As change comes to Union Square we’re called to balance community interests. Making the best long-term decisions for this community will take all of us to be informed in the public process and to assist in thoughtfully weighing the community impacts. In seemingly every project we’re seeing a complicated mix of choices and compromises, each one different.
Take the current proposal for 197 Washington Street, the current location of Cota Funeral Home, as an example. There’s no easy answers here, and for Union Square Main Streets this is a particularly complex issue that directly touches on our value of historic preservation and our mission to advance the economic vitality of the square’s commercial district. How do we best preserve our heritage and steward the neighborhood’s historic assets while balancing a clear, viable vision for the future of Union Square? We’re hoping to engage you, members of the community, in this conversation both for this specific challenge and for the other projects that are ever more steadily proposed for the neighborhood. 70 Prospect Street, 237 Washington Street (the current post office) — these two are already right in view, and many more in the works.
Here’s the 197 Washington Street case: a developer is seeking to redevelop the property, currently the Cota Funeral Home and a surface parking lot, by demolishing the current structure and building condos. Somerville Community Corporation (SCC) owns the adjoining parcel, 181 Washington Street, and is partnering with this developer. SCC has already obtained the permits to demolish the building on their site; most recently it was used by the Boys and Girls Club and, before that it was a Somerville public middle school.The developer for 197 Washington and SCC are planning a joint application for the design and permitting process with the City of Somerville. The rough idea is the construction of two buildings with a shared parking area that uses a single vehicle entrance on Boston Street. One building, to be retained by the developer, would be market rate housing, while the other, owned by SCC, would be reduced-rate, rental units for those with low and moderate incomes. Zoning regulations and design guidelines encourage active, non-residential uses on the ground level so it is anticipated that both would have retail use or offices with high-foot traffic tenants along the street edge.
In January 2013, as required by the City’s Demolition Review Ordinance which calls for review of all demolition applications affecting a property over 50 years old, Somerville Historic Preservation was asked for a determination on 197 Washington Street.
There’s a three step process here. First, the Commission declares whether the property is historically significant. For a “Determination of Significance,” the building must be found to be either importantly associated with people, events or history, or to be historically or architecturally significant in itself. If the property is deemed significant the next step is a a public hearing and a determination on whether the property should be “Preferably Preserved.”
If found preferably preserved there’s a 9-month delay on the permit during which time the Commission works with the property owner to find alternatives to demolition. This could be anything from finding another buyer for the building and site who would preserve it, to buying the building for a $1 (or some such pittance) to move the structure to another location, to taking photographs and gathering survey data on the parcel, to salvaging architectural elements such as moldings and fixtures.
It’s important to note that “Preferably Preserved” does not protect the property from demolition — it merely creates a delay during which alternatives can be investigated and implemented. Demolition can only be halted if the property with the special recognition of a ” Local Historic District”. Historic Designation must be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Massachusetts Historical Commission and by a two-thirds majority of the Board of Alderman.
A local historic district, the strongest protection available for historic properties, creates a regulatory review process for all changes to the exterior architectural features visible from a public way. Some of the buildings in Union Square have been given this designation, including several of the the Victorian homes on Bow Street. Because it entails restrictions on private property there’s a significant process of research and approvals for properties to be given this designation.
197 Washington Street was found at the January meeting to be historically significant. The property was built sometime around 1860, before much of the rest of the neighborhood was developed. Set up on the hill, with a big yard, it gives a glimpse of the earliest days of Union Square. But the house was converted to a funeral parlor as early as 1933 so that, while many details remain like the cornice, bracket details, half-moon window, roofline and other architectural details can still be seen from the public way, along with the semi circular driveway, much of the ground floor architectural details are long lost.
What is more important is its connection with historic events. A stone marker located on the sidewalk directly in front of 197 Washington Street states, “On this hillside, James Miller Minute Man, was slain by the British, April 19, 1775, ‘I am too old to run.’” As reported by the Historic Commission, “James Miller is reputed to have been slain as the British made their way around Prospect Hill to Charlestown, retreating from Lexington.” But this isn’t specific to the building itself. The property had been the home of two prominent Union Square residents. Samuel Holt was a trustee and Treasurer of the Methodist Episcopal Church on Bow Street. In 1884 and 1885, Holt served on the Common Council, a predecessor to the Board of Alderman, as well as on the Board of Alderman from 1886-1887. Later, it was the home of William E. Plumer who launched W. E. Plumer and Company down the street at 52 Union Square, where the thriving business sold hardware, cutlery, and tools from 1905 through 1919. The Commission also noted that the 80 year span as a funeral home was significant and was part of a movement begun in the mid 1930s to reuse mansions as a fitting place to decorously send-off to one’s loved ones.
Union Square Main Streets submitted a letter in January supporting the Commission’s finding the property significant because it allows for time for the community to formally weigh-in.
For the decision on whether to find the structure preferably preserved we at Union Square Main Streets are torn.
Supporting the designation of Preferably Preserved, 197 Washington is one of the few remaining examples of the lot size and set backs on the hill that once graced a less urban Union Square. The building is in good condition and currently in active use as a funeral home. The Commission frequently has approved expansions and modifications of designated properties to enable more productive reuse. If found preferably preserved during the delay period the Commission and the property owner could explore such possible adaptive reuse.
