HomeMy Public PortalAboutBrigham Study 1630
.A
Town of Watertown
• }v Lr Administration Building
149 Main Street
Watertown,Massachusetts 02472
Historic District Commission
Tel: (617)972-6473•Fax: (617)972-6484
Harvey Steiner,Chairman Christopher J.Hayward,Preservation Agent
Victoria J.Carter
Audrey Jones Childs
Amleto"Mel'Martocchia
Margaret Pasulka
Matthew C.Petrie
Linda Sternberg
November 17, 2005
Mr. Christopher Skelly
Director of Local Government Programs
Massachusetts Historical Commission
220 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston,MA 02125
Dear Mr. Skelly:
Please find enclosed the "Preliminary Report of the Brigham Historic District Study
Committee,"that has been prepared at the request of the Watertown Historic District
Commission, which voted on October 26, 2005 to forward it to the Massachusetts
Historical Commission pursuant to the requirements of M.G.L. Chapter 40C.
This proposed new district, which is adjacent to Watertown's current Mt. Auburn Street
Historic District, would operate under the aegis of the current Watertown Historic
District Commission, and it is proposed that it would operate under the ordinance which
covers the current district. The only suggested change to the existing ordinance is
language, which is highlighted in Section III of the attached draft, amending the
ordinance to include the proposed new district.
If the Massachusetts Historical Commission has any questions about the Preliminary
Report,please do not hesitate to contact Christopher Hayward, Preservation Agent or me.
1630
4..
Sincerely,
Harvey Steiner, Chairman
Watertown Historic District Commission
Enclosures
cc: Watertown Historic District Commission
Pam Piantedosi, President, Watertown Town Council
Clyde Younger, President-elect, Watertown Town Council
Gregory Watson, Director, Dept. of Community Development and Planning
Michael Driscoll, Town Manager
John Hawes, Chairman, Planning Board
Robert Shay, Chairman, Brigham Historic Work Group
Town of Watertown
Administration Building
149 Main Street
Watertown, Massachusetts 02472
Historic District Commission
Tel: (617)972-6473•Fax: (617)972-6484
Harvey Steiner,Chairman Christopher J.Hayward,Preservation Agent
Victoria J.Carter
Audrey Jones Childs
Amleto"Mel'Martocchia
Margaret Pasulka
Matthew C.Petrie
Linda Sternberg
Preliminary Report
of the
Proposed
Brigham Historic District
November 17, 2005
Brigham Historic District Study Committee
Preliminary Report
Introduction
The initiative to create an historic district in the residential neighborhood first developed
in the late 191h century by Charles Brigham, one of Massachusetts most renowned
architects, was taken by a group of neighbors concerned that recent trends in
development were jeopardizing the neighborhood's historic character. These neighbors
first began meeting in February 2005 to inform themselves about how establishing an
historic district might help preserve the historic character of the neighborhood, and the
process for establishing such a district.
Information Gathering
The group met with David Russo and Roberta Lane of the Watertown Historical
Commission who explained the workings of an historic district and suggested that they
contact Christopher Skelly at the Massachusetts Historical Commission for the
Commission's guide, Establishing Local Historic Districts. The group also met with
Harvey Steiner, Chairman of the Watertown Historic District Commission,which
oversees the Mt. Auburn St. historic district, established in 2001.
Individuals from the group spoke to Victoria Carter and John Hawes, two members of the
study committee that led to the creation of the Mt. Auburn historic district to learn about
the issues that arose in the creation of that district, and obtained copies of the study
committee's final report recommending the creation of that district. In addition they
spoke to the consultant who created the inventory of properties in the Mt. Auburn district,
as well as to historic district commission members in Brookline and Newton.
As a result of this research, the group concluded that the creation of an historic district
could in fact help preserve the historic character of their neighborhood by encouraging
gradual, compatible change. It also found that the neighborhood did meet the
requirements of Massachusetts' Historic Districts Act, MGL Chapter 40C, for becoming
an historic district, and that they had sufficient volunteer expertise and resources to
undertake the work required to prepare a study report without retaining a consultant.
