2. PROPOSAL-Historic-Anne Lusk-4-7-221
Historic Property Owners as Carbon Stewards
New Northampton Historic Preservation Plan:
An element of the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan
Proposed by Anne Lusk, Ph.D. AnneLusk@gmail.com 617-879-4887 h/w 617-872-9201 c
Overview
The Northampton Preservation Plan is to be an element of the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive
Plan and this unique combination provides the opportunity to reconsider how to document historic properties
as a way to address climate change and involve more individuals in the tasks of historic preservation.
For a property to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, it must meet at least one of the
following basic criteria:
”A. The property must be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history.
B. The property must be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. The property must embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,
represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
D. The property must show, or may be likely to yield, information important to history or prehistory.”
The focus has been on the building, as evidenced in the directions for taking a photograph from the
Technical Guidelines for Electronic Files in MHC S&P Surveys – FY20 version (pg 6).
“Better" “Too distant: foliage hides foundation”
Communities have not been consistently attracting younger and diverse residents to historic
preservation. Many residents believe that new construction is more sustainable, new windows are more
energy efficient, and the land is better suited for affordable housing or a McMansion even though the
“greenest home is … one that is already built” (Carl Elefante, FIAI). Once demolition of a historic house
occurs and a new building built, the land is absent trees, has more hardscape, and has subbase rubble as the
top yard layer. A historic house stores a consistent amount of carbon and – additionally – the lawn and trees
sequester ever-increasing amounts of carbon. The owner of a historic property is a carbon steward.
New Carbon Measures to Show Historic Properties are Climate-Responsive
Therefore, measurements of each historic property should include square footage of the house
footprint, square footage of lawn, square footage for a vegetable garden, and number of trees. Additional
measures would be a composting bin or program, slow release lawn food to regenerate soil, existence of
electric vehicle charging station/s, electric lawn mower, square footage of indoor space to store bicycles, and
existence of old growth lumber windows. Ancillary measures would include close access to a cycle track
network with pedestrian/bicycle scale lighting plus trees and grass along the cycle track. Residents and
municipal officials could fill in a template with the information about their property to combine historic
preservation with sustainability. These new measures would document the contribution of historic properties
to climate, provide data for analysis, serve to counter demolition, and attract a younger and more diverse
population to support historic preservation.
2
Framework for developing this proposal:
The below is the process that Dr. Lusk used to demonstrate understanding of the scope of work and
challenges in achieving the goals of protecting historic buildings and increasing community knowledge.
Under RFP’s HPP Format and Anticipated Table of Contents (pg 3 RFP) this text is written, “The City
is open to considering, however, other formats and to working with the selected consultant as opportunities
arise to adjust this format to focus on the issues most relevant to Northampton, and combine elements as
needed.” Under Phase II: Outreach, Tasks (pg 5 RFP) this text is written, “…the consultant is encouraged
to propose engagement strategies that fit the community and the task.” Therefore, the below is offered for
consideration with the shared goal of preserving historic properties.
Text from Northampton’s Request for Proposals for Consulting Services under Objectives (pg 2 RFP):
Physical Preservation: protect historic buildings and heritage and cultural landscapes to prevent the loss of
important historic resources and to preserve these resources in the future.
Documentation: complete, improve, and increase public access to the city’s inventory of historic resources.
Regulation: amend and improve city ordinances, regulations, policies and incentives, and permitting
procedures to protect and enhance historic resources during the development process.
Outreach and Advocacy: increase community knowledge of and access to these historic and cultural
resources.
Historic Preservation Integration into Sustainable Northampton:
Product – Design an element with a ten-year action plan and a conceptual twenty-year planning
horizon. Create a lively, readable plan document that can be accessed easily by city officials, staff, permit
applicants, committee members, and by residents of the City of Northampton.
The 8 specific project objectives (pg 2 RFP) below are ordered for protecting historic buildings
by responding to climate change and attracting new advocates who are younger and more diverse.
1. Identify ways to integrate historic preservation with the broader planning, environmental, social,
economic, and sustainable goals and procedures.
2. Identify how to encourage cooperation among existing historic preservation organizations and a
cross-section of the Northampton population.
3. Identify historic preservation priorities and develop an action plan to ensure implementation of
priority historic preservation goals.
4. Assess status of historic preservation in the community, including preservation mechanisms, and the
present integration of historic preservation activities into the city’s broader planning, environmental,
social, economic, and sustainability goals and procedures.
5. Encourage activities that identify, document, preserve, and promote historic and cultural resources
associated with the diverse minority, ethnic, social, and cultural groups who have played a role in the
history of the city of Northampton and Massachusetts.
6. Encourage communication and cooperation between existing groups engaged in historic preservation
activities and the community at large.
7. Assess Northampton’s historic and cultural resources, current level of identification, state of
preservation, and areas needing additional inventory.
8. Identify issues and opportunities for preservation.
Framework for this proposal – Text from other documents to show repetition in challenges and goals:
A. List the current challenges in historic preservation and sustainability using the issues identified in
the Massachusetts Historic Plan 2018-2022. Because Northampton is one of the most sustainable
communities in the nation, Northampton could be a model for addressing the challenges.
3
B. Identify the goals and objectives in historic preservation and sustainability in the Massachusetts
Historic Plan 2018-2022 to develop the New Northampton Preservation Plan that responds to climate
change.
C. Identify the goals and objectives in the Sustainable Northampton – Northampton Climate Resilience
and Regeneration Plan: An Element of the Comprehensive Plan that parallel the goals and objectives
in the Massachusetts Historic Preservation Plan 2018-2022.
D. Identify the goals and objectives in the Northampton Sustainability Plan 2021 that parallel the goals
and objectives in the Massachusetts Historic Preservation Plan 2018-2022.
E. Identify the goals and objectives outlined by Northampton’s Historic Northampton Historic House
inventory and the Historic District Commission that parallel the Massachusetts Historic Preservation
Plan 2018-2022.
A. List the current challenges in historic preservation and sustainability using the issues identified in
the Massachusetts Historic Plan 2018-2022.
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/mhcpdf/statepresplan20182022webversion.pdf
Challenges:
1. “Demolition, sprawl, funding, education, deferred maintenance, outdated information…climate
change, natural disasters and resiliency.” (pg 3-2)
2. “Broadcast efforts were not reaching younger people, minority communities, local and state elected
officials, the business community, or those not supportive of historic preservation efforts.” (pg 3-2)
3. “..one third stated teardowns, demolition, demolition by neglect, and development pressures on open
space are the biggest challenges.” “…lack of grant funding and inadequate tax credits.” (pg 3-3)
4. “…generational disconnect regarding historic preservation…strategies that would attract a younger
demographic to preservation were put forth.” (pg 3—4)
5. “the volume of nominations submitted remains high and the backlog of nominations continues to
grow.” (pg 3-7)
6. “Funding opportunities are not available for homeowners.” (pg 3-12)
7. “Many local historic commissions are not active.” (pg 3-14)
8. “Many commissions do not engage in adequate public relations efforts.” (pg 3-16)
9. “Local commissions struggle with finding volunteer members.” (pg 3-16)
10. “Most cities and towns do not have a current historic preservation plan…and most of the existing
plans are out of date…” (pg 3-16)
11. “Sea levels are riding due to climate change. Climate change will also have grave impacts on areas
not adjacent to the coast.” (pg 3-18)
12. “Aging Americans and millennials want to live in areas that are walkable, bikable, close to amenities,
and served by public transportation. Yet, historic housing types such as large single- family
residential buildings, are not meeting the demographic needs of smaller family units.” (pg 3-19)
13. “While many states have a coordinated method of highlighting significant historic resources
statewide, Massachusetts has no such program.” (pg 3-19)
14. “…approximately 25% of municipalities still do not have a web page that includes the local historical
commission…and websites contain only minimal information…” (pg 3-22)
15. “Massachusetts Cultural Resources Information System (MACRIS) ….does not generate enthusiasm
about historic resources and could be enhanced.” (pg 3-22)
16. “Misperceptions persist that historic buildings cannot be energy efficient.” (pg 3-23).
17. “…historic district commissions regularly hear from property owners, insistent that replacement
windows must be installed for their energy efficiency.” (pg 3-23)
18. “Historic preservation would benefit from greater diversity among its practitioners, whether trained
professionals, volunteer board and commission members, or committed advocates.” (pg 3-24)
4
B. List the goals and objectives in historic preservation and sustainability using the issues
identified in the Massachusetts Historic Plan 2018-2022.
Goals:
1. “Climate Change and Disaster Preparedness – Goal 7: Protect Historic Resources from Climate
Change, Natural Disasters, and Human-Made Disasters.” (p 4-5)
2. “Diverse Communities – Goal 8: Include diverse cultural and ethnic communities in historic
preservation.”
3. “Sustainable Development – Goal 11: Encourage Sustainable Development through Historic
Resources” #3. Demonstrate that new housing construction and job creation in small and large
cities is the most effective method of sustainable development.” ?? (pg 4-7)
4. “Economic Development – Goal 12: Encourage Economic Development through Historic
Preservation….Undertake an economic-impact study regarding the economic benefits of historic
preservation.” (pg 4-8)
C. Identify the goals and objectives in the Sustainable Northampton – Northampton Climate Resilience
and Regeneration Plan: An Element of the Comprehensive Plan that parallel the goals and objectives
in the Massachusetts Historic Preservation Plan 2018-2022.
https://northamptonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16237/Northampton-Resilience--Regeneration-Plan-as-
adopted-
2112021?bidId=#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20Mayor%20Narkewicz%20committed,endorsed%20this%20go
al%20in%202018.&text=carbon%20neutral%20by%202030.&text=College's%20commitment%20to%20be
%20net,and%2075%25%20lower%20by%202040.
Goals:
1. Flooding (pg 17) – if lawn soils have been regenerated, the soil will absorb and hold more water.
2. Buildings have the highest greenhouse gas emissions (pg 22) – historic buildings would be the ideal
location to work to lower greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining the character.
3. Right size new construction to avoid over-building (pg 25) – the information about regenerative soils
and trees at historic properties could make the case for right size new construction.
4. Carbon sequestration (pg 27) – healthy soils and tree roots exist at historic properties.
5. Energy – zero energy new buildings (pg 37) -- need comparison to carbon storage old growth lumber
buildings that are retrofitted and not stand-alone defense of new buildings.
6. Carbon sequestration (pg 40) – emphasis is on municipal lands (3A) but residents also want ways to
address climate change.
7. Storm water and heat are biggest climate adaptation needs (pg 43) – tree programs can also include
planting trees in the backyard to lessen air conditioning needs. Historic properties with large lawns
could have storm retention ponds on the lawns.
8. Solid waste is a problem (pg 45) – repair items in old houses, have classes in repairs, and tool
borrowing.
9. Transportation (pg 47) – have indoor bicycle storage and cycle track networks throughout
Northampton that are bordered by grass and trees and that have pedestrian/bike level lighting.
D. Identify the goals and objectives in the Northampton Sustainability Plan 2021 and Planning and
Sustainability that parallel the goals and objectives in the Massachusetts Historic Preservation Plan
2018-2022.
https://www.northamptonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/18591/Sustainable-Northampton-Comprehensive-
Plan-2021?bidId=
5
Goals:
1. Carbon neutral – regenerative city Pathway 9 (pg 54) – much language is about planting trees but
trees die unless carefully planted and watered. equal emphasis should be on proper planting and
care.
2. Lighting (pg 68) – to facilitate walking and biking at night when it is cool, a greater emphasis should
be on lighting the sidewalks and cycle tracks and not lighting the road with tall cobra head lights.
3. Carbon sequestration (pg 71) – emphasis is on municipal lots.
4. Soils Action Plan (pg 72) – soils should be improved around the historic buildings.
5. Enhance small scale food production (pg 85) – historic homes could have vegetable gardens to lessen
travel in combustion engine vehicles.
6. Regenerative practices (pg 149) – the mention is of farms but a focus could be the lawns around
historic buildings and homes.
7. Trails 9 pg 185) – much emphasis is on recreation trails but cycle track networks from historic homes
would lessen miles traveled in combustion engine vehicles.
8. Historic precedents define area (pg 188) – the historic properties could be the climate change
anchors.
9. Tree canopy (pg 189) – tree canopy should be around historic houses to provide cooling and not only
on municipal properties.
10. Bike Network Challenges (pg 277) – the map needs a network of barrier protected cycle tracks with
trees and lighting.
11. Bike (pg 282) – the raised cycle track provides the greatest opportunity for parallel trees and grass.
12. Planning and Sustainability https://www.northamptonma.gov/924/Planning-Sustainability
Mission: Identify and implement community vision for a sustainable and resilient future with a
healthy and equitable economy and environment
Planning: resilience | sustainability | visioning | comprehensive | strategic
Climate: resilience/adaptation | regeneration/mitigation
Environment: design with nature | open space | agriculture
Mobility: car-less options | bicycles and pedestrians | transit
Equity: housing | community development | economic prosperity | accessibility
Placemaking: design | built environment | history | community preservation
Tools and techniques to implement this mission
E. Identify the goals and objectives outlined by Northampton’s Historic Northampton Historic House
inventory and the Historic District Commission that parallel the Massachusetts Historic Preservation
Plan 2018-2022.
http://www.historic-northampton.org/members_only/houseinventoryb/index.html
1. The descriptions of 1,110 historic properties include photos and descriptions made between 1975 and
1980 of the buildings and their history, as required by the National Registrar of Historic Places.
These descriptions do not include the challenges identified in A above or the goals and objectives
identified in B, C, or D above.
https://www.northamptonma.gov/1052/Historical-Commission
2. The Mission of the Northampton Historic District Commission: Established by city ordinance in
1973 and updated in 2013 with the merger with the Historic District Commission, the Northampton
Historical Commission (NHC) is charged with the “preservation, promotion and development of the
historical assets of the city.” The proposal from this consultant suggests that historic properties
should be assessed based on climate-responsive measures to gain approval for historic properties
from a broader cross section of the Northampton population and to show the true value of the historic
properties as climate mitigation in addition to preserving the buildings based on the architect, style, or
construction methods. https://www.northamptonma.gov/1052/Historical-Commission
6
Sequential Response to the Six Page Request for Proposals
The following response to the Request for Proposals for Consulting Services for the City of
Northampton Historic Preservation Plan follows the 6 page RFP to help the reviewer see the
consultant’s methodology, demonstrate that this consultant understands the scope of work and
completion deadline, and the consultant’s expectations of assistance and services from the City. An
overview of this consultant’s framework is provided in the first 5 pages of this proposal.
Integration into Sustainable Northampton (pg 1 RFP)
In the context of the historic preservation element being integrated into the Sustainability Northampton, the
selected consultant will:
1) Design an element with a ten-year action plan and conceptual twenty year horizon. (pg 1 RFP):
The ten-year action plan and conceptual twenty-year planning horizon would focus on achieving the below
and more:
Attract new populations to historic preservation through the expansion of the criteria for historic
properties by including climate change measures
Collect data about historic properties related to climate change that could be assessed longitudinally
Achieve high participation by residents in data collection and the goals related to climate change to
lessen the burden on staff
Retrofit historic properties to make them responsive to climate. For example, removing replacement
windows and installing wooden windows, replacing new exterior doors with wooden doors, careful
planting of appropriate species of trees, creation of vegetable gardens, installation of electric vehicle
chargers aesthetically hidden, and installing historic-preservation sensitive lights on the property that
cast a glow on the sidewalk and cycle track
Support large architectural salvage yards and creation of local architectural salvage yards so
appropriate materials return to the historic homes
Increase in tradespeople and their status so they can retrofit and restore existing historic properties
Installation of aesthetic energy efficient systems (heat pumps, solar panels, electric vehicle chargers)
so they provide renewable energy but do not detract from the appearance of a historic home
Use the historic building’s climate measures as a regulation to lessen demolition because the new
building’s applicant would have to defend demolition and reconstruction based on climate measures.
2) Ensure that HPPs voice and approach is consistent with Sustainable Northampton’s goals and
resiliency efforts, including the diverse elements with own voice and approach (pg 2 RFP).
This proposal aims to achieve the many goals in the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan
because this proposal focuses also on responses to climate change. Development of the National
Register of Historic Places criteria for historic properties occurred in 1966 in response to demolition
of historic properties, in part for urban renewal. Urban Renewal practices removed lower income and
ethnic minority neighborhoods and many significant historic buildings. Now, climate change is a
worldwide issue and the historic preservation field has not come far enough in defending the
advantages of historic properties as carbon storage of the buildings and daily carbon sequestration by
the surrounding land and trees. The historic preservation field has also not gone far enough beyond
recommending keeping old windows and adding storm windows.
7
The historic preservation plan from Cambridge, MA has the below text in its document “Measuring
Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation.” In contrast, this proposal for Northampton’s Historic
Preservation Plan expands beyond studying the historic buildings for their economic impacts and focuses on
sustainability of the buildings, grounds, and amenities with full citizen engagement.
https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/guidance/2018-06/Economic%20Impacts%20v5-FINAL.pdf
“METRIC 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS Quantifying the contribution of historic
preservation to the environment is, as was noted earlier, the most recent area of research. That research
continues to evolve. The “Green Lab” of the National Trust for Historic Preservation is both compiling
existing research and conducting original research of the preservation/environment nexus. Additionally the
Department of the Army has commissioned an in-depth look at issues such as life cycle costs and
environmental impacts. The statewide analysis of the tax credit program in Maryland11 in 2009 tested a
variety of approaches to measure the environmental savings spawned by opting for rehabilitation rather than
new construction on undeveloped land.
WHAT SHOULD BE MEASURED A variety of measurements could be undertaken annually. Examples of
calculations might be:
» Embodied energy in buildings rehabilitated
» Infrastructure cost savings of rehabilitation rather than new construction at an outlying location
» Reduction of emissions and vehicle miles travelled
» Reduced impact on land fill and corresponding dollar savings
» Comparative analysis of annual operating costs of rehabilitated historic buildings with new buildings
» Life cycle energy use calculations that include both operating expenditures and energy used in construction
Because the research in this area is new and evolving, and because alternative approaches are being tested, it
is the recommendation of this report that there certainly should be an environment/preservation annual
measurement but the specifics of what is measured and how be deferred for a few years until more is learned
through existing research programs”.
The below text is from the document, “Aligning Historic Preservation and Energy Efficiency” by Sara
Bronin for the Kleiman Center for Energy Efficiency. April, 2021.
https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Aligning-Historic-Preservation-and-Energy-
Efficiency.pdf
“Using a life cycle assessment approach that analyzes the material life of a building (from construction to
demolition), studies have shown that remodeling historic buildings uses less energy than new construction,
across a variety of building types and climates (Preservation Green Lab 2011). New construction is resource
intensive because of the amount of building (ALIGNING HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND ENERGY
EFFICIENCY LEGAL REFORMS TO SUPPORT THE GREENEST BUILDINGS Sara C. Bronin April 2021
kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu 2 kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu) material created, and the energy needed to
transport and install the materials. Even if a new building operates 30 percent more efficiently than the
building it replaces, it takes up to 80 years to overcome the negative climate impacts of construction
(Preservation Green Lab 2011).”
8
The above text is about a rehabilitated historic building versus constructing a new energy efficient
building. The analyses did not include also comparing the carbon sequestration of the lawns and trees
surrounding the rehabilitated historic property versus reduction in lawn square footage, loss of trees, and
quality of the soil surrounding a new building. It additionally does not include the other climate-responsive
amenities added to historic buildings or that can lead to historic buildings.
3. Mine existing Sustainable Northampton preservation recommendations and sections and suggest
which of those can be deleted or revised with the adoption of the new plan (pg 2 RFP).
The first task is to identify residents in the community who have been critical of actions by
Northampton related to historic preservation or sustainability. Learning first of their concerns helps
shape the early meetings with the resident population because often their concerns are valid.
The second task will be in asking residents of Northampton if they want to pilot the idea of
completing a template for historic homes, properties, and landscapes to measure square footage of
lawn, number of trees, existence of an aesthetic electric vehicle charging station, location for a
vegetable garden, etc. The residents could pilot analysis of their own historic property, a municipal
historic landscape, a historic cultural object, or even a property that might be eligible for the National
Register. Rather than attending meetings with break-out sessions to produce and refine reports on the
web that attendees who did not attend the meeting might not read, this is a way to engage all residents
in responding to climate change. Also, rather than having residents do audits about walking/biking
conditions, parks, or forest plans, which are all public amenities, this pilot directly involves and
benefits the resident and their property. With the information, owners of historic properties would
know that maintenance of their historic property is their response to climate change and they too are
providing a solution to conditions such as heat island, heavy rains, and driving combustion engine
vehicles to purchase vegetables stored in plastic.
The third task is to go to the individuals in the neighborhoods in Northampton where residents live
who are not able to attend public hearings. They can be consulted individually through churches,
schools, and local groups and also asked about the best method to get their ideas.
Once the residents have tested and improved the template and offered thoughts about how
Northampton’s Historic Preservation Plan can overlap with the Sustainable Northampton
preservation recommendations, then the Sustainable Northampton plan can be mined for text to
delete or revise. The residents of Northampton would then have been the ones to mine or revise the
text.
4. Develop a lively, readable plan document that can be accessed easily by city officials, staff, permit
applicants, committee members, and residents. (pg 2 RFP)
Now, many communities across Massachusetts have historic preservation plans that historic
preservation proponents read and follow. In many communities, the historic preservation population
is a subset of the community population and tend to be white, wealthy, educated, and older. The goal
of this proposal is to produce a plan that historic preservation advocates access but that others across
Northampton and Massachusetts want to read because of the relationship shown between the
Northampton Historic Preservation Plan, Sustainable Northampton Plan, and responses to climate
change.
9
The plan must be readable but also changeable in a short amount of time because climate change
solutions are evolving daily. Some sections can remain intact but other sections can be marked as
intentionally evolving to serve the community. Many historic preservation plans have not been
changed in decades.
5. Once the historic preservation element is approved by the City, take the Sustainable Northampton
InDesign files and bring the new element into those same files. (pg 2 RFP)
The individuals who created the Sustainable Northampton InDesign files, the Jones Whitsett
Architects, would be considered as a subcontractor. There is pride in ownership of a document as
detailed and colorful as the Sustainable Northampton plan. The design eye should be consistent for
pleasure in reading. This subcontract cannot be determined until the number of changes have been
accepted by Northampton officials.
Objectives (pg 2 RFP)
The historic preservation plan should address the following elements:
Physical preservation: Protect historic buildings and heritage and cultural landscapes to
prevent loss and to preserve resources in the future. (pg 2 RFP)
The greatest threat to historic properties that are not within a Local Historic District is benign neglect and
demolition for development. Many communities in Massachusetts have Historic Preservation Plans and yet
they struggle to maintain their historic buildings and cultural landscapes even though the properties are on
the National Register of Historic Places. With many younger people disfavoring historic properties in favor
of McMansions or affordable apartments, a necessary element is in showing the younger people that the
historic properties and landscapes are carbon answers to climate change. Many others want to demolish
historic buildings to build office complexes, labs, or shopping centers and use the logic of en ergy
conservation of the new buildings. The energy conservation in a new building will not be realized for
upwards of 80 years when all measures are compared. Therefore, to protect the historic buildings and
heritage, it is essential to document the contribution to climate change and compare the contribution of
preservation with all the measures in demolition and reconstruction with new materials. This comparison
could be Regulatory and deter demolition.
Documentation: complete, improve, and increase public access to the city’s inventory of
historic resources. (pg 2 RFP)
If a person disfavors historic buildings and favors new buildings due to sustainability, that individual will not
study the inventory of historic resources even if the documentation is improved and more accessible. A
person is apt to study documentation if they have a strong interest and especially if they, or a friend, helped
shape the information. Therefore, to increase views of an inventory of historic resources it is necessary to
ask people to generate the information that will go on the new site. Asking them only about an architect or
style of building are not topics that would attract a broad cross section of the population so developing the
template that citizens could complete would give them ownership of the new documentation.
Regulation: amend and improve city ordinances, regulations, policies and incentives, and
permitting procedures to protect and enhance historic resources during the development
process. (pg 2 RFP)
10
Residents often view with disfavor the permitting regulations because of the time and money involved and
the possibility of rejection. Some view their property as their property and may feel burdened with the care
for their historic property because a long-gone architect built the building. If the property owner understands
that preservation of their building and grounds means they are a carbon steward and each day responding to
climate change, they may be more willing to maintain the historical integrity and sustainability of the house.
Regulations for new buildings require a floor area ratio (FAR) and this allows for elimination of much of the
open space and lawn that accompanied a historic property. Regulations are affordable to the developer/new
homeowner wanting to demolish a building and not the neighbors because the developer/new homeowner
folds the cost for aggressive lawyers into the cost for the new building. The neighbors might not have the
funds to hire a lawyer. If a Zoning Board of Appeals approves demolition and a large new home, a neighbor
may file an Administrative Appeal but the developer’s lawyer then may require that the neighbor post a bond
of $50,000. The ordinary resident has few resources to protect the integrity of their neighborhood and home.
The regulations will be amended and include language that underscores the contribution of the historic
resources to climate change and the need to also protect the quality of life and assets of the less-well-to-do
residents.
Outreach and Advocacy: Increase community knowledge of and access to these historic cultural
resources. (pg 2 RFP)
An individual will be more willing to embrace knowledge about historic preservation if they are a participant
in the collection and framing of the knowledge. A resident with a lower income in a lesser served
neighborhood of Northampton should not be expected to attend an evening hearing in City Hall. Some of the
individuals might live in historic properties but the time and cost in scraping and painting the building is
beyond their ability. They might understand the contribution of their historic building to climate change if
they start by measuring their yard, counting their trees, and finding a location for raised vegetable beds. If
they understand the value toward climate change through the yard, they might be able to ask for help in
getting their house painted or see the logic in keeping the old windows. They might even take a class in
gardening or window repair.
Specific project objectives include (pg 2 RFP):
Assess Northampton’s historic and cultural resources. (pg 2 RFP)
This contractor’s proposal suggests expanding this data collection to include the factors about the historic
property that address climate change (trees, lawn square footage to regenerate soils, location of vegetable
garden, EV charger, indoor bike parking, etc.). Longitudinal data analysis would reveal trends.
