Final_Sustainable Northampton_Preservation 06282024.docx
SUSTAINABLE NORTHAMPTON
Comprehensive Plan
Historic Preservation Element
Approved by Northampton Historical Commission on October 30, 2023
Adopted by Northampton Planning Board on June 27, 2024
Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan
Historic Preservation Element
December 2023
Prepared for:
Northampton Historical Commission
Northampton Office of Planning & Sustainability
Northampton Planning Board
By:
Barrett Planning Group LLC
In collaboration with
Kathleen Kelly Broomer,
Architectural Historian - Preservation Consultant
Cover photo by Florian Marschoun, Aspect Six
Inside photos by Florian Marschoun, Aspect Six
Judi Barrett
Bam Barrett
Internet Sources
CONTENTS
Section 1. Executive Summary
Historic Preservation Plan Goals & Strategies
Strategies and Action Plan
Relationship to Other Sustainable Northampton Goals & Policies
Section 2. Introduction
2.1 Introduction to Historic Preservation Planning
2.2. Northampton’s Historic Resources in Context
2.3. History of Preservation Planning in Northampton
2.4. Preservation Partners
Section 3. Investigation and Analysis
3.1. Overview of Issues and Challenges
3.2. Historic Properties Inventory
3.3. Designated Historic Properties in Northampton
3.4. Local Public Awareness and Engagement Analysis
3.5. Analysis of Existing Municipal Ordinances and Regulations
3.6. Municipal Policy, Management, and Capital Improvements Analysis
Section 4. Goals & Recommendations
4.1. Historic Properties Inventory Recommendations
4.2. National Register of Historic Places and Local Historic District Priorities
4.3. Public Awareness, Programming, and Education Recommendations
4.4. Municipal Ordinances and Regulations Recommendations
4.5. Municipal Policy, Management, and Capital Improvements Recommendations
4.6. Protecting Public Investment and Stewardship Recommendations
Section 5. Action Plan
Section 6. Appendix
Appendix A. What are historic resources?
Appendix B. Communities Utilizing Recommended Preservation Planning Tools (2023)
Appendix C. Resources for Climate Resilience, Reuse, and Renovation and Retrofitting
Appendix D. Economic Impact of Historic Preservation: Resources List
Appendix E. Community Engagement
Executive Summary
Northampton’s historic built environment and cultural landscapes convey its rich heritage and character. Preserving these historic resources is essential for protecting the City’s unique
sense of place.
The Northampton Historical Commission and the Office of Planning and Sustainability have partnered to create a Historic Preservation Plan as a new component of Sustainable Northampton,
the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Historic Preservation Plan is designed to enrich the Comprehensive Plan with analysis, goals, and recommendations to protect the City’s historic resources
and heritage landscapes.
Northampton benefits from the preservation work of present and former commissioners and staff. The vitality of Downtown Northampton is inextricably tied to the City’s successful efforts
to protect and celebrate the historic municipal, institutional, and commercial buildings and landscapes found
there. Owing to work by the Historical Commission, City staff, the City’s preservation partners, and others, Northampton has historically important areas and individual properties listed
on the National Register of Historic Places and a Local Historic District (LHD) along part of Elm Street.
Unfortunately, Northampton has lost some important historic resources, too. The City’s existing historic resources inventory is dated and incomplete, and outside the small Elm Street
LHD, the Historical Commission’s regulatory arsenal is limited to implementing the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Northampton has also tried to create some regulatory incentives to preserve
existing structures, too, e.g., by allowing additional units within the existing footprint of older buildings. However, market conditions often favor new construction as a means of
increasing the value of real estate. Northampton’s challenge, like that of many other desirable communities, requires striking a balance that puts historic preservation on equal footing
with other valid city planning objectives such as housing, sustainability, the local economy, open space, and so forth.
The purpose of this Historic Preservation Plan is to advance Sustainable Northampton’s Guiding Principles, including but not confined to the City’s commitment to “recognize and foster
the unique history, character, and function of each residential, commercial, mixed use, and open space neighborhood.” Just as Northampton already recognizes that “the protection of
environmental resources will improve the quality of life and the value of property in the City,” so too will the protection of historic resources.
Historic Preservation Plan Goals & Strategies
Goal HP-1. Improve Northampton’s inventory as the basis for preservation planning decisions by adding or better recording areas of concentrated historic development per current statewide
survey standards.
Actions
Add or update area forms for critical-priority neighborhoods that retain the greatest historic architectural integrity and associations with historic development of citywide significance,
for future historic district evaluation.
Update or expand the inventory for necessary- and important-priority neighborhoods to support future historic district evaluation and broader citywide planning goals.
Begin planning for survey of mid-20th century modern neighborhoods (ca. 1945-1975), tapping the expertise of longtime residents and building support for preservation.
Goal HP-2. Expand inventory coverage of individual historic resources, generally those located outside recommended survey areas.
Actions
Update inventory forms for critical-priority resources to facilitate future historic designation.
Initiate a citywide survey of current and former houses of worship (pre-1975), expanding existing inventories forms as needed to meet current standards.
Conduct a reconnaissance-level survey of barns, carriage houses, sheds, shops, and other ancillary buildings and structures located on parcels outside the Elm Street Local Historic District
and the downtown Central Business-Core District, using detail plates from Northampton’s 1895 atlas as a
base map. Results will guide the scoping of an intensive-level survey of pre-1901 buildings and structures to support demolition review.
Ensure the inventory records, to current survey standards, all pre-1975 city-owned or -managed buildings, objects, burial grounds, structures, or landscapes (Table 3.6.1).
Complete building forms for properties in the Central Business-Core design review district that lack inventory forms for reference in review decisions.
Require updated inventory forms for historic resources considered for Community Preservation Act funding.
Goal HP-3. Add to Northampton’s inventory of archaeological resources for future consideration in the City’s planning and permitting process.
Actions
Commission a citywide archaeological reconnaissance survey.
Renew city efforts to inventory and pursue National Register listing for the New Haven and Northampton Canal, in coordination with both MHC and municipalities along the canal path in
Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Add additional areas of cultural significance to Northampton’s inventory (Table 4.1.1), coordinating with MHC staff to determine whether these areas are most appropriately documented
in the City’s above-ground inventory or inventory of archaeological assets.
Goal HP-4. Broaden Northampton’s inventory to reflect the community’s cultural diversity over time, telling a fuller story of the City’s history through its historic places.
Actions
Re-examine historical narratives prepared during Northampton’s legacy survey (completed in 1981) to identify opportunities for augmenting the inventory forms with census and immigration
data now widely available online, telling a fuller story of the City’s history through its historic places.
Review recent research on underrepresented historic themes in Northampton to identify associated historic resources that merit inclusion in the city’s historic properties inventory.
High-priority themes include indigenous history; ethnic history; slavery, reform and abolition; and several themes under the broad National Register significance category of social
history, including civil rights, disability history, labor history, LGBTQIA+ history, traditional cultural history, and women’s history.
Goal HP-5. Enable evaluation and designation of additional historic districts and individual resources by expanding the inventory.
Goal HP-6. Recognize, preserve, and protect areas and individual resources of demonstrated significance that also retain integrity of historic design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association, using National Register or Local Historic District (G.L. c. 40C) mechanisms.
Actions
As an area inventory form is completed per phased recommendations (Table 4.1.1), gauge the preservation planning protection measures best suited to the interests of the area property
owners and larger community at that time. See Table 4.2.1. for a comparison of district options. In coordination with property owners, initiate the process for either evaluation of
National
Register eligibility by Massachusetts Historical Commission, or formation of a local study committee to create design review districts.
Submit updated inventory forms for critical-priority individual resources (Table 4.1.2) to Massachusetts Historical Commission for National Register evaluation. Evaluations for individual
National Register listings require documentation that the building retains integrity on both the exterior and the interior (e.g., floor plan, historic trim, sash and doors, etc.).
Pursue National Register evaluations and nominations for resources identified in future survey efforts.
Goal HP-7. Confirm the suitability of Architectural Preservation Districts (APDs) or Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCDs) as a sustainable general or home-rule ordinance option
for preserving historic neighborhood character in areas of Northampton that may not qualify for National Register listing or where local historic district (G.L. c.40C) designation is
not desired. (It is recommended that general ordinances in Northampton be limited to APDs, and neighborhood conservation be accomplished through zoning mechanisms.)
Actions
In coordination with the City’s legal counsel, evaluate recent Massachusetts case law on NCDs indicating that general or home-rule ordinances cannot be used to regulate matters normally
regulated under the City’s zoning ordinance and G.L. c. 40A, the Zoning Act, such as the size, scale, setback, and density of new construction, and its impact on natural features of
the streetscape or parcels individually.
As area inventory forms are completed per phased recommendations (Table 4.1.1), develop a prioritized list of neighborhoods for consideration as either APDs or form-based (character-based)
zoning districts.
Goal HP-8. Explore the designation of single-resource local historic districts (G. L. c. 40C) as a streamlined and more cost-effective alternative to preservation restrictions for long-term
protection of City-owned resources and privately owned resources of citywide significance.
Goal HP-9. Establish a public-private umbrella organization of Northampton preservation advocates, friends groups, and neighborhood associations, providing preservation planning information,
“how-to” resources for property owners and residents to repair and renovate historic buildings, a historic marker program to encourage historic property research, and advocacy on preservation
matters citywide.
Goal HP-10. Promote awareness of alternatives to demolition.
Actions
Revive preservation awards program to recognize privately funded preservation efforts, including restoration, adaptive reuse, and historically sensitive new construction.
Develop public information campaign highlighting alternatives to historic building demolition, including examples of historically sensitive remodeling/renovation ideas within the region.
Goal HP-11. Improve public access to preservation planning resources.
Actions
On the City’s website, add a link to the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS) to the Historical Commission’s landing page.
On the City’s website, acknowledge Historical Commission support, regulatory review, and role in environmental protection on the Planning & Sustainability Environment landing page.
To the property-specific Parcel Details data field in Northampton’s GIS, upload and link PDFs of Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) inventory forms and National Register of Historic
Places nominations (both districts and individual listings). Use only PDFs obtained from the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS) or otherwise supplied by MHC,
as many of the documents have been renumbered or amended since initially produced in Northampton.
Goal HP-12. Expand collaboration with Smith College faculty and students to further preservation of historic properties and neighborhoods.
Goal HP-13. Promote an outdoor exhibit program to encourage self‐guided interpretive exhibits and wayside exhibits throughout Northampton.
Actions
Organize professional interpreters from existing historic and cultural organizations to prepare a simple plan for a city-wide interpretive program.
Promote and support walking tours, programs, and events to build public awareness and understanding of city-wide historic resources, ideally in partnership with local or regional land
conservation groups.
Develop a graphic identity and branding for Northampton’s interpretive program, building on the Connecticut River, links with well-known historical figures associated with Northampton,
the Pioneer Valley, and the “Knowledge Corridor.”
Goal HP-14. Evaluate the impact of zoning measures on development patterns in historic neighborhoods that lack historic preservation controls.
Actions
Conduct a regulatory audit to understand the potential impact of Northampton’s zoning on inventory action areas designated as critical or necessary priorities, especially those located
outside Downtown Northampton (See Tables 4.1.1 and 4.1.2).
Consider creation of additional form-based (character-based) zoning districts or neighborhood conservation districts to guide new construction that does not overwhelm historic development.
Note: Florence Village Center is regulated with form-based zoning.
Goal HP-15. Improve outcomes under the Demolition Ordinance, an effective preservation tool ensuring that proposed total demolition of regulated buildings and structures is reviewed
by the Northampton Historical Commission.
Actions
Amend Demolition Ordinance to lengthen the delay period from the current 12 months to 18 or 24 months to encourage the applicant’s active participation in identifying alternatives to
demolition.
Consider adding an inventory option to the definition of Significant Building or Structure (§ 161-2) to facilitate determinations of significance. This option would not mandate a building
or structure be included in the statewide historic properties inventory to be regulated under the ordinance.
Utilize the Historic Districts Act (§ 161-9) provision of the ordinance to initiate a landmark study of a significant and preferably preserved building or structure, when the end of
the 12-month delay period is approaching and alternatives to demolition or appropriate mitigation measures have not been identified. The Historic Districts Act (G.L. c. 40C, § 3), allows
municipalities to designate one or more buildings or structures on one or more parcels as single-building historic districts.
Goal HP-16. Reduce incidents of demolition-by-neglect.
Actions
Evaluate clauses in Demolition (§ 161-8.B.) and Central Business-Core Architecture District (§ 156-1) ordinances pertaining to owner maintenance of their properties.
Examine Minimum Maintenance Ordinances in Lowell, Somerville, and Fitchburg to determine whether similar measures might be appropriate in Northampton through health and sanitation, housing,
or general legislation channels.
Goal HP-17. Improve capacity of the Northampton Historical Commission to work collaboratively with City partners and preservation stakeholders
Actions
Consider adding alternates or designees to represent the Commission’s interests on the Community Preservation Committee and Central Business Architecture Committee, and to coordinate
with the Public Works Department and Central Services on the care and management of City-owned historic properties.
Participate in Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) virtual workshops and training sessions on preservation planning topics designed for Commission members and other municipal
officials. Topics include state and federal historic resources review and compliance, historic resources surveys and the National Register of Historic Places, and infill construction
in local historic districts. See MHC website for details.
Identify additional funding for preservation planning staff responsibilities in the Office of Planning and Sustainability, and explore the feasibility of a dedicated part-time or full-time
preservation planner position to provide public information, plan and promote public education activities, research and prepare grant applications, and coordinate Commission review
under the Demolition Ordinance and Historic Districts Ordinance (normally the work of separate Historical and Historic District commissions, but combined in Northampton due to staffing
constraints).
Provide Historical Commission review and comment opportunities on Planning Board site plan reviews and preservation restriction negotiations, and all Community Preservation Act (CPA)
applications for historic preservation funds
Require a new or updated MHC inventory form and Historic Structure Report with CPA applications for bricks-and-mortar funding.
Improve the use of CPA funds as a source of funding for some capital items. The Community Preservation Committee recommends CPA funding to the City Council through a process separate
from the City’s capital planning process. Better integration of the CPA planning process and the
Capital Improvements Plan could help to focus attention on and strengthen funding commitments to protect Northampton’s historic public facilities.
Consider returning to the traditional separation of Historical Commission and Historic District Commission to ensure that preservation planning has the commitment of time, resources,
and focus needed to implement the recommendations of this plan.
Goal HP-18. Pursue Northampton’s designation as a Certified Local Government (CLG) for preservation planning through the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) and the National Park
Service.
Goal HP-19. Enhance existing Historical Commission relationships with institutional partners by integrating Commission review and comment at the design development stage of proposed
projects.
Goal HP-20. Commit City resources to preparing a comprehensive needs analysis, prioritization plan, and capital improvements plan to strengthen planning and care for Northampton’s City-owned
historic properties.
Goal HP-21. program for active tracking, inspection, and compliance review of preservation restrictions citywide.
Actions
Compile a preservation restriction log, available to the public online and on paper through municipal offices, that centralizes data for all preservation restrictions held on real property
in Northampton. Create a running list of preservation restrictions in effect in the city, noting the subject property and street address; inventory number; holder of the restriction;
term length of the restriction and expiration date, if applicable; deed book and page numbers; and whether the restriction meets the statutory requirements of G.L. c. 184 § 31-33, which
requires signature approvals from both the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the City of Northampton. Include complete copies of all executed preservation restrictions as recorded
at the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds, with the applicable terms of the restrictions. See Table 4.2.2 for further information.
Establish a cyclical monitoring program for inspection of properties with preservation restrictions, to ensure compliance with the terms of the respective restrictions and reporting
at least once annually to the Northampton Historical Commission.
Contract with an experienced preservation architect to conduct building inspections, document compliance, and coordinate resolution of issues with property owners, restriction holders,
and the Northampton Historical Commission.
Seek Community Preservation Act or other grant funding to implement this program, and identify the local entity responsible for continuing its management after grant funds are expended.
Inquire whether the Massachusetts Historical Commission would fund this type of project through its Survey & Planning Grant program.
Strategies and Action Plan
Goal #
Action (Summarized recommendation)
Primary Responsibility
Partners
Priority
Resources Needed (Funding, Staff, Leadership, Other)
HP-1
HP-5
Add/update area inventory forms to support district evaluation
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Critical
(see Table 4.1.1)
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-14
Conduct a regulatory audit to evaluate impact of current zoning measures on historic neighborhoods.
Planning Board
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Critical
Funding, staff, leadership
HP-14
Consider additional form-based districts or neighborhood conservation districts to guide new construction.
Planning Board
Planning & Sustainability
Historical Commission
Critical
Funding, staff, leadership
HP-21
Implement preservation restriction program for active tracking, inspection, and compliance review of restrictions citywide
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Planning Board
Historic Northampton
Critical
Staff, leadership; funding for preservation architect
HP-1
HP-5
Update building inventory forms for individual resources
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Critical
(see Table 4.1.2)
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-1
HP-2
Conduct citywide survey and inventory of current/former houses of worship (pre-1975)
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Critical
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-1, HP-2
Complete inventory forms for all pre-1975 city-owned or -managed historic resources
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Critical
(see Table. 3.6.1)
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-10
Public information campaign on alternatives to historic building demolition
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Critical
Leadership, funding
HP-15
Consider adding an inventory option to the definition of Significant Building or Structure (§ 161-2) to facilitate determinations of significance.
Historical Commission
Historical Commission
Critical
Funding, staff, leadership
HP-15
Amend Demolition Ordinance to lengthen delay period to 18 or 24 months
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Critical
Leadership, staff
HP-15
Amend Demolition Ordinance to add inventory option for determinations or significance
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Critical
Leadership, staff
HP-15
Begin using Historic Districts Act provision of Demolition Ordinance to initiate landmark study of subject buildings in cases where demolition alternatives have not been actively identified
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Critical
Leadership, staff
HP-17
Add Historical Commission alternates or designees to represent preservation interests on other City boards
Mayor’s Office
City Council
Historical Commission
Immediate/
Ongoing
Leadership, staff
HP-17
Enhance Historical Commission training through virtual workshops sponsored by Mass. Historical Commission
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Immediate/
Ongoing
Leadership
HP-17
Explore feasibility of dedicated part-time preservation planner position
Planning & Sustainability
Historical Commission
Immediate/
Ongoing
Funding, staff
HP-17
Add Historical Commission review and comment to Planning Board site plan reviews and preservation restriction negotiations
Planning & Sustainability
Planning Board
Historical Commission
Immediate/
Ongoing
Leadership, staff
HP-17
Add Historical Commission review and comment on all CPA applications for historic preservation funds
Community Pres. Comm.
Historical Commission
Immediate/
Ongoing
Leadership, staff
HP-2
HP-17
Require new or updated inventory form in all historic preservation applications for CPA funding, plus a Historic Structure Report for bricks-and-mortar funding
Community Pres. Comm.
Historical Commission
Immediate/ Ongoing
Funding, leadership
HP-2
HP-17
Require new or updated inventory form in all historic preservation applications for CPA funding, plus a Historic Structure Report for bricks-and-mortar funding
Community Pres. Comm.
Historical Commission
Immediate/ Ongoing
Funding, leadership
HP-10
Revive City’s preservation awards program
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Immediate/
Ongoing
Leadership, funding
HP-7
Evaluate recent Massachusetts case law on Neighborhood Conservation Districts as a general ordinance option for protecting historic neighborhoods under home rule
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Planning Board
City Solicitor
Immediate/
Ongoing
HP-11
Add links to City’s website to improve public access to and understanding of preservation planning
Planning & Sustainability
Historical Commission
Immediate/
Ongoing
Staff
HP-19
Integrate Historical Commission review and comment at the design development stage of proposed projects at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Smith College
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Immediate/ Ongoing
Leadership, staff
HP-8
Study designation of single-resource c.40C local historic districts as a more cost-effective and streamlined alternative to preservation restrictions negotiated with zoning relief
Historical Commission
Planning Board
Planning & Sustainability
Immediate/
Ongoing
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-12
Expand collaboration with Smith College for assistance in documenting historic resources
Historical Commission
Historic Northampton
Smith College
Immediate/
Ongoing
Leadership, funding
HP-1
HP-6
Update/expand inventory of additional areas and neighborhoods for district evaluation
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Necessary
Important
(see Table 4.1.1)
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-9
Establish umbrella organization of preservation stakeholders for citywide information and advocacy
Historical Commission
Historic Northampton
Friends groups
Neighborhood associations
Necessary
Funding, staff, leadership
HP-2
Conduct reconnaissance survey of barns, carriage houses, outbuildings to support demolition review
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Necessary
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-2
Complete inventory forms for undocumented buildings in Central Business-Core design review district
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Necessary
(see Table 4.1.2)
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-2
HP-14
As critical-area inventories are completed, determine appropriate protection measures
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Necessary
(see Table 4.2.1)
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-18
Pursue designation as a Certified Local Government (CLG) in preservation planning for greater access to state grant funds
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Necessary
Leadership, staff
HP-11
Link MHC inventory forms and National Register nominations to Parcel Details in Northampton’s GIS
Planning & Sustainability
Information Technology Services
Historical Commission
Necessary
Funding, staff
HP-16
Reduce incidents of demolition-by-neglect by evaluating existing ordinances and alternative measures
Planning & Sustainability
Planning Board
Historical Commission
Necessary
Leadership, staff (professional consultant advisable)
HP-19
Enhance existing Historical Commission relationships with institutional partners by integrating Commission review and comment at the design development stage of proposed projects.
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Necessary
Leadership, staff
HP-20
Hire qualified consultant to conduct comprehensive needs assessment and long-term capital plan to preserve the City’s historic resources.
Central Services
Historical Commission
Community Preservation Commission
Necessary
Leadership, funding
HP-13
Organize professional interpreters to plan a city-wide interpretive program.
Historical Commission
Historic Northampton
Smith College
Necessary
Leadership, funding, staff (professional consultant)
HP-13
Promote and support walking tours, programs, and events in partnership with conservation groups.
Historical Commission
Conservation Commission
Historic Northampton
Smith College
Necessary
Leadership, funding, staff
HP-13
Develop a graphic identity and branding for Northampton’s interpretive program.
Historical Commission
Historic Northampton
Northampton High School
Necessary
Leadership, funding, staff
HP-17
Improve coordination between the CPA planning process and the City’s Capital Improvements Plan to focus attention on and strengthen funding to protect historic public facilities.
Community Pres. Comm.
Historical Commission
Necessary
Leadership, staff
HP-1
Plan area form survey of mid-20th century modern neighborhoods
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Important
Staff
HP-17
Consider restoring traditional separation between Historical Commission and HDC.
Historical Commission
Important
Leadership
Staff
HP-6
Pursue National Register evaluations and nominations of additional properties as inventory forms are completed
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Important
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-3
Conduct citywide archaeological reconnaissance survey
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Mass. Historical Comm.
Important
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-3
Complete inventory and National Register listing of New Haven and Northampton Canal
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Mass. Historical Comm.
Canal towns
Important
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-3
Conduct intensive-level survey of select historic and pre-historic archaeological sites.
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Mass. Historical Comm.
Important
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-4
Augment City’s historic properties inventory to reflect cultural diversity of community
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Important
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-4
Identify historic resources for inventory associated with under-represented historic themes (see list)
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Important
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
Relationship to Other Sustainable Northampton Goals & Policies
An elevated focus on historic preservation will support achieving goals of the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan, such as those listed below.
Land Use
Goal LU-2: Create and preserve high quality, built environments in the downtown and village centers.
Objectives:
Encourage the preservation of historically or architecturally significant buildings.
Reinforce downtown as a regional city center with its continuation as a vibrant mix of commercial, civic and cultural uses.
Goal LU-3: Maintain a distinction between rural areas, residential neighborhoods, and urban areas.
Objectives:
Preserve the character of rural areas through preservation of large undeveloped tracts, vistas, and farmland.
Preserve a diversity of housing types that define the historic development of the neighborhood.
Ensure that zoning and land use regulations encourage mixed-use, multi-family development projects that are in keeping with high quality design and character.
Environment
EEC-1: Protect valuable and sensitive ecological resources (land, air, water, habitat, plants and animals)
Objectives:
Minimize the loss of tree canopy throughout the City and increase tree canopy in urbanized areas to maintain a higher quality environment in all areas.
Economic Development
Goal ED-1: Ensure vibrant and distinctive downtown, commercial, and village centers
Objectives:
Encourage business and job growth in urban and commercial/industrial center.
Preserve/enhance the public services and amenities that draw people downtown and ensure that they are safe, pedestrian friendly, and welcoming to the diversity of Northampton residents.
Goal ED-3: Support a thriving cultural and creative economy
Objectives:
Support joint marketing campaigns between cultural, retail, and hospitality sectors.
Increase the availability of affordable studio, live-work, performance, and rehearsal space to retain artists, cultural organizations, and businesses in Northampton.
Develop cross connections between various sectors within the creative economy, such as artists, designers, museums, and new technologies, to strengthen the overall vitality.
Facilitate greater communication and collaboration among cultural organizations, artists, the business community, non-profit organizations and City government.
Housing
Goal H-2: Preserve and sustain existing affordable housing.
Objectives:
Preserve existing rental housing stock to facilitate availability and price stability.
Sustain and expand housing rehabilitation programs.
Introduction
2.1 Introduction to Historic Preservation Planning
The preservation planning process is designed to encourage objective analysis of Northampton’s historic and cultural resources and to inform decisions about which resources are most
important to the community and merit preservation. The greatest protection is achieved at the local level.
Historic preservation has long celebrated Northampton’s community history. For the last fifty years, historic preservation has helped us maintain and enhance the character of our community
through the municipal planning process. Nowhere is this more evident than in Downtown Northampton, which has benefited immeasurably from the City’s preservation planning work. In 1973,
the City established the Northampton Historical Commission under G.L. c. 40 § 8d to preserve, protect, and develop Northampton’s historic and cultural resources. Working in partnership
with public and private
entities, the Historical Commission is the municipal agency responsible for ensuring that preservation concerns are considered in community planning and development decisions.
Northampton’s historic and cultural resources are finite and nonrenewable, and despite the City’s efforts, dwindling in number. They serve as major character-defining features of Northampton’s
cultural landscape and heritage, convey a sense of place, and provide tangible evidence of growth and change in Northampton over centuries. Examples include buildings, areas and neighborhoods,
agricultural landscapes and parks, cemeteries, objects such as statues, and structures such as canals and bridges. These resources reflect patterns of human activity, some still not
yet fully understood, through their design, construction, use, and survival. They derive their significance from their location, setting, and appearance as much as from their history.
While certain resources may stand alone for their exceptional significance in local history, most are significant for their contribution to the unique character of the areas and neighborhoods
that distinguish Northampton from other communities. For example, Downtown Northampton draws residents and visitors and supports the prosperity of local businesses precisely because
of its historic, well-preserved built environment. According to the City’s 2021 Rapid Recovery Plan, “. . . over 900,000 visitors traveled to Northampton in 2019 to enjoy destinations
such as Smith College, the Academy of Music, hospitality establishments and other arts/culture venues. The downtown’s economic activity largely caters to these visitors.”
Preservation planning is the process by which we identify, evaluate, and protect Northampton’s historic and cultural resources. To set community priorities for preservation, we began
in the early 1970s to identify where these resources are and what form they take, consider their history and state of preservation, then evaluate which are most significant and best
contribute to defining the city’s character. We look at Northampton’s historic places in a communitywide context, to understand how the full range of historic resources represents intertwined
themes in the city’s history. As standards for identification and evaluation have evolved in recent decades to justify and support protection measures, we continue to update the City’s
historic properties inventory.