Initial Public Discussion
Following the suggestion of the Massachusetts Historical Commission's guidelines the
group dropped a leaflet at every house in the district inviting residents to a meeting in the
Council Chambers of Watertown's Town Hall to learn about historic districts and express
their views on establishing an historic district in their neighborhood. The meeting was
held on March 17, 2005 and attracted more than sixty neighbors. Robert Shay moderated
the meeting and David Russo and Roberta Lane provided the overview of why and how
historic districts are created. There was active discussion of the pro's and con's of
creating a district, and at the end of the meeting a significant number of residents offered
to join the group to undertake the work needed to create a district.
On April 12, 2005 the enlarged group of neighborhood volunteers met to discuss the
steps that it needed to take leading to the creation of a district, consider more carefully
the boundaries of the district that would be proposed, and to decide who would undertake
which tasks. The group decided that it would be most efficient to work with the existing
Watertown Historic District Commission to establish the new district under its aegis,
rather than go through the process of having the Town Council establish a separate study
committee leading to the establishment of a separate Historic District Commission. Bob
Shay was delegated to represent the neighborhood group at the April 27 meeting of the
Watertown Historic District Commission, and request that they establish a study
committee to oversee the development of a report recommending the creation of a new
district.
The primary task undertaken by the volunteers at the meeting was the preparation of the
inventory of all 114 properties in the proposed district on the Form B required by the
Massachusetts Historical Commission. David Russo took the lead in this with support
from Susan Steele, Joseph Ferreira and Deborah Rosen.
Watertown Historic District Commission Establishes Studv Committee
On April 27, 2005 the Watertown Historic District Commission voted to initiate a study
to create a new historic district in the Russell Ave., Garfield St., Bailey Rd., Stoneleigh
Circle/Rd. area. It established a sub-committee made up of two Commission members,
Harvey Steiner and Matthew Petrie, to oversee the work of the ad hoc study group made
up of neighborhood residents. That group is made up of David Russo, Bob Shay, Bob
Flack, Susan Steele and Donna Smerlas, with support from other neighborhood
volunteers, and is acting in the role of consultant in preparing the report for the
Commission's study committee.
The study group met subsequently to develop an information sheet about the proposed
district and a survey to be mailed to all homeowners in the proposed district, and to
consider what should be included in the Bylaw that would create the district. After
consideration of possible alternatives, the study group decided to recommend that the
same Bylaw used to establish the Mt. Auburn Historic District be used to establish the
new district(Exhibit I). Joseph Ferreira digitized the street maps of the district provided
by the assessor's office to create the map of the proposed district(Exhibit II).
All these materials have been submitted to the Historic District Commission's Study
Committee. In addition, the study group has provided monthly updates on their work to
the Historic District Commission.
Historical and Architectural Significance
The historical and architectural significance of the area encompassed by the district is
detailed in Exhibit III. In summary, the proposed district lies on the lower portions of
Meeting House Hill (also referred to as Strawberry Hill in some narratives), east of
Common Street, and was farmland from the early days of European settlement through
the mid-19th century. As the local economy in Watertown became more industrial with
the development of the U.S. Arsenal, and later the Hood Rubber Company and Whitney
&Pratt, demand for residential housing grew. In the early 1880's the farmland in the
district began to be sold off for development of large, architect designed single family
homes, and two of Watertown's most prominent citizens and architects, Charles Brigham
and Alberto Haynes began to design and develop houses in the area. This development
accelerated with the completion of the electric trolley line along Mt. Auburn St. in the
1890's, which made commuting into Boston from Watertown significantly easier. During
this time many found the garden suburb a great improvement over the congestion of
Boston because they did not have to sacrifice the closeness of neighbors they had enjoyed
in the city to attain the healthful rural atmosphere of Watertown. The cultural offerings
of Boston also remained comfortably close. The area offered large homes in landscaped
settings with limited upkeep.
The homes built in the area between the early 1880's and 1930, when development of the
area was completed, include a range of important architectural styles including the Queen
Anne, Colonial Revival and Shingle style homes built in the late 191h century, which were
augmented by homes built in the neo-Federal style after the turn of the century. While the
homes were built in different architectural styles, because they were situated on similar
sized lots and built on the same scale, taken together they complement each other,
creating a neighborhood that is exemplary of the nineteenth century's vision of the
garden suburb. The significance of this neighborhood lies not only in its large number of
architecturally important homes, but in fact that its overall appearance as one walks its
streets is essentially the same as it was 75 years ago.