Identify issues and opportunities pertinent to preservation of the city’s historic resources.(pg 2 RFP)
To preserve the city’s historical resources, this proposal recommends new climate-responsive components in
the assessment of historic properties. This proposal also recommends engagement of citizens in the data
collection, even if it only involves counting the trees and square feet of lawn on their historic property.
Assess the status of historic preservation in the community, including existing preservation
mechanism, and the present integration of historic preservation activities into the city’s broader
planning, environmental, social, economic, and sustainability goals and procedures. (pg 2 RFP)
Historic preservations have appeared at odds with social, economic, and sustainability goals because many
owners of historic properties are wealthy, white, and own large plots of land that could instead have
affordable housing. Some extremely large homes could contain apartments or condominiums, a smaller
11
house on the periphery of the lot, or an attached apartment. This is a more climate-responsive alternative than
demolition and a new building because the existing building retains the trees, lawns, and spaces for vegetable
gardens and is a carbon sink itself due to the old growth lumber.
Identify historic preservation priorities and develop an action plan to ensure implementation of
priority historic preservation goals. (pg 2 RFP)
From having reordered the objectives for Integration into Sustainable Northampton and developed the
framework for developing this proposal to see if this reordering might be address the challenges and
goals/objectives as identified in A, B, C, D, and E above, the historic-building climate-change template
completed by citizens would best ensure implementation of the priority historic preservation goals. The
overall goal is to preserve historic buildings but there needs to be evidence to show that the buildings and
properties are superior responses to climate change than new buildings. The people who own this new
principal have to include people new to historic preservation.
Identify ways to further integrate current historic preservation activities with broader planning,
environmental, social, economic, and sustainable goals and procedures.(pg 2 RFP)
This proposal provides a new lens through which residents and municipal officials in Northampton can view
their historic resources because the measures include the carbon sequestration lawns and trees surrounding
the building plus climate-responsive amenities. This proposal also provides an invitation to residents who
have been less involved in historic preservation. Finally, this proposal shows the environmental and
economic benefits in keeping the existing historic buildings and serves as a counter to all of the
advertisements from Zero Energy Building companies.
Encourage activities that identify, document, preserve and promote historic and cultural resources
associated with diverse minority, ethnic, social and cultural groups who have played a role in the
history of the city of Northampton and Massachusetts. (pg 2 RFP)
Typical meetings about historic preservation are in the evening and involve leisure time. This proposal will
engage the residents in the diverse neighborhoods throughout Northampton and include topics from which
they would benefit. If they count the number of canopy trees around their property, they could understand the
benefit in not having to run a high-utility-bill air conditioner. If they measure their lawn and find a location
with sun, they could install raised beds and have vegetables at their home. If they understand the benefits of
opening a window in the summer and keeping out the cold out in the winter if the window is restored, one of
the residents might want to learn about how to restore historic windows as a new job.
Encourage communication and cooperation between existing groups engaged in historic
preservation activities and the community at large. (pg 2 RFP)
If would be burdensome to ask an individual already overwhelmed with a low-paying job, child care,
responsibilities for elderly parents, or living in unsatisfactory housin g to volunteer to discuss historic
preservation. Yet wealthy individuals and underserved individuals face the same climate consequences of
increased heat, higher energy bills, pollution, intense downpours, and heavy snowfalls. Therefore, the focus
of this proposal is to address the latter by revisiting historic properties and inviting all residents to be
involved in new measures that provide solutions to climate change. These home and community-based
initiatives are not as impactful as stopping coal burning, regenerating soil through intense cattle grazing
(Allan Savory), stopping clearcutting in the Amazon, or growing vegetables in Africa that are heat tolerant
12
(Lancet study) but the residents in Northampton could show the nation that historic properties are climate
change solutions.
Identify how the city can encourage and support cooperation among existing historic preservation
organizations, and ways the preservation activity will involve a representative cross-section of the
Northampton population.(pg 2 RFP)
Communities often elect a cross-section of the population to a committee and the committee meets a few
times to discuss the items before them. This standard method would allow for diversity on the board but the
result may not produce high engagement in the topic. The main responsibility of the committee member is to
attend the meetings. As an alternative, in-person and Zoom meetings can include everyone who wants to
participate and individuals can volunteer to do a task of their choosing. At the next meeting, the person who
completed their self-assigned task is on the way to becoming a leader, even when they did not know they had
leadership skills.
Year 1 ($35,000)
This proposal is for two years with the $70,000 divided in half. Testing and refining the consideration of
assessing the lawns, trees, and amenities of the historic buildings for carbon sequestration does not allow
enough time for feedback and refinement if undertaken within one year, given the constraints of seasons.
Extending the initiative over three years would be too long. The first year would involve explanation and
refinement of the concept of historic buildings/grounds/amenities as answers to climate change and an
updated way to defend the value of historic buildings. The second year would involve further refinement and
learning of officials and residents willingness to put the concept in the Northampton Sustainability Plan. The
required tasks for the Historic Preservation Plan would also be completed but contain this additional climate-
responsive consideration to achieve the main goal of preserving the city’s historic and cultural resources.
Phase I: Background Scope of Work (pg 3 RFP)
Tasks:
Meet with Planning and Sustainability staff (see first bullet under Phase II) to review project goals,
scope of work, schedule and protocol. Learn their willingness to include in the scope of work the
idea of the historic property owner as a carbon steward, i.e., inclusion of the yards, lawns, vegetable
gardens, EV charger, indoor bike parking, etc. If they are willing, get their suggestions.
Meet with the Historical Commission or its subcommittee, etc. (see first bullet under Phase II pg 5
RFP) for brainstorming and concept tests. Learn their willingness to include in the scope of work the
idea of the historic property owner as a carbon steward, i.e., inclusion of the yards, lawns, vegetable
gardens, EV charger, indoor bike parking, etc. If they are willing, get their suggestions. Also,
discuss with them the idea of asking for feedback from the Massachusetts Historical Commission
because the state might consider the concept to help all communities defend their historic properties
and attract younger and more diverse allies to historic preservation.
Publish 3 articles in the Daily Hampshire Gazette within the year about consideration of the
lawn/tree carbon addition for assessing historic properties. (Part of new outreach under Phase II
Outreach RFP pg 5).
Host 2 Zoom webinars with Power Points to gain feedback about the lawn/tree carbon assessment
for historic properties.
13
Meet individuals in the underserved neighborhoods at a church, school, or pre- existing gathering
(2 meetings) to learn their thoughts about historic preservation and, out of all the amenities about
historic buildings, which they want as a focus (lawns, trees, vegetable gardens, bike parking, EV
charging station, window repair, etc.)
Meet with individuals who have insightful criticisms of community initiatives (1 meeting).
Hold one public forum. Additionally, share the concept through the newspaper, Zoom, and meetings
with residents in underserved neighborhoods and insightful individuals.
Review five recent historic preservation plans from comparable communities in and outside
Massachusetts that have advance, progressive, and successful preservation programs.
Prepare introductory text about historic preservation planning. Explain why the addition of the
surrounding lands and amenities is important.
Develop a list of all preservation partners and stakeholders and prepare brief description of each.
Defend inclusion of underrepresented populations and the value in having them included due to
their insights.
Review the historical development of the community… Include under represented population
stories in the text.
Review previous planning documents, including Sustainable Northampton…Provide a chronological
narrative that includes plans, reports, …
Review existing historic inventory. Undertake a wide-view reconnaissance inventory to assess
inventory coverage Citywide and identify gaps. Show that the prior inventory focused on the
buildings and not carbon sequestration or other climate responsive amenities. Preparation of new
inventory forms is not part of this project, but will be utilized to inform future survey results. The
new inventory form that would be discussed and piloted would include the climate-responsive
categories.
Prepare an analysis of current designations, including properties on the National Register of Historic
Places…
Review existing Ordinances and regulations that could impact historic properties…
Review the status of all historic City-owned properties, objects and sites, and those on which the
City has a financial or legal interest
Assess current City capabilities and staffing as related to preservation. Learn from Northampton
residents if they are willing to complete the paper template (carbon sequestration) for their own
property and if they are willing to help others complete the template. Learn if residents in
underserved neighborhoods would like help in completing the paper template. Determine if a citizen
group would be willing to enter the data from the templates into Excel and conduct analysis. This
would lessen the burden on staff and provide a role for citizens to play in addressing climate change
through historic preservation. Learn if there are groups that would like to take a leadership role,
including Mothers Out Front Northampton.
Meet with Planning and Sustainability staff to review Phase I activities and products. This proposal
adds the new component of carbon sequestration and the template as part of the Outreach and for
the new inventory forms. Therefore, it would be best to send a twice-monthly very brief email report
to Sustainability Staff. Then, they are informed and can offer guidance.
Deliverables: (pg 4 RFP)
Introduction to Historic Preservation Planning (mention of the challenges to historic buildings of
demolition, benign neglect, new affordable housing, commercial developments, or McMansions
14
covering the entire lot, loss of trees, and inferior soil if the pattern of only documenting the building
is continued – mention of the new assessments as a response to climate change).
Annotated Listing of Preservation Partners and Stakeholders
Historic Context and History of Historic Preservation Planning (mention the need for improvements
to defend the value of historic properties beyond the name of the architect as a way to help ensure
that historic properties that are not part of a Local Historic District are not demolished )
Historic Properties Inventory Analysis (mention of piloting a new template that assesses climate-
responsive measures)
National Register of Historic Places and Local Historic District Analysis
Municipal Ordinances and Regulation Analysis (mention the possibility with the new categories that
citizens might be entreated to help staff with inventory and preserving historic properties – mention
that with the inclusion of under-represented residents they too might help)
Phase II: Outreach (pg 5 RFP)
Tasks: (pg 5 RFP)
Seek input from board and commission members, etc. (see first two bullets under Phase I Tasks.)
Develop an engagement plan, informed by community context and past experience (see bullets 3-6
under Phase I).
Prepare text explaining the overall historic preservation issues and challenges facing Northampton.
(The challenges have been listed for Massachusetts in the beginning of this proposal and these would
be paralleled with the challenges in Northampton.)
Meet with Planning and Sustainability staff to review Phase II activities and accomplished
tasks/products.
Deliverables: (pg 5 RFP)
Municipal Policy, Management, and Capital Improvements Analysis (related to the categories listed
under tasks about historic preservation and sustainability – the Capital Improvements Analysis
would not include topics such as bridge maintenance, sewage treatment, or 20 year flood protection)
Public Awareness and Engagement Analysis (related to the categories listed under tasks about
historic preservation and sustainability)
Overview of Historic Preservation Issues and Challenges (with inclusion of the climate responsive
new assessments for historic properties to address the issues and challenges)
Year 2 ($35,000)
Phase II: Outreach cont. in year 2
Tasks: (pg 5 RFP)
Publish 3 articles in the Daily Hampshire Gazette within the year about consideration of the
lawn/tree carbon addition for assessing historic properties. (Part of new outreach under Phase II
Outreach).
Host 2 Zoom webinars with Power Points to gain feedback about the lawn/tree carbon assessment
for historic properties.
15
Meet individuals in the underserved neighborhoods at a church, school, or pre- existing gathering
(2 meetings) to learn their thoughts about historic preservation and, out of all the amenities about
historic buildings, which they want as a focus (lawns, trees, vegetable gardens, bike parking, EV
charging station, window repair, etc.)
Meet with individuals who have insightful criticisms of community initiatives (1 meeting).
Hold one public forum after sharing the concept through the newspaper, Zoom, and meetings with
residents in underserved neighborhoods and insightful individuals
Prepare text explaining overall preservation issues…
Meet with Planning and Sustainability staff to Review Phase II activities and accomplished
tasks/products.
Update the Deliverables under Phase II in the second year: (pg 5 RFP)
Municipal Policy, Management and Capital Improvement Analysis
Public Awareness and Engagement Analysis – report of what residents appreciate most
Overview of Historic Preservation Issues and Challenges
Phase III: Recommendations (pg 5 RFP)
Tasks:
Develop Historic Properties Inventory recommendations and National Register of Historic Places and
Local Historic District recommendations, including individual properties and districts. (The National
Trust and Local Historic District recommendations do not allow for inclusion of the lawns/trees/EV
charging stations, etc. which provide additional defenses to preserving historic properties.
Northampton would be a test community for making the case to the National Trust and
Massachusetts Historical Commission. Consult with Massachusetts Historical Commission, if
allowed, to learn if they have suggestions.)
Develop public awareness/education recommendations. This may include suggestions to make
information more easily accessible through existing means, such as assessor’s maps, Laserfiche, or
MACRIS. (The survey conducted by the Massachusetts Historical Commission indicated that interest
in MACRIS was lacking.)
Develop municipal ordinances, policy, regulations, management and capital improvements
recommendations. (The regulations would be ones related to historic preservation and the new
possible assessment related to climate change.)
Develop mechanisms to protect public investment in private historic properties and mechanism to
protect/maintain city-owned historic properties. (Unless the building is in a Local Historic District, it
is very difficult to provide protection to public investment in private historic properties – therefore,
the addition of the climate responsive measures is a way to defend the value of the historic properties
to the citizens, the Northampton boards, and even to the developer. Otherwise, new laws would need
to be passed by the state legislature and, with a nation divided along party lines and so many
demands for new policies, it would be difficult to get a new law passed to protect historic properties.
Using the measures related to climate change to compare the historic building with all the impacts
involved in creating the new building would provide defenses for keeping the historic building).
Develop a ten-year preservation action plan that identifies each party responsible for implementation
tasks and a schedule for implementation. Said action plan should consider priorities in regards to
specific properties and heritable and cultural landscapes. (To guarantee that specific properties are
16
saved and funding is available for preservation would involve a law to protect that property and a
dedicated fund for preservation. Suggestions can be offered but the perception by the public about
defending the value of historic properties based on climate change should also be a focus. The vast
amount of information that new buildings are more energy efficient, the lack of consideration about
the associated costs of transportation, cutting trees, use of plastics, etc., and the fact that fewer
people are advocates for historic properties makes it more difficult to save historic buildings.)
Prepare an illustrated Executive Summary, suitable for distribution as a stand-alone document.
Present the recommendations of the draft Historic Preservation Plan at a Public Forum.
Prepare a summary report that describes the outreach, attendees, and overall discussions at the public
forum, as well as written comments received on the draft Historic Preservation Plan. (This would
cover year 1 and year 2 outreach.)
Meet with Planning and Sustainability staff to review Phase III activities and products (the new
product should consider the climate responsive assessment for historic properties because a Historic
Preservation Plan alone will not achieve the goals outlined in the beginning of this proposal due to
all the competing forces against historic preservation.
Products (pg 6 RFP):
Historic Properties Inventory Recommendations (with consideration of defending historic buildings
based on their response to climate change)
National Register and Local Historic District Recommendations (with consideration of defending
historic buildings based on their response to climate change)
Public Awareness, Programming and Education Recommendations (this recommendation will
include application of the new measure in which preservation of historic buildings are also defended
for the response to climate change, especially in response to new buildings on the same site)
Municipal Policy, Management and Capital Improvements Recommendations (as they relate to
historic preservation and climate change)
Recommendations for Mechanism to Protect Public Investment in Private Historic Properties and
Stewardship of City-Owned Historic Properties and those in which the City has legal or financial
interest. (this recommendation requires a new law and dedicated funding and would be a difficult
battle when communities are struggling to create new Local Historic Districts due to the pressures
for new buildings – climate measures would provide defensible justification for preservation).
Action Plan (the action plan would include the concept of defending historic properties with climate
change measures because residents need to see the additional benefits to historic properties beyond
the architect, the building’s appearance, or the person who lived there. There are economic benefits
through tourism in having historic buildings but maintenance and energy-retrofit costs have critics. A
historic building might be able to stand on its laurels for economic development but the case
strengthens if the entire property is an answer to climate change.)
Executive Summary
Public Forum/Comments Summary Report
Phase IV: Integration into Sustainable Northampton (pg 6 RFP)
Prepare a final version of the Northampton Historic Preservation Plan, incorporating it into the
Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan , as outlined at the top of this RFP. The information
and concepts that have been vetted and approved by Northampton officials and residents of
Northampton would be incorporated into the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan.
17
Qualifications (pg 6 RFP):
The overall proposal must also include:
A. The identity of the individual who would actually perform the work and the responsibilities.
(pg 6 RFP)
Anne Lusk, Ph.D. would be the sole individual performing the work though she would perhaps subcontract
to have the edits made to the Northampton Sustainability Plan so the artistic style remains consistent.
While having teams work on such a project is beneficial, having one central person with the knowledge of all
the components is also advantageous. One person then is the contact and identifiable as the individual
responsible for collecting and assembling the ideas. If that one person’s interest in the well-being of the
community is apparent, the staff and residents are likely to share in that interest.
B. A proposer’s qualifications statement, including professional qualifications and work experience
attesting to the capacity to perform the required work. Include resume, detailing academic and
professional work experience attesting to the capacity to perform the required work program.
(pg 6 RFP)
In Stowe, Vermont, the old high school in the center of Town was to be demolished and a new library built.
Anne Lusk had completed her Masters of Arts in Teaching with a specialization in Aesthetics and Housing
and Historic Preservation, a program Chester Liebs started at the University of Vermont. She asked officials
with the Vermont Historic Preservation office about putting the old school on the National Register and they
suggested putting all 124 houses in Stowe Village on the National Register. In 1977, the Select Board
appointed Anne Lusk to serve as Chair of the restoration of the Old Stowe High School. She and others
formed Historic Stowe, Inc. and raised money for the restoration of what is now the Helen Day Memorial
Library and Art Center. Stowe Village properties are on the National Register.
In 1981, the Town of Stowe, Vermont, hired Anne Lusk to write a feasibility study about building a bicycle
path parallel the Mountain Road. Realizing that it would be possible to instead build the path, she raised
$680,000, obtained 32 deeds of easement, and oversaw construction of the 5.3 mile award-winning path.
The Federal Highway Administration awarded a contract to Anne Lusk to write a study about how to be
successful, at the grassroots level, getting bicycle facilities built (published in 1993). The Federal Transit
Administration awarded a contract to her to conduct a study and write a report about bus and bus stop
designs related to perceptions of crime (published in 2001). For this study, she worked with individuals in
homeless shelters in inner city Detroit, Burlington, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.
After receiving her Ph.D. in Architecture with a specialization in Environment and Behavior and a Minor in
Urban Planning from the University of Michigan in 2002, Dr. Lusk became a Visiting Scientist at the
Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. She received a four-year NIH Postdoctoral training grant and
learned public health research methods, conducted research, and taught. Her research in 2011 and 2013,
for which she was first author, helped change Federal Highway Administration policy to then support
building barrier-protected bicycle-exclusive bicycle paths/cycle tracks. She has conducted multiple studies
that asked under-served populations for their perceptions and preferences. The participants included gang
members and halfway house residents who found value in participating because they understood that their
perceptions were extremely insightful about the built environment.
In Brookline, Vermont, a 175 year old two-over-two workman’s cottage was going to be demolished that had
been moved in 1870 with 30 other cottages to Hart’s Content so Irish Catholic families could then own a
18
home. Dr. Lusk volunteered to write what became the 72 page Local Historic District Study report titled
“Hart’s Content.” Fewer than 80% of the residents on the low to middle-income Hart Street approved of the
Local Historic District so the nomination did not achieve Brookline’s high threshold to allow presentation at
Town Meeting. The owner of the property is now going to demolish the cottage and built a three and a half
story, 5 bedroom, 4 bathroom, 2 car garage home on the property well over the front and back yard
setbacks.
Dr. Lusk is in the process of forming an LLC.
Resume is attached.
C. A detailed explanation of the proposer’s approach to this project: (pg 6 RFP)
Methodology – This detailed proposal responded to the requests for information by following the same
chronological order as in the 6 page RFP (see above). This was to help a reviewer see the tasks completed
by the deadline. With the major objective of saving historic properties, Dr. Lusk added the climate-
responsive environments around the historic properties and broader citizen engagement for consideration.
Two calendars are below.
Proposer’s expectations of assistance and services from the City.
Dr. Lusk would like the City of Northampton to set up the 4 Zoom sessions (two the first year and two the
second year) so the understanding by the residents in Northampton is this initiative is under the control of
Northampton. Dr. Lusk would like the City of Northampton to arrange for the two forums (one in the first
year and one in the second year) to be in a City Hall room. This again would show that this initiative is
under the control of Northampton. Dr. Lusk would also like help in advertising the Zoom sessions and the
forums so residents know these are meetings sanctioned by Northampton. Dr. Lusk would be very willing to
share the Power Points she will present at the Zoom sessions and the two forums with City Officials to get
feedback. The City officials could also edit the six articles Dr. Lusk would submit to the Daily Hampshire
Gazette. If information is not available online, Dr. Lusk would also appreciate learning the locations for
archived information.
D. A client reference list, with names, addresses, and phone numbers, and e-mail addresses
especially for clients for whom the proposer has performed similar services within the past five
(5) years. (pg 6 RFP)
Tina McCarthy, Preservation Planner, Brookline Town Hall, 333 Washington Street. Brookline, MA
02445, 617-730-2612 tmccarthy@brooklinema.gov
E. Sample work products for all personnel: (pg 6 RFP)
Three articles written for the Brookline TAB
Hart’s Content Local Historic District Study Report
19
Calendars for 2022-2024
The following calendars for June 2022 through May 24 are approximations. Unknowns include whether
materials are online and archived and if Northampton officials are interested in the concept of assessing
the climate-response components and engaging the citizens more broadly. Abbreviations are provided
for the Tasks and additional abbreviations are provided for the expanded outreach. The below includes
Phase I and Phase II:
June 22
Meet staff
Review 5 hist plans
Prepare intro text
Meet Hist Comm
Develop list partners
Start Review Hist Dev
Seek input
July 22
Finish Review Hist Dev
Review Sust Northampton
Def engagement plan
Write 1 Daily Ham Gaz article
Meet key insightful indivs
Meet other residents
Zoom
Aug 22
Review exist hist inventory
Prepare text on pres issues
Meet other residents again
Sept 22
Review status of properties
(weather dependent?)
Oct 22
Prepare Analysis of current
Write 2nd Daily Ham Gaz article
Zoom
Nov 22
Review existing Ordinances
Dec 22
Assess current city capabilities
Jan 23
Compile info Phase I and II –
gain feedback
Write 3rd Daily Ham Gaz article
Feb 23
Compile info Phase I and II –
gain feedback
Mar 23
Compile info Phase I and II-
gain feedback
Apr 23
Forum - feedback
May 23
Produce deliverables for Phase I
and II
The below includes Phase III and Phase IV:
June 23
Develop Hist recomm
July 23
Dev public awareness recmd
Write 4th Daily Ham Gaz article
Zoom
Meet with residents
Aug 23
Develop ordinances
Meet with residents again
Sept 23
Develop mechanism
Oct 23
Develop 10 year action plan
Write 5th Daily Ham Gaz article
Zoom
Nov 23
Prepare illustrated Exec summ
Dec 23
Review all text
Jan 24
Present recomm of draft at
Public Forum
Write 6th Daily Ham Gaz article
Feb 24
Prepare summary of report
Meet with staff
Mar 24
Compile info Phase III and IV
Gain feedback
Apr 24
Compile info Phase III and IV
Gain feedback
May 2
Finalize deliverables for Phase
III and IV.
Anne Lusk, Ph.D.
18 Hart Street Brookline, Ma 02445 (617) 879-4887/h/w (617) 872-9201 c AnneLusk@gmail.com
Executive
Summary
Ph.D. in Architecture/Environment and Behavior with minor in Urban Planning – interplay between
the built environment and behavior
Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT) - specialization in Aesthetics in Housing and Historic Preservation
Recipient of Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals Lifetime Achievement Award
(2013) for promoting protected bike lanes across the country
Recipient of Congress for New Urbanism/New England Lifetime Achievement Award (2011) for
expanding access to safe bicycling in urban and rural environments
Recipient of Brookline Preservation Commission Award for Restoration of 18 Hart Street (2007)
Recipient of University of Michigan Martin Luther King Service and Leadership Award (2001)
Recipient of the National Park and Recreation Association National Voluntary Service Award (1996)
Recipient of U.S. Department of the Interior National Take Pride in America Award (1989)
Recognized by the George H.W. Bush White House as 1,000 Points of Light for Stowe Recreation
Path in Stowe, VT (1989)
Track record of scholarly and popular publications on the relationship between biking, safety,
public health outcomes, electric vehicles, climate change, and equity.
Professional
Experience
HARVARD T. H. CHAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Instructor
Boston, MA
2021-Present
Proposed and developed new class “Climate Change, Home Sustainability, and Nutrition”
Fourteen years teaching continually renewed course on “Built Environment, Human
Transportation, Public Health and Climate Change”
2002-2021
Various Research Appointments: Research Scientist (‘11-‘21), Research Associate (’10-’11),
Visiting Scientist (’02-’06)
Twenty year research and teaching career at Harvard Chan School of Public Health
Initially joined as a Visiting Scientist; Promoted to Research Associate and then Research
Scientist via a rigorous peer review process
Led scholarly and community engaged research on public health, equity, climate change,
weather-related disasters, bicycle facilities, electric vehicles, seniors
Published in top tier academic journals, authored op -eds for popular press, consulted on
community projects
Paid keynote speaker for communities and major academic conferences
INDEPENDENT CONSULTING
1977 - Community Consultant Worldwide
present
1998-2002
1993
1990-1991
1989-1990
1981-1989
1996-2002
Paid keynote speaker and community consultant on bicycle infrastructure design, fund raising,
tree planting, and community activism in 21 states, Canada, and Europe
Commissioned by the Federal Transit Administration to write the 111 page study, “Bus and Bus
Stop Designs Related to Perceptions of Crime”
Commissioned by the Federal Highway Administration to write Case Study No. 6: “Analysis of
Successful Grassroots Movements Relating to Pedestrians and Bicycles and A Guide on How to
Initiate a Successful Program. National Bicycling and Walking Study”
Consultant, Stowe Conservation Commission to acquire conservation land for Stowe, Vermont
Stowe Land Trust Project Coordinator – helped the Town of Stowe, Vermont raise funds and
obtain the 235 acre Mayo Farm adjacent to the Village and Stowe Recreation Path fo r $1.4
million in Town Funds.
