The full demolition of a historic mansard style home at 84-86 Ellery St. was stopped with a unanimous vote Aug. 4 by the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Commission.
The committee agreed to continue the proposal to develop a six-story multifamily building on the property with the stipulation that revised plans include the renovation and preservation of the existing structure. “If we cannot save a historical building like this, what’s going to stop us from destroying 90 percent of buildings in Cambridge?” commission member Monika Pauli said ahead of voting.
The project was one of two demolition and construction proposals on Ellery Street reviewed at the meeting. The proposal for a six-story apartment building on the next block at 60 Ellery St. was approved by the commission with the condition of some design changes.
Initial development plan
The development by 86 Ellery Street LLC was proposed to fully replace the existing structure with a 46,000-square-foot rental project under recent multifamily zoning reforms. “We present this project to you as an attempt to satisfy a lot of different interested parties,” said Patrick Barrett, the attorney for the development.
The initial project proposal included 81 units – eight three-bedroom apartments, four two-bedrooms, 11 one-bedrooms and 58 studios. Twenty percent of the unit area would be inclusionary housing. It would be a fully accessible building and include 94 bike spaces but no car parking.
The building featured a green roof and deck area, four stories of brick veneer at the front and a facade of balconies, punched windows and recessed pieces. Dan Anderson, the architect for the project with Anderson Porter Design, described the standing seam metal roof as a “fairly contemporary interpretation of the mansard.”
The proposal met energy efficient “passive house” requirements with all-electric heat and was described as a “decarbonized, fully zero carbon emissions” project. The inclusion of the green roof allowed for the additional height of the headhouse above the roof, reaching past the sixth story. The development team also committed to preserving trees during construction, particularly the red maple at the front of the building.
Situated directly across from Joan Lorentz Park and facing the Cambridge Main Library and Cambridge Rindge and Latin School behind it, the building is in a key area of the neighborhood. “We really see this as a project that contributes to that more public realm that enlivens and is enlivened by that landscape space,” Anderson said.
Some neighbors consider the building unsuitable for the location. One, Marilee Meyer, described it as the “town square” of the area.
Support for existing structure
The existing structure at 84-86 Ellery St. was built in 1877 and is “an intact and well-preserved example of a double house constructed in the second empire mansard style,” as described by preservation administrator Allison Crosbie. The building also holds a historic connection to Eleanor Raymond, whose family owned the home and who became a respected architect known for designing one of the first international-style residences in the United States.
The Ellery Street home is primarily brick, wood and granite and features octagonal bays, a slate roof, double columns and balustrades. The building has 14 units – six studios and eight one-bedrooms.
Residents were concerned with the size, design, and materials of the proposed building – “It looks like a dormitory,” one said. Some suggested four stories as opposed to six and others critiqued its contemporary look. But the primary concern from residents and commissioners was the preservation of the historic building in place.
“This is a very weak design, and its premise is very weak. You need to keep the existing building,” David Owen said. He described the demolition and construction as a “double wound of tearing down something that actually represents the history of Cambridge.”
“This combined with 60 Ellery really makes a mockery of what the existing Ellery Street is like, which