INTRODUCTION
Highland Park, a neighborhood of Roxbury in Boston, Massachusetts, is a unique residential enclave that features a striking collection of different
19th century
architecture. The neighborhood is known alternately as “Fort Hill” for its two Revolutionary War fort locations
and “Roxbury Highlands” for its distinct, hilly topography. Generally speaking and for the purposes of this report,
the boundaries of Highland Park are roughly from Washington Street to the east, Malcolm X Boulevard to the north, Columbus
Avenue to the west and Ritchie/Marcella Street
to the south.
RATIONALE
The Neighborhood Preservation
Partnership aims to bring preservation resources to Boston’s
underserved communities and to set priorities for future advocacy and investment. Highland
Park was selected for our first series of workshops due to strong community interest, a long history
of activism and an exceptional collection of historic buildings and open spaces. The workshops are designed to connect residents
with agencies and organizations that can assist them in achieving their preservation-oriented goals. They also provide an
opportunity to set neighborhood-wide preservation priorities and develop action plans for carrying them forward. Finally,
the workshops foster stronger relationships between preservation-oriented agencies and organizations and local residents and
business owners in an effort to ensure long-term communication and collaboration into the future.
METHODOLOGY
The Project Team attended at least one of each monthly neighborhood association meeting held
throughout the Highland Park/Fort Hill community in the month leading up to the first Neighborhood Preservation Workshop in
January 2009. Attendance at these meetings gave us a chance to introduce the Neighborhood Preservation Partnership and Workshop
Series to the community, and also to glean information about ongoing neighborhood issues and concerns that would help to inform
the first workshop’s design. Because of the neighborhood’s deep involvement with greenspace protection and land
use issues, in addition to historic and cultural resource preservation, we designed the first workshop as an opportunity to
begin to build consensus around both “properties” and “places” (including green spaces) that neighborhood
residents viewed as current priorities. The January workshop included brief resource introductions by eight Boston-based preservation
and related organizations, and provided an opportunity for residents to mark a wall map of Highland Park with both “properties” of interest/concern and “places”
of interest/concern. From this map and notes on the discussion that emerged during the January workshop, the Workshop Coordinator
drafted three preliminary lists: (1) Properties/Structures of interest or concern, (2) Places of interest or concern, and
(3) Issues or Themes of interest or concern. These three lists formed the basis of discussion at our second Neighborhood Preservation
Workshop in February; at the end of this workshop, each resident in attendance “voted” on their one or two top
priorities in each of these categories. The Project Team used these “votes,” along with discussions with residents
before, during and after the workshops, to inform the suggestions that follow in this report.
MAP
OF HIGHLAND PARK, ROXBURY MASSACHUSETTS
HISTORY
OF HIGHLAND PARK, ROXBURY, MASSACHUSETTS
A rocky and hilly area southwest of Boston,
the settlement of Roxbury was founded in 1630. In 1649, the early residents voted to appoint 5 selectmen to serve as a governing
body to make and execute the laws for the good of the people. From 1600 to 1800, the town of Roxbury was little more than a collection of sparsely settled farms that radiated from Meeting
House Hill. During that time, the area, which later became known as John Eliot
Square, was a small center of commercial and town activity that included the First Church of Roxbury,
first built in 1632. The fifth and current structure for the First Church of Roxbury was built in 1802. Commercial buildings
and residential homes surrounded the Church and its green. The hills to the south of Eliot
Square were dominated by the Lower Fort (located at what is now Highland,
Linwood and Cedar Streets) and the High Fort (located at present-day Highland Park),
both built in 1775. The forts were part of the chain of defenses that helped bring about the evacuation of the British from
Boston. The High Fort was located on the second highest hill
in Roxbury and overlooked the land route to Dedham. The Low
Fort controlled Washington Street, which at that time
was the only land route into and out of Boston.
At the start of the 19th century, the
wealthy classes of Boston began to purchase the rural farmland
of Roxbury. Ideally located in close proximity to the city and on the only road in and out of Boston, Roxbury became popular for country houses, gentleman’s farms and summer retreats.
In 1826, the Boston and Providence Railroad Company built
a small station at Roxbury Crossing, which made the transportation into the city convenient, allowing residents to live in
Roxbury year-round while still conducting their business in the city.
In 1825, a group of wealthy
men (Benjamin Copeland, David and Thomas Simmons, Charles Hickling, and Supply Thwing) purchased a 28 acre parcel of land
in the Roxbury Highlands, which included the Roxbury High Fort. The goal was to create a bucolic residential community that
also preserved the Fort. Few residences were built in the area until the mid 1830s, when people began to purchase large lots
and build large, fashionable residences. By 1832, two streets, Highland, which had four houses
(including the Copeland House, which still stands at 140 Highland)
and Centre Street, traversed the hill. Two Greek Revival
mansions, the Kittredge House (1836) and what is now known as the Hale House (1841), were some of the largest in the area
and retained expansive lots. In the 1840s, these large landowners recognized the growing demand for land in the district,
and began to subdivide their estates. Through this process, the Roxbury Highlands began to take on its current dense residential
character through the 1850s and 1860s.
The introduction of the
electric street car and the growth of the Eliot and Dudley Squares’ commercial districts brought new waves of population-
and construction- to the area. As the larger lots continued to undergo subdivision, a wide range of architectural styles and
residence sizes proliferated. While Victorian single family homes and cottages continued to be a popular style in the Roxbury
Highlands, urban brick rowhouses, mimicking the styles of the nearby South End, were also built frequently throughout the
district. By the turn of the 20th century, the large lots that held the grand homes of the early years of the development of Roxbury
had been greatly diminished. The large, fashionable mansions of the 1830s and 1840s, of which the Kittredge House and the
Hale House are fine examples, had become rare reminders of the Roxbury Highland’s rural and pastoral past.
In the 20th Century, Highland Park continued
its tradition of transitioning, both in its architecture and its demographics. The neighborhood, for a time, continued to
become more densely populated as residents subdivided the large one family homes into rental apartments. A post-war shift,
however, led to disinvestment and declining numbers of residents (issues felt in most urban neighborhoods throughout the country).
This period, in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s led to a period where much of the housing stock was not well maintained and
underappreciated. Neglect and arson led to many empty lots in the neighborhood. In recent years, infill housing has been built
in some of these lots, bringing new building stock and new residents.
GENERAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are general
recommendations for the Highland Park community. The information
and strategies listed below are based on the feedback received by participants at Neighborhood Preservation Partnership workshops.
See the Methodology section on page 4 for more information.