Stowe Recreation Path Coordinator – Conceived of, designed and fundraised for award-winning
Stowe Recreation Path; Obtained deeds of easement from 32 different property owners, raised
$680,000, and supervised construction.
FOUNDER
Founder – Single Volunteers, now a worldwide organization U.S.
1977-present
VOLUNTEERING U.S.
Wrote the 72 page Hart’s Content Local Historic District Study Report about a cluster of
workman’s cottages moved in 1870 to enable Irish Catholic families to own their own home
Successful advocate for the raised protected bike lanes with trees on Route 9 in Brookline, MA.
Founder and Chair, Vermont Trails and Greenways Council to create trails across Vermont
One of the founders and Chair, Vermont Bicycle and Pedestrian Coalition to build bicycle paths
across the state
Appointed by the Town of Stowe as Chair of the restoration of the Old Stowe High School,
helped raise $500,000, formed Historic Stowe, Inc. with others, and supervised construction for
the Helen Day Memorial Library and Art Center listed on the National Register of Historic Places
Education HARVARD T. H. CHAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Post Doctoral Fellowship
Boston, MA
2006-2010 Training - statistical methods, qualitative and quantitative analysis, survey research methods,
human subjects review
Prepared and taught own 2.5 credit hour course titled “Bicycle Environments in the U.S. and the
Netherlands/Denmark: case studies in the promotion of physical activity” - later – “Built
Environment, Human Energy, Public Health”
Conducted analysis of greenways across the country
2002 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Taubman College of Architecture/Urban Planning
Ph.D. Architecture
Dissertation - “Guidelines for greenways: Determining the distance to,
features of, and human needs met by destinations on multi -use corridors.”
Ann Arbor, MI
Major: Environment and Behavior
Minor: Urban Planning
Awards and Recognition
Real Estate Forum Writing Competition Award – University of Michigan
Scholarship for Merit – Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning
Dissertation Research Grant – Vermont Land Trust
Dissertation Tuition and Stipend Award – Rackham Graduate School
Commencement Speaker – Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning
2000 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Taubman College of Architecture/Urban Planning
M. S. Architecture
Ann Arbor, MI
Major: Environment and Behavior
Minor: Urban Planning
Awards and Recognition
Rachkam Non-Traditional Fellowship Award – University of Michigan
Tuition and Stipend Award – College of Architecture/Urban Planning - University of Michigan
1975
UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT School of Home Economics
M.A.T. (Masters of Arts in Teaching)
Burlington, VT
Media
Focus: Aesthetics in Housing and Historic Preservation – Chester Liebs’ program
Lay publication of research “Bike Friendly Cities Should Be Designed for Everyone, Not Just Fo r
Wealthy White Cyclists – 181,867 readers of The Conversation article Feb 8, 2019.
Lay publication of research “Designing Greener Streets Starts with Finding Roo m for Bicycles and
Trees” – 17,253 readers of The Conversation article Feb 6, 2018.
Media Interviews: WBUR, KCUR/NPTR, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, The Seattle
Times, Streetsblog, Academic Minute, BicycleCity, Harvard Crimson, Harvard Gazette, New
Urban Network, Politico, MedicineNet.com, Planetizen, Burlington Free Press, Reuters, Glamour,
CNN Health, Denver Post, Examiner/Australia, Health Daily.
Board
Appointments
1992-1996
1990-1996
1988-1996
1984-1995
Selected
Academic
Publications
U.S. Secretary of Transportation Appointee – National Recreational Trails Advisory Committee
Vice Chair, American Trails
Member, Chair, and Trustee of Citizen Branch – National Recreation and Park Association
Gubernatorial Appointee, Vermont Board of Forests, Parks, and Recreation
Lusk, A. “Designing Better Cycling Infrastructure: Safe cycling b enefits people, the planet, and
the local economy.” The BMJ, March 11, 2020.
Lusk, A, Willett, W, Morris, V, Byner, C, Li, Y. “Bicycle Facilities Safest from Crime and Crashes:
Perceptions of Residents Familiar with Higher Crime/Lower Income Neighborhoods in Boston.”
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , February 7, 2019;
16(3), 484.
Lusk A, Silva Filho D, Dobbert L. “Pedestrian and cyclists preferences for tree locations by
sidewalks and cycle tracks and associated benefits: Worldwide implications from a study in
Boston, MA.” Cities, 2018; September
Lusk, A. Anastasio, A, Shaffer, N, Wu, J, Li, Y. “Biki ng Practices and preferences in a low
income, primarily minority neighborhood: Learning what residents want.” Preventive Medicine
Reports, 2017; Sep 7: 232–238
Alveano-Aguerrebere I, Javier Ayvar-Campos F, Farvid M, Lusk A. “Bicycle Facilities That Address
Safety, Crime, and Economic Development: Perceptions from Morelia, Mexico.” International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health . 2017; 15(1).
Yuan, C, Sun, Y, Lv, J, Lusk, A . “Cycle Tracks and Parking Environments in China: Learning from
College Students at Peking University.” International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health. 2017; August, 14, 930
Bonges, H, Lusk, A. “Addressing electric vehicle (EV) sales and range anxiety through parking
layout, policy and regulation.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2016; 83:
63-73
Lusk, A. in partnership with the League of American Bicyclists and the U.S. Environmental
Protection (EPA) and with support from the Helen and William Mazer Foundation. (2016)
“Promoting Bicycling through Creative Design: Innovations for Bicycles and Cycli ng Facilities.”
Lusk, A, Asgarzadeh, M, Farvid, M. “Database improvements for motor vehicle/bicycle crash
analysis.” Injury Prevention. 2015; 21:221–230.
Lusk, A., Li, Y. “Bicycling, health and weather-related disasters: Potential data to better predict
risk.” Swiss Re Centre for Global Dialogue - Risk Dialogue Series on Health Risk Factors in China,
2014; 61-71
Lusk, A, Morency, P, Miranda-Moreno, L, Willett, W, Dennerlein, J. “Bicycle Guidelines and
Crash Rates on Cycle Tracks in the United States.” American Journal of Public Health, 2013;
July, 103(7): 1240-1248
Lusk, A, Furth, P, Morency, P, Miranda -Moreno, L, Willett, W, Dennerlein, J. “Risk of injury for
bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street.” Injury Prevention, 2011; Feb 9 17: 131-135
Lusk, A,* Mekary, R,* Feskanich, D, Willett, W. “Bicycle Riding, Walking, and Weight Gain in
Premenopausal Women.” Archives of Internal Medicine. 2010; Vol 170 (no. 12) June 28: 1050-
1056
Websites:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/anne-lusk/
https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1008/2022/01/Harts-Content-Brookline-MA-
Local-Historic-District-Study-Report-Lusk-8-23-2021.pdf
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/electric-cars/
https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1008/2013/09/bus-and-bus-stop-lusk.pdf
1
PRELIMINARY STUDY REPORT
PROPOSED “HART’S CONTENT” LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT
BROOKLINE, MA
Prepared for
Hart Street Neighbors Group
Draft prepared by
Anne Lusk, Ph.D. and Mary Tynan (long-time resident)
Edited by
Jean Woy with Tina McCarthy, Brookline Preservation Planner
and Elton Elperin, Brookline Preservation Commission, Chair
Brookline Preservation Commission
Department of Planning and Community Development
August 10, 2021
In front of 14 Hart Street, 17 Hart Street, 7 Hart Street, 10 Hart Street, and 9 Hart Street around 1945
2
SUMMARY SHEET
Contact Person: Tina McCarthy, Preservation Planner
Town of Brookline, Planning Department
Tmccarthy@brooklinema.gov
617-730-2612
Study Committee: Brookline Preservation Commission
Members
Elton Elperin, Chair
Richard Panciera, Vice Chair
James Batchelor
Wendy Ecker
David Jack
Peter Kleiner
David King
Alternates
Elizabeth Armstrong
John Spiers
Alex Villanueva
Date of Public Hearings: INSERT 2021 DATES
Date of Town Meeting: Begins November 16th, 2021
Total Number of Properties in Proposed Hart’s Content LHD: Fourteen (14 parcels):
Eleven (11) original working-class cottages
One (1) 1909 larger two-family home where a cottage was located that became a store
with living overhead
One (1) 1911 triple decker where a one-story 1770s gambrel was located
One (1) 1913 larger single-family home that incorporates the original cottage and
foundation.
3
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………..4
A. History of Hart’s Content…………………………………………………………….4
B. Architectural Patterns on Hart Street………………………………………………..7
C. Early Owners………………………………………………………………………….7
D. Explanation of the Boundaries for the Proposed Hart’s Content LHD……………..8
2. METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………………………10
A. A Stable, Historic, and Coherent Neighborhood……………………………………10
B. Affordability and Diversity…………………………………………………………...11
C. Neighborhood Interest in Preservation……………………………………………...11
D. The Protection of a Local Historic District………………………………………….11
E. Preliminary Study Report Documentation…………………………………………..12
F. Public Hearings and Town Meeting…………………………………………………13
3. SIGNIFICANCE……………………………………………………………………………13
A. Historical Significance
A.1. Historical Persons (Benjamin Bradley and Samuel Hart).…………………..13
B. Cultural Significance………………………………………………………………...17
B. 1. Redlining and Urban Renewal……………………………………………….18
B. 2. Social History of the Town…………………………………………………...19
C. Architectural Significance…………………………………………………………....21
C. 1. Building Historically/Architecturally Significant for Period/Style/Method of
Construction…………………………………………………………………...21
C. 2. Association with a Significant Architect or as Part of a Group of Buildings...24
C. 3. Architectural Features and Construction Techniques of the Cottages……….25
C. 4. Use of the Living Spaces in the Cottages……………………………………..26
C. 5. Changes in the Cottages………………………………………………………27
4. PROPERTIES PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN THE HART’S CONTENT LHD..29
House Descriptions……………………………………………………………….….31
5. BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION ………………………………...66
6. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………..67
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………….….69
8. GIS MAP OF THE PROPOSED HART’S CONTENT LHD…………………………...70
9. WARRANT ARTICLE…………………………………………………………………….71
10. APPENDIX: PHOTOS……………………...……………………………………………..72
4
1. INTRODUCTION
The subject of this Preliminary Study Report is the proposed Hart’s Content Local Historic
District (LHD), in the Town of Brookline, Massachusetts, with fourteen (14) properties located
in what was called “Whiskey Point” (now called “the Point”) off of Cypress Street on Hart
Street. Eleven (11) of the proposed LHD properties on Hart Street are mortise and tenon/timber
frame cottages moved between October 1,
1869, and April 1, 1870, from their original
location on Bradley’s Hill, named for
Benjamin Bradley. Three (3) of the proposed
LHD properties on Hart Street include: 1. a
two-family built in 1909 on the original
cottage foundation that was a general store
with living quarters above; 2. a three-decker
built in 1911 where an original 1700s one-story
gambrel cottage had stood; and 3. a single-
family house rebuilt in 1913 that incorporated the original cottage. The area to which 30
cottages were moved included Cypress Street, Franklin Street, Franklin Court, and Hart Street
and was called “Hart’s Content.” The highest concentration of remaining cottages is on Hart
Street.
Benjamin Bradley was a master carpenter, who at the age of 14 learned his trade from Mr.
Nathaniel Murdock (H Woods p. 195). He built an unknown percentage of the 30 cottages that,
in 1869, were on Bradley’s Hill (located to the right of Boylston by Philbrick Road). The
cottages that Bradley likely built were “two over two” (two rooms on the first level and two
rooms on the second), with a front door on the building’s long side that opened into a small
hallway. The hallway led to a living room at the front, a kitchen at the rear, and a steep winding
staircase leading to the front and back bedrooms upstairs. One cottage has the kitchen in the front
and the living room in the back. Benjamin Bradley moved cottages from elsewhere to Bradley’s
Hill and built newer versions of the cottages. All of the cottages remained on Bradley’s Hill
from 1824 to 1870.
Hopkins & Co. 1874 Hart Street
5
A. History of Hart’s Content
On Bradley’s Hill, Benjamin Bradley placed the cottages in a circle and offered them as
affordable rentals to lower-income laborers and tradespeople. After 1845 due to the Irish famine,
many renters were Irish Catholic immigrants. In the middle of the circle, he built a meeting-
house for nondenominational worship that also held a carpentry shop and rooms rented to the
low-wage workers (H Woods p. 196). The Irish famine of 1845 brought many Irish to Boston
and construction of the Brookline branch railroad, reservoir, and water lines in Brookline
required laborers (R Karr p. 42, 43). Benjamin Bradley charged reasonable rents and was lenient
with tenants who were sick or had suffered misfortunes. On the night before each Thanksgiving,
he always left a turkey outside the doors of all of his tenants. Though he owned many properties
and could have later in life abandoned his trade as a carpenter, “…he went about with a tool-box
on his arm, in garments that made him look poorer than his poorest tenant.” (H Woods p. 197).
In 1852, Samuel Rowland Hart bought Bradley’s Hill from Bradley, with the agreement
that they would share the profits from the rent and that Samuel Hart would maintain the houses
(11/27/1852, bk 213 p. 556). Bradley died on July 31, 1856 (H Woods p. 197) and, per the
agreement with Bradley, Samuel Hart maintained and rented the cottages. In 1869, Samuel Hart
sold the valuable land, but the new owners, Nathaniel and Benjamin Goddard, gave him only
from October 1, 1869, until April 1, 1870, to remove the 30 houses from Bradley’s Hill
(09/30/1869 bk 384 p.634). They specified that all moveable buildings, which were the homes of
the laborers, and building materials under or around the buildings had to be removed in those six
months. Benjamin Goddard had an expensive home that overlooked the Bradley’s Hill cottages
and had disliked Benjamin Bradley.
On October 23, 1869, Samuel Hart paid $8,500 for five large undeveloped lots on a parcel of
land on Sewall Street (now Cypress Street) (10/23/1869 bk 385 p. 619). The surveyor who first
1844 Bradford map of Bradley’s Hill and 1855 Bradford map of Bradley’s Hill – see top left
6
staked the property lines before the foundations were dug had the insight to offset each cottage,
so the cottage dweller had a view down the alleyway between the opposite cottages, rather than
directly into the cottage across the street. Hart had 30 foundations dug, moved the 30 houses
using horses, and helped relocate 200 renters between October 1, 1869, and April 1, 1870, to
Hart’s Content (R Karr p. 81). The Boston Water Company had started to install water lines in
Brookline in 1848 (H Woods p. 33-34) but tenants in the cottages would have relied on wells
because, around 1865, the early water lines initially provided water to the fire hydrants. In 1871,
a committee was named to provide pure water throughout Brookline (J. Curtis, p 237). Sewer
lines did not yet exist in the area (R Karr, p. 81) so an outhouse would be required in the back of
each of the long skinny lots.
Samuel Hart worked with Patrick Fleming, a builder/trader from Charlestown, and his wife
Bridget Fleming, on establishing Hart’s Content. Patrick Fleming negotiated with H.T.
Whitman, a surveyor, to create the plan in 1870 to be able to record the lot number and
dimensions on each deed. Once moved, Hart and Fleming sold or rented the houses. The houses
on the left side of Hart Street, facing uphill, all had buyers and were likely built by Benjamin
Bradley, except the 1700s one-story gambrel in the middle which Bradley had moved from
another location to Bradley’s Hill.
In 1870 deeds, Samuel Hart specified that the cottage owners had to maintain the 20-foot-
wide road in front of their houses and only plant trees and shrubs in the 10-foot front yards
between their cottages and the road (originally 10 feet wide and now reduced to 5 feet with the
construction of sidewalks). His deed restrictions also specified that the cottage owners could not
build additions onto their cottages in that front yard space. These deed restrictions were similar
to the deed restrictions for wealthy neighborhoods and, on Hart Street, assured a landscaped
street for working class households and a consistent setback of rows of gable-ended cottages on
both sides of the street. Once the cottages were on Hart Street, Samuel Hart gave loans so the
workers could own their own homes.
The cottages varied in purchase price based on age, quality, and location. The cottage at 18
Hart Street, for example, built by Benjamin Bradley, had less headroom upstairs, two bedrooms,
and a narrow and winding staircase. It cost $750. The cottage at 17 Hart Street, which may have
been moved by Bradley to Bradley’s Hill or built by Bradley (4 by 4 up and down mill sawn
7
beams and mortise and tenon joinery), had more headroom upstairs, three bedrooms, a straight
staircase, and a long view to the southeast between the cottages on Franklin Court. It cost $1,500.
B. Architectural Patterns on Hart Street
An overview of the patterns (architectural and social) reveals what makes Hart Street
additionally unique because the layout of the cottages and placement on the land aided in
socializing. Unlike attached lower income housing with a front door to the street and a door to
the backyard, Hart Street cottages had to have a side alley. The cottages built by Benjamin
Bradley have the front door on the long side to provide access to the staircase that is in the
middle of the long side and that leads to the cottage’s four rooms. The cottages’ location on each
lot offers space for three types of socializing: 1. public street/sidewalk; 2. semi-private alley; and
3. private backyard. Because the early cottages built by Bradley and the other cottages moved or
built by Bradley have this alley, they have the same socializing opportunities.
The cottages are offset, which allows a view from the front upstairs and downstairs windows
into the alley of the opposite cottage, rather than looking into the windows of the cottage across
the street. These alleys also provide more opportunities for landscaping and views to the
backyards for passers-by. The mid-block three decker divides the cottages into two groups: three
of the cottages face three cottages on the uphill section of the street and three cottages face three
cottages on the downhill section. While White Place in Brookline also has working-class
housing, the sizes of the buildings vary, and there are no landscaped side alleys beside each
building or consistent five-foot wide landscaped front yards. On Hart Street, the gable end
cottages are six feet apart and, with the repeated setback and landscaping, the street has an
aesthetic rhythm and unique consistency of working-class housing, unlike any other street in
Brookline.
C. Early Owners
The owners of the cottages were also unique for Brookline. With the influx of the Irish
Catholic families, housing was scarce. The main accommodation for lower-income families was
wood-framed three-story tenements with rooms that were “let.” Multi-story tenement housing,
now demolished as part of urban renewal just after 1958, existed in the Marsh area (near
Brookline Ice and Coal) and the Farm area (now Brook House), while the cottages on Hart
8
Street, with yards, affordable homeownership, and loans, survived. The deeds of the houses on
Hart Street reveal that 10 single women purchased cottages and 4 single women inherited the
houses and stayed or have stayed in the houses for a long time. A single woman bought the one-
story gambrel in 1887 and owned the property until 1899. Another single woman bought one of
cottages in 1957 and lived in the house for almost 30 years. At a minimum, 11 widows remained
in the houses after their husbands died. Many women signed the deeds, rather than their
husbands, to assure that the wife owned the cottage if the husband died.
The deeds also reveal longevity of ownership, the tendency for family members to buy
adjacent properties, and ownership by many Irish families. Mrs. Minahan owned both 18 Hart
Street and 19 Hart Street, and Minahan family members lived in 18 Hart Street from 1900 to
2004. The Barrett family owned 7 Hart Street from 1870 to 1939. The Canney family and
relations owned 19 Hart Street, 17 Hart Street, and the 14 Hart Street triple-decker. Rose
Colaluca owned 8 Hart Street and bought 10 Hart Street for her daughter. Thomas Solan sold 21
Hart Street to his daughter, Mary Cook, and she passed it on to her son, Thomas Cook. The
names, after investigating the origins of each name, suggest the early owners were Irish Catholic
and include, from the Robinson 1888 map, Dunn, Shannon, Fleming, Ryan, Moran, Kelleher,
and Devine. Later names from the 1907 Bromley map include O’Neal, Connolly, Gallagher,
O’Connor, Minahan, McNamara, and Barrett.
D. Explanation of the Boundaries for the Proposed Hart’s Content LH
The land for Hart’s Content is
visible on an 1850 plat by Amos
Binney, surveyor. Sewall Street
(later named Cypress Street) and
Sewall Place (later named
Franklin Street) framed the land
with Sewall Place wrapping
around the land on two sides, as
does Franklin Street now. The new
Sewall Avenue (later called Hart
Street) was located inside this plot of 1850 plat Amos Binney 08/05/1856 bk DO247 p. 314
9
land (left of the grey line). In this 1850 plat by Binney, Walnut Street was on the far right and
Cypress ended at Walnut Street.
After Samuel Hart purchased the Binney-survey land in 1869, a surveyor put markers in the
four corners of each of the 30 plus narrow lots to help the laborers digging the foundations. To
sell the cottages, Whitman, the surveyor, drew plans in 1870 with lot numbers to indicate the
cottage number on each deed. A later
plat in 1918 by Bryant, shows Lots 12
(7 Hart), 14 (9 Hart), and 15 (11 Hart)
which were at the bottom right of Hart.
In addition to the cottages that
Samuel Hart moved to Hart Street,
Hart also put cottages on Cypress
Street, Franklin Street, and Franklin
Court, but Hart Street had lots for
many cottages on both sides of the
street. Hart Street has a repetition of
character and scale with same-sized
gable ends that are half-offset.
Besides the Benjamin Bradley cottages
on the left side of Hart Street, Bradley
would have built what is called the
“Honeymoon cottage” on Cypress
behind what is now the triple decker at
238 Cypress. The windows and
dimensions indicate the “Honeymoon
Cottage” is a duplicate of the cottages
on the left side of Hart Street. No other
cottages remain on Cypress Street or
Franklin Street, though five cottages remain
1870 plat by Whitman, surveyor 03/16/1870 bk DO394 p. 228
1918 Bryant survey 07/29/1918 bk 4293 p. 88
10
on Franklin Court, and one is for sale. The remaining cottages, also moved in 1870 to Hart’s
Content, are not included in the present LHD due to limited time for research.
In 1870 in the middle of Hart Street on the left side, Samuel Hart placed a 1700s one-story
gambrel house. On the left side of Hart Street on the uphill side of this gambrel, Samuel Hart
placed three Benjamin Bradley cottages, all the same size, with the gable end facing Hart
Street and the same landscaped setback. On the left side of Hart Street on the downhill side of
this gambrel, Samuel Hart placed four more Benjamin Bradley cottages with the gable ends
facing Hart Street, except for the first cottage on the corner of Cypress, which had its long end
facing Hart Street. On the right side of Hart Street, Samuel Hart placed seven cottages, all with
the gable end facing the street and the same landscaped setback. Now, of the fifteen (15) original
Hart Street cottages including the gambrel, eleven (11) original cottages remain plus, where
cottages once stood, three (3) historic buildings (1909, 1911, and 1913) remain, totaling fourteen
(14) historic properties.
At 4 Hart Street (Lot 25) on the left side of Hart Street going up the street, the cottage and its
foundation became a store with top story living quarters in 1909. This store, eventually run by
Miss Flatley for 50 years, served the neighborhood by selling sundries and groceries. On the
right-hand side of Hart Street going up the hill on Lot 12, the cottage became 7 Hart Street, with
its gable end facing Hart Street. Also on the right hand side of Hart Street on Lot 12, around
1919, a triple decker replaced one of three cottages along Cypress. The first floor of this triple
decker was offices and, for three years, a donut shop. The donut shop did not succeed because
few could afford donuts. The storefront became an electrical supply store that eventually
foreclosed. Thus, the left side with 4 Hart Street, that was Flatley’s 50-year neighborhood store,
and the right side with 7 Hart Street’s gable end cottage, tell the story of Hart’s Content on the
Cypress end. The story of Hart’s Content on the uphill section ends with 20 Hart Street, the last
Bradley cottage on the left side, and 21 Hart Street, the last historic house on the right side, and
one that incorporates parts of the original cottage.
2. METHODOLOGY
A. A Stable, Historic, and Coherent Neighborhood
The fourteen (14) historic properties in the proposed Hart’s Content Local Historic District
are just west of the Pill Hill Local Historic District. The streets to which the 30 working-class-
11
cottages were moved in 1870 include what are now called Cypress Street, Hart Street, Franklin
Street, and Franklin Court. This area is south of Route 9/Boylston Street, near Robinson Park.
The architecture of Hart Street has remained remarkably stable over the years. Of the 15
original cottages (including 15 Hart Street, which may have burned), only 4 properties were
changed between 1909 and 1929, leaving 11 unchanged cottages. The existence of a street that is
73 percent unchanged since the initial Hopkins & Co. map in 1874 is a rarity, considering the
waves of urban renewal, changes in types of housing, and general redevelopment. This street has
persisted, largely unchanged, for more than 151 years.
B. Affordability and Diversity
Brookline needs affordable housing, and the current density on Hart Street, with the cottages
being small, without off-street parking, and spaced only six feet apart, suggests Hart Street is
already relatively affordable and dense. Hart Street is one of the few neighborhoods in Brookline
where families and individuals of modest means can afford to have a yard and their own single-
family home.
Historically, Hart Street cottage owners and renters considered themselves Irish, Italian,
Welsh, Nova Scotian, Turkish, Scottish, and Swedish. Over time, owners and renters have also
been individuals who identify as Jewish, Haitian, Chinese, and from Pakistan.
C. Neighborhood Interest in Preservation
The impetus for the Hart’s Content LHD is the proposed demolition of 17 Hart Street to create
a combined lot of 17 Hart Street and the adjacent lot where 15 Hart Street once stood. Due to the
density and massing of the Hart Street neighborhood, the fabric of the streetscape is very
sensitive to changes. Sunlight and green space provided by the street’s common setbacks are
vital neighborhood resources that require protection. Residents value what historic Hart Street
has to offer in scale, rhythm, and quality of life.
D. The Protection of a Local Historic District
LHDs offer the strongest protection available for the preservation of historic buildings,
structures, and community fabric. LHDs provide a mechanism to manage change -- and avoid
inappropriate alteration and demolition -- by granting a community’s historic district commission
12
responsibility to review significant exterior alterations to properties located within the
boundaries of an LHD and visible from a public way, park, or body of water. Brookline has eight
LHDs. Cottage Farm, established by Town Meeting in 1979, was the first in Brookline, followed
by Pill Hill (1983), Graffam-McKay (2004), Chestnut Hill North (2005), Harvard Avenue
(2005), Lawrence (2011), Wild-Sargent (2012), and Crowninshield (2015). The residents of Hart
Street, wishing to protect the character of their neighborhood, have organized themselves to gain
the same protection afforded those other historic neighborhoods.
