Hey, there! Log in / Register
Roslindale residents to seek landmark status for house Mary Baker Eddy once lived in
By adamg on Mon, 07/18/2016 - 9:31am
Residents living near the house on a hill at Poplar Street and Augustus Avenue plan to seek city landmark status to keep it from being torn down.
Nearby residents - who include City Council President Michelle Wu - say they grew alarmed recently after learning a developer had purchased all four of the condos 175 Poplar St. had been divided into and planned to tear the house down and use its nearly acre-sized lot to build five two-family houses.
The developer withdrew his request for a demolition permit last week, but neighbors say that they will file a formal request with the Boston Landmarks Commission to designate the house a landmark. Designation would require commission review of any proposals to change the exterior of the building. In the short run, if the commission agrees to study the request, any development proposals would be halted until the commission decides on the building's status - the same process now in play with the Citgo Sign in Kenmore Square.
Resident Tom Miller said the house, building in 1879, deserves official historic status for two reasons.
It was designed by Louis Weissbein, a prominent 19th-century Boston architect, whose work can still be seen at the Columbus Avenue AME Zion Church on Columbus Avenue at Northampton Street- originally built as Temple Adath Israel, Boston's first Reform temple - as well as at several houses in the Back Bay.
And in 1891, Miller continued, Mary Baker Eddy moved into the house as she worked to build her new church. Miller said she moved there from a house in Vermont to be closer to her Boston-area students.
She moved out in less than a year - because the house's location in the burgeoning streetcar suburb of Roslindale meant she was now too convenient to those students and she wasn't able to get as much work done as she'd hoped. But Eddy continued to own the house - her only home in Boston - for several years, before turning it over to the Christian Science church.
Seeking landmark status "is not really about [the developer], it's about the building itself," he said.
Miller said developers have been eyeing the large parcel for more than 20 years - and that then Mayor Tom Menino, who once represented the area as a city councilor, moved to quash a 1995 proposal for multi-family housing on the site.
Wu, who emphasized she was speaking and acting as an abutter, not a city official, however, said the most recent proposal did concern her, because it would have been too dense for the neighborhood, meant the loss of several large trees on the parcel and would require large retaining walls due to the property's sharp slope down to Poplar Street.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Why can't builders create elegant designs like this
Look at the details and craft on it. Builders and architects today must suck.
Priorities
Look at all that lawn. The current rule of thumb is to have your building footprint match the lot itself (get yer variance, heah!) so that you can put in massive cube that maximizes the square footage and get the most possible money that you can. Build it as cheaply as possible -- because who cares if the whole thing falls apart in 2 years - you've made you sale, now move on!
Or Basic Economic Factors Change
You're comparing apples to oranges. Saying building in Roslindale now aren't as good as buildings in Roslindale in 1888 is ignoring the change in neighborhoods. Back then, Roslindale was the home of wealthy estates for the cities richest.
You'll still find plenty of high quality building standards in the new buildings of Wellesley or Newton or Brookline. Stunning architecture and beautiful fixtures.
Also, the overwhelming message from the city has been increased affordability. You don't build affordable housing by making its standards match that of eccentric Church founders from the 1800s.
Bah
That's not my experience in Brookline. We see homes that build out to setbacks or FAR (whichever triggers first) with whatever oddly-shaped foundation and footprint, maximizing the space and elegance from the inside while ignoring the fact that the windows, doors, or any other architectural features look like a hodgepodge of crap from the outside.
So...
people prioritize maximizing the amount of liveable space in their own homes over the architectural appeal for people walking by it?
Why can't they realize that their house should be designed as a painting for you? Selfish bastards, making their house all comfortable and nice.
Yeah, because God forbid
anyone actually enjoy a tree or two and a yard and maybe, just possibly comprehend that they live in a neighborhood and not a bubble?
You mean Stumpo City?
She actually has some unique houses built every once in a while, but yea, she will put three 4 million dollar houses on a lot that was designed for one 8 million dollar house
Sentimentally tinged nonsense
Sentimentally tinged nonsense. Homes are better built than ever. While high end homes of that era tended to have nice trim work the maintenance costs on that trim work is absurd and the actual structural work is well sketchy.
Diagree
I'll take true-dimensioned old-growth lumber structure to any modern OSB/plywood & superglue palace built today.
The building in question has withstood over 100+ New England winters. I think it is safe to say that it was built pretty well, yeah?