PROTECTING
AND PRESERVING HIGHLAND PARK’S
UNIQUE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
The Highland Park/Fort Hill
neighborhood features a distinctive collection of 18th and 19th century architectural styles. In the late 1970s, a group of neighborhood residents
petitioned the Boston Landmarks Commission for Landmark District designation. About twenty years later, the Landmarks Commission
revisited the idea and shared their findings with neighborhood residents through the document “Preserving Highland Park,
Protecting a Livable Community.” Through that process, the BLC proposed an Architectural Conservation District, which
would provide design review for all projects as required by the criteria developed for the district by the Boston Landmarks
Commission in partnership with the community.
At this time, there are
a series of obstacles to overcome if the community chooses to pursue the Architectural Conservation District plan once again.
For one, it takes a great deal of community involvement, support, and time to create a district. The Study Committee (which
includes both members of the Boston Landmarks Commission and district residents) alone requires many meetings and likely months
of research and review criteria selection. Then, if the district is designated, a district Commission is formed, which also
takes a great deal of commitment from community members who choose to serve. Also, due to the current economic crisis and
general lack of funding, the Boston Landmarks Commission may not be able to undertake the creation of a district at this point
in time. However, if pursuing an Architectural Conservation District is a major goal of the residents of the neighborhood,
the Boston Preservation Alliance and Historic Boston Incorporated would be supportive of that decision. For more information
regarding the creation of the Architectural Conservation District and what further steps would need to be taken for its official
designation, see Appendix D.
There are alternative tools,
actions and strategies that can be used and put in place other than designation as an Architectural Conservation District.
These are listed below.
Update the Boston
Landmarks Commission 1999 Study of Highland Park- 10 Most Endangered Properties: Included in the “Preserving Highland
Park” report was a list of endangered properties, selected for both the level of historic significance and degree of
deterioration. These properties were also chosen to represent all of the different architectural styles found within in the
district and to for their distribution throughout the neighborhood.
Now a decade later, the
Neighborhood Preservation Partnership has begun to update this list of endangered properties. In comparing the photographs
and notes from the 1999 report with their current status, there is a lot of good news to be reported. Six of the houses listed
in 1999 have undergone restoration and rehabilitation over the past decade. One house, although not restored, was rebuilt
using some original puddingstone material. Three houses remain to be8 threatened by disinvestment,
neglect, or by the current owners’ inability or reluctance to undertake necessary actions. *See Updated list
for the full report update. This document is something that is meant to be fluid and updated on a regular basis, and could
serve as a compilation of data that will then be used to celebrate the preservation success stories in Highland Park.
Combine Preservation of Built Environment with the creation
and preservation of Affordable Housing: Many of the large houses of Highland Park have been subdivided into apartments
over the years, creating a model that might provide a good opportunity to both preserve the building stock in the neighborhood
as well as preserving the neighborhood’s diversity of economic levels. The Department of Neighborhood Development has
a Rental Development program that focuses on Multi-family housing and affordable housing for the Elderly. Creating affordable
housing units could provided subsides that can make a preservation project feasible.
Promote the donation of Preservation Easements: Preservation
easements are an effective way for an owner of a historic house to protect their investment of time, hard work, and money
that they have put into their historic home. The easement is donated to a certified easement holding organization, which will
review future proposals to alter the house. The donor of the easement could also see tax benefits from the transaction for
the value of the easement, making it an appealing method of insuring the historic property’s future. (see Appendix B
for more information about preservation easements or preservation restrictions)
Take advantage of Historic Homeworks program: Utilize available funding
from the Department of Neighborhood Development (DND). Historic HomeWorks provides grants to help homeowners make historically
appropriate exterior repairs or improvements. (see Appendix B for more information)
MAINTAINING A DIVERSE, MIXED-INCOME COMMUNITY
The vital issue of sustaining a mixed-income, diverse community must be kept in clear
view as historic preservation planning moves forward. Although this issue was not explicitly raised at the first two workshops,
it has consistently emerged as a central theme in conversations with neighborhood residents. As the neighborhood moves ahead
with historic preservation, landscaping and other revitalization efforts, realistic concerns about gentrification must be
counter-balanced with lessons learned from other neighborhoods and cities, including strategies for retaining a variety of
affordable homes for low-to-middle-income residents.
Some or all of the following strategies may assist the neighborhood in this area:
“Assume best intentions” and do sensitive outreach
to owners of historic homes in need of restoration or repair. Remember that building trust and goodwill is a necessary precursor
to collaboration.
Educate residents about historic preservation’s
excellent track record as an alternative to “urban renewal” projects that displace residents and replace
existing neighborhoods with high-rises and other large-scale developments. Address resident concerns about property tax increases
and related concerns associated with “neighborhood improvement.”
Explore advocacy to the city or state for a special fund to
support historic homeowners.
Extend an invitation to homeowners to attend free or low-cost
window repair or other home repair workshops in the neighborhood (in possible outreach collaboration with Boston Materials Resource
Center).
Explore the possibility of a working session with DND (Department of Neighborhood
Development) to investigate funding strategies.
PRESERVING AND INTERPRETING
HISTORIC LANDSCAPE/CONSERVING AND PROTECTING URBAN GREEN SPACE
In discussions among Highland Park residents, two basic categories of space or land issues
arose. While related in some respects, these need to be addressed separately here.
The first of these two issues
is the community’s deep interest and pride in the history of land use in Highland
Park, including its agricultural and horticultural history—especially, the history of fruit orchards
on the Hill. This interest intersects with the community’s ongoing and continuing interest in educating local residents
and visitors about the neighborhood’s rich and multifaceted history, including the history of its architecture from
Revolutionary to modern times.
Examples of possible action
steps in this area include:
Pursue funding
(in collaboration with a nonprofit organization) from National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Preservation Fund for
the design of an educational program or materials about aspects of the neighborhood’s landscape, social and architectural
history.
Pursue funding
(in collaboration with a nonprofit organization) from foundations (ex. The History Channel) for a neighborhood-based educational
program that highlights a combined historic and landscape preservation “story” in the neighborhood.
Collaborate with
Discover Roxbury and other local organizations to design and publicize a “Harvest Walking Tour” that features
the history and current use of orchards in the Highland Park
neighborhood.
The second issue is the
concern over conservation of existing open spaces and the ongoing protection and stewardship of green spaces in the neighborhood,
including parks, gardens, and vacant lots. These issues complement the historical ones, and can potentially be linked with
landscape preservation issues if historic significance or design of particular land features can be established. But for the
most part, these issues will need to be pursued through collaboration with city planners, open space/land conservation and
related organizations. That said, inclusion of parks and other open spaces at risk of development in community-led oral
history, walking tour or related educational projects have the potential to increase the visibility of these issues and places,
and can potentially complement advocacy efforts for re-zoning or other land protection measures.
Examples of possible action
steps in this area include:
Do public outreach
and education among neighborhood residents, to raise awareness of open space preservation as a critical quality of life issue
for the neighborhood, to be balanced with the oftentimes competing interest in affordable housing development.