But while Union Square Main Streets appreciates the unique contribution of the property, we have mixed feelings championing the property in the long term. Reuse of the building is limited. On a steep slope it’s a challenge to make the property affordably ADA accessible. While usable open space is desired for the neighborhood, historic designation does not allow access to a property such as with a house museum. Preservation in this case maintains the view of privately-owned open space, not admission or use of it. The set back on the hill doesn’t foster the kind of active street front that would the neighborhood’s commercial development.Here’s some of what the new development could contribute. The 197 and 181 Washington Street proposals, by designing them together, will allow for a better design of both. Removing surface parking and driveways from Washington Street will encourage pedestrians along this key corridor to the heart of Union Square’s business district from East Somerville and the future Washington Street Green Line station. The new apartment units will make a dent toward relieving market pressures on housing, and these new residents will positively contribute to the business activity in the Square. The new construction promises to strengthen the city’s tax base, as the assessments dramatically increase on these parcels that have remained depressed for decades.On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 the Historic Preservation Commission will hear from the public on a determination of 197 Washington Street as “Preferably Preserved.” What say you? If you think the City should delay the demolition, what would you recommend be done to preserve the property?
AHM
8:49 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I expect it will be demolished. Much as I hate to see that sort of thing happen. We shall be seeing more if these problems here. The location is a killer for this particular. And no place nearby to move it to. Too much going against it.
James
9:53 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
With so many beautiful, historic homes up the hill to preserve a view into history, why should we sacrifice an opportunity to build badly needed housing and retail along this main commercial corridor with bus service?
Matt C
9:59 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Mimi, thanks for writing such a well thought through piece. I believe that like AHM said above the property will be demolished and something new put in to replace it. I hope that the replacement extends the business district up through that block of Washington St.
This lends itself to a larger discussion. I think it is very important to encouraging new growth in the city and this will have to be done through well thought out "smart growth" zoning. This will mean a mix of residential, commercial/office and storefront.
On an aside I have to complement the developer for coordinating the the building of his property with that of the low-income housing project being out up by SCC. If i understand how the law works this would allow him to put up all market rate units because the SCC tenement will have over 40 units of moderate and section 8 units. if organized as a single development opportunity his unit would not be subject to 40b because well over the proportion of non-market rate property would be involved in the development.
RK
10:41 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
We can not stop progress but it will all lie in the final plans. If it is taken down, the plans need to be well thought out with designs that will not be an eyesore for years to come. I suspect, having dealt with the historical society who are impossible to deal with, they will do anything they can to thwart any plans to move forward in order to replace the existing structure.
susan
11:49 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
I would suggest that everyone take a long, hard look at the West End and Scollay Square in Boston, and what was done in the name of 'progress'. Who are the Union Square Main Streets and the SCC to dictate to the entire city what should be done with our history? This administration will bulldoze the entire city if they are allowed to. It's a disgrace.
Matt C
12:17 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
You always hove the option of raising the funds and purchasing the property yourself. It may be our history but it is their property and I do not believe anyone likes it when they are told what they can and cannot do with their property.
Lucas Rogers
7:47 am on Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Matt C, ever since Penn Station came down, many laws have been passed throughout the United States, including Somerville, protecting private historically and architecturally property from demolition. That river was crossed a long time ago. The real question here is whether this particular building should have been protected, in the way others in Somerville have been.
If it weren't for historic preservation ordinances, Somerville and other communities would be far less interesting, and commercially valuable, places than they are.
FV
12:03 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
"Change is not merely necessary to life -- IT IS LIFE." - Alvin Toffler
"If you want things to stay as they are, things will have to change." - Giuseppe di Lamedosa
"The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order." - Alfred North Whitehead
susan
12:31 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
The point is, 'progress' is not always better.
Matt C
12:37 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Sure, progress or change is not always positive not do people always agree with it, but it is inevitable. Where this gets more interesting is we (myself included) want to have a say in what a private owner wants to do with their property, and we need to ask ourselves if this is fair and if we should have that opportunity.
ttt
1:05 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Great point Matt C - I think we only should have a say in what a private owner wants to do with their property when it impacts other private owners (us) - i.e. views, traffic, etc. Architectural and historical character of a place is an important impact too - if they build a monstrosity it will devalue the rest of the surrounding properties. The fundimental purpose of zoning and the design review process is the protection of property values and quality of life for surrounding properties.
Matt C
3:45 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
ttt - I struggle with this one - want to have a say, but i have been trying to turn the tables and ask what if roles were switched. If it is my property and work was not being done with public money than the only thing that should matter is if I am following zoning and building code and that the use is legal. No one other than I should have a say. Now if public money is used, we should have a say as it is our money being spent....
ttt
9:40 am on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Matt C - couldn't agree more, for a private redevelopment no one else should be able to tell someone what to do with their property, as long as it follows zoning and code. Great to hear someone else make such a rational statement.
