Echo Bridge in Upper Falls is perhaps the most dramatic man-made structure in Newton. The huge bridge was built in the 1870’s to carry the Sudbury aqueduct across Hemlock Gorge to bring water to the people of Boston.
A key feature of the bridge that makes it so beloved to the locals is the pedestrian walkway across the top of the bridge that affords a stunning view of the gorge and the waterfall on the Charles River.
About 10 years ago, the MWRA (the owners of the bridge) determined that the original wrought iron railings on the bridge were decidedly unsafe. Many of the supporting post and poles were rotted right through with rust. In response, the pedestrian path over the bridge was shut down for a time amidst a very big public uproar. Local officials, the Friends of Hemlock Gorge, neighbors and the MWRA hammered out a stopgap plan to get the bridge re-opened. The MWRA installed a butt-ugly chain link fence anchored to portable poured concrete footings. Everyone at the time knew that this chain-link fence was a stop-gap, quick and dirty fix to get the bridge re-opened for pedestrians.
In the intervening 10 years, the original wrought iron railings have of course continued to decay. Restoring that original railing is a multi-million dollar project that no one has the money for. An additional complication is that even if the money was available, the design of the original railings do not meet current safety codes, so an additional safety fence would need to be installed in addition to those railings
A few years back, Rep Ruth Balser was able to get $250,000 allocated in the state’ Transportation Bond Bill for the bridge. That money is a drop in the bucket in terms of what it will cost to replace the original iron railings.
In December of 2015, the MWRA put together several options to use that money to replace the chain link safety fence with something more aesthetically pleasing and and presented them to the Newton Upper Falls Historic District Commission. It seems that the Commission would like the original railings restored – something everyone wants including the MWRA. Unfortunately no one has the millions of dollars needed to do that. Seemingly out of the commission’s frustration that the original railings have not yet been restored, the Newton Upper Falls Historic District Commission, by vote of 5-0 denied the application to replace the existing chain link fence at Echo Bridge. The Commission motioned to leave the existing chain link fence and to use the available funds to repair and paint the historic metal railing, and to prevent further deterioration to the existing historic metal railing.
This is a classic case of the “perfect is the enemy of the good”. Thanks to Ruth Balser and the MWRA’s effort we have a plan to replace the absolutely un-historic (and ugly) chain link safety fence with a safety fence designed to blend in with the historic design. To be clear, even if the historic railings are eventually restored, either the old chain link or this proposed new fence will still be required to meet safety codes.
The MWRA will be back before the Upper Falls Historic Commission this coming Thursday, July 14, 7 PM in Room 205 at City Hall with one last proposal for an improved safety fence. We’re hoping this time around the commission sticks to evaluating the merits of the new proposed safety fence rather than getting sidetracked with their (and all of ours) disappointment that no one has the millions of dollars to restore the bridge’s historic railings. Turning this proposal down is a vote for chain link.
If you have an opinion on the matter, please consider attending next Thursday’s meeting of the Commission. This is a subject near and dear to my heart, and to the heart of 400 of my friends and neighbors. Just two weeks ago they all streamed over Echo Bridge, the entrance to the Feast of the Falls. Let’s hope by next year’s Feast the bridge will be significantly improved thanks to the work of the MWRA.
How can we help !!???
What is a long term possible course of action ?? Raise the money ?
We ALL Love the beauty of this bridge !
I think the new design is lovely. Since a safety fence is needed anyway, it makes sense to have this new one instead of chain link. I cannot imagine any reason to deny it. You would have my vote.
Jerry – am I right this is you? – thank you for focusing our attention midsummer! I agree with your assessment. Even if the old rails can be restored some day they are too low and too open to be safe or meet code. Is Thursday’s meeting a hearing? It’s on my calendar.
Deb
@Deb Crossley – Yes it is a regularly scheduled meeting of the UF Historic Commission and this is the last item on the night’s agenda.
