10-900 Form (Sample)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National
Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification,
materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative items on continuation
sheets if needed (NPS Form 10-900a).
1. Name of Property
historic name
Hotel Bridge
other names/site number
MassDOT Historic Bridge List #N19027
2. Location
street & number
Water St., Old Shepherd Road
not for publication
city or town
Northampton (Leeds)
vicinity
state
Massachusetts
code
MA
county
Hampshire
code
015
zip code
01060
3. State/Federal Agency Certification
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended,
I hereby certify that this nomination _ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic
Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
In my opinion, the property _ meets _ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance:
national statewide local
Signature of certifying official/Title Date
State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government
In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria.
Signature of commenting official Date
Title State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government
4. National Park Service Certification
I hereby certify that this property is:
entered in the National Register determined eligible for the National Register
determined not eligible for the National Register removed from the National Register
other (explain:) _________________
Signature of the Keeper Date of Action
5. Classification
Ownership of Property
(Check as many boxes as apply.)
Category of Property
(Check only one box.)
Number of Resources within Property
(Do not include previously listed resources in the count.)
Contributing
Noncontributing
private
building(s)
N/A
N/A
buildings
x
public - Local
district
N/A
N/A
district
public - State
site
N/A
N/A
site
public - Federal
x
structure
1
N/A
structure
object
N/A
N/A
object
1
N/A
Total
Name of related multiple property listing
(Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing)
Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register
N/A
N/A
6. Function or Use
Historic Functions(Enter categories from instructions.)
Current Functions(Enter categories from instructions.)
TRANSPORTATION/road-related
TRANSPORTATION/pedestrian-related
7. Description
Architectural Classification(Enter categories from instructions.)
Materials (Enter categories from instructions.)
OTHER: Pratt through truss
foundation:
N/A
walls:
N/A
roof:
N/A
other:
Wrought iron
Narrative Description
(Describe the historic and current physical appearance of the property. Explain contributing and noncontributing resources if necessary. Begin with a summary paragraph that briefly
describes the general characteristics of the property, such as its location, setting, size, and significant features.)
Summary Paragraph
From Massachusetts Historic Bridge Inventory:
The oldest of 9 known Pratt through trusses in the MDPW database. Although the floor system has been replaced, the trusses and the upper lateral system appear to be unaltered. Built
by one of the largest and most innovative late-19th century bridge-building firms – the Wrought Iron Bridge Co. of Canton, Ohio – and characteristic of this company’s through truss designs
of the 1880s. Characteristic WIBCo details include: the mid-height stiffening tie, the use of small rolled I beams for verticals and upper lateral struts, and the arabesque cresting
atop the lattice portals. An integral part of a largely intact late 19th century factory village; picturesquely sited across a quiet, ponded stretch of the Mill River.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Narrative Description
From Massachusetts Historic Bridge Inventory:
The Mill River flood of December 10, 1878, cut a new channel for the river through the lower part of Leeds, and isolated some 10-12 tenements on the western side of the river (on the
so-called “shanty” property) from any legal access to any town way. A large number of taxpayers in Leeds and Florence petitioned the town to lay out a new town way, and to erect a new
bridge across the Mill River Button Co.’s mill pond, in order to reconnect the “shanty” property’s residents to Leeds’ main street. Northampton’s voters approved the petition and the
new road and bridge at Leeds were built in the year ending February 1, 1881. The Northampton Annual Reports for that year reveal that the “Canton Wrought Iron Bridge Co.” had a $2,275.00
contract for the new bridge, and that F.M. Cook had a $986.67 contract for stonework on the project.
This small bridge is one of two late 19th century iron road bridges left in Northampton. It’s called Hotel Bridge because it originally led to the Leeds Hotel, which seems to have been
established at about the same time as the bridge. In fact the bridge was probably built specifically for the hotel. At either end of the bridge are identical rectangular plaques capped
by a decorative iron piece. The plaques read: Wrought Iron Bridge Co. Canton, O. – Builders-Patented Nov 21st 1876.
8. Statement of Significance
Applicable National Register Criteria
(Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing.)
x
A
Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
B
Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
x
C
Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents
a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.
