No. 4602 44 Virginia Street, photograph August, 2004.
George Milliken House Study Report
For the full report with all illustrations, consult the Boston Landmarks Commission.
2.0 DESCRIPTION
2.1 Type and Use
The George Milliken House was built in 1881 as a single family home. From 1881 to 2004 it passed through three owners, and remained a residence until the winter of 2003-2004 when it was vacated. Alterations to the interior of the house by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston in 1993 suggest reconfiguration of the house to allow for two family occupancy, though no application for a change in occupancy was recorded.
2.2 Physical Description
The George Milliken House stands as an outstanding example of a late nineteenth century suburban dwelling that exhibits characteristics of the Queen Ann and Stick Style aesthetics. Taking its cue from elements of nature and deliberately defying the constraints of the urban lot and row house form, the large, asymmetrical, wood frame dwelling sprawls on its 7,979.2 square foot parcel and exhibits playful details and ornament. Exterior alterations are limited to a sympathetic addition of a sun porch in 1926, reorganization of first floor window arrangements on the western (Virginia Street) and southern elevations probably in the same era, the removal of a widow’s walk, and very recently, the removal and replacement of the original two over two, wood sash windows. Despite these alterations, the great majority of the character-defining features of the house are remarkably intact.
The George Milliken house rises two and a half stories above its stone foundation. It measures twenty-eight feet across the front, twenty-five feet across the rear, and fifty-five feet deep. Typical of the Queen Ann aesthetic, an irregular footprint defines the massing of the building which features multiple roof lines and projecting bays. A prominent gable and partial first and second story porches organize the three bay Virginia Street (west) façade, a polygonal bay projects from the northern elevation of the house, and a rectangular bay projects from the southern elevation. Also projecting from the southern elevation is a two bay by two bay, one story, flat roofed sun porch added in 1926. A two story, two bay by one bay pavilion defines the rear (east) elevation. A hip roof covers the central massing of the building with a cross hip roof covering the rear pavilion. Internal chimneys rise from the southern slopes of the rooflines of the rear projection and from the central massing. A gabled dormer pierces the northern slope of the central roofline, and two small dormers form right angles on the northern slope of the rear pavilion and the eastern slope of the central roofline.
The irregular footprint reflects a rambling interior plan that includes entry into a spacious stair hall leading to a dining room, and double parlors to the south. A
pantry, kitchen and rear stair hall, and sun porch complete the first floor plan, with corresponding bedrooms above.
The fenestration pattern has been slightly altered from its original organization. Two windows presently light the center and southern corner of the second floor on the front façade with a small attic window directly above the center window. Where two corresponding windows originally lit the front parlor on the first floor, a single centered window lights the room at present. This alteration also occurred on the first bay of the southern façade of the house; on the second floor, windows light the corners of the front bedroom and the original corresponding pair of windows on the first floor were replaced by a single centered window.
The rooflines and porch details of the house lend an air of informality and of the naturally-inspired to the house. The eaves extend beyond wall planes in the manner of rustic shelters, and the exposed rafter ends, the curved braces supporting the porch roofs, and the stick-like framing of the porch are reminiscent of tree branches. These elements imply simple construction and contribute to an overall whimsical appearance that contrasted greatly with urban dwellings of the same era.
The surface treatment of the George Milliken House is as varied and playful as the complex rooflines, projections, and porch details. Constructed entirely of wood, the wall planes of the house exhibit various patterns and textures. Characteristic of Stick Style architecture, applied horizontal and vertical boards masquerading as framing members organize the elevations. These boards define corners, floor heights, and frame the fenestration. Patterns and textures of the cladding material generally alternate between clapboard siding and fish scale shingles between these faux framing members. Equally playful, the bargeboard displays alternating wooden spheres and rectangular, wood panels. Elements of this motif appear also on a decorative panel between the second and attic stories on the Virginia Street elevation featuring a pattern of spheres and framing members.
The house sits north of center on its lot, roughly ten feet from Virginia Street. Two curb cuts provide paved driveway access to the lot, one to the north and one to the south. The northern driveway is 10’ 4” wide. The southern driveway, 16’ 6” wide, connects Virginia Street with the Holy Family parish property abutting this property on the east. Minimal vegetation appears on the property. Untended shrubs grow around the entry, and mature trees and a hedge define the southern and northern property boundaries, respectively.
3.0 SIGNIFICANCE
One of many single family, wood frame residences on its block, the George Milliken House is distinguished from its neighbors for its associations with outstanding historic personages, and as a highly intact, rare example of the work of a prominent Massachusetts architect. Commissioned by George F. Milliken, widely recognized for inventions that advanced the technology of the telegraph, among other things, and designed by John H. Besarick, whose buildings contributed significantly to Boston’s development in the late nineteenth century, and extended beyond the city limits and into northern New England, 44 Virginia Street achieves significance at the national, state, and local levels.
3.1 Historic Significance
Suburban migration and the development of Virginia Street
Due in large part to the increasingly diverse populations crowding downtown neighborhoods, the perceived superiority of rural over urban environments, and the extension and improvement of public transportation, streams of middle and upper class Bostonians poured into the recently annexed and sparsely developed neighborhoods of Roxbury, West Roxbury, and Dorchester during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Highly desirable suburban enclaves sprang up across the newly accessible land. The area of Dorchester in which Virginia Street developed exemplifies this transition.