Pursue conservation
restrictions on existing yards, lots or parks, possibly in combination with Preservation Restrictions on existing buildings.
Research history
of land use throughout the neighborhood, including inventorying historic or heritage (cultural) landscape features, and advocate
for preservation of land based on historic uses and local cultural significance. (see Appendix B)
Design educational
projects that increase public awareness of the significance of parks and other natural areas to the neighborhood’s “social
fabric” or identity during the past 50 years
10
including its emergence as an African-American community, and its legacy
of preservation and conservation activism.
Seek assistance for natural areas protection, especially protection of “urban
wilds,” from the Boston Natural Areas Network (BNAN), The Trust for Public Land, New England Grassroots Environment
Fund’s Boston Grants Initiative, etc. See more partnership opportunities in Appendix C.
ENGAGING NEW RESIDENTS
While this topic did not receive “top priority” votes at the February
28th workshop, it emerged as a significant
one at the January and February workshops and in related conversations with residents. On the one hand, many relatively new
residents to the neighborhood would be interested in learning more about the rich history of Highland Park and its architecture. Educating these newer residents would increase the likelihood
of their “buy-in” to the value of historic preservation and their involvement in historic preservation advocacy
in the neighborhood. Additionally, strategic outreach to newer residents who live in historic homes can potentially support
their efforts to take needed care of their properties.
Effective outreach to new residents may take some or all of the following forms:
Collaborating with neighborhood and local nonprofits, businesses
and religious institutions that serve neighborhood families, including immigrant populations, in order to share information
about ongoing historic preservation strategies and educational programs more broadly;
Informal networking to engage college or graduate students
living in the neighborhood as volunteers in neighborhood advocacy and education efforts;
Exploring strategies for engaging youth and families with young
children in historic preservation activities (See “Engaging Youth and Families with Children,” below); and
Established community leaders committing to reach out to particular new
residents that they already know, and extend personal invitations for them to attend community preservation meetings or related
events.
ENGAGING YOUTH AND FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN
The challenge of involving a broad spectrum of neighborhood residents in historic
preservation efforts—including neighborhood youth and families with young children—is presented here in response
to the neighborhood’s identified value of “passing on neighborhood legacies/activism to younger generations,”
which received two votes as a priority issue at the February workshop. The following strategies may promote these efforts:
Reviewing the original written, audiovisual and visual materials
that youth at Hawthorne Youth and Community Center have created since 1993 to document aspects of the neighborhood’s
landscape and built environment;
Exploring ways that youth leadership components can be built
into public education plans, including historic neighborhood tours, maps and research and advocacy plans; and
Designing and advertising community preservation meetings and events as
“family-friendly,” e.g. including hands-on activity stations for children and refreshments for all.
DEFINING
PUBLIC EDUCATION GOALS
In light of the issues raised
above, the neighborhood may benefit from developing a written mission/vision statement that clarifies its goal(s) for public
education around historic preservation. This statement would probably respond to the following questions:
To what extent
do we want to focus on educating neighborhood residents, so that as a community we are well equipped to care for our historic
structures and landscape?
How do we see
outreach and education around historic preservation as connected to outreach and educational efforts in social or cultural
history? In landscape preservation, open space or other land use issues?
To what extent
do we see our educational mission as one of educating other Boston residents, and/or local
or other visitors to Boston?
What central outcome
does the community hope to achieve from each form of educational outreach?
PRIORITY
PRESERVATION OPPORTUNITIES AND PLANNING STRATEGIES
The following properties
were identified as preservation priorities through a series of meetings held in the winter/spring of 2009. For more information
about how these priorities were chosen, please see the “Methodology” section on page 4.
PRESERVATION
PRIORITY:
Alvah Kittredge House,
10 Linwood Street
The Alvah Kittredge house
was built for First Parish
Church deacon Alvah Kittredge (1799–1876) who was a prominent businessman
who served many years as one of Roxbury’s five elected Alderman. In the 1830s, he purchased several large parcels of
land in the Roxbury Highlands, from which he carved out an estate for himself and built the large Greek Revival House for
himself in 1836. Kittredge was one of several investors who began developing the area as a dense residential suburb in the
second half of the 19th century.
Constructed on the site
of the Roxbury Lower Fort, on what are now Highland, Linwood
and Cedar Streets, the house features tall Ionic columns supporting a portico on the front façade and a hipped roof topped
by an octagonal cupola. The house once featured side wings, but they were demolished when it was moved and reoriented in the
late 19th century.
In its first location on Highland Street, the house
was surrounded by gardens and statuary. Now facing onto a small park, the house is surrounded by 19th century rowhouses and sits on a
much smaller lot.
Kittredge, who also played
a large role in the creation of Forest Hills Cemetery, lived in the house for decades. In 1871, prominent Boston architect and engineer Nathaniel Bradlee purchased the house and lived there with
his family. Bradlee designed many significant buildings in downtown Boston and throughout Beacon
Hill, Back Bay and particularly the South End. In Roxbury, Bradlee is credited with designing
Palladio Hall in Dudley Square, Fellowes Athenaeum
on Millmont Street, and the Cochituate Standpipe.
In 1975, the Roxbury Action
Program (RAP), purchased the Kittredge House and used it as its headquarters. Area activist Lloyd King co-founded Roxbury
Action Program in 1968 for the purpose of building a model community for African Americans that would encompass economic stability,
physical development and social responsibility. RAP, which is celebrating their 40th anniversary this year, served an important role in
this community, providing the delivery of affordable housing units, social services and youth programming throughout the neighborhood.
Although RAP was able to make some repairs to it in the 1970s, by 1991 the organization no longer used the building due to
the high cost of heating. Since then little attention to routine maintenance or critical repairs have been made, and the building
has fallen into disrepair.
Area residents are concerned
for the future of the iconic building and for the safety of passersby. The failing portico is currently supported by scaffolding
and the boarded up building is a target for graffiti. In the fall of 2008, a group of neighbors put together a detailed report
and petition to be submitted to the Boston Landmarks Commission. The Commission accepted the petition for further study.
Strategies:
Meet with the
Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) to discuss their role in the easement. The BRA held a preservation easement on the Kittredge
House since 1976, when the easement was given in exchange for a Federal Loan and Grant from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). The easement, which expires in the year 2014, maintains that the owners of the house “preserve
the architectural and historical integrity” of 10 Linwood Street,
and that the “said preservation is to be performed in a manner satisfactory to the transferee (the BRA)”.