You have clearly never seen
You have clearly never seen the structural design that makes up a house like this, it is not pretty. Sure old growth wood is great but in the manner utilized? Lol no.
I'll bite
What makes the structural work sketchy?
I get the increased efficiency of modern building but I've never heard of structural deficiencies inherent in older building.
Non standard construction
Non standard construction methods result in pretty bad woodwork. 2x4 construction instead of 2x6s. Nonstandard lumber lengths meant that they would effectively use whatever was available creating structural weak points in the design. Stud does not make it all the way to the next floor? Well better combine two together! Plumbing added after the fact? Probably chopped right on through structural beams to make it happen. NOT good.
Few structures in the home are likely square, this also compromises structural integrity and means the floors are likely not level at all especially on the 2nd floor. Take your feet off the ground while sitting in a wheeled office chair and you will be rolling to the wall.
Old houses can be a nightmare. Give me modern construction any day of the week.
It's still standing tho.
Well I agree that there probably isn't a square, level or plum surface in the entire building, old house lovers get around that by referring to it as 'charm' or 'character'.
And I'm still weary of the use OSB, plywood and construction adhesive in modern construction. I know it's more dimensionaly stable but I can't see any other benefit to it except for lower cost to the developer.
I'm sure the technology has improved from the early days but how much moisture can those products tolerate before they start to fail? Pipes are going to break, roofs & siding are going fail, etc...
http://www.runkleconsulting
http://www.runkleconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/30s-house-500...
See how the joists are combined? Yea that is bad news bears.
What exactly is the problem there?
Other than the fact that the joists are notched (and possibly toenailed) into that beam, rather than attached with hangers (an easy fix, btw), what exactly is the big problem with that framing?
There's a 2x8 floor joist that appears sistered to another 2x in the central foreground, but that looks to be 1) possible overbuild, and 2) a result of 20th cent install of that ducting visible underneath - hardly a problem with the original build.
And in any case, we could trade pictures forever of bad builds in structures of any era. Some things we know how to do better than folks back whenever. But some craft knowledge has been lost or nearly so. We have access to superior tech, but in time-adjusted dollars, our basic materials (wood, brick, stone, steel) are actually of generally poorer quality.
I grew up in a house that just celebrated its 300th anniversary two years ago. I have no doubt it'll be standing 300 years from now, unless struck by lightning or other significant disaster. I very much doubt that any building being built in Boston these days will last that long.
Most buildings from 300 years
Most buildings from 300 years ago are already demolished. It's like when people say "how come there was such great music 300 years ago - Bach, Mozart". And the reason is that all the crappy music from 300 years ago is long forgotten. Only the quality stuff is still around.
Besides that, how much of that 300 year old house of yours was actually 300 years old? Most houses back then were as large as a one car garage. Later on people built additions to it.
The whole house - and the barn too.
While you are undoubtably correct that most buildings do not live to see their third century, that actually stands in support of those who are reluctant to see torn down a fine house which has withstood more than a century of New England weather and is both aesthetically pleasing and historically notable.
Surviving older houses are often quality houses.
*****
Fwiw, there are many old houses in the rural part of New Jersey where I grew up, although few quite as old as my family's.
That house started life as a farmstead for a large landowner, and later served a long and important stint as a tavern (and district hq for the Continental Army during the Revolution). Although the interior walls have been somewhat moved about over the years, the current layout includes two bedrooms, a full bath, a sitting room, a family room, and a kitchen. There is an intact cistern in the cellar, although it is no longer used.
The entire original structure is still standing, and an addition was built in the early 20th century that more than doubled its size, adding three more bedrooms, 1.5 baths, a dining room, a living room, and another kitchen.
The farm's main stable was converted to a house about a half century ago and sold off as a separate lot. There's also a spring/ice house from the early 18th century, located just a couple dozen feet from the old kitchen, that now serves as a storage shed.
</house brag>
cheap. as. shit.
The same attitude that results in people just building out to the footprint and putting in the cheapest of everything that looks good until five minutes after the sale, also informs the manufacturing industries that are producing the crap that contractors are buying at Home Depot and their local supplier. Plastic junk fixtures made in China. Plastic composite "wood" that is low maintenance but looks like crap. This isn't nostalgia -- and there are some advances that are good and a WHOLE lot less maintenance than in the past because you can just rip out the offending part and put in a new one that is replaced in another ten years -- this is the business model. Planned obsolescence of everything so we can keep selling you crap.