Proximity to the Dudley and Bird Street commuter stops on the New York and New England Rail Road, and to the rising commercial area at Upham’s Corner made Virginia Street and its immediate vicinity ideal for suburban development. Surveyors Barbour and Hodges subdivided the Clarence Sumner estate in preparation for this development in 1877. Between 1880 and 1900, large single family homes occupied by merchants, physicians, attorneys, clergy, and other professionals, their families and their servants, sprang up on what would become Virginia and Monadnock Streets.[i] Protective of their burgeoning upper middle class neighborhood, property owners entered into an agreement in 1892 dictating that for a period of ten years no buildings other than private, single family dwellings with private stables could be erected. The agreement also stipulated that no building or projection should encroach beyond ten feet from the street.[ii] The only permitted exceptions to the single family homes were the “first class brick apartment houses” to be erected on Monadnock Street. Entered into “in order to make the use of said lots more agreeable, pleasant, and certain…,” this arrangement guaranteed a uniformity of scale and design on the street and more significantly, ensured neighbors of equal economic status.[iii]
By 1912, all but a narrow, steeply sloping section of Monadnock Street had been developed. Despite the earliest residents’ efforts with their agreement to allow only single family dwellings, this section was subdivided and developed with double and single triple deckers between 1912 and 1913. Expansion into this area of streetcar lines with more reasonable fares than the New York and New England line, and expiration of the 1892 agreement made Virginia and Monadnock streets accessible to the more moderate income families previously excluded from the neighborhood.
44 Virginia Street
Among the well heeled residents of the late nineteenth century neighborhood, George F. Milliken of 44 Virginia Street, stands out. Milliken, who acquired the land on which the present house stands in 1880 and erected his home a year later, was renowned for his inventions. Among his most significant were the Milliken Repeater and the Duplex System, both of which aided greatly in the development of the telegraph system. The repeater made telegraphing possible between great distances, where previously communication was limited or slowed according to the length of a telegraphic circuit. While Milliken’s was not the first repeater in the telegraph industry, it improved upon its predecessors and was utilized by the Western Union Telegraph Company, with whom Milliken was associated, for many years. Equally significant, Milliken’s Duplex System also advanced the industry by providing a distribution of current which enabled two messages to be sent over a single wire simultaneously, where messages were previously limited to a single transmittal at a time. In addition to these innovations, Milliken was also credited with being one of the inventors of the Gamewell Fire Alarm, a system which relied on telegraph technology.[iv]
Milliken’s associations with the telegraph industry began in 1852 when he arrived in Boston from Portland, Maine, and began working as a telegrapher for the American Telegraph Company, a company acquired by Western Union in 1866. By 1867, Milliken had risen to the position of General Manager of the Boston Office of Western Union. During his tenure as General Manager, Milliken hired and oversaw a young Thomas Edison as a telegraph operator. Western Union employed Edison from 1868-1869, during which time he filed his first patent—for an automatic vote recorder for legislatures. After many years of service, Milliken left Western Union and by 1885 had become the superintendent of Electrical Development and Manufacturing (ED&M), a laboratory and factory on Congress Street. Three years later, Milliken was Superintendent at the Gamewell Aux. [sic.]
Fire Alarm Company on Pearl Street. He continued this association until his death in 1921.
Milliken built the house at 44 Virginia Street at the height of his professional career. He and his wife, Margaret, occupied the house for nearly forty years. A year after Milliken’s death at age 87, Esther M. Cannon, a teacher in South Boston, purchased 44 Virginia Street for $6,800, and resided in the house until her death in 1954. In 1957 the house passed to the current owner, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, through Mary E. Cotter, a joint tenant of 44 Virginia Street with Esther Cannon as of 1942. Because of its limited ownership, 44 Virginia Street appears today much as it did when Milliken and his wife occupied the house.
3.2 Architectural Significance
The prolific Massachusetts architect, John H. Besarick, designed the house at 44 Virginia Street. Besarick’s designs contributed to Boston’s residential and commercial character in the late nineteenth century as examples of his work in the Back Bay, Brighton, Dorchester, East Boston, Mission Hill, and Roxbury neighborhoods of Boston attest. Plentiful as his designs were in Boston, Besarick’s commissions extended beyond the city limits to Brookline, Hopkinton and Newton, Massachusetts, as well as to New Hampshire. Besarick’s designs included church complexes, single and multi-family residences, schools, hotels, warehouses, and commercial blocks. Responding to the demands of his clients and the tastes of the period, Besarick worked with a variety of building materials and manipulated multiple stylistic aesthetics, resulting in a broadly defined architectural career.
Besarick received his architectural training in Boston and New York from regionally and nationally prominent architects. Eight years in the office Samuel J.F.Thayer, a boston-based designer of buildings throughout New England, and time in the offices of Richard Hunt and McKim, Mead and White in New York, exposed Besarick to a variety of building projects and approaches to design. Armed with training from some of the most influential architects of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Besarick opened his own practice after 1869 at 32 Pemberton Square in Boston, and later on Bedford Street, where he continued to work until 1920. Among Besarick’s local projects were the Hotel Eliot (demolished) in Roxbury Highlands, the Congregational Church and Chapel on Moreland Street, Roxbury, numerous row houses in the Back Bay and Mission Hill, as well as detached houses in Roxbury and Dorchester. Some of his larger projects include St. John’s Roman Catholic Seminary Complex in Brighton, and Pilgrim Hall, a commercial block in South Boston. Outside of Boston, Besarick designed numerous homes in Brookline and Newton, St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church in Hopkinton, and Windermere, a large summer estate on Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Besarick’s contributions to the Virginia/Mondadnock Street neighborhood of Dorchester extend beyond the house at 44 Virginia Street. Besarick’s wife, Elizabeth, owned 32 Virginia Street and 50-56 Monadnock Street, likely the designs of her husband. Not just a developer, Besarick was a long-time resident of this neighborhood, residing at 32 Virginia Street in 1881, 50 Monadnock Street in 1899, and 36 Bird Street by 1915.
Of the existing examples of Besarick’s detached, frame dwellings in Boston, the George Milliken House remains the most intact single family home. Because of its early construction date ca. 1881 relative to his other residential designs within the city, the George Milliken House possesses architectural features absent in his later designs, namely the playful embellishments attributed to the Stick Style. Other examples of his work which may have possessed similar features have been obscured by unsympathetic alterations.