Part of the zoning requirements for a project of this scale is an analysis of the impacts on the surrounding area, which is why I'm comfortable participating in a review of the project and making sure that nothing they are doing is negatively impacting me. As a resident of Boston Street, I'm concerned that they potentially want to move the entrance from Washington St to Boston St, increasing traffic dramatically on a small residential street.
Note that the Somerville Community Corporation housing project at 181 Washington is using public money - federal, state and local - and provides a significantly smaller tax benefit to the City than a market rate developement would. We can and should have a lot of say in what is done here (or whether it is done at all) since we are indirectly paying for it.
Hope to run into you at the meeting on Wednesday.
ttt
1:05 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
A joint entrance off of Boston Street????????? Are you kidding me? Boston Street is a quiet residential street, why would you take the traffic for all these new units from Washington Street and put it there? The current entrance for both of these properties is off of Washington where it should stay.
Great to see that market rate developers are still interested in this corner of the city despite the presence of the SCC, and that they won't be required to build even more 'affordable' units. Maybe they will be more responsive to neighborhood character and concerns than the SCC has been.
marianne
1:21 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
TTT, I had the same thought. It not only would clog Boston Street, but Boston Street itself is not easy to access. You can access it from McGrath Highway, although you cannot take a left onto Greenville to get to Boston. You can only access it via Highland Ave. or Walnut Street.
Ripley
4:22 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
SCC's last plan had a driveway on Boston St, and they wanted to make Boston two-way to allow direct access from Washington St.
Lynn
10:12 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
If I understood attorney Adam Dash correctly at the meeting last night, the market-rate developer will still be required to designate 12.5% of that building to inclusionary housing. If 84 units are to be built (44 Cota property + 40 SCC units), there will be a total of 46 affordable units on the adjacent sites. This nets 55% "affordable" and 45% "market-rate" apartments.
alisha
1:25 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013
The article sounds like the only entrance is on Boston Street. That is simply absurd, and should not be allowed by our so-called Planning Department. It should have nothing to do with who the developer is. And on another note, since the SCC received public money, and are not private developers, then I think we should be able to say what and how they build a project. It is our money, our city, our history.
Michelle
12:44 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
with so little green space in that area of Union Square it would be nice to see that lot preserved as a park and not developed at all.
Nick
11:44 am on Friday, April 5, 2013
I live on Washington Terrace. There goes the skyline view I pay to enjoy, and the fact that excavating that land could very well result in structural damage to my foundation given the steep grade of the hill. The direction the development of Union Square is heading will make us the next Allston- An eyesore steps from beautiful surroundings. Union Square may very well have been a commercial center for Somerville as much as a century ago, but today it is a residential neighborhood with mom and pop retail and dining locations. The terms "Under industrialized" and "Under utilized" that the city and developers have been marketing simply mean that they are not making money off our neighborhood. Personally, I'm completely fine with that!
Rob
1:36 pm on Monday, April 8, 2013
Did the abutters consider buying the Cota Funeral Home property to enjoy their skyline views into perpetuity? Short of that, I'm not sure it's fair to say that folks are paying to enjoy the view forever. Skyline views are a nice amenity, and if I could, I'd love to vaporize the house next to mine so I could see the views. But I would have to buy my neighbor's building and tear it down, and that would be expensive. Likewise, wouldn't you need to buy the Cota property to prevent someone else from blocking your view?
Nick
12:34 am on Thursday, April 11, 2013
From what I understand, and perhaps I've been misinformed, Both the Cota lot, and the Boys & Girls Club lot, were part of the original parcels listed in the Revitalization Plan, and were approached by developers directly. IF that's true, even if the property did go on the market, and we did purchase the lot, it would still be subject to sale/relocation. All that aside, I never said that "folks are paying to enjoy their view forever", nor did I say that neighbors shouldn't have the right to do what they want with their property (before you put those words in my mouth too). What I DID say is that, if we're not careful, this plan will take away from the charm and aesthetic of Union Square, to the benefit of those who aren't already living here. Feel free to comment on that point, but please refrain from putting words in my mouth for the sake of playing devil's advocate.
Rob
10:44 am on Thursday, April 11, 2013
Sorry Nick. My intent wasn't to put words in your mouth. Say more then about "the skyline view I pay to enjoy." I was confused by this in your comment, and it was the reason for my reply.
I share your concern about the charm and aesthetic of Union Square. While I'm generally supportive of the development, I think the aesthetic design for the proposed buildings is out of character with the neighborhood and, as another commenter suggested, will lead to the "borification" of Union Square.
I don't know about Cota, but the Boys and Girls Club was on the market for many months--I think more than a year? There were huge signs on the side listing it for sale. I don't know why it was on the market for so long, but I can only guess that there wasn't much interest in the property. And then SCC came along and put down an offer that was accepted.
Mimi Graney
9:45 am on Thursday, April 11, 2013
Nick, by way of FYI, Cota and the Boys and Girls Club are not part of the revitalization plan. You can see all the details here: http://www.somervillema.gov/sites/default/files/UnionSquareRevitalizationPlanFINAL.pdf
Just the parking lot beside teh funeral home was included.