Section 2 of MGL Chapter 40C sets forth the purpose of local historic districts:
The purpose of this chapter is to promote the educational, cultural, economic and general
welfare of the public through the preservation and protection of the distinctive characteristics of
buildings and places significant in the history of the commonwealth and its cities and towns or
their architecture and through the maintenance and improvement of settings for such buildings
and places and the encouragement of design compatible therewith.
E. Preliminary Study Report Documentation
This current Preliminary Study Report supporting establishment of the proposed Hart’s
Content Local Historic District is based on research conducted by Anne Lusk, Ph.D. in 2021
with stories from Mary Tynan, a long time Hart Street resident. This Preliminary Study Report
contains information obtained from the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds for Benjamin
Bradley’s property on Bradley’s Hill, purchased by Samuel Hart in 1852, and the deeds for the
14 properties on Hart Street, with purchases starting in 1870. The deeds provided the majority of
the data because some of the cottages had many owners, with some properties foreclosed. If
available, records and files contained in the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information
System (MACRIS) were included, as were Brookline building permits. Town atlas maps were
consulted to help in the identification of property owners. These were available through the
Brookline historical resources online and through the Atlascope Leventhal maps. 1 The “Red
Lining” online maps were also consulted. The COVID-19 pandemic caused limitations on
primary research, due to use and access restrictions at many libraries and archives.
1 https://atlascope.leventhalmap.org/#view:address-search-bar
https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=15/42.328/-71.132&city=brookline-ma&area=C2
13
Secondary sources for Brookline’s history included: Harriet F. Woods, Historical Sketches of
Brookline, Mass. (Boston: Davis, 1874); John William Denehy, A History of Brookline,
Massachusetts: From The First Settlement of Muddy River Until The Present Time, 1630-1906
(Brookline Press, 1906); Greer Hardwicke and Roger Reed, Image of America: Brookline,
(Charleston, SC, Arcadia Publishing, 1998); Ted Clarke, Brookline Allston-Brighton and the
Renewal of Boston (Charleston, SC, The History Press, 2010); John Gould Curtis, History of the
Town of Brookline Massachusetts (Boston and New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1933);
Roger Reed and Greer Hardwicke, Carriage House to Auto House (Brookline Preservation
Commission, 2002); “Proceedings of the Brookline Historical Society at the Annual Meeting,
January 30, 1930, Brookline, MA; Brookline Historical Society Annual Meeting, January 23,
1907; and Ronald Dale Karr, Between City and Country: Brookline, Massachusetts and the
Origins of Suburbia (Amherst and Boston, University of Massachusetts Press, 2018), Jacob Riis
1890 How the Other Half Lives.
F. Public Hearings and Town Meeting
THE PRESERVATION COMMISSION WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
PROPOSED HART’S CONTENT LHD ON XX. THE PROPOSED HART’S CONTENT
WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE FALL 2021 TOWN MEETING, WHICH BEGINS ON
NOVEMBER 16TH, 2021.
3. SIGNIFICANCE
A. Historical Significance
The buildings of Hart Street meet the following criteria for historic significance, as defined by
Brookline’s Demolition ByLaw (5.3.5.c): The building is associated with one or more significant
historic persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic, or
social history of the Town or Commonwealth.
A.1. Historical Persons (Benjamin Bradley and Samuel Hart)
Benjamin Bradley started purchasing land with dwelling houses near the old Sherburne Road
and the Worcester Turnpike in 1816 (Norfolk County Registry of Deeds 05/20/1816 bk 53 p.
52). He purchased what had been called Walley’s Hill, later named Bradley’s Hill, in 1824
(08/07/1824 bk 73 p. 338). A master carpenter, he had the skills to produce multiple cottages
14
with the same dimensions and move small cottages to Bradley’s Hill initially to house working-
class laborers and, around 1845, Irish Catholics who also worked in the trades. Samuel Hart
shared ownership of the cottages on Bradley’s Hill with Bradley from 1852 until 1856, when
Bradley died. Between October 1, 1869, and April 1, 1870, Samuel Hart moved 30 cottages to
Hart’s Content to house the laborers who were living on Bradley’s Hill, or who moved from the
wooden multi-story tenement housing near the Pearl Street/Marsh area. On the streets of Hart’s
Content, Samuel Hart had 30 foundations built, wells dug, and outhouses built in the backyards.
Water lines existed in the wealthier neighborhoods, but these provided water to the fire hydrants.
Benjamin Bradley
Stories about Benjamin Bradley are both positive and negative, and these opinions suggest
the influence of the times (1874 vs 1930). In 1874 in “Historical sketches of Brookline, Mass,”
author Harriett F. Woods wrote positive accounts of him. She wrote that, in January of 1816,
there was a fire in the old Dana Tavern, a building that was a public house and that became
tenement housing. Benjamin Bradley climbed a long ladder and saved a woman and child by
taking them out of an upper window. The fire destroyed the entire building (H Woods p. 51).
When Bradley died, he had allocated money for the poor, but it was never distributed. He was
considered “genial and kindly with the poor, old people, and little children...” (H Woods p. 197).
Harriett Woods also wrote this about Benjamin Bradley and his houses on Bradley Hill,
“…and the hill, so beautiful for its prospect and fine air, might be today covered with neat and
well-kept dwellings of a respectable class of mechanics and laborers, had he used his means as
he might have done, and left a memory to be honored.” (H Woods p. 198) When Harriett Woods
made this observation in 1874, the affordable and humble cottages might have remained for a
decade, at most. If they had not been moved to Hart’s Content, demolition of all the cottages
would have been swift, as the cottages were not revered and were associated with the poor. New
and large houses for the wealthy would take their place on that hill with a view. By moving the
cottages to Hart Street and placing them close together, Samuel Hart allowed working-class and
middle-income residents to keep them intact.
Mr. Bradley was a sexton of the Unitarian Church for 30 years and Captain of the Brookline
militia for 10 years, earning the name Captain Bradley. According to the Brookline Historical
Society Annual Meeting, January 23, 1907, the hill that became Bradley’s Hill was originally
15
called Walley’s Hill until around 1845. As Captain Bradley was a town constable, sexton,
collector of taxes, and “a picturesque character who ruled over the heterogeneous collection of
little wooden houses he had built on the hill,” a new name was given to the hill, Bradley’s Hill.
On Bradley’s Hill there were eventually 21 cottages with a central building that served as a
church, carpentry shop, and affordable lodging (see 1855 map of Bradley Hill).
In the 1930s, disapproval of Benjamin Bradley, the Irish Catholics, and his buildings
appeared in writing. The authors of the Proceedings of the Brookline Historical Society wrote in
1930, “Surrounding the church, he built numerous small cheap houses, which he let to poor but
not always respectable families.” John Gould Curtis, in his 1933 “History of the Town of
Brookline,” wrote this about Captain Bradley. “He doubtless derived an income from rented
properties, which seem to have constituted the only slums of Brookline in his day, for his cluster
of buildings on the hill are referred to as an eyesore, and fifteen years after his death in 1856,
they were removed to a locality on Hart Street which came to be referred to as Whiskey Point.”
(Curtis, p.214). In the next paragraph, Mr. Curtis wrote this about Brookline and its Brahmin
society, “But the natural beauty of the town, with the pride, good taste, and affluence of
substantial citizens, accounted for its acceptance as one of the loveliest possible places of
residence.”
Bradley moved houses from elsewhere in Brookline to Bradley Hill, including a 1700s
gambrel-roofed single-story house (H Woods p. 195). The gambrel house, owned by Mr. John
Warren, was originally on Warren Street on the other side of what is now Route 9/Boylston
Street. On Bradley’s Hill, which was primarily an open field, Captain Bradley built a meeting-
house out of an old barn and added a belfry and tower. According to the 1930 Proceedings of the
Brookline Historical Society, to the west of Bradley’s Hill was the house of Benjamin Goddard.
Mr. Goddard had refused to vote for Captain Bradley when he ran for constable, so Bradley built
a caricature of a church made from a barn to block Mr. Goddard’s view of Boston and the State
House. Some called Bradley’s Hill “Vengeance Hill,” but the small surrounding cottages rented
to working families actually predated the tall meeting-house.
Captain Bradley also held church services in his meeting-house, and anyone who could drink
a glass of whiskey became a member. He built a coffin for himself that he placed in front of the
pulpit. He would sometimes go off on a trip with a one-horse chaise, from which the horse and
chaise would return, and he would return several days later. (J Curtis, 1933, p. 214,). These
16
eccentric habits were at odds with the expectations of Brahmin society. It is unclear whether
these negative stories, unreported in earlier accounts, are the result of further examination of the
historical record or a reaction against a man who refused to follow social norms and deliberately
used his wealth to support the lower income laborers.
Captain Bradley sold the property on “Bradley’s Hill” to Samuel Rowland Hart and his heirs
in 1852. (11/27/1852 bk 213 p. 556) The property was described as containing 11 dwelling
houses, a meeting house, a corn barn, a carpenter shop, and other buildings standing within the
limits of the property (07/29/1852 bk 211, p. 136; 11/29/1852 bk 213, pp. 555, 556, 557). The
1855 map of the area shows 22 buildings on Bradley’s Hill.
Samuel Hart
Samuel Rowland Hart was not notorious, as was Benjamin Bradley. A look at the Norfolk
County Registry of Deeds for Brookline and Samuel R. Hart shows 32 deeds, with the first in
1852 with the purchase of Bradley’s Hill (11/27/1852, bk 213 p. 556) and one deed from his
estate in 1891. A final deed was in 1896 for the closing of a mortgage given originally by
Samuel Hart and passed on to Thomas J. Connolly. The name Thomas J. Connolly is on the
Bromley 1900 map of Hart Street for what is now 10 Hart Street. Mary Connelly lived at 10
Hart Street until after 1927. The Connelly family owned the first Connelly’s Hardware Store,
which was in Brookline Village.
Hart befriended Captain Bradley in 1852 and, in purchasing Bradley’s Hill and the cottages
from Benjamin Bradley, Hart agreed to share the rent on the cottages and maintain the cottages
until Mr. Bradley’s death. Bradley died in 1856. From that time until 1869, Samuel Hart
maintained the cottages and rented them to workers.
Samuel Hart then sold “Bradley’s Hill” to Nathaniel and Benjamin Goddard, men who had
viewed with disdain the many small houses and the meeting-house Benjamin Bradley had built
(Proceedings Brk Hist Soc 1930 p. 9). Samuel Hart had to move all of the cottages and building
materials between October 1, 1869, and April 1, 1870. Benjamin Goddard dictated the short
schedule because his expensive house stood higher on the hill and looked down at the cottages
and meeting-house. The timing of this move, completed over the winter of 1869, was daunting.
Once the cottages were moved, Samuel Hart could have become a landlord and rented all the
houses, which, over time and with financial appreciation, would have shown a profit. Instead, he
17
sold the cottages to the many Irish Catholics who had to leave Bradley Hill when the new owners
purchased the land from him. He signed multiple deeds and carried mortgages to make the
ownership possible. He also had colleagues --Patrick Fleming and Guy H. Maynard-- who
assisted with the houses and financed deeds. Samuel Hart died in 1891. Arnold A. Rand of
Boston was the Executor of the will of Samuel Rowland Hart and charged with selling the real
estate for which Samuel Hart still held mortgages. (10/28/1891 bk 663 p. 53).
B. Cultural Significance
No other community has been identified as having this unique cluster of, originally 30,
working-class cottages placed six feet apart to affordably house Irish Catholic owners and
laborers and provide them with the opportunity to purchase their homes. Here, wealthier
individuals took the risk of providing loans to enable working-class people to buy the homes. In
most cities, Irish Catholic laborers’ main options were letting rooms in multi-story wood framed
tenement buildings, which in Brookline meant buildings in the Marsh and the Farm areas. In
1870, the affordability of the small cottages and the individual household loans made purchasing
a home possible for the laborers and tradespeople. The houses continue to be relatively
affordable, perhaps due to the small lot sizes that do not allow for expansion, lack space for a
car, and sit six feet apart. As testimony to the livability of these cottages, 11 cottages remain of
the original 15. A cottage was on 22 Hart Street, which would have made 16 cottages, but it was
torn down in 1904 to build a garage. The cottage at 15 Hart Street burned or was torn down. On
the three bigger lots, larger historic buildings replaced the smaller cottages. Thus, the creation of
small narrow lots with cottages has provided affordable housing to 11 households on Hart Street
since 1870.
The Irish Catholics who resided in Brookline could earn a relatively good living because they
were local and did not have to compete with the Irish Catholics in the Boston area for jobs (T
Clarke p 40). Brookline, as an outpost of working-class Irish Catholics, enlarged over time,
becoming home to more Irish families who initially lived in the Pearl Place area in North
Brookline and on the marshy side of the railroad tracks. An 1874 Hopkins & Co. Atlas
Brookline map, Vol. 8, Plate H, pp. 36-37, shows Hart Street had the only colony of small
cottages in Brookline at that time. This community, together with stables and the town yard on
Cypress Street, and stores, churches, and a school, became known as Whiskey Point.
18
The origins of the name Whiskey Point vary, but the most common explanation is it was a
way to identify a location where individuals of Irish ancestry lived and to show disapproval of
the Irish. It was not necessarily that the residents drank a lot of whiskey. In the period around
1845, want ads stated, “No Irish Need Apply.” In 1858, Caroline White was frustrated with
having to hire Irish Catholic girls to work in her house in Brookline and wanted instead to hire
“some good Protestant girls.” (R Karr p 103). In 1867, a prohibitory liquor law in Brookline
included beer, ale, and wine. Residents in Brookline would keep a few barrels of ale in the winter
or have wine cellars (J Curtis pp 247 and 248). They associated the Irish with whiskey. Benjamin
Bradley built other settlements near Jamaica Pond and the names assigned to these areas were
associated with the Irish, including “Dublin” and “New Ireland.” (H Woods p 197).
B. 1. Redlining and Urban Renewal
In the 1930s, the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC), a New Deal government-
sponsored corporation, assigned four grades to neighborhoods that primarily reflected their racial
makeup. The purpose of the grading system was to advise lenders and discourage them from
investing in what HOLC deemed to be high-risk mortgages. Maps created from 1929 to 1938
advised banks about whether a prospective buyer should be given a loan to purchase a property.
Bank officials used the maps to put African American residents in certain neighborhoods and
restrict them from other neighborhoods. Areas with many African Americans were shown in red,
and so “redlining” became a way to discourage white buyers from applying for loans to buy
property in those areas and to restrict Black buyers from trying to move to other areas. An
inspection of the 1938 HOLC map for Brookline reveals that the areas shown in red were the
areas known as the “Marsh” (now Brookline Ice and Coal and the affordable housing on
Brookline Avenue) and the “Farm” (now Brook House). This red area was labeled Grade D and
called “slum.” The area that contains the Pill Hill Historic District was yellow, Grade C.
“Detrimental Elements” cited there included “Obsolescence, large homes.” Mention was made of
“infiltration” of Jewish individuals but there was no mention of race. The area that contained
Hart’s Content also included Village Square, Harvard Street, a portion of Beacon Street, and
Babcock Street. The area, with both workers’ housing and stately homes on Babcock Street, was
19
labeled as yellow, Grade C. The “Detrimental Elements” for that area included “Obsolescence,
shifting population, mixture of housing.”
Hart Street was slated for demolition as part of urban renewal in the 1950s to the 1970s,
according to James Houlihan, an electrician who had to move his electrical business out of
Brookline Village to make way for what is now the Dana Farber building and the other new
buildings along Washington Street. He had told the story to Anne Lusk of buying the two large
buildings at the corner of Hart Street and Cypress. Without a place to run his business, in 1958,
he paid $7,000 for 268-270, the triple decker on the corner of Cypress Street and the right side of
Hart Street. In 1968, he bought the Flatley store with the two-story apartment at 264 on the
corner of Cypress and the left side of Hart Street for $16,500. He then rented the upstairs
apartments and placed another business on the ground floor. Houlihan said these properties were
affordable because of the threat of demolition of Hart Street properties due to the pending urban
renewal.
https://www.brooklinema.gov/DocumentCenter/View/183/Issues-and-Opportunities-Report-
PDF?bidId= (see page 87 map)
In 1964, the map from the Brookline Plan 2000-2010 shows on page 87 the properties marked
that were part of urban renewal. Though Hart Street was not marked, many streets in the area
near Hart Street were marked as was the section of Washington Street in Brookline Village.
Houlihan said that the banks were less willing to give loans for purchasing the houses on Hart
Street.
As part of urban renewal, the Town of Brookline demolished the historic and extremely dense
neighborhood called “The Farm” on Pond Avenue and Brookline Avenue. Though many write
about the loss of Boston’s West End, Brookline removed an entire neighborhood to make way
for modern apartments that lack stores and street life.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/31/opinion/tragic-lessons-urban-renewal-brooklines-
farms/
B. 2. Social History of the Town
The term “working-class-cottage” allows for differentiation from “workman housing,” which
was primarily housing built by a factory owner to house his laborers nearby.
20
https://primaryresearch.org/working-class-cottage-1820-1860/ http://moss-design.com/worker-
cottage/ Shortened to “cottage,” the term is used often in the historic Norfolk County Registry of
Deeds to describe these homes (example, 07-25-1884; Book 559-1). Many communities in New
England had landlord-owned rental workmen’s housing near their (now defunct) factories. Hart
Street is unique for having a working-class neighborhood of houses built for and purchased by
these workers.
Whiskey Point is often referenced in obituaries of individuals from the neighborhood of
Hart’s Content. The residents of Hart Street and adjacent streets were proud to have grown up in
Whiskey Point. Mary Tynan, a long-time resident whose father was born in the neighborhood,
recounted multiple stories. On the street, everyone looked out for one another. Two brothers
used to rent 16 Hart Street, and one brother was shell shocked from World War I. Even the
young children knew to be respectful of the brother because their parents had told them of the
circumstances. Clean sheets, stored in one Hart Street house, went to the house where a baby
was being born. Ursula Minahan lived in 18 Hart Street, and many neighbors knew she did not
have a bathroom or a hot water heater, but only a toilet in the basement. She worked at the pool
at Brookline high school and used to shower there. Neighbors would carry her groceries home
from nearby Kurkman’s Market. The cottages provided affordable and neighborly housing to
policemen, firemen, stablemen, gardeners, builders, house cleaners, and cooks. One older
woman who had raised her many children on Hart Street and who moved a block away at the
urging of her husband, cried each day because she missed Hart Street.
Because the houses are small, they are affordable, which allowed single women to buy the
cottages and widows to remain until their death. Because the cottages are close together, the
single females have been able to form close relationships with neighbors and know that
neighbors would help, including with childcare.
As the houses have direct access to the road, each home allows autonomy for that homeowner.
Because the majority of the houses have the front door on their side alley, and because houses
are extremely close to the street, the homeowner, family members, and guests can walk from the
street into that home. With the fences in the backyard, each homeowner has a space they can call
their own and where children and grandchildren can play. The architecture of the Hart Street
houses, the narrow lot, the relationship of each house to the lot, the direct access from the house
21
to the street, and the low profile of the houses that allows sunshine to fall on the front and back
yards, offers amenities not usually found in Brookline’s affordable housing stock.
C. Architectural Significance
The below are in relation to d: The building is historically or architecturally significant in
terms of its period, style, method of construction, or its association with a significant architect or
either by itself or as part of a group of buildings.
C. 1. Building Historically/Architecturally Significant for Period/Style/Method of
Construction
The 30 cottages moved from Bradley’s Hill were small enough that they could be moved by
teams of approximately eight horses each, as shown in pictures of houses moved by teams.
https://www.messynessychic.com/2018/09/28/the-towns-that-were-moved-by-horses/ Each
Bradley house is 26 feet long and a horse is approximately 8 feet long. Teams might have
multiple horses abreast and hitched. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrgBcljc8vM (see
around minute 17:50). To move houses into the street space would have involved having the
team of horses position each house directly in front of the stone foundation that had been built
for it, and to roll the cottage into place over the foundation.
https://digitalheritage.noblenet.org/swampscott/items/show/565 The houses were pulled the .7
miles from their location (now Buckminster and Philbrick Roads) to Cypress Street (then Sewall
Street), Hart Street (then Sewall Avenue), and Franklin Court. Benjamin Bradley had also
moved other houses to Bradley’s Hill, including a 1700s gambrel-roofed single-story house (H
Woods p. 195).
The 1820-1850 era cottages on Hart Street are two over two (two rooms up/two rooms down)
and some have had additions. The framing is mortise and tenon/timber frame. The beams have
straight saw marks, perpendicular to their length, about 1/2 to 5/8 inch apart. The marks come
from the boards being cut by an up and down saw at a mill. Also called gash saws, the blade that
went up and down was mechanized with a water wheel. Mills with these blades were in use in
New England as late as the mid-1850s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy4MLAAa6Lw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm2sEXK0bYY
22
Exposed wall construction at 18 Hart Street shows that the cottage was timber frame. On the
gable end, stub tenons are at the top of posts and these set into the girt tie beam that carries the
second story. The mortise and tenon joint secures the post to the beam, and the joinery is what
makes the building stable. In a few locations, there are pegs. On the sidewalls, one and a half
story posts pass the girt beams and end at the top of the upstairs knee wall. These posts run from
the ground sill to the wall plate at the base of rafters, similar to the “balloon” construction of
light frame houses that succeeded timber frame in the last half of the 19th century. The beams
are marked with Roman numeral hatchings, and the few nails used were hand-forged, expensive,
and not always available. The few nails were used to secure the posts to the girts on the
sidewalls. The second story gable end rests on the girt tie beam, which runs from one side of the
house to the other. Some of the houses retain the winding staircase and wide horizontal or
vertical boards that serve as wainscoting or walls.
While the exterior look of the street has been consistent, each cottage has seen upgrades
inside and some now have additions to the rear. The up and down sawn basement and ceiling
beams reveal that the cottages are among the oldest homes in Brookline.
Rubble stone foundations were prepared that, on the left side of Hart Street (facing uphill -
even numbered side), had two windows in the top of the foundation in the front and back that
later became basement windows. On the right side of Hart Street (facing uphill – odd numbered
side), there is one window in the top of the foundation. These windows may have been for pre-
placed beams to facilitate rolling the houses into place with round logs. Once the houses were in
place over the foundation, the stacked timbers that held up these beams, once removed, allowed
for the house to be lowered onto the foundation. The main beams for rolling the houses onto the
foundation, when pulled toward the street, could be set on another foundation to roll yet another
house onto its foundation.
The cottages on the left side of Hart Street (going uphill, even numbered) all had, before they
were moved, a large central fireplace, winding staircase, main entrance adjacent to the winding
staircase, gable end six light sash windows, and single sash/six light/sliding pocket window over
the side door. The pocket window slides horizontally into the wall of the back room upstairs.
Because brick is heavy, mortar not strong, large fireplaces difficult to the move, and coal the new
heating and cooking source, the brick fireplaces were taken apart before the houses were moved.
23
After houses were moved, the cottages on the left side of Hart Street retained the fireplace
mantel, pantry closet door, preacher’s cabinet (cabinet over the fireplace to hide the whiskey),
winding staircase, horizontal wainscoting, vertical board walls, and doors. A narrow brick
chimney was built in the location of the large chimney to vent the coal stoves that were put in the
house, sometimes on both floors and the living room and kitchen. The kitchen coal stove was
placed in front of the fireplace mantel. A coal opening with a chute was built into the foundation
of each house and a coal storage area bin built in the basement. This coal chute was often the
same opening that allowed rolling the house into place.
All of the cottages on the left side of Hart Street had double hung six light sash windows in
the gable end on the top and bottom floors, and double hung six light sash on the walkway side
of the house for the kitchen/fireplace room and the parlor/living room. There were two rooms
upstairs.
The houses on the right side of Hart Street varied in staircase location, height, and roof
overhang, and most were two bedrooms (17 had three bedrooms), gable-end, and timber framed.
The residents on Hart Street did not have a lot to spend, so they sometimes created alterations
that included salvaged building materials. The houses would originally have had six light sash
and, from the period when the windows were installed, would not have had ropes and weights to
make opening and closing easier. Instead, a notched stick would hold a window open. To make
opening a window easier, the windows and the old window casings were replaced with newer
windows and casings that had ropes and pulleys. The six light sash were also replaced with more
modern two over two sash. On some houses, including 18 Hart Street, these newer windows
were second hand, as evidenced by the window trim that did not match on all the windows.
When the houses were on Bradley Hill, they were in a circle, with abundant space between
each cottage and with doors on the front and sides of the cottages. Due to space constraints on
Hart Street, Cypress Street, and Franklin Court, Samuel Hart placed the houses about 6 feet
apart, with one foot being owned by the adjacent house.
On Hart Street, all of the backyards are long because, in 1870, indoor toilets were not
common, so a deep-pit outhouse was necessary. The long backyards have since been re-purposed
with the advent of indoor plumbing, providing garden space and tree cover that is an uncommon
asset for residents of other affordable housing in Brookline. The original Sewall Avenue (now
24
Hart Street) was described in the deed as being 20 feet in width, and all of the deeds specified the
following:
“This conveyance is made upon the following agreement that the twenty foot passageway in front
is to be forever kept open (of the uniform width of twenty feet) for use of the abuttors thereon that
said passage way is to be kept in good repair at the expense of the abuttors thereon in proportion
to the amount of front owned by them respectively and that no building or part of a building or
other obstruction to the view and to light and air other than small trees and shrubbery shall be
placed or maintained within ten feet of the nearest line thereto of said twenty foot passageway
directly in front and any trespass or neglect of this obligation may be remedied by any person or
persons interested or by his or their agent by entering upon the premises and removing any such
prohibited obstruction or by repairing the avenue or both and the party at fault shall be held
accountable for payment of the costs occasioned by said delinquency.”