Preservation planning helps to protect the public interest in historic places. In 1955, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that establishing special act historic districts
in Boston (Beacon Hill) and Nantucket was constitutional and in the interest of the public welfare. Demolition and clearance of other historic places through projects funded with tax
dollars, such as federal urban renewal programs and interstate highway construction in the 1950s and 1960s, demonstrated that historic resources merited further consideration through
emerging environmental review and permitting procedures. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established a process to eliminate, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse effects
of federal projects on historic and cultural resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places. In 1982, the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), the State Historic
Preservation Office, established a parallel process to assess the impact of state projects on historic and cultural resources listed in the State Register of Historic Places. Under
the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), the MHC also considers the environmental impact of state agency activity on properties in the State Register as well as the
statewide historic properties inventory. Like natural resources, historic and cultural resources merit careful consideration in the municipal planning and environmental review process.
Preservation planning and protection of historic resources can also advance the City’s sustainability and climate resilience goals. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has devoted
extensive resources to education, research, and advocacy toward strengthening professional and public awareness of the role preservation plays in reducing carbon emissions. By developing
a needs assessment and long-term capital plan for the City’s historic public facilities, investing in capital improvements for those facilities, and providing support from Community
Preservation Act (CPA) funds, Northampton can accomplish the equally important goals of preservation and resilience. In fact, preservation planning is inextricably linked to every component
of the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan, from making the case for building reuse to provide housing to understanding the genesis of Northampton’s present-day roadway patterns.
“Saving it all” is not the goal of preservation planning, which recognizes that new development will occur. The preservation planning process is designed to encourage objective analysis
of Northampton’s historic and cultural resources and to inform decisions about which resources are most important to the community and merit preservation. The greatest protection is
achieved at the local level. Northampton has established a local historic district under G.L. c. 40C, two architecture review districts under municipal home rule authority, and a demolition
review ordinance, in addition to listing numerous properties in the State and National Registers of Historic Places.
As a community, we have engaged in identifying, evaluating, and protecting our historic and cultural resources for fifty years. Building on the work of Northampton’s first preservation
plan in 1992, this planning document guides residents, business owners, elected and appointed volunteers, taxpayers, and employees as we continue to define, and work together to protect,
the City’s unique character as reflected in our historic places.
2.2. Northampton’s Historic Resources in Context
Preservation planning evaluates the significance of historic and cultural resources in the context of broad patterns of historical development across Massachusetts. Many resources are
significant at the local level, yet others possess state or even national significance. To counter traditional biases toward a limited range of historic periods, places, events, and
people, a cultural landscape approach to preservation planning considers representative and outstanding resources as expressions of the successive patterns of social, cultural, and
economic activity that shaped and defined the community. Understanding the historic contexts, or themes, in the community’s history and each resource’s association with one or more
themes helps support preservation planning decisions.
The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) offers two important sources for historic contexts in Northampton. Both are products of MHC’s statewide historic properties reconnaissance
survey and available online through the agency’s website. The Reconnaissance Survey Report: Northampton (1982) summarizes topography, political boundaries, transportation, population,
settlement patterns, economic base, and architecture in the city from ca. 1500 to 1940. Pursuant to the methodology established by the statewide reconnaissance survey, the Reconnaissance
Survey Report covers seven periods of historic development:
• Contact (1500-1620)
• Plantation (1620-1675)
• Colonial (1675-1775)
• Federal (1775-1830)
• Early Industrial (1830-1870)
• Late Industrial (1870-1915)
• Early Modern (1915-1940)
If the report were updated today, the Modern period (1940-ca. 1975) would be added.
A companion volume, Historic and Archaeological Resources of the Connecticut River Valley (1984/1988/2007), demonstrates Northampton’s importance in regional developments across Hampshire
and adjacent Hampden and Franklin counties during the same historic periods. The regional report includes maps, regionwide overviews of topography, prehistory, settlement patterns,
land use, and architecture, and short historical sketches of seventeen principal industries that operated in the study unit to 1940. The reader is referred to these two sources for
additional information.
The goal of the following historic context is to highlight, briefly, some of the major themes in the history of Northampton’s built environment and cultural landscapes, and to identify
important concentrations of historic development extant in Northampton. The narrative compiles information from preservation planning and local history sources cited in the List of
Sources. It is not intended to be a definitive or comprehensive history of the city. Some themes are well documented; others merit further research. This context provides a broad overview
for general preservation planning purposes. Map 2.1 generally illustrates the City’s physical evolution over time through the age of existing properties.
Northampton is an important civic, educational, industrial, and commercial center at the junction of regional routes from Springfield and Pittsfield to northern and western New England.
Historically, Northampton has been the principal focus for settlement in the mid-section of the Connecticut River Valley, a broad central valley flanked by the Worcester Highlands to
the east and the Berkshire Hills to the west. Situated twenty miles north of Springfield and fifty-six miles west of Worcester, Northampton is bordered by Williamsburg on the north,
Hatfield on the north and northeast, Hadley and the Connecticut River on the east, Easthampton on the south, and Westhampton on the west. Fertile Connecticut River floodplain in the
easternmost section of the city is considered to be some of the most productive cropland in New England. Mill River, a western tributary of the Connecticut River, crosses Northampton
from the northwest to the southeast. Prominent elevations, concentrated
toward the west, include Roberts Hill, Saw Mill Hills, and Mineral Hills. State Route 9 is part of a regional artery passing through the mid-valley from east to west, crossing the Connecticut
River between Northampton and Hadley and connecting the central business district to villages at Florence and Leeds. U. S. Route 5/State Route 10, along with the later Interstate 91,
provide the major north-south connections. State Route 66 branches from Route 9 west of the central business district, linking to settlements at Pine Grove and West Farms.
Contact Period (1500-1620)
The Connecticut River Valley was a principal focal point for native settlement during this period, and the Norwottuck were the dominant native group in Northampton and Hadley. The prevalence
of large tracts of fertile agricultural land in Northampton suggests the area was the site of extensive native horticulture. Concentrated native settlement probably extended as far
west as Round Hill. The Connecticut and Mill rivers would have provided native residents with large quantities of fish. Small short-term hunting camps were probably established in lowland
marshes as well as uplands west and north of probable native settlement nodes. Additional areas of likely native settlement include the Clark Brook intervale in the Roberts Meadow vicinity
and the Mill River intervale in the vicinity of Spring and North Main streets. Regionally important trails through Northampton connected the west bank of the Connecticut River with
western uplands and the Housatonic Valley.
Plantation Period/First European Settlement (1620-1675)
Permanent European settlement of the Connecticut River Valley began at Springfield in 1636 and, by the 1650s, spread north through the valley’s mid- section. In May 1653, twenty-four
persons petitioned the General Court for permission to “plant, possess and inhabit” Nonotuck (Norwottuck), later the town of Northampton. Early families traveled up the valley from
Springfield as well as Hartford, Windsor, and Wethersfield, Connecticut, joined a few years later by settlers from eastern Massachusetts.
Nonotuck proprietors laid out a meetinghouse lot spacious enough to include a burial ground, a minister’s ten-acre tilling lot, common agricultural land, and house lots. Elements of
the original town plan survive in the location of Court Square, the house lot grid along the Main Street-Bridge Street axis, and Bridge Street Cemetery (1661, NRDIS). Built at the intersection
of King and Main streets, the first meetinghouse (ca. 1655, demolished) was subsequently used as a school. The second meetinghouse (ca. 1661, demolished) to the west was built on what
would become Meetinghouse Hill, later Main Street. By the end of the period, an institutional core had emerged in the present downtown area. House lots were taken up along King, Pleasant,
Market, and Hawley streets, and extended to Bridge, West, and Elm Streets, all of which originated as Native American pathways.
Aside from the Springfield vicinity, the Northampton area, including neighboring towns Hadley (1661) and Hatfield (1670), was the most important economic and political center in the
Connecticut Valley. The first ferry service across the Connecticut River to Hadley operated in the late 1650s. With its extensive agricultural land, the area became a major agricultural
producer in Massachusetts. Locally produced grain, flour, malt, and pork were sent by cart or boat to Springfield, Boston, Hartford, and New Haven in exchange for goods or payment of
taxes and debts. Northampton’s regional importance was underscored by its designation as a joint shire town, with Springfield, after 1661, though the community apparently did not have
a courthouse until the early nineteenth century.
Colonial Period (1675-1775)
Northampton and vicinity saw the most substantial Colonial-period development in the Connecticut Valley. King Philip’s War (1675-1676) initially kept Northampton’s settlement concentrated
within a defensible perimeter, encompassing the area known as the Plain as well as Bridge Street, Hawley Street, and the Bridge Street Cemetery.
Much of the last quarter of the seventeenth century was devoted to rebuilding and re-fortifying the settlement after the war. The eastern end of Main Street (now Bridge Street) was part
of a regional throughfare through the center village leading to a new ferry landing (1685) to Hadley. Following agriculture, important local industries included lumbering; trading of
native furs, port, and grain; and brickmaking. Alluvial flood plains along the Connecticut River that had been set off as 15- and 3-acre lots were essential to the success of local
agriculture, and houses lots along Hawley and Bridge streets were well located for access to riverside meadows. Channeling of the Mill River (1710-1720) around Manhan Meadows reoriented
the main highway from Springfield through Pynchon Meadows as Old Springfield Road. Division of common lands at West Farms and North Farms led to scattered upland agricultural settlement
on connecting roads in the early eighteenth century. In 1685, Robert Lyman of Northampton discovered lead in the form of galena along an outcrop near the Manhan River in the area later
known as Mineral Hills. For the next two centuries, various mining companies worked the claim. A parcel on Westhampton Road contains the last known remnants of a lead mine in Northampton.
The oldest of Northampton’s architecturally significant buildings are Colonial-period dwellings, with most surviving examples located downtown: The Manse-Stoddard House, 54 Prospect
Street (1684/c. 1750, NRIND 1976); the Nathaniel Parsons House, 58 Bridge Street (ca. 1730, NRDIS 2001); and the Charles Clapp House, 148 South Street (ca. 1753, NRDIS 1989). In addition
to its associations with the theme of exploration and settlement, Bridge Street Cemetery possesses significance in art for its preservation of several Colonial-period grave markers
and table stones associated with known Connecticut Valley carvers.
By the mid-eighteenth century, Northampton rivaled Springfield as a center of wealth and influence in the region. As new towns continued to be established farther north and west, Northampton’s
importance as a distribution center grew. Northampton and its smaller neighbors, Hadley and Hatfield, controlled some of the best agricultural land in the Connecticut Valley and were
major exporters of livestock, salted beef, and other agricultural products to markets in Boston and elsewhere. While Northampton grew as a trade and marketing center in the eighteenth
century, religious fervor accelerated during the ministry of Jonathan Edwards, whose preaching in the third meetinghouse (1737, demolished) sparked the religious revivals of the Great
Awakening in the 1740s. In 1765, Northampton numbered 188 dwellings, 203 families, and 1,285 individuals, eleven of whom were Black. Population figures for the native Norwottuck population
have not been identified.
Federal Period (1775-1830)
The Connecticut River Valley was the fastest growing region in Massachusetts during this period, and river towns like Northampton saw increased commercial and industrial development.
Following considerable economic upheaval and a post-Revolutionary War depression that led to Shay’s Rebellion (1786), unprecedented agricultural prosperity starting in the 1790s and
the beginning of
successful manufacturing after 1800 provided the basis for renewed expansion. Northampton grew rapidly during the rest of the period, at twice the rate of Hampshire County as a whole,
despite portions of its territory being set off to form the new towns of Westhampton (1778), Southampton (1778), and Easthampton (1785). The population in 1790 was 1,628 persons, increasing
to 3,613 by 1830. Northampton maintained its traditional role as the seat of Hampshire County, following a realignment of county boundaries that set off Franklin County (1811) and Hampden
County (1812) on the north and south, respectively.
Northampton’s center village began to acquire a more urban character during the Federal period, displaying defined civic, commercial, and residential areas. County and town institutional
buildings were clustered at Meetinghouse Hill and adjacent Court Square on Main Street at Center Street. Construction of the first bridge (1809) over the Connecticut River to Hadley
fueled growth. The burgeoning business center grew in scale and density, with construction of banks and hotels (none extant) and its earliest three-story masonry commercial stores.
Affluent residential development first centered in the Hawley Street vicinity, shifting west along Elm Street to Round Hill in the early nineteenth century. A cluster of five residences
at Fort Hill, 124, 130, 134, 135, and 144 South Street (NRDIS 1989), is an important collection of Federal-period dwellings occupied by farmers and artisans. Local mason Seth Strong
built his own residence at 32 Conz Street (1829), distinctive architecturally for its brick construction on a circular plan with a conical roof and pair of interior chimneys.
The town gained a reputation as a center for architectural innovation, attracting renowned architect-builders then working in the Boston area, chief among them Greenfield native Asher
Benjamin (1771-1845) and Isaac Damon (1781-1862) of Weymouth. Benjamin designed Northampton’s Federal-style fourth meetinghouse, the First Congregational Church (1810-1812, burned 1876)
on Meetinghouse Hill, though his most lasting influence on vernacular building, both locally and nationally, was achieved indirectly through his publication of seven architectural pattern
books from 1797 to 1843. By contrast, Isaac Damon’s impact on the Connecticut Valley was both direct and long-lived. He arrived in Northampton in 1811 to take over the job of completing
the First Church, constructed his own residence at 46 Bridge Street (ca. 1813, NRDIS 2001); and remained in the region for forty years, working exclusively on bridge design from 1831
onward. Damon’s work in Northampton includes the pair of granite-faced commercial buildings across the street from the First Church at 108 Main Street and 110-112 Main Street (both
1828, NRDIS 1976, and since remodeled), the 1813 Hampshire County Courthouse on Main Street (demolished 1886), and the 1814 Town Hall on Main Street (demolished 1872). He reportedly
designed and built only one other Northampton residence aside from his own, the John Hopkins House, 101 King Street (ca. 1830).
Agriculture continued as Northampton’s primary economic activity, principally along the Connecticut River meadows with secondary upland grazing at West Farms and North Farms. Most large-scale
manufacturing during the Federal period took place on the upper Mill River at Leeds, though J. S. Kingsley produced broadcloth at his Manhan River woolen mill at Loudville, and paper
mills (1817, demolished) opened on the Mill River at Bay State. Federal-period industries operating at the center village included a large tannery and sail cloth factory.
First settled in the late eighteenth century as a cluster of large farms associated with James Smith, Calvin Clark, and Luke Day, Leeds proved to be an ideal location for water-powered
manufacturing.
Both cotton and woolen mills were built from 1808 to 1812. Col. James Shephard established a woolen mill in 1809, later known as Shepherd Woolen Manufacturing Company, the first fully
developed factory on the Mill River and the most important Federal-period woolen mill in the Connecticut Valley due to its technological innovations. Using a power loom patented in
1816 and built in 1822, the company greatly reduced the cost of producing fine broadcloth. The Shepherd company imported Merino sheep, experimented with raising Saxony sheep, and later
reduced expenses by replacing its all-male work force with women and girls and paying them lower wages. A small community grew up around the mill buildings, including boarding houses,
private dwellings, a schoolhouse, and a company store. Known initially as Shepherd’s Hollow, the village was later renamed for Leeds, England, hometown of its first postmaster, Thomas
Musgrave. The Shepherd company closed in 1857.
Early Industrial Period (1830-1870)
During this period, Northampton grew 181 percent, recording a population of 10,160 persons in 1870. The greatest increase occurred between 1855 and 1870. In 1855, nearly one-quarter
of the population had immigrated to the United States from Ireland, with smaller numbers from England, Scotland, Germany, and Canada. Many immigrants would work in mills.
Industrial growth was modest during the first part of this period and focused on the Mill River. Opportunities for large-scale shipping of produce and manufactured products on the Connecticut
River were limited, as high falls several miles to the south necessitated that cargo shipped by boat be transported overland around the falls. Construction of the New Haven-Northampton
Canal between 1825 and 1834 was intended to address this problem. Not opened in its entirety until 1835, the canal entered Northampton from Easthampton, crossed Main Street, and continued
along the current path of State Street. The canal ceased operations in 1847 with the introduction of railroads, never having been profitable.
Railroad connections enhanced Northampton’s traditional role as the distribution center for goods in the mid-section of the Connecticut Valley, connecting farmers, businesses, and industry
to their markets in a faster and more profitable manner than the canal allowed. The Connecticut River Railroad (1844-1847) opened a north-south through-route across Oxbow and meadowland
from Holyoke to Hatfield. Two shorter routes connecting downtown opened later: the Hampshire and Hampden Railroad (1855), along South Street from Easthampton, and the Mill River or
Williamsburg Branch Railroad (1868) to Williamsburg, via Florence and Leeds. The latter two roads were consolidated as the New Haven & Northampton Railroad.
On the axis from downtown Northampton northwest to Williamsburg, industrial villages had formed by 1870 at Leeds (about 4½ miles from downtown), Florence (about 3 miles), and Bay State
(about 1½ miles), producing silks, woolens, cotton, buttons and sewing machines, as well as machinery and cutlery. Each village encompasses dams and bridges on the Mill River, industrial
buildings, associated worker housing, private residences, and community buildings connected by established roads and the new branch railroad.
Primarily a farming community until the 1830s, Florence grew around the Northampton Silk Company factory organized by Samuel Whitmarsh in 1836, later taking its name from the famous
silk-producing city in Italy. Within a year, the company produced nearly three-quarters of silk production in
Massachusetts, with financial backing from investors in Middletown, Connecticut (chief location of that state’s silk industry) and New York. Whitmarsh’s success prompted a run on the
Morus multicaulus strain of mulberry tree, tempered only by a hard winter in 1839-1840 and a blight in 1840 that strained the industry.
The Northampton Association of Education and Industry acquired the Whitmarsh holdings at Florence and continued silk production. George W. Benson, Jr., president of a cotton factory
bearing his name in the village, was a founder of this Utopian community in 1841, one of several in New England at the time that espoused progressive ideals of nonresistance, nondenominationalism,
manufacture, temperance, education, and equal rights. Though short-lived, the community served as a local center of abolitionist and feminist sentiment. Once enslaved and nationally
known speaker Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagenen) from New York lived in Florence from 1844 to ca. 1857, residing in the 1850s in the house she owned at 35 Park Street . Two properties
in the village have been listed in the National Register to date for their associations with the community and the Underground Railroad in Massachusetts: the Basil Dorsey – Thomas H.
Jones House, 191 Nonotuck Street (1849/1854, NRIND/NRMPS), residence of two notable fugitives from slavery, and the Samuel L. Hill – Austin Ross Farm, 123 Meadow Street (ca. 1825, NRIND/NRMPS),
residence of two important assistants on the Underground Railroad effort in the 1840s. Hill was also a founder of the community. Research is underway to record additional properties
in Florence associated with abolitionist activity. Samuel Hill went on to establish the Nonotuck Silk Company, producers of silk thread for sewing machines, as well as a sewing machine
factory.
By 1865, the sewing silk and sewing machine factories of Florence led in the total value of goods manufactured in Northampton, though mills producing cotton cloth, paper, buttons, and
agricultural implements figured prominently in the town’s industrial economy. Following the 1857 closure of the Shepherd woolen business at Leeds, English immigrant Alfred P. Critchlow
purchased one of the mills and manufactured vegetable ivory buttons from palm nut imported from Panama and South America. The Nonotuck Silk Company at Florence acquired substantial
acreage on and adjacent to Grove Hill at Leeds, leading to construction of management dwellings as well as worker tenements at 7-9, 15-17, and 25-27 Water Street (1860s). The Northampton
Emery Wheel Company, which started in Florence in 1867, moved to Leeds in 1870.
Previously a location for paper mills in the 1830s, the village of Bay State takes its name from the Bay State Tool Company (1854), which employed 150 men in the manufacture of edge
tools and agricultural implements in 1855. Guns and bayonets were manufactured here during the Civil War. The separate Bay State Hardware Company (1859-1870) later became Northampton
Cutlery, producers of fine quality knife blades into the early twentieth century. Also operating at Bay State was the International Screw Nail Company, 20 Ladd Street (1866), later
owned by Clement Cutlery Company. With its mansard roof, this historic mill is one of Northampton’s finest examples of nineteenth century industrial design. Bay State also retains several
examples of worker housing built in the 1860s.
During the Early Industrial period an institutional core emerged at the rural settlement of West Farms (Lonetown), where Northampton’s second oldest burial ground, West Farms Cemetery,
200 West Farms Road, had been established by 1788. A Greek Revival-style chapel (ca. 1835) associated with a
local Methodist society and a brick public school (ca. 1860, possibly earlier) joined the burial ground on West Farms Road. This upland community, also notable for its agricultural landscapes,
anchored Northampton’s dairy farming activity into the twentieth century. A gravel quarry of undetermined vintage operated on nearby Turkey Hill Road at Mineral Hills into the twenty-first
century.
Farming at the town’s center village was largely abandoned by the mid-nineteenth century as land proved more valuable for residential development. An affluent residential neighborhood
expanded from its original Hawley Street axis to Pomeroy Terrace (1847, NRDIS 2018) toward the Connecticut River meadows. Developed from ca. 1850 to 1885, this neighborhood is considered
one of Northampton’s finest historic residential areas. The first residents – merchants, lawyers, railroad executives, ministers, farmers, and bankers – were part of a growing middle
class in Northampton who were building new and in the latest architectural styles of the period. Development here contributed to the rise of the architectural profession in Northampton,
as many residents hired skilled carpenters and architects to design their houses.
A new area of residential development on the south slope of Round Hill featured spacious architect-designed houses in estate settings. Known for its magnificent vistas but largely unsettled
until the early nineteenth century, Round Hill was transformed during the Early Industrial period, serving in succession as the site of the experimental Round Hill School for Boys (early
1820s), a water cure retreat, a popular hotel, and ultimately new quarters, from 1870 onward, for the Clarke School for the Deaf.
In relocating from Gothic Street to Round Hill, Clarke School for the Deaf (1867, NRDIS 2022, LHD 2013) joined a belt of institutional campuses immediately west of the business district
that would be more fully developed through the end of the nineteenth century. The first school for the deaf chartered in Massachusetts, Clarke School was a leader in the education of
deaf students and training of educators for the deaf. The school curriculum emphasized the acquisition of oral skills rather than the teaching sign language. Nearby on Rocky Hill, Northampton
State Hospital (1855, NRDIS/NRMPS 1994) opened as the Commonwealth’s third facility in a hospital system devoted to treatment of the mentally ill. Its hilltop site, landscaped grounds,
and architectural design reflected the most up-to-date hospital planning of the period, a program that incorporated outdoor farm work and recreation to help effect cures.
Relative affluence during the Early Industrial period is reflected in the volume of construction. This is the first period for which clearly delineated neighborhoods of housing survive
for different socio-economic groups. The city retains an uncommonly high number of picturesque Gothic buildings from the mid-nineteenth century, chief of which is Town Hall (later City
Hall), 210 Main Street (1848-1849, NRDIS 1976). Local architect William Fenno Pratt made major contributions to the building stock, ranging from the Town/City Hall to the Renaissance
Revival-style Smith Charities Building, 51 Main Street (1865, NRDIS 1976), and the old Northampton National Bank, 135 Main Street (1866, NRDIS 1976) with its cast iron front. By the
end of the period, Main Street was lined with three- and four-story brick commercial blocks largely of Italianate design, sizable institutional campuses were under construction just
beyond the center, and outlying industrial villages and agricultural settlements encompassed houses of worship and municipal buildings.
Late Industrial Period (1870-1915)
Northampton’s population grew 113 percent during this period, propelled by the establishment of Smith College (1871), continued industrial expansion along the Mill River, and electrification
of previously horse-drawn street cars (1893), all of which attracted new residents and generated greater development in areas outlying the center. Immigrants comprised about one-quarter
of the population, largely Irish with an influx of French Canadians and Poles in the early twentieth century. In response to this growth, Northampton was incorporated as a city in 1883.
While manufacturing dominated the local economy, Northampton remained a major agricultural producer in the region. Tobacco farming was the primary agricultural activity along the Connecticut
River meadows, and dairying and poultry farming were present at West Farms and North Farms. Lumber rafting on the Connecticut River, initially supplanted by the railroads, resumed in
earnest after 1870 when the railroads could not keep up with the demand for spruce timber. Lumber rafting also proved less expensive than railroad transport. The Connecticut River Lumber
Company at the Oxbow was a major collection point for spruce timber and built worker housing on Island Road.
Funded through the will of Sophia Smith of Hatfield, Smith College was chartered as a women’s college in 1871 and opened in 1875. The present central campus encompasses more than 125
acres, an appreciable number of high-style architect-designed historic campus buildings, and eleven extant historic houses that predate the opening of the college. The core 12-acre
campus featured College Hall, 10 Elm Street (1874, NRDIS 1976, LHD 1994), designed in the High Victorian Gothic style by Boston architects Peabody and Stearns. The firm would design
seven more academic and dormitory buildings for the College by 1882. Additional dormitories were built on Green Street in the 1880s, all designed by William C. Brockelsby of Hartford,
Connecticut, though by that time the College trustees had already acquired land to expand the campus northward on Elm Street. Brocklesby designed nine campus buildings between 1885
and 1900, including Alumnae Gymnasium (1891, NRIND 1976). By the end of the Late Industrial period, the campus encompassed much of the land between Elm Street, Green Street, the Mill
River, and Kensington Street. Substantial buildings campaigns would enlarge the campus in the 1920s.
Establishment of the college generated residential development up Elm Street to Round Hill and anchored the western limits of the center village to Elm and West streets. Architects involved
in building the college campus were also commissioned to design new buildings beyond the college grounds. Peabody and Stearns designed First Church of Christ, 123 Main Street (1876,
NRDIS 1976; Peabody and Stearns, architect), following an 1870 fire that destroyed the third meetinghouse. A second fire that year burned a number of Main Street commercial blocks,
which were rebuilt in the early 1870s as three- and four-story buildings. While working at the college, William C. Brockelsby designed important municipal buildings for the city: the
Renaissance Revival-style Academy of Music, 260 Main Street (1891, NRDIS 1976), reportedly the first municipal theater in the nation, and the Romanesque Revival Forbes Library, West
Street (1894, NRDIS 1976). These buildings joined Memorial Hall, 240 Main Street (1872, NRDIS 1976; James McLaughlin, architect), Northampton’s most prominent example of the Second
Empire style, then used as a meeting hall and museum. A new Renaissance Revival-style high school, the D. A. Sullivan School, 17 and 25 South Street (1895, NRDIS 1976; Gardner, Pyne
and Gardner, architect), rounded out the municipal presence at this location.
In Northampton’s sparsely settled northeastern section, 1872 brought the opening of Laurel Park as the Springfield District Camp Meeting associated with the Methodist Church. Access
to the camp improved greatly with new railroad service in 1881, when the New Haven & Northampton Railroad built its own branch line next to the Connecticut River Railroad tracks, extending
service northward from the center to Conway Junction (later known as Shelburne Junction). The railroad reportedly transported thousands each summer; visitors walked up the hill from
the station in Hatfield near the town line. Wood-frame summer cottages and a Chautauqua-style educational and cultural program replaced the open-air religious camp meetings and tent
structures by the late 1880s. The program remained active until ca. 1917. A closely settled community with about 100 cottages, a tabernacle (meeting) building, dining hall, and common
grounds, Laurel Park is distinguished from other historic neighborhoods in Northampton. The cottages display a range of Stick, Victorian Gothic, and Queen Anne-style details.
Manufacturers built at Leeds, Florence, and Bay State, generating concomitant residential and institutional development in these villages. At Leeds, extensive new construction followed
a catastrophic flood on May 16, 1874, caused by the failure of an earthwork and masonry reservoir dam on the upper Mill River at Williamsburg. At least fifty-one of 139 known deaths
in the river valley that day occurred at Leeds, where the flood hit with tidal-wave force before spreading and slowing in the meadows south of the village. The highly successful Nonotuck
Silk Company built a new plant at Leeds in 1880. One of the largest silk manufacturers in the nation, the Florence-based company reportedly employed one-half of Northampton’s work force
during this period. Nonotuck Silk Company adopted the name Corticelli for some of its products in the late nineteenth century, and the business as a whole in 1922. Important Florence-based
industries included the Florence Manufacturing Company, 221 Pine Street (1866, later known as the Pro-phy-lac-tic Brush Company); and Norwood Engineering Company, 28-32 North Maple
Street (ca. 1870), maker of industrial water filters. A village business district and civic core emerged in Florence, including the Alfred Lilly Public Library, 19 Meadow Street (1890,
Charles H. Jones, architect).