Justification of Boundaries
On the advice of Christopher Skelly, of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, and of
other experts, the group decided to scale back the size of the proposed district to include
Russell Ave., Garfield St., Bailey Rd., Stoneleigh Circle, Stoneleigh Rd., Brigham St.,
and a portion of Bellevue Rd. The rationale for going forward with this configuration of
the district was the concentration of important structures within the district, and the
coherence of the district in terms of architectural styles and scale.
The proposed district comprises a truly varied treasure-trove of architectural styles and
ornament consistent with the contemporary design and composition from the 1880-
1920s. The proposed district is anchored by the 18 houses designed and developed by
Charles Brigham, including his former residence at 84 Garfield St., his wife's studio next
door and the servants' quarters next to that. The Brigham houses cannot be classified in
any one particular style or genre, rather, they represent a varied and versatile expression
of his skill, comprising Queen Anne, Stick Style, Tudor Revival and the Craftsman
Style. It is in recognition of Charles Brigham's significant role in the Town of
Watertown, his prominence as one of the leading American architects of the time, and the
fact that he both lived in this district and designed so many of its outstanding residences
that it is proposed that the historic district be named after him.
The Brigham houses are complemented by houses in the Queen Anne, Colonial Revival
and Shingle Styles built on lower Russell Avenue and Bailey Rd. between the early
1880's and 1900, and the neo-Federal Style homes built on upper Russell Ave. and
Stoneleigh Circle and Rd. between 1900 and 1930. Many of those homes were designed
and developed by Alberto Haynes of Watertown, who was Watertown's other
outstanding architect of the time, as well as the Boston firms of Putnam& Cox and Titus
and Porter, two important architectural design firms of the late 19th and early 201h
centuries.
To illustrate the varied and significant nature of the proposed district, it contains one of
the few remaining 18th century farmsteads from the era when this entire district was open
farmland. That house is the Bailey farmstead at 10 Bailey Rd. designed in the Federal
style in ca. 1735. Farther up Bailey road is the most recent house constructed in the
proposed district, a Contemporary built in 1971 at 90 Bailey Road. Both houses
represent a very different time in the development of Watertown and each brings
significance.
Of the 114 houses in the proposed district, three were built prior to 1880; 59 from 1880—
1919; 40 from 1920— 1930; and 12 from 1931 to 1971. Taken together the collection of
different style residences in the district are an excellent example of the middle class
garden suburb that developed in the communities around Boston as a result of the trolley
lines built out from Boston in the late 19th century. They complement each other in terms
of both scale and design, which results in the neighborhood looking very much as it did
in the 1920's.
In short, the boundaries of the proposed district are justified by the high concentration
within the district of important structures that are outstanding examples of the
architectural styles of their time (24 of the 114 homes were listed in the 1982 inventory of
historic homes in Watertown), and the coherence of the neighborhood as a whole in terms
of its scale and appearance.
Significantly, in 1982, the Massachusetts Historical Commission recommended that
Meeting House Hill, including specifically Russell Ave., Garfield Street and Bailey Road
be nominated as an Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places. Clearly,
in addition to the work we have done showing that this area is significant, an independent
organization specializing in identifying important historic resources has also identified
this area as being important.
The Survev of Residents' Opinions about the Proposed District
In May the group prepared a fact sheet on historic districts and a survey of resident's
opinions about the creation of a district and the architectural features they would prefer to
be excluded from review if an historic district were to be created. These were mailed out
on Commission letterhead in June, and the results presented to the Commission at its July
27 meeting. Forty-nine of the one hundred and eighteen households in the proposed
district returned surveys, a response rate of nearly 42%. 67% of those responding
favored creating an historic district, 20% opposed it, while 13%were undecided. Exhibit
IV provides a summary of the results of the survey.
Property Street Address Index and Inventory of Structures
David Russo, with the assistance of Susan Steele, Joseph Ferreira and Deborah Rosen
have prepared the Property Street Address Index (Exhibit V) and Inventory of Structures
(Form B's). This has been the most labor and expertise intensive part of this project.
Everyone involved in this project thanks them for their extraordinary efforts, which have
enabled us to bring this completed preliminary report to the Commission in a timely
manner.
On the basis of these findings, the Study Committee recommends that the
Watertown Historic District Commission vote to receive this Preliminary Report
and initiate the process leading to its decision whether or not to recommend to the
Town Council to establish the Brigham Historic District as Watertown's second
Local Historic District.
