Preservation Alert:
18th Century Harvard Square Buildings in Peril

Harvard Square Historic District Proposal Before Cambridge City Council

Background. In 1997, Historic Massachusetts, a statewide preservation organization, declared Harvard Square (established in 1631) one of the 10 most endangered resources in the state, based on concerns with overdevelopment. Facing upscale homogenization of this unique place, different constituent groups are coming together for the first time out of a common interest in preserving and restoring the Square. These generally independent groups -- religious, academic, nonprofit, business, and residential -- are fighting not to lose their international and local identities.

The Harvard Square Historic District Study Committee, after a thorough three-year study process, published its proposal for a Harvard Square Historic District and related zoning amendments in a Preliminary Study Report in August 1999. At a public hearing on October 7, 1999, the Cambridge Historical Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council enact the proposed ordinance for a Harvard Square Historic District and the related zoning amendments. The City Council discussed the proposal at its December 20, 1999 meeting, but tabled a vote, due to lack of support. The matter awaits action by the new City Council.

Historic District Proposal. The proposal calls for an historic district established under Chapter 40C of the Massachusetts General Laws and administered by the existing Cambridge Historical Commission, in conjunction with zoning amendments that would maintain current FAR provisions in Harvard Square. Under the current proposal, the Historical Commission would have binding review over demolition, new construction, and publicly-visible exterior alterations to existing buildings, and could, in appropriate cases, impose dimensional and set-back requirements in addition to those required by zoning.

The regulations are broad enough to respond to the many types of architecture found in the Square. The language of the ordinance clearly acknowledges the intent of the commission to encourage creative design solutions that also preserve the integrity of the Square's buildings.

A summary of the Final Study Report is available online at http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/~Historic/ or a full-length copy of the report can be obtained by calling the Historical Commission at 617/349-4683.

Opposing Arguments. The historic district proposal has been presented at a series of public meetings and was reviewed by state and local agencies, local property and business owners, and grass-roots preservation organizations. While opponents have brought up concerns about added costs, excessive regulation, and the potential of additional litigation, the Cambridge Planning Board, Harvard Square Business Association, Harvard Square Defense Fund, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Historical Commission have all communicated their support for the proposal.

Several city councilors have been convinced that historic districting is bad for business and for the property owners in the Square. Below is a list of the arguments that have been offered against the historic district proposal.

The Friends of Harvard Square are requesting anyone who can answer these contentions to contact the Cambridge City Councilors by e-mail. People are encouraged to write of their success stories in commercial and mixed-use districts. One of the most important issues here is that Harvard Square is economically properous, with rents skyrocketing. The great concern is that the area is losing its appeal and will implode (cf. Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of American Cities).

  1. A District will fossilize the Square and impose a narrow definition that will discourage creativity and diversity.
  2. Historic preservation is inappropriate in a mixed-use area. Districting muffles one side of conversation in a mixed-use district.
  3. Nonprofits may appeal decisions. The spectre of appeal from any nonprofit effectively impedes honest dialogue.
  4. Any visible change subject to review and approval, therefore a District controls use. (Control of use is not allowed by Massachusetts legislation.)
  5. Property values will decrease.
  6. Changes visible from public way will add cost and significant burden that may restrict a business's ability to adjust to market conditions.

Names and e-mail addresses of Cambridge city councilors and mayor:
Mayor Anthony Galluccio - agalluccio@ci.cambridge.ma.us
Councilors:
Henrietta Davis - HenriDavis@aol.com
Jim Braude - jimbraude@mediaone.net
Kathy Born - KathyBorn@aol.com
Ken Reeves - KER340@aol.com
Marjorie Decker - marjorie.decker@worldnet.att.net
Michael Sullivan - cambmas1@aol.com
Timothy Toomey - timtoomey@aol.com
David Maher - dmaher@ci.cambridge.ma.us

Please cc: charlottem@delphi.com.
Thank you for your help.


HARVARD SQUARE'S HISTORIC DISTRICT PROPOSAL
is being held hostage by one property owner.

On Thursday, April 13, the Cambridge (Massachusetts) City Council Ordinance Committee will hear the proposal for designating Harvard Square (the heart of Cambridge since 1631, and is rapidly becoming over-developed) an historic district.

This is the second attempt: a full Council vote was tabled in December for lack of support. The reason cited by detractors was that several letters against the historic district had come in from primarily small businesses. The letters were mostly from tenants of one property owner who had actually sat on the Historical Commission Study Committee, which voted 14 to 2 in favor of the proposal (he was one of the 2).

Below are the arguments that were used. I am asking for answers to these arguments, hopefully with examples of successful districts where they might apply. I will compile your answers in a document to present to the Ordinance Committee. Thank you for your help.

  1. Third party powers. Detractors argue that nonprofits should not have the power to appeal. The fear that a third party could block an agreement reached between property owner and the Historical Commission is directed primarily against one watch-dog nonprofit which is looking to turn over that responsibility to the Historical Commission.
  2. Additional Layer of Bureaucracy. The argument is that prospective tenants will not wait through a lengthly review process. They want to sign a lease quickly or move on. With the Historic District in place, property owners will experience less confusing review processes and clearer regulations.
  3. Additional Costs. for Alteration of Existing Buildings. and New Construction. Projects.
  4. An Historic District is unnecessary and inappropriate for a mixed-use area like Harvard Square.
  5. Districting will fossilize the Square and impose a narrow definition that will discourage creativity and diversity.

Return to Preserve & Protect

last revised APril 7 2000
by David Goldfarb