Meet with the owner
and architect to make certain they are planning a preservation-based plan for the building. An organization, such as Historic
Boston Incorporated or a community development corporation, might be able to assist in finding solutions to make this preservation
project feasible, including
o the inclusion of affordable housing,
o the use of historic tax credits
o low-interest loans
Serve as the “eyes and ears” for the Boston Landmarks Commission
and Boston Redevelopment Authority by letting them know about the condition of the house or any new activity through a letter-writing
campaign. If the building condition does not improve, coordinate letters from the community requesting that the Boston Landmarks
Commission make the Kittredge House a priority in their pipeline and requesting that the Boston Redevelopment Authority show
enforce the preservation easement that they hold. Until the Kittredge House becomes an official Boston Landmark, any building
permits pulled will not trigger review or special attention by the Inspectional Services Department.
PRESERVATON
PRIOIRTY:
Hodgdon
House, 174 Highland Street or 51 Hawthorne Street
The large stick-style mansard
building on the corner of Hawthorne and Highland Streets, historically known as the Hodgdon House, creates a striking and
prominent presence on the street. Built in the Second Empire style, this house was in high
fashion when it was constructed in the late 1860s. Completed in 1870, the Hodgdon House was the last significant building
to have been constructed during the era of the “Fort Hill” development.
In 1825, the “five
associates”, a group of Roxbury businessmen that included Supply F. Thwing, Benjamin F. Copeland, David A. and Thomas
Simmons and Charles Hickling, purchased a 28 tract of land that was comprised of the old Ruggles and Williams Farms. The men
then subdivided the land, building fashionable homes for themselves. The land was soon subdivided further, between their family
members, heirs, and to private buyers. This land went to Supply Thwing’s son, Supply Clapp Thwing, who constructed the
elaborate Second Empire house.
The house soon became the
home of David M. Hodgdon, who maintained a clothing store located on Otis and Arch Streets in Boston. Prior to moving to the grand house on the corner of Highland and Hawthorn, Hodgdon had lived nearby at 86
Thornton Street. Hodgdon lived in the house until about 1884.
The house has had an interesting
history throughout the 20th century- there were attempts to change the house from a one family house to a building containing six
apartments around 1915, but according to building permits, the house was still vacant and by 1918 it was described as “in
very bad condition, the windows being broken out, and is a fire menace.” Also noted was a recent crime where a “drunken
man was taken into the house, dangerously assaulted and robbed.” By the 1950s, the house had been transformed into a
three family apartment complex, but by the 1970s, the house was again vacant and in poor condition.
The home has been owned
(and occupied?) by the current owner since about the year 2000.
As far as protecting the
resource from demolition and/or insensitive changes or additions, community could pursue Landmark Status for Hodgdon House.
However, it might not have enough state/regional significance to gain that status (it is listed as a “3” on the
Landmark’s survey form). For that reason, it is not recommended to pursue Landmark status unless there is a very good
case for its approval, since the potential rejection as a landmark might give the impression that the building is not LOCALLY
significant (which it is). Alternative strategies for rehabilitating, and potentially protecting the house, are listed below.
Strategies
Meet with the
owner of the property to understand their plans and possible obstacles that they are facing. A representative of Historic
Boston Incorporated could lend preservation planning assistance and could potentially suggest alternative financing structures
(including low-interest loans and historic tax credits) that could make the project more feasible.
To create a good
preservation plan for the building, its history must be researched and understood. The Hodgdon House could be a good candidate
for listing on the National Register for Historic Places, which will make the house eligible for historic tax credits.
Applying to the
Department of Neighborhood Development (DND) for a Historic Homeworks grant would be a good option for the owner of the Hodgdon
House. While the grant must be matched by the owner, and would not provide the full amount of money needed to completely finance
the rehabilitation of the Hodgdon House, it could provide a significant amount of capital and the support of DND.
Beyond partnering
with the DND Development with their Historic Homeworks program, there may be other tactics that DND and other organizations
can take to assist the owner with the project. A plan that includes an affordable housing component might translate into subsidies
for the project or other solutions. Bringing the owner and representatives of DND together should be a priority.
If the owner is
unwilling or unable to cooperate, there are avenues to take to encourage timely improvements. Community members and/or organizations
might consider reaching out to the Inspectional Services Department to make certain that the owner is making their best efforts
to maintain a safe building.
PRESERVATION
PRIORITY:
Cochituate
Standpipe, Highland Park
Located at the top of Roxbury’s
Fort Hill, the Cochituate Standpipe is both a visual landmark from surrounding areas as well as an unparalleled vantage point
of the city of Boston. Designed by local architect and engineer
Nathaniel Bradlee in 1869, the distinctive tower is located on the site of the Revolutionary War High Fort in Roxbury. The
High Fort was built in the summer of 1775 from the designs of Henry Knox and Josiah Waters. Built on a summit of rock and
featuring 15 foot tall embankments, the fort was one of the strongest works in the greater Boston area. Its location at the top of the hill commanded a strong vantage point for the
road to Boston and the road to Dedham.
The High Fort is also the
site of one of the earliest attempts at historic preservation. In 1825, five Roxbury residents purchased a large 28 acre tract
that included the High Fort. While the investors subdivided the rest of the land, the Fort land was held in common and kept
in good condition by joint expense. In 1830, the High Fort lot was offered to the town of Roxbury
for a sum of $3500: the offer was rejected.
In 1868, the town of Roxbury was annexed to the City of Boston.
One of the first priorities of the annexation was to provide clean water supply to residents. Although there was opposition
to the destruction of the historic fort, the city decided to move forward with plans to construct a standpipe. However, Nathaniel
Bradlee designed the Cochituate Standpipe to be a strong architectural statement that would stand as a monument to the site’s
history and allow for the public’s enjoyment of the view. A pumphouse, located at Elmwood and Roxbury Streets, forced
water up to the Standpipe where it was stored for use in households at high elevations in the highlands. The Standpipe only
operated in that capacity for a decade, and the park and building soon fellow into disrepair. Olmsted, Olmsted and Eliot were
commissioned in 1895 to provide plans for the improvement and landscaping of the park, which included reconstruction of the
quadrangular shape of the fort, creation of walkways, and plantings. The standpipe itself was transformed into an observatory
with the addition of an iron balcony, an attendant’s office and bronze memorial plaques. The improvements were completed
in 1916 and the tower was opened to the public in 1917.
At the February, 2009 meeting,
the members of the Neighborhood Preservation Partnership meeting suggested that the Cochituate Standpipe should be maintained,
its observatory should be replaced, the stairs improved and made safe, and that it should be open to the public. While this
opinion seems to have been held by the majority of the people in the room that day, steps should be taken to ensure that this
is the opinion of the majority of the neighborhood, perhaps particularly of the direct abutters on Fort Hill Avenue, Fort
Hill Avenue Terrace, and Beech Glen. The following are a few strategies and opportunities for partnerships if the neighborhood
does decide to proceed.
