Let me start by saying I’m not a lawyer, an architect, or a builder.
I live in Upper Falls and one of the many things that delight me about our neighborhood is the largely 19th century layout of the neighborhood and its houses. Much of the credit for Upper Falls still looking like Upper Falls and its history not being demolished goes to the Upper Falls Historic Commission. Any significant changes to the exterior of houses anywhere within the Historic District have to be approved by the 7 member volunteers of the Upper Falls Historic Commission.
In practice this means that at a minimum, most major renovation projects have some additional steps that introduce additional time and expense. Worse case, the commission approval process can involve substantial delays and major additional expense, or nix a project all together.
Despite the fact that the whole process rests on the largely subjective judgements of a small number of volunteers the process largely works and the neighborhood is the better for it.
At the moment though I’m looking out my window at the photo above. The house across the street has looked pretty much like that for the 11 years we’ve been living in Newton. For the last couple of years after its owner died, the house has been uninhabited. The property has been on the market for a while, potential buyers stop by regularly to have a look, and the price has been coming down.
While I don’t look forward to an endless construction project I do look forward to one day having a beautiful house that fits right in to the neighborhood. What worries me though is that nearly every project like this in Upper Falls since I moved here turns into years long fiascos.
This empty shell of a house a few blocks was not allowed to be demolished and rebuilt. Instead it was gutted, sat empty for a year. Work began again a few weeks ago and while they attempted to replace the sill, the house toppled over.
The shell of this house, a block away in the other direction, sat in this condition for months and months and months while construction was halted.
All three of these house attempted to get demolition permits and were denied by the Upper Falls Historic Commission. The result was that all three of these projects became much bigger, took way longer, and no doubt cost far more than demolishing the house and rebuilding a historically appropriate replacement.
What’s important to note is that when these projects are completed virtually every thing you see, the entire exterior of the house, have been replaced. The only physical thing that has been preserved is the interior framing of the house.
In general, the Commission sees to it that the new replaced exterior is either a replica of, or fits nicely in with what it replaced.
There are two problems with the Commission’s approach to these kind of projects.
- By insisting that the original frame of the house be preserved. Each of these projects become much more complicated, much more expensive, takes far longer, and there are more wild cards for whoever is doing the work. The Commission can and should determine what the new house looks like but there is no public benefit in preserving the 200 year old internal frame and replacing everything else.
- The second problem is it appears to me (a non-lawyer) that they don’t have the legal authority to put that requirement on the property owner. Section 22-40 of the city ordinances gives the Historic Commissions their legal authorities. 22-40-g-3 reads “A commission shall not consider interior arrangements or architectural features not subject to public view.”
The Commission has the authority to approve any plans, specify the footprint, the massing, the architectural details and myriad other details that they already weigh in on. If the property owner decides it’s simpler/faster/cheaper to build that house from the ground up, rather than build that house around a 200 year old, possibly rotting frame, then the commission shouldn’t be standing in the way … and this non-lawyer doesn’t believe they have the legal authority do so
Jerry, spot on. Most of the Board members are well intentioned, but they go way beyond their egal purview. And I am a lawyer. What they have made our neighbors go through by keeping interior walls which are in horrible shape has been shameful. Moon and 6pence, the house on High at corner of Winter, it was ridiculous what these people were put through. These dilapidated boards are inside, not outside. The house across the street from you will lay fallow for years because they will never let demolition. Or it will sell for a pittance, which is the only way a developer can make it work. And, the Board conflates historic with old. Not every old house is historic. In the case of inhabitable buildings, let them tear them down and be strict on what they can build in the spirit of the neighborhood.
Sadly, things like this are what lead to other neighborhoods like Newton Highlands voting against being an historical district.
Fixing two typos. Legal and uninhabitable.
What Jerry and Meredith said. To be fair, these are volunteers who may or may not have any actual training in assessing the conditions of a home. I would think mandatory training should be required, at the very least.
For what it’s worth, I believe that goes double for any permitting authority in our city, including the City Council and ZBA.