Before 1928, when Brookline took five feet from the front yards to create the sidewalks
(04/12/1928 bk 1790 p. 333), the front yards would have been ten feet deep. The front yards are
now about five feet deep. Samuel Hart applied deed restrictions to assure the property owners
that they all would have attractive front yards the same depth and the gable end fronts of their
houses would remain as the dominant characteristic on the street. This type of deed restriction
(pre-zoning) was common in other areas of Brookline to guarantee the continued aesthetic
appearance of the houses built for the wealthy. Samuel Hart applied these same design standards
to Hart Street for housing owned by lower income laborers.
C. 2. Association with a Significant Architect or as Part of a Group of Buildings
The cottages, built by Benjamin Bradley, are in the style of 1820 for affordable housing. When
the cottages were moved to Hart Street, they were placed to face each other, with each having an
offset so there is a view down the alley between the cottages. On Hart Street, 11 cottages of
similar size are on both sides of the street. Each house originally had an outhouse in the
backyard, and the practice then was to put an outhouse 50 to 150 feet away from the house. The
backyard of a typical cottage on Hart Street is 25 feet deep and 22 feet wide. The door in the
long side of the house that connected to the alley would have been the day and nighttime route to
the outhouse in all weather.
25
In 1870, when the cottages were moved to Hart Street, the car had not been invented.
Residents had access to the streetcar and could walk the 15 minutes to Brookline Village. When
the car became popular around 1920, wealthy Brookline residents purchased a car before parking
was available. Parking space was lacking in places such as Brookline Village, where many
residential buildings and tenements took up the entire parcel, and homeowners did not have
driveways or garages. To lessen the number of cars left on the streets, starting in 1922 Brookline
instituted a law that car owners could not leave their cars parked on the street overnight. On Hart
Street, the small lots prohibited residents from owning automobiles unless they rented a space on
another property for overnight storage of their car. Some Hart Street residents who purchased
cars parked their cars overnight in the Town Yard on Cypress Street by Sewall School. They
could park their cars there overnight because they worked for the Town.
C.3. Architectural Features and Construction Techniques of the Cottages
All of the 11 original cottages date from around 1816 to 1855 and represent two-over-two
timber frame housing, 1.75 stories high. The original cottages on Hart Street are now covered in
wood clapboards, vinyl clapboards, aluminum clapboards, asbestos painted shingles, or
CertainTeed fiber cement shingle siding. All of the houses have full basements with foundations
that are rubble stone with lime mortar, perhaps mixed with some Portland cement.
Six of the cottages on the left side of Hart Street were likely built by Benjamin Bradley, a
master carpenter who marked the beams with Roman numerals. Captain Bradley may have built
the cottages as early as 1816, when he owned land near Bradley’s Hill, or he may have built the
cottages from 1824 to 1855 when he owned Bradley’s Hill and had a barn with a carpentry shop.
It is unknown who built the cottages that do not have the 4-inch by 4-inch posts, 4-inch by 4-
inch floor joists, or 4-inch by 7.5-inch girt tie beams because Bradley moved some cottages to
Bradley’s Hill from other locations. Some of the beams in the basements of the houses on Hart
Street have vertical marks from the up and down saw blade from the boards being cut at the
water mill, but the floor joists are 2 inches by 7 inches. Those houses also have a straighter
staircase. Bradley also may have changed his building technique when lumber was cut efficiently
using a “circle saw” at a mill. He may also have built some of the later cottages but changed his
building style when he learned residents wanted a straighter staircase and a higher ceiling
upstairs.
26
All of the Bradley houses have one window in the first-floor gable end, one window in the
second-floor gable end, one window in the alley side for the kitchen, and one window in the
alley side for the living/bedroom. The backs all used to have one window in the gable end, with
one on the first and one on the second floor, as on the front. The six similar Bradley cottages on
the left side would have been bookends, with three on each side, to frame the one story 1700s
gambrel house in the middle (now the three decker).
The five original cottages on the right side of Hart Street have different dimensions from
those of the Bradley houses but they all have a window on the first and second floor in the gable
end. Bradley may have built one or several of these cottages and been testing different building
forms or they may have been the cottages Bradley moved to Bradley’s Hill from another
location. Unlike the Bradley cottages on the left side of Hart Street that originally had a winding
staircase, all of the cottages on the right side have a straighter staircase that is in a different
position. Five of the cottages on the right have their front doors on the gable end. The cottages
on the right side also have only one basement window, somewhat in the middle, with two houses
having this front basement window filled in.
Some cottages still have clapboards that were shingled over and
covered with aluminum or vinyl siding (see photo of house with the
three sidings being removed). Currently, three of the houses on Hart
Street have wood clapboards and three have wood shingles. For siding
that is not wood, one has Certainteed plastic shingles, one has asbestos
siding, four have vinyl siding, and two have aluminum siding.
C. 4. Use of the Living Spaces in the Cottages
Though all six Bradley houses on the left side of Hart Street have had some changes, they all
are 16.5 feet wide. The beams in the basements reveal that one room above was 10 feet deep by
16 feet wide. This would have served as the living room or first floor bedroom. The families
were large and family members slept where space allowed. In Mary Tynan’s house, her father
built a bedroom and kitchen downstairs off the back. The many boys slept in the larger back
bedroom upstairs and the girls slept in the smaller bedroom upstairs.
The existing beams in the basement also reveal that the middle of the floor had an opening
for a large fireplace, even though the cottages all had coal stoves after they were moved. The
20 Hart Street with the three
sidings being removed
27
beams in the basement on the other side of the opening for the fireplace indicate that the space
above would have been the kitchen, as evidenced by framing for the hearth. These basement
floor joists remained and were filled in with other joists when the large chimney was removed
and the smaller coal chimney added. The kitchen was 12 feet by 16 feet and would have served
for cooking, eating, washing, and gathering by the fire. Each kitchen had a pantry closet to the
side of the fireplace. The pantry closet and the fireplace mantel remain in two of the houses
while other owners removed these details and put half baths or kitchens in the space that was the
fireplace and pantry. On the other side of the fireplace was a door that opened to the basement
stairs. From the side entrance by the alley, stairs would have been straight ahead and wind to get
upstairs to the two bedrooms, a closet between the bedrooms, and a landing on the other side of
the stairs.
Another marker of the Benjamin Bradley cottages is the 6 light sash window over the front
door that was on the side alley. This window in the knee wall, which is the short wall on both
sides of the room from which the ceiling angles up before it levels off, provides light to the small
landing, staircase, and hallway. In one house that has retained most of the original elements
(18), this sash is a pocket window that slides inside the wall to the right and has the original old
wavy glass. An additional feature of the Bradley houses is the existence and spacing of two
basement windows in the front of each house. These openings may have been where beams
were placed before each house was rolled into position after being pulled by horses.
C. 5. Changes in the Cottages
Newspaper accounts in Brookline papers between 1870 and 1876 described the original
settlement of 30 cottages as being a marsh and having a reputation for unsanitary conditions
caused by standing water in basements. Ron Karr, who
wrote the book Between City and Country (2018) that
referenced this observation in his book, suggested in a
conversation with Anne Lusk that the story may have been
a way for the newspaper reporter to advocate for
installation of a sewer system. According to a newspaper
article written by Joan Wickersham and published in the
Boston Globe July 6, 2021, titled “The bricks of New H Hopkins & Co. 1874 map with stream
28
Ireland,” the Irish often only had the marshy areas to build tenements or cottages. As shown on
the Hopkins & Co. 1874 Atlas map of the area, however, the only area that could have been a
marsh in Hart’s Content was near Cypress Street, which had a stream nearby in the Town Yard.
Only 6 of the 30 houses were on Cypress and all the other houses were on Hart Street, Franklin
Street, or Franklin Court, which were all on a hill. Whatever the reason for this report, it was not
the responsibility of the owners of the cottages to install sewer lines. In 1877, the town started
working on a new sewer system (R Karr p. 54).
The exact date after 1877 when sewer lines came to Hart’s Content is unknown, but when the
sewer lines were placed on Hart Street, a toilet was installed by the basement wall near the street
in each of the houses. The toilets had the tank up high with a pull chain to take advantage of
gravity to make flushing more effective.
A review of all of the permits for Hart Street revealed that in 1916, the Connelly family, in
10 Hart Street, was the first to build a bathroom on the first floor. This bathroom was in an
addition to the back of the house and included a sink, toilet, and bathtub. The Connelly family
owned a hardware store in Brookline Village and would have had access to the bathroom
components. In 1924, Rose Colaluca, who owned 8 Hart Street, had a drain installed in the
basement, a 30-gallon copper pressure tank installed (for heating water), and a bathtub, toilet,
and sink added to the first floor in an addition on the back. In 1929, Mary Cook, who owned 21
Hart Street, had a plumber install a sink and tray (for draining dishes and clothes) in the kitchen
and a toilet on the second floor. In 1936, James Hughes, who owned 20 Hart Street, had a sink
and wash tray installed in the kitchen and a toilet, sink, and bathtub installed upstairs. This
bathroom was located in the storage room/very small bedroom with no window that was between
the front and back bedrooms opposite the winding stairs. In 1939, Mr. Barrett, who owned 7 Hart
Street, had plumbing alterations made. In 1956, Mrs. McGrail, who owned the three-decker 1911
apartment building at 14 Hart Street, had sinks installed in the first and third floors. No other
early permits are available for 14 Hart Street, but a three-story rooming house on Roberts Street
originally had a full bathroom on the first floor that the tenants on all floors shared. In 2003, the
owner of 18 Hart Street, Ursula Minahan, still only had a toilet in the basement and no bathroom
or hot water heater.
29
In 1870, all the cottages on the left side sold. When Samuel Hart bought Bradley Hill in 1852,
he shared the rents with Benjamin Bradley and maintained the cottages until Captain Bradley
died in 1856. From 1852 until 1870 when Samuel Hart moved the 30 cottages and 200 residents
from Bradley Hill to Hart’s Content, he would have had the opportunity to know the people
renting each of the cottages. Initially, the cottages on the right side were rented and perhaps
undergoing renovations, because Patrick Fleming, a builder/trader from Charlestown, and his
wife Bridget Fleming, were involved in creating Hart’s Content and buying and lending
mortgages for the cottages. In 1871, the cottages on the right side sold for amounts higher
($1,500) than the cottages on the left side. This may be due to a straighter staircase and more
updates in the cottages on the right
For the lot sizes, the original H.T. Whitman survey of 1870 (bk DO394 p. 228) specified that
the dimensions for each lot were 22 feet by 80 feet and 1760 square feet. When Sewall Avenue
became Hart Street, the property line moved back 5 feet, from 10 feet of greenspace, to add the
sidewalk. The lots are now 22 feet by 65 feet and 1,430 square feet.
4. PROPERTIES PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN THE HART’S CONTENT LHD
The fourteen (14) historic properties proposed for the Hart’s Content LHD are listed below.
The lot numbers from the H.T. Whitman plan, 1870, are from when the streets were Sewall
Avenue (now Hart Street), Sewall Place (now Franklin Street), and Sewall Street (now Cypress
Street) and necessary because the early deeds only reference the lot number. For lot 25 (4 Hart
Street) and the 12 other lots, Patrick Fleming and Bridget Fleming, in consideration of $1 paid by
Samuel Hart, worked with H.T. Whitman, surveyor, (03/16/1870 bk DO3894 p. 228) from the
plan made by A. R. Binney, dated Dec 10, 1855 (12/10/1855 Bk DO247 p. 314). This deed
shows the partnership between Fleming and Hart (05/15/1871 bk 407 p. 185 and p. 186). The
early plat by Binney in 1855 was the land that Samuel Hart bought to create Hart’s Content. That
plat had five large building lots. The plat by Whitman in 1870 was used for the deeds in selling
the houses. Whitman’s plat showed more than 37 individual lots on top of what had been five
lots from the Binney plan.
Left side from Cypress Street (starting at the bottom of the hill):
4 Hart Street (was lot 25)
30
6 Hart Street (was lot 2)
8 Hart Street (was lot 3)
10 Hart Street (was lot 4)
14 Hart Street (was lot 5)
16 Hart Street (was lot 6)
18 Hart Street (was lot 7)
20 Hart Street (was lot 8)
Right side from Cypress Street (starting at the top of the hill):
21 Hart Street (was lot 19 and 20)
19 Hart Street (was lot 18)
17 Hart Street (was lot 17 and 16) 15 Hart Street (was lot 16 - burned)
11 Hart (was lot 15)
9 Hart Street (was lot 14)
7 Hart Street (was lot 12 but was subdivided)
House Descriptions
The next section offers descriptions of the 14 houses on Hart Street and includes:
1) Stories about that house and its occupants.
2) House details that include the permits submitted, number of bedrooms/lot size/
architectural details, names on the maps from 1874 to 1956, and deeds/sales history.
4 Hart Street (was lot 25) (first floor studio is 264 Cypress Street)
Story about 4 Hart Street, as told by Mary Tynan 06/07/2021
Mary Tynan’s father was born on Roberts Street in 1896. He told
his daughter, Mary, that when he was young, he wished that he lived in
the first cottage on the left on Hart Street, on Lot 25. When an adult
and married with children, he bought the next cottage up the street, 6
Hart Street.
The cottage Mary’s father liked, which became 4 Hart Street, was
on the Bromley 1888 map and depicted with the cottage’s long side 4 Hart Street
31
parallel to Hart Street. Mary believes the front door to this cottage opened onto Hart Street.
While this one cottage sat with its long side and front door toward Hart Street, the other cottages
on Hart Street had their short, gable end, toward Hart Street and the front door in the alleyway.
Front doors to these cottages built by Benjamin Bradley were all on the long side of the house, as
this provided direct access to the winding staircase that was in the middle of the four rooms.
Perhaps, then, Benjamin Bradley built the cottage moved to Lot 25 in 1870.
The foundation of the first cottage on Lot 25 remains and a larger building took the place of
the cottage in 1909. This building met the needs of a dense community, with a store on the first
floor and living quarters for the owners in the two floors above. Miss Ellen Flatley ran the
general store, which included a back room with a large black cast iron stove. On occasion, Mary
Flatley, Ellen’s sister, prepared a lunch or tea in this room for special visitors who sat at a round
table beneath a window facing Hart Street. On the left side in the store, sundries were in glass
mirrored cabinet cases that held baby bonnets, work gloves, aprons, and hose. On the right side,
glass cabinets held penny candy and cigarettes. Shelves held cans and jars, and the aisles had
groceries, barrels of pickles, maps, small books, and coolers for ice cream, sherbet, and soda. In
the back was a telephone booth. The Flatleys served customers for 50 years on weekdays and
Saturday from 7 in the morning until 10 at night and on Sunday from 12 to 10. The biggest
benefit for all the neighborhood was that customers could charge and pay at the end of each
week. The Flatleys kept personal record books for each customer.
House Details
Changes over time include: On May 1, 1909, Miss Flatley applied for a permit to put lath on
the walls of 264 Cypress in preparation for plastering. On May 25, 1909, Herbert Drew, who
indicated he was the owner of the store and apartment (20 feet by 20 feet and 2 ½ stories tall),
applied for a permit to put lath on the walls. In 1920, Miss Flatley, who had purchased the
building from Herbert Drew on August 6, 1909, submitted an application to move the toilet,
lavatory and bathtub from the 2nd to the 3rd floor and add 3 new shingle-covered dormers to the
third floor. She also submitted an application to add a piazza (porch) on the Hart Street side. In
1931, 1941, and 1963, Miss Flatley submitted applications to install one sink in the basement and
one sink, wash tray, pressure boiler, toilet, and lavatory on the second floor.
32
On November 26, 1968, the owner of the company Amendola Fuel Corporation requested
to install a flat painted metal sign. James Houlihan had purchased the property on September 3,
1968, for his electrical business and rented the building to Amendola. On May 14, 2013, David
Hansel submitted an application to remove and replace the gutters, power wash the exterior,
replace rotted wood, prime and paint the exterior siding and trim, replace the broken brick and
repoint, and seal and stucco as needed. On May 21, 2014, David Hansel submitted an
application to renovate the first-floor unit with new electrical, plumbing, HVAC, interior
finishes, replace front windows and doors, and add a new side window. David and Alison
Hansel now live at the address of 4 Hart Street and Alison’s mother lives in the studio apartment
in the same building that has the address of 264 Cypress Street.
Architectural details: The two and a half story, gable-front building features large bay
windows on the second floor, right elevation. Greek Revival elements are seen in the cornice
returns and molding beneath the bay windows and on the gable end. The siding is wood
clapboards and the double hung windows are vinyl replacement sash. Large shop windows face
Cypress Street, the former shop entrance. Though converted to a studio apartment, the
appearance of the shop entrance has been retained. The home is now a multi-family residence
with a total of four bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms. It provides 2,354 sq ft of living
space on a 1,275 sq ft lot
The cottage shown on lot 25 had the long edge parallel to Hart Street, and Mary believes the
front door to the cottage opened onto Hart Street. The 1870 plat by Whitman shows Lot 25 as
long and parallel to Hart Street, necessitating the original cottage placement.
Atlas research: In 1870, one of the 30 cottages from Bradley Hill was placed on a stone
foundation on lot 25. Lot 25 includes a small cottage in the 1874 Hopkins & Co. map up to the
1900 Bromley map but, unlike the other cottages, this one had the long side parallel to Sewall
Avenue (later Hart Street) and the shorter gable end facing what was Sewall Street (later Cypress
Street). The Bromley 1900 map shows a small rectangle on what was the corner of Cypress and
Hart Streets. There is no house rectangle on the 1907 Bromley map, but Guy Maynard is written
in large letters.
In the 1913 Atlas map, the large three-story single family with the shop below is drawn to the
edge of the sidewalk on the Cypress Street side, to the back lot property line (parallel to Hart
Street) and almost to the property line beside what is now 6 Hart Street. On the side that is
33
parallel to Hart Street, the three-story building is set back the same distance as the other cottages
on Hart Street. Thus, this new building complied with the deed restrictions for setback applied in
the 1870 deed from Samuel Hart. The name written on the many maps is Flatley.
Deed research: The 1874 Hopkins, 1888 Robinson, 1893 Bromley, and the 1900 Bromley
maps indicate ownership by Samuel Hart. On the 1907 Bromley map, lot 25 shows the name
Guy Maynard. It is unclear when ownership passed from Hart to Maynard. Hart had given a
quitclaim deed to Guy M. Maynard for multiple lots, including lot 25 (07/25/1884 bk 559 p. 1).
On May 25, 1909, Guy Maynard gave a quitclaim deed for lot 25 for $1 and other valuable
considerations to Herbert. S. Drew of Boston. (05-25-1909 bk 1111 p. 229). On August 6, 1909,
Herbert S. Drew sold to Mary A. Flatley the property that was lot 25 for one dollar and other
valuable considerations (08/06/1909 bk 1117 p. 596). On August 6, 1909, Mary A. Flatley
received $3500 from the Union Institution for Savings in the City of Boston. In this document,
Mary A. Flatley agreed to keep the buildings on the property insured against fire and that
buildings erected or to be erected on the premises shall be erected and maintained in conformity
with the requirements of the Superintendent of Buildings of the City (08/06/1909 bk 1117 p.
597-598).
On September 21, 1917, Mary Flatley, unmarried, granted, with warranty covenants, lot 25
to Ellen Flatley. (O9/21/1919 bk 1381 pp. 627 and 628). On September 3, 1968, Ellen Flatley
sold lot 25 to James F. Houlihan for $16,500 (09/03/1968 bk 4538 p. 675). James Houlihan ran
his electrical business from this location, after being forced to leave his shop in Brookline
Village due to urban renewal demolition of the large area in Brookline Village along Washington
Street all the way to Brookline Avenue. Hart Street and the triple-deckers on Cypress Street were
also slated for demolition through urban renewal (which did not happen) so James Houlihan was
able to purchase the three-story building with the shop and living quarters for $16,500. On
January 25, 2013, Lisa M Houlihan, for the estate of James F. Houlihan, sold lot 25 to David and
Melinda Hansel, also called 4 Hart Street, for $613, 000 (02/25/2013 bk 30960 p. 305).
34
6 Hart Street (was lot 2)
Story about 6 Hart, as told by Mary Tynan 06/07/21
Mary Tynan’s grandfather had been living in Ireland with his family
when he received a unique invitation from a Brookline estate to move to
Brookline to work with the horses on that estate. In later years, he
worked with the horses at the stables along Cypress Street. John, Mary’s
father, was born on Roberts Street in Brookline, and John and his wife,
Anna, were 18 and 19 when they married. John was a chauffeur for
highway department officials. John had heard that 6 Hart Street was going
to be for sale and, while the house was small, he wanted to have a house and yard, saying it
would be “his own.” Mary said he preferred the house to what she referred to as a tenement, or a
wood framed multi-story building, where John and Anna had been living with their first children.
John went to the bank, but the bank officer refused to give him a loan because he lacked a
down payment. When he was leaving, a Mrs. Patton, who worked at the bank, offered to provide
him with the $300 down payment. Over time, John paid back the down payment while paying
the mortgage. Another neighbor was unhappy that John had been able to purchase the coveted
cottage because he also wanted to own it.
Mary Tynan’s father enrolled Mary and her two sisters in public school, but they chose to
enroll the four boys in parochial school for the added discipline. The public schools let out early
in the afternoon, and Mary’s father built a playhouse for Mary, the oldest of the three girls, in the
backyard where he also had a big garden. In the front garden on Hart Street, there were three
bushes from the prior owners. John tended the Bridal Wreath bush and two rose bushes, one with
a large light pink blossom and the other with a small deep pink blossom. The flowers were used
in the spring by family and neighbors for prom corsages and flower bouquets and looked
especially pretty when put together. These bouquets were possible because Samuel Hart wrote
deed restrictions in 1870 specifying that well planted and maintained gardens should exist on the
fronts of the cottages.
In 1946, and with a large family, John Tynan applied for a permit to build an addition on the
back of his house. The fire and planning department specified that the side of the house by 8 Hart
Street had to be cinder block and concrete. The addition was 24 feet deep, 1 ½ stories tall, 18
feet wide, and had an 8-inch-thick cinder block wall on one side. The two other walls are wood
6 Hart Street
35
and now covered in wood shingles. Mary’s mother did not want to build the one wall using
cinder block, but she had no option. She also could not install sheetrock but had to put in a
wallboard that was fireproof. It had an uneven surface and was not smooth to paint. One of
Mary’s brothers built the kitchen cabinets for his mother in the basement and then had to take out
the stairs to get the cabinets out of the basement. Mary’s mother wanted a pink kitchen so her
son, who had white paint, found a can of red paint to make the paint pink.
The addition included a kitchen to the right and a bedroom for Mary’s mother and father to
the left. Her father did not dig down and extend the basement, and Mary has regretted not
having more basement space. The permit for the kitchen included plumbing for the sink. Their
laundry was in the basement. Mary said they added the bathroom upstairs under the dormer
during World War II. Her father took down her outdoor playhouse when she was older and put
the playhouse window in the bathroom dormer. Until then, they used the toilet in the basement,
and Mary’s mother heated water to put in a portable tub in the kitchen for bathing.
House Details
Changes over time include: In 2006, the Tynans received a permit to replace the roll rubber
roofing that was on the flat roof of the kitchen addition and rebuild courses of brick on the
chimney.
Architectural details: The house at 6 Hart Street now has 923 sq ft, and is on a lot that is 1,429
sq ft. It has two bedrooms upstairs and one bathroom. The bedroom built downstairs for Mary’s
parents is now a dining room, though it could now serve as a bedroom after adding a closet. The
original fireplace kitchen could serve as the dining room. The ceiling beams are exposed in the
room with the fireplace and are 4 by 4s that show the saw marks from the up and down mill saw.
The winding staircase in the middle of the house is one of two winding staircases still existing on
Hart Street (the other is in 18 Hart Street).
The gable end of the house does not have cornice returns or corner pilasters and has a front
door with a short overhang that is to the right of the central window. The house does still have its
wood gutters. The gable ends are finished with newer wood so perhaps cornice returns were
removed. The eaves are short on the soffit but longer on the gable end. There is no molding on
the gable end. The siding is wood shingles that are most likely over wood clapboards, due to the
added molding around the window casings to make the window casing depth line up with the
36
wood shingles. The side door by the alley has an overhang. The Benjamin Bradley window over
the side door remains, and a brick chimney vents the furnace and hot water heater. The front
landscaped section consists of rows of cobblestones, a dark green picket fence, and bushes,
including the Bridal Wreath bush and roses. Short concrete steps lead to the front door on the
gable end.
Atlas research: The maps of Brookline show H (Hugh) Dunn (without the “e” on the map)
owning the house in 1893 and 1900. The house is then labeled for J (Julia) Dunn (without the “e”
on the map) owning the house in 1907, 1913, and 1919. In 1927, the house is shown on the
Bromley map as being owned by M. J. McArdle.
Deed research: In 1870, Samuel Hart sold 6 Hart Street for $800 to Patrick Fleming, a
builder/trader (07/16/1870 bk 395 p. 401). Patrick Fleming then sold the house one month later
to Hugh Dunne and Julia Dunne of Brookline for $1,000 (08/25/1870 bk 397 p. 496). Hugh J.
McArdle and Mary J McArdle sold the house to John A. Tynan and Anna Tynan in 1930
(08/29/1930 bk 1904 p. 372).
8 Hart Street (was lot 3)
Story about 8 Hart, as told by Mary Tynan 06/07/21
Rose Colaluca and her husband, Harry, had hairdressing businesses in
West Roxbury and Hyde Park. They had five children, Larry, Teresa,
Jerry, Connie, and Tony. The children had a small band, and Connie sang
in the 8 Hart Street basement at night with the band. Mary Tynan’s father
was bothered about the noise from the band practicing. Many times after
Mary’s father had a discussion with Rosie about the noise, Rosie would make
Mary a pretty dress.
The house had gorgeous American Beauty roses trailing up the front of the house. Because of
these roses, Patricia Dugan and her husband later purchased the house. Patricia had grown up on
Hart Street, and Barbara, her sister, still lived in 11 Hart Street, across the street. The well-
planted front gardens enhanced the houses and fostered sales.
Judy Ballantine purchased the house and updated the landscaping. Now the house is owned
by Meighan Rock and her husband, and, with the help of their two daughters, the front garden
has iris, Black Eyed-Susans, hydrangea, day lilies, butterfly bush, alyssum, roses, and zinnias.
