heard a rich discussion by five panelists which was captioned
―Toward a new land ethic: The future of rural-urban planning‖. Our own Ruben Martinez ‘02
moderated this fascinating dialogue. A group of historians, sociologists and planners and
ecologists talked about the particular issues in conducting planning activities in the Rocky
Mountain Southwest. They discussed sustainable agriculture and the wide diversity of cultural
resources of this part of the U.S. Several speakers reminded us that these terms have to be
carefully defined in New Mexico. For example, concepts such as ―organic‖ and
―environmentally sustainable‖ are simply the way people farm in this part of the world. If they
are to be useful terms here, they need to take on an additional dimension. On the other hand
ideas like ―sharing‖ and ―cooperative‖ are less well practiced here in the land of ―absolute

property rights‖ and ―self-reliance‖. One of the speakers summed it up with the following
statement: ―If you want to understand New Mexico, there are four keys – water (cooperation vs.
competition), succession of conquests (culture of inequality), and tourism (a new form of
colonialization?), and the nuclear industry. It was a fascinating conversation and this last point
caught many of us by surprise. But when we learned how many jobs were tied up in this
industry and how it had impacted the landscape, we had to recognize a major factor that rarely
impacts our lives elsewhere is a major force here.
        As the rain began to come down, we boarded our bus for a trip through some more rural
communities and facilities near Santa Fe that showed us how much of New Mexico lives.
Particularly interesting was the Truchas Peaks Center – a retreat and conference location high in
the mountains that provided a quite place with spectacular scenery. Here we heard about some of
the community organizing carried out among residents with long connections to the land. Again,
we got close up to a part of the country that most of us have seen very little of. After a nice quite
respite from our busy day, we got back on the bus and proceeded to the lovely home of Steve
Oles ‘82 for a wonderful dinner and beautiful nighttime views of the desert and the skyline of
Albuquerque. A perfect end to another stimulating day.
        On Sunday, small groups of Loebs headed off in different directions. Moises Gonzalez
‘08, Ruben Martinez ‘02 and Arnie Valdez ‘00 led a tour to the Santo Domingo and Cochita
Pueblos. Another group went back to Santa Fe to see other parts of the city and to enjoy another
good meal together before heading back to our respective homes.
        True to form our wonderful hosts showed us many of the best qualities of their part of the
U.S. and they also exposed us to the issues and concerns that are particular to this place. We left
visually thrilled, culturally enriched and, once again, with as many questions as answers in our
minds about the issues we all care about. One thing for sure, we knew far more about this place
than most of us had ever known before and that is a good thing.


To top