Maintenance
and Upkeep:
Today, the park and the
tower are maintained by both neighbors and the City’s Park and Recreation department. According to a Fort Avenue Resident,
about five years ago many of the neighbors hosted a fundraiser and collection enough funding to pay for half of the cost to
paint the tower, and the city paid for the other half.
o Currently, Fort Hill/Highland Park is listed
on the Boston Parks
and Recreation Department as “to be scheduled” in their capital improvement plan, which also indicates an intention
to “upgrade the park with new benches, paving, landscaping and improvements to the tower” with a budget of $250,000.
(in comparison, Jeep Jones
Park, which is currently “in design”, has a budget of 585,000
to “Renovate adjacent city parcel with fence, walkway, paving, benches and landscaping.”) The community should
move to work with the Department to develop a capital program and interpretive signage. This could be initiated through a
preliminary meeting, hosted by the BPA, to acquire information from the Boston Parks Department about the current plans for
the park.
o An exploration of alternative funding sources, such as
the Massachusetts Cultural Facilities Fund (MCCF). The Fund provides matching grants that may cover the acquisition, design,
repair, rehabilitation renovation, expansion, or construction of nonprofit cultural facilities in Massachusetts. However, obtaining funds is typically contingent on having a strong and feasible
program plan in place that details the use, interpretation piece, jurisdiction, etc. A plan should be put into place and agreed
upon by the community and abutters before an application to the MCCF is submitted.
Interpretation
and Programming:
There are several interesting
opportunities to interpret this site and potentially attract more interest and appreciation of the historical significance
of this area. With plans for programming in place, sources for funding and aid in improving the tower could be available.
o Interpreting and publicizing the importance of
this site is vital to its future. Walking tours, trolley tours, and celebrations would all help to highlight this extraordinary
piece of Roxbury’s history. Continued and expanded outreach with groups like Discover Roxbury, MyTown, and other active
Roxbury non-profit organizations will help to accomplish these interpretation goals.
o Partner with Michael Bare of South Boston Citizen’s
Organization to create an “ Inner City Freedom Trail” (or another, similar name) linking Fort Hill/Roxbury High
Fort to Dillaway Thomas House, First Church in Roxbury, Shirley Eustis House, Lemuel Clapp House, Dorchester Heights Monument.
o The Standpipe could potentially be a project
eligible for the Massachusetts Cultural Facilities Fund. The Fund provides matching grants that may cover the acquisition,
design, repair, rehabilitation renovation, expansion, or construction of nonprofit cultural facilities in Massachusetts. However, obtaining funds is typically contingent on having a strong and feasible
program plan in place that details the use, interpretation piece, jurisdiction, etc. A plan should be put into place and agreed
upon by the community and abutters before an application to the MCCF is submitted. More information about the Massachusetts
Cultural Facilities Fund can be found in Appendix A.
o Lastly, it is important to designate a non-profit group
or government agency as the “holder of the key”. This will allow for public access but with the neighborhood still
maintaining some control over the use of the tower.
PRIORITY
GREEN/OPEN SPACES
Hawthorne Youth and Community Center (Hawthorne)
Green, 184
Highland Street lot, Parcel # 1100482000
Owned by City of Boston,
this buildable lot is one of eight lots included in the zoning designation request (change from “building development”
to green space/community use) in December 2008 letter to the Highland Park Project Review Committee of the Roxbury Neighborhood
Council. The accompanying letter to the PRC from the HYCC Board of Directors requests formal approval of HYCC’s intention
to develop the parcel “for Recreation and Open Space use to benefit community residents.” This approval would
permit HYCC “to pursue zoning changes with the Roxbury Neighborhood Council and explore the options of either working
with Dudley Neighbors Incorporated to lease and develop the parcel or entering into a development agreement with the City
of Boston to devote the land to HYCC.”
This green space has long
been used by youth who attend the Hawthorne Youth and Community Center (HYCC), of the adjoining lot and under the leadership
of director Samantha Sadd. Youth have worked with an architect to develop a preliminary vision statement for the space; HYCC
has shared this vision statement with the Project Review Committee. The HYCC Board and some community members have embraced
this vision and Sam Sadd would like to build community support for it.
Possible action steps include:
The Hawthorne
Youth and Community Center and other neighborhood groups may explore new collaborations with other organizations to increase
regular active use, visibility and public support for preservation of this green space.
Hawthorne Youth
and Community Center may collaborate with other organizations, including Discover Roxbury, to research, document and develop
educational materials that include focus on the history of land use on this lot. An oral history project could be one component
of this effort.
Collaborate to
do a “heritage landscape inventory” of this lot in the context of the neighborhood as a whole, to include trees,
orchards, the “Black Jesus,” and other locally significant features. (See pp. 32 f. in Massachusetts Heritage
Landscapes: A Guide; Explore possible collaboration with the Massachusetts Historic Landscape Preservation Initiative;
Jessica Rowcroft, Preservation Planner, phone (617) 626-1380.)
Research the New
England Grassroots Environment Fund’s Boston Grants Initiative , Merck Family Fund, and investigate collaboration with
local environmental education programs, e.g. the Roxbury Environmental Empowerment Project (REEP) of ACE (Alternatives for
Community and Environment): http://www.ace-ej.org/programs_and_campaigns
Cedar Park
Owned by City of Boston and already zoned as a city park, this land parcel is not in danger
of being built on. Residents cite Cedar Park
as a well-known “hang-out” space for loiterers and drug users. The new Edith
Jeffrie Memorial Garden,
being developed by the neighborhood’s Green Guerrilla Garden Club, is located across the street from the park. Augustine
Petrillo, founder of Green Guerrilla, hopes that eventually the garden will attract some of the young people who hang out
at the park to participate in garden work. He has suggested that park upkeep will require a volunteer corps to do cleanup
two days/week. Community maintenance of the space seems to be the first priority; increasing community pride in and public/family
usage of the park could make positive impacts.
Action steps may include:
Formation of
a volunteer cleanup corps (perhaps with monthly rotations among several neighboring households).
Improvements
to the Memorial Garden
space, including attractive and welcoming signage, to increase its welcoming presence and discourage destructive activities
including littering and graffiti in the adjacent area.
Inclusion of the
park in any landscape inventory, green space tour, scavenger hunt, or other public education activity, to increase positive
use of and community pride in the park. (See “HYCC Green,” above.)
APPENDIX
A: RESOURCES, TOOLS AND DOCUMENTATION
This section of the Preservation
Priority Report identifies planning documents and tools that provide relevant information to Highland Park residents regarding historic preservation and planning tools.
INVENTORY
AND DOCUMENTATION
The first tool in preservation
planning is to understand and indentify historic resources within any given area. Highland
Park is fortunate to have many different types of architecture scattered throughout the neighborhood.