Eddy house
If you ask me, the homes built today don't even use wood. They could suffer damage in a wind storm. The new homes have no character. They are like boxes. Even when they try to add architectural features, it just doesn't look the same. That is just my personal opinion. Also, we have enough density as it is now. The BRA is turning our wonderful suburban neighborhood is becoming citified. Who needs that? We don't. Look at the development at Forest Hills. And there is much more to come. We don't want to lose open space, traffic and parking problems. We want to know our neighbors. If we over develop, we will lose the character and culture that makes our community at the top of the list for home seekers
Speak for yourself
I live in Roslindale and I completely disagree with almost everything you wrote. Please do not use the term "we" when expressing opinions that do not represent those of all the people of Roslindale. The neighborhood is hardly suburban and housing in Boston is desperately needed. Also, Forest Hills looks better than it ever has in my lifetime thanks to some decent urban planning and development
The need for housing doesn't
The need for housing doesn't mean the environment of neighborhoods need to change. The neighborhoods should reflect the desires of those that live there, not just those who want to build more.
I got mine!
Totally, I have a nice single family house in town and want to be able to park when I drive to the shops.
In all seriousness, I understand your sentiment, but the issue is that without some unworkable 'locals only' housing, building less will directly lead to housing being more and more expensive. So the new houses going up around town cost $750K+ and converted condos cost $400+. That's not great for maintaining the economic and class diversity of the neighborhood which helps make it vibrant.
Go to Adams Park tonight and you'll see kids with parents, young people, middle aged people and people of all races are hanging out catching Pokemon. That mix is going away if we can't build affordable housing in town.
Why?
I assume you meant to say "a lot more" affordable housing.
And if current housing density and conditions support that diverse population right now, why would it "go away" unless things radically changed? That seems rather counter-intuitive.
(and yeah, I know there's already lots of new housing going into that area. I just don't get the breathless "leave no plot undeveloped to it's full capacity" attitude.
Apartments to condos mostly
On my street (small sample size, etc...), there are maybe 8 single family homes and then various houses with two or three apartments. There are long, long time residents, newer home owners, poorer and richer folks, etc... It's a fairly diverse street socio/ethno/demo-wise. In the past five years, five of the buildings which were rented apartments have been converted into condos which sold for $350-$550k. I believe that represented a shift from poorer renters to middle class professional (mostly white) condo owners. The new apartments on Cornith are in that category and many more.
I'm not advocating wholesale unfettered development, but I do think there's some truth to the idea that if you build four luxury apartments on say Durnell Ave * on one building lot, maybe that reduces pressure to convert some less desirable triple decker on Belgrade away from affordable rental stock.
* http://www.trulia.com/property/3236192410-84-Durnell-Ave-Boston-MA-02131
Not every area needs to be
Not every area needs to be developed fully and places benefit from open space.
Unless the units are
Unless the units are restricted to be affordable, it doesn't matter how much you build.
The increase in demand means
The increase in demand means even if you build more things will still get more expensive given growth. Not all areas need to keep being developed.
How do you figure?
The comparison is between building none, while demand increases, or building some (though maybe not enough), while demand increases. The first of those scenarios causes prices to increase more quickly than the second.
Absurd maintenance costs
Absurd maintenance costs especially on the exposed woodwork compounded by being unable to use lead based paint that lasts longer. Beyond that intricate woodwork there is not much unique about this style of building and the design was meant to maximize interior space, much like modern buildings.
Modern buildings are better built, last longer, easier maintain and better insulated. It is fun to pretend old buildings are well built until you open up the walls then suddenly it becomes a WTF did they do?!
Although this place probably has higher ceilings and is 2 rooms
deep, unlike many of today's buildings which prioritize the amount of bedrooms and bathrooms.
And what, you don't have sawdust as insulation?
My grandparents owned a home
My grandparents owned a home very similar to this one for about 20 years in dot starting in the 90s. Flat roof is likely a sky light that leaks like heck but creates a beautiful foyer with clear line of sight from foyer to 2nd floor ceiling/skylight. Most likely 12ft ceilings and nice woodwork inside if it was not destroyed.
Insulation? Lol whats that?
As my best friend
(a History major) has often noted:
Interesting structure - depends upon your point of view. Worthy of "landmark" status - not really.