I’m a member of Friends of Hemlock Gorge and did some preliminary research a few years back about replacing the old, rusted out railings with exact duplicates and found it would be almost impossible to accomplish without spending several million dollars. And if we replaced them with exact replications, we would still have the safety issues to contend with. As one, who almost fell over this railing when I was a kid, I can attest to just how hazardous it is. In fact, Hemlock Gorge was a collection of booby traps that could have easily maimed or even killed people hiking in the area. These included the narrow walking board on top of the old sluice dam which has fortunately been rebuilt and fenced off, and the even more treacherous areas around the horseshoe falls.
So, The old railings are beautiful and unique, but the bridge itself is far more unique. Did you know that, during the late 19th century, this was the second most popular place for newly weds to come after Niagara Falls. I can’t see spending millions of dollars to replace the original with all the upgrades that would be required. Any reasonable and reasonably priced replacement is fine with me and I think most other people. It’s more important that we fix the roof of the old stone building, save the hemlock trees from the pests that have been destroying them, and putting a permanent railing replacement near the old stone building and Route 9 waterfall. We are on our way to taking care of all these challenges.
In my mind this is the unfortunate downside of being in a historic District. I hope a path can be found allowing for the MWRA proposed improvement. Time for a chain link tear down.
@Groot Gregory – I don’t think the Historic District itself is the problem. I think this was a case where the commission’s frustration over the unfortunate state of the railings led them to make a clear mistake. I think based on the historic merits there’s no doubt that the new proposed safety fence is historically (and aesthetically IMO) preferable to the existing chain link fence … particularly since chain link didn’t even exist in America until around 1900.
I think where the commission went wrong was that rather than evaluate what was being proposed – a new safety fence, they attempted to nudge the MWRA to instead use their allocated money for an entirely different project – painting/preserving the original railings. That’s clearly beyond their jurisdiction – i.e. if I bring them a plan to replace my front door, they’re not allowed to say we want you to instead use that money to replace your windows.
I’m hoping that this time around (Thursday’s meeting), especially with the improved design the MWRA has come back with, that they’ll reconsider.
@Jerry Reilly, I don’t disagree. However, this delay in a desired improvement to the bridge is enabled due to having the historic commission in place. I heard a group of historic commissioners ask a landlord if she could have a tenant remove window decorations that were hanging inside one of her tenant’s spaces. So this may not be an isolated overreach. Perhaps this will lead to a better overall solution. I am hoping too.My point is historic districts have a pluses and minuses. They have more impact than simply a tool to reduce teardowns.
@Groot. What Local Historic District Commission asked a landlord to do this? We’ve made it pretty clear in the proposed Newton Highlands District that we will do whatever we can to set the stage so things like this don’t take place. I’ve also heard of horror stories where a local historic district in the Highlands wanted one owner to rip out her shrubbery and replace it with a set of a different color to match the blinds on the house. I don’t know where this came from since Newton Highlands has never had a local historic district.
I’m going to the Upper Falls Local Historic District Commission on Thursday evening where the bridge railing will be discussed. I know some of the Upper Falls Commission members and they are all pretty level headed folks. My guess is that they simply asked the MWRA to see if replacing the originals with duplicates of iron was feasible and that the State would not be bound by a local historic district decision since it is on state property. Stay tuned.
The proposed fence is not awful, given the limits and requirements. It might be even better if they could replicate the BWW medallion that’s in the center of each of the rusted out sections and put it at the crossing of the diagonal rods in the new fence.
Jerry – Thanks for bringing this to everyone’s attention. A few questions:
Are the MWRA proposals available on-line? It looks like the photo you posted, “option 4 rendering,” might be from their proposal. The minutes from the December Upper Falls Historical Commission meeting are available here . The December minutes refer to options 1, 2, and 3, and you posted a photo of option 4. How does (new?) option 4 differ from the rejected options?
What exactly would be unsafe about the original railing if it was structurally sound? The height does not seem to be an issue, as in the option 4 photo the new and original railings appear to be the same heights. I assume that the original railings have openings that are too large, which might allow a child to fall through the railing (as opposed to over, which Bob says he almost did).