3.3 Relationship to Criteria for Landmark Designation
As defined in section two of Chapter 772 of the Acts of 1975 as amended, a Landmark is any physical feature or improvement designated by the commission in accordance with section four as a physical feature or improvement which in whole or part has historical, social, cultural, architectural or aesthetic significance to the city and the commonwealth, the New England region, or the nation.
The George Milliken House meets the criteria for Landmark designation found in section four of Chapter 772 of the Acts of 1975 as amended, under the following criteria:
C. as a structure associated significantly with the life of an outstanding historic personage. Commissioned by George F. Milliken, a prominent local inventor whose innovations contributed to the advancement of telegraph technology nationwide, the house at 44 Virginia Street, Dorchester, achieves significance above the local level.
D. as a structure representative of elements of architectural design and craftsmanship which embody distinctive characteristics of a type inherently valuable for study of a period, style or method of construction or development, or a notable work of an architect, landscape architect, designer, or builder whose work influenced the development of the city, the commonwealth, the New England region, or the nation. The scale, materials, and details of the house at 44 Virginia Street exemplify the late nineteenth century suburban ideal of upper middle class Bostonians. Moreover, the house remains one of the most intact, distinguished examples of the detached, single family dwellings of prolific Massachusetts architect, John H. Besarick, in Boston.
4.0 ECONOMIC STATUS
4.1 Current Assessed Value
According to the City of Boston Assessor’s records, the property located at 44 Virginia Street, Dorchester, has a total assessed value of $197,600.00 with the land valued at $52,100.00 and the building valued at $145,500.00.
4.2 Current Ownership
The property located at 44 Virginia Street, Dorchester, is owned by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston located at 44 Virginia Street, Dorchester, MA 02125, and 2121 Commonwealth Avenue, Brighton, MA 02135.
5.0 PLANNING CONTEXT
5.1 Background
The George Milliken House was built in 1881 as a single family home. It has passed through three owners since its construction and continued to serve as a residence until the winter of 2003-2004 when it was vacated. The present owner of the property, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, acquired the house in 1957 and in 1993 altered the interior to accommodate two-family occupancy, though no application for a change of occupancy is on record at the Inspectional Services Department (ISD). Under the ownership of the Archbishop, the house served as the rectory for St. Kevin’s Parish (now Holy Family Parish), which abuts the rear of the property. The southern driveway has provided access to Holy Family parish for at least forty years.
5.2 Current Planning Issues
The current owner of the property submitted an Article 85 Application on July 9, 2004, seeking to demolish the George Milliken house, citing its deteriorated condition, to create additional access to its abutting property of Holy Family Parish. Prior to the review of the application by the Boston Landmarks Commission (BLC), the original windows of the house were removed and discarded. Representatives of the owners asserted that the removal was necessary for asbestos abatement. At the request of the staff of the BLC, ISD issued a Stop Work Order until the Article 85 application had been reviewed by the BLC.
At a public hearing on August 10, 2004, the BLC reviewed the request under Article 85, Demolition Delay, to demolish the George Milliken House and voted that, in the public interest, the house was preferably preserved or rehabilitated rather than demolished and voted to invoke the 90-day demolition delay period. The Commission also required the applicant to secure the building against access and vandalism.
Prior to the expiration of the demolition delay on November 8, 2004, residents of the neighborhood, staff of the BLC, staff of the City of Boston’s Department of Neighborhood Development (DND), staff of the City of Boston’s Transportation Department (BTD), City Councilor Chuck Turner, and representatives of the property owners discussed potential alternatives to demolition of the house that would still allow access to the adjacent parcel occupied by Holy Family Parish. Several alternatives are being discussed at the present time. One would be to provide some vehicular or pedestrian access to the Holy Family Parish property through a vacant lot on Davern Avenue owned by DND. Removing the sun porch of the George Milliken house and granting an easement allowing wider paved access through the property is undergoing further study. Moving the house to a
city owned lot diagonally across the street at 47 Virginia Street is also undergoing further examination.
In anticipation of the expiration of the 90-day demolition delay, and without resolution between the residents and the property owners, the residents of the neighborhood submitted a petition for Landmark designation of the George Milliken house on October 14, 2004. The BLC voted to accept the petition for further study at the public hearing on October 26, 2004, and requested written agreement from the property owners by November 5, 2004, to inform staff of the Commission of intent to alter the exterior of, or file any permits with ISD for the property at least 21 days prior to pursuing said alterations. In the absence of such a letter, the Commission voted to authorize staff to file a 90-day emergency Landmark designation with the Suffolk County Registry of Deeds.
As a letter submitted by representatives of the property owner did not address the requested stipulations, staff of the BLC filed an emergency Landmark designation on November 12, 2004, to expire February 10, 2005.
5.3 Current Zoning
Parcel 01312000, Ward 13, located at 44 Virginia Street, Dorchester, is zoned in a two family residential subdistrict (2F 6000).
6.0 ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
6.1 Alternatives available to the Boston Landmarks Commission:
A. Individual Landmark Designation
The George Milliken House was surveyed in 1978 as part of the Virginia/Monadnock sub area within the Dorchester Preservation Study. The house was included in the Virginia Street survey form and Virginia Street was recommended for further study for consideration as an Architectural Conservation District with Protection Area status for Monadnock Street. This area was surveyed again in 1995. This study report confirms that this area of Dorchester is historically significant and that the George Milliken House, in particular, is of sufficient importance to merit individual Landmark designation. Designation shall correspond to Assessor’s parcel 01312000, ward 13, and shall address the following exterior elements, hereinafter referred to as the “Specified Exterior Features:”
• All exterior elevations of the house and the roof elements.