Bay State continued to grow as a knife and cutlery center with the operations of Northampton Cutlery Company, 320 Riverside Drive (1871) and Clement Manufacturing Company. At their peak
in the 1880s and 1890s, these companies employed 350 to 400 men. E. E. Wood, a former superintendent of Northampton Cutlery, took over the old paper mill at Bay State and established
his own cutlery firm in 1889. A small business district formed on Riverside Drive.
Downtown Northampton attracted industries that relocated to the community. Horace Lamb moved his wire manufacturing business to Northampton from North Hadley in 1873, working out of
a brick mill at 51-53 Clarke Avenue (late nineteenth century, altered). Belding Brothers of Connecticut established a large silk mill in 1876, with worker housing surviving on Isabella
Street. Belding’s own box maker, Kingsbury Box Company, relocated to Northampton in 1879, and later built a factory at 84 North Street (1885-1890), producing both wood and paper boxes.
Further institutional development occurred outside the villages. Northampton Country Club, 135 Main Street, Leeds (1898), eventually encompassed a nine-hole golf course, with the present
clubhouse added by 1960. Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School, 80 Locust Street (1908) was the first vocational technical school to open in the Commonwealth. Built by the City
of Northampton,
the school was funded by the will of Oliver Smith (d. 1845), who established Smith Charities. Hampshire County built a sanatorium for consumptive patients (ca. 1914, demolished) on River
Street at Leeds near the Williamsburg town line, now the location of a rehabilitation and hospice facility.
Construction in 1871, 1883, and 1894 of dams and reservoirs associated with Northampton’s public water supply system contributed to the decline of Roberts Meadow village in the northwest
part of town, located principally along Roberts Meadow Brook and Chesterfield Road west of Kennedy Road. The rural settlement once encompassed farmsteads, a public school, taverns,
and small-scale industry, including a carding factory, sawmill, tannery, and blacksmith shop. The City of Northampton discontinued active use of the reservoirs in 1905 after building
larger facilities in Whately and Williamsburg. Only Todd Farm, 64 Kennedy Road (ca. 1775), and the Clapp House, 1031 Chesterfield Road (ca. 1800) remain. The Upper Reservoir dam was
partly dismantled in 2018.
Residential construction during this period ranged from high-style architect-designed dwellings associated with estates and affluent neighborhoods to more modest single-family cottages
and the camp dwellings at Laurel Park. Rowhouses, double houses, and two-families were the most common multiple-family dwellings, the latter two appearing in the 1880s and 1890s and
often constructed as investment properties with their owners sometimes, but not always, living elsewhere. Very few three-deckers were built in Northampton, and some apartment blocks
were constructed by the end of the period. Residing in Northampton at this time was Vermont native, Amherst College graduate, and attorney Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933), whose home from
1906 was 19-21 Massasoit Street (1900, NRIND 1976). Coolidge served as a city councilor then mayor of Northampton (1910-1912), moving on to become Governor of Massachusetts (1919-1921),
Vice-President of the United States (1921-1923) under Warren G. Harding, and President of the United States (1923-1929). Returning to Northampton in retirement, Coolidge resided at
The Beeches, 16 Hampton Terrace (1914).
Early Modern Period (1915-1940)
This period brought significant industrial activity associated with World War I, establishment of the Veterans Hospital, expansion of the Smith College campus, and residential growth
through the 1920s. Business reversals associated with the Depression era slowed the local economy in the latter part of the period, with the population increasing only 1.7 percent between
1930 (24,381 persons) and 1940 (24,794 persons). In 1917, Northampton sent 771 soldiers to fight in World War I; twenty-six died in service.
Poles remained one of Northampton’s largest immigrant groups and were closely associated with the city’s agricultural activity. By 1940, four-fifths of Northampton farms reportedly were
owned by residents of Polish descent. Agriculture continued as a primary activity along the Connecticut River meadows toward Easthampton and Hadley. Uplands at West Farms and North
Farms supported dairy farms.
World War I boosted local industry, especially silk production, toothbrushes, the cutlery plants, and Norwood Engineering. Contractions in manufacturing after the war contributed to
the end of silk production and the manufacture of baskets and industrial filters. Pro-phy-lac-tic Brush Company, 221 Pine Street (1866-1902), the city’s largest employer in 1930 with
1,000 employees, was recognized as the world’s largest manufacturer of brand-name toothbrushes. The company did not change its name
from its original Florence Manufacturing Company, however, until 1924. Automobile ownership in the 1920s created new businesses devoted to car sales and repair, delivery services, and
trucking. As a result, garages were built throughout Northampton. Though the Depression slowed industry, farming continued.
Major institutional campus construction occurred in Northampton in the 1920s and 1930s. In health care, the Northampton Veterans Administration Hospital, 421 North Main Street, Leeds
(1922-1950, NRDIS/NRMPS 2012) opened in 1924 as a neuropsychiatric hospital serving veterans of all New England states except Connecticut. The campus was designed with multiple buildings
in the Colonial Revival style and ample acreage for farming operations conducted as therapy for the patients. Northampton’s was the first veteran’s hospital built in Massachusetts by
the Veterans Bureau of the Federal government.
Private and public education buildings were built on the Elm Street axis. Smith College added twenty new buildings and structures to its campus from 1918 to 1939, designed chiefly in
revival styles. In addition to the Grecourt Gates, Elm Street (1924, NRDIS 1976, LHD 1994), the college completed the ten-dormitory Quadrangle, 186 Elm Street (1922-1936) in the Georgian
Revival style, for the first time housing all boarding students on-campus. The Boston architecture firm of Ames, Putnam and Dodge or its partners or successor firm designed the Quadrangle,
the Colonial Revival President’s House, 8 Paradise Road (1920), and Scott Gymnasium, Belmont Avenue (1924).
Other notable academic and administration buildings of this period include Sage Hall, Green Street (1924; Delano and Aldrich, architect) and Alumnae House, 33 Elm Street (1938, NRDIS
1976, LHD 1994; Frederick J. Woodbridge, architect). One of very few high schools built in the Connecticut Valley during the Early Modern period, Northampton High School, 380 Elm Street
(1939), is perhaps the city’s finest example of municipal construction in the Stripped Classical Modern mode. J. Williams Beal and Sons, the same Boston firm that designed the Stripped
Classical First National Bank downtown (1928), also designed the high school.
Major engineering works were completed during this period. Like the High School, another important example of Depression-era construction is Calvin Coolidge Memorial Bridge (1939; Maurice
Reidy/Desmond and Lord, architects) crossing the Connecticut River to Hadley. Funded under the Hayden Cartwright Act, one of numerous Federal aid programs to provide jobs during the
Depression, the bridge replaced an earlier bridge damaged by disastrous flooding that occurred March 14-16, 1936. An ice jam on the Connecticut River between Northampton and Holyoke
with ensuing rains flooded the river meadows, Island Road at the Oxbow, Bridge Street neighborhoods, and the downtown business district as far west as City Hall. From 1939 to 1941,
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed a flood control system to protect a large portion of Northampton from flooding of the Connecticut and Mill rivers. As part of this construction,
the path of the Mill River was diverted from its original channel (through Veterans Field and behind City Hall) to a diversion channel that empties into the Oxbow at the Connecticut
River.
New construction of several noteworthy buildings occurred in the central business district. The Northampton Institute for Savings, 109 Main Street (1916, NRDIS 1976; Thomas M. James
Co., architect), and the First National Bank, 1 King Street (1928, NRDIS 1976; J. Williams Beal and Sons,
architect), were designed by Boston firms. Taken together they illustrate how approaches to classical design evolved from the traditional to the Stripped Classical Modern mode that came
to be associated with commercial and municipal architecture of the 1930s.
A significant addition to the business district was the Colonial Revival-style Hotel Northampton, 36 King Street (1927, NRDIS 1976; H. L. Stevens Company, architect), built after a five-year
subscription drive by the city’s Chamber of Commerce to sponsor a prominent local hostelry for business purposes. Smaller hotels had been built in the business district in the late
nineteenth century.
Residential growth continued through the 1920s, and areas of new construction included the western end of South Street, upper Prospect Street, and Bridge Road in Florence. Most were
single-family dwellings, some architect-designed; very few workers’ or multiple-family houses were built. Revival-style house predominated, though the number of bungalow house types
is noteworthy, especially in period neighborhoods such as Hubbard Avenue, Swan Street, and Marshall Street. Concrete block construction was introduced during this period – the bungalow
at 18 Cedar Street (1916) is a notable example – though most commonly used in garages.
Among Northampton’s most significant open spaces from the Early Modern period is Frank Newhall Look Memorial Park, 289 Main Street (1928-1930). Located on the Mill River adjacent to
Northampton County Club, the park includes a fountain (1928) and a Mission-style former pool building now known as the Garden House (1930). At the Connecticut River meadows near the
Coolidge Memorial Bridge, Lafleur Airport (Northampton Airport), 160 Old Ferry Road, opened in 1929. Three County Fairground, Bridge and Fair streets, occupies the former site of the
Northampton Driving Park Association horse-racing track. Racing continues to be a major part of the fair. The fairground also encompasses exhibit buildings and playing fields.
Modern Period (1940-ca. 1975)
Approximately 2,900 men and women from Northampton served in World War II; ninety died in service. The city’s population peaked at 30,058 persons in 1960, with the greatest period of
growth (17.2 percent) occurring in the 1940s. Beginning in 1970, the city recorded gradual population losses for the next forty years. New residential neighborhoods were developed with
capes, ranches, and split-level houses. Among the residential subdivisions built in the 1950s and 1960s were the Spring Grove Avenue neighborhood off Bridge Road in Florence, and several
neighborhoods near Ryan and Burts Pit roads, around Westwood Terrace, Cahillane Terrace, Forest Glen Drive, Deerfield Drive, Acrebrook Drive, Gilrain Terrace, and Pioneer Knolls.
The City of Northampton built new schools at Jackson Street downtown (1951), Leeds (1952), Florence (Kennedy Junior High, 1964), and Ryan Road (1967). Smith College added nine buildings
to its campus from 1955 to 1972. Prominent buildings on Elm Street designed by New York architects and still extant are the traditionally styled Helen Hills Chapel, 123 Elm Street (1955,
LHD 1994; William and Geoffrey Platt, architects), and the paired International-style dormitories, Cutter House and Ziskind House, 79 Elm Street (1957, LHD 1994; Skidmore, Owings, and
Merrill, architects).
In commercial construction, Northampton retains notable examples of prefabricated diners manufactured by Worcester Lunch Car Company from the 1930s to 1950. The former Miss
Northampton Diner, 6 Strong Avenue (ca. 1930, NRDIS 1976), reportedly is the longest operating diner in the Connecticut River Valley. Miss Florence Diner, 99 Main Street, Florence (1941,
NRIND/ NRMPS) is a fine example of a diner remodeled and expanded by the Worcester company within a decade of its original construction. A barrel-roofed diner attached to a larger restaurant
on U. S. Route 5 north of downtown, the Bluebonnet Diner, 324 King Street (1950), is one of few Worcester diners in the state manufactured in the 1950s.
Transportation-related improvements of this period left an indelible mark on Northampton, especially in the Connecticut River meadows. With the construction of Interstate 91, several
bridges were built between 1963 and 1965, carrying the highway over Island Pond Road, Mount Tom Road (U. S. Route 5), Hockanum Road, Old Ferry Road, Bridge Street (State Route 9), Damon
Road, and the Boston & Maine Railroad. As highway construction accelerated, railroads ended passenger service. The Shelburne Falls branch past Laurel Park was suspended in 1943. New
York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad cut back service on the Williamsburg branch line to Florence in 1962 and ended service from Easthampton in 1969. Only the Boston & Maine Railroad,
formerly the Connecticut Valley Railroad line, remained in operation, terminating local passenger service in 1966 but offering high-speed Amtrak service by 1972. The City of Northampton
opened an Industrial Park off Damon Road, selling its first parcel for development on Industrial Drive in 1974. The industrial park provides easy access to U. S. Route 5/State Route
10 (North King Street) and Interstate 91, with the Boston & Maine Railroad corridor abutting the park on the west.
2.3. History of Preservation Planning in Northampton
Northampton has a rich history honored in written accounts, building preservation, and the continued cultivation of historic preservation plans. Located in the Pioneer Valley, Northampton
histories are nested within the histories of the Pocumtuc, Nipmuc, and Nonotuck people as well as European settlers and those after. Efforts within the City of Northampton are conducted
by an active Historical Commission that is supported closely by the Office of Planning and Sustainability as well as a vibrant Historic Society (Historic Northampton).
Historic preservation planning for Northampton has been done through local plans and policies, with additional guidance from regional and state plans and policies. There has been less
emphasis on the historic, cultural landscapes in various forms including open space, recreational environments, and trails.
Local Plans
Historic Preservation Plan (1992)
The Northampton Office of Planning and Development and the Northampton Historical Commission engaged in one historic preservation plan process in 1992, with prior preservation efforts
led by the Historic District Commission beginning in 1973. At the time of the 1992 Historic Preservation Plan, few historical properties were recognized or protected through formal
preservation policy.
The 1992 Plan outlined several goals and objectives, including:
Facilitate the inventory and update of historic resources.
Encourage and coordinate opportunities for community education and an increased public awareness around local history
Strengthen the role of the Historical Commission in City Government
Expand the preservation of historic materials and oral histories.
Engage growth policies and planning to prevent damage to local heritage.
As a result of the local historic preservation plan and advocacy by residents and organizations alike, the City initiated preservation activities and achieved many goals outlined in
the 1992 plan through zoning ordinances and community action. The recognition of the Elm Street Historic District in 1994 and its expansion in 2013 to include the Round Hill neighborhood
marks the increased protection of historic resources under local ordinance. Federal recognition of the Pomeroy Terrace Neighborhood as a Historic District in 2018 was the culmination
of resident’s success supported by local city government to further protect architectural significance and the notability of previous residents.
Since the adoption of the historic preservation plan, architectural standards and protection districts were created for both downtown and West Street, with the Central Business Architecture
District Ordinance established in 1999 and the West Street Architecture District Ordinance established in 2011.
Northampton adopted a Demolition Delay Ordinance in April 2005 with the aim to protect and preserve significant buildings for an additional year so alternatives to demolition could be
identified. Regulated structures under the Ordinance include all properties built in 1900 or earlier, and a selection of properties built between 1901 and 1939, identified by the Historical
Commission following the Ordinance’s adoption.
An additional policy implemented in 2005 was the adoption of the Community Preservation Act (CPA) which enables the City to add a surcharge to local property taxes and apply for matched
funding from the Community Preservation Trust Fund to be used to support the creation or maintenance of the following:
Open Space: Parks, Playgrounds, Recreational Fields
Affordable Housing
Historic Preservation of Buildings & Resources
The Community Preservation Committee (CPC) acts as the managers of local CPA funding and stewards these causes. To date, over fifty historic preservation projects have been funded through
this program in the City of Northampton. Additional preservation actors include the Northampton Historic Commission that merged with the Historic District Commission, begun in 1973,
as of 2013. The Northampton Historical Commission is charged with the “preservation, promotion and development of the historical assets of the city,” their projects include:
Completing the Downtown Florence Historical Survey
Compiling a registry of public monuments
Presenting Historic Preservation Awards since the 1970s to recognize historically appropriate rehabilitations and new projects
Partners with the Department of Public Works on the City’s four historic cemeteries
An ongoing partnership between the City’s Planning Department and Northampton Historical Commission is focused on the ongoing inventory of historic resources preservation of historic
materials, community education and awareness campaigns, and continued preservation policy.
Open Space, Recreation & Multi-Use Trail Plan (2018-2025)
The Open Space, Recreation and Multi-Use Plan identifies significant scenic resources and unique environments that include notable viewsheds, or vistas, from roads, water bodies, protected
open space, and historic districts. Archeological sites are not specifically identified to protect them. The National Trust named City of Northampton as one of the Dozen Destinations
of Distinction for Historic Preservation.
The City has worked with the Corps of Engineers to evaluate alternatives to restore a riverine migratory corridor to the historic Mill River. The City has been acquiring land along the
Historic Corridor. This Plan also includes a list of Preservation Restrictions.
One of the goals in the Open Space, Recreation and Multi-Use Plan is to “create and preserve high quality, built environments in the downtown and village centers.” A recommendation
to help meet this goal is to encourage and create incentives to maintain the distinctions and historic precedents that define the downtown and other more densely developed locations
or in targeted growth zones.
Another goal is to preserve natural and cultural resources and the environment with recommendations to have the City lead in protecting architectural and cultural history as well as
consistently apply the criteria for preservation of the environment and resources across all neighborhoods and areas.
The historic resource’s goal is to protect and preserve the City’s heritage resources by:
Educating and informing decision makers and the community about heritage resources, and
Protect the heritage resources from degradation or destruction by public or private actions or inactions.
This plan also includes goals and priorities for specific greenways, rivers and burial grounds that are protected and are of value to the history as well as future character of the City.
Bridges and scenic roads are of historical significance in Northampton as well but have not been documented in as much detail in this plan. In addition, the seven-year action plan
provided in this plan states (under #11 Honor History in the Landscapes) that there has been less emphasis on the living and outdoor landscapes, especially cemeteries, historically
significant landscapes, and historical farms and other working landscapes. Goals are to:
Preserve historic cemeteries
Develop the historic mine site, the Galena Mine in the Mineral Hills
Add historic interpretation for Mill River and other historic sites
Develop heritage landscape histories to bring the history alive for users
Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan (2008; 2021)
Northampton’s most recent comprehensive plan, Sustainable Northampton, focuses on various aspects with historic preservation layered throughout its chapters. One of the guiding principles
is to “Recognize and foster the unique history, character and function of each residential, commercial, mixed use, and open space neighborhood.” The plan identifies goals to preserve
historical resources as well as objectives, strategies, and actions to achieve such through the Heritage Resource chapter. The City identified the continued stewardship of heritage
resources through their protection and preservation.
The objectives of the Heritage Resources chapter included:
Identify, document, and evaluate heritage resources
Educate and inform decision makers and the community about heritage resources
Protect the heritage resources from degradation by public or private actions or inactions
Adopt and act on preservation programs that employ field surveys and archival research, provide economic and technical assistance, are coordinated with community policies and ordinances,
and operate with sound and explicit standards.
This recent master plan echoes the continuation of the community’s education and participation called for in 1992. To encourage the preservation and protection of historical resources
requires and increased awareness among residents, commercial interests and stakeholders. The community’s engagement and support of this updated supplementary historic preservation
may serve as a foundation for knowledge of current resources and active preservation.
City of Northampton Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2020 Update
This plan states that mitigation efforts undertaken by communities will help to minimize damages to buildings and infrastructure, including cultural and historic resources. The City
has a number of historical buildings that could be damaged or destroyed if a large enough earthquake were to happen. A loss of these historic buildings could represent a loss of Northampton’s
history and culture. There have been no studies done to determine how Northampton’s critical infrastructure would fair in an earthquake.
Site-Specific Plans
Historic Northampton has had reports done for each of their three houses:
Isaac Damon House
Nathaniel Parsons House
Shepherd Barn
Both the Isaac Damon House report and the Nathaniel Parsons House report provides a thorough documentation of the structures’ origins and changes over time. The Shepherd Barn report
provides information on the construction and carpentry of the barn focusing on evidence of its original purpose and use and how it has been modified to its current form. This report
is intended to both aid in the interpretation of the barn and serve as a guide to its future re-use as part of the museum.
MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report (July 1982)
The MHC Report provides a historic overview, a description of topography, and political boundaries. The report concludes with survey observations that evaluate the town’s existing historic
properties
inventory and highlight significant historic buildings, settlement patterns, and present threats to these resources. The Survey Observations note that, “Northampton’s survey is well
documented and almost every building of outstanding character is included. Virtually all of Northampton’s industrial buildings have been identified. There remains opportunity for National
Register Districts, especially at Bay State, Leeds, and Florence.”
Regional Plans
Historic & Archeological Resources of the Connecticut River Valley: A Framework for Preservation Decisions, Massachusetts Historical Commission, February 1984.
Several recommendations from this plan have been accomplished for Northampton, including:
Encourage local historical commissions to expand the range of buildings, structures, and sites they include in their inventory. As recommended, the City has included vernacular housing,
industrial buildings, important structures such as bridges and dams, and locally known archaeological sites (both prehistoric and historic).
Encourage local historical commissions to view completion of their inventory as the beginning rather than the end of their preservation efforts. Assist them in using inventory information
as the basis for ongoing preservation activities such as public education, selection, and nomination of properties to the National Register, preparation of local historic districts,
and coordination with town planning boards and officials to protect important sites, structures and landscapes.
Continue to work with the cities and larger towns to find new ways to reuse existing historic buildings, especially obsolete industrial and civic structures.
Continue to integrate archaeological and historic preservation concerns into local as well as regional planning efforts.
Recommendations from this plan that have not been fully accomplished but are important in terms of historic preservation of the City are:
Focusing preservation activities on the identification, evaluation, and protection of historical landscapes and streetscapes. Protection of historical context in broad as well as specific
terms should be a priority.
Encourage the adoption of a statewide open space plan that would coordinate agricultural as well as public and private conservation policies with the protection of rural and low-density
historic landscapes.
Continue to work with the Department of Environmental Management, the Metropolitan District Commission, and other public agencies to incorporate historic preservation priorities into
all planning for state parks, forests and watershed management areas.
State Plans
The Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Plan 2018-2022, Massachusetts Historical Commission, July 26, 2018.
Northampton was not specifically mentioned in this plan as the City seemed to have accomplished many of the recommendations set forth in the previous two State Plans.
The Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Plan 2011-2015, Massachusetts Historical Commission, February 14, 2011.
This plan states that the National Trust for Historic Preservation has now recognized Northampton as one of five communities in Massachusetts as distinctive destinations. This program
recognizes both the preservation efforts of the community and the memorable experiences for the visitor.
Per recommendations in this plan for the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) staff preservation planners to assist local municipalities, the PVPC has assisted on several projects
that were initiated by the City of Northampton. These include:
Historic Inventory (Form B) update project
Pomeroy Terrance National Register nomination
Elm Street Historic District design manual
Northampton-New Haven Canal Historic Documentation; a cooperative effort with all canal communities
The PVPC also serve as the review authority for local historic district appeals, of which there has been only one.
This plan describes how the Department of Conservation and Recreation partnered with 108 communities and regional organizations to implement the Heritage Landscape Inventory Program,
but Northampton was not one of the participating communities, therefore does not have a Heritage Landscape Inventory completed for the City.
The Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Plan 2006-2010, Massachusetts Historical Commission, September 2006.
This plan states that the most notable professional targeted survey project in the region since the 2000 State Plan has been the Smith College update of inventory information on the
historic buildings of its Northampton campus. Additional mentions of Northampton in this plan are that registration activity and context developed through National Register nominations
include areas of secondary development in Northampton and a nominated resources having to do with African American history, includes the Dorsey-Jones House, listed as the first designation
under the Underground Railroad in Massachusetts context (MPS).
Northampton has accomplished many of the preservation planning and protection recommendations set forth in this plan:
Recognizes the need for local historic preservation planning
Has an active local historic commission and is supported by MHC in preservation planning activities
Cooperate with regional planning agencies on preservation planning activities
Encourage local historic districts in downtowns, village centers, and neighborhoods
Adopt demolition delay ordinances, particularly in more urbanized communities
This plan also includes a recommendation for the City of Northampton to become a Certified Local Government.
2.4. Preservation Partners
Historic Northampton
Historic Northampton is an active historical society that provides historic preservation advocacy and education. It operates a museum for collecting and preserving Northampton’s material,
social, and environmental history for the benefit of the greater community. While it is a private, non-profit organization, Historic Northampton seeks to encourage the growth of civic
identities through the study of local history. The organization manages four properties on Bridge Street from the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, including the Nathaniel
Parsons House (1719), the Isaac Damon House (1813), the Pomeroy-Shepherd House (1797), and the Shepherd Barn (1803-1806). Collections include extensive historical photographs with an
online digital catalog.
https://www.historicnorthampton.org/
Downtown Northampton Association (DNA)
DNA focuses on improving the cultural and economic strength of the downtown corridor through maintenance, marketing, and advocacy. Direct maintenance and day-to-day beautification occur
in tandem with municipal efforts. The group also works with local businesses to design and maintain greenery during the warmer months and focuses on holiday decorations during the winter.
The DNA team organizes downtown events and advertises them through social media platforms and other means. Overall, this organization advocates for the health and vitality of Downtown
Northampton and facilitates communication between City officials and the downtown business community.
http://www.northamptondna.com/
Pioneer Valley History Network
This network is a consortium of the Pioneer Valley region’s historical institutions (including Historic Northampton). It connects history-minded individuals, organizations, and museums
through a free membership and promotes communication, collaboration, and an appreciation of the region’s history.
https://pioneervalleyhistorynetwork.org/
David Ruggles Center for History and Education (Northampton)
Located in the village of Florence, the David Ruggles Center for History and Education highlights the history of abolition in the small village where people chose to live by shared values
of racial, class, gender-based, and religious freedom. The organization offers educational walking tours, a permanent museum with rotating exhibits, historical archive and library services,
and special events.
Committee for Northampton, Inc.
This is a non-profit umbrella organization of the David Ruggles Center for History and Education. The Committee for Northampton recently received Community Preservation funds to preserve
225 Nonotuck Street and study additional properties for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under the Underground Railroad of Massachusetts.
https://davidrugglescenter.org/
Forbes Library Public Library (Northampton)
The Forbes Library supports growth and life-long learning for the greater Northampton Community. Not only does the library provide a place for enjoyment of multimedia and a meeting place,
but it also provides extensive resources for local history and personal genealogical research for Hampshire County and houses the Calvin Coolidge Presidential Library and Museum.
https://forbeslibrary.org/info/
Smith College
As a major landowner in the Elm Street Local Historic District and an institution dating to 1871, Smith College is an integral part of historic Northampton and an archival presence.
Smith College is well represented in the historical inventory of the city and is an important stakeholder and data source for architecture, landscape design, education, and social history
in Northampton.
https://www.smith.edu/about-smith
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission - Historic Preservation
As a regional planning organization throughout the Pioneer Valley, PVPC has worked with communities in the region for over 30 years to preserve and appreciate local history under the
guidance of state and federal regulations. Although the PVPC historic preservation team is not an active participant in this process, they fund historic ventures in Northampton and
remain a stakeholder as historic advocates.
https://www.pvpc.org/projects/historic-preservation
Community Preservation Committee
In 2005, Northampton adopted the Community Preservation Act (CPA) and subsequently established the City’s Community Preservation Committee (CPC). The committee utilizes funds from a
3 percent surcharge on real estate taxes to protect, create, or provide open space and recreation, historic preservation, and community housing. https://northamptonma.gov/1048/Community-Preservation
-Committee
Central Business Architecture Committee
The Central Business Architecture Committee is an appointed volunteer board composed of varying interests from real estate to architecture and the construction industry. Its charge is
to preserve and enhance the historical and architectural features and pedestrian scale of Northampton’s downtown.