8 Hart Street
37
House Details
Changes over time include: In 1924, Rose Colaluca moved the toilet from the cellar to the
upstairs and added a bathtub. In 1925, she installed a new drain in the basement and a 30-gallon
hot water heater. On the first floor, she built a bathroom with a lavatory, toilet, and bathtub. In
1939, Rose received a permit to extend the present 3-foot vent through the roof of a new room by
adding about 10 feet of pipe. This new room was built over the present ell, which was the
bathroom. In 1938, Rose Colaluca hired Crazio Colaluca to replace the old roof and add an
asbestos shingle roof. In 1944, Rose Colaluca hired Colony Construction Co. to reroof the 12 by
36-foot section of the house. Rubberized thick butt shingles would replace the existing shingles
on the main roof. In 1993 and 1994, Judy Ballantine received a permit to have James Hughes
strip the old exterior asphalt shingles and install clapboards.
Architectural details: The house at 8 Hart Street has 1,056 sq ft, two bedrooms, 1 ½
bathrooms, and is on a lot that is 1,430 sq feet. The exposed beams in the first-floor ceilings are
4 by 4 up and down mill sawn, of irregular shapes, and somewhat twisted. A large room exists
between the front bedroom and the back additional bedroom upstairs. The window over the side
door by the alley that Benjamin Bradley installed on his houses still exists. The front gable end
has a window upstairs and a window downstairs. The house does not have long overhangs, but it
would have had a wooden gutter and these were often tight to the house. The earlier application
of asphalt shingle siding may have necessitated removal of the original clapboards and trim.
Atlas research: The first name listed on the G. M. Hopkins 1874 map was C. S. Shannahan, In
the Bromley 1888, 1893, and 1900 maps the name was spelled Shannon. In the Bromley 1907
map, the name is P.O. Neil and in the Atlas map of 1913, the name was spelled E, O’Neil. The
1919 and 1927 Bromley maps, the 1928 Brookline Mass. map, and the 1936 Atlas map, the lot
had the name Colaluca.
Deed research: Samuel Hart sold 8 Hart Street to Cornelius Shannon, a laborer, and his heirs
for $925 on April 30, 1870 (04/30/1870 bk 394 p. 457). In 1906, Margaret Shannon, in
consideration of one dollar and other valuable considerations, sold the house to Ellen O’Neill,
wife of Patrick O’Neill (07/05/1906 bk 1031 p. 395). In 1918, Ellen O’Neill sold the house to
Rose Colaluca for $1,260. (09/10/1918 bk 1403 p. 383. In 1937 and 1942, Rose Colaluca had
unpaid water bills (12/31/1937 (bk 2160 p. 167) and (03/14/1942 bk 2374 p. 446). In 1950, Rose
Colaluca died. Probate took action, and the house was sold to Charles Dow, who bought deeds,
38
for $100 (01/08/1950 bk 2885 p. 279). The sale was approved by Diane Colaluca, Girard
Colaluca, and family. In 1950, Orazio Colaluca, unmarried, and Anthony Colaluca, granted the
house and land to Ingrid Murphy, with reference to the title for foreclosure bought by Charles H.
Dow (01/16/1950 bk 3205 p. 189). In 1957, Ingrid Murphy sold the house to William and Mary
Dugan for $6,000 (12/04/1957 bk 3060 p. 403). In 1984, Mary Dugan, widow, sold the house to
Gregory L. Klein and Elisabeth Z. Klein for $71,500 (07/03/1984 bk 6441 p. 420). In 1989,
Gregory L. Klein and Elisabeth Z. Klein sold the house to Veronica Lin and Johnson Lin,
husband and wife as tenants by the entirety, an undivided one-half interest in the house. The
other half was purchased by Zuying Chen, as tenants in common. The sale price was $129,000
(09/20/1985 bk 6799 p. 374). In 1989, Veronica Lin and Johnson Lin and Zuying Chen, for $1
(one dollar) granted the parcel and house to Veronica Lin, Johnson Lin, and David Lin as joint
tenants (04/07/1989 bk 8282 p. 650). In 1991, Kevin Luey and Judith Ballantine, husband and
wife, were listed as tenants, by entirety, of 8 Hart Street. (04/30/1991 bk 10966 p. 356). In 1991,
the property owned by Johnson Lin, Veronica Lin, and David Lin was foreclosed for lack of
payment of the mortgage (10/30/1991 bk 9156 p. 523). In 1992, a judgement for the mortgage
holder (Federal National Mortgage Association) was granted approval to gain entry to the house
and sell the property, owned by Johnson Lin, Veronica Lin, and David Lin (07/29/1992 p. 9440
p. 285). The Federal National Mortgage Association was given power of attorney for the
property (07/29/1992 bk 87770 p. 288). The Federal National Mortgage Association was given
$178,701 for the property (07/29/1992 bk 9440 p. 289). The property was then given to public
auction by the Federal National Mortgage Association, holder of the mortgage, to sell for
$178,701 (07/29/1992 bk 9440 p. 290). In 1992, the Federal National Mortgage Association,
holder of the mortgage, sold 8 Hart Street to Clara Ballantine and Judith Ballantine quitclaim
covenants as joint tenants with right of survivorship for $80,000 (11/27/1992 bk 9633 p. 606). In
1994, the Plymouth Mortgage Company approved the mortgage of 8 Hart Street held by Clara
Ballantine and Judith Ballantine (05/16/1994 bk 10514 p. 445). In July 1995, Judith Ballantine
sold to Karen Blum the property at 8 Hart Street for $172,000 (07/31/1995 bk 10984 p. 117). In
1998, Karen Blum sold the property to Ali Savage for $210,000 (01/15/1998 bk 12190 p. 507).
In 2008, Ali Savage sold the house to Meighan Cappello and Stephen Rock for $410,000
(06/27/2008 bk 25874 p. 6).
39
10 Hart Street (was lot 4)
Story about 10 Hart, as told by Mary Tynan 06/07/21
In 1894, the Connelly family bought 10 Hart Street. Kathy (Connelly)
Kenney’s grandfather owned a hardware store in Brookline Village but,
due to a shortage of materials during World War II, had to close his
hardware business. In 1951, Kathy Kenney’s father purchased what was
Carlo Hardware at 706 Washington Street and changed the name to
Connelly’s Hardware. Mary Tynan recalled Mr. Connelly telling her that
he also used to live on Hart Street, so they had something in common. The Connelly family
continues to run Connelly’s Hardware, which is a successful famil y business.
Rose Colaluca, who owned 8 Hart Street, bought 10 Hart Street for her daughter, who was
getting married. Rose had the house jacked up more than two feet above the foundation to gain
head room in the basement for her daughter. Rosie and her daughter would then have twin
houses. The house sat unfinished, sitting on stilts, for a long time because Rose had trouble with
the contractor. Tony, her son, completed the house after the war and lived there. In 1957, he sold
the house to Margaret Thomas, single, who lived in the house for almost 30 years.
House Details
Changes over time include: In 1916, T. J. Connelly obtained a permit to add an 8 foot long by
8-foot-wide ell with a pitched roof and a stone foundation in the back of the house. This addition
on the right side of the first floor would be for a bathroom on the rear of the house. The addition
was 5 feet from the side property line because a concrete staircase was built from the backyard
down into the basement parallel to the property line.
In 1944, Rose Colaluca requested a permit to install two windows on the second floor and
one window on the first floor. In 1943, Rose received a permit to raise the entire building at 10
Hart Street 2 feet from its existing level. In 1946, she obtained a permit to add a sink and
pressure boiler in the basement and, on the first floor, update the toilet, bathtub, shower, and a
sink. In 2005, Karen Kelley received a permit to remodel the kitchen and install a full bathroom
on the second floor. In 2013, Sarah and Aaron Price received a permit to install a 5 by 7-foot
mudroom on the rear left of the building. They also removed the rear deck that was over the
10 Hart Street
40
first-floor bathroom and extended the existing bedroom over the entire width of the second floor.
They also installed vinyl siding.
Architectural details: The house at 10 Hart Street is 941 sq ft and the lot is 1,430 sq ft. It now
has two full bathrooms and two bedrooms, with one being a large bedroom. The 4 by 4 up and
down sawn beams are exposed in the living room. The house has the small window over the side
door, as evident in a Benjamin Bradley house. The basement, due to being raised two feet, is
highly usable space that has an entrance and exit through a staircase to the back yard.
Due to multiple renovations of the exterior, the house details have been removed. There are
top and bottom windows on the gable end but the sashes are more horizontal than square. The
gable end eaves project from the face of the gable but the soffit ends do not extend. The five-
foot planting space in front of the house is well planted.
Atlas research: The 1874 G. M. Hopkins & Co. map shows the name T. Trohan. The 1888
Bromley map shows the name S. R. Hart while the 1893 G. W. Bromley map shows the name G.
H. Maynard. The 1900 Bromley map shows the name T. J. Connolly. The 1907 Bromley, 1913
Atlas map, 1919 Bromley map, 1927 Bromley map, and the 1928 Brookline, Mass map show the
name Mary Connolly. The 1936 Atlas map shows the name P. J. and H.T. Dacey.
Deed research: Samuel Hart sold lot 4, 10 Hart Street, to Patrick Drohan May 31, 1870, for
$925 (06/23/1870 bk 394 p. 454). Patrick Drohan and Ellen Drohan conveyed provisions of the
deed to Samuel Hart (he had given many of the mortgages) (12/18/1894 bk 726 p. 521). In 1894,
under the will of Samuel Hart, the property was sold to Thomas J. Connelly of Brookline for
$1,450 (12/18/1894 bk 727 p. 521). Thomas Connelly paid the full mortgage in 1896, as
witnessed by Guy H. Maynard, Justice of the Peace (04/13/1896 p. 757 bk 581). The maps
indicate that the property was owned by T. J. Connelly in 1900 and by Mary Connelly from 1907
until 1927. In 1928, the property was taken by foreclosure for taxes not paid (04/12/1928 bk
1790 p. 333). Thomas Connelly and Mary Connelly, for consideration paid, granted the house to
Paul J. Dacey and Helen T. Dacey for a mortgage of $1,000 (06/16/1928 bk 1800 p. 208). Paul
Dacey and Helen Dacey were loan officers and granted to the Brookline Cooperative Bank
mortgage covenants (06/26/1931 bk 1932 p. 626) (06/26/1931 bk 1932 p. 627). Mary Connelly
agreed to pay $600 to Paul Dacey and Helen Dacey to continue to own the house so it could be
passed onto her children (06/26/1931 bk 1932 p. 627). The map from 1936 shows the property as
owned by P.J. and H.T. Dacey. In 1942, the Brookline Co-operative Bank gave to Paul Dacey
41
and Helen Dacey $600 for all unpaid taxes, tax titles, municipal liens, and easements
(10/23/1942 bk 2418 p. 520). In 1942, Bernard McCarthy and Mary McCarthy paid the taxes.
(10/24/1942 bk 2419 p. 35). In 1943, Bernard McCarthy and Mary McCarthy sold 10 Hart Street
to Rose Colaluca for $750, reduced to $721.40 as a first mortgage (05/06/1943 bk 2439 p. 58).
The Brookline Cooperative Bank deeded the property to Rose Colaluca in 1944 (04/10/1944 bk
2480 p. 534). Rose Colaluca gave the house to Orazio Colaluca, her daughter, and Anthony
Colaluca, her son, in 1950 (01/18/1950 bk 2885 p. 283). In 1950, Rose Colaluca died. Rose was
delinquent in payment to the Town of Brookline for the mortgage, taxes, etc., and so the heirs
purchased the deed by paying approximately $100 (01/18/1950 bk 2885 p. 280). In 1954,
Richard Badlian bought the deed with the agreement that he would cover the mortgage,
easements, and restrictions (11/15/1954 bk 3317 p. 479). In 1957, the estate of John Connelly
was settled for his eight children (04/26/1957 bk 3555 p. 10). In 1957, Paul Dacey and Helen
Dacey granted the house to Orazio Colaluca for $100, because they held the deed (04/26/1957 bk
355 p. 11). In 1957, Orazio Colaluca granted to Margaret Thomas, unmarried, the property (04
26/1957 bk 355 p. 12). In 1986, Margaret Thomas, for $1, granted 10 Hart Street to James
Thomas (08 25 1986 bk 7207 p. 371). In 1998, the property was sold to Karen Kelley for
$180,000 (06/25/1998 bk 12606 bk 90). In 2010, the property was sold to Sarah and Aaron Price
for $425,000 (06/22/2010 bk 27762 p. 507).
14 Hart Street (was lot 5)
Story about 14 Hart, as told by Mary Tynan 06/07/21
An older man used to live in Apartment 1 in the triple decker at 14 Hart
Street. In the evening after supper, he would go to the wide front stairs to
read the newspaper, and sit, reading with his bifocals. He sat on the side of
the steps nearest the front garden. The owners of 14 Hart Street had placed
a chain link fence close to the property and very close to the steps, with a
gate leading to the sidewalk. If a child dared to put a foot on the land of 14
Hart Street, the older man’s newspaper would come down and he would bang his cane loudly.
On Hart Street, children played games in which the fire hydrant, in front of 18 Hart Street,
and the gas lamppost, in front of 16 Hart Street, were involved. The manhole in the street in
front of the driveway at 17 Hart Street was home base. For many games, the gas lamppost in the
14 Hart Street
42
middle made the street and older houses charming and nostalgic. On this street, the children
jumped rope and played hopscotch, red rover, and hide and seek.
House Details
Changes over time include: On May 26, 1911, Timothy Gallagher received a permit to build
the three-family dwelling. The three-family would have been built between 1911 and 1913
because the building appeared on the 1913 Atlas map with the name Gallagher. One question on
the permit asked if there would be a store on the lower floor, but it was to be all apartments. The
building was to be 32 feet 6 inches tall and 3 feet 6 inches from one adjacent property. Other
setbacks included 7 feet 6 inches from one side, 14 feet from the other side, and 4 feet from the
rear. The house face was set back 10 feet from the street, as specified in the 1870 deed from
Samuel Hart. In 1956, a permit was given to the owner, Mr. McGrail, to add a sink to the first
and third story. A question was asked again on the form about the number of stores in the
building. In 1957, a permit was issued to add two pressure boilers in the basement, and one
toilet, one sink, and one bathtub to the second floor. The pressure boilers were to provide hot
water to the second and third floors.
Architectural details: The multi-family home at 14 Hart Street rises three stories from a stone
foundation to a flat parapet roof. The home is sided in vinyl with 1/1 replacement windows.
Below the parapet, cornice trim wraps the building. On the left of the façade is a three-story bay
window; the entrance is recessed with a small entry porch into the right. A narrow hood frames
this entrance, resting on decorative brackets. A diamond-pane wood window is located to the
right of the door, which also has diamond lights in the top portion. The back of the home
originally had three porches. Sheila Donnelly enclosed the open porch on the first floor by
adding windows and putting a pitched roof under the second story porch above. The building
has eight bedrooms, three full bathrooms, and three half bathrooms, providing 3,828 sq ft of
living space on a 2,731 sq ft lot.
Atlas research: the 1874 G. M. Bromley & Co map shows the name Gallagher. The 1888
Robinson and the 1893 G. W. Bromley maps show the name Mary Fleming. The 1900 Bromley
map, 1907 G. W. Bromley map, 1913 Atlas map, 1919 Bromley map, 1927 Bromley map, 1928
Brookline, Mass map, and the 1936 Atlas map show the name D. and later M.E. Gallagher. The
1956 Atlas map shows the name P.L. and A. T. McGrail.
43
Deed research: In 1870, Samuel Hart sold 14 Hart Street to Patrick Fleming, builder/trader,
who was married to Bridget Fleming, for $2,900 (07/16/1870 bk 395 p. 404). Samuel Hart
moved to 14 Hart Street a single story 1700s gambrel that Benjamin Bradley had moved to
Bradley Hill from another property. This was the only house of that age and style. In 1870,
Dominick Gallagher paid Patrick Fleming $3, 200 for 14 Hart Street (07 20 1870 bk 395 p. 453).
In 1887, Dominick Gallagher sold the house and land to Mary Fleming, a single woman, for one
dollar and other valuable consideration, except for a mortgage of $700 (03/09/1887 bk 588 p.
452). In 1888, Mary Fleming sold 14 Hart Street to Luke Kilroy, St. John Province of Quebec,
Canada, for $1500 (06/25/1888 bk 607 p. 19). In 1889, Luke Kilroy conveyed back to Mary
Fleming 14 Hart Street (03/20/1889 bk 618 p. 402). In 1899, Mary Fleming, single woman, sold
14 Hart Street to Dominick Gallagher for payment of one mortgage for $700 and another
mortgage for $300 (05/27/1899 bk 843 p. 588). In 1900 with a partnership with the Brookline
Savings Bank, Dominick Gallagher sold 14 Hart Street to the bank for $1200 (09/18/1900 bk 843
p. 591). In 1904, Mary Gallagher, Elizabeth Gallagher, and Timothy Gallagher sold 14 Hart
Street to Annie Hurley, widow, for $2,000 ((10/01/1904 bk 983 p. 310). The map of the property
shows the land owned by D. Gallagher in 1900 and Mary Gallagher in 1907. The Bromley maps
for the houses in 1900 and 1907 both show a small building. In 1908, Catherine Gallagher,
single woman, in consideration of one dollar paid by Mary Gallagher, gave one fourth ownership
of 14 Hart Street (08/10/1908 bk 1087 p. 470). In 1910, Elizabeth Gallagher gave Mary
Gallagher one fourth ownership of 14 Hart Street (02/23/1910 bk 1134 p. 332). In 1911, Mary
Gallagher and Timothy Gallagher, in consideration of $3,000 paid by the Brookline Cooperative
Bank, sold the land to the bank. (06/15/1911 bk 1180 p. 473). In the 1913 Atlas map, Mary
Gallagher is shown as owning the land with a new drawing for a larger new building (triple
decker). In 1924, Catherine Devine and Elizabeth Gallagher, in consideration of one dollar paid
by Mary Gallagher gave the three-family residence to Mary Gallagher. (02/25/1924 bk 1589 p.
32). In 1938, Mary Gallagher gave to the bank $1,000 for title settlement for the estate of
Timothy Gallagher (11/15/1939 bk 2218 p. 210). Mary McLaughlin inherited the property from
Mary Gallagher in 1954 (10/14/1954 bk 3311 p. 28). Walter Devine, surviving joint tenant,
granted to Patrick McGrail and Anne McGrail 14 Hart Street for $118,000. (02/19/1954 bk 3240
p. 525). Anne McGrail died on August 3, 1983, and Thomas Donnelly and Sheila Donnelly,
44
husband and wife, bought 14 Hart Street (03/30/1978 bk 7501 p. 157). In 2006, Sheila Donnelly
sold 14 Hart Street to Rong Guan for $850,000 (12/06/2006 bk 24337 p. 206).
16 Hart Street (was lot 6)
Story about 16 Hart, as told by Mary Tynan 06/10/21
Tall elm trees lined Cypress Street, and mature trees were in front
of and behind each of the cottages on Hart Street. As a young girl,
Mary Tynan was roller skating down Hart Street in a hurry because
the 1938 hurricane had just started. Joe Hingston and a friend were
taking down a huge tree that was in the walkway between 16 Hart
Street and the triple decker at 14 Hart Street. The wind and rain had
started, and they just continued to take down the tree. They were
successful in getting the tree down just before the hurricane hit.
The Hingston family built a concrete block shed in the backyard. At the time, the Hingston
family owned 16 Hart Street, 17 Roberts Street, and 13 Roberts Street, which were two larger
homes behind 16 Hart Street. The shed’s wall and the wall of the garage at 13 Roberts Street
share a wall of the same concrete blocks. The shed at 16 Hart Street includes a chimney. The
original purpose of the shed is unknown.
House Details
Changes over time include: in 1944, a permit was issued to add a small dormer. In 1956, a
permit was issued for a boiler. In 1971, a permit was approved to replace windows and put on
wood shingles. In 1979, a permit was approved to have a plumber install a kitchen sink and, on
the second floor, a toilet, sink, and bathtub. In 1999, a permit was issued for installing vinyl
siding. In 2014, a permit was issued to install a sink and a toilet. In 2016, a permit was issued to
remove the existing ceiling and wall paneling, replace with sheetrock, add insulation, and repaint
in remodeling the living room.
Architectural details: The house at 16 Hart Street is 728 square feet and the lot is 1,430 square
feet. The house has two bedrooms and one and a half baths. The backyard has an outbuilding
built of concrete block.
16 Hart Street
45
The house has had many renovations and had clapboards and wood shingles. Now, the
siding is vinyl clapboards. The shape of the aluminum siding over the trim suggests that the
cornice returns and thick molding in the gable end exist under the siding. The cornice return
would be similar to the one on 7 Hart Street. The gable end has a single window upstairs and a
single window downstairs. The dimensions of the house, the interior layout, and the side door
suggest it is one of the houses built by Benjamin Bradley.
Atlas research: The 1874 G. M. Bromley map has the name Gallagher, the 1888 Robinson
has the name M. Ryan. The 1893 G. W. Bromley map, 1900 Bromley map, 1907 Bromley map,
1913 Atlas map, and the 1919 Bromley map have the name P. O’Connor. The 1927 Bromley
map and the 1928 Brookline, Mass maps show the name M. Hingston.
Deed research: In 1870, Samuel Hart sold 16 Hart to Matthew Ryan for $775 (05/28/1870 bk
393 p. 487). In 1887, Matthew Ryan sold 16 Hart Street to Patrick O’Connor for $850
(06/30/1887 bk 593 p. 79). In 1921, Julie O’Connor, widow of Patrick O’Connor, Frederick
John O’Connor, Henry Michel O’Connor, being unmarried, for consideration paid, sold 16 Hart
Street to Mary Hingston, wife of Joseph Hingston (11/04/1921 bk 1501 p. 125). In 2010, 16 Hart
Street was given by the estate of Edward James Hingston, for $1 to Joseph D. Hingston, Amy
Hingston, and Bonnie Hingston (12/10/2010 bk 28377 p. 192). In 2013, 16 Hart Street was sold
by Joseph Hingston, Amy Hall, and Bonnie McGrath to Claire Bletz and Michael Wolf for
$350,000 (04/16/2013 bk 31235 p. 18).
18 Hart Street (was Lot 7)
Story about 18 Hart, as told by Anne Lusk, who purchased 18 Hart, and
with clarifications from Mary Tynan
Ursula Minahan, daughter of Daniel Minahan, was born around 1910
in 18 Hart Street and never married. In 2003, a toilet was still in the
basement where a bathroom had been fashioned with a wood floor,
shelves with vinyl shelf paper, a curtain, and the wood wall that had
been the coal bin. The basement held a small gas furnace. There was a
cold water tap in the kitchen and no hot water or upstairs full bathroom,
as in the other houses on Hart Street. Ursula, who worked at the Veterans Hospital on South
18 Hart Street
46
Huntington and walked to work, eventually retired. She then worked at the town indoor
swimming pool and was able to shower there.
A neighbor who lived next door in 20 Hart Street was angry that the Minahans had a worker
erect a ladder in the walkway of 20 Hart Street to work on the Minahans’ roof. This neighbor
was unhappy with the Minahans and started a fire directly beside the Minahan house in the alley
of 20 Hart Street. The fire carried up the sidewall and into the roof of the Minahan house. Many
firemen lived on Hart Street and were readily available to stop the fire. The fire charred the
posts, sent smoke into some of the ceiling cavity above the plaster in the first floor living room,
and charred roof rafters.
Around 2002, a neighbor had given Ursula Minahan a microwavable chicken dinner that had
a plastic piece on the bottom. Ursula put the dinner in the oven, setting off the fire alarm. A nurse
came later to evaluate and realized that Ursula was 93 and living in the house without a
bathroom or hot water and with a toilet in the basement. Some, but not all, of the residents on
Hart Street knew of Ursula’s living conditions and they all were helping her, as she had helped
them. They had said nothing so she could stay in her home. The nurse suggested that she go to
the hospital for evaluation, and her nephew and a court-appointed guardian eventually put the
house, as is, on the market. Ursula moved to a nursing home. Anne Lusk was able to buy the
house and take occupancy after installing a bathroom. Anne Lusk won an award from the
Brookline Preservation Commission for the restoration of the house.
House Details
Changes over time include: A permit was approved to repair the fire damage to the side of
the house started by the neighbor. Later, a permit was approved to repair other damage caused by
the fire. In 2004, a permit was approved to renovate the kitchen, install one full bathroom and a
new fireplace, add a furnace, do wiring, do cosmetic work, and build one approximately 7 by 7-
foot bathroom dormer.
Architectural details: The house was constructed as a single-family residential two-over-two
timber frame workman’s cottage with Greek Revival details (5.5-inch corner boards, 6.5- inch
water table board, cornice return by extending the wooden gutter as a continuous soffit, and
molding in the gable end). Benjamin Bradley was the designer and builder. The house is 16.5
feet wide, 26 feet long, and has a side entrance addition that is 6 feet by 4 feet. The signature 6
47
light sash window is over the side entranceway. This 6 light sash is a pocket window that slides
between the wall and the 4 by 4 studs.
Unlike the other Benjamin Bradley houses, this house has the kitchen on the front, with the
fireplace and preacher’s cabinet (which hid the whiskey), and the living room on the back. All
the other Benjamin Bradley houses had the living room on the front and the kitchen with the
fireplace on the back. The winding staircase in this house remains, as does the winding staircase
in 6 Hart Street. The pantry closet door, pantry area, fireplace mantel, doors (including with
thumb latches), and horizontal wainscoting on the staircase remain. The now-stripped
woodwork no longer has lead paint. Vertical tongue and groove and beaded board walls remain
that separate the hallway from each bedroom upstairs and that separate the staircase from the
front entranceway. The baseboards and window trim remain. Early owners had replaced the first
windows, which did not have weights, with 2 light sash (called two over two) that had weights
for easy opening and closing. The sash and the window trim of these replacement windows did
not match, suggesting the two over two windows came to 18 Hart Street from wealthier houses.
The one window that is original is the 6 light pocket window in the upstairs landing that slides
along the wall. The sashes are now 6 over 6 and, in many instances, have old glass. The windows
operate with ropes and weights. The wide sheathing remains as do the water table board and the
corner boards. The clapboards were replaced with new quarter sawn clapboards from Vermont
that could be back primed to hold the paint.