Watertown
Charles A. Brigham Historic District
Summary Sheet
Study Committee
• Harvey Steiner—Chairman
18 Marshall St.
Watertown, MA 02472
Phone: 617-923-7044
Email: harvevaartrelated.com
• Matthew Petrie
Work Group
• Robert Shay—Chairman
139 Russell Ave.
Watertown, MA 02472
Phone: 617-926-9943
Email: bob(a,rpshay.com
• David Russo
• Susan Steele
• Robert Flack
• Susan Smerlas
• Joseph Ferreira
Expected Date of Public Hearing—January/February 2006
Expected Date of Council vote—February/March, 2006
Total Number of Properties in Proposed District - 114
Exhibit III
Brigham Historic District
Narrative History
A. Native American Watertown to 1630
Watertown's fundamental development is the result of geography and early use
patterns. As its name indicates, water has been of paramount importance. The falls on the
Charles River in Watertown marked the farthest navigable point on the river from its
mouth, and provided a natural fording place across the river. Two natural ponds within
the river, Cook's and Boyd's, provided spawning areas for the rich fishing grounds near
the falls.
The indigenous population developed a network of paths, many of which survive
as Watertown's important streets. A crucial path was the east-west trail connecting the
Cambridge fishing grounds to the ford near the present-day Galen Street bridge, which
archeologists know as the Connecticut Path, and is more commonly known today as
Mount Auburn Street.
Archeologists have found evidence of human occupation of this area from about
7000 B.C., however there is no evidence of continuous settlement by Native Americans
in Watertown. Nonetheless, the Native American patterns of communication and their
techniques for fishing the river were of primary importance to the development, growth
and sustainability of Watertown.
The first Europeans in Watertown settled on the river bank near the present-day
tower of the Perkins School for the Blind. John Oldham, who had claim to a large land
grant, had a but here.
B First Period - 1630-1676
The first permanent settlers arrived in 1630, having been sent by the
Massachusetts Bay Company. Led by Sir. Richard Saltonstall, they settled at Gerry's
landing near the present-day Mount Auburn Hospital on land that was later annexed by
Cambridge in 1754. These first European settlers chose this site for its open fields, which
were adjacent to a good landing site on the river.
By 1634, a mill was built at the falls further up the river in order to harness its
power. By 1640, a footbridge on the site of the present-day Galen Street bridge was
constructed and was enlarged for horses in 1648. By 1650, Watertown had two centers,
one at Gerry's landing and the other at the falls, by the present-day Watertown Square,
which were connected by today's Mount Auburn Street. Other ancient Native American
paths were also enlarged for cart traffic.
During this period the current day Russell Avenue area was surveyed by the town
and parcels were granted to freeman for farming. The area of present-day Garfield Street,
Bailey Road, Brigham Street, Stoneleigh Circle, Stoneleigh Road and westward almost to
School Street was one large parcel of land owned by three freemen, William Jennison,
John Knowles and William Bond, M.D.
The area of present-day Russell Avenue was composed of three plots of land, the
first one covering the lower portion of Russell Avenue, owned by J. Strickland, M.
Underwood, Joseph Whitney and N. Fiske. The upper portion of Russell Avenue were
composed of two horizontal parcels, one owned by A. Mixer and the other by J. Reynolds
and M. Null.
All of this land north of the present day Mt. Auburn Street lay on the southeastern slope
of Meeting House Hill, also known as Strawberry Hill. In 1649 the first school house
was built on the top of the hill on Common Street.
C. Colonial Period- 1676-1776
Watertown's 2nd Parish Meeting House was constructed at the top of the Hill near
the school in 1723. However the residents tired of trudging up the hill, and in 1755 tore
down that meeting house and rebuilt it as the 3rd Meeting House at the corner of Common
and Mount Auburn Streets on land donated to the town by Nathanial Harris, a prosperous
local rum dealer. As a result, the administrative, commercial and religious centers of the
town moved closer together. The location of the meeting house on Mount Auburn Street
reinforced its importance as a main artery, and set the pattern for the large string of
churches found along the street today and an important precursor to residential and
business development of the area.
D. Federal Period- 1776-1830
Although business and industry were springing up along the Charles River and
around Watertown Square, Watertown still retained an important agricultural base,
raising crops such as asparagus, apples, strawberries and celery. A number of farmsteads
were established in present-day Russell Avenue area, including the Bailey farmstead,
which is one of the few remaining 18th century farmsteads in Watertown. It is presently
located at 10 Bailey Road.