D
Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Criteria Considerations
(Mark "x" in all the boxes that apply.)
Property is:
A
Owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes.
B
removed from its original location.
C
a birthplace or grave.
D
a cemetery.
x
E
a reconstructed building, object, or structure.
F
a commemorative property.
G
less than 50 years old or achieving significance
within the past 50 years.
Areas of Significance (Enter categories from instructions.)
Transportation
Engineering
Period of Significance
Significant Dates
Construction - 1881
Restoration - 1985
Significant Person (Complete only if Criterion B is marked above.)
N/A
Cultural Affiliation
N/A
Architect/Builder
Wrought Iron Bridge Co.
Period of Significance (justification)
Criteria Considerations (explanation, if necessary)
In 1976 the City of Northampton commissioned an in-depth bridge inspection and rating study; the report concluded that the bridge was in fair condition but that “traffic should be restricted
to passenger cars and only one vehicle on the bridge at a time.” The posted limit was reduced from 5 to 3 tons. The bridge was again inspected in 1981 and in 1984 by MDPW. Both inspection
reports set the deck, superstructure and substructure in generally poor condition, with repair or
rehabilitation required immediately. Keyes Associates was commissioned by the City of Northampton in 1984 to inspect, analyze the existing structure, and to develop rehabilitation plans.
Keyes Associates inspected and evaluated the truss to determine its structural integrity finding the truss to be generally in fair condition.
The analysis established that the truss was structurally incapable of handling loads above 10 tons, due in part to the original design of the truss rather than extensive structural deterioration
of truss members.
It was decided that due to the above restriction, the bridge should be limited to passenger traffic. Primary need of rehabilitation would therefore be focused on the highly deteriorated
flooring system and truss to floor beam hanger system. The following is a summary of major repairs performed.
Remove and replace deteriorated sections of corrugated steel bridge plank.
Remove and replace deteriorated steel stringers.
Reconstruct existing truss to floor beam connections.
Repair or replace stringer bearings.
Clean and paint entire structure.
Minor approach roadway reconstruction.
Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph (Provide a summary paragraph that includes level of significance and applicable criteria.)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Narrative Statement of Significance (Provide at least one paragraph for each area of significance.)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Developmental history/additional historic context information (if appropriate)
9. Major Bibliographical References
Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form.)
Massachusetts Historic Bridge Inventory, Bridge key #TWN235001100
Previous documentation on file (NPS):
Primary location of additional data:
preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67 has been
State Historic Preservation Office
requested)
Other State agency
previously listed in the National Register
Federal agency
previously determined eligible by the National Register
Local government
designated a National Historic Landmark
University
recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey #____________
Other
recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # __________
Name of repository:
recorded by Historic American Landscape Survey # ___________
Historic Resources Survey Number (if assigned): _____________________________________________________________________
10. Geographical Data
Acreage of Property
(Do not include previously listed resource acreage.)
UTM References
(Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet.)
1
3
Zone
Easting
Northing
Zone
Easting
Northing
2
4
Zone
Easting
Northing
Zone
Easting
Northing
Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property.)
Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected.)
11. Form Prepared By
name/title
organization
City of Northampton, Planning & Development
date
street & number
210 Main Street, Room 11
telephone
city or town
Northampton
state
MA
zip code
01060
e-mail
Additional Documentation
Submit the following items with the completed form:
Maps: A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.
A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Key all photographs to this map.
Continuation Sheets
Additional items: (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items.)
Photographs:
Submit clear and descriptive photographs. The size of each image must be 1600x1200 pixels at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. Key all photographs to the sketch map.
Name of Property:
City or Vicinity:
County: State:
Photographer:
Date Photographed:
Description of Photograph(s) and number:
1 of ___.
Property Owner:
(Complete this item at the request of the SHPO or FPO.)
name
street & number
telephone
city or town
state
zip code
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility
for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C.460 et seq.).
Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18 hours per response including time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining
data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Office of Planning and Performance Management. U.S. Dept.
of the Interior, 1849 C. Street, NW, Washington, DC.