The house has two bedrooms, one bathroom, is 752 square feet, and is on a lot that is 1,429
square feet. The ceiling beams are 4 by 4 up and down mill sawn and exposed in the kitchen and
living room.
Atlas research: The 1874 G. M. Hopkins map, the 188 Robinson map, and the 1893 G. W.
Bromley maps show the name E. Moran, Mrs. Moran, or M. Moran. The 1900 Bromley map,
1907 G. W. Bromley map, 1913 Atlas map, 1919 Bromley map, 1927 Bromley map, 1928
Brookline, Mass map, the 1936 Atlas map, and the 1956 Atlas map show the name J. Minahan,
M Minahan, or Daniel Minahan.
Deed research: On May 28, 1870, the parcel of land and the house that had been moved to lot
7 (now 18 Hart), was sold by Samuel Rowland Hart, who was unmarried, to Edward Moran, a
laborer, and his wife, Catherine Moran, (bk 393, p. 243-now 484 and 485) for seven hundred
fifty dollars. Lot 7 was one of the lots on the plan by H. T. Whitman, surveyor, (03/16/1870 bk
48
DO394 p. 228) that was subdivided from a plan made by A. R. Binney, surveyor (12/10/1870 bk
DO247 p. 314).
Edward and Catherine Moran had five children – Edward (married to Mary), Annie (single),
Katie (single), Charles (single), and Maggie (single). On September 23, 1891, the house on lot 7
was sold for one $1, to Maggie Moran following the death of her father Edward Moran
(09/23/1891 bk 661 p. 160). The 1893 Atlas shows the land and house owned by M. Moran.
On July 24, 1895, Maggie Moran, single, sold the house and land (lot 7) to John Minahan for
$1 and other valuable considerations (07/24/1895 bk 741 p. 121). The 1900 Bromley & Co map
shows that J. Minahan, whose wife was Mary Minahan, owned 18 Hart Street. The 1907, 1913,
1919 Atlas maps show that J. Minahan owned both 18 and 19 Hart Street. In 1916, Daniel
Minahan and John A. Minahan gave to Mary Minahan, widow of John Minahan, two thirds
interest in the two parcels, one being 18 Hart Street and the other being 19 Hart Street
(12/11/1916 bk 1359 p. 158). In 1923, Mary Minahan, widow of John, for consideration paid,
gave 18 Hart Street and the house to Daniel J. Minahan (08/23/1923 bk 1566 p. 329). Daniel
Minihan and his wife had four children, two boys and two girls. Daniel J. Minahan died and his
will, of August 15, 1956, conveyed 18 Hart Street to his daughter, Ursula Minahan. She lived
alone in the house until 2004 when Anne Lusk, single, purchased 18 Hart Street for $239,000
(03/09/2004 bk 20669 p. 96) from Ursula Minahan’s nephew, Joseph Minahan and a Co-
Guardian for Ursula Minahan, M. David Blake.
20 Hart Street (was lot 8)
Story about 20 Hart, as told by Mary Tynan on June 10, 2021
Nancy Sablan, who was renting an apartment on Park Street,
had a young son. She worked at Dana Farber and moved to Hart
Street because she didn’t want her son to be alone after school. Her
son and Eli, son of Jude Burnim and Marcel Cherefant at 21 Hart
Street, were best friends. According to Jude Burnim, when Nancy’s
son would go home after school, Nancy knew her son had a best
friend and neighbors on Hart Street.
20 Hart Street
49
House Details
Changes over time include: In 1936, a permit was approved to remove a partition and erect a
new partition, install a first-floor sink and wash tray and, on the second floor, install a toilet,
sink, and bathtub. A wash tray held the dishes or wet laundry and allowed water to run into the
sink. The kitchen sink, at the time, often was one large precast porcelain sink on legs or built as
part of a cabinet. This porcelain unit included a shallow sink beside a deep sink. Beside the sink
was a tray with grooves for water to run back into the sink. Some sinks had a moveable tin tray
with the grooves for water that would slide over the shallow and deep sink. These sinks served
the purposes of washing dishes, clothes, and babies. Laundry was hung in the backyard on lines.
In 1937, a permit was approved to install a one-story piazza that would be 12 feet by 6 feet on
the rear of the house. The piazza would be 10 feet from the side property and 15 feet from the
rear. In 1978, a permit was approved to install one toilet, one kitchen sink, one lavatory, and one
bathtub on the first floor. In 2001, a permit was approved to install a first-floor bath, shower
stall, lavatory, toilet, first floor laundry, a rear egress, a 3’ by 6’ by 8” door, and a roofed stairs to
the basement to provide better access for an elderly woman. In 2002, an application was
approved to remodel the kitchen. In 2004, a permit was approved to install vinyl siding.
Architectural details: The cottage at 20 Hart Street is 1,126 sq ft and on a lot that is 1,430 sq
ft. The house has two bedrooms and two bathrooms and a back porch. The basement is
accessible by stairs at the side alley. The house was recently re-sided with Certainteed plastic
shingle siding. Harvey windows were installed that have divided lights in the top sash and no
divided lights in the bottom sash.
Atlas research: The G. M Hopkins map of 1874 shows the name Callaher, the 1888 Robinson
map shows R. Kelleher, 1893 G. W. Bromley map shows P. Kelleher, 1900 Bromley map shows
P. Kelleher, 1907 G. W. Bromley map shows R. Kelleher, 1913 Atlas map shows R. Kelleher,
1919 Bromley map shows R. Kelleyer, 1927 Bromley map shows R. Kelleher, 1929 Brookline,
Mass. map shows Richard Kelleher, 1936 Atlas shows R. Kelleher, and the 1956 Atlas map
shows T. V. and B.V McMahon.
Deed research: In 1879, Samuel Hart sold to Richard Kelleher 20 Hart Street for $750
(05/28/1870 bk393 p. 481). In 1936, Thomas A. Kelleher, unmarried, and other Kelleher family
members granted to Catherine Hughes, wife of James Hughes, quitclaim covenants for 20 Hart
Street (03/23/1936 bk 2103 pp. 259 and 260). James Hughes and Catherine Hughes sold 20 Hart
50
Street to Terence McMahon and Bridget McMahon for $1,100 (06/29/1939 bk 2236 p. 413). In
1954, James Hughes and Phyllis Hughes had received full payment for the mortgage (07/26/1954
bk 3282 p. 299). In 1963, Bridget McMahon, widow, granted the property to herself and Agnes
M. Carey as joint tenants (10/16/1963 bk 4113 p. 203). In 1976, for $1, Agnes Carey gave 20
Hart Street to Bridget McMahon to create a life estate for herself in said premises (06/25/1976 bk
5236 p. 408). In 1977, Bridget McMahon received a grant from the Town of Brookline for
$4,100 through the Central Village Rehabilitation Program to rehabilitate the property
(11/18/1977 bk 5407 p. 520).
In 1984, Bridget McMahon granted to Agnes Carey and John Carey as tenants in entirety
(05/25/1984 bk 6406 p. 533). In 1988, Agnes Carey deeded her property to Bridget McMahon in
1976 (09/30/1988 bk 8116 p. 556). In 1988, Agnes Carey had to pay back taxes of $769.90 for
20 Hart Street (09/30/1988 bk 8116 p. 556). In 1988, Agnes Carey sold 20 Hart Street to Maarij
A. Kirmani for $95,000 (9/30/1988 bk 8116 p. 557). In 1988, Maarij A. Kirmani sold 20 Hart
Street to Nadir Mohiuddin for $130, 000 (09/30/1988). In 1989, Babar Khan Rao and Shah
Jehan Rao paid Nadir Mohiuddin $189,000 for 20 Hart Street (10/23/1989 bk 8463 p. 745). In
1990, Babar Khan Rao and Shah Jehan Rao, for $1, sold 20 Hart Street to Shajehan Rao, Babar
Rao, and Muzamil Ahmad as Trustees of 20 Hart Street (03/05/1990 bk 8578 p. 195). In 1991,
20 Hart Street was foreclosed and a power of sale was advertised (09/05/1991 bk 9037 p. 495).
In 1992, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association indicated that Babar Khan Rao and Shah
Jehan Rao owed $140,000 (05/08/1992 bk 933 p. 649). In 1992, 20 Hart Street was advertised as
a “Mortgagees Notice of Sale of Real Estate” (05/08/1992 bk 933 p. 651). In 1994, Philip Dean,
Jr. purchased 20 Hart Street for $70,000 (01/07/1994 bk 10328 p. 501). In 1994, Philip Dean
sold 20 Hart Street to Nancy Sablan for $132,500 (11/15/1994 bk 10728 p. 6). In 2000, Nancy
Sablan sold 20 Hart Street to Mehmet Kaya for $234,000 (10/20/2000 bk 14496 p. 123). In
2001, Mehmet Kaya granted to Catherine Musto 20 Hart Street (05/29/2001 bk 1508 p. 173). In
2002, Mehmet Kaya co/Catherine Musto was found delinquent for taxes $1,121.07 (03/18/2002
bk 16583 p. 477). In 2003, Catherine Musto was behind in taxes for $1,525.14 (10/15/2003 bk
20033-430). In 2003, John Musto sold 20 Hart Street to Aaron Field for $342,500 (10/15/2003
bk 20033 p. 431). In 2005, Aaron Field sold 20 Hart Street to Marie Marsh and Erik Gardiner for
$403,500 (08/17/2005 bk 22788 p. 131).
51
21 Hart Street (was lot 19 and 20)
Story about 21 Hart, as told by Mary Tynan on June 10, 2021
Thomas Solan owned 21 Hart Street and gave the house to his
daughter Mary Ellen Cook. Mary Cook, a nurse, had eight children.
Thomas Solan helped his daughter by raising the house and adding
extra stories so the many children had bedrooms. The children, like
other larger families, were from different generations. The older
children would have moved out by the time the younger children were
born. Mary’s oldest son, Tom, inherited the house from his mother.
Another of Mary Cook’s sons, Bobby, would come home in his Army suit
and stop in to see everyone on the street, including Mary Tynan’s mother
and father. He would joke that he wanted to tell others that he turned out all right. The Cooks
always “let” the garage because, early on, not everyone had a car. They would rent the garage to
the Amendola Ice and Coal trucks, which served the needs of the neighborhood for generations.
The family operated business was helpful to neighbors in the transition years after World War II
and were like family to many.
House Details
Changes over time include: In 1929, Thomas Solan received a permit to raze the old stable at
21 Hart Street. He then built a brick garage. In 1929, Mary Cook, the daughter of Thomas Solan,
received a permit to install a drain in the basement, a sink and tray on the first floor, and a toilet
on the second floor. In 1930, Mary Cook received a permit to install a 30-gallon pressure boiler
and, in 1935, to install a lavatory and a bathtub on the second floor. In 1960, William Cook,
brother of Tom Cook, who had received the house from his mother, submitted an application to
install siding and gutters, repair the rear porch buttress, paint, and replace two (sash) windows. In
1961 Tom Cook (incorrectly written as Thomas Hart on the permit) received a permit to install a
sink on the first floor and a pressure boiler. In 1973, Tom Cook received a permit to repair the
brick front of the garage. In 1986, Thomas Roycroft received a permit to install a hot water
heater in the basement, a kitchen sink on the first floor, a toilet, a lavatory, and a shower stall on
the second floor, and a toilet and a bathtub on the third floor.
21 Hart Street
52
Architectural details: The house at 21 Hart Street is 1,363 sq ft and on a lot that is 2,858 sq ft.
The house is listed as having four bedrooms and two bathrooms. Some of the beams visible in
the basement are up and down mill sawn. All of the beam dimensions are 2 by 8. Stone was
added to the original cottage foundation to raise the house.
The exterior of the house is wood shingles, and the windows are vinyl. There are a few
Victorian details including the bay window on the first floor and the brackets that hold up the
front door roof overhang. The front door overhang is an extension of the bay window roof. The
house has a dormer on the uphill side. There are no details on the house and very little trim
around the windows. The back kitchen does have a railing on the flat roof to provide some
visual interest. The back kitchen juts into the 6-foot alley that is between the houses. It would
have been built after the cottages was placed on the land with the 6-foot space between the
cottages.
Thomas Solan also built the brick garage that is beside 20 Hart Street on the left side of Hart
Street. That brick garage at 22 Hart Street is extremely close to 20 Hart Street. Thomas Solan’s
permit application from November 29, 1904, for the brick garage specifies that he was building
an “addition” for an automobile garage. This garage was to be seven inches from the building
and to connect to the main building. The Bromley 1907 map shows a horse shed on 22 Hart
Street that was beside the automobile garage. A doorway in what would have been the brick wall
of the garage now is filled with cinder block. This doorway would have led from the automobile
garage to the horse barn that was on uphill side of Hart Street. Thus, Solan was connecting his
new automobile garage on the left side of Hart Street to the existing horse barn. Then the same
Bromley 1907 map shows the automobile garage, on the right side of the street, connected to 21
Hart Street, but there is no door that allows passage between the house and the garage. The early
maps show the horse barns that were on the 21 Hart Street property were torn down.
The house at 21 Hart Street, originally one of the small cottages moved to Hart Street in 1870,
became three stories tall in 1913. A dormer was added to the uphill side of the gable roof in
1960. An inspection of the basement reveals the original stone foundation laid before 1870 to
which more stone rubble was added to raise the house. This may have been to put the house’s
first floor level with the garage when it was built in 1906. The floor beams/joists in the basement
are 2 by 8’s, with a few of the boards having been up and down mill sawn. A central opening in
53
the original basement on the Hart Street side is visible below the stones that were built above.
This opening may have been useful in moving the cottage into position over the foundation.
Atlas research: The 1874 G. M. Hopkins & Co. map shows both Lots 19 and 20 were owned
by Jas. Kelley. In the Robinson map of 1888 there is no name but in the 1893 G. W. Bromley
map shows the name J. Monahan, the 1900 Bromley map shows J. Monahan, the 1907 G. W.
Bromley map shows P. M. Solan, the 1913 Atlas map shows P.M. Solan, the 1919 Bromley map
shows F. M. Solan, the 1927 Bromley map shows T. Solan, the 1928 Brookline, Mass map
shows Thomas Solan, the 1936 Atlas map shows M. E. Cook, and the 1956 Atlas map shows T.
Cook. After 1874, the two lots were described as being 21 Hart Street.
Deed research: In 1870 Samuel Hart sold lot 19 (21 Hart Street) to John Kelley for $750
(05/26/1870 bk 393 p. 449). In 1885, John Kelley, unmarried, sold lots 19 and 20 to Francis
Maley for $1200 (06/11/1885 bk 567 p. 604). In 1887, Francis Maley sold lots 19 and 20 to John
Minahan (spelled Minehan in this deed) for one dollar and other considerations (11/02/1887 bk
597 p. 510). In 1906, John Minahan, whose wife was Mary, sold, for $1 and other
considerations, lots 19 and 20 to Frances M. Solan, wife of Thomas Solan (07/12/1906 bk 1032
p. 137). The 1893 through the 1927 Bromley maps show two barns at the back of the property
away from Hart Street. In 1929, Thomas Solan sold lots 19 and 20 to Mary E. Cook for
considerations paid ((05/22/1929 bk 1847 p. 450). Mary Cook was Thomas Solan’s daughter
and, according to Mary Tynan, Thomas Solan had a house nearby on Vogel Terrace. Mary Cook
had many children and Thomas Solan, who was a contractor, added floors to the original cottage
to accommodate his grandchildren. In 1930, Mary Cook received a permit to install a toilet on
the second floor. In 1947, through the administration of the estate of Mary Ellen Cook, parcels
19 and 20 were given to Thomas Cook (07/03/1947 bk 2690 p. 475), Mary Cook’s son. In 1985,
Thomas Cook sold 19 and 20 to Thomas J. Roycroft and Elizabeth M. Roycroft for $103,000
(08/125/1985 bk 6760 p. 372). In 1990, Marcel Cherefant and Judith Burnim bought what was
then referred to as 21 Hart Street for $162,000 (06/29/1990 bk 21 p. 213).
A study of the house and garage was entered into the Massachusetts Cultural Resource
Information System (MACRIS - BLK 2824 for the garage/BLK 3017 for the house, report May
29, 2001). The Carrol Brothers constructed the garage in 1906 for Thomas Solan, a general
contractor. The garage is similar to the general form, at that time, for a brick auto garage of one
54
floor. There were brick arched windows on the side, which are now filled with brick. The brick
garage, built in the working-class Point neighborhood, indicates the early adoption of the auto.
19 Hart Street (was lot 18)
Story about 19 Hart as told by Mary Tynan on June 10, 2021
Daniel O’Connor’s wife, Hildred, worked most nights until 9:00.
Back then, a woman would not tell people that she cleaned houses.
Hildred implied that she cleaned houses because she told others that
the people for whom she worked were fussy. When Hildred would
get off the bus at Kendall Street at night, she would walk the two
blocks to get home. Cypress Street had tall overhanging trees and
there was only one gas light in the middle of Hart Street. Thus, her
walk was in the dark. As she walked home, she would walk in the
middle of the street and sing a song. As she turned the corner to walk on Hart Street, she would
always switch to a happy song, such as “If you knew Susie, like I know Susie…”.
Mary remembered the streets being dark and frightening at night because there was an
extremely large tree on Cypress Street just around the corner from Hart Street. She was afraid
someone would be hiding behind the tree, so she always walked in the road, far away from the
tree. She said the area was very rural compared to now. There were tall trees, no lights, and few
cars.
Mary Tynan said that one of Dan’s daughters, also called Hildred, would often go to Mary
Tynan’s mother to ask her how to cook certain items. Ursula Minahan, who lived across the
street from the eight children, would keep an eye on them.
The boards in the stockade fence that separated the back yards of 17 and 19 from Franklin
Court were only nailed at the top. The kids would swing the boards to the side and go through
the fence to get to Franklin Court, which was a shortcut to the playground at Robinson. Mary
said there was a large lilac bush that separated 17 and 19 Hart Street in the backyard.
19 Hart Street
55
House Details
Changes over time include: In 1906, John A. Minahan, who also owned 18 Hart Street,
submitted an application to add to the rear an 8 foot by 17-foot enlarged kitchen. In 1940, Daniel
O’Connor received a permit to add a sink tray and a pressure boiler to the first story. In 1949,
Daniel O’Connor received a permit to enclose a porch on the back of the house. The enclosed
porch would be no nearer the lot lines than the existing house.
Architectural details: The house at 19 Hart Street is 794 square feet and has two bedrooms and
one bathroom. The lot is 1, 430 square feet. The beams in the basement are 2 by 8 up and down
mill sawn lumber. The house is covered in wood shingles and the windows are vinyl. The gable
end has a front door, a single window downstairs, and a single window upstairs with no muntin
bars. There is a side door into the kitchen from the alley in the back and not in the middle of the
house. The back addition is a single story. The house has an unusual notch in the back left
corner in which the house is less wide and less deep compared with the main house.
Atlas research: Hart owned lot 18 (19 Hart Street) in 1874, 1888, and 1900. From 1907 until
1919, the lot was owned by John and then Mary Minahan. In 1927, D.T O’Connor owned the lot
followed by M. O’Connor in 1936 and D.T. O’Connor in 1956.
Deed research: In July 1870, Samuel Hart sold lot 18 to Patrick Fleming for $800. Patrick
Fleming was a builder/trader who helped Samuel Hart establish Hart’s Content (07/16/1870 bk
395 p. 410). Samuel Hart would also provide a loan for some of the houses, and this loan to
Patrick Fleming and Bridget Fleming was for $500. In December 1870, Patrick Fleming sold the
house on lot 18 to Luke Kilroy for $950 (12/08/1870 bk 400 p. 614). Patrick Fleming loaned
Luke Kilroy $300 to make the purchase. In 1877, Samuel Hart sold the house and lot 18 to
Patrick Drohan for $725 (12/24/1877 bk 496 p. 68).
In 1916, Mary Finegan, wife of Arthur Finegan, Margaret Martell, wife of Samuel Martell,
Daniel Minahan, and John Minahan, for consideration paid, granted to Mary Minahan, widow of
John Minahan, two thirds interest in two parcels, one of which was lot 18 (01/23/1916 bk 1359 p.
158). In 1925, Mary Minahan sold the lot to Daniel T. O’Connor, whose wife was Hildred, for
$1100, interest, and fines (09/11/1925 bk 1662 p. 514). In 1960, Daniel O’Connor, widower,
sold the house to Edward Rezendes and Mary Rezendes (Daniel and Hildred’s daughter)
(96/29/1960 bk 3826 p. 226). In 1978, Edward Rezendes and Mary Rezendes sold what was then
called 19 Hart Street to Joseph and Mary Canney (01/17/1978 bk 5428 p. 579). In 2013, Mary
56
Canney, widow, sold 19 Hart Street to Tom Craig for $350,000 (01/23/2013 bk 30947 p. 26). In
2014, Tom Craig sold 19 Hart Street to Jeramy Curcio and Kyra Curcio for $399,999
(06/26/23014 bk 32345 p. 145). In 2016, Jeramy Curcio sold 19 Hart Street to Jiantao M and
Yanping Li for $530,000 (11/21/2016 bk 34687 p. 259).
17 Hart Street (was lot 17 and now also includes
what was lot 16)
Story about 17 Hart as told by Mary Tynan on June
10, 2021
John Hughes, the owner of 17 Hart Street, had a
two-car garage for which he would charge the
children 10 cents for rent. In the garage, the children
would organize, practice, and hold their plays. Mary
later asked her father why Mr. Hughes used to charge
them rent for putting on their Snow White shows. He explained it was a small way to teach the
children how to manage money and run a business enterprise.
Mr. Hughes was from Wales and had a large rhubarb garden. He shared his rhubarb with the
neighbors. He passed the house along to his daughter, Eileen Smith, and her three children,
Victoria, and Danny, and Jacqueline.
In 1970 Richard and Esther Canney bought 17 Hart Street. Richard and Esther suggested
that Richard’s brother, Joe Canney and his wife, Peggy Canney, buy the house at 19 Hart Street.
Joe Canney and Peggy Canney bought 19 Hart Street in 1978. Other Canney family members
also lived on Hart Street, including Thomas and Sheila Donnelly who purchased 14 Hart Street.
Thomas Donnelly was the Canney family member. Other Canney family members rented the two
apartments in 14 Hart Street.
Mary Tynan said everyone liked sitting on the front steps at 17 Hart Street. The steps were
wood and in front of the house was a garden with bushes. Just before 2003, the Canney families
at 17 and 19 Hart Street decided to take out their front garden area, wooden steps, and picket
fence. On both houses, they had contractors put in brick steps, black wrought iron railing, and a
concrete landing the full length of both houses in the front by the sidewalk.
17 Hart and location of 15 Hart Street
57
House Details
Changes over time include: The only permit was for adding the garage on a concrete slab
behind the house.
Architectural details: The house at 17 Hart Street is 888 sq ft and there are two bedrooms and
two bathrooms. The square footage of the lot is 2,862 sq ft. The house is covered in aluminum
siding and the windows are vinyl. A picket fence surrounds two sides of the lawn, and a stockade
fence runs along the back and the other side. The eaves are not long. On the gable end, a front
door is to the left of the double hung window. There are three double hung windows on the side
by the alley adjacent to 17 Hart Street. On this side, one double hung window is in the living
room and the other window is in the kitchen. On the side by the driveway and the large expanse
of lawn, there are two double hung windows upstairs, with one in the bathroom and the other
part way on the steps as they go up. Downstairs, there is a single crank window in the kitchen
and a small window in the downstairs half bath. There is no window on the side facing the large
expanse of lawn and the sunlight. This may be because the original staircase was moved to create
closet space upstairs in the master bedroom, which is the front bedroom. Mary Tynan had said
that the staircase newel posts and banister used to be extremely handsome; it is now a composite
of mid-century modern elements. Removal of the rug may reveal the location of the original
stairs. The basement beams are up and down mill sawn and mortise/tenon, as in the Bradley
houses. The house has an addition on the back that has a half bath.
Atlas research: The following were the property owners: Hart in 1874; Hart in 1888; J
McNamara in 1900; J. McNamara in 1907; J. McNamara in 1913; P. Cavanaugh in 1919; P.
Cavanaugh in 1927; J. Fe Hughes in 1936; and J Hughes in 1956.
Deed research: On July 16, 1870, Samuel Hart sold what was lot 17 and the house to Patrick
Fleming, builder/trader, for $900 (07/16/1870 bk 395 p. 407). Samuel Hart gave a loan of $500
to Patrick Fleming and Bridget Fleming to buy lot 17 and the cottage. Thus, Hart continued to
own the mortgage, On July 19, 1870, Patrick Fleming sold the house and lot to Otis. H. Weed
(07/19/1870 bk 395 p. 451). In 1870, 17 Hart Street remained a rental property as Samuel Hart
still held the mortgage. In 1886, Guy Maynard was involved with Samuel Hart in overseeing and
providing mortgages for many of the properties, including 16 and 17 (12/04/1886 bk 585 p. 441).
In 1890, Samuel Hart sold lot 17 to John McNamara for $1,000 (08/22/1890 bk 642 p. 28). John,
who was 60 years old at the time, lived there with his wife Nora. The couple had emigrated from
58
Ireland in 1865; John worked as a laborer. In 1907, Guy Maynard sold lot 17 to John McNamara
and gave him a mortgage (10/31/1907bk 1067 p. 313). The mortgage with Guy Maynard was
acknowledged as being fully paid in 1911 (06/12/1911 bk 1179 p. 640). The McNamaras lived at
17 Hart Street until at least 1913.
In 1918, through probate court, the property of John McNamara was sold to Patrick
Cavanaugh for $1500 (12/31/1918 bk 1411 p. 38). By 1919, the home at 17 Hart St. acquired the
empty lot at 15 Hart Street. Lot 17 and 15 were under common ownership, purchased by Patrick
Cavanaugh. Patrick and his wife Mary were also Irish immigrants, arriving in the United States
in 1901 and 1900 respectively. The couple had 6 children by 1920. In 1924 they built a Star Rite
metal garage on the property for $360.00; this garage was torn down in 1961, though the
foundation remains.