Originally owned by Jonathan Bemis in 1795, the house is an excellent example
of the late federal style, in a simple vernacular design with symmetrical fenestration and
pilasters from the original door surround.
E. Industrial Aize - 1830-1874
Business developed in Watertown and the town became a hub for transportation
to the west, using the Boston Post Road(now Main Street)to areas west of Boston,
including Connecticut and New York. Agriculture still flourished in Watertown
generally, and in the present-day Russell Avenue area, specifically, which retained its
original agricultural complexion.
In the late 1860s and early 1870s, new residential structures began to be
developed with several competing styles being introduced to Watertown. The Stick Style
appeared first in a few locations : 26 Russell Avenue and 99 Russell Avenue are two
good examples. In this style, the means of construction are indicated on the exterior of
the building by use of decorative pieces indicating plates, sills and beams.
The balloon frame method of constructing buildings using light wood members,
closely spaced together instead of the heavy timbers required for mortise and tenon
construction began to be used in the 1850s. It enabled architects and builders to increase
their design vocabulary enormously during this period to include, among other things,
towers,bays, oriels, complex cross-gables and dormers which could be easily erected. At
the same time, the use of the jig saw and lathe allowed the more complex massing of the
buildings to be decorated with incised brackets, scrolls, consoled,patterned shingle work,
turned balusters, finials, bosses and a myriad of other decorative devices that added a
visual liveliness to the exteriors.
While the Russell Avenue area was still largely agricultural, the new stick style
and other advances in architecture and building that resulted from mechanization created
a strong foundation for the future development of the Russell Avenue neighborhood.
F. Suburbanization and Further Industrialization- 1874-1900
In 1874, Watertown was built up around its center at Watertown Square as far
Russell Avenue and Walnut Street along Mount Auburn Street. Mount Auburn Street
was sparsely settled east of Common Street to Cambridge. The balance of the area was
composed of large estates like the William Pratt estate on the top of Meeting House Hill.
In the 1880s,profound changes with far-reaching effects on development occurred in
Watertown that shaped the creation of the Russell Avenue area.
1. Factors of Change
The first change came about when a second, more highly concentrated, industrial
area developed around the U.S. Arsenal, Hood Rubber Company, Whitney&Pratt
Company and the Union Market Stockyards. While the U.S. Arsenal was relatively quiet
until Work War I, Hood Rubber Company and Whitney&Pratt grew rapidly requiring an
ever larger number of employees, managers and new housing.
The second change was one of improved transportation to and from Boston.
While the steam railroad to Boston had been operating efficiently since 1846, four
electric trolley lines were created in the early 1890s which ran into the city more rapidly.
Commuting into Boston, which had been taking place on a limited scale, suddenly
became much easier and the market for upper and upper middle class housing expanded
proportionally. One of these lines traveled along Mount Auburn Street, making the
farmland north of Mt. Auburn Street between Common Street and School Street highly
desirable for residential development.
In 1878, the population of Watertown was 6,000 and by 1900 it had jumped to
10,000. This increase in population led to the subdivision of large estates and farms for
residential development. The density of the development was determined by the
economic class of the citizens for whom it was intended; however the styles in which the
buildings were designed were the same, no matter whether they were large single family
homes, multiple family dwellings or cottages. Besides the size of the structure, only the
amount of ornamentation varied.
2. Trends in Architecture: Queen Anne. Colonial Revival and Shin'2le Stvle
Aesthetically, architects were aiming to create structures with complex interior
volumes and a richness of exterior surfaces using a variety of building materials, patterns
and textures. The result was to be a highly picturesque ensemble which was inspired by
the English Queen Anne movement, instigated by Richard Norman Shaw in England in
the 1850s. The Queen Anne style in Watertown began with the Stick Style in the late
1860s and early 1870s. It fully blossomed in the 1880s and 1890s,persisting until the
first decade of the twentieth century, when it was supplanted in popularity by the
Colonial Revival style.
With the Centennial of 1876 came a new pride in America and a new way of
looking at its past. Architects saw the American past in a romantic light and used
elements of Colonial Georgian and Federal styles, adapting them to the more complex
massing and picturesque detail inherited from the Queen Anne period. Massing
regularized and symmetry prevailed as designers returned to the forms of the pre-
Romantic styles.