The committee administers the Central Business Architecture Ordinance, established in 1999 under Northampton’s Code of Ordinances, c. 156. It is active through technical assistance and
conducting design review for downtown-area renovations or construction.
https://northamptonma.gov/1044/Central-Business-Architecture-Committee
Northampton Historical Commission
Established in 1973, the Northampton Historical Commission is the municipal board charged with identifying, evaluating, and protecting the city’s historic and archaeological resources
per G.L. c.40 §8D. The Historical Commission and a separate Historic District Commission were merged in 2013 to “preserve, promote, and develop the city’s historical assets.” The responsibilities
of this commission include the permitting of projects within the Elm Street Local Historic District (1994, expanded 2013) under G. L. c.40C, as well as historic building demolition
review, since 2005, under Northampton’s Code of Ordinances, c. 161. The Historical Commission partners with the Public Works Department to preserve city-owned cemeteries.
https://www.northamptonma.gov/1052/Historical-Commission
Northampton Planning Board
Northampton’s Planning Board is responsible for the adoption of comprehensive and study plans as well as all zoning and subdivision regulations. In addition to these planning activities,
since 2011, the Planning Board has continued to administer design review and permitting of projects in the West Street Architecture District under Northampton’s Code of Ordinances,
c. 156.
https://northamptonma.gov/1087/Planning-Board
City Staff
Wayne Feiden, FAICP – former Director, Planning & Sustainability
Sarah LaValley AICP – Assistant Director, Planning & Sustainability
Carolyn Misch AICP – Director, Planning & Sustainability
List of Sources
Section 2.2
“Chronology of Northampton.” Unattributed list (prepared ca. 2001). City of Northampton, Office of Planning and Sustainability. Accessed May 2022. https://northamptonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/832/C
HRONOLOGY-OF-NORTHAMPTON1?bidId=.
Community Preservation Project Application, Critical Open Space Acquisitions: Mineral Hills – Mining Heritage and Rocky Hill Addition. Northampton Conservation Commission and Office
of Planning and Sustainability. September 15, 2017.
Elm Street Historic District: Round Hill Road Extension. City of Northampton, Historic District Commission. Final Study Report (Approved April 1, 2013).
Historic and Archaeological Resources of the Connecticut River Valley: A Framework for Preservation Decisions. Massachusetts Historical Commission State Survey Team: Sarah Zimmerman,
Neill DePaoli, Arthur J. Krim, Peter Stott, and James W Bradley. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Historical Commission, Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth. February 1984 (reprinted
1988, 2007). https://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/mhcpdf/regionalreports/CTValley.pdf.
Historic Northampton Online Collection Catalog. https://www.historicnorthampton.org/online-collections-catalog.html.
Karr, Ronald Dale. The Rail Lines of Southern New England. A Handbook of Railroad History. Pepperell, MA: Branch Line Press, 1995.
Lincoln, Eleanor Terry and John Abel Pinto. This, the House We Live In. The Smith College Campus from 1871 to 1982. Northampton, MA: Smith College, 1983.
Local Historic Districts Final Report. City of Northampton, Local Historic District Study Committee. 1991. No districts created.
Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS). Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. https://mhc-macris.net with companion mapping at MACRIS Maps, https://maps.mhc-macris.net
.
National Register of Historic Places nominations. Massachusetts Historical Commission (accessible online through MACRIS database above):
Clarke School for the Deaf Historic District (NRDIS 2022)
Dorsey-Jones House, 191 Nonotuck Street, Florence (NRIND/NRMPS 2005)
Downtown Historic District and District Boundary Increase (NRDIS 1976, 1985)
Fort Hill Historic District (NRDIS 1989)
Northampton State Hospital (NRDIS/NRMPS 1994)
Parsons, Shepherd. Damon Houses Historic District (NRDIS 2001)
Pomeroy Terrace Historic District (NRDIS 2018)
Ross Farm (NRDIS/NRMPS 2008)
The Underground Railroad in Massachusetts, 1783-1865 (NRMPS 2005)
Raber, Michael S. and Carl E. Walter. Survey and Inventory of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal (New Haven and Northampton Canal) for a Proposed National Register of Historic Places Nomination.
Prepared for the Towns of Southwick, Westfield, and Southampton, Massachusetts. November 2002.
Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Northampton. Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston. 1982. https://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/mhcpdf/townreports/CT-Valley/nth.pdf.
Sharpe, Elizabeth M. In the Shadow of the Dam. The Aftermath of the Mill River Flood of 1874. New York, NY: Free Press, 2004.
Women of Florence History Trail, 1840-1900. Florence, Massachusetts. Florence, MA: The
David Ruggles Center, undated.
Section 2.3
Historic Preservation Plan, City of Northampton Office of Planning & Development and the Northampton Historical Commission, 1992.
Historic & Archeological Resources of the Connecticut River Valley: A Framework for Preservation Decisions, Massachusetts Historical Commission, February 1984.
Massachusetts State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Submitted to the National Park Service by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, 2017.
Open Space, Recreation & Multi-Use Trail Plan (2018-2025), 2018.
Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Northampton. Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston. 1982. https://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/mhcpdf/townreports/CT-Valley/nth.pdf.
Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan (2008 amended to 2021).
The City of Northampton Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, prepared by The Northampton Hazard Mitigation Committee and Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, 2020.
The Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Plan 2018-2022, Massachusetts Historical Commission, July 26, 2018.
The Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Plan 2011-2015, Massachusetts Historical Commission, February 14, 2011.
The Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Plan 2006-2010, Massachusetts Historical Commission, September 2006.
Investigation and Analysis
3.1. Overview of Issues and Challenges
Northampton has a wide range of residential, social and institutional, commercial, agricultural, and industrial resources reflecting more than three centuries of historic growth and
development. The types of historic resources found here include areas, buildings, structures such as bridges, objects such as statues, and open spaces such as cemeteries, parks, and
other designed landscapes, and agricultural landscapes. Most historic resources are sited in cluster settings, among them villages, residential neighborhoods, institutional campuses,
and business districts.
Measures to identify, protect, and plan for Northampton’s historic resources can help to preserve the City’s unique character by avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating losses to historic
resources. In the absence of effective advocacy, funding, staff capacity, and preservation protections enacted and enforced at the local level, preservation of historic resources tends
to be eclipsed by other municipal
and community priorities. Ideally, preservation goals are integrated with those of sustainability, land use and development, economic development, housing, infrastructure, transportation,
municipal governance, and social equity, beyond the environment, arts/culture, and education goals with which preservation is more commonly associated. The need to integrate historic
preservation with all of these other valid City concerns is why Northampton decided to prepare a Historic Preservation component of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Doing so can Historic
Preservation on an equal footing with other valid community planning concerns.
Unfortunately, Northampton has lost some important historic resources despite the efforts of the Historical Commission, City staff, and others. For example, Northampton State Hospital
was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1994 as a historic district with seventy-five buildings, sites, structures, and objects dating from the 1850s to the 1960s.
However, all but five were demolished when the campus was sold and redeveloped for residential and commercial uses. In addition, the construction of townhouse units on the site of Saint
John Cantius Polish Catholic Church Rectory (1913), located at 10 Hawley Street in the Pomeroy Terrace National Register Historic District, points to the challenges of aligning residential
infill development with the character and scale of historic neighborhood streetscapes. Finally, removal of the City-owned Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam (1883) off Chesterfield
Road, an important feature in a potential historic district deemed National Register-eligible by the Massachusetts Historical Commission in 2012, highlights interconnected issues of
stewardship, fiscal considerations, and public safety.
This section identifies ongoing and anticipated issues and challenges inherent in preserving Northampton’s historic resources. While this preservation planning study focuses on “above
ground” resources, brief reference is made to the need for a separate planning study addressing the identification, evaluation, and protection of historic and prehistoric archaeological
sites.
Growth, Development, and Comprehensive Planning
Enhancing the city’s historic character through sensitive treatment of historic areas
Encouraging new development that complements historic character of neighborhoods
Public misunderstanding of the limits of preservation planning goals and tools, which apply to the built or designed environment, including landscapes of historic and cultural significance,
but do not extend to the conservation of wetlands, trees, wildlife habitats, and other natural resources.
Reconciling zoning measures adopted with public input under the requirements of the state Zoning Act (G.L. c. 40A) and concerns from abutters and other City residents with the form and
siting of infill (new) construction currently permitted under the Zoning Ordinance.
Grassroots demand for greater neighborhood input on infill (new) construction in historic neighborhoods, yet little demonstrated interest in pursuing design review controls available
under the state Historic District Act (G. L. c. 40C)
Perception that rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings is associated principally with commercial entities provides little benefit to residential neighborhoods, and leads
to gentrification.
Current ordinances do not require requests for comments from the Historical Commission about proposed new development or infill development in or adjacent to historically sensitive areas,
or for the City’s acquisition of new preservation restrictions. Notification tends to occur by referral or word of mouth.
Preservation Regulation and Administration
Guiding and monitoring the impact of public and private actions on historic resources
Limited effectiveness of Demolition Ordinance in preserving historic resources; many property owners wait out the one-year delay, if imposed, or do not engage with the Historical Commission
on mitigation efforts.
Interest in developing guidelines or expectations for what constitutes a good-faith effort on the part of property owners in collaborating with the Historical Commission to explore alternatives
to demolition.
Desire by the Historical Commission and Central Business Architecture Committee for better historical data on buildings proposed for demolition, to facilitate informed decision-making.
Lack of inventory forms or details in existing forms for buildings proposed for demolition is a common occurrence.
Insufficient documentation of ancillary buildings on residential properties (e.g., barns, carriage houses, garages) hampers Historical Commission review under the Demolition Ordinance.
For buildings and structures not already listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places, perceived inconsistency in determining whether a building or structure is significant
under the Demolition Ordinance.
In the absence of design review procedures, demolished buildings are replaced with new construction that conforms to zoning and building codes but may not complement existing building
stock.
Resource Development
Improving documentation of historic resources through inventory and designation efforts.
Ensuring Northampton’s inventory is the starting point for planning and funding decisions.
Integrating information on the inventory/designation status of historic resources with the City’s planning, assessing, and mapping functions.
Need to promote Northampton’s historic properties inventory as the foundation for local preservation planning and funding efforts. Recent additions to the inventory tend to follow, rather
than precede, local permitting activity or document resources after they have become endangered. Inventory forms are lacking or outdated for resources that have received Community Preservation
funding.
Misperception that all inventoried resources are historically significant, and any resources still absent from the inventory do not possess historic value. This lack of identification,
documentation, recognition, and efforts to protect increases the risk of losing historic resources.
Uneven distribution of inventoried resources citywide, focusing on the Central Business District and downtown neighborhoods, while outlying villages and many residential neighborhoods
are underrepresented and at risk of inappropriate, unwanted change.
Emphasis in the inventory on high-style examples of the City’s architecture, while noteworthy concentrations of more modest historic buildings, especially residential, have yet to be
included.
Inventory must be sufficiently comprehensive to support local planning activities, yet is never “finished” or complete. Multiple high-priority additions and updates are needed.
To facilitate coordination between the Historical Commission and municipal agencies, inventory forms or updated inventory forms are needed for all pre-1975 buildings, parks, cemeteries,
bridges, and related resources owned by the City of Northampton.
Great demand for understanding and disseminating the stories associated with historic resources, though most historical narratives on inventory forms have not been updated and expanded
in forty years.
Updates to inventory are needed to help identify new districts and individual properties that merit historic designation, and to justify boundaries for proposed districts.
Need to develop additional historic contexts for the city, especially indigenous history, women’s history, LGBTQIA+ history, ethnic history, social or political movements, and civil
rights, to identify more areas and individual resources for inclusion in the inventory.
Ambiguity between National Register-eligible and National Register-recommended properties, the former used as one factor in the Historical Commission’s determination of significance
under the Demolition Ordinance; neither status confers a historic designation for preservation planning purposes or provides protection and qualification for incentive programs.
Decentralized collections of data on inventoried and designated historic properties (e.g., inventory forms, National Register nominations, local district studies, preservation restrictions),
making it cumbersome for property owners, residents, realtors, and other interested parties to compile a complete picture of a specific property or area’s history, designation status,
and applicable regulations.
Limited information regarding areas of archaeological sensitivity (i.e., areas with known or potential historic and prehistoric archaeological sites). There is no local review process
in place for assessing impact on archaeological sites of privately funded projects utilizing only City licenses and permits.
Private and Public Stewardship of Historic Resources
Recognizing role of maintenance in the long-term protection of historic resources
Encouraging responsible stewardship through financial incentives and/or regulation
Potential examples of demolition-by-neglect involving residential, institutional, and commercial property are apparent in several areas of Northampton.
Historic religious buildings, other historic buildings in not-for-profit ownership, and potentially government-owned buildings tend to suffer from deferred maintenance that accelerates
the decline of a building’s structural integrity and increases the likelihood of a demolition proposal.
Not enough incentive for private property owners to maintain and preserve historic (pre-1975) buildings with their setting intact when market conditions and zoning allow for a more profitable
redevelopment solution.
Absence of a coordinated pro-active effort for monitoring preservation restrictions citywide, to ensure property owner compliance with the terms of each restriction (and the necessary
funding to conduct and document compliance reviews). Preservation restrictions acquired by the City of Northampton through planning and zoning approvals or sale of surplus buildings
should be included in this monitoring and compliance-review process.
Need for formal liaisons between the Historical Commission and other municipal agencies charged with the care and maintenance of City-owned historic properties, especially Central Services
and the Department of Public Works.
Preservation-related financial incentives to assist owners with maintenance and repair of their historic properties favors income-producing buildings or buildings under not-for-profit
ownership. Virtually no funding is available to assist homeowners.
Need for clearer policies to determine eligibility for CPA funds to rehabilitate, preserve, or restore historic buildings or structures, especially for City-owned real property. Work
that may be considered routine maintenance on a newer building may be essential for preserving a historically significant one.
There is no comprehensive needs assessment, prioritization, and capital improvements plan for the City’s historic properties.
Preservation and Economic Development
Incentivizing rehabilitation/reuse of historic buildings and preservation of open space
Economic benefits of preservation in Northampton are not widely known or promoted, and should be analyzed and reported.
Perception that outside investment and profit-driven development are major factors in the declining historic character of residential neighborhoods.
Limited financial incentive for property owners to rehabilitate their historic buildings in a manner consistent with the building’s historic character.
Lack of financial assistance to encourage small business owners to maintain and improve exteriors of commercial buildings (e.g., signage, painting, re-glazing of storefronts) in a manner
compatible with historic architectural features.
To date, limited use of state and federal historic rehabilitation tax credits for certified rehabilitations of historic buildings, aside from recent large-scale activity on the campus
of the former Clarke School for the Deaf.
Financial disincentive for preservation of agricultural land and other historically and culturally significant open space and heritage landscapes. Large tracts present opportunities
for residential development.
Preservation/Heritage Education and Tourism
Fostering Northampton’s historic sense of place
Utilizing Northampton’s surviving historic resources to tell the City’s story
Continuing tourism through local and regional cooperation
Limited ability of Northampton’s Historical Commission to undertake planning and public education activities due to merger in 2013 with the City’s Historic District Commission. Regulatory
reviews under the Demolition Ordinance and Elm Street (Local) Historic District Ordinance tend to be the highest priority given their time-sensitive nature.
Need for a public-private partnership to provide preservation planning education and technical assistance to property owners and residents citywide, promoted through various media channels.
Historic Northampton, a not-for-profit organization, receives frequent requests for guidance from neighborhoods.
Lack of a citywide task force or coalition of municipal entities and not-for-profit organizations to provide a unified voice for historic preservation and local history year-round, including
reactivating the City’s annual Preservation Awards program; planning for national Preservation Month (May), national history and heritage months, and the 250th anniversary celebration
of the United States (2026); or developing a citywide interpretive program to educate the public about Northampton’s historic resources.
Desire to expand the longtime preservation focus on historic places and architecture to highlight the personal stories represented by those resources, thereby building more community
support for preservation.
3.2. Historic Properties Inventory
Communities conduct comprehensive surveys to record the location, form, appearance, condition, and history of their historic resources. The product of the survey is known as the inventory.
Resources selected for documentation are generally at least fifty years old at the time of survey. The inventory provides the baseline documentation needed to evaluate the significance
of the resources and establish priorities for preservation. Funding constraints often limit the number of resources documented in a survey project, and each year more resources reach
the fifty-year mark. For these reasons, a survey may be considered community wide and comprehensive but is rarely complete.
The Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth, maintained by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), currently records about 1,734 historic buildings,
areas, structures, objects, and burial grounds in Northampton. Inventory forms and related preservation planning documents, including National Register of Historic Places nominations,
are available through the MHC’s Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS) database at https://mhc-macris.net, with online mapping at https://maps.mhc-macris.net. Per
MHC historic properties survey methodology, the City of Northampton has duplicate sets of inventory forms filed in various locations, including Historic Northampton, Forbes Library,
and City Hall.
The inventory records both unique and representative examples of Northampton’s historic development and demonstrates how historic resources are concentrated. The most intact or best
preserved resources are the highest priority for documentation. To meet MHC standards that the inventory be both communitywide and comprehensive, the process of identifying resources
for survey is guided by the goals of recording resources:
• in each geographic area of Northampton;
• reflecting the range of historic resource types (areas, neighborhoods, buildings, structures, objects, landscapes, burial grounds, etc.) present in the city;
• reflecting the range of historic uses (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, private institutional, educational, municipal, etc.) present in the city; and
• illustrating the range of time periods and associations with important themes, events, or persons in the city’s history and development.
Communities compile their inventories using MHC inventory forms, completed to MHC survey standards. Only forms submitted to MHC are included in the statewide inventory. Inventory forms
may include recommendations, if appropriate, for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, per National Register criteria.
Survey Activity in Northampton to Date (Existing Inventory)
Northampton began recording its historic resources in 1970. The Historical Society (now Historic Northampton) initially documented 139 resources citywide, submitting the inventory forms
to MHC in 1972. Northampton Historical Commission assumed responsibility for survey work upon its establishment in 1973. Under the chairmanships of Dr. C. Keith Wilbur and Helen Searing,
professor of architectural history at Smith College, the Historical Commission greatly expanded the inventory to more than 1,100 resources by the early 1980s, with many forms prepared
by trained volunteers working with consultants C. Dubie and Edmond Lonergan. Northampton was commended for the quality and comprehensiveness of this early inventory, described in 1982
as:
…exceedingly well documented. Almost every building of outstanding character, either historical or architectural, is included along with representative examples of all major building
types and styles present in the city. Historical significance is particularly sensitively treated.
Also known in Northampton as the legacy survey, the early inventory yielded numerous recommendations for historic districts and individual National Register listings at the city center,
Florence, Bay State, Leeds, Laurel Park, West Farms, and Oxbow. In addition to providing the framework for subsequent update projects, the legacy inventory preserves photograph views
of Northampton’s historic resources as they appeared ca. 1970 through the early 1980s. This documentation is invaluable for illustrating how recorded resources have been modified in
recent decades.
Northampton Historical Commission produced inventory forms in the late 1970s for the Smith College campus, a sizable concentration of high-style, architect-designed buildings. C. Dubie
and Ann Gilkerson prepared the forms on the commission’s behalf. Preservation consulting firm Boston Affiliates, Inc. conducted a campuswide survey update in 2002, adding updated photographs,
street address corrections, and minor notations on building alterations that had occurred since the 1970s.
The Northampton Commission also completed the first cultural resource survey of the State Hospital campus in 1980-1981. Consultant Edmond Lonergan recorded buildings from the 1840s through
the late 1960s, providing an important and early record of the campus with buildings that have since been demolished. This local survey was followed by a 1984 statewide survey of state
hospitals and state schools, and a statewide multiple property National Register of Historic Places nomination on the same theme. Inventory forms from both the city and state surveys
are available through MACRIS.
From the 1980s through the late 1990s, project planners, consultants, and volunteers produced a number of inventory forms for Northampton resources; some were updates of earlier forms.
Stephen J. Roper, Historic Bridge Specialist for Massachusetts Department of Public Works/ Highway Department (now the Highway Division of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation)
recorded several bridges in Northampton. Volunteer survey efforts included documentation of the Soldiers and Sailors Monument by Save Outdoor Sculpture (SOS). The Public Archaeology
Laboratory (PAL) completed an updated inventory form for Park Street Cemetery in Florence, prepared for the Museum of African American History.
The City substantially updated the legacy survey in 2010-2011, in a project completed by planners Bonnie Parsons, Jayne Bernhard, and staff at Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. Since
the original communitywide survey was completed, Northampton had established design review districts and a demolition ordinance, and more detailed information on the appearance and
condition of historic resources was needed to support preservation planning decisions. Inventory forms for many individually recorded resources were amended with new photographs, location
sketch maps utilizing online mapping, and narrative architectural descriptions. The latter were a significant addition to the city’s inventory because inventory forms from the 1970s
and early 1980s did not require descriptions in a data field separate from the historical narrative. In most cases, form updates restated the
historical narratives from the original forms, with minor corrections. Several resources from the legacy survey were confirmed to be demolished, and their inventory forms marked accordingly
in the statewide inventory and MACRIS database. Restorations and renovations also were noted.
New forms were prepared in 2010-2011 for properties not documented in the legacy survey. Examples include post-World War II residences and new construction in the Elm Street Historic
District, additional buildings on adjacent Round Hill that would later be added to the district, and buildings in a potential expansion of the Fort Hill National Register historic district.
In these cases, where historic resources were being added to the inventory for the first time, forms included architectural descriptions and detailed historical narratives.
Property-specific preservation and development projects have added a limited number of new forms to the Northampton inventory in recent years. Most were associated with review and compliance,
establishment of preservation restrictions, or efforts to list additional properties in the National Register of Historic Places.
As survey projects are completed, inventoried resources are evaluated against National Register of Historic Places criteria to identify areas and individual resources potentially eligible
for listing in the National Register. See Designated Historic Properties in Northampton for further information on the National Register program. MHC staff evaluates recommendations
upon request, decides whether a resource is eligible or not eligible, and often asks for more information before issuing an opinion. A positive National Register eligibility opinion
from MHC does not confer any official historic designation on an area or property, though the Northampton Historical Commission does consider such properties significant for the purposes
of demolition review (see Municipal Ordinances and Regulations).
Geographic Distribution of Inventoried Resources
The statewide historic properties inventory identifies seven places in Northampton where historic resources are concentrated: Northampton (72.5% of the total), Florence (15.5%), Leeds
(7.8%), Bay State (3%), West Farms (0.9%), Laurel Park (0.2%), and Pine Grove (0.1%). Other places of historic interest in Northampton include North Farms, Oxbow (Island Road), and
Loudville. The inventory does not fully reflect the density of historic development citywide, principally because villages and subdivisions beyond two miles of downtown have not been
inventoried as intensively. (See Map 3.1, Existing Inventory.)
A heavy concentration of architecturally significant buildings downtown is one factor in the uneven distribution of inventoried resources citywide. Another is the early 1980s completion
date of Northampton’s legacy survey, a time when inventories focused on recording resources individually. By the late 1980s, MHC survey methodology had shifted to a cultural landscape
approach that used area forms as the principal vehicle for recording concentrations of historic resources. Rather than prepare individual forms for unique and representative resources
in the geographic area, the new approach recorded the architecture, setting, and history of the area, and the resources within, as a whole. The legacy survey delineates boundaries for
areas such as Water Street at Leeds (NTH.W),
Laurel Park (NTH.N), and Loudville (NTH.D), though information on the number, character, and condition of historic resources in those areas is limited. In mill villages and other settlement
clusters at Bay State, Florence, Leeds, and Oxbow, detailed area forms are now desirable to provide a more complete accounting of the resources present.
An area form for Florence Village has been drafted and is currently (July 2022) in the preliminary stages of review by MHC for a potential National Register of Historic Places multiple
property nomination project using Community Preservation funds.
Resource Uses and Types Represented in Inventory
Northampton’s inventory is notable in Massachusetts for the wide range of historic uses represented. Single-family dwellings, multiple-family dwellings, apartment houses, and workers
housing comprise just over 55 percent of the building uses identified, a comparatively low percentage for cities. A substantial number of identified buildings, therefore, were not residential
historically, indicating diversity among the types of historic resources recorded. Roughly eighty outbuildings also have been identified to date.
Table 3.2.1. Current Distribution of Resource Types in the Northampton Inventory
Resource
Examples
Total Count and
Percent of Inventory
Buildings
Residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, municipal, institutional (e.g., educational, religious)
1,565 total
(90.3% of inventory)
Structures
Bridges, dams and other waterpower features, railroad features, parks and landscapes (including fairgrounds)
102 total
(5.9% of inventory)
Areas
National Register of Historic Places districts
Elm Street Historic District (under G.L. c. 40C)
Residential neighborhoods/subdivisions
Industrial complexes
Institutional campuses (e.g., schools, hospitals,
religious properties)
37 total
(2.1% of inventory)
Objects
Statues, markers, monuments, fountains
21 total
(1.2% of inventory)
Burial grounds
Includes cemeteries
9 total
(0.5% of inventory)
Source: MHC Town Profile, Northampton (May 2022)
Landscapes – including agricultural landscapes and designed landscapes such as parks and campuses – appear to be especially underrepresented as a resource type in Northampton’s inventory.
Legacy survey forms for Pulaski Park (NTH.911) and Look Memorial Park (NTH.904) no longer meet preservation planning standards for parks and landscape documentation. A more recent area
form for Three County Fairgrounds (NTH.AF) requires more detailed mapping, photographs, and descriptions of the historic resources present. Many opportunities exist for adding a variety
of landscapes to the inventory.
Most of the nine cemeteries in the Northampton inventory have legacy survey forms that provide historical details but lack the descriptive information necessary to support current preservation
planning decisions. General descriptions of cemetery and marker design, along with assessments of current condition and representative photographs, are needed, though 1970s-era stone-by-stone
recording of birth and death dates is no longer expected. Bridge Street Cemetery is well documented due to recent preservation activity.
For preservation planning and public information purposes, all pre-1975 historic buildings, parks, cemeteries, bridges, and related resources owned and maintained by the City of Northampton
should be included in the inventory. The Seth Thomas Street Clock on Main Street, relocated and restored with Community Preservation funds, merits inclusion in the inventory as well.
Historic Periods and Themes Represented in the Inventory
MHC’s Town Profile for Northampton shows inventoried resources with approximate construction dates from 1660 to 2010. Later dates tend to reflect either non-contributing resources in
historic districts, or contemporary resources (such as a fence) present on an inventoried property. MHC currently encourages documentation of historic resources in place by ca. 1975,
though the statewide inventory and MACRIS database can accommodate above-ground resources of any age.
Roughly 75 percent of Northampton resources date to the period from 1850 to 1920, with about half of these associated with growth during the Late Industrial period (1870-1915). A comparatively
limited number of pre-1850 resources indicates well-preserved examples are likely to be of communitywide significance. About 6 percent of the inventoried resources date to 1950 and
later.
Aside from architecture, the top historic themes represented in Northampton’s inventory to date are education, commerce, health and medicine, industry, agriculture, religion, recreation,
and transportation. A resource may illustrate more than one historic theme or area of significance. Further survey work can be expected to document additional resources associated with
these themes. A high priority for survey is resources associated with underrepresented themes in Northampton, among them ethnic history, the Underground Railroad, and several themes
under the broad category of social history: disability history, labor history, LGBTQIA history, traditional cultural history, women’s history, and civil rights.
Quality of Inventory Documentation
Prepared from the 1970s through 1981, Northampton’s legacy survey is uncommon among early communitywide surveys for its comprehensiveness. The inventory captures unique and representative
examples of historic development throughout the city, includes a wide range of resource types from different historic periods, and is strong in historical research. The inventory forms
exceeded MHC survey standards in effect at the time of submittal.
MHC survey methodology and standards continued to evolve to meet preservation planning needs, and inventory form documentation became more detailed and complex. The 2010-2011 survey
update project addressed new survey standards introduced since the completion of the legacy survey, by amending the forms with narrative descriptions of each resource, updated photographs,
and location sketch maps from digital mapping sources. New inventory forms were added for certain post-World War II buildings in design review districts, and select apartment buildings
owned by Smith College. Beyond new area forms for the Nonotuck Mills, 296 Nonotuck Street, Florence (NTH.AB) and Norwood Engineering Company, 28-32 North Maple Street (NTH.AD), the
structure of the legacy inventory was largely maintained, with an emphasis on recording individual properties.