The Dec minutes mention an estimate of $1.1 – $1.8 million dollars to repair and restore the original railing. If most of this could somehow be raised through donations, that would be great. But given the many needs of this community and state, I think it would unconscionable to spend that much money to restore a railing that would be essentially non-functional, requiring a second railing behind it. With the second railing (or the current chain-link fence), it is difficult to appreciate the original railing.
From my reading of the minutes (I was not there) I got the impression that the historical commission was not so much holding out for full restoration of the original railing now as that they wish to use the currently available funds to repair and paint the original railing to prevent further deterioration. However, there is no estimate of how much this would cost (or how frequently it would have to be repeated). Does the new MWRA proposal propose any such work? The new railing in the Dec minutes was estimate to cost $100k of the $250k set aside for the bridge, so it seems that some would be left over. But perhaps the original railing is too far gone for half-measures.
The Dec minutes also state “that MHC [Mass Historical Commission] had determined that the proposed replacement of the chain link fence would have an adverse effect” (TWO historical commissions involved in this?!). What adverse effect? Perhaps that a new permanent railing makes it more difficult to access the original railing for repair?
What is the long-term plan for this bridge? Is the MWRA planning on keeping it structurally sound indefinitely, even if they determine they do not need this aqueduct as an emergency back-up water source? A few years ago, the stairs up from Ellis St. were closed for several months. If next time they decide the metal structure of these stairs is too far gone to repair, who will pay to replace these?
I hope that the historical commission does not have veto power over public infrastructure projects like this. The Dec. minutes (and minutes from other months) indicate that the the Upper Falls and Mass Historical Commissions have also been involved in the Elliot Street (Cook’s) Bridge renovation – but apparently in an advisory capacity? Why should Echo Bridge be different? The historical commission should strive to play a constructive role in determining a fiscally responsible long-term solution for preserving a functional Echo Bridge.
Finally, given that this is an appointed rather than an elected board, I doubt that they would be persuaded to change their mind by a larger than usual audience. What role can audience members play in a historical commission meeting?
@Bruce Blakely – Man do you have a lot of questions ;-) I’ll answer as best I can but I came later to this party. i.e. I was not at the earlier commission hearing and only heard about this in recent days.
* As far as I know, the MWRA proposals are not on-line. I have a copy that was emailed to me but it was too big to post here on V14 (> 1 MB). I’ll see if I can figure someplace else to upload it and then provide a link here. Check back later in the day. Or email me ([email protected]) and I’d be happy to send a copy.
* Previous Options – There is minimal info in the material I have about the earlier three options. They appear to be based on a much simpler looking fence consisting of flat vertical slats. Heres a photo
* Safety Issue of Original Railings – Yes, the openings of the original railings are too large.
* Painting Original Railings – No there is nothing in the new submission about painting the old railings. The MWRA submission that they were seeking approval for was strictly about replacing the safety fence, rather than a general Echo Bridge preservation/restoration plan. There is no mention of painting the old railings in either the old or new submission.
* Mass Historic Commission – I don’t know anything about that.
* Long Term Plan For Bridge – Your guess as good as mine. The MWRA is in the water/sewer infrastructure business. Neither recreation nor historic preservation is part of their formal mission. That being said, whenever something has needed to be done in recent years (the Ellis St stairs, the crumbling railings) the MWRA seems to have tried to be as open and responsive to public use concerns and historic concerns as they can – but always within the constraints of a very limited budget that can be expended for those purposes. My guess is that so long as the bridge can be kept for minimal cost they’ll keep it going. If the time comes when the only way forward is a very expensive restoration project, I’d guess they’d walk away from it since it’s very peripheral to their primary mission. But that’s just my personal guess.
* Long Term Plan? – (See above)
* Commissions Veto Power – As I understand it, the local Historic Commission does not legally have veto power. As policy, the MWRA always applies for approval to local Historic Commissions for their input and buy-in. If they disagree with the decision they can, but rarely do, appeal to the state’s Historic Commission. My understanding is that legally the local’s Historic Commission’s role in this case is advisory – i.e. not legally binding. From a practical/political point of view though the MWRA is always extremely reluctant to just completely disregard local commissions though it seems that legally they could.