A third style co-existing with the Queen Anne and Colonial Revival in the 1880s
and early 1890s, was the Shingle Style, which originated in nearby Cambridge,
Massachusetts, with the Stoughton House of 1876 by H.H. Richardson. This style, in its
purest form in the northeast, was restricted to a number of wealthy patrons of
architecture. Elements, however, appear in Watertown in combination with the Queen
Anne and Colonial Revival styles. Shingle Style architects approached a building as if it
were a series of volumes exerting pressure outward on the exterior walls. Roof and walls
no longer simply defined the spaces within, rather they acted to contain the interior
volumes. In practice, this meant that shingles alone were used on the exterior of the
building, covering the rounded forms and expanses of the wall like skin. Roofs became
major design elements, descending in unbroken lines in a similarly encompassing
manner. Decorative devices which made historical references were omitted and replaced,
if at all, with simple forms.
3. The Russell Avenue Area
The first to appreciate the opportunity for large-scale development in Watertown
was the Russell family, celery farmers, who were among the three largest farming
landholders in Watertown. In 1882, they began selling off their property to develop
Russell Avenue as an affluent development in the suburbs. Large lot, single family
houses for architect-designed homes were aimed at attracting upper middle class
commuters from Boston.
The ease of transportation for commuters due to the electric trolley on Mount
Auburn Street to Boston, was a major factor in the success of the area's development.
Many found the garden suburb a great improvement over the congestion of Boston
because they did not have to sacrifice the closeness of neighbors they had enjoyed in the
city to attain the healthful rural atmosphere of Watertown. The cultural offerings of
Boston also remained comfortably close. The area offered large homes in landscaped
settings with limited upkeep. This development was highly successful and remains today
as an exemplary example of the nineteenth century's vision of the garden suburb.
The success of the Russell development led Charles Brigham and his fellow
investors, Harwood&Whitcomb, to buy property from the Bailey farm and establish
Garfield and Brigham Streets. Eighteen of these houses, architect Brigham designed
himself for upper middle class Bostonians and local people. Those who settled there, like
those in the Russell Avenue development, could commute to Boston with greater ease
than previously and wished to live outside of the city in a garden-like setting with large
houses set near their neighbors to retain urban proximity.
Russell Avenue, Garfield Street and Bailey Road formed one of the most
successful garden suburbs in the Boston area. Control on size, architectural design and
landscaping, while not formally explicit, was nevertheless maintained. Reverend Edward
Rand, first Rector of the Church of the Good Shepherd and President of the Historical
Society, described the development in 1892 as a neighborhood whose architecture was
sure to be good; and the adjoining grounds garden-like; improved by the fact that they
were on the line of cars running to Newton, Cambridge and Boston.
The houses that were built are ever-varying Queen Anne, Colonial Revival and
Stick Styles ranging in dates from the 1880s to the early 1900s. Full of confidence about
the area, 59 Garfield Street was built, which is a compact Queen Anne, nevertheless
displaying most of the style's decorative devices from patterned shingle work,pendant
overhang, and windows with multi-paned upper sashes, to the use of cross-gables, hipped
dormers and eaves brackets. The picturesque Queen Anne is also represented by 50
Garfield Street, whose gable roof is intersected by transverse gables, dormers and bays.
Again, the surface is vigorously decorated with shingles, clapboards and strap work,
while turned balusters,porch supports and brackets vary the trim.
The Colonial Revival house at 43 Bailey Road is an excellent example of this
style, for while there are no towers and the house has taken on a symmetry, although it
has not yet become completely regular. In addition, the Palladian window, the bowed
bay, columns, pilasters and moulded friezes are reintroduced into the architect's design
vocabulary. The scale of the house also increased in many instances. There are many
shades between the Queen Anne and the Colonial Revival, and 77 Garfield Street
illustrates the transition between these two styles.
Shingle Style elements appear at 90 and 99 Russell Avenue, but 77 Russell
Avenue comes closer to being a modest but rather pure Shingle Style house.