Using the Northampton Inventory
For the most up-to-date accounting of the full Northampton inventory, users are urged to consult MHC’s MACRIS database and companion mapping site, which include the MACRIS identification
numbers currently assigned to inventoried properties. As the central repository for the statewide inventory, MHC receives forms for Northampton resources that are not produced locally
and therefore may not be included in local collections on paper and online. In addition, MHC has unique inventory numbering requirements that caused some legacy forms, especially those
originally numbered in the 800s and 900s range, to be renumbered during the MACRIS data entry process. Use of the MACRIS database going forward will streamline communication on historic
properties, allow users to see all inventory forms submitted to MHC for a single property over time, and eliminate the need for local repositories to update the numbering of inventory
forms in their possession.
3.3. Designated Historic Properties in Northampton
Properties that have received one or more local, state, or federal designations based on their historical or archaeological significance are listed in the State Register of Historic
Places, published annually by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). The State Register includes all Massachusetts resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places;
located in local historic districts (under G.L. c. 40C); designated as local, state, or national landmarks; or for which a preservation restriction (i.e., preservation easement) has
been recorded at the Registry of Deeds. The State Register is distinct from the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth analyzed in Section 3.2, which is
a much larger database that identifies historic resources present in the community, some of which may merit designation in the future.
Designated historic properties in Northampton are protected in various ways. The MHC reviews any new construction projects or renovations to existing buildings that require funding,
licenses, or permits from any federal or state agency, to determine the potential impact on historic properties and archaeological sites and avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse
effects. The MHC conducts its review in consultation with the Northampton Historical Commission and other interested parties. While not design review programs, these mechanisms provide
limited protection from federal and state actions. State Register listing makes a property eligible for certain matching state restoration grants, when available, and certain tax benefits
for certified historic rehabilitation projects.
Ultimately, the strongest protections are implemented at the local level, typically in the form of c.40C local historic districts and preservation restrictions.
This section examines National Register listings, the Elm Street Historic District, and preservation restrictions in Northampton. The city’s Central Business-Core District and West Street
Architecture District are not listed in the State Register because they are not local historic districts designated under c. 40C. For further information on these districts, see Section
3.6 and Table 4.
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s official list of buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts worthy of preservation and significant on the local, state,
and/or national level. An essential tool for preservation planning, the National Register recognizes unique and irreplaceable historic resources that convey a sense of time and place,
and contribute to community character. The National Register also is an important public information tool that increases awareness of our irreplaceable resources and promotes preservation
and revitalization of historic properties. National Register listing, also known as registration, provides limited protection from federal and state actions, but does not involve design
review and does not guarantee that historic and cultural resources will be preserved.
Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and administered by the National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, the National Register is part of
a federal program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect the nation’s historic and archaeological resources. Section 106 of the NHPA
requires federal agencies to consider the effects on National Register-listed properties of projects they undertake, assist, fund, permit, license, or approve. Properties determined
eligible by the Secretary of the Interior for listing in the National Register are also afforded this review.
As the State Historic Preservation Office, the MHC conducts the National Register program in coordination with the National Park Service, and both agencies have a role in approving nominations.
MHC staff also evaluates individual properties and districts to see whether they meet the National Register criteria before nominations are prepared. Massachusetts properties listed
in the National Register are automatically listed in the State Register of Historic Places (see above).
Financial incentives are available to encourage private-sector rehabilitation and reuse of certain income-producing properties (such as commercial, industrial, and rental residential
buildings) listed in the National Register. Both the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program and the Massachusetts Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit program allow tax
credits for substantial rehabilitation projects that meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, as certified by the National Park Service (for federal credits)
and the MHC (for state credits). These tax credits are intended to help pay the unique costs associated with rehabilitation of historic properties.
Listing of their property in the National Register places no constraints on what owners may do with private property using private funds and local permits, unless some state, regional
and/or local ordinance or policy is in effect. If owners use state or federal funds to alter their property or need state or federal permits, the proposed alteration will be reviewed
by MHC staff. The review is
triggered by the funding or permitting source, not by the historic designation. Local funding and permitting do not trigger MHC review.
Under the city’s Demolition Ordinance (Code of Ordinances, c. 161), the Northampton Historical Commission considers buildings or structures listed in the National Register, individually
or as part of a district, as one of the factors to be considered when determining whether a building is significant for the purposes of demolition review. It is important to note, however,
that all buildings or structures built in 1900 or earlier, and all principal buildings or structures built between 1901 and 1945, are already regulated under the provisions of the Demolition
Ordinance. Any future National Register designation of pre-1946 buildings or structures, therefore, would not subject their owners to additional regulatory requirements beyond those
already in place when private funds and local permits are used.
National Register Activity in Northampton
Northampton has listed historic resources in the National Register for nearly fifty years (see Table 3.3.1 and Map 3.1). Growing enthusiasm for local history and historic preservation
generated by the nation’s bicentennial celebration in 1975-1976 led to listing of several individual properties and the sizable downtown historic district within a decade. Most of the
earliest listings were concentrated in or near the downtown area.
Important firsts in Northampton’s nascent preservation planning activities included the city’s earliest individual property and historic district listings in the National Register. Both
citizens and alumnae advocated for the preservation of Smith College Alumnae Gymnasium (NRIND 1976), which had been slated for demolition in 1975. The building was subsequently relocated
to a new foundation at 83 Green Street and converted for use as the college archives. Listing of the Downtown Historic District (NRDIS 1976) was a major accomplishment, encompassing
the city’s commercial and institutional core with Main Street as its spine. Extending roughly from Pearl Street to Bedford Terrace and from West Street to the Boston & Maine Railroad
right-of-way, this district was expanded in 1985 to add buildings on Bridge Street and Market Street east of the railroad right-of-way.
Architecturally significant residential buildings began to be added to the National Register with nominations for The Manse (Stoddard House), 54 Prospect Street (NRIND 1976), associated
with a prominent Connecticut Valley family, and the Calvin Coolidge House, 19-21 Massasoit Street (NRIND 1976), the first and longtime Northampton home of the U. S. President and Massachusetts
Governor. The Dimock Estate-Grove Hill Mansion, 1 Florence Street, Leeds (NRIND 1982), residence of industrialist Lucius Dimock, was Northampton’s first nomination connected with a
certified historic rehabilitation using federal tax credits. Another early certified historic rehabilitation project was the Dr. Silas Cooley Row Houses, 8 through 12 Graves Avenue
(NRIND 1985). The small Fort Hill Historic District (NRDIS 1989) on South Street features six residences of early settlers and builders in Northampton, from the mid-eighteenth century
to ca. 1830.
Five properties in Northampton were listed in the National Register from 1994 to 2012 as part of statewide thematic nominations. From a single commercial building to multiple-acre institutional
campuses, these resources were recognized for their contributions to historical and architectural
development at the state and even national levels. The thematic nomination format allows future nomination of additional properties associated with the theme.
Representing the institutional campuses, the nomination for Northampton State Hospital (NRDIS 1994) stemmed from a 1984 thematic survey of state hospitals and state schools managed by
the Commonwealth’s mental health and public health agencies; survey and subsequent registration of the most significant properties in the system assisted state agencies in fulfilling
their review responsibilities under state and federal preservation statutes. A comparable nomination project undertaken at the federal level listed the Northampton Veterans Administration
Hospital (NRDIS 2012) within a thematic study of United States Second Generation Veterans Hospitals (built 1919-1950). The Secretary of the Interior had previously determined the Northampton
Veterans Hospital eligible for the National Register in 1980.
Other thematic National Register nominations were intended to raise public awareness and encourage preservation of significant resources. Through the Diners of Massachusetts multiple
property submission, the Miss Florence Diner, 99 Main Street, Florence (NRIND 1999), joined twenty-one other well preserved diners that, as a group, represented the range of diner designs,
manufacturers, and business operators in Massachusetts through ca. 1970. Two properties were listed for their associations with the Underground Railroad of Massachusetts (1783-1865):
the Basil Dorsey-Thomas H. Jones House, 191 Nonotuck Street, Florence (NRIND 2005), and Ross Farm, 123 Meadow Street, Florence (NRIND 2008). The Underground Railroad thematic nomination
demonstrates the importance of the Utopian communal society in Florence as a destination and residence for fugitives from slavery in the mid-nineteenth century. The thematic overview
identifies additional properties in Florence that will be nominated in the future as part of a Florence abolition and reform historic district, pending additional research. This work
is underway.
National Register listing of the Parsons, Shepherd, and Damon Houses Historic District (NRDIS 2001) encompassed the three museum houses owned by Historic Northampton and operated as
a local history museum and repository for Northampton and Connecticut Valley collections. The nomination coincided with major restoration work and helped facilitate acquisition of Community
Preservation funds for further renovations to the historic buildings. Abutting the museum complex, Pomeroy Terrace Historic District (NRDIS 2018) is the largest National Register district
of privately owned property created in Northampton since 1976. Pursued principally by property owners and residents as an honorary designation to encourage preservation of the neighborhood,
the nomination traces development from the late seventeenth century through the 1960s, highlighting a number of architecturally notable residences and the work of local carpenters and
architects, as well as known stone cutters and artists at Bridge Street Cemetery.
Most recently, Clarke School for the Deaf Historic District (NRDIS 2022) was listed in the National Register in connection with certified historic rehabilitations of six campus buildings
using state and federal historic rehabilitation tax credits. All buildings in this National Register district are also within the boundaries of the Elm Street Local Historic District,
as expanded in 2013, and a Preservation Restriction area designated in 2016 (see below).
Properties Recommended or Evaluated for the National Register
Since the 1970s, a number of historic areas and individual properties in Northampton have been recommended for listing in the National Register of Historic Places through the survey
and inventory process. Some of these areas and properties were evaluated further by MHC staff and found to possess, at the time of review, sufficient significance and historic integrity
to warrant proceeding with a National Register nomination.
It should be noted that a positive National Register eligibility opinion from MHC does not confer any official historic designation on an area or property, though the Northampton Historical
Commission considers listing or eligibility as one of the criteria by which a building may be determined significant for the purposes of demolition review (see Municipal Ordinances
and Regulations). Only properties for which National Register nominations were completed and approved by the National Park Service may be considered to have a National Register designation.
(For further information on properties recommended or evaluated for National Register listing, see Survey Activity in Northampton.)
Elm Street (Local) Historic District
Historic districts created and administered at the local level generally provide the strongest form of preservation protection on a neighborhood scale in Massachusetts. The local historic
district acknowledges the historic and architectural integrity of a neighborhood, and establishes project review procedures to protect this character from inappropriate alteration and
demolition. Elm Street Historic District is included in the State Register of Historic Places by virtue of its establishment, in 1994, as a local historic district under G.L. c. 40C.
The district ordinance, adopted as Chapter 195 in the City of Northampton Code of Ordinances, regulates exterior architectural features visible from the public way for nearly 100 properties,
many owned by Smith College.
Design standards adopted in 2010 facilitate administration of the Elm Street Historic District by providing guidance to owners who improve and/or alter their properties. The standards
also help ensure consistency of review decisions involving the appropriateness of those improvements and alterations. Many local historic districts in Massachusetts lack design guidelines
tailored to the unique features of the district, making Northampton’s design standards manual – prepared with Community Preservation funds – a model for other communities.
Elm Street Historic District preserves significant residential and institutional buildings dating from the early eighteenth through the mid-twentieth centuries that form the gateway
to downtown Northampton from the northwest. Initially limited to properties fronting the Elm Street corridor, district boundaries were expanded to their present position in 2013 to
add twenty properties on Round Hill and Bancroft Roads, most associated with the former campus of Clarke School for the Deaf.
Northampton Historical Commission serves as the City’s Local Historic District Commission, having merged in 2013 with the Historic District Commission to reduce administrative costs
and centralize communications.
Preservation Restrictions
The strongest form of long-term protection for an individual historic property is a preservation restriction, a legally binding agreement (typically an easement) between a property owner
and
another party that prohibits or conditions specified physical changes or uses of the property by current or future owners. The other party (grantee) may be a government entity or a qualified
charitable corporation or trust whose purposes include the preservation of historically significant properties with the power to acquire an interest in land. Preservation restrictions
may be conveyed in perpetuity or for a term of years and must be recorded at the Registry of Deeds to be generally binding on future owners. Preservation restrictions may regulate repair
and maintenance, alteration, demolition, and moving of the historic resource.
The legal procedures for conveying a preservation restriction are outlined in G.L. c. 184 § 31-33. MHC must approve all preservation restrictions conveyed under c. 184, which are ultimately
added to the State Register of Historic Places. For preservation restrictions held by a charitable corporation or trust, the city also must approve the preservation restriction. To
confirm a property qualifies for a preservation restriction, MHC uses the National Register of Historic Places eligibility standard by reviewing a recently completed inventory form
with photographs and applying the National Register criteria. Preservation restriction documents must reference the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Additional information on establishing a preservation restriction is available
from the MHC.
Active Preservation Restrictions in Northampton
The State Register of Historic Places currently records nine (9) active preservation restrictions in Northampton meeting the statutory requirements of G.L. c. 184 § 31-33. These restrictions
govern six individual buildings, the Bridge Street Cemetery, the three-building museum property on Bridge Street owned and operated by Historic Northampton, and the Round Hill Road
campus formerly associated with the Clarke School for the Deaf. The City of Northampton holds five of the preservation restrictions, and the MHC holds four. See Table 2.
State and federal preservation programs usually require a preservation restriction be conveyed by the property owner to protect the public interest in a historic property restored or
rehabilitated with taxpayer dollars. Sources of this grant funding in Northampton have primarily been the MHC’s Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund (MPPF). If Community Preservation
Act (CPA) funds are used to acquire a historic property, a preservation restriction is required by statute. If significant CPA funds are utilized for restoration or rehabilitation of
a property, a preservation restriction is typically required as a condition of funding. In most cases, Northampton properties with preservation restrictions are listed in National Register
historic districts: the Academy of Music, 274 Main Street (PR 1986); First Church of Christ Congregational, 129 Main Street (PR 2008); Parsons, Shepherd, and Damon Houses, 46, 58, and
66 Bridge Street (PR 2015); Smith Charities Building, 51 Main Street (PR 2018, PR 2021); Hampshire County Courthouse, 99 Main Street (PR 2019); Bridge Street Cemetery, 156 Bridge Street
(PR 2019); and 20 Hawley Street, former St. John Cantius. Final execution was expected to occur in June 2023. The City holds a restriction under G.L. c. 184 (condition of CPA funding).
Municipalities may require a restriction to protect a significant historic property as a condition of granting a permit or variance, or in connection with declaring a municipal building
surplus before its sale to a private party. The restriction for West Farms Chapel, 185 West Farms Road (PR 1987), was negotiated with Zoning Board of Appeals approval to convert the
chapel to residential use. Slough Hill
School a/k/a Hatfield Street School, 52 Hatfield Street (PR 2002), was sold to a private party for residential use. Owners of the former campus for the Clarke School for the Deaf, 40
to 54 Round Hill Road (PR 2016) conveyed a preservation restriction to the City of Northampton as a condition of the zoning used and site plan approval for rehabilitating the campus
buildings into residential apartments.
A growing number of preservation restrictions granted for Northampton buildings do not meet the statutory requirements of G.L. c. 184 § 31-33, which require signature approvals from
both the MHC and the City of Northampton (see Table 3). Consequently, these properties are not listed in the State Register of Historic Places, unless they have some other historic
designation described above. The Committee for Northampton, Inc. acquired the David Ruggles Center Building, 225 Nonotuck Street, Florence, with a grant of Community Preservation funds,
and the city holds the 2009 preservation restriction. The 2013 preservation restriction for the Florence Grammar School, 140 Pine Street, Florence was conveyed in connection with the
sale and adaptive reuse of the building and runs for 30 years. City staff report that under a development agreement with the City (2022), a preservation restriction has been recorded
for Florence Congregational Church, 130 Pine Street, as part of expanded reuse of the property. For the Northampton Community Music Center, a local restriction was scheduled to be recorded
in 2023, a condition of CPA funding. These properties with preservation restrictions would not be included in the State Register unless or until they are listed in the National Register
or designated as part of a local historic district.
MHC is currently reviewing the 2002 preservation restriction on the former Masonic Street Fire Station, 60 Masonic Street, located in the downtown National Register historic district.
The restriction document incorporates a signature approval from the MHC, yet does not appear in the State Register. The City of Northampton, by and through the Central Business Architecture
Committee, holds the restriction, which was conveyed to ensure preservation after the building’s sale as surplus.
Historic Northampton (formerly the Northampton Historical Society) holds preservation restrictions on The Manse (Stoddard House), 54 Prospect Street, and Hortense Clapp Pollard House,
70 Old South Street. The Manse was individually listed in the National Register in 1976 and therefore is included in the State Register, though its 1986 preservation restriction is
not. While the restriction is stated to run in perpetuity, ordinarily preservation restrictions conveyed apart from G.L. c. 184 § 31-33 have a statutory limit. Hortense Clapp Pollard
bequeathed her residence at 70 Old South Street to Historic Northampton, and the organization sold the house in 2004 with a thirty-year preservation restriction that also is not included
in the State Register.
Table 3.3.1. Northampton Listings in the National Register (by listing date)
MHC ID
Historic Name
Address
Designation/Date
NTH.743
Smith College Alumnae Gymnasium
83 Green St
(Smith College campus)
NRIND 1976 (Apr)
NTH.A
Northampton Downtown
Historic District
(see map)
Main St and area roughly bounded by Hampton Ave, Pearl St, Strong Ave, railroad tracks, Bedford Ter, Elm St, and West St
NRDIS 1976 (May)
NTH.625
The Manse (Stoddard House)
54 Prospect St
NRIND 1976 (Oct)
NTH.294
Calvin Coolidge House
19-21 Massasoit St
NRIND 1976 (Dec)
NTH.22
Dimock Estate-Grove Hill Mansion
1 Florence St, Leeds
NRIND 1982
NTH.L
Downtown Historic District Boundary Increase
2 and 8-10 Bridge St;
1 to 30 Market St
NRDIS 1985 (Jul)
NTH.2034
Dr. Silas Cooley Row House
8-22 Graves Ave
NRIND 1985 (Nov)
NTH.K
Fort Hill Historic District
124, 130, 134, 135, and 144 South St
NRDIS 1989
NTH.Q
Northampton State Hospital
1 Prince St
NRDIS/NRMPS 1994
NTH.111
Miss Florence Diner
99 Main St, Florence
NRIND/NRMPS 1999
NTH.T
Parsons, Shepherd, and Damon Houses
46, 58, and 66 Bridge St
NRDIS 2001
NTH.2439
Dorsey-Jones House
191 Nonotuck St, Florence
NRIND/NRMPS 2005
NTH.V
Ross Farm
123 Meadow St, Florence
NRDIS/NRMPS 2008
NTH.M
Northampton Veterans Administration Hospital
421 North Main St, Leeds
NRDIS/NRMPS 2012
(NRDOE 1980)
NTH.AI
Pomeroy Terrace Historic District
Pomeroy Ter, Phillips & Butler Pls, Bixby Ct, Hawley, Hancock & Bridge Sts; includes Bridge Street Cemetery
NRDIS 2018
NTH.AH
Clarke School for the Deaf
Historic District
40 to 54 Round Hill Road
NRDIS 2022
Table 3.3.2. Northampton Properties with Preservation Restrictions
Listed in the State Register of Historic Places (by restriction date)
MHC ID
Historic Name
Address
Designation
NTH.794
Academy of Music
260-274 Main St
PR 1986
in Downtown NRDIS
NTH.2173
West Farms Chapel
185 West Farms Rd
PR 1987
NTH.140
Slough Hill Public School
a/k/a Hatfield Street School
52 Hatfield St
PR 2002
NTH.717
First Church of Christ Congregational
129 Main St
PR 2008
in Downtown NRDIS
NTH.T
Parsons, Shepherd, and Damon Houses
46, 58, and 66 Bridge St
PR 2015
also NRDIS
NTH.AH
Clarke School for the Deaf
Historic District
40 to 54 Round Hill Rd
PR 2016
also NRDIS and in LHD
NTH.2057
Smith Charities Building
51 Main St
PR 2018, PR 2021
in Downtown NRDIS
NTH.2055
Hampshire County Courthouse
99 Main St
PR 2019
in Downtown NRDIS
NTH.AJ
Bridge Street Cemetery
156 Bridge St
PR 2019
in Pomeroy Ter NRDIS
Table 3.3.3. Additional Northampton Properties with Preservation Restrictions
MHC ID
Historic Name
Address
Designation
NTH.625
The Manse (Stoddard House)
54 Prospect St
PR 1986
also NRIND
NTH.769
Masonic Street Fire Station
60 Masonic St
PR 2002
in Downtown NRDIS
NTH.2004
Alvin and Mabel Clapp House
a/k/a Hortense Clapp Pollard House
70 Old South St
PR 2004
NTH.2533
David Ruggles Center
225 Nonotuck St, Florence
PR 2009
NTH.2689
Florence Grammar School
140 Pine St
PR 2013
NTH.205
Florence Congregational Church
130 Pine St
PR pending
Table 3.3.4. Design Review Districts in Northampton (by date established)
MHC ID
Historic Name
Address
Designation
NTH.P
Elm Steet Historic District
Parcels fronting Elm St from West St-Main St intersection to 345 (odd) and 354 (even); includes one property with a Bedford Ter address
Added in 2013:
83 and 93 Bancroft Rd
12 to 96 Round Hill Rd
LHD 1994, 2013
---
West Street Architecture District**
(See Sec. 3.6 for additional information)
Parcels fronting west (odd numbered) side of West St from 43 to Mill River; includes 64 Belmont Ave and portion of Smith College parcel on Berenson Pl
2011
---
Central Business-Core District***
Parcels fronting Main, Bridge, King, and Pleasant Sts at core of central business district, roughly bounded by Merrick Ln and Hawley, Pearl, and Elm Sts; includes Crafts Ave and Strong
Ave
2022
** Per the City of Northampton Code of Ordinances, c. 156, § 2, the West Street Architecture District is an “architecturally controlled” district as envisioned by G.L. c. 143, § 3A.
Created under municipal home rule authority, this district is not a local historic district as outlined under G.L. c. 40C, and therefore not listed in the State Register of Historic
Places.
*** Defined in the city’s Zoning Ordinance, c. 350 of the Code of Ordinances, the Central Business-Core District replaces a larger architecturally controlled Central Business Architecture
District created in 1999. Design review here supplements form-based (character-based) zoning adopted in 2022 for downtown Northampton. This district is not a local historic district
as outlined under G.L. c. 40C, and therefore not listed in the State Register of Historic Places.
3.4. Local Public Awareness and Engagement Analysis
The Historic Preservation planning process, conducted by the City’s Office of Planning and Sustainability and guided by the Historical Commission, included consultants from Barrett Planning
Group and architectural historian and preservation consultant Kathleen Broomer. A subcommittee of three historical commission members worked with City staff to provide context and feedback
on the consulting team’s approach.
There is vital overlap between historic preservation and the other elements of the Sustainable Northampton Master Plan, such as sustainability, housing, and economic development. The
Historic Preservation element aims to guide the preservation planning process through the identification, evaluation, and protection of Northampton’s historic resources, informed through
the analysis of national and local historic property inventories, review of local policies, and community engagement geared for all levels of knowledge and experience in historic preservation.
At the outset of this process, the consultants created an engagement plan to focus and guide engagement efforts with the approval of the Historic Preservation Commission. The plan outlined
an outreach strategy over several months with multiple avenues to target year-round residents, students, and seasonal groups. The engagement process was designed to address three key
principles of equity in community planning:
Engaging a range of residents, community groups, and private organizations,
Encouraging Northampton to identify and value its historic and cultural resources, and
Recognizing Northampton and its many neighborhoods are changing in the context of history and culture.
People who live and work in and around Northampton bring an irreplaceable perspective to the planning process. Including a range of voices in the conversation about Northampton’s future
increases the potential for community support when implementing recommendations upon the plan’s completion. Interested residents could participate in a variety of ways and formats,
such as community forums and outreach activities and through outreach in institutions they already frequented. Upon the approval of the engagement plan, active public outreach began,
including the opportunities below.
Community Engagement & Outreach
Outreach during the Northampton Historic Preservation process took the forms of community forums and targeted stakeholder outreach, supported by local institutions. The team spread awareness
about the process at local Grow Food Northampton farmer’s markets and learned about ongoing historic preservation efforts through local organizations.
Grow Food Northampton Tuesday Market (8.30)
Tabling Outreach w. interactive activities
Historic Northampton Introductory Meeting
Introduction to Staff, resources, and programs
Grown Food Northampton Wednesday Market (9.28)
Tabling Outreach w. interactive activities
Community Forum 1 (9.29)
Zoom forum w. interactive activity
Forbes Library Comment Wall (10.7 – 10.26)
Interactive Comment Wall w. map
Forbes Library Archival Visit (10.12)
Introduction to archival resources & Staff
Community Forum 2 (10.12)
In-person forum w. interactive activities
Historic Northampton Site Visit (10.13)
In-person site visit
Lily Library Comment Wall (11.22 – 1.3)
Interactive Comment Wall w. map
Community Survey (1.10 – 2.1)
Community-wide survey about HPE
Grow Food Northampton Market Tabling
Equitable engagement includes meeting community members in the public sphere at events they frequent, including the well-attended seasonal markets conducted by Grow Food Northampton.
Grow Food Northampton facilitates farmer’s markets throughout the year behind Thorne’s Marketplace, on Gothic Street, and at the Florence Civic Center. After establishing a relationship
with Grow Food Northampton, the consulting team attended a Farmer’s Market at Thorne’s in late August at the start of the process and an additional market in Florence in late September
to prepare for and generate interest in the first community forum.
Stakeholder Outreach
The historic preservation planning process does not occur in a vacuum. Many organizations, community groups, and community members simultaneously work toward historic preservation goals.
At the start of this process, the consulting team collaborated with the City to identify stakeholders, advocates, and a subcommittee comprised of Historical Commission members.
Historic Northampton
Northampton City Council
Downtown Northampton
Northampton Historical Commission
Downtown Northampton Association
David Ruggles Center for History and Education
Forbes Public Library & Calvin Coolidge Museum
Lilly Library
Smith College
Florence Business Association
Site visits by the consulting team in Northampton specifically included a tour of the Calvin Coolidge Presidential Museum, a walkthrough of Forbes Library Archival resources, and a visit
to Historic Northampton. Due to community initiative and local leadership, existing historical resources and networks are substantial in Northampton.
Community Forum #1: September 30, 2022
After a presentation outlining the Historic Preservation Element scope in the context of Sustainable Northampton and elements of the plan, virtual participants could provide feedback
to a range of questions proposed by the consulting team through a platform called Mentimeter. The consulting team asked multiple-choice and open-ended questions to understand the public’s
perspective on historic preservation practices. This meeting format allowed the City Staff and consultant team to analyze the view of attendees and identify themes to guide the second
in-person community forum.
Individuals could provide additional feedback and in-depth comments through an online comment card.
Forum Questions
In a word, how would you describe current historic preservation efforts & mechanisms in Northampton?
If you could describe your aspirations for historic preservation in Northampton, what would they be?
How do you view historic preservation in Northampton today?
Which individual properties, geographic areas, or thematic property types would you highlight?
What additional aspects of Northampton should be valued in this historic preservation planning process?
For results of Community Forum #1, see Appendix.
Community Forum #2: October 12, 2022
The second forum expanded on the findings and trends from the September 30, 2022, virtual community forum. The City invited the public to attend the second forum in the City Council
Chambers on October 12, 2022, in an open house format from 5:30 pm to 8:00 pm that aimed to provide a space for small group discussions with members of the consulting team with respect
to COVID-19 precautions.
Upon entering the Chambers, participants could review findings and trends from forum one and educational information relative to the historic preservation process. Resources ranged from
sustainability policy to inventoried structures and sites in Northampton. Aside from the education assets, attendees filtered through four activity stations individually or as part
of a small group. The four activities were also available in a take-home packet posted on the Office of Planning and Sustainability’s website and distributed by some City Councilors.