* Public Input – Part of every local Historic Commission hearing is public input. For a typical item that comes before them, where someone may be adding an addition on their home for example, a few neighbors may turn up and voice their support or concerns. From what I’ve seen those voices often can/do have a real impact on the commission’s decision making. The commission’s approval/disapproval of a project is not typically a cut and dried regulatory decision. Very occasionally someone may request to so something that just plain is not allowed under any circumstances. Typically though, the commissioners are making much more subjective decisions, balancing conflicting goals, while weighing precedents, etc. Within that context, strong public support either for or against a project can definitely have an effect on their decision making. In this particular case, I think their are two very specific jurisdictional issues that the commissioners may not taken into effect the last time around – 1. Instructing an applicant to spend their money on a different project than the one they came seeking approval for seems to me to be way beyond their jurisdictional power. 2. Their approval/disapproval of a project is supposed to be strictly limited to historic issues. From my reading of the minutes it sounds like they were weighing safety issues which once again is way beyond their authority (and expertise). As a member of the public under their jurisdiction I think both of these jurisdiction issues are worth pointing out in the public input section of the hearing.
Here’s the link to the MWRA’s current proposal.
@Jerry. Thanks for saying what I would have said.
Jerry – Thanks for the link and other answers.
Based on what is in the Dec. minutes, I didn’t think the historical commission was making safety judgements, but expressing a viewpoint that IF the chain link was safe, then use the funds to stabilize the original railing. In the new proposal, the MWRA still does not state that the chain link is unsafe but “staff anticipates that the temporary chain link fencing will present a safety issue [at some indefinite point in the future?] if not replaced with a more durable railing system”. And of course there is no guarantee that there will be another $250k to do this when the chain link becomes unsafe if the current funds are spent on the original railing.
Also, the MWRA proposal states that the permanent railing will cost $250k, thus nothing left over for stabilizing the original railing (I misread the Dec minutes – the “option C” railing was not $100k; that was the cost for the chain link a decade ago). Yes, these prices seem high, so I hope the quality and longevity of the proposed railing is very high.
So yes, the historical commission should approve this. And unfortunately, it looks like the original railing will continue to slowly crumble into the gorge. I don’t think spending $1 – $1.8 million in public funds on it can be justified, the MWRA is not obligated to do it, and the historical commission cannot force it.
For anyone interested in the fate of Echo Bridge, the Upper Falls Historic Commission will be dealing with this issue at its meeting tonight in Room 205 at City Hall. Meeting starts at 7 PM, this issue is 5th on the agenda so is unlikely to come before 8 PM I’d guess.
I’ve heard that the Upper Falls Historic Commission might take this item up early, because of the anticipated public interest. Of course, that’s just a rumor, but…
The battle to save the old cast iron railing produced a spirited debate at last evening’s meeting of the Upper Falls Local Historic District Commission. I believe there was a consensus to back up the MWRA’s proposal to install a new fence in front of the old one so as to preserve the old one for future restoration when funds become available. There was also a rather extended discussion on ways of raising the needed funding. Whatever eventually happens, we still need the new fence or something comparable for safety reasons. The existing chain link fence doesn’t cut the mustard.
What really impressed me more than anything else was how many people from Upper Falls were in attendance and how passionately they have moved to protect this historic asset and the many other gems that make Upper Falls so wonderfully unique. You can only guess as to how much of this would remain if there wasn’t a local historic district.
I should imagine the $250,000 Ruth Balser got 10 years ago would have got a lot more of the railings fixed then, that it will now. Let alone another 10.
I left the meeting thankful its just the rails that are at issue. Does anybody know where funds would come from if something structural needed doing?
At the July NUF Historic District Commission meeting I suggested that the energy in the room that Bob mentions be harnessed to try to raise funds for fixing the historic railings. A group of citizens has formed to work with the MWRA to submit funding proposals, including to the Newton and Needham Community Preservation Committees. Those interested in supporting us can send their contact info to [email protected] and I’ll forward you our flyer. Our most pressing need is for a representative or two from Needham, so let me know if you have candidates to suggest.