• The landscape elements and the grounds contained within parcel 01312000.
B. Denial of Individual Landmark Designation
The Commission retains the option of not designating any or all of the
Specified Exterior Features as a Landmark.
C. Preservation Restriction
The Commission could recommend the owner consider a preservation
restriction for any or all of the Specified Exterior Features.
D. Preservation Plan
The Commission could recommend development and implementation of a
preservation plan for the property.
E. National Register Listing
The Commission could recommend the owner pursue National Register listing, which would afford the house limited protection from federal, federally-licensed or federally-assisted activities.
6.2 Impact of Alternatives:
A. Individual Landmark Designation
Landmark Designation represents the city’s highest honor and is therefore restricted to cultural resources of outstanding architectural and/or historical significance. Landmark designation under Chapter 772 would require review of physical changes to the Specified Exterior Features of the property, in accordance with the standards and criteria adopted as part of the designation. Landmark designation results in listing on the State Register of Historic Places.
B. Denial of Individual Landmark Designation
Without Landmark designation, the City would be unable to offer protection to the Specified Exterior Features, or extend guidance to the owners under chapter 772.
C. Preservation Restriction
Chapter 666 of the M.G.L. Acts of 1969 allows individuals to protect the architectural integrity of their property via a preservation restriction. A restriction may be donated to or purchased by any governmental body or non-profit organization capable of acquiring interests in land and strongly associated with historic preservation. These agreements are recorded instruments (normally deeds) that run with the land for a specific term or in perpetuity, thereby binding not only the owner who conveyed the restriction, but also subsequent owners. Restrictions typically govern alterations to exterior features and maintenance of the appearance and condition of the property.
D. Preservation Plan
A preservation plan allows an owner to work with interested parties to investigate various adaptive use scenarios, analyze investment costs and rates of return, and provide recommendations for subsequent development. However, it does not carry regulatory oversight.
E. National Register
National Register listing provides an honorary designation and limited protection from federal, federally-licensed or federally-assisted activities. It creates incentives for preservation, notably the federal investment tax credits and grants through the Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund from the Massachusetts Historical Commission. National Register listing provides listing on the State Register affording parallel protection for projects with state involvement and also the availability of state tax credits. Tax credits are not available to owners who demolish portions of historic properties.
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
For its associations with George F. Milliken, a prominent local inventor whose innovations contributed to the advancement of telegraph technology nationwide, and as one of the most intact examples in Boston of frame residential architecture of prolific Massachusetts architect, John H. Besarick, the George Milliken House is significant at the national, state and local levels. Therefore, the staff of the Boston Landmarks Commission recommends that the George Milliken House as described in Section 6.1A, be designated a Landmark under Chapter 772 of the Acts of 1975, as amended. The boundaries shall correspond to ward 13, parcel 01312000.
8.0 GENERAL STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
8.1 Introduction
Per sections, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the enabling statute (Chapter 772 of the Acts of 1975 of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as amended) Standards and Criteria must be adopted for each Landmark Designation which shall be applied by the Commission in evaluating proposed changes to the property. The Standards and Criteria established thus note those features which must be conserved and/or enhanced to maintain the viability of the Landmark Designation. Before a Certificate of Design Approval or Certificate of Exemption can be issued for such changes, the changes must be reviewed by the Commission with regard to their conformance to the purpose of the statute.
The intent of these guidelines is to help local officials, designers and individual property owners to identify the characteristics that have led to designation, and thus to identify the limitation to the changes that can be made to them. It should be emphasized that conformance to the Standards and Criteria alone does not necessarily insure approval, nor are they absolute, but any request for variance from them must demonstrate the reason for, and advantages gained by, such variance. The Commission’s Certificate of Design Approval is only granted after careful review of each application and public hearing, in accordance with the statute.
As intended by the statute a wide variety of buildings and features are included within the area open to Landmark Designation, and an equally wide range exists in the latitude allowed for change. Some properties of truly exceptional architectural and/or historical value will permit only the most minor modifications, while for some others the Commission encourages changes and additions with a contemporary approach, consistent with the properties’ existing features and changed uses.
In general, the intent of the Standards and Criteria is to preserve existing qualities that cause designation of a property; however, in some cases they have been structured as to encourage the removal of additions that have lessened the integrity of the property.
It is recognized that changes will be required in designated properties for a wide variety of reasons, not all of which are under the complete control of the Commission or the owners. Primary examples are: Building code conformance and safety requirements; Changes necessitated by the introduction of modern mechanical and electrical systems; Changes due to proposed new uses of a property.
The response to these requirements may, in some cases, present conflicts with the Standards and Criteria for a particular property. The Commission’s evaluation of an application will be based upon the degree to which such changes are in harmony with the character of the property. In some cases, priorities have been assigned within the Standards and Criteria as an aid to property owners in identifying the most critical design features. The treatments outlined below are listed in hierarchical order from least amount of intervention to the greatest amount of intervention. The owner, manager or developer should follow them in order to ensure a successful project that is sensitive to the historic landmark.
¨ Identify, Retain, and Preserve the form and detailing of the materials and features that define the historic character of the structure or site. These are basic treatments that should prevent actions that may cause the diminution or loss of the structure’s or site’s historic character. It is important to remember that loss of character can be caused by the cumulative effect of insensitive actions whether large or small.
¨ Protect and Maintain the materials and features that have been identified as important and must be retained during the rehabilitation work. Protection usually involves the least amount of intervention and is done before other work.
¨ Repair the character defining features and materials when it is necessary. Repairing begins with the least amount of intervention as possible. Patching, piecing-in, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing according to recognized preservation methods are the techniques that should be followed. Repairing may also include limited replacement in kind of extremely deteriorated or missing parts of features. Replacements should be based on surviving prototypes.