In 1929, Patrick Cavanaugh sold 17 and the land from 15 Hart Street to John Hughes and
Frances E. Hughes with the premise that they pay the remaining mortgage of $2,500 (10/03/1929
bk 1867 p. 192). In 1970, the family that included John J. Hughes granted to John H. Smith and
Eileen Smith, husband and wife, 17 Hart Street for $100 (09/22/1970 bk 4689 p. 428). In 1970,
John H. Smith and Eileen Smith sold 17 Hart Street to Richard J. and Esther R. Canney for
$18,000 (09/22/1970 bk 4689 p. 429). In 2021, Esther Canney sold 17 Hart Street to Zi Ye and
Alexander Neary for $665,000 (01/15/2021 bk 38875 p. 566).
15 Hart Street (was lot 16 and burned)
The cottage at 15 Hart Street was said to have burned, probably before 1918, but the
Brookline Fire Department has no records of a fire on the property, so it is not certain what
happened.
House Details
Atlas research: The Hopkins & Co. maps indicate that in 1874, Mrs. Murphy owned the
property followed by: 1888 Samuel Hart; 1893 Guy Maynard; 1900 Samuel Hart; 1907 Guy
Maynard; 1913 Guy Maynard; (cottage at lot 16 burned before 1918); 1919 Cavanaugh; 1927
Cavanaugh, J. F.E. Hughes 1936; and J. Hughes 1956. The maps of the lots sometimes had the
name of the person who held the title and not the person who was paying off the mortgage. John
59
McNamara and his wife would have owned the house that was on lot 16, beside what is now 17
Hart Street. The Brookline Fire Department has no records of a fire on the property.
Deed research: In 1871 Samuel Hart sold the property at 15 Sewall Avenue (later Hart Street)
to Patrick Fleming (05/15/1871 book 407 p. 193). Patrick Fleming received a mortgage from
Samuel Hart of $847.12 for lot 16 (05/15/1871 bk 407 p. 194). In 1886, Guy Maynard obtained
from Samuel Hart, for $1, multiple properties at Hart’s Content, including lots 16 and 17
(12/04/1886 bk 585 p. 441). In 1907, Guy Maynard sold lot 16 (before the cottage burned) to
John McNamara (10/31/1907 bk 1067 p. 313). In 1907, Guy Maynard gave John McNamara a
loan of $700 for lot 16 (10/31/1907 bk 1067 p. 314. 315, 316). In 1911, Guy Maynard agreed
that he had received full payment for the mortgage on lot 16 from John McNamara and his wife
Nora McNamara (06/12/1911 bk 1179 p. 640). In 1918, John McNamara sold to Patrick
Cavanaugh lots 16 and 17 for $1500 (13/31/1918 bk 1411 p. 38). The property, 17 Hart Street, is
described as being bounded by lots 15 and 18, indicating that the house burned before 1918. The
house on lot 16 is on the 1913 Atlas map.
11 Hart Street (was lot 15)
Story about 11 Hart as told by Mary Tynan on June 10, 2021
The current house at 11 Hart Street used to be smaller. There was
once a walkway on the left side of 11 Hart Street, on what had been the
lot for 15 Hart Street. This allowed for passage from the sidewalk to
the porch on the back of the house. Mr. Flaherty was a Town
employee and a short order cook, and on various occasions, Mrs.
Flaherty was a neighborhood waitress. Mary Tynan remembers Mr.
Flaherty taking children to the midnight mass. After coming home, he
would treat the children to a breakfast of scrambled eggs and quickly put out a lot of food for
them. He also held Halloween parties, with dunking apples. When the Flahertys retired to New
Hampshire, the house was passed on to their daughter, Barbara Radley, and her husband, John.
Just before the Flahertys purchased the property, Mr. Hughes removed the walkway that was
beside their house but on his property. The acquisition of this land allowed him to make his
rhubarb garden larger. This meant that the entrance to 11 Hart Street and 9 Hart Street had to
share the back door entrances and narrow walkway between the houses. There was once a front
11 Hart Street
60
door on the left of the gable end, but Barbara and John Radley removed this door later because it
led directly into the living room. They put a new front door in the middle of the alley.
House Details
Changes over time include: In 2013, a permit application was submitted by Barbara Radley to
strip and reroof per the manufacturer’s suggestions.
Architectural details: The house is 1,035 sq ft and on a lot that is 1,481 sq ft. The house has
three bedrooms and one bathroom. The house is covered in aluminum siding and the windows
are vinyl. The gable end has a single window in the first floor and a single window in the second
floor. The gable end eaves project somewhat from the face of the house, but the soffits are short
and end with the gutter. The fascia, or the trim on the gable end of the house, is extremely
simple.
Atlas research: The maps indicate this ownership of lot 15 (11 Hart Street) as: Hart 1874;
Hart 1888; Guy Maynard 1893; Samuel Hart 1900; Guy Maynard 1907; Guy Maynard 1913;
Emily Maynard 1919; S. Cunnif 1927; S. Cunnif 1936; and J. F. M. U. Flaherty 1956. A map
shows Lot E, as drawn by Henry F, Bryant, July 29, 1916, Norfolk Deeds, Plan Book 88, Plan
4293. The lot is shown as being 1590 square feet (12/03/1923 bk 1579 p. 388)
Deed research: In 1871, Samuel Hart sold lot 15 to Patrick Fleming of Charlestown,
builder/trader, for $1,500 (05/15/1871 bk 407 p. 186). For this lot, Samuel Hart gave Patrick
Fleming and Bridget Fleming a loan of $840 (05/15/1871 bk 407 p. 191). Patrick Fleming sold
the lot and cottage to Russell E. Elliott of Boston for $1,500 (12/19/1871). In 1884, Guy
Maynard was involved with many of the properties and offered the mortgages. One of the
properties was 15 (07/25/1884 bk 559 p. 1).
In 1919, Emily H. Maynard, who was the Executrix for the estate of Guy Maynard, who had
been living in La Jolla, California, oversaw his last will (06/19/1919 bk 1423 p. 261 and 262).
Emily Maynard sold the real estate of the deceased Guy Maynard. She sold lot 11 (15 Hart
Street) to Arthur Stameris for $1,600 (Lot E). In 1923, Arthur Stameris sold lot number 11 to
Sara Cunniff (12/03/1923 bk 1579 p. 388). In 1935, John Dunn and Sara Dunn (formerly Sara
Cunniff) received a mortgage for $600 for lot 11. In 1936, John Dunn and Sara Dunn sold lot
number 11 to John F. Flaherty and Mary V. Flaherty, husband and wife (12/04/1936 bk 2129 p.
61
141). In 1964, John Flaherty and Mary Flaherty sold lot 11/Lot E to John Radley and Barbara
Radley for consideration paid (10/02/1964 bk 4201 p. 173).
9 Hart Street (was lot 14)
Story about 9 Hart as told by Mary Tynan on June 10, 2021
The houses at 9 Hart Street and 11 Hart Street share a narrow
walkway because, unlike the other cottages, there is no walkway to the
right of 9 Hart Street. The cottage at 7 Hart Street is too close. Because
the walkway to the left of 11 Hart Street and the front door from the
sidewalk into 11 Hart Street were removed, the only way into the back
door of 9 Hart Street was by the side entrance that is shared with 11
Hart Street. To separate the two narrow walkways, a chain link fence was
installed in the middle of the narrow walkway. This made passage less comfortable for residents
in 9 and 11 Hart Street and presented later problems for moving large garbage bins. The chain
link fence was subsequently removed. Mrs. Hartnett, a second-generation family member in the
house, made delicious fudge that she shared with the neighbors, and they had the first TV on the
street. Four generations of the same family have lived in the house.
The land behind 9 Hart Street does not extend as far back as the land for 11 Hart Street. The
land for 15 and 17 Hart Street extends the full length back, as with the other properties. These
properties used to have porches that are now enclosed. The back areas now have decks and no
tall stockade fencing to separate the yards. Thus, residents sitting in the yards or decks at 19, 17,
11, and 9 Hart Street are visible to each other and are not sitting inside enclosed porches.
House Details
Changes over time include: In August 1992, a permit application was submitted to apply
vinyl siding and vinyl trim to the doors, windows, soffit, and fascia.
Architectural details. The gable end of the house on the first floor now has a newer bow
window that contains four tall crank casement windows. The front door has an aluminum
overhang. The second story has a narrow small double hung window over the front door and a
small horizontal window to the far left. The side has an air conditioner and a few other windows.
9 Hart Street
62
There are no windows in 9 on the side facing 7 Hart Street because the space is too narrow. The
house has 992 square feet, three bedrooms and one bathroom. The lot is 1,298 sq ft.
Atlas research: The G. M. Hopkins & Co 1874 and the 1888 Robinson maps shows 9 Hart
Street with the name Hart. The G. W. Bromley 1893 has no name G. H. Maynard on the
property. The 1900 Bromley map has the name Hrs. S. R. Hart on the property. The G.W.
Bromley 1907 map, the 1913 Atlas map, and the 1919 Bromley map have Guy Maynard on the
property. The 1927 Bromley map, the 1928 Brookline, Mass map, and the 1936 Atlas map have
the name J. Curry on the property. The 1956 Atlas map has the name M.C. Hartnett on the
property. A map from 1918 shows the lot as Lot D and being 1398 sq ft. (07/29/1918 bk 4293 p
88).
Deed research: In 1871, Samuel Hart sold the lot and cottage to Patrick Fleming for $1500
(11/02/1871 bk 415 p. 46). Samuel Hart gave to Patrick Fleming and Bridget Fleming a
mortgage of $997.12 (05/15/1871 bk 407 p. 187). In 1871, Samuel Hart specified that the 20-foot
passageway (Hart Street including in front of lots 13, 14, and 15) was to be forever kept open
and with the width maintained (11/02/1871 bk 415 p. 46). The passageway then was the 20-foot-
wide dirt road for horses that is now a 20-foot-wide one-way road for cars with space for parking
cars on the right side going up Hart Street. The right-of-way was to be partly on the land of
James Barrett (part of lot 12). The maps of the lot 14 show the following names for ownership:
Hart 1874; Hart 1881; Guy H. Maynard 1893; Hrs. S.R. Hart 1900; Guy Maynard 1907; Guy
Maynard 1913; Emily H. Maynard 1919; J. Curry 1927; J. Curry 1936; MC. Harnett 1956.
In 1919, after the death of Guy Maynard, Emilie H. Maynard sold to Arthur Stameris lots E
(which is now 11 Hart Street) and D (which is now 9 Hart Street) for $1,600 (06/19/1919 bk
1423 p. 261). Lot D was lot 14 (now 9 Hart Street). Arthur Stamaris may have had prior
ownership of these parcels, but Guy Maynard held the full mortgage. Thus, the name Arthur
Stamaris does not appear on the maps. In 1924, Arthur Stamaris sold Lot D, lot 14, (now 9 Hart
Street) to Joseph Bell for considerations paid (01/02/1924 bk 1528 p. 501). In 1924, Joseph Bell
gave to John Curry, Lot D lot 14 (04/23/1924 bk 1595 p. 328). In 1935, Daniel Curry, Anne
McMinn, Louise Curry, and Francis Curry granted to Mary Hartnett a quitclaim deed for 9 Hart
Street (02/05/1935 bk 2060 p. 1). In 1935, James Harnett and Mary Harnett granted to Larry
Curry mortgage covenants to pay $210.54 within two years with six percent interest in addition
to the mortgage of $300 (03/14/1935 bk 2064 p. 91). In 1960, James Harnett and James Harnett
63
sold 9 Hart Street to Charles F. Farrell and Jean E. Farrell (07/12/1960 bk 3829 bk 259). In
1977, Charles Farrell and Jean Farrell obtained a mortgage for $4961.91 (01/17/1977 bk 5300 p.
343). In 2002, Charles Farrell and Jean Farrell granted, for $1, Jean Farrell, as Trustee of 9 Hart
Street Realty Trust (03/07/2003 bk 18375 p. 464). Jean Farrell’s parents were James and Mary
Hartnett, and her mother and her grandparents were named Curry. Jean Farrell’s daughter has
inherited the house. Thus, four generations have owned 9 Hart Street since 1924.
7 Hart Street (was lot 12 but was subdivided)
Story about 7 Hart as told by Mary Tynan 06/97/21 with additional
knowledge provided by Anne Lusk, Ph.D
The story of 7 Hart Street is the saddest on the street, but it is also a
story of family. Mrs. Sabrina Barrett, who was 75 years old, lived alone
at 7 Hart Street. Her house did not have electricity and, in the early
1900s, candles, gas lighting, and kerosene lanterns would have
provided the only light. On February 11, 1908, Mrs. Barrett’s clothing
caught fire in the morning from an overturned lamp. She ran outside with her
clothing on fire and dropped to her knees. Because many of the Hart Street
residents were firemen, a ladder man named John Mealey was nearby and wrapped his coat
around her to stop the flames. The burns were over her entire body, though, and she died that
afternoon at Massachusetts General Hospital. (Boston Globe, February 12, 1908). She left four
sons and a daughter who were grown.
According to Mary Tynan, after Mrs. Barrett died, her sons did not want to live in 7 Hart
Street. Mary said 7 Hart Street was vacant for a long time, and neighborhood children called it
the “bird house” because birds would go in and out from behind the shutters. Mary said her
father told her the story of Mrs. Barrett’s death so that Mary would not be afraid of the vacant
house across the street from her house.
In 1911 and 1912, Alexander Barrett, who was a carpenter, was given a permit to build a 4
foot by 30-foot addition on the right side of the house to add a staircase. The stairs were three
stories high and four feet in width, leaving space for a three-foot alley to the right side of the
stairs to gain access to the very small backyard. When Mr. Barrett would open the door that led
to the new staircase, Mary, as a child, thought the straight and wide staircase was beautiful. It
7 Hart Street
64
would have been in sharp contrast to the narrow winding staircases in the middle of many of the
other cottages.
Elsa Barrett, who was originally from Ohio, and extremely creative, would sit on her steps on
hot summer nights and play guessing games with the children. Thomas and Elsa Barrett had
purchased the house from Alexander Barrett, an unrelated Barrett family. During the summer,
she, Mrs. Day, and Mrs. Lov, who were also neighborhood mothers, would hire a bus and, for a
$1 each, take the children to a beach, such as Onset Beach, Salisbury, or Salem Willows, on all-
day trips. On Sundays, they would go to 7 AM mass and then be ready for the bus at 8 AM.
One day the bus broke down and they didn’t return until 2 AM.
Elsa did not have a lot of money and devised a plan to have flower boxes in the windows in
her house. She built rudimentary flower boxes and had the children bring small containers of
dirt, dug up in the Robinson playground field, to her house and helped her fill up the flower
boxes.
House Details
Changes over time include: In 1911 and in 1912, Alexander Barrett, who was a carpenter, was
issued permits to build a 4 foot by 30-foot addition on the right side of the house to add a
staircase. In 2004, Ben Bressel received a permit to remove the lathe and plaster, insulate the
house, install sheetrock and a new kitchen, add a half bath, reinforce the rafters, make the floors
even, and greatly improve the basement.
Architectural details: The cottage at 7 Hart Street has Greek Revival details with the wooden
gutter wrapping to the front, forming the cornice return, and rich wooden molding in the gable
end eaves. Below this wooden gutter is a smaller horizontal block of wood. If the asbestos siding
were removed, corner pilasters, or boards that appear as columns on the sides of the building,
would be revealed. The block of wood would then serve as a cap at the top of the column that
also visually holds up the cornice return wooden gutter. The house, unlike most of the houses on
Hart Street, has two windows in the first floor of the gable end facing the street. The door that
leads to the newer staircase is to the right. There is a window above the front door in a second
story closet.
Ben Bressel, who purchased the cottage in 2004, left the asbestos siding on the outside and
did not paint the exterior. The house is 960 square feet and the living room and kitchen ceiling
65
beams, now exposed, are up and down mill sawn 4 by 4s. The house has two bedrooms, one and
a half bathrooms, and is on a lot that is 741 sq ft.
Atlas research: The 1874 G. M. Hopkins & Co. map and the 1888 Robinson map shows the
property owned by Hart. The 1893 G. W. Bromley map shows the property is owned by G. H.
Maynard. The 1900 Bromley map, 1907 G. W. Bromley map, 1913 Atlas map, 1919 Bromley
map, 1927 Bromley map shows the property owned by Barrett. On the 1928 Brookline, Mass
map, the property is owned by Alexander F. Barrett. The 1936 Atlas map shows T. H. Barrett.
The 1956 Atlas map shows the property is owned by E. C. Barrett.
Deed research: In 1870, Samuel Hart sold lot 12 to James Barrett (09/03/1870 bk 397 p.190).
In 1870, lot 12 was the corner of Sewall Avenue and Sewall Street (03/16/1870 bk DO394 p.
228) not the current small lot for 7 Hart Street. In the Hopkins & Co. 1874 map of Hart Street, a
small house is shown on Lot 12, with the gable end facing Hart Street. Also on lot 12 is a long
house parallel to Hart Street, nearer to Sewall Street. With the purchase in 1870, Samuel Hart
gave a loan of $375 to James Barrett for all of lot 12 (09/03/1870 bk 397 p. 191). In 1873, James
Barrett received $25 from Samuel Hart and then deeded 15 inches of width of the land beside
what is 9 Hart Street (lot 14) to Samuel Hart (10/31/1873 bk 447 p. 558). The Hopkins & Co.
map of 1874 shows the small house on lot 12 that is directly beside what was lot 14 with the
name Barrett for the entire parcel (which also includes lot 13). The cottages on lot 12 and lot 14
are the only cottages that have extremely little space between them and no alley view for the
opposite cottage occupants. Perhaps the foundation for the house already on lot 14 was on the
land platted for lot 12. The foundation for the house on lot 12 would also exist.
In 1884, Hart sold lots for $1 to Guy M. Maynard, which included lots 25, 12, 14,15, 16, 17,
and 18. As Guy Maynard also held mortgages, perhaps this transaction was a transfer of debt
(07/25/1884 bk 559 p. 1). In 1884, Samuel Hart paid Guy Maynard $17,497 with the money to
be paid over time (07/25/1884 bk 559 p. 2). The maps for lot 12 show the following ownership:
Hart 1874; Hart 1888; Guy H. Maynard 1893; S. Barrett 1900; S. Barrett 1907; A. Barrett 1913;
F. Barrett 1919; A. F. Barrett 1927; Barret 1936; E. G. Barrett 1956. In 1886, Guy H. Maynard,
in consideration of one dollar, quitclaimed the lots to Samuel Hart (12/04/1866 bk 585 p. 441).
In 1877, Samuel Hart discharged the mortgage that he had given and released and quitclaimed
the property to James Barrett (07 31 1877 bk 492, p. 134). In 1911, James Barrett sold lot 12 to
Alexander, James S., Thomas, John (also called Patrick), and Ellen Barrett the title and interest
66
to the property for $125 (07/25/1911 bk 1184 p. 592). From the square footage of 1000 square,
the lot would not be the full lot 12 from 1870 but the subdivided parcel that is now 7 Hart Street.
The 1888 Robinson map shows the full lot 12 but the 1900 Bromley map shows 7 Hart Street as
the subdivided parcel with the house tight to the property lines on both sides. In 1932, Ellen
Barrett, the single sister of Alexander Barrett, gave to Alexander Barrett her interest in 7 Hart
Street (06 20 1931 bk k1964 p. 303). Alexander Barrett had seven boys. He died in a fire in 7
Hart Street between 1932 and 1939.
In 1939, the administrator for the estate for Alexander Barrett sold 7 Hart Street to Thomas H.
Barrett and Elsa Barrett for $500 (11/08/1939 bk 2255 p. 149). This Barrett family was not
related to the prior Barrett family. In 1965, Thomas and Elsa Barrett obtained a mortgage of
$1,800 (03/19/1965 bk 4240 p. 590). In 1971, Elsa Barrett received $9,200 from Richard E.
Barrett, her son, who purchased 7 Hart Street (07/20/1971 bk 4753 p. 674). Helen Barrett had
been married to Richard Barrett and was living in 7 Hart Street in 2004. She had also been
married to Joseph Barrett, Richard Barrett’s brother, but was divorced from him in 2004. Helen
Barrett died April 16, 2004 of cardiopulmonary arrest (04/16/2004 bk 20852 p. 431). In 2004,
Linda O’Brien was appointed Executrix of the estate of Helen Barrett (04/16/2004 bk 20852 p.
432). In September 2004, 7 Hart Street was sold to Benjamin Bressel and Angela Sullivan for
$207,200 (09/14/2004 bk 21537-58). In 2009, Benjamin Bressel and Angela Bressel received a
loan of $338,000 (04/10/2009 bk 26535 p. 49). In 2010, Benjamin Bressel and Angela Sullivan
sold 7 Hart Street to Yixin Yu for $429,000 (06/04/2010 bk 27722 p. 289).
5. BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION
The below list is of the 14 historic properties on Hart Street that are in the proposed “Hart’s
Content” LHD. All of the properties were built starting around 1816, which includes properties
that could have been moved by Benjamin Bradley to Bradley’s Hill or were built by Benjamin
Bradley.
Left side from Cypress Street (going up Hart Street):
4 Hart Street (was lot 25)
6 Hart Street (was lot 2)
8 Hart Street (was lot 3)
67
10 Hart Street (was lot 4)
14 Hart Street (was lot 5)
16 Hart Street (was lot 6) Bradley cottage
18 Hart Street (was lot 7)
20 Hart Street (was lot 8)
Right side from Cypress Street (going down Hart Street):
21 Hart Street (was lot 19 and 20)
19 Hart Street (was lot 18)
17 Hart Street (was lot 17 and 16) 15 Hart Street (was lot 16 -
burned)
11 Hart (was lot 15)
9 Hart Street (was lot 14)
7 Hart Street (was lot 12 but was subdivided)
6. CONCLUSION
In 1852, Samuel Hart bought Bradley’s Hill from Benjamin Bradley, and after Bradley’s
death in 1856, decided to sell the land to Benjamin Goddard. Benjamin Goddard gave Samuel
Hart from October 1, 1869, until April 1, 1870, to remove the cottages. That was the first time
that the cottages faced demolition.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the federal government gave cities funding to tear down areas that
city or town officials deemed slums. Residents in the areas identified as blighted had no choice
but to move because, after the wrecking ball leveled their homes and neighborhoods, highways
and modern buildings appeared. Brookline’s slums included the businesses in Brookline Village
between the Brookline Village T stop and Washington Street, the three-story wood framed
buildings on both sides of Brookline Avenue in the area called the Marsh, and the three-story
wood framed buildings by Pond Avenue in the area called the Farm. Officials discussing which
areas to target for demolition met behind closed doors. They proposed demolition of the old
cottages on Hart Street and the taller wood-framed buildings on each side of the bottom of Hart
Street. The banks knew the area was identified for urban renewal, and so loans were difficult to
get. With the rejection of the Inner Belt highway in Boston and growing dissatisfaction with
Proposed Hart’s Content LHD
68
urban renewal, the tide of public opinion saved the cottages on Hart Street from demolition for a
second time.
In January 2021, a couple purchased 17 Hart Street. In February 2021, they submitted an
application to Brookline for full demolition of the house. They propose to build a three-story,
five-bedroom, four-bathroom, two-car garage building that extends beyond the zoning front,
back, and side yard setbacks and that requires variances and special permits. Demolition of one
of the 11 historic cottages and the construction of a three-story structure with a two-car garage
door tight to Hart Street would negatively impact the street.
This area of Brookline, called Whiskey Point, has provided affordable housing to Brookline
residents since 1870 when Samuel Hart moved 30 cottages to Hart’s Content. While houses
nationwide recently became more expensive due to low interest rates and working-from-home
real estate sales, real estate prices in Brookline have appreciated so rapidly in recent years that
these Hart Street cottages are seen in the market not as homes, but as the most affordable
building lots in town. The median price for a single-family home in Brookline is $1.6 million and
the Hart Street single-family cottages cost less than half of Brookline’s median house price. The
proposed historic district on Hart Street is 236 feet long and provides housing to 17 households.
Once again, for the third time, the residents of Hart Street are facing a demolition threat.
The current proposal to form the Hart’s Content Local Historic District would preserve the
history, neighborhood character, and affordability of Hart Street for future generations in
Brookline.
Uphill Hart Street Downhill Hart Street
69
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brookline Historical Society Annual Meeting, January 23, 1907.
Clarke, T. Brookline Allston-Brighton and the Renewal of Boston (Charleston, SC, The History
Press, 2010).
Curtis, J. G. History of the Town of Brookline Massachusetts (Boston and New York, Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1933).
Denehy, J.W. A History of Brookline, Massachusetts: From The First Settlement of Muddy River
Until The Present Time, 1630-1906 (Brookline Press, 1906).
Hardwicke, G. and Reed, R. Image of America: Brookline, (Charleston, SC, Arcadia Publishing,
1998).
Karr, R. D. Between City and Country: Brookline, Massachusetts and the Origins of Suburbia
(Amherst and Boston, University of Massachusetts Press, 2018).
Proceedings of the Brookline Historical Society at the Annual Meeting, January 30, 1930,
Brookline, MA.
Reed, R. and Hardwicke, G. Carriage House to Auto House (Brookline Preservation
Commission, 2002).
Riis, J. 1890 How the Other Half Lives.
Woods, H. Historical Sketches of Brookline, Mass. (Boston: Davis, 1874).
70
8. GIS MAP OF THE PROPOSED HART’S CONTENT LHD
71
9. WARRANT ARTICLE
To see if the Town will amend Section 5.6.3 (i) of the Town’s By-Laws, entitled
Preservation Commission & Historic Districts By-Law by replacing it with the bold face
text:
(i) Hart’s Content Local Historic District
There is hereby established an Historic District, to be entitled “Hart’s Content Historic
District”, the boundaries of which shall be as shown on the maps entitled “Hart’s Content
Historic District: Hart Street,” copies of which are on file with the Town Clerk’s office,
which accompany and are hereby declared to be a part of this By-law.
(j) Other Historic Districts
Other Historic Districts within the Town may be established from time to time in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 40 C of the Massachusetts General
Laws, as amended from time to time.
or act on anything relative thereto.
72