Community Forum Activities
Activity 1 – Individuals or small groups identified sites and landscapes of interest for future prioritization by labeling buildings, structures, objects, and neighborhoods with blue
dots and landscapes with green dots, then providing a name or description of the attribute. Participants could boost others’ responses by adding a sticker to the attribute’s name or
description.
Activity 2 – “Take me on a tour;” the team asked participants to imagine they were expecting house guests excited to visit Northampton for a week. This friend happened to be a local
history buff and wanted a walking tour of their neighborhood and general highlights of Northampton. Individuals would then generate a multi-day tour they would take this individual
on throughout the weekend. Locations and landscapes to consider included museums, historic residences, Smith College, mill villages, Florence, Leeds, religious institutions, Downtown
Northampton, and locations with vibrant social histories. Planning and historic preservation are rooted in local histories and storytelling.
Institutionalizing these stories in neighborhood walking tours and peer-reviewing them is one of the first steps in their conservation.
Activity 3 – This activity aimed to highlight historical trends often not captured in history books, libraries, or museums. Attendees thought about local histories collaboratively: what
trends, occurrences, or locations with social history, local lore, or nearly forgotten stories to be told. Representatives from Historic Northampton noted they are working on a similar
project; these points went on to Historic Northampton.
Activity 4 – The final exercise aimed to provide a collaborative dialogue about language. When discussing planning and historic preservation, it is easy to talk past one another without
standard definitions or referencing vague language in the existing policy. Participants reflected on the definitions of historical character, culture, good-faith effort, and re-use.
For results of Community Forum #2, see Appendix.
Comment Walls
Comment boards featured a map with the Massachusetts Historical Commission Inventory points, historic districts, permanent open spaces across the city, and one of the following prompts.
Participants responded to one of two prompts; “what spaces, structures, or landscapes would you prioritize for historic preservation in Northampton?” or “What do you think Northampton
will look like in the next 10-20 years if we don’t make any changes to existing ordinance or policy?”. Comment Walls remained posted long-term in Forbes Library (10.7 – 10.28) and Lilly
Library (11.22 – 1.3) and elicited comprehensive feedback that related across Sustainable Northampton elements, including sustainability, economic development, and housing.
Historic Preservation Scavenger Hunt
Throughout the fall, residents could elect to participate in an interactive social media campaign leading to events, historic sites, and new personal discoveries through biweekly clues
on social media profiles. Local organizations, including the Greater Northampton Chamber of Commerce, Forbes Library, Historic Northampton, and Grow Food Northampton, posted hints for
residents to identify sites such as the Bridge Street Cemetery and the Smith Charities Building. This aspect of the historic preservation planning engagement scope sought to help get
the community involved, invested, and learning in order to identify and protect key sites like these in Northampton.
Community Survey
In January 2023, the consultants conducted an online survey on the City’s behalf to gauge the public’s interest in and knowledge of historic preservation and to gauge interest in specific
historic preservation policies. The feedback received throughout outreach activities in the Fall of 2022 shaped the questions included in the survey, which remained open from January
10 – February 1, 2023. There was a resounding response from longtime residents; of the 155 responses received, 70 percent had lived in Northampton for more than 15 years. Many respondents,
73 percent, did not live in a designated local or National Register district but were still invested in the process.
The survey results can be found in the Appendix.
3.5. Analysis of Existing Municipal Ordinances and Regulations
Zoning Ordinance
Zoning ordinances are a city’s primary tool for regulating land use. They divide a municipality into different zones or districts that each regulate the types of allowable uses and the
physical characteristics of buildings (e.g., maximum building height or minimum distance from the road). While most sections of Northampton’s zoning ordinance do not contain explicit
references to issues of historic preservation, the use and dimensional regulations of zoning districts could affect the character of development in historic areas.
Northampton’s zoning ordinance establishes sixteen zoning districts and five overlay districts, but this section of the report is concerned only with those that overlap with the City’s
local and national historic districts, listed in Table 1 (at end of document). (See Map 3-2, Zoning Map)
Use Districts
The Urban Residential districts where the Elm Street Local Historic District is located allow most housing types by right as long as the development consists of not more than six units.
A special permit is required for larger projects. The Suburban Residential District (encompassing most of the Veterans Administration Hospital near Florence Center) allows primarily
one- and two-family dwellings.
The Farms, Forests and Rivers (FFR) District allows limited development but is mostly meant to conserve open space. Development rights for a lot in the FFR District may be transferred
to land in the Planned Village (PV) District, essentially allowing development that could have occurred in the FFR to be relocated to the PV, i.e., transfer of development rights. The
FFR District at the state hospital site is all permanently protected open space, so no new development may occur there.
The reuse of historic educational or religious buildings for residential or office space is allowed with site plan review in any district. The new use must be within the building’s
existing footprint and the property owner must grant the City a historic preservation restriction to preserve “key character-defining” features.
Overlay Districts
Overlay districts are regulatory areas that are superimposed on top of underlying zoning districts and introduce additional regulations to an area. The Educational Uses overlay is located
on the Smith College campus and overlaps with a portion of the Elm Street Local Historic District. This overlay exempts the college from most dimensional regulations, consistent with
G.L. c. 40A, § 3, with the exception that building height may not exceed 85 feet.
Form-Based Districts
In 2022, the Northampton City Council adopted “form-based” or “character-based” zoning provisions for downtown Northampton and Florence Center. Character-based zoning is intended to
further the goals of the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan, ensure cohesive design between the public and private realm, create more detail and predictability for design standards,
and increase flexibility for mixed-use development. Crucially for historic preservation, a key goal is to:
[Shrink] the area subject to Central Business Architecture Committee review to the historic core of downtown Northampton [and expand] the area that is subject to a more detailed review
of architecture via the existing site plan review process by the Planning Board.
-City of Northampton Zoning Ordinance, §350-21
The first part of Northampton’s Character-Based Zoning Sections describes a general set of standards applicable to all character-based zoning districts. The section breaks a streetscape
down into five components, starting from the center of road itself:
Vehicle Throughway – this is the roadway, which must meet the standards of the Department of Public Works.
Furnishing and Utility Zone – adjacent to the road, contains street trees, benches, lighting, and/or fire hydrants.
Pedestrian Throughway Zone – separated from the road by the Furnishing and Utility Zone, pedestrian sidewalks are located here.
Public Frontage Zone – between the sidewalk and the lot line, this zone may not be present at all on a particularly narrow street. It provides a space between a building and an active
sidewalk for people to linger momentarily.
Lot Frontage Zone – usually private property, this zone may include plazas, storefronts, gardens, and other privately owned but public facing areas.
Every Character-Based Zone has a minimum and maximum setback that a building’s façade must be located between, called the Build-to-Zone. There is also a minimum width for buildings (called
Building Frontage Occupancy), based on a percentage of the lot’s frontage. This is meant to avoid large gaps in the streetscape. Other elements with design guidelines include a building’s
roof, façade, storefront configuration, windows, and landscaping. Use of green infrastructure is also strongly encouraged.
The second part of the Character-Based Zoning Sections contains zone-specific regulations. The Central Business District, which overlaps with the Downtown National Register Historic
District and the eastern extreme of the Elm Street Local Historic District, is divided into three sub-districts with different form-based requirements. The subdistricts include the
Central Business- Core (CB-Core) Central Business- Side Street (CB-Side Street), and Central Business- Gateway (CB-Gateway).
None of the Central Business (CB) districts have minimum required lot sizes, frontage, or setbacks, instead relying on design guidelines to maintain a consistent and desirable built
form in the area.
Projects involving nonconforming structures and lots (those that already exist but do not conform to zoning standards) need only comply with character-based regulations.
The CB districts have similar use regulations, with residential uses being generally more permissible farther from the CB-Core. Mixed use development is allowed by right in all CB districts
– including residential located above the first floor – as are retail and personal service uses. Nursing homes or assisted living residences require site plan review, while manufacturing
is allowed with a special permit. Ground floor residential uses, including multifamily, are allowed by right in the CB-Side Street (with site plan review) and CB-Gateway districts.
Ground floor residential may be permitted in CB-Core if the property does not abut a public way or public park.
Off-street parking requirements are much less intensive than in other zoning districts. The reuse of existing buildings does not require the addition of any new parking spaces unless
development results in an expansion of the existing building in the CB-Gateway district. The City also accepts a payment in lieu of any number of required parking spaces in any CB district.
Bicycle parking is required for some commercial and industrial uses.
Other Zoning Regulations
Alterations to nonconforming structures in residential zones may be performed as-of-right under any of the following conditions:
If the change itself complies with zoning requirements;
If a nonconforming use is being converted to a residential use; or
If the change does not increase the existing nonconformity.
The Zoning Ordinance contains general regulations for lighting, signs, preserving significant trees, and nuisance emissions and noises.
Finally, the Planning Board may issue a special permit to change dimensional requirements if they are in line with surrounding properties and the project provides “infill development,
open space for public use, or affordable housing units.”
Demolition Ordinance
(Code of Ordinances, Chapter 161)
Enacted in 2005 and amended through 2022, the Demolition Ordinance applies to historic resources in Northampton proposed for total demolition and located outside the Elm Street Local
Historic District and the Central Business-Core zoning district, two areas where demolition applications are reviewed under separate ordinances. The Demolition Ordinance regulates buildings
and structures built in 1900 or earlier, and principal buildings and structures constructed on a parcel between 1901 and 1945. Ancillary buildings and structures from the 1901 to 1945
period, such as outbuildings, sheds, garages, and fences, are not regulated under this ordinance.
In general, the Northampton Historical Commission reviews applications for total demolition in most parts of the city. Building permit applications for total demolition of regulated
buildings and structures are reviewed to determine whether the resources are historically significant to the city and preferably preserved. If a regulated building or structure is deemed
both significant and preferably preserved as defined by the ordinance, the Historical Commission may impose a demolition delay of up to twelve months to allow sufficient time to explore
alternatives to demolition. The Historical Commission then advises the Building Commissioner and works with the applicant to identify alternatives or reasonable efforts to mitigate
the effects of demolition. These measures are intended to protect the public interest in preferably preserved resources.
Northampton’s age-based demolition ordinance recognizes that potentially significant buildings and structures have yet to be recorded in the city’s historic properties inventory. The
provisions of the ordinance ensure that an inventory form for a historic resource, while ideal, is not required to conduct the necessary demolition review. Many communities with demolition
ordinances or bylaws attempt to survey historic properties as ownership changes or a demolition application is filed. This approach, typically driven by market conditions rather than
objective planning analysis of historic resources in a communitywide context, is not recommended.
Most regulated buildings and structures that already meet the significance criteria due to their listing in the National Register of Historic Places may be identified through the Massachusetts
Historical Commission’s MACRIS database (https://mhc-macris.net) and companion mapping site (https://maps.mhc-macris.net). Another measure for determining significance is whether the
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) has found a historic resource eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Coordination with MHC staff is needed to confirm resources
with positive eligibility opinions. It should be noted that MHC reserves the right to revise its opinions of National Register eligibility over time, especially if the historic integrity
of the resource has been compromised due to subsequent alterations. The Northampton Historical Commission may delegate authority to make initial determinations of significance to one
or more members of the Commission or to a municipal employee, in this case the city’s preservation planner.
The Northampton Historical Commission has taken a pragmatic approach to demolition review. Of approximately 100 demolition applications reviewed through 2021, the Commission deemed twenty-one
resources to be preferably preserved, though a demolition delay was not imposed on all. Most preferably preserved resources were demolished following the delay period, while some were
moved, restored, or converted to museum use. To lift a delay before the end of the twelve-month period, the Commission considers alternate plans and mitigation efforts such as photographic
documentation and architectural salvage. Nearly 75 percent of the demolition applications submitted have been for buildings historically in residential use, or residential outbuildings
such as carriage houses.
Table 3.5.2. Demolition Review in Northampton
Location of Property
Type of
Demolition
Regulating Board/
Authority
All areas of the city except
as noted below **
Total
Northampton Historical Commission
Demolition Ordinance, c. 161
Elm Street Historic District
Total or partial
Northampton Historical Commission
as the city’s Historic District Commission
G.L. c.40C and
Historic Districts Ordinance, c. 195
Central Business-Core District
Total or partial
Central Business Architecture Committee
Central Business and West Street Architecture Ordinance, c. 156
Chapter citations refer to Northampton Code of Ordinances unless noted
** See also Demolition Ordinance, c. 161, § 4, Exemptions
Central Business and West Street Architecture Ordinance
(Code of Ordinances, Chapter 156)
Established under municipal home rule authority in 1999, the Central Business Architecture Ordinance and associated Design Guidelines Manual (1999, revisions forthcoming) preserves and
enhances the historic, architecturally rich, and pedestrian-scale character of downtown Northampton, helping to sustain economic vitality and protect the investments of property and
business owners. The ordinance provides a flexible tool to encourage building design downtown that is compatible with the existing historic streetscape.
Under this ordinance, the Central Business Architecture Committee issues permits for construction, alteration, or demolition of buildings and structures within the Central Business-Core
District defined in the city’s Zoning Ordinance (Code of Ordinances, Chapter 350). The Central Business-Core District replaces a larger architecturally controlled district created in
1999. With the adoption in 2022 of form-based (character-based) zoning in downtown Northampton, certain design standards have now been integrated with the new zoning regulations governing
the larger area. At the smaller historic core, the Central Business Architecture Committee continues to conduct design review, in accordance with its revised Design Guidelines Manual,
as a supplement to the form-based code.
The illustrated Design Guidelines Manual articulates character-defining features of the district’s architecture and provides examples of designs that are compatible, or incompatible,
with those features. Certain projects as defined in the ordinance are exempt from review, focusing the Committee’s attention on projects that could permanently detract from the historic
visual character of downtown. The ordinance allows applicants to design their projects to meet prescriptive design guidelines set out in the manual, or propose non-traditional designs
that may not meet specific guidelines but are consistent with the district’s character-defining features. Typical applications reviewed by the Central Business Architecture Committee
have proposed façade modifications, addition or expansion of porches, window replacement, mural painting, addition of universal access ramps, demolition, and new construction.
In 2011, the City of Northampton amended the Central Business Architecture Ordinance with establishment of the West Street Architecture District. The Planning Board issues permits for
new construction and alteration of existing buildings in the West Street district, to ensure building and landscape design is consistent with the existing streetscape and Smith College
campus. Architectural review in this area is more limited, focusing on a building’s massing, scale, placement on the parcel, and site treatment rather than the composition of the building
elevations. Applications for total demolition of a building or structure in the West Street Architecture District are reviewed by the Northampton Historical Commission under the Demolition
Ordinance (Code of Ordinances, Chapter 156).
I
Table 3.5.3. Significant Zoning Districts in Designated Historic Areas
Zoning District
Relevant Historic District
Description
Min. Lot Size (sq. ft.)
Min. Frontage (ft)
Min. setbacks (front/rear/side, in feet)
Max height (ft)
Open space %
Central Business Core
Downtown National Register District
“The zoning standards are intended to maintain and enhance the district as the premier center of walkable mixed-use commercial, residential, civic, and institutional activity in Northampton
and the region. Standards focus on: (1) Enhancing the safety, comfort, and attractiveness of the public realm for all users; (2) Maintaining high-quality building and site design;
(3) Preserving and enhancing the historic integrity of the district's architecture;
(4) Providing predictable and efficient permit review; and (5) Encouraging targeted redevelopment, especially of underutilized sites.”
----
----
----
Plus build-to zone of 0-5 feet front
70 max
30 min
----
Central Business Side
Downtown National Register, Pomeroy Terrace National Register District
“This district is a high-density mix of commercial, institutional, and residential uses set within an eclectic mix of buildings, including historic commercial and industrial buildings,
historic residential structures, many of which have been repurposed for commercial use, and new commercial buildings.”
----
----
-----
Plus build-to zone of 0-10 feet
70 max
30 min
Upper-story setback at 50’
-----
Urban Residential B (URB)
Elm Street
“Primarily residential with single-, two-, three-family units allowed in different development patterns, including townhouse units. New homes should consist of units that maintain orientation,
rhythm, setback pattern and street frontage green patterns of the surrounding block face.”
3,750*
50
10/20/15
35
40%
Urban Residential C (URC)
Elm Street
“Primarily residential with range of building and unit configurations allowed: single, multi-family, townhouse, home businesses allowed. Some mixed uses and institutional uses allowed.”
3,750*
50
10/20/10**
50
30%
Suburban Residential (SR)
Northampton Veterans Administration Hospital
“Lower density residential and agricultural land. Conservation cluster design is encouraged. Areas are typically not within walking distance of goods/services; some private and water
services required.”
30,000 or 80,000***
125
30/30/15
35
70%
Planned Village (PV)
Northampton State Hospital
“[A] project [in this district] serves as a pedestrian scale mixed village, and not an automobile-oriented collection of independent uses.”
0
0
0
Farms, Forests and Rivers (FFR)
Northampton State Hospital
“[The district’s purpose is] to protect sensitive open space and ecologically important features, to preserve the farms, forests, river corridors, ecological habitat, and recreational
lands of Northampton, and to allow landowners the ability to develop their property in a manner that is sensitive to these unique resources.”
N/A
20/20/15
35
85%
Central Business (CB)
Downtown National Register, Elm Street
See Table X.X
Source: City of Northampton Zoning Ordinance
3.6. Municipal Policy, Management, and Capital Improvements Analysis
This section provides an overview of municipal policy and the organizational elements of the City’s management structure through which historic preservation issues are recognized and
addressed. This section also details capital improvements for historic preservation purposes through an examination of the previous five years of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) plans
submitted to the City Council.
Municipal Policy
Historic preservation matters have become an integral component of community planning and public policy in Northampton. Many community members recognize the key role that historic character
and resources play in community wellbeing and quality of life. Northampton is prepared to advance capacity to incorporate historic preservation principles into municipal policy and
processes.
The regulations, ordinances, and organization of municipal processes, such as adoption of CPA and CIP plans, represent a significant policy commitment by the City to plan for long-term
maintenance of historic resources. These resources have enabled significant funding for numerous historic preservation projects and initiatives.
Municipal Organization and Management
City Departments and Offices
Municipal policy is implemented and managed by a variety of City departments and offices under direction of the Mayor. Numerous City departments are involved in municipal policy relative
to historic preservation matters. These departments include:
Arts & Culture works to fund, promote and present high-quality, community-based arts programming for the benefit of artists, residents and visitors to the City of Northampton. The department
coordinates the Paradise City Cultural District, and provides administrative, clerical and technical support to the Northampton Arts Council.
Building Department: charged with enforcing the state building code, plumbing and gas code, electrical code, and the architectural access code. This department provides administration
for applications under the demolition review ordinance.
Central Services: ensures the integrity and functionality of city facilities for staff and the public. The department oversees grounds, maintenance, heating/cooling, plumbing, electrical,
security, fire detection / protection, custodial, renovations, and construction operations for city and school buildings, including many municipally owned historic properties.
Mayor’s Office: The Mayor is the City’s chief executive officer and is responsible for the administration of all city departments. This office is responsible for the enforcement of city
laws and ordinances, the implementation of economic development and community development initiatives, the appointment
of some department heads and members of many boards and commissions, and budget submission to the City Council.
Parks & Recreation: works to promote the well-being of the community by providing an array of recreation and fitness programs and activities. This department works to ensure continued
programming and maintenance of public parks, playgrounds and fields, and recreation programs.
Planning & Sustainability works to identify and implement a community vision for a sustainable and resilient future, overseeing matters related to climate adaptation and mitigation,
mobility, and community development.
Public Works: responsible for the maintenance and improvement of public infrastructure, including public streets and ways, sidewalks, bicycle paths, bridges, street trees, athletic fields,
parks, and cemeteries. This department manages operations and assets in the Water, Sewer, Stormwater/Flood Control and Solid Waste Divisions.
Boards, Commissions, and Committees
The City of Northampton employs numerous boards, commissions, and committees charged with overseeing and managing aspects of the City’s historic interests.
Northampton Arts Council: works to support and nurture the arts in the city of Northampton. The Council awards grants twice yearly to artists and arts groups from state and locally raised
funds and seeks to improve public awareness of the arts. Its goals include maintaining and preserving Northampton's rich and diverse cultural heritage, programming annual events of
interest to the community,
Community Preservation Committee (CPC): responsible for administering the City’s participation in the Community Preservation Act, reviewing applications from qualified applicants and
recommending projects for approval for funding by City Council.
Central Business Architecture Committee: oversees the Central Business Architecture Ordinance to preserve and enhance the pedestrian-scale character, culture, economy of downtown Northampton
by preserving historic and architecturally valuable buildings and features, and by encouraging compatible building design.
Historical Commission: established by city ordinance in 1973 and updated in 2013 with the merger with the Historic District Commission, the Northampton Historical Commission (NHC) is
charged with the “preservation, promotion and development of the historical assets of the city.” The NHC oversees applications under the City’s demolition review ordinance, which covers
all properties built in 1900 and earlier and all principal structures constructed from 1901 - 1945. The commission also oversees the Elm Street Local Historic District, and works with
the Department of Public Works to preserve and protect the City’s four historic cemeteries.
Parks and Recreation Commission: a volunteer commission that sets policy and advises the parks and recreation department on development and implementation of recreational programming
for parks, playgrounds, playfields, indoor recreation centers and other recreation areas and facilities owned or controlled by the city.
Planning Board: responsible for overseeing implementation of the City’s zoning, subdivision, and land development ordinances, as well as adopting comprehensive study plans for the community.
Zoning Board of Appeals: a quasi-judicial body appointed to review applications for relief from aspects of the City’s zoning ordinance.
Capital Improvements Analysis
Municipal Properties - Maintenance and Capital Improvements
The City of Northampton owns and maintains a number of historic buildings and landscapes including several of the City’s most historically significant properties. Overall responsibility
for the management and maintenance of City property is under the authority of the Mayor and is conducted by the Department of Central Services and Department of Public Works. The City
implements long-term financial planning through a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for capital improvements, which are defined as a physical public improvement project involving a
City-owned facility, parcel of land, or piece of equipment costing more than $10,000 and has an estimated useful life of five years or more.
Capital Improvements Program
Under management of the Mayor, the City of Northampton City Council establishes a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) each new fiscal year. The program is reviewed and updated
annually by the Mayor in consultation with the Finance Director and an ad-hoc Capital Improvement Program Committee. This committee coordinates with the various municipal departments
to prioritize needs and establish long-term funding plans for projects. The Mayor then uses the committee ranked project submission to inform a final, five-year program based on projected
ability and resources to finance the necessary capital improvements.
Projects in recent history of CIP planning involving City-owned historic resources have heavily integrated a sustainable approach to capital investment. This is exemplified through dedication
of resources in CIPs submitted to the City Council within the previous five years for projects that enhance energy management systems, provide for structural upgrades, including features
such as windows, doors, fire suppression systems, building envelope design and structural enhancements, as well as those projects that modernize heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
systems. These projects are widely demonstrated in the recent capital planning for the numerous historic public school buildings and libraries, as well as the Academy of Music, Memorial
Hall, James House Community Center, City Hall, and the historic Florence Fire Department Station.
City-Owned Historic Resources
The following table details City-owned historic resources, including facilities, parcels of land, structures, parks, bridges, and cemeteries established prior to 1975. (See Map 3.3)
Table 3.6.1. City-Owned Historic Resources, Pre-1975 (by address)
MHC ID
Historic Name
Address/Parcel ID
Designation(s)
NTH.903
New Haven & Northampton Railroad Bridge over Arch Street
Arch St
John F. Kennedy Florence Junior High School
100 Bridge Rd, Florence
16B-003-001
NTH.AJ
Bridge Street Cemetery
156 Bridge St
25C-260-001
PR 2019, NRDIS 2018
in Pomeroy Ter NRDIS
Bridge Street Elementary School
Bridge St at Parsons St
32A-063-001
NTH.909
Clement Street Bridge – Bay State Bridge over Mill River
Clement St
NTH.279
Northampton High School
380 Elm St
24C-042-001
Leeds Elementary School
20 Florence St, Leeds
10B-094-001
Leeds Memorial Park
(school bell-school site)
Florence St, Leeds
10D-022-001
NTH.713
Justus Boies House – James House Community Center
42 Gothic St
31B-311-001
NRDIS 1976
in Downtown NRDIS
Northampton Water Treatment Plant
Hockanum Rd
39A-039-001
Jackson Street Elementary School
120 Jackson St
24A-042-001
Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School (farm landscape)
80 Locust St
23B-047-001
Northampton Public Works Building
125 Locust St
23B-014-001
NTH.790
Northampton City Hall
210 Main St
31D-163-001
NRDIS 1976
in Downtown NRDIS
Municipal Building
212 Main St
31D-167-001
NRDIS 1976
in Downtown NRDIS
NTH.792
Memorial Hall
240 Main St
31D-165-001
NRDIS 1976
in Downtown NRDIS
NTH.911
Pulaski Park (Main Street City Park)
Main and New South Sts
31D-259-001
NRDIS 1976
in Downtown NRDIS
NTH.794
Academy of Music
274 Main St
31D-166-001
PR 1986, NRDIS 1976
in Downtown NRDIS
Trinity Row Park
Main St/Trinity Row, Florence
23A-109-001
NTH.952
Cooks Dam Bridge (A) – Main Street Bridge over Mill River Sluiceway
Main St, Leeds
NTH.951
Cooks Dam Bridge (B) – Main Street Bridge over Mill River Sluiceway
Main St, Leeds
Northampton Fire Department Station 2 - Florence
69 Maple St, Florence
23A-063-001
NTH.134
Alfred Lilly Public Library
19 Meadow St, Florence
17C-278-001
NTH.934
Mulberry Street Bridge over
Mill River
Mulberry St, Leeds
NTH.998
Nonotuck Silk Company Mill River Dam
296 Nonotuck St, Florence
Frank Newhall Look Memorial Park
North Main St, Florence
16A-002-201
NTH.804
Spring Grove Cemetery
North Maple St, Florence
12C-019-001
NTH.901
Leeds Hotel Bridge over Mill River
Old Shepard Rd, Leeds
NTH.950
Old Springfield Road Bridge over
Mill River
Old Springfield Rd
NTH.802
Park Street Cemetery
44 Park St, Florence
23A-006-001
Northampton Survival Center
(only attached barn at rear of building)
265 Prospect St
24C-013-001
Lower Roberts Meadow Reservoir/ Leeds Reservoir (Musante Beach)
85 Reservoir Rd, Leeds
10-006-001
NTH.900
New Haven & Northampton Railroad Bridge over Beaver Brook
River Rd, Leeds
NTH.965
River Road Bridge over Mill River
River Rd
Ryan Road Elementary School
498 Ryan Rd
29-104-001
Mineral Hills Quarry
Turkey Hill Rd
34-002-001
NTH.497
Vernon Street School
56 Vernon St
31A-112-001
NTH.759
Forbes Public Library
20 West St
NRDIS 1976
in Downtown NRDIS
NTH.960
West Street Bridge over
Mill River Diversion
West St
NTH.805
West Farms Cemetery
West Farms Rd
35-015-001
NTH.958
Loudville Bridge over North Branch Manhan River
Westhampton Rd
NTH.959
Westhampton Road Bridge over
Bassett Brook
Westhampton Rd
The following actions and recommendations for implementation are identified as implementation strategies to be considered by the City and should not to be construed as either adopted
or mandated simply as a result of the adoption of this plan.
Goals & Recommendations
4.1. Historic Properties Inventory Recommendations
Overview
Opportunities exist for updating and expanding the inventory to tell a more complete story of Northampton’s growth and development and better support preservation planning activity.
Prepare detailed area forms for concentrations of historic resources outside downtown. The early success of Northampton’s legacy inventory delayed the city’s shift to the cultural landscape
approach for survey, which documents important clusters or concentrations of historic resources, including non-building resources such as landscapes. While a building-by-building inventory
does help facilitate design and demolition review, for broader preservation planning purposes the
inventory should convey a better sense of the mill villages, agricultural settlements, and historic residential neighborhoods present in the community. These resources in Northampton
are under-documented by today’s survey standards. Future updates could confirm boundaries, enumerate the full range of historic resources in each area, and place them in the context
of the area’s physical and historical development. Ancillary buildings such as barns and garages are typically recorded in area form documentation.