¨ Replacement of entire character defining features or materials follows repair when the deterioration prevents repair. The essential form and detailing should still be evident so that the physical evidence can be used to re-establish the feature. The preferred option is replacement of the entire feature in kind using the same material. Because this approach may not always be technically or economically feasible the commission will consider the use of compatible substitute material. The commission does not recommend removal and replacement with new material a feature that could be repaired.
¨ Missing Historic Features should be replaced with new features that are based on adequate historical, pictorial and physical documentation. The commission may consider a replacement feature that is compatible with the remaining character defining features. The new design should match the scale, size, and material of the historic feature.
¨ Alterations or Additions that may be needed to assure the continued use of the historic structure or site should not radically change, obscure or destroy character defining spaces, materials, features or finishes. The commission encourages new uses that are compatible with the historic structure or site and that do not require major alterations or additions.
In these guidelines the verb Should indicates a recommended course of action; the verb Shall indicates those actions which are specifically required to preserve and protect significant architectural elements.
Finally, the Standards and Criteria have been divided into two levels:
¨ Section 8.3 – Those general ones that are common to all landmark designations (building exteriors, building interiors, landscape features and archeological sites).
¨ Section 9.0 – Those specific ones that apply to each particular property that is designated. In every case the Specific Standards and Criteria for a particular property shall take precedence over the General ones if there is a conflict.
8.2 Levels of Review
The Commission has no desire to interfere with the normal maintenance
procedures for the landmark. In order to provide some guidance for the landmark owner, manager or developer and the Commission, the activities which might be construed as causing an alteration to the physical character of the exterior have been categorized into:
A. Routine activities which are not subject to review by the Commission:
1. Activities associated with routine maintenance, including such items as: Housekeeping, pruning, fertilizing, mulching, etc.
2. Routine activities associated with seasonal installations which do not result in any permanent alterations or attached fixtures.
B. Activities which may be determined by the Executive Director to be eligible for a Certificate of Exemption:
1. Ordinary maintenance and repair involving no change in design, material, color and outward appearance, including such items as: Major cleaning programs (including chemical surface cleaning), repainting, planting or removal of limited number of trees or shrubs, major vegetation management.
2. In-kind replacement or repair.
C. Activities requiring Landmarks Commission review:
Any reconstruction, restoration, replacement, alteration or demolition (This includes but is not limited to surface treatments, fixtures and ornaments) such as: New construction of any type; removal of existing features or element; any alteration involving change in design, material color, location or outward appearance; major planting or removal of trees or shrubs, changes in
landforms.
D. Activities not explicitly listed above:
In the case of any activity not explicitly covered in these Standards and Criteria, the Executive Director shall determine whether an application is required and if so, whether it shall be an application for a Certificate of Design Approval or Certificate of Exemption.
E. Concurrent Jurisdiction
In some cases, issues which fall under the jurisdiction of the Landmarks Commission may also fall under the jurisdiction of other city, state and federal
boards and commissions such as the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the Massachusetts Historical Commission and others. All efforts will be made to expedite the review process. Whenever possible and appropriate, joint meetings will be arranged.
8.3 General Standards and Criteria
1. The design approach to the property should begin with the premise that the features of historical and architectural significance described within the Study Report must be preserved. In general, this will minimize alterations that will be allowed.
2. Changes and additions to the property and its environment which have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history of the property and the neighborhood. These changes to the property may have developed significance in their own right, and this significance should be recognized and respected. (The term “later contributing features” shall be used to convey this concept.)
3. Deteriorated materials and/or features, whenever possible, should be repaired rather than replaced or removed.
4. When replacement of features that define the historic character of the property is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence of original or later contributing features.
5. New materials should, whenever possible, match the material being replaced in physical properties and should be compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property and its environment.
6. New additions or alterations should not disrupt the essential form and integrity of the property and should be compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property and its environment.
7. New additions or related new construction should be differentiated from the existing thus, they should not necessarily be imitative of an earlier style or period.
8. New additions or alterations should be done in such a way that if they were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property would be unimpaired.
9. Priority shall be given to those portions of the property which are visible from public ways or which it can be reasonability inferred may be in the future.
10. Surface cleaning shall use the mildest method possible. Sandblasting, wire brushing, or other similar abrasive cleaning methods shall not be permitted.
11. Should any major restoration or construction activity be considered for the property, the Boston Landmarks Commission recommends that the proponents prepare an historic building conservation study and/or consult a materials conservator early in the planning process.
12. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved.
The General Standards and Criteria has been financed in part with funds from the National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, through the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Secretary of State Michael Joseph
Connolly, Chairman.
The U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, gender, or handicap in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office for Equal Opportunity, 1849 C Street NW, Room 1324, U.S.Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.
9.0 EXTERIORS – SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND CRITERIA George Milliken House, 44 Virginia Street, Dorchester, Massachusetts
9.1 Introduction
1. In these guidelines the verb Should indicates a recommended course of action; the verb Shall indicates those actions which are specifically required to preserve and protect significant architectural elements.
2. The intent of these standards and criteria is to preserve the overall character and appearance of 44 Virginia Street including its exterior form, its mass, and its richness of detail.
3. The standards and criteria acknowledge that there will be changes to the exterior of the building and are intended to make the changes sensitive to the architectural character of the building.
4. Each property will be separately studied to determine if a later addition(s) and/or alteration(s) can, or should, be removed.
5. Since it is not possible to provide one general guideline, the following factors will be considered in determining whether a later addition(s) and/or alteration(s) can, or should, be removed include:
a. Compatibility with the original property’s integrity in scale, materials and character.
b. Historic association with the property.
c. Quality in the design and execution of the addition/alteration.
d. Functional usefulness.