Jerry wrote: “If the property owner decides it’s simpler/faster/cheaper to build that house from the ground up, rather than build that house around a 200 year old, possibly rotting frame, then the commission shouldn’t be standing in the way.”
Not just the commission, Jerry. In fact, no one should be standing in the way, as illustrated in your second photo.
@Bryan Barash – I believe the Commisions rely on the Inspectional Services department to assess whether the house should be condemned for safety reasons.
The cases I’m talking about are a bit different. Let’s assume I have property that is in very tough shape but its not a threat to safety, and a demolition permit will not be granted on that basis.
If I’m the property owner and want to renovate that property I have to bring my proposed plans to the Commission. Under the Historic Commission’s legal guidelines they have tremendous leeway in specifying the details of virtually any aspect of the house that is visible from the street. Once they are happy with those publicly visual aspects of the proposed project they should approve the project. From there, it should be the property owners decision how they build the project.
If the property owner believes its simpler/cheaper to knock down the existing building and build the Commission approved design, I don’t believe the Commission has the authority to rule on that. I think once you have a Commission approved design, a demolition permit should be automatic if the property owner decides to go that route.
In either case, demolition or rehab, the commission has the same authority to specify the externally visible features and design of the building. The only thing that will be different between the two are the “architectural features not subject to public view.” which are outside their authority to regulate.
@Bruce Henderson – 😉
Ironic this post speaks to the importance or preserving historical relevance in Upper Falls, yet no issue when Northland proposed its out of scale project next door.
@Matt Lai – I’m not seeing the irony. The Northand project is definitely preserving the historic buildings on the site …. unless you’re thinking the parking lot and Marshall’s building should be preserved for their historical? value.
I dunno, Jerry. This building on the Northland property seems to be one of the last of its kind. Should it be preserved for its historic value? It would be a shame to lose it. Such good times there.
8 stories buildings is ironic when compared to 19th century homes a stone’s throw away. Not trying to relive recent history as much as recognize the irony of preservation of these old homes. Why it just bulldoze them all to address our “housing crisis” or make room for a modern “green” home (multi-unit of course).
Being selective on what to be progressive about is not being progressive. Irony.
@Matt preserving history doesn’t mean blocking progress. We have to find a balance. Upper Falls is what it is, in large part, because of technological progress, not because it was standing still. The factories were steps forward in how people worked. The houses in the district reflect a particular period in time, yes, but so do the other houses that were built “a stone’s throw” away in the post-war era. You also have a large TV tower sitting there, a street of modern retail and office buildings, and a riverfront condo complex that is 6 or 7 stories tall.
No irony here at all.
There is no doubt that the Newton Upper Falls Historic Commission helps maintain the splendor of the historic homes in Upper Falls–just take a walk down High Street. As a 32 year resident and owner of a historic home in Upper Falls, I can attest to the added expense and delays in proposing a change. I wondered about the authority of the commission as we appeared before them multiple times.
After you take your stroll down High Street, head down Winter Street. You will encounter a building that may make you gasp. The owners of this property recently requested an “emergency demolition”. The request was denied. The house has been characterized as “one of the oldest surviving structures in Newton Upper Falls”. I am not a doctor, but the building is in a state of rigor mortis.
I believe the feasibility of this house being purchased and renovated to be near 0%. If no one has purchased the home given the low interest rates and low housing inventories, it may never be sold. I feel sorry for the people who live in the immediate area and for the owners who will never benefit from the appreciation of their 2 family zoned lot. With permission for the building to be razed, imagine what a builder could create in conjunction with the Historic Commission! In a relatively short period of time, the house would be a home to new neighbors and another jewel would be added to our prized neighborhood.
Demolishing a historic building should not be taken lightly, but there are cases when practicality should win. This is one of those cases.
@Bruce Henderson – My friend, local artist Shogun Curtis, was hoping to use that tiny guard shack last winter as his winter micro painting studio. Northland didn’t think that was such a good idea though.
When that idea got turned down Shogun began thinking about a way to turn two recycling bins into an even more micro portable painting studio. Alas, I don’t think anything came of that idea – at least yet.