Update and expand the inventory with historic resources from ca. 1930 to ca. 1975. When the legacy inventory was completed, the typical cut-off age for historic resources to be considered
was ca. 1930; the current date is ca. 1975. Most of Northampton’s inventoried resources from this period are buildings on school and hospital campuses; diners, churches, and bridges;
or noncontributing buildings in designated historic districts. Post-World War II residential development is underrepresented. Many side streets and residential subdivisions off Bridge,
Burts Pit, Florence, Ryan, and Westhampton roads and Hatfield and North Main streets were developed since ca. 1950 and merit consideration for survey.
Add a range of landscape types from different historical periods to the inventory. Updated forms are needed for Pulaski Park, Look Memorial Park, and Three County Fairgrounds. Additional
landscapes to consider (some in coordination with the city’s Open Space planning priorities) include, but are not limited to, Childs Park, Northampton Country Club, the Connecticut
River Greenway and Meadows, Northampton (LaFleur) Airport, Turkey Hill Quarry, and Mineral Hills (Galena Mines). Unless the city’s conservation activities warrant documentation of historic
landscapes individually, many could be recorded with related resources in area forms. Industrial landscapes in the Mill River corridor are best recorded with their associated mill villages
and bridges. Campus landscapes are best recorded in area forms that integrate the buildings and grounds in consolidated description and history narratives. Agricultural landscapes are
ideally recorded with their historically associated farmhouses and any extant outbuildings.
Expand historical narratives to incorporate new research. With the emergence and growth of online historical research in recent decades, accessibility to research records has improved
dramatically since the legacy survey was completed in 1981. Census records, immigration and naturalization records, and city directories yield information on the personal relationships,
ethnic origins, and occupations represented in Northampton households through at least 1950. Since many inventory forms from the 2010-2011 update project restated historical narratives
from the legacy forms, some research in Northampton’s inventory has not been appreciably updated or expanded in forty years.
Further survey efforts would identify, and promote locally, new areas of preservation planning interest in Northampton. New and updated inventory forms would also celebrate new research
findings for areas, neighborhoods, and non-building resources that have yet to be fully understood.
Goal HP-1
Improve Northampton’s inventory as the basis for preservation planning decisions by adding or better recording areas of concentrated historic development per current statewide survey
standards. See Table 4.1.1 for recommended areas.
Actions
Add or update area forms for critical-priority neighborhoods that retain the greatest historic architectural integrity and associations with historic development of citywide significance,
for future historic district evaluation.
Update or expand the inventory for necessary- and important-priority neighborhoods to support future historic district evaluation and broader citywide planning goals.
Begin planning for survey of mid-20th century modern neighborhoods (ca. 1945-1975), tapping the expertise of longtime residents and building support for preservation.
Goal HP-2
Expand inventory coverage of individual historic resources (Table 4.1.2), generally those located outside recommended survey areas, except as noted below.
Actions
Update inventory forms for critical-priority resources to facilitate future historic designation.
Initiate a citywide survey of current and former houses of worship (pre-1975), expanding existing inventories forms as needed to meet current standards.
Conduct a reconnaissance-level survey of barns, carriage houses, sheds, shops, and other ancillary buildings and structures located on parcels outside the Elm Street Local Historic District
and the downtown Central Business-Core District, using detail plates from Northampton’s 1895 atlas as a base map. Results will guide the scoping of an intensive-level survey of pre-1901
buildings and structures to support demolition review.
Ensure the inventory records, to current survey standards, all pre-1975 city-owned or -managed buildings, objects, burial grounds, structures, or landscapes (Table 3.6.1).
Complete building forms for properties in the Central Business-Core design review district that lack inventory forms for reference in review decisions.
Require updated inventory forms for historic resources considered for Community Preservation Act funding.
Goal HP-3
Add to Northampton’s inventory of archaeological resources for future consideration in the City’s planning and permitting process. Note: All archaeological survey activity and documentation
must be coordinated with state archaeologists at the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). Information on archaeological resources is not a public record.
Actions
Commission a citywide archaeological reconnaissance survey.
Renew city efforts to inventory and pursue National Register listing for the New Haven and Northampton Canal, in coordination with both MHC and municipalities along the canal path in
Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Add additional areas of cultural significance to Northampton’s inventory (Table 4.1.1), coordinating with MHC staff to determine whether these areas are most appropriately documented
in the City’s above-ground inventory or inventory of archaeological assets.
Goal HP-4
Broaden Northampton’s inventory to reflect the community’s cultural diversity over time, telling a fuller story of the City’s history through its historic places.
Actions
Re-examine historical narratives prepared during Northampton’s legacy survey (completed in 1981) to identify opportunities for augmenting the inventory forms with census and immigration
data now widely available online, telling a fuller story of the City’s history through its historic places.
Review recent research on underrepresented historic themes in Northampton to identify associated historic resources that merit inclusion in the city’s historic properties inventory.
High-priority themes include indigenous history; ethnic history; slavery, reform and abolition; and several themes under the broad National Register significance category of social
history, including civil rights, disability history, labor history, LGBTQIA+ history, traditional cultural history, and women’s history.
Table 4.1.1. Areas Recommended for Inventory Action (by area name)
(See Map 4.1)
Area Name
Street Addresses
Recommended Action
Priority
Allen St – Gothic St
Allen St, 10 to 12 inclusive
Gothic St, 61
Cluster of five late 19th-century buildings associated with owners and/or production of Bailey and Brown Brick Shop; some recorded individually and previously recommended as potential
National Register district.
Critical
Bay State Village – Paper Mill Village Industrial
Clement St, 21
Clement St – Bay State Bridge (NTH.909)
Federal St, 64 to 152 inclusive
Ladd Ave, 15 to 43 inclusive
Riverside Dr, 63 to 347 odd, 100 to 340 even
Core of mill village retaining historic integrity and setting since first recommended for district designation in 1991. Includes three industrial complexes, worker housing, engine house,
former Feiker School, and Clement St Bridge over Mill River. See also Bay State Village Residential Area.
Critical
Florence Center Business
Main St, 89 to 125 odd
Maple St, 76
North Main St, 3 to 29 inclusive
North Maple St, 16 to 30 inclusive
Park St, 90
Business and institutional core of Florence; includes Norwood Engineering Company complex (NTH.AD). Abuts Florence Abolition and Reform Historic District. See also North Maple St Residential
Area and South Main St – Trinity Row Area, Florence.
Critical
Laurel Park
Laurel Park Condo, 5 to 117 inclusive
North King St, parcel ID-08-064-001
Update and expand 1976 area form (NTH.N); include neighborhood association map of cottages and explanation of current address system for Laurel Park Condo.
Critical
Leeds Center
Audubon Rd, 5 to 74 inclusive
Florence St, 1 to 73 inclusive, 89, 92
Hotel Bridge (NTH.901)
Main St, 159 to 167 and 182 to 260 inclusive
Main St Bridges (NTH.951 and 952)
Mulberry St, 7 to 56 inclusive
Mulberry St Bridge (NTH.934)
Reservoir Rd, 14 to 36 inclusive, 45 to 57 odd
River Rd, 1 to 56 inclusive
Warner Row, 2 to 12 inclusive
Water St, 6 to 104 inclusive, 107 to 145 odd
Broad survey area recommended for refinement of boundary if districts are pursued in future. Suggested boundary includes the Chartpak Plant, 1 River St (1957); Dimock House, currently
known as 1 Florence St (1879, NR); Leeds School; Leeds Memorial Park; and four bridges over the Mill River.
Critical
North Farms
North Farms Road, 326 to 372 even, 373
Cluster of late 19th and early 20th century dwellings.
Critical
Oxbow Neighborhood
Ferry Ave, 3 to 26 inclusive
Island Rd, 79 to 178 inclusive
Mount Tom Rd, 503
Select buildings were recorded individually; neighborhood merits survey as a whole for associations with Connecticut River Lumber Company and Mount Tom Sulphite Company. See also Connecticut
River Greenway and Meadows Area.
Critical
West Farms
West Farms Rd, 173 to 245 odd, 178 to 288 even
West Farms Cemetery, parcel ID 35-015-001
Westhampton Rd, 959
Agricultural village center of 19th century chapel, public school, cemetery, and farmhouses, with post-World War II suburban infill development.
Critical
Bay State Village Residential
Federal St, 165 to end
Hinckley St, all
Lexington Ave, all
Liberty St, all
Maplewood Ter, 96 to 143, 147, 150, 155
Nonotuck St, 22
Norwood Ave, all
Nutting Ave, all
Riverside Dr, 21 - 53 odd, 24 - 64 even, 82, 90
Warner St, 4 to 138
Winslow Ave, all
Wood St, all
Broad survey area recommended for refinement of boundary if districts are pursued in future. See also Bay State Village-Paper Mill Village Industrial Area.
Necessary
Elm St North
Arlington St, all
Bancroft Rd, 7, 9, and 4 to 102 even
Barrett Pl, all
Crescent St, all
Fifth Ave, all
Fourth Ave, all
Franklin Ct, all
Franklin St, all
Henshaw Ave, 29 to 81 odd
Hillside Rd, all
Langworthy Rd, all
Massasoit Ave, all
Massasoit St, all
Prospect St, 70 to 274 even
Round Hill Rd, 127 to 197 only
Sanderson Ave, all
Western Ave, all
Woodlawn Ave, 17 to 95 odd
Broad survey area recommended for refinement of boundary if districts are pursued in future. Update and expand 1976 area form (NTH.G) for this residential neighborhood bound by Elm
Street Local Historic District, Woodlawn Ave (Childs Park), Prospect St, the former Clarke School campus, and Smith College campus. Previously recommended as a potential National Register
district, with boundaries to include Elm Street LHD and Elm Street South Area (see separate recommendation).
Necessary
Elm St South
Dryads Green, all
Forbes Ave, all
Harrison Ave, all
James Ave, all
Kensington Ave, 11 to 75 odd, 64
Maynard Rd, all
Vernon St, 12, 17 to 145 inclusive
Ward Ave, all
Washington Ave, 8 to 112 inclusive
Washington Pl, all
Update and expand 1976 area form (NTH.F) for this pocket of well detailed 19th and 20th-century dwellings bound by Elm Street Local Historic District, Smith College campus, Mill River,
and Northampton High School campus; includes former Vernon Street School. Previously recommended as a potential National Register district, with boundaries to include Elm Street LHD
and Elm Street North (see separate recommendation).
Necessary
Montview
Henry St, all
Hockanum Rd, 22 to 96 inclusive
Montview Ave, all
Valley St, all
Williams St, 84 to 140 inclusive
Cluster of 19th and early 20th-century dwellings in under-documented neighborhood.
Necessary
North Maple St Residential, Florence
North Maple St, 81 to 205 inclusive
Concentration of well detailed late 19th and 20th-century dwellings. Select buildings were recorded individually.
Necessary
North St Neighborhood
Highland Ave, all
Linden St, all
North St, 39 to 245 inclusive
Parsons St, 81 to 86 inclusive
Northern Ave, all
Woodbine Ave, all
Woodmont Rd, 19 and 25
Largely residential 19th and early 20th-century corridor illustrating transition from agricultural to suburban development, with period outbuildings; includes Twin Cleaners and Dyers
Cold Storage, 211 North St.
Necessary
South Main St – Trinity Row, Florence
Berkshire Ter, 3
Locust St, 311 and 321
Main St, 1
South Main St, 98 to 168 inclusive
Trinity Row, 3 to 9 inclusive
Trinity Row Park
Cluster of late 19th and early 20th-century dwellings forming gateway corridor to Florence Center and Trinity Row Park. See also Florence Abolition and Reform Historic District Area
and Florence Center Business Area.
Necessary
South St Neighborhood
Cedar St, all
Charles St, all
Columbus Ave, all
East St, all
Fairview Ave, all
Fort Street, all
Hampden St, all
Hampton Ter, all
Harlow Ave, all
Hebert Ave, all
Lyman Rd, 11 to 75 even, 36 to 86 even
Madison Ave, all
Manhan St, all
Munroe St, all
Olive St, all
Reed St, all
Revell Ave, all
South St, 139, 145, 152 to 361 inclusive
Stearns Ct, all
Winthrop St, all
Well detailed late 19th and 20th-century dwellings on South Street, many recorded individually, forming gateway corridor to Fort Hill Historic District and downtown; previously recommended
as potential expansion of this National Register district. Wider neighborhood abutting South Street spine is under-documented, especially side streets from Fort Street to Cedar Street.
Broad survey area recommended for refinement of boundary if districts are pursued in future.
Necessary
Three County Fairgrounds
Bridge St, parcels 25C-250-001, 25C-251-001
Fair St, parcels 32A-249-001, 32A-251-001,
and 32-001-001
Old Ferry Rd, parcels 25C-264-001 and
25-044-001
Update and expand NTH.AF with more detailed mapping of historic resources, data sheet with building construction dates, and photographs to distinguish pre-1975 construction from later
additions.
Necessary
Wright Ave
Wright Ave, 6 to 41 inclusive
Cluster of late 19th and early 20th-century dwellings in under-documented neighborhood.
Necessary
Connecticut River Meadows
Two area forms:
#1 - Connecticut River frontage east of Bridge St (Rte 9) and Mount Tom Rd (Rte 5)
#2 - Oxbow frontage between Mount Tom Rd (Rte 5), Mill River, and South St (Rte 10)
Area forms would summarize both landscape character and historic development aboveground. The forms should address Native and European settlement, including agricultural activity, transportation
of people and goods, and recreation. See also Oxbow Neighborhood Area.
Information on archaeological resources is not a public record. Investigation or mapping of archaeological sites requires coordination with Mass. Historical Commission archaeology staff
for the proper permits, and to ensure that sites and their locations remain protected.
Important
New Haven & Northampton Canal
Multiple cities and towns in Massachusetts and Connecticut
Survey work in conjunction with the Mass. Historical Commission (MHC) staff to record this historic archaeological resource is currently inactive.
Information on archaeological resources is not a public record. Investigation or mapping of archaeological sites requires coordination with MHC archaeology staff for the proper permits,
and to ensure that sites and their locations remain protected.
Important
Roberts Meadow, Leeds
Vicinity of Roberts Meadow Brook, including Chesterfield Rd
Kennedy Rd
Sylvester Rd
Area form recommended to incorporate recent research on this late 18th to 19th-century settlement, encompassing 1031 Chesterfield Rd (NTH.45), 64 Kennedy Rd (NTH.46), agricultural outbuildings,
and sites and structures associated with brook and former Upper Reservoir.
Information on archaeological resources is not a public record. Investigation or mapping of archaeological sites requires coordination with MHC archaeology staff for the proper permits,
and to ensure that sites and their locations remain protected.
Important
Florence Abolition and Reform Historic District (pending)
Beacon St, 74
Corticelli St, all
Florence Rd, 2 to 47 inclusive
Landy Ave, 11 to 39 odd, 40 to 54 even
Lilly St, 13 to 22 inclusive
Maple St, 3 to 35 inclusive
Meadow St, all
Nonotuck St, 129 to 251 odd,
180 to 296 even
Park St, 4 to 67 inclusive
Pine St, 71 to 221 odd, 98 to 176 even
Riverside Dr, 570 (Maines Field)
Riverside Dr, 591 to 660 inclusive
Ryan Rd, 15
Spring St, 17, 35 to 56, 130, 157
Spring St, 215 (Crimson & Clover Farm)
West Center St, 28 and 29
City-funded area form to nominate much of the 19th-century village south of Main St and west of North Main St to the National Register of Historic Places.
Pending
Notes
Numerous properties already inventoried are not referenced here. See https://mhc-macris.net and https://maps.mhc-macris.net for further information.
Area forms facilitate planning by:
describing the historic architecture and setting of the area as a cohesive whole (i.e., “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”);
defining the geographic extent of the area with a boundary and data sheet/address list;
explaining the area’s history and significance to stakeholders as protection measures are considered; and
demonstrating whether protection measures should align with the area boundary as inventoried, or focus on a smaller cluster of the best preserved historic resources within that boundary.
Table 4.1.2. Individual Resources Recommended for Inventory Action (by street address)
See Map 4.2.
Street Address
Historic Name
Recommended Action
Priority
Audubon Rd (Leeds), 395
Calvin Clark House and Barn
Consolidate forms for NTH.2 (house) and NTH.2208 (barn) and expand with additional research to build on 2010 update for potential National Register evaluation of former dairy farm
Critical
North Farms Rd, 549
William Judd House and Barn
Expand building form for NTH.7 (house, plus barn as NTH.2209) with additional research to build on 2010 update for potential National Register evaluation of Federal-period farmstead
Critical
Prospect Heights, 305
Outlook Place
(Dr. Edward Denniston House)
Update 1980 building form (NTH.270) for potential National Register evaluation
Critical
Conz St, 120
Shell Eastern Petroleum Products Gasoline and Service Station
Building form for undocumented ca. 1935 gas station
Necessary
Florence Rd, 1095
Ravenwold Greenhouses
Building form for house with agricultural outbuildings
Necessary
Florence Rd, 153
Building form for house with outbuildings
Necessary
Main St
Parcel ID 31D-259-001
Pulaski Park
Update NTH.911 to meet current standards for parks and landscape documentation
Necessary
Main St (Leeds), 135
Main St (Leeds), golf course
Northampton Country Club
Landscape form to include clubhouse
Necessary
Main St, 212
Municipal Building
Building form for city-owned property in Downtown National Register district
Necessary
North Elm St, 71
Childs Park
Landscape form
Necessary
North Main St, 300 and
Parcel ID 16A-002-001
Look Memorial Park
Landscape form to record park with previously inventoried fountain (NTH.904) and buildings, including superintendent’s house at 300 North Main St (NTH.48).
Necessary
Old Ferry Rd, 111
Early 20th century bungalow in under-documented area
Necessary
Old Wilson Rd, 22
Building form
Necessary
Old Wilson Rd, 297
Building form
Necessary
Orchard St, 18
Affa Apartments
Building form for brick apartment block
Necessary
Pomeroy Ter, 58R
College Church
Building form for NTH.2669, a post-WWII church located within the boundary of the Pomeroy Terrace Historic District
Necessary
Rocky Hill Rd, 188
Building form for rusticated concrete block bungalow
Necessary
South St, 123
Mayfair Manor
Building form for Classical Revival apartment block
Necessary
Summer St, 43
Building form for house and store building with connected outbuildings at rear of property, fronting State St
Necessary
Westhampton Rd
Parcel ID 41-078-001
Mineral Hills Galena Mine
Landscape form
Necessary
Westhampton Rd, 339
Update building form (NTH.2176) to include outbuildings
Necessary
Westhampton Rd, 417
Pine Hill Farm
Update 1980 building form for NTH.2175 (house, plus barn and silo as NTH.2176) to provide more data on farm and outbuildings
Necessary
Westhampton Rd, 570
Building form for post-WWII dwelling
Necessary
Westhampton Rd, 645
Building form for post-WWII dwelling
Necessary
Westhampton Rd, 809
Building form for early 20th century cottage
Necessary
Button St, 10
Building form for NTH.2349, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Crafts Ave, 12-24
Roberts-Kinver-Maybury Building
Building form for NTH.2359/2360, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Crafts Ave, 26-30
Building form for NTH.2358, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
King St, 13-15
Building form for NTH.2281, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
King St, 19
Calvin Theater
Building form for NTH.2280, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Locust St, 80
Smith Vocational & Agricultural High School
Building form recording school (1958) and grounds, including history of institution as first vocational school opened in Massachusetts (1908)
Important
Main St in front of
Pulaski Park
Seth Thomas Clock
Object form for this resource, which received CPC grant funding, to record history, restoration, and new location
Important
Main St, 100-104
Building form for NTH.2299, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Main St, 150
Thornes Marketplace
Building form for NTH.2291, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Main St, 175
Building form for NTH.2356, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Main St, 193-195
Building form for NTH.2355, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Main St, 21-31
Building form for NTH.2421, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Main St, 274
Building form to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Main St, 297
Edwards Church of Northampton
Building form to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Main St, 4
Building form for NTH.2286, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Main St, 48
Building form for NTH.2270, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Main St, 84-92
Building form for NTH.2301, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Main St, 96
Building form for NTH.2300, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Masonic St, 18
Building form to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Merrick Ln, 15
Building form for NTH.2279, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee
Important
Merrick Ln, 22
Building form to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Pearl St, 10
Building form for NTH.2317, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Pearl St, 7
Building form to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee
Important
Pearl St, 8
Building form to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee
Important
Pine St (Florence), 45
Father Mathew Temperance Society Hall
Provide additional research to expand building form (NTH.211) for this hall associated with a Roman Catholic temperance society; not included within boundary of pending Florence Abolition
and Reform Historic District
Important
Pleasant St, 110
Building form for NTH.2316, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Pleasant St, 13-23
Tillotson Block
Building form for NTH.2275, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Pleasant St, 25-27
Harvey Kirkland Block
Building form for NTH.2274, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Pleasant St, 42
Building form for NTH.2310, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Pleasant St, 48
Building form for NTH.2311, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Pleasant St, 58
Building form for NTH.2312, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Pleasant St, 71
Building form for NTH.2309, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Pleasant St, 76
Building form for NTH.2313, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Pleasant St, 84
The Jager
Building form for NTH.2314, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Pleasant St, 96
The Lorraine
Building form for NTH.2315, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
State St, 210
Update 1980 building form (NTH.332) for one of oldest houses following closure of New Haven & Northampton Canal
Important
State St, 218
Davis Haskins House
Update 1980 building form (NTH.331) for house and the early 20th-century market building to rear
Important
Strong Ave, 15-17
Building form for NTH.2283, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Strong Ave, 19
Building form for NTH.2282, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Strong Ave, 5
Building form for NTH.2284, to support design review by Central Business Architecture Committee where applicable
Important
Turkey Hill Rd, 398
Mineral Hills Quarry
Landscape form
Important
4.2. National Register of Historic Places and Local Historic District Priorities
Goal HP-5
Enable evaluation and designation of additional historic districts and individual resources by expanding the inventory through goals and actions outlined in Section 4.1. Historic Properties
Inventory: Survey Priorities. Inventory data is essential to support and justify historic designation activity.
Goal HP-6
Recognize, preserve, and protect areas and individual resources of demonstrated significance that also retain integrity of historic design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling,
and association, using National Register or Local Historic District (G. L. c. 40C) mechanisms.
Actions
As an area inventory form is completed per phased recommendations (Table 4.1.1), gauge the preservation planning protection measures best suited to the interests of the area property
owners and larger community at that time. See Table 4.2.1. for a comparison of district options. In coordination with property owners, initiate the process for either evaluation of
National Register eligibility by Massachusetts Historical Commission, or formation of a local study committee to create design review districts.
Submit updated inventory forms for critical-priority individual resources (Table 4.1.2) to Massachusetts Historical Commission for National Register evaluation. Evaluations for individual
National Register listings require documentation that the building retains integrity on both the exterior and the interior (e.g., floor plan, historic trim, sash and doors, etc.).
Pursue National Register evaluations and nominations for resources identified in future survey efforts.
Goal HP-7
Confirm the suitability of Architectural Preservation Districts (APDs) or Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCDs) as a sustainable general or home-rule ordinance option for preserving
historic neighborhood character in areas of Northampton that may not qualify for National Register listing or where local historic district (G.L. c.40C) designation is not desired.
It is recommended that general ordinances in Northampton be limited to APDs, and neighborhood conservation be accomplished through zoning mechanisms.
Actions
In coordination with the City’s legal counsel, evaluate recent Massachusetts case law on NCDs indicating that general or home-rule ordinances cannot be used to regulate matters normally
regulated under the City’s zoning ordinance and G.L. c. 40A, the Zoning Act, such as the size, scale,
setback, and density of new construction, and its impact on natural features of the streetscape or parcels individually.
As area inventory forms are completed per phased recommendations (Table 4.1.1), develop a prioritized list of neighborhoods for consideration as either APDs or form-based (character-based)
zoning districts.
Goal HP-8
Explore the designation of single-resource local historic districts (G. L. c. 40C) as a streamlined and more cost-effective alternative to preservation restrictions for long-term protection
of City-owned resources and privately owned resources of citywide significance. This mechanism would have the added benefit of ensuring that all resources with preservation restrictions
held by the City of Northampton would be included in the State Register of Historic Places.
Table 4.2.1. Preservation and Protection Options for Historic Areas
National Register of Historic Places District
Local Historic District
Architectural Preservation District
(Neighborhood Conservation District)
Example
Pomeroy Terrace Historic District
Elm Street Historic District
Central Business-Core Architecture **
Authority/
Establishment/
Administration
Federal designation authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
District cannot be listed if a majority of private property owners submit notarized objections. Every owner of record of private property has one vote, regardless of whether they own
a single property, multiple properties, or a portion of a property
Administered by Secretary of the Interior through Mass. Historical Commission (MHC) as State Historic Preservation Office
G.L. c. 40C, Historic Districts
Established by two-thirds vote of City Council after a local study process
Administered by the Northampton Historical Commission as the City’s Historic District Commission
General ordinance adopted under municipal home rule (see below)
Established by majority vote of City Council after a local study process
Administered by the Central Business Architecture Committee
Districts adopted under home rule are not included in State Register of Historic Places, maintained by MHC
Protections
Limited protection from adverse effects of federal- or state-involved actions, such as federal or state funds, licenses, or permits
Regulatory review conducted by Mass. Historical Commission in consultation with Northampton Historical Commission
Strongest protection for historic areas
Binding review of proposed changes to exterior architectural features visible from a public way for compatibility with the district
Exemptions to review are noted in City’s historic districts ordinance (Chapter 195)
Binding review of proposed changes to exterior architectural features visible from a public way for compatibility with historic, architectural, and pedestrian-scale character of the
Central Business-Core District
Exemptions to review are noted in City’s ordinance (Chapter 156)
Effect on property owners
Honorary designation placing no limits on a private property owner’s handling of their property with private funds and local licenses or permits.
Certificate of Appropriateness, Hardship, or Non-applicability from Historical Commission required for construction, alteration, or demolition
Permit from Central Business Architecture Committee required for construction, alteration, or demolition
Notes
It appears no new Neighborhood Conservation Districts have been created under municipal home rule in Massachusetts since 2019, when the Land Court invalidated Brookline’s Neighborhood
Conservation District (NCD) bylaw. See Hancock Village I, LLC vs. The Town of Brookline. While its effect on the establishment of new NCDs remains unclear, the decision held that a
general or home-rule ordinance or bylaw cannot be used to regulate subjects traditionally classified as zoning under G.L. c. 40A (Zoning Act). Neighborhood conservation in Northampton
may be accomplished best through amendments to the City’s zoning ordinance. The Massachusetts Historical Commission currently recommends that a general or home-rule ordinance focus
on architectural preservation.
**Features listed above apply to Northampton’s Central Business Core Architecture District only. Other general or home rule ordinances may differ in administration, protections, and
effect o. property owners.