6. The exterior elevations and roof elements, landscape elements, and grounds of 44 Virginia Street are subject to the terms of the exterior guidelines herein stated.
7. Items under Commission review include but are not limited to the following: exterior walls, windows, entrances/doors, roofs, roof projections, additions, accessibility, demolition, new construction, additions, paving, major plantings, fences, and archaeology. Items not anticipated in the Standards and Criteria may be subject to review.
9.2 Exterior Walls
A. General
1. No new openings shall be allowed.
2. No original existing openings shall be filled or changed in size.
3. No exposed conduit shall be allowed on any elevation.
4. Original or later contributing projections such as oriels and bays shall not be removed.
5. The Boston Landmarks Commission recommends that work proposed to the materials outlined in sections B and C be executed with the guidance of a professional building materials conservator.
B. Masonry (Brick, Stone, Terra Cotta, Concrete, Stucco and Mortar)
1. All shall be preserved.
2. Original or later contributing masonry materials, features, details, surfaces and ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, piecing-in, or consolidating the masonry using recognized preservation methods. This shall include chimneys and the foundation.
3. Deteriorated or missing masonry materials, features, details, surfaces and ornamentation shall be replaced with material and elements which match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of installation.
4. When replacement of materials or elements is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
5. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then
compatible substitute materials may be considered.
6. Original mortar shall be retained.
7. Deteriorated mortar shall be carefully removed by hand-raking the joints.
8. Use of mechanical saws and hammers shall not be allowed.
9. Repointing mortar shall duplicate the original mortar in strength, composition, color, texture, joint size, joint profile and method of application.
10. Sample panels of raking the joints and repointing shall be reviewed and approved by the staff of the Boston Landmarks Commission.
11. Cleaning of masonry is discouraged and should be performed only when necessary to halt deterioration.
12. If the building is to be cleaned, the mildest method possible shall be used.
13. A test patch of the cleaning method(s) shall be reviewed and approved on site by staff of the Boston Landmarks Commission. Test patches should always be carried out well in advance of cleaning (including exposure to all seasons if possible).
14. Sandblasting (wet or dry), wire brushing, or other similar abrasive cleaning methods shall not be permitted. Doing so changes the visual quality of the material and accelerates deterioration.
15. Waterproofing or water repellents are strongly discouraged. These treatments are generally not effective in preserving masonry and can cause permanent damage. The Commission does recognize that in extraordinary circumstances their use may be required to solve a specific problem. Samples of any proposed treatment shall be reviewed by the Commission before application.
16. In general, painting masonry surfaces shall not be allowed. Painting masonry surfaces will be considered only when there is documentary evidence that this treatment was used at some point in the history of the property.
C. Wood
1. All shall be preserved.
2. Original or later contributing wood surfaces, features, details and ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, piecing-in, consolidating or reinforcing the wood using recognized preservation methods.
3. Deteriorated or missing wood surfaces, features, details and ornamentation shall be replaced with material and elements which match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of installation.
4. When replacement of materials or elements is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
5. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then
compatible substitute materials may be considered.
6. Cleaning of wooden elements shall use the mildest method possible.
7. Paint removal should be considered only where there is paint surface deterioration and as part of an overall maintenance program which involves repainting or applying other appropriate protective coatings. Coatings such as paint help protect the wood from moisture and ultraviolet light and stripping the wood bare will expose the surface to the effects of weathering.
8. Damaged or deteriorated paint should be removed to the next sound layer using the mildest method possible.
9. Propane or butane torches, sandblasting, water blasting or other abrasive cleaning and/or paint removal methods shall not be permitted. Doing so changes the visual quality of the wood and accelerates deterioration.
10. Repainting should be based on paint seriation studies. If an adequate record does not exist repainting shall be done with colors that are appropriate to the style and period of the building.
9.3 Windows
Refer to Sections 9.2 B and C regarding treatment of materials and features.
1. The original or later contributing window design and arrangement of window openings shall be retained.
2. Enlarging or reducing window openings for the purpose of fitting stock (larger or smaller) window sash or air conditioners shall not be allowed.
3. Removal of window sash and the installation of permanent fixed panels to accommodate air conditioners shall not be allowed.
4. Original or later contributing window elements, features (functional and decorative), details and ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing using recognized preservation methods.
5. Deteriorated or missing window elements, features (functional and decorative), details and ornamentation shall be replaced with material and elements which match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile, configuration and detail of installation.
6. When replacement is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
7. Aluminum, vinyl, metal clad or vinyl clad replacement sash shall not be allowed.
8. Simulated muntins, including snap-in, surface-applied, or between-glass grids shall not be allowed.
9. Tinted or reflective-coated glass (i.e.: low “e”) shall not be allowed.
10. Metal or vinyl panning of the wood frame and molding shall not be allowed.
11. Only clear single-paned glass shall be allowed in multi-light windows since insulating glass in multi-light windows will exaggerate the width of the muntins.
12. Exterior combination storm windows may be allowed provided the installation has a minimal visual impact. However, use of interior storm windows is encouraged.
13. Exterior combination storm windows shall have a narrow perimeter framing that does not obscure the glazing of the primary window. In addition, the meeting rail of the combination storm window shall align with that of the primary window.
14. Storm window sashes and frames shall have a painted finish that matches the primary window sash and frame color.
15. Clear or mill finished aluminum frames shall not be allowed.
16. Window frames, sashes and blinds(shutters) should be of a color based on paint seriation studies. If an adequate record does not exist repainting shall be done with colors that are appropriate to the style and period of the building.
9.4 Entrances/Doors
Refer to Sections 9.2 B and C regarding treatment of materials and features; and Sections 9.5 and 9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. All entrance elements shall be preserved.
2. The original entrance design and arrangement of door openings shall be retained.
3. Enlarging or reducing entrance/door openings for the purpose of fitting stock (larger or smaller) doors shall not be allowed.