This collection of distinctive building types tells the story of Highland Park’s development
from a rural farm town to a fashionable early Boston suburb
to an urban neighborhood.
Massachusetts Historical Commission Surveys
The Massachusetts Historical
Commission’s (MHC) Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets is a stateside list that identifies significant historic
resources throughout the Commonwealth. In order to be included in the inventory, a property must be documented on an MHC inventory
form, which is then entered into the MHC database. This searchable database, known as MACRIS, is available online at http://mhc-macris.net/.
MACRIS typically provides just a snapshot of information, including date built, the architect (if known), and architectural
style. More information can be found by visiting MHC’s physical inventory files at their offices on Columbia Point.
According to the MHC, the
Highland Park/Fort Hill neighborhood has about 500 buildings in the state inventory. These inventoried properties range from
1825 to 1980, with the majority of the properties listed dating from between 1840 and 1890.
Many of the forms were done
in the late 1970s and more research was likely done in preparation for the 1989 National Register District designation of
the Roxbury Highlands District. Archaeological sites, landscapes and other non-traditional historic resources are under-represented.
Boston
Landmarks Commission
The Boston Landmark Commission
(BLC) is the city-wide historic preservation agency. The Commission’s functions include identifying and preserving historic
properties, reviewing development and demolition activities proposed in the city, providing public information and assistance
on preservation practices, and providing staff support to local historic district commissions. The BLC also administers the
City's Demolition Delay process, Article 85 of the Zoning Code.
The BLC has administered architectural inventory surveys of all Boston neighborhoods and the Central Business District. Many of these survey forms were completed
in the 1970s and are out of date. The period of significance of the neighborhood has been widely expanded in recent years,
and an inventory of Highland Park today would be quite different
than it was 40 years ago.
DESIGNATION
AND PROTECTION
After the state-wide agency,
the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the local agency, the Boston Landmarks Commission, has identified historic properties
throughout the area, the next step is to designate the buildings and places that are the most significant.
State
and National Registers of Historic Places
The National Register of
Historic Places is the official federal list of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that have been determined
significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture. All National Register properties are
also listed in the State Register.
Listing on the National
Register honors and recognizes the cultural, historical and architectural significance of a property or district. The National
Register has limited review power for projects that are publically funded and may offer economic incentives. These incentives
include income-tax credits of 20% for rehabilitation of income-producing historic properties for projects that meet specified
federal requirements. There are also matching grants for preservation of properties owned by municipalities or non-profits,
through the Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund (MPPF), administered by the MHC.
Individual Highland Park properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places:
Garrison House,
Highland Street
Hale House, 12 Morley Street
Kittredge House,
10 Linwood Street
Dillaway School, Kenilworth Street
The Parting Stone,
John Eliot Square
Highland Park/High
Fort
National
Register Districts
John Eliot Square
Highland Park
A designated Boston Landmark is a property (or a district comprised of multiple properties) with historic, social,
cultural, architectural or aesthetic significance to the City and the Commonwealth, the New England
region, or the nation. It has been designated through a formal process, and once designated, proposed changes to Landmark
properties require BLC design review and approval. Most Boston Landmarks are designated for exterior review only, for the
building(s) and the property. Landmark designation does not regulate use or occupancy. (Paragraph taken from the Boston Landmarks
Commission’s website http://www.cityofboston.gov/Environment/landmarks.asp)
Today, there is only one designated Boston Landmark in the Highland
Park neighborhood. The Cox Building in John Eliot Square,
was listed in 1979. Two other properties have been submitted for Landmark status: the Kittredge House (nominated October 2008,
accepted for further study) and First Church of Roxbury and Putnam Chapel, (pending, under study).
Another option for applying
a high level of protection and review to a building is a preservation easement, or a preservation restriction. A preservation
easement is a voluntary legal agreement that protects a significant historic, archaeological, or cultural resource. An
easement provides assurance to the owner of a historic or cultural property that the property's intrinsic values will be preserved
through subsequent ownership. In addition, the owner may obtain substantial tax benefits. Historic preservation easements
also are used to protect historic landscapes, battlefields, traditional cultural places, or archaeological sites. Under the
terms of an easement, a property owner grants a portion of, or interest in, her property rights to an organization whose mission
includes historic preservation. Once recorded, an easement becomes part of the property's chain of title and usually "runs
with the land" in perpetuity, thus binding not only the owner who grants the easement but all future owners as well.
All properties that have
preservation restrictions filed under the state statute are automatically listed in the State Register.
In the Highland Park neighborhood, the following buildings have preservation restrictions.
Spooner-Lambert
House, 64 Bartlett Street (owner of the preservation
restriction: HBI)
Marble Front
Rowhouses, 28-46 Cedar Street (owner of the preservation
restriction: HBI)
Alvah Kittredge
House, 10 Linwood Street (owner of the easement: BRA)
Hale House, 12 Morley Street ( owner of the easement: Boston Landmarks Commission)
As a preservation tool,
the donation of an easement to a certified easement-holding organization can be attractive for its potential tax benefits.
If certain criteria are met the owner can receive a Federal income tax deduction equivalent to the value of the rights given
away to a charitable or governmental organization. Additional financial benefits may be available in the form of reduced estate,
gift, and local property taxes.
CITY
OF BOSTON ZONING TOOLS
There are several tools
found within the City of Boston’s Zoning Code that apply to the preservation goals of
the Highland Park community. It is important to understand
how these tools work to best utilize them to preserve the character of the neighborhood.
Neighborhood Design Overlay
District (NDOD)
The entire Highland Park/ Eliot Square District is designated a Neighborhood Design Overlay District,
established as an overlay to protect the historic character of the neighborhood). Typically, the Zoning Code specifies small
project design review when adding a minimum of 20,000 square feet or a minimum of 15 dwellings (Article 80, Small Project
Review). However, in a Neighborhood Design Overlay District such as Highland Park, any alteration- changing a roof
or height of cornice line, erecting an addition of 300 square feet or greater, and any exterior façade alteration over 300
square feet should trigger a design review.
Demolition
Delay – Article 85
One additional local legislative
tool is available for the specific objective of preservation. Article 85 of the Boston Zoning Code establishes up to a 90-day
delay in the granting of permission to demolish a building if it is at least 50 years old. If the Boston Landmarks Commission
makes a “determination of significance” on a building, demolition delay provides a specific period for public
comment and an opportunity to determine whether an alternative to demolishing the building can be found. One goal of the Demo-Delay
article is to minimize the demolition of buildings where no immediate re-use of the site is planned.