Table 4.2.2. Preservation and Protection Options for Individual Historic Resources
National Register of Historic Places
Single Building Historic District
Preservation Restriction
Example
Miss Florence Diner,
99 Main St, Florence
n/a
Smith Charities Building,
51 Main St
Florence Grammar School,
140 Pine St, Florence
Authority/
Establishment/
Administration
Federal designation authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
No listing if owner objects
Administered by the Secretary of the Interior through Mass. Historical Commission (MHC) as State Historic Preservation Office
Interior as well as exterior must retain historic integrity and be documented
G.L. c. 40C, Historic Districts Act, allows for designation of one or more buildings or structures as single-resource historic districts
Established by two-thirds vote of city council after a local study process
Administered by Northampton Historical Commission as the City’s Historic District Commission
Legally binding agreement between property owner and government or non-profit entity that holds the restriction
Approved by MHC under G.L. c. 184 § 31-33; also approved by city if a charitable corporation or trust holds the restriction
Included in State Register of Historic Places, maintained by MHC
Approved/held by city as a condition of granting a permit or variance, or in declaring a municipal building surplus
Not included in State Register of Historic Places unless property is also listed in National Register or designated under c. 40C
Protections
Limited protection from adverse effects of projects using federal or state funds, licenses, or permits
Regulatory review conduction by Mass. Historical Commission in consultation with Northampton Historical Commission
Strong protection for individual resources; binding review of proposed changes to exterior architectural features visible from a public way
Exemptions to review are noted in the City’s Historic Districts Ordinance (Chapter 195)
Strongest protection for individual resources; restriction holder must review and approve all changes
Prohibits or conditions specified physical changes to or uses of the property; may regulate repair and maintenance, alteration, demolition, or moving of the resource
Review may include interior and portions of exterior not visible from public way
Effect on property owners
Honorary designation placing no limits on a private property owner’s handling of their property with private funds and local licenses or permits.
Certificate of Appropriateness, Hardship, or Non-applicability from Historical Commission required for construction, alteration, or demolition
Binding on current and future owners in perpetuity or for a term of years as defined in the restriction, which runs with the land and is recorded at Registry of Deeds; all restrictions
must be actively and routinely monitored to ensure compliance
4.3. Public Awareness, Programming, and Education Recommendations
Goal HP-9
Establish a public-private umbrella organization of Northampton preservation advocates (see 2.4 Preservation Partners), friends groups, and neighborhood associations, providing preservation
planning information, “how-to” resources for property owners and residents to repair and renovate historic buildings, a historic marker program to encourage historic property research,
and advocacy on preservation matters citywide.
Goal HP-10
Promote awareness of alternatives to demolition.
Actions
Revive preservation awards program to recognize privately funded preservation efforts, including restoration, adaptive reuse, and historically sensitive new construction.
Develop public information campaign highlighting alternatives to historic building demolition, including examples of historically sensitive remodeling/renovation ideas within the region.
Goal HP-11
Improve public access to preservation planning resources.
Actions
On the City’s website, add a link to the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS) to the Historical Commission’s landing page.
On the City’s website, acknowledge Historical Commission support, regulatory review, and role in environmental protection on the Planning & Sustainability Environment landing page.
To the property-specific Parcel Details data field in Northampton’s GIS, upload and link PDFs of Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) inventory forms and National Register of Historic
Places nominations (both districts and individual listings). Use only PDFs obtained from the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS) or otherwise supplied by MHC,
as many of the documents have been renumbered or amended since initially produced in Northampton.
Goal HP-12
Expand collaboration with Smith College faculty and students to further preservation of historic properties and neighborhoods. Research and study of Northampton’s built environment and
historic landscapes would be appropriate to the departments and programs of American Studies, Art, Environmental Science & Policy, History, Landscape Studies, Urban Studies, and Women
& Gender Studies among others.
Goal HP-13
Promote an outdoor exhibit program to encourage self‐guided interpretive exhibits and wayside exhibits throughout Northampton.
Organize professional interpreters from existing historic and cultural organizations to prepare a simple plan for a city-wide interpretive program.
Promote and support walking tours, programs, and events to build public awareness and understanding of city-wide historic resources, ideally in partnership with local or regional land
conservation groups.
Develop a graphic identity and branding for Northampton’s interpretive program, building on the Connecticut River, links with well-known historical figures associated with Northampton,
the Pioneer Valley, and the “Knowledge Corridor.”
4.4. Municipal Ordinances and Regulations Recommendations
Goal HP-14
Evaluate the impact of zoning measures on development patterns in historic neighborhoods that lack historic preservation controls.
Actions
Conduct a regulatory audit to understand the potential impact of Northampton’s zoning on inventory action areas designated as critical or necessary priorities, especially those located
outside Downtown Northampton (See Tables 4.1.1 and 4.1.2).
Consider creation of additional form-based (character-based) zoning districts or neighborhood conservation districts to guide new construction that does not overwhelm historic development.
Note: Florence Village Center is regulated with form-based zoning.
Goal HP-15
Improve outcomes under the Demolition Ordinance, an effective preservation tool ensuring that proposed total demolition of regulated buildings and structures is reviewed by the Northampton
Historical Commission.
Actions
Amend Demolition Ordinance to lengthen the delay period from the current 12 months to 18 or 24 months to encourage the applicant’s active participation in identifying alternatives to
demolition.
Consider adding an inventory option to the definition of Significant Building or Structure (§ 161-2) to facilitate determinations of significance. This option would not mandate a building
or structure be included in the statewide historic properties inventory to be regulated under the ordinance.
Utilize the Historic Districts Act (§ 161-9) provision of the ordinance to initiate a landmark study of a significant and preferably preserved building or structure, when the end of
the 12-month delay period is approaching and alternatives to demolition or appropriate mitigation measures have not been identified. The Historic Districts Act (G.L. c. 40C, § 3), allows
municipalities to
designate one or more buildings or structures on one or more parcels as single-building historic districts.
Goal HP-16
Reduce incidents of demolition-by-neglect.
Actions
Evaluate clauses in Demolition (§ 161-8.B.) and Central Business-Core Architecture District (§ 156-1) ordinances pertaining to owner maintenance of their properties.
Examine Minimum Maintenance Ordinances in Lowell, Somerville, and Fitchburg to determine whether similar measures might be appropriate in Northampton through health and sanitation, housing,
or general legislation channels.
4.5. Municipal Policy, Management, and Capital Improvements Recommendations
Goal HP-17
Improve capacity of the Northampton Historical Commission to work collaboratively with City partners and preservation stakeholders
Actions
Consider adding alternates or designees to represent the Commission’s interests on the Community Preservation Committee and Central Business Architecture Committee, and to coordinate
with the Public Works Department and Central Services on the care and management of City-owned historic properties.
Participate in Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) virtual workshops and training sessions on preservation planning topics designed for Commission members and other municipal
officials. Topics include state and federal historic resources review and compliance, historic resources surveys and the National Register of Historic Places, and infill construction
in local historic districts. See MHC website for details.
Identify additional funding for preservation planning staff responsibilities in the Office of Planning and Sustainability, and explore the feasibility of a dedicated part-time or full-time
preservation planner position to provide public information, plan and promote public education activities, research and prepare grant applications, and coordinate Commission review
under the Demolition Ordinance and Historic Districts Ordinance (normally the work of separate Historical and Historic District commissions, but combined in Northampton due to staffing
constraints).
Provide Historical Commission review and comment opportunities on Planning Board site plan reviews and preservation restriction negotiations, and all Community Preservation Act (CPA)
applications for historic preservation funds
Require a new or updated MHC inventory form and Historic Structure Report with CPA applications for bricks-and-mortar funding.
Improve the use of CPA funds as a source of funding for some capital items. The Community Preservation Committee recommends CPA funding to the City Council through a process separate
from the City’s capital planning process. Better integration of the CPA planning process and the Capital Improvements Plan could help to focus attention on and strengthen funding commitments
to protect Northampton’s historic public facilities.
Consider returning to the traditional separation of Historical Commission and Historic District Commission to ensure that preservation planning has the commitment of time, resources,
and focus needed to implement the recommendations of this plan.
Goal HP-18
Pursue Northampton’s designation as a Certified Local Government (CLG) for preservation planning through the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) and the National Park Service.
The CLG program provides a close integration of federal, state, and local preservation activities, and allows communities to participate more directly in the review and approval of
National Register nominations. Through MHC’s Survey and Planning Grant program, CLGs are eligible to compete in a preferred pool (currently 27 out of 351 cities and towns) for at least
10% of the federal funds allocated annually to MHC. These matching grants may be used for a wide range of preservation planning projects.
Goal HP-19
Enhance existing Historical Commission relationships with institutional partners by integrating Commission review and comment at the design development stage of proposed projects.
Goal HP-20
Commit City resources to preparing a comprehensive needs analysis, prioritization plan, and capital improvements plan to strengthen planning and care for Northampton’s City-owned historic
properties.
4.6. Protecting Public Investment and Stewardship Recommendations
Goal HP-21
Implement a program for active tracking, inspection, and compliance review of preservation restrictions citywide.
Actions
Compile a preservation restriction log, available to the public online and on paper through municipal offices, that centralizes data for all preservation restrictions held on real property
in Northampton. Create a running list of preservation restrictions in effect in the city, noting the subject property and street address; inventory number; holder of the restriction;
term length of the restriction and expiration date, if applicable; deed book and page numbers; and whether the restriction meets the statutory requirements of G.L. c. 184 § 31-33, which
requires signature approvals from both the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the City of Northampton. Include complete copies of all executed preservation restrictions as recorded
at the Hampshire
County Registry of Deeds, with the applicable terms of the restrictions. See Table 4.2.2 for further information.
Establish a cyclical monitoring program for inspection of properties with preservation restrictions, to ensure compliance with the terms of the respective restrictions and reporting
at least once annually to the Northampton Historical Commission.
Contract with an experienced preservation architect to conduct building inspections, document compliance, and coordinate resolution of issues with property owners, restriction holders,
and the Northampton Historical Commission.
Seek Community Preservation Act or other grant funding to implement this program, and identify the local entity responsible for continuing its management after grant funds are expended.
Inquire whether the Massachusetts Historical Commission would fund this type of project through its Survey & Planning Grant program.
See also Goal 4.2.4 regarding designation of single-resource local historic districts as a streamlined and more cost-effective alternative to the City’s continued acquisition of preservation
restrictions.
The following actions and recommendations for implementation are identified as implementation strategies to be considered by the City and should not to be construed as either adopted
or mandated simply as a result of the adoption of this plan.
Action Plan
Priority Designations: Immediate/ongoing, critical (1-3 years); necessary (3-5 years); important (5-10) years
Goal #
Action (Summarized recommendation)
Primary Responsibility
Partners
Priority
Resources Needed (Funding, Staff, Leadership, Other)
HP-1
HP-5
Add/update area inventory forms to support district evaluation
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Critical
(see Table 4.1.1)
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-14
Conduct a regulatory audit to evaluate impact of current zoning measures on historic neighborhoods.
Planning Board
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Critical
Funding, staff, leadership
HP-14
Consider additional form-based districts or neighborhood conservation districts to guide new construction.
Planning Board
Planning & Sustainability
Historical Commission
Critical
Funding, staff, leadership
HP-21
Implement preservation restriction program for active tracking, inspection, and compliance review of restrictions citywide
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Planning Board
Historic Northampton
Critical
Staff, leadership; funding for preservation architect
HP-1
HP-5
Update building inventory forms for individual resources
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Critical
(see Table 4.1.2)
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-1
HP-2
Conduct citywide survey and inventory of current/former houses of worship (pre-1975)
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Critical
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-1, HP-2
Complete inventory forms for all pre-1975 city-owned or -managed historic resources
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Critical
(see Table. 3.6.1)
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-10
Public information campaign on alternatives to historic building demolition
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Critical
Leadership, funding
HP-15
Consider adding an inventory option to the definition of Significant Building or Structure (§ 161-2) to facilitate determinations of significance.
Historical Commission
Historical Commission
Critical
Funding, staff, leadership
HP-15
Amend Demolition Ordinance to lengthen delay period to 18 or 24 months
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Critical
Leadership, staff
HP-15
Amend Demolition Ordinance to add inventory option for determinations or significance
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Critical
Leadership, staff
HP-15
Begin using Historic Districts Act provision of Demolition Ordinance to initiate landmark study of subject buildings in cases where demolition alternatives have not been actively identified
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Critical
Leadership, staff
HP-17
Add Historical Commission alternates or designees to represent preservation interests on other City boards
Mayor’s Office
City Council
Historical Commission
Immediate/
Ongoing
Leadership, staff
HP-17
Enhance Historical Commission training through virtual workshops sponsored by Mass. Historical Commission
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Immediate/
Ongoing
Leadership
HP-17
Explore feasibility of dedicated part-time preservation planner position
Planning & Sustainability
Historical Commission
Immediate/
Ongoing
Funding, staff
HP-17
Add Historical Commission review and comment to Planning Board site plan reviews and preservation restriction negotiations
Planning & Sustainability
Planning Board
Historical Commission
Immediate/
Ongoing
Leadership, staff
HP-17
Add Historical Commission review and comment on all CPA applications for historic preservation funds
Community Pres. Comm.
Historical Commission
Immediate/
Ongoing
Leadership, staff
HP-2
HP-17
Require new or updated inventory form in all historic preservation applications for CPA funding, plus a Historic Structure Report for bricks-and-mortar funding
Community Pres. Comm.
Historical Commission
Immediate/ Ongoing
Funding, leadership
HP-10
Revive City’s preservation awards program
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Immediate/
Ongoing
Leadership, funding
HP-10
Revive City’s preservation awards program
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Immediate/
Ongoing
Leadership, funding
HP-7
Evaluate recent Massachusetts case law on Neighborhood Conservation Districts as a general ordinance option for protecting historic neighborhoods under home rule
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Planning Board
City Solicitor
Immediate/
Ongoing
HP-11
Add links to City’s website to improve public access to and understanding of preservation planning
Planning & Sustainability
Historical Commission
Immediate/
Ongoing
Staff
HP-19
Integrate Historical Commission review and comment at the design development stage of proposed projects at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Smith College
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Immediate/ Ongoing
Leadership, staff
HP-8
Study designation of single-resource c.40C local historic districts as a more cost-effective and streamlined alternative to preservation restrictions negotiated with zoning relief
Historical Commission
Planning Board
Planning & Sustainability
Immediate/
Ongoing
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-12
Expand collaboration with Smith College for assistance in documenting historic resources
Historical Commission
Historic Northampton
Smith College
Immediate/
Ongoing
Leadership, funding
HP-1
HP-6
Update/expand inventory of additional areas and neighborhoods for district evaluation
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Necessary
Important
(see Table 4.1.1)
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-9
Establish umbrella organization of preservation stakeholders for citywide information and advocacy
Historical Commission
Historic Northampton
Friends groups
Neighborhood associations
Necessary
Funding, staff, leadership
HP-2
Conduct reconnaissance survey of barns, carriage houses, outbuildings to support demolition review
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Necessary
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-2
Complete inventory forms for undocumented buildings in Central Business-Core design review district
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Necessary
(see Table 4.1.2)
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-2
HP-14
As critical-area inventories are completed, determine appropriate protection measures
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Necessary
(see Table 4.2.1)
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-18
Pursue designation as a Certified Local Government (CLG) in preservation planning for greater access to state grant funds
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Necessary
Leadership, staff
HP-11
Link MHC inventory forms and National Register nominations to Parcel Details in Northampton’s GIS
Planning & Sustainability
Information Technology Services
Historical Commission
Necessary
Funding, staff
HP-16
Reduce incidents of demolition-by-neglect by evaluating existing ordinances and alternative measures
Planning & Sustainability
Planning Board
Historical Commission
Necessary
Leadership, staff (professional consultant advisable)
HP-19
Enhance existing Historical Commission relationships with institutional partners by integrating Commission review and comment at the design development stage of proposed projects.
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Necessary
Leadership, staff
HP-20
Hire qualified consultant to conduct comprehensive needs assessment and long-term capital plan to preserve the City’s historic resources.
Central Services
Historical Commission
Community Preservation Commission
Necessary
Leadership, funding
HP-13
Organize professional interpreters to plan a city-wide interpretive program.
Historical Commission
Historic Northampton
Smith College
Necessary
Leadership, funding, staff (professional consultant)
HP-13
Promote and support walking tours, programs, and events in partnership with conservation groups.
Historical Commission
Conservation Commission
Historic Northampton
Smith College
Necessary
Leadership, funding, staff
HP-13
Promote and support walking tours, programs, and events in partnership with conservation groups.
Historical Commission
Conservation Commission
Historic Northampton
Smith College
Necessary
Leadership, funding, staff
HP-13
Develop a graphic identity and branding for Northampton’s interpretive program.
Historical Commission
Historic Northampton
Northampton High School
Necessary
Leadership, funding, staff
HP-17
Improve coordination between the CPA planning process and the City’s Capital Improvements Plan to focus attention on and strengthen funding to protect historic public facilities.
Community Pres. Comm.
Historical Commission
Necessary
Leadership, staff
HP-1
Plan area form survey of mid-20th century modern neighborhoods
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Important
Staff
HP-17
Consider restoring traditional separation between Historical Commission and HDC.
Historical Commission
Important
Leadership
Staff
HP-6
Pursue National Register evaluations and nominations of additional properties as inventory forms are completed
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Important
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-3
Conduct citywide archaeological reconnaissance survey
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Mass. Historical Comm.
Important
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-3
Complete inventory and National Register listing of New Haven and Northampton Canal
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Mass. Historical Comm.
Canal towns
Important
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-3
Conduct intensive-level survey of select historic and pre-historic archaeological sites.
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Mass. Historical Comm.
Important
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-4
Augment City’s historic properties inventory to reflect cultural diversity of community
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Important
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
HP-4
Identify historic resources for inventory associated with under-represented historic themes (see list)
Historical Commission
Planning & Sustainability
Historic Northampton
Important
Funding, staff, other (professional consultant)
Appendix
Appendix A. What are Historic Resources?
Appendix B. Communities Utilizing Recommended Preservation Planning Tools (2023)
Appendix C. Resources for Climate Resilience, Reuse, and Renovation and Retrofitting
Appendix D. Economic Impact of Historic Preservation: Resources
Appendix E. Public Participation Summary
Appendix A. What are historic resources?
Historic resources include all the tangible, surviving properties and sites that resulted from the activities of all the people who lived and worked in Northampton in the past. They
include buildings, structures, objects, archaeological sites, areas, burial grounds, and parks and other landscapes. Each period in the history of the community produced some characteristic
buildings, structures, and other features. Those that survive today represent the historic resources of Northampton.
Historic resources are not limited to Northampton’s earliest surviving buildings, properties associated with prominent individuals or groups, or the most unusual or high-style examples
of design and construction. The typical buildings, structures, and sites associated with ordinary residents, businesses, or institutions all comprise the historic assets of Northampton.
Following guidelines of the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the National Park Service, we generally define as historic those resources 50 years or older, though some resources
of more recent date may also have historical importance.
Visible as part of today’s landscape, historic resources form an important part of the physical fabric that makes up Northampton’s character. As artifacts, historic resources also represent
an important means of understanding the past. Full consideration of historic resources in planning efforts is most effectively undertaken when these resources are identified as part
of a comprehensive communitywide survey.
Building examples
Residential – single-family dwelling, multiple-family dwelling, rowhouse, duplex, etc.
Agricultural – barn, stall, greenhouse, and other agricultural outbuildings
Commercial – bank, office building, theatre, restaurant, inn, tavern, hotel, studio, store, etc.
Transportation – gas station, railroad station, carriage house, garage, etc.
Civic and institutional – city hall, school, fire station, police station, library, post office, house of worship, club, hospital, meeting hall, etc.
Industrial – factory, mill building, plant, shop, power house, etc.
Structure examples
Aqueduct, bridge, canal, dam, fence, gates, pumping station, railroad line, reservoir, smokestack, stone wall, tower, tunnel, wall, water tower, etc.
Object examples
Monument, statue, religious shrine, boundary marker, fountain, milestone, etc.
Area examples
Central business district, village, mill complex, farmstead, residential subdivision or neighborhood, large estate, school or institutional campus, etc.
Parks and Landscapes examples
Designed historic landscape – park, campus, burial ground or cemetery, formal garden, training ground, grounds designed or developed for outdoor recreation and/or sports activities (e.g.,
golf course, playing field), fair and exhibition grounds, designed waterway, etc.
Rural historic landscape – agricultural fields, pastures, orchards, etc.; industrial landscapes (e.g., associated with lumbering, mining, milling), recreation camps, camp meeting grounds,
etc.
Adapted from Massachusetts Historical Commission, Historic Properties Survey Manual, and National Park Service, National Register Bulletins on designed historic landscapes and rural
historic landscapes.
Appendix B. Communities Utilizing Recommended Preservation Planning Tools (2023)
Certified Local Governments (CLGs)
Boston
Bedford
Beverly
Brookline
Danvers
Dedham
Eastham
Easton
Falmouth
Framingham
Gloucester
Grafton
Hingham
Holyoke
Lexington
Lowell
Marblehead
Medfield
Medford
Methuen
Nantucket
New Bedford
Newton
Plymouth
Quincy
Salem
Somerville
Sudbury
Worcester
Demolition Delay (communities with 18 or 24-month delays only)
Acton (18 mos.)
Amesbury (18 mos.)
Brookline (18 mos.)
Chatham (18 mos.)
Leverett (18 mos.)
Maynard (18 mos.)
Medfield (18 mos.)
Middleborough (18 mos.)
Milton (24 mos.)
Newton (18 mos.)
Plympton (18 mos.)
Wellfleet (18 mos.)
Historic Preservation Planner(s) on Municipal Staff
Boston
Brookline
Cambridge
Lowell
Methuen
Nantucket
New Bedford
Newton
Salem
Somerville
Springfield (advertised)
Wellesley
Local Landmark Designation
Boston
Cambridge
Methuen
Newton
Some communities designate Local Landmarks under legislative act rather than local ordinance.
Single Building Local Historic Districts under G.L. c.40C
Duxbury
Framingham
Hopedale
Hopkinton
Mendon
Northborough
Somerville (189 SBLHDs)
Springfield
Wellesley
Boston, Cambridge, Methuen, and Newton designate individual resources as Local Landmarks rather than Single Building Local Historic Districts.
Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) as General/Home Rule Ordinance
Several communities have enacted NCDs using this method, though purposes, definitions, and procedures vary widely. If Northampton chooses not to create additional Architectural Preservation
Districts comparable to the Central Business-Core Architecture District, the Cambridge neighborhood conservation district ordinance may prove to be a suitable alternative. See Cambridge
Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2.78, Article III (currently under revision). The Cambridge ordinance follows G.L. c.40C very closely.
Neighborhood Conservation or Design Overlay Districts through Zoning
Amesbury: Brown Hill Neighborhood Conservation District
Boston: Neighborhood Design Overlay Districts are established in multiple neighborhoods, distinct from Architectural Conservation Districts (historic areas of city significance) and
Landmark Districts (historic areas of city and state, New England, or national significance). In Boston, conservation and landmark districts are established under the Boston Landmarks
Commission’s enabling legislation.
Appendix C. Resources for Climate Resilience, Reuse, and Renovation and Retrofitting
City of Burlington Historic Buildings’ Path to Net Zero Energy. A Guide for Buildings and Homeowners. Prepared by the City of Burlington Certified Local Government (CLG) Program, Burlington,
Vermont. 2020.
https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/sites/default/files/u8/City%20of%20Burlington%20Historic%20Buildings%20-%20NZE%20Guide.pdf.
“Climate, Culture and Community: How Reusing Buildings Preserves Historic Spaces and Lowers Our Carbon Footprint.” Meeting #4. Massachusetts DEP Deconstruction Workgroup. June 7, 2023.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrtipSdxPj8 (recorded presentation) and https://www.mass.gov/doc/massdep-introductionmerged-presentations/download (presentation slides). See also https://www.mass.go
v/lists/reduce-reuse-rr-working-group-deconstruction-workgroup-archive#virtual-deconstruction-meeting-of-june-7,-2023-.
Concord’s Sustainability Guide for Historic and Older Homes. Prepared by Abigail Ahern for the Town of Concord, Massachusetts with the University of New Hampshire Sustainability Institute,
2020. https://concordma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/26195/Sustainability-Guide-for-Historic-and-Older-Homes.
Grimmer, Anne E. with Jo Ellen Hensley, Liz Petrella, and Audrey T. Tepper. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings. Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, 2011. https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/sustainability-guidelines.pdf.
Hensley, Jo Ellen and Antonio Aguilar. Preservation Briefs 3: Improving Energy Efficiency in Historic Buildings. Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, U. S. Department
of the Interior, 2011. https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/preservation-brief-03-energy-efficiency.pdf.
“Historic Building Efficiency and Sustainability.” Division for Historic Preservation, Agency of Commerce and Community Development, State of Vermont. Accessed November 17, 2023. https://accd.vermont
.gov/historic-preservation/planning/building-efficiency. Note: This web page includes multiple links to other resources of interest.
“Homeowners DIY Energy Efficiency Tips for Older Buildings.” White Paper. Improving Energy Efficiency in Vermont’s Older Buildings Study. Preservation Trust of Vermont and Vermont State
Historic Preservation Office. May 2021. https://outside.vermont.gov/agency/ACCD/ACCD_Web_Docs/HP/Planning_For_Preservation/Homeowners_DIY_Energy_Efficiency_Tips.pdf.
Sandor, John, with David Trayte and Amy Elizabeth Uebel. Preservation Briefs 16: The Use of Substitute Materials on Historic Building Exteriors. Technical Preservation Services, National
Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior. September 2023.
https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/preservation-brief-16-substitute-materials-2023.pdf.
Siders, A.R., and Marcy Rockman. “Connecting Cultural Heritage and Urban Climate Change Adaptation.” Issues in Preservation Policy: Preservation, Sustainability, Equity. 2021. https://www.arch.columb
ia.edu/books/reader/826-preservation-sustainability-and-equity#reader-anchor-1.
“Sustainable Historic Preservation.” Historic Preservation Subcommittee, Whole Building Design Guide. Updated May 8, 2023. Accessed Nov. 17, 2023. https://www.wbdg.org/design-objectives/historic-pres
ervation/sustainable-historic-preservation.
The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse. Prepared by Preservation Green Lab, National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2011.
Appendix D. Economic Impact of Historic Preservation: Resources List
Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation In Massachusetts. Prepared for the Massachusetts Historical Commission by the Center for Urban Policy Research, Edward J. Bloustein School of
Planning & Public Policy Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey New Brunswick, New Jersey, May 2022.
Economic Impact of Historic Preservation in Texas. Prepared by the Center for Sustainable Development, University of Austin, and Center for Urban Policy Research, Blaustein School of
Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University. Update 2015. https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/publications/economic-impact-historic-preservation.pdf
Historic Preservation: At the Core of a Dynamic New York City. Report created for The New York Landmarks Conservancy By PlaceEconomics, April 2016. https://nylc.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads
/2020/02/Economic_Study_Landmarks_Conservancy.pdf
Investment in Connecticut: The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation. Prepared for the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism by Place Economics. 2011. https://www.placeeconomics.com/wp-c
ontent/uploads/2016/08/ rypkema_ct_economic_impact_study_6-2011.pdf. (See also, companion video, Connecticut Main Street Center. Historic Preservation As an Economic Development Tool,
https://youtu.be/V7fu8F9V1ug?si=2g3u8gWHcqcNpNgc.
L’Orange, Pete. Historic Preservation Planner, Idaho State Historic Preservation Office. Profiting from the Past: Historic Preservation’s Economic Benefits. February 2021. https://history.idaho.gov/w
p-content/uploads/Profitting-from-the-Past.pdf
Measuring the Economics of Preservation: Recent Findings. Prepared for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation by PlaceEconomics, June 2011. http://www.landmarks.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/
Measuring-the-Economics-of-Preservation.pdf
National Park Service Historic Preservation Economic Impact. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/economic-impacts.htm. Last updated January 11, 2015.
Profits Through Preservation: The Economic Impact of Historic Preservation in Utah. Study for the Utah Heritage Foundation by PlaceEconomics. June 2013
Rypkema, Donovan R. and Caroline Cheong, Place Economics, and Randall F. Mason, PhD, University of Pennsylvania. Measuring Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation. A report to the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation/ (November 2011; Second ed., September. 2013)
https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/guidance/2018-06/Economic%20Impacts%20 v5-FINAL.pdf
The Economic Power of Heritage and Place. Prepared for the Colorado Historical Foundation by Clarion Associates of Colorado, LLC, 2011.
Appendix E. Community Engagement