4. Original or later contributing entrance materials, elements, details and features (functional and decorative) shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing using recognized preservation methods.
5. Deteriorated or missing entrance elements, materials, features (functional and decorative) and details shall be replaced with material and elements which match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile, configuration and detail of installation.
6. When replacement is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
7. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then
compatible substitute materials may be considered.
8. Original or later contributing entrance materials, elements, features (functional and decorative) and details shall not be sheathed or otherwise obscured by other materials.
9. Only paneled doors of appropriate design, material and assembly shall be allowed.
10. Flush doors (metal, wood, vinyl or plastic), sliding doors and metal paneled doors shall not be allowed.
11. In general, storm doors (aluminum or wood-framed) shall not be allowed on the primary entrance unless evidence shows that they had been used. They may be allowed on secondary entrances. Where allowed storm doors shall be painted to match the color of the primary door.
12. Unfinished aluminum storm doors shall not be allowed.
13. Replacement door hardware should replicate the original or be appropriate to the style and period of the building.
14. Entry lighting shall be located in traditional locations (e.g., suspended from the vestibule ceiling, or attached to the side panels of the entrance.).
15. Light fixtures shall not be affixed to the face of the building.
16. Light fixtures shall be of a design and scale that is appropriate to the style and period of the building and should not imitate styles earlier than the building. Contemporary light fixtures will be considered, however.
17. Buzzers, alarms and intercom panels shall be flush mounted inside the recess of the entrance and not on the face of the building.
18. Entrance elements should be of a color based on paint seriation studies. If an adequate record does not exist repainting shall be done with colors that are appropriate to the style and period of the building/entrance.
9.5 Porches and Stoops
Refer to Sections 9.2 B and C regarding treatment of materials and features; and Sections 9.4 and 9.10 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. All porch elements shall be preferably preserved. However, the sun porch addition may be removed to widen access to Holy Family Parish parking.
2. Original or later contributing porch and stoop materials, elements, features (functional and decorative), details and ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing using recognized preservation methods.
3. Deteriorated or missing porch and stoop materials, elements, features (functional and decorative), details and ornamentation shall be replaced with material and elements which match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile, configuration and detail of installation.
4. When replacement is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
5. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be considered.
6. Original or later contributing porch and stoop materials, elements, features (functional and decorative), details and ornamentation shall not be sheathed or otherwise obscured by other materials.
7. Porch and stoop elements should be of a color based on paint seriation studies. If an adequate record does not exist repainting shall be done with colors that are appropriate to the style and period of the building/porch and stoop.
9.6 Roofs
Refer to Section 9.2 B and C regarding treatment of materials and features; and Section 9.7 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. The roof shape shall be preserved.
2. Original or later contributing roofing materials, elements, features (decorative and functional), details and ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired by patching or reinforcing using recognized preservation methods.
3. Deteriorated or missing roofing materials, elements, features (functional and decorative), details and ornamentation shall be replaced with material and elements which match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile, configuration and detail of installation.
4. When replacement is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
5. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be considered.
6. Original or later contributing roofing materials, elements, features (functional and decorative), details and ornamentation shall not be sheathed or otherwise obscured by other materials.
7. Unpainted mill-finished aluminum shall not be allowed for flashing, gutters and downspouts. All replacement flashing and gutters should be copper or match the original material.
8. External gutters and downspouts should not be allowed unless it is based on physical or documentary evidence.
9. New skylights may be allowed if they have a flat profile or have a traditional mullion shape. In addition, skylights shall be located so that they are not visible from a public way.
9.7 Roof Projections
(includes Penthouses, Roof Decks, Mechanical or Electrical Equipment,
Satellite Dishes, Antennas and other Communication Devices)
Refer to Section 9.6 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. The basic criteria which shall govern whether a roof projection can be added to a roof include:
a. The preservation of the integrity of the original or later integral roof shape.
b. Height of the existing building.
c. Prominence of the existing roof form.
d. Visibility of the proposed roof projection.
2. Minimizing or eliminating the visual impact of the roof projection is the general objective and the following guidelines shall be followed:
a. Location shall be selected where the roof projection is not visible from the street or adjacent buildings; setbacks shall be utilized.
b. Overall height or other dimensions shall be kept to a point where the roof projection is not seen from the street or adjacent buildings.
c. Exterior treatment shall related to the materials, color and texture of the building or to other materials integral to the period and character of the building, typically used for appendages.
d. Openings in a penthouse shall relate to the building in proportion, type and size of opening, wherever visually apparent.
9.8 Additions
Refer to Sections 9.6, 9.7, 9.9, 9.10 and 9.11 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. An exterior addition should only be considered after it has been determined that the existing building cannot meet the new space requirements. Additions can significantly alter the historic appearance of the building.
2. New additions shall be designed so that the character defining features of the building are not radically changed, obscured, damaged or destroyed.
3. New additions should be designed so that they are differentiated from the existing building thus, they should not necessarily be imitative of an earlier style or period.
4. New additions shall be located at the rear or on an inconspicuous elevation.
5. New additions shall be of a size, scale and of materials that are in harmony with the historic building.
6. Additional stories shall be set back from the wall plane and shall be as inconspicuous and minimally visible from a public way as possible.
9.9 Landscape/Building Site
Refer to Sections 9.2 B and C regarding treatment of materials and features. Refer to Sections 9.10 and 9.11 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. The general intent is to preserve the existing or later contributing landscape features that enhance the landmark property.
2. It is recognized that often the environment surrounding the property has character scale and street pattern quite different from what existed when the building was constructed. Thus, changes must frequently be made to accommodate the new condition, and the landscape treatment can be seen as a transition feature between the landmark and its newer surroundings.