F. Watertown in the Twentieth Century- 1900-1935
The first three decades of the twentieth century in Watertown brought ethnic
diversity, substantial industrial activity and the demise of the market gardens and estates
which had given nineteenth century Watertown its identity. From a population of 10,000
in 1900, the number of residents increased to 35,000 by 1930. Armenians, Italians,
Greeks added to the expanding Irish population. Employment opportunities spurred by
World War I industrial activity increased rapidly. As in many industrial areas of the
country, the need for housing was great, increasing pressure on land holders to sell for
residential development at an unprecedented scale.
Previously, the development of large sections of land had taken place slowly
enough to allow for planning and for a variety of building types to be constructed. But
now the profits to be made were considerable and a few economical styles were repeated
by developers and builders for entire streets. Single family buildings continued from
1900 to about 1915; from then until 1925, two-family houses were predominant. After
1925,builders returned to a mix of one and two-family types.
1. Stvlistic Trend-Historic Revival Stvle
Taking inspiration from the past, the romantic movement in architecture persisted
into the twentieth century with a series of Historical Revival styles, including the Neo-
Federal style. Large portions of upper Russell Avenue and almost all of Stoneleigh Road
and Stoneleigh Circle are Neo-Federal in design. This style is characterized by a low
pitched or flat roof that was usually concealed behind a balustrade; moldings of a low
relief and delicate ornamentation. When a classical order is present(i.e., doric, ionic, etc.)
the capital is diminutive and the columns are slender. Emphasis is placed on the central
entrance, which is often set apart with a small, one story portico, a crowning fanlight and
narrow sidelights. Other ornamentation is primarily based on curved lines, as well as a
Palladian window set within a recessed wall arch, and circular or elliptical windows.
G. Watertown's Architects - Charles Brigham and Alberto Havnes
Two architects were extremely active in Watertown, Charles Brigham, who was a
successful Boston architect and Alberto F. Haynes whose practice was extensive but
substantially limited to Watertown.
Brigham, the son of a major Watertown lumber dealer, was born in about 1840,
lived in the Coolidge Tavern as a child and was in the first class of Watertown High
School, graduating in 1857. He served in the Civil War, returning to begin the study and
practice of architecture.
Brigham resided at 84 Garfield Street in a home he designed, along with two
outbuildings: his wife's studio at 92 Garfield Street and the servants' quarters at 100
Garfield Street. He was active in civic matters, serving the town as Selectman, School
Committee Member, Water Commissioner, and was Library Trustee for more than thirty-
three years (1889-1922). He was also the first President of the Watertown Cooperative
Bank, and also Director of the Union Market National Bank. Brigham also gave back to
his community by donating the plans for Watertown High School (later the East Junior
High and presently an assisted living facility).
Among his more notable designs are three major public buildings in Fairhaven,
Massachusetts, the Maine State House, an extension on the Massachusetts State House, a
major addition to the Christian Science Mother Church in Boston and Church of the
Advent in Boston.
Charles Brigham's work reflects the eclecticism and historicism prevalent in the
last quarter of the 19th century. In 1887, he designed the Stoughton Railroad Station in a
Richardsonian manner, in 1889-95, he was responsible for the fine north addition to the
Boston State house showing great sensitivity to the original Federal Bulfinch structure,
and in 1899, Brigham introduced the French Chateauesque style to New England,
designing the Burrage House at 314 Commonwealth Avenue in Boston, mixing
Renaissance Italian with Gothic influences. When he was asked to provide a design for
the Coddington School in Quincy, Massachusetts, he had already finished the First
Church of Christ in Boston, one of the most impressive Classic Revival buildings of the
city. He brought to the school the same clarity of design with classic details,but
refrained from endowing the school building with a panoply of ornamentation. Instead,
the elegance of the facade is manifested with few architectural details and an emphasis on
the classic fenestration of the central pavilion.
A member of the First Parish Church in Watertown, he designed its social hall
located at 36 Church St. Constructed in 1888 it serves today as the sanctuary of the First
Parish Church. He designed his own home at 84 Garfield Street as well as his wife's
studio at 92 Garfield Street and his servants' quarters at 100 Garfield Street. In addition
he designed and developed 15 other houses along Garfield and Brigham Streets.
Brigham died in 1925,
Charles Brigham was and is an architect of the highest order and is of national
importance.
Alberto Haynes was an architect fully versed in the fashionable styles of his time.