That's true
You're probably right about the design. Still the proportions work, attention was paid to the size and shape of the windows and the decoration adds to the daily enjoyment of the residents in a way that shows how forgettable the replacements would be.
$$$$
I have an idea. The residents of the area who are concerned about preserving the property should buy it
There has to be a middle ground
I live really close to this property and walk by it all the time. This is a HUGE lot. I think the building should be preserved, but why can't the developer be able to out in 3 2 family buildings on the lot. Easily one could put 2 on Poplar and one on Augustus while preserving the original building.
Conversely, put in 2 3 family units, close to the street with curb cuts on Augustus and Sycamore for parking, and that would take care of the issue of the slope of the property.
Just my 2 cents.
I like Michelle Wu and while
I like Michelle Wu and while I agree that this specific house should be deemed historic or complaint about the proposal being "too dense" concerns me. Boston is having a housing crisis. Renting in this city is killing the wallets of anyone who isn't at least upper middle class or super poor. We need more density in areas like Roslindale. We need more housing for people who make around 30,000-60,000 dollars that doesn't eat up half of their paycheck.
Jumped out at me, too
The statement about density just sounds completely like a typical NIMBY talking point. For perspective, imagine sliding the lot along Poplar toward Washington. You will see that it fits neatly between Kittredge and Poplar, overlaying an area holding... wait for it... 10 houses!
No, not every complaint about
No, not every complaint about density is NIMBYism. People who live in areas tend to care about how they are developed. Just because others who don't live there want more density doesn't mean the neighborhoods also don't have reasons to advocate for what they think is best.
YIMBY
Some of us who live there do indeed want density. We aren't talking about replacing a park with housing, it's one use of a private property for another, more utilitarian use of that same property.
affordability in Roslindale
With all the housing that Boston is building, has anyone noticed the home prices and rental prices. Supposedly, the increase is supposed to lower prices. Yeah, right. Show me.
No really...
...just wait a little longer for it to take effect...said the Cos...
Housing Prices
Prices are a function of supply and demand, wages, AND interest rates.Demand is high, supply is growing but slower than demand, wages are increasing for some, but most importantly, historically low interest rates mean buyers can afford to pay higher prices. If interests rates go up the first thing that will happen is for prices to stall or drop.
You can't build enough
You can't build enough housing for all of the potential demand. That is not realistic. There is always going to be demand. Not everyone can live in every desirable area. The density of neighborhoods does not always need to be changed just because there are more people that want to live in every area than there is housing.
Old house interior = making sausage
My prejudice in home architecture is to favor the oldest architecture. That is speaking from the perspective of walking around neighborhoods where the architecture presents a 3 dimensional expression of painting, i.e., where architectural decoration meets the criteria for art.
That is especially true for public architecture, much of which the best is long gone from Boston's architectural history. While Boston boosters like to claim that Boston has retained much of its older public architecture I can easily swing a (cloth based) cat at locations where there was handsome architecture now replaced by the worst of form follows function following the master called cost.
Yet as the proud owner of a 19th century house who has seen how the sausage was made, I can vouch for the challenge of what would today be considered substandard, poor design, poor construction, compromised construction, construction that barely holds together. Add the costs of heating uninsulated older homes, the problem of noise in multi-family buildings built for quieter, less noisy people and the maintenance not for the outside but just for interior that usually is not seen...the charms of a an old house can wear away quickly when the less than charming elements are revealed.
Nevertheless I realize in its aggregate a neighborhood built of older architecture would loose much of its sensual beauty and sense of stability and permanence if all the old architecture was removed and replaced with moderate costing housing.
So I don't see black and white, old versus new bs debate. Each building has to be taken on its own merits.
As for Ms. Baker's house I see a handsome building that probably adds much of a feeling of stability and timeliness which would be canceled and voided was it replaced with new houses.
It is funny though that she had to relocate because so many students visiting due to the "ease" of commuting via 1891streetcars was a distraction from her work . The past is a different world indeed.
Apparently, Mary Baker Eddy Moved Around A Lot
Not unlike claims of "George Washington slept here", there are an abundance of homes that Mary Baker Eddy supposedly lived in. This site lists eight of them, among which this house in Roslindale is not included:
Mary Baker Eddy Historic Houses
Mary Baker Eddy
Eddy did move around a lot. She even lived in Lynn for a while. An interesting, if somewhat divisive, woman. If I am not mistaken, she is still the only woman to have founded a major religion.