Article 85 is applicable
neither to properties that are neither individual Boston Landmarks nor in a local historic district. However, it cannot prevent
demolition; only defer it for 90 days. Boston has one of the
weakest Demolition Delay bylaws in the state. Cambridge, by comparison, has a six month Demolition Delay Bylaw, and other
towns, such as Brookline and Newton, have a twelve month bylaw, making it a much more effective tool since it slows down the
project considerably.
Dimensional
Exceptions
There are several exceptions
to minimum dimensional requirements that allow new construction to conform more closely to the existing context. For example,
section 50.44.1 allows the new building setback to match those of at least two consistent existing buildings on a block. Section
50.44.2 permits a 3/4 minimum lot size providing that other minimum specific dimensions are met.
Boulevard
Planning District
The eastern edge of the district is bounded by the Washington Boulevard Planning District, which
extends 100’ from centerline of Washington Street
and is superimposed on sub-district zoning. This overlay requires that certain design components are included and design review
is conducted with acknowledgement of Washington Street’s
significance.
APPENDIX
B: FINANCIAL, TECHNICAL, AND INFORMATIONAL SUPPORT
Department of
Neighborhood Development Historic Homeworks
Sponsored by the City of
Boston Department of Neighborhood Development (DND), Boston's Historic HomeWorks provides grants
to help Boston homeowners make historically appropriate exterior
repairs/improvements. The goal of the program is to assist homeowners with making repairs that maintain the original architectural
integrity of their homes, and, also to enhance the historical character of their neighborhoods. In order to participate in
Boston's Historic HomeWorks, you must be an owner-occupant of a 1- to 4-family house, which
must be at least 50 years old and located in the City of Boston.
Your income must be $63,000 or less for a single person, or $90,000 or less for two or more people. Boston's Historic HomeWorks will provide you with a grant of up to $5,000 to help you make
eligible home repairs. The grant will cover up to 50% of the cost of repairs based on the estimate provided by your selected
contractor. The amount of rehabilitation you can do ranges from $3,000 to $35,000. To receive the grant, you must obtain the
matching funds needed to complete the job. The matching funds can come from a variety of sources: your savings, a gift from
your family, a loan from a bank or a Community\Neighborhood Development Corporation.
National Trust
for Historic Preservation Grants
Another valuable funding
resource is the National Trust for Historic Preservation. It is important to note that for the most part, these grants are
only available to non-profit organizations or municipalities. However, there are always opportunities for neighborhood groups
and concerned individuals to partner with non-profit organizations to work in partnership towards project funding goals. The
Neighborhood Preservation Partnership organizations (the Boston Preservation Alliance and Historic Boston Incorporated) could
potentially serve as a partner.
o The National Trust Preservation Fund includes
funds that provide two types of assistance to nonprofit organizations and public agencies: 1) matching grants from $500 to
$5,000 for preservation planning and educational efforts, and 2) intervention funds for preservation emergencies. Matching
grant funds may be used to obtain professional expertise in areas such as architecture, archeology, engineering, preservation
planning, land-use planning, fund raising, organizational development and law as well as to provide preservation education
activities to educate the public.
o The Johanna Favrot Fund for Historic Preservation
provides nonprofit organizations and public agencies grants ranging from $2,500 to $10,000 for projects that contribute to
the preservation or the recapture of an authentic sense of place. Individuals and for-profit businesses may apply only if
the project for which funding is requested involves a National Historic Landmark. Funds may be used for professional advice,
conferences, workshops and education programs.
o The Cynthia Woods Mitchell Fund for Historic Interiors
provides nonprofit organizations and public agencies grants ranging from $2,500 to $10,000 to assist in the preservation,
restoration, and interpretation of historic interiors. Individuals and for-profit businesses may apply only if the project
for which funding is requested involves a National Historic Landmark. Funds may be used for professional expertise, print
and video communications materials, and education programs.
The Massachusetts Cultural Facilities Fund is an initiative of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Fund was created as part of a major economic stimulus bill that was approved by the Massachusetts Legislature in July
2006. The legislative appropriation to the Fund in FY2007 was $13 million; $12 million in FY2008; and currently $6.5 million
in FY2009. To date, the Fund has awarded nearly $24 million in grants to 120 cultural organizations across Massachusetts.
The goal of the Cultural Facilities Fund is to increase investments from both the
public sector and the private sector to support the sound planning and development of cultural facilities in Massachusetts. The Fund provides Capital Grants, Feasibility & Technical Assistance
Grants and System Replacement Plan Grants to promote the acquisition, design, repair, rehabilitation renovation, expansion,
or construction of nonprofit cultural facilities in Massachusetts.
All grants from the Fund must be matched with cash contributions from the private or public sector. Eligible applicants include
nonprofit cultural organizations and (subject to some limitations) municipalities and institutions of higher education that
own cultural facilities.
Historic New England’s Historic Homeowner Membership Program: Historic Homeowner membership provides individualized access
to Historic New England’s Historic Preservation staff for evaluation, consultation, and referrals on a range of issues
confronting older houses. Annual membership benefits include:
o online or mail-in consultation to help you select historically-appropriate paint
colors OR to evaluate design or construction proposals to ensure compatibility with your old house;
o Exclusive password-protected website.
o online and telephone access to Historic Homeowner staff for two additional technical
assistance requests annually;
o two electronic newsletters on historic house maintenance and resource issues;
o invitations to two members-only historic house workshops and events; and
o all the benefits of household membership in Historic New England.
National Trust for Historic Preservation website
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, the nation-wide non-profit
historic preservation organization, has been very successful in gathering pertinent information about preservation. Their
website, www.preservationnation.org, has a great deal of resources available, including information sheets about specific
preservation topics (advice for historic homeowners, advocacy tips, weatherization facts, and much, much more.) There are
also interactive graphics showing how to “green” your historic home
o (http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/sustainability/green-home-tips.html)
o http://www.preservationnation.org/about-us/regional-offices/northeast/additional-resources/Wood-Windows-Tip-Sheet-July-2008.pdf.
26
Boston Building Materials Resources and Co-op
Boston Building Materials Co-op, located in Roxbury Crossing, is a not-for-profit
consumer co-op that is open to the public. Their purpose is to provide high quality materials at a reasonable cost and to
teach people how to maintain and improve their homes. Members of the Co-op will enjoy lower prices and benefits at the Resource
center. The Boston Building Materials Co-op offers hands-on home improvement classes throughout the year. Topics include kitchen
design, finish carpentry, window rehab, sheet rocking and taping, tiling, home electrical safety, power tools, and much more.
(Members receive a discount for workshops.)