He worked with the Watertown Land Company designing homes in their residential
developments. On Russell Avenue, he designed#90 in the Queen Anne style and a few
years later the Colonial Revival homes at#43 and#50 Bailey Road. His other buildings
similarly illustrate Haynes' versatility, with Rational Revival homes on Bates Road,
commercial buildings in Watertown Square, a municipal fire station on Main Street and
additions to two churches along Mount Auburn Street: all in different styles.
Haynes was involved in the Historical Society's efforts to preserve the town
cemeteries and maintain public records of them. He also served briefly as the town
Assessor.
Bibliography
Allen, Edward, Best From the Past, the Perkins Institution for the Blind, 1979.
Barfield, Thomas J., and Barber, Russell J., The Amphitheater Site: A Late Archaic
Settlement in
Watertown, Massachusetts, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, 1982.
Bond, M.D., Henry, Genealogies of the Families and Descendants of the Early Settlement
in
Watertown, Massachusetts, 2 volumes,New England Historic Genealogical
Society,
Boston, 1860.
Burke, Charles T., Centennial History of Watertown, Watertown Free Public Library,
Watertown, 1968.
Burke, Charles T., A Topo2_ra_)hical History of Watertown, Watertown Free Public
Library,
Watertown, 1975.
Burke, Charles T., Watertown in the Eighteenth Century, Watertown Free Public Library,
Watertown, 1977.
Burke, Charles T., Watertown in the Revolution, Watertown Free Public Library,
Watertown, 1975.
Burke, Charles T., Watertown, Town on the Charles, Watertown 350t'Anniversary
Celebration
Committee, 1980.
Elliott, Clark A., An Historical Sketch of the Eighth Meetin!House, First Parish
Unitarian,
Watertown, 1975.
Hodges, Maud deLeigh, Crossroads on the Charles, Canaan,New Hampshire, 1980.
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Reconnaissance Survev Report, Watertown, 1980.
Perkins Institution for the Blind, The Lantern, Winter, 1980, Watertown.
Rand, Edward Augustus (Rev.), Watertown Historical Society Scranbook, volumes 1-5.
Ripley, Margaret E., Early Churches of Watertown, 1975.
Robinson, George F., and Robinson Wheeler, Ruth, Great Little Watertown, Watertown,
1930.
Wallace, Joseph D., A History of Watertown, Massachusetts to 1900, 1950.
Watertown, Massachusetts, Free Public Library, Bicentennial Tour of Historic
Watertown.
Watertown Bicentennial Celebration Committee, 1975.
Watertown, Massachusetts, Free Public Library, Watertown: 5 Walking Tours,
Watertown Free
Public Library, 1976.
Watertown Redevelopment Authority, Massiello &Associates, Architects, Inc.,
Watertown
Arsenal Proiect, Watertown, 1975.
Whitney, Solon F., Historical Sketches of Watertown. Massachusetts, Watertown, 1893.
Whitney, William H., A Watertown Farm in Eight Generations, Cambridge, 1898.
Proposed Historic District • July 2005 Survey Exhibit IV
Yes No Not Sure Blank
1. Do you think the proposed district is historically significant? 36 7 1
5
2. Do you think the proposed district should be preserved? 34 8 1 6
3. Do you think the following should be exempt from review?
Exterior Light Fixtures 25 20 4
Walls and Fences 18 28 3
Satellite Dishes 19 26 4
Storm Windows, and Storm Doors 35 8 6
Terraces, Walks and Driveways 28 14 7
Solar Panels, 34 9 6
Air Conditioners 31 13 5
Roofing Color 30 13 6
Signs: size and illumination 9 35 5
Exterior Paint Color 30 14 5
4. Overall, do you support creating a
local historic district in our neighborhood? 33 10 6
Exhibit V
List of Houses by Address in the Proposed Historic District
Bailev Road
10
19
26
27
34
42
43
50
51
59
69
75
80
86
89
90
99
112
Bellevue Road
232
238
Brigham Street
2
3
39
42
45
46
Garfield Street
18
19
24
25
31
32
37
40
43
50
51
59
60
68
69
74
77
84
85
92
93
100
105
110
116
117
121
122
Russell Avenue,
16
25
26
31
32
37
38
43
46
49
54
57
60
64
65
71
74
77
80
85
90
93
96
99
100
105
106
112
115
119
122
125
128
131
136
139
142
145
148
152
153
158
159
Stoneleiizh Circle
10
14
22
27
30
35
40
50
Stonelei2h Road
11
14-16
15
19
20
27
34
37
41