4. Original or later contributing site features (decorative and functional), materials, elements, details and ornamentation shall be retained and, if necessary, repaired using recognized preservation methods.
5. Deteriorated or missing site features (decorative and functional), materials, elements, details and ornamentation shall be replaced with material and elements which match the original in material, color, texture, size, shape, profile and detail of installation.
6. When replacement is necessary, it should be based on physical or documentary evidence.
7. If using the same material is not technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be considered.
8. New additions/alterations to the site (such as: parking areas, paved footpaths, and driveways, etc.) shall be as unobtrusive as possible and preserve any original or later contributing site features.
9. Removal of non-historic site features from the existing site is encouraged.
10. The exiting landforms of the site shall not be altered unless shown to be necessary for maintenance of the landmark or site. Additional landforms will only be considered if they will not obscure the exterior of the landmark.
11. Original or later contributing layout and materials of the walks, steps, and paved areas should be maintained. Consideration will be given to
alterations if it can be shown that better site circulation is necessary and that the alterations will improve this without altering the integrity of the landmark.
12. Existing healthy plant materials should be maintained as long as possible. New plant materials should be added on a schedule that will assure a continuity in the original landscape design and its later adaptations.
13. Maintenance of, removal of and additions to plant materials should consider maintaining existing vistas of the landmark.
9.10 Accessibility
Refer to Sections 9.2 A, B, and C regarding treatment of materials. Refer to Sections 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, and 9.9 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. A three-step approach is recommended to identify and implement accessibility modifications that will protect the integrity and historic character of the property:
a. Review the historical significance of the property and identify character-defining features;
b. Assess the property’s existing and required level of accessibility;
c. Evaluate accessibility options within a preservation context.
2. Because of the complex nature of accessibility the commission will review proposals on a case by case bases. The commission recommends consulting with the following document which is available from the commission office:
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Preservation Assistance Division; Preservation Brief 32 “Making Historic Properties Accessible” by Thomas C. Jester and Sharon C. Park, AIA.
9.11 Archeology
Refer to Sections 9.2 B and C regarding treatment of materials. Refer to Section 9.9 for additional Standards and Criteria that may apply.
1. Disturbance of the terrain around the building or site shall be kept to a minimum so as not to disturb any unknown archeological materials
2. The building site should be surveyed for potential archeological sites prior to the beginning of any construction project.
3. Known archeological site shall be protected during any construction project.
4. All planning, any necessary site investigation, or data recovery shall be conducted by a professional archeologist.
The Exteriors – Specific Standards and Criteria has been financed in part with funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, through the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Secretary of State Michael Joseph
Connolly, Chairman.
The U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, gender, or handicap in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office for Equal Opportunity, 1849 C Street NW, Room 1324, U.S.Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.
10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Atlases
Bromley, George Washington. Atlas of the City of Boston: Dorchester, vol.3.
(Philadelphia: Geo. W. and Walter S. Bromley) 1884.
Bromley, George Washington. Atlas of the City of Boston: Dorchester, vol.5. (Philadelphia: Geo. W. and Walter S. Bromley) 1894.
Bromley, George Washington. Atlas of the City of Boston: Dorchester, Massachusetts vol.5. (Philadelphia: Geo. W. and Walter S. Bromley) 1898.
Books
Herndon, Richard. Boston of Today: a glance at its history and characteristics with biographical sketches and portraits of many of its professional and business men. (Boston: Post Publishing Co.) 1892.
Pope, Frank L. Pope. Modern Practice of the Electric Telegraph: A Handbook for Electricians and Operators. (New York: D. Van Nostrand, Publisher) 1881.
Sammarco, Anthony. Images of America: Dorchester. (Dover, New Hampshire: Arcadia)1995.
Warner, Sam Bass, Jr. Streetcar Suburbs: the Process of Growth in Boston (1870-1900). (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Univeristy Press) 1978.
Withey, Henry F. and Elsie Rathburn Withey. Biographical Dictionary of American Architects, deceased. (Los Angeles: Hennessey & Ingalls, Inc.) 1970.
Newspapers
Boston Evening Transcript, October 11, 1921, George F. Milliken Obituary [incorrectly
identified as John F. Milliken].
Suffolk County Registry of Deeds
October 14, 1880, Sumner to Sayward, book 1506 page 123.
October 18, 1880, Sayward to Milliken, book 1506 page 123.
November 17, 1892, agreement Ticker et al, book 2096 page 227.
October 16, 1922, Milliken to Cannon, book 4408 page 9.
January 29, 1942 Cannon to Cannon et al, book 5973 page 577.
December 18, 1957, Mary E. Cotter to Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, book
7283 page 400.
Web Sites
Pbs.org, “Timeline of Thomas Edison’s Life.”
Other
Boston Landmarks Commission. Survey Form, Virginia Street, 1977.
Boston Landmarks Commission. Area Form, Virginia/Monadnock, 1995.
Boston Landmarks Commission. Mission Hill Triangle Study Report. 1985.
Boston City Directories: 1924, 1927, 1930, 1933, 1935, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1942, 1943,
1946, 1948-49, 1951, 1953, 1956.
Building Permit—Application for Permit for Alterations, 44 Virginia Street, May 17,
1926, application for sun parlor addition.
National Register Nomination, Moreland Street Historic District, Roxbury,
Massachusetts, 1984.
National Register Nomination,
[i] 1900 Census, Virginia and Monadnock Streets, Dorchester, enumeration district 1396, Sheets 5-6.
[ii] Almost identical language appeared George Milliken’s deed of October 18, 1880, and may also have appeared in other early property transactions in the neighborhood. See book 1506 p.123.
[iii] November 17, 1892, agreement Ticker et al, book 2096 page 227.
[iv] Boston Evening Transcript, October 11, 1921, George F. Milliken Obituary [incorrectly identified as John F. Milliken].