Open/Green Space Information and Grant Opportunities:
Massachusetts Historic Landscape Preservation
Initiative (led by DCR)
The Heritage Landscape Inventory Program builds upon prior landscape survey efforts
to identify, document and plan for the protection of the heritage landscapes that are vital to the history, character and
quality of life of our communities. Contact Jessica Rowcroft, Preservation Planner, for more information. Download or request
a copy of Reading the Land--Massachusetts Heritage Landscapes:
A Guide to Identification and Protection, Mass. Dpt. of Environmental Management, 2003, esp. pp. 32-45. This publication
can be downloaded at no cost: http://www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/histland/reading_the_land.pdf)
For an extensive list of local, regional and national organizations that may prove
helpful, see “Contacts” on page 43 of Reading the Land: http://www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/histland/reading_the_land.pdf
The New England
Grassroots Environment Fund (NEGEF)
This organization seeks to energize and nurture long term civic engagement in local
initiatives that create and maintain healthy, just, safe and environmentally sustainable communities. The Fund uses grant
making, networking, and skills-building to fuel local activism and social change. Their Urban Grants Program, the Boston Grants
Initiative, awards grants of $500-$10,000 to groups working at a neighborhood or city level on environmental health, environmental
justice or green space initiatives in Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea or Somerville while demonstrating
significant element of volunteer involvement in their programs.
The Merck Family Fund
The Merck Family Fund was
established in 1954 by George W. Merck, President of Merck & Co. He created the fund for two principal reasons: to do
good with the resources acquired through the company's success, and to create an opportunity to regularly bring family members
together. The goals of the Fund are to “restore and protect the natural environment and ensure a healthy planet for
generations to come; and to strengthen the social fabric and the physical landscape of the urban community.”
APPENDIX
C: OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTNERSHIPS
Boston Preservation Alliance Old City Hall 45 School Street Boston, MA 02108 Phone: (617) 367-2458 www.bostonpreservation.org Historic Boston Incorporated 3 School Street
Boston, MA 02108
Phone: (617)227-4679
www.historicboston.org
National Trust for Historic Preservation Northeast Office 7 Faneuil Hall Marketplace, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617)523-0885
http://www.preservationnation.org/
Boston Landmarks Commission Boston City Hall, One City Hall Square #805 Boston, MA 02201 Phone: (617) 635-3850
http://www.cityofboston.gov/Environment/landmarks.asp
Department of Neighborhood Development 26 Court Street, 8, 9 & 11th Floor Boston, MA 02108-2501 Phone: (617)635-3880
http://www.cityofboston.gov/dnd/
Massachusetts Historical Commission 220 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, MA
02125-3314 Phone: (617)-727-8470
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/
Department of Conservation and Recreation Heritage Landscape Inventory Program 251
Causeway St, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02114 (617) 626-1380
Jessica
Rowcroft, Preservation Planner jessica.rowcroft@state.ma.us Historic New England 141 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02114 Phone: (617) 227-3956
http://www.historicnewengland.org/
National
Park Service Northeast Region U.S. Custom
House 200 Chestnut St., Fifth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone:(215) 597-7013
http://www.nps.gov/
Boston Parks and Recreation 1010 Massachusetts Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02118 Phone: (617)635-4505
http://www.cityofboston.gov/parks/
Discover Roxbury 183 Roxbury St Roxbury,
MA 02119 Phone: (617)427-1006
http://www.discoverroxbury.org/
Boston Natural Area Network 62 Summer Street, Second Floor Boston, MA 02110-1008 Phone (617)542-7696
http://www.bostonnatural.org/
EarthWorks 34 Linwood Street Roxbury,
MA 02119 Phone: (617) 442-1059
www.earthworksboston.org
Trust for Public Land Massachusetts/Rhode Island
Office 33 Union Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02108
(617) 367-6200
http://www.tpl.org/
Merck
Family Fund 303 Adams Street, Milton, MA 02186 Tel: 617-696-3580 Fax. 617-696-7262 merck@merckff.org www.merckff.org
New England Grassroots Environment Fund
P.O. Box 1057 Montpelier VT 05601 p. 802 223 4622 f. 802 229 1734 http://www.grassrootsfund.org
Ginny Callan, MA & VT Program
Officer & BGI Program Director: callan@grassrootsfund.org
APPENDIX D: TIMELINE FOR CREATING AN ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Steps
completed:
Submitted a petition
to the Boston Landmarks with 10 signatories of Boston Residents (completed in ~1979-date?)
Petition was
heard by the Boston Landmarks Commission and accepted for further study (completed in ~1979- date?)
Meetings held
between the Boston Landmarks Commission and the Project Review Committee (PRC) of the Roxbury Neighborhood Council.
Preliminary study
and proposed design guidelines (1999)- publication of “Preserving Highland Park, A Livable Community”.
To
move the Architectural Conservation District proposal forward, the following would need to happen:
The Mayor would
appoint a Study Committee, consisting of five BLC members and six persons would have demonstrated interest in the subject
under consideration (City Council confirmation of the appointments is required)
The Study Committee
(assisted by BLC staff) would prepare a Study Report for the potential designation of an Architectural Conservation District-
the standards and criteria for design review for the district would be included in this and is tailored to the needs and goals
of the community.
Upon completion
of the report, the Boston Landmarks Commission would hold a hearing for potential designation of the Architectural Conservation
District. At this hearing, the public will have an opportunity for testimony.
If passed by
a 2/3 majority, the designation will be presented to the Mayor
If the Mayor
does not overturn the designation, it is presented to the City Council.
If the vote is
upheld by the City Council, then the designation of the Architectural Conservation District is made official.
The Mayor would
then appoint commission members to serve in reviewing proposed architectural changes in the district as required in the designation
Study Report.
SOURCES
Preserving Highland Park, Protecting a Livable Community, Boston Landmarks Commission (prepared by Gail
Sullivan Associates, Inc), 1999
Boston Landmark Commission
Survey Forms
MACRIS
A Roxbury Guidebook, Published by Discover Roxbury, 2007
PROJECT
TEAM
Shelby
Graham, Historic Boston Incorporated
Erica
Lindamood, Boston Preservation Alliance
Partner
Agency and Organization Participants
Gary
Russell, Boston Landmarks Commission
Brent Leggs, National
Trust for Historic Preservation
Sally Zimmerman, Historic
New England
Peter Stott, Massachusetts
Historical Commission
Community
Participants
Willie Brown, Marcia Butman,
Ernest Coston, Donnie Dixon, Jon Ellertson, Celia Grant, Lloyd King, Napoleon Jones-Henderson,
Peter Lee, Karen Mapp, Chris McCarthy,
Michelle Murphy, Augustine Petrillo, Rep. Byron Rushing, Nick Russo, Samantha Sadd, Ewurama Shaw-Taylor, Rodney Singleton, Joyce Stanley, Mark Sullivan, Councilor Chuck Turner, Joann Wilson-Singleton, Bryon Winder,
Millicent Young
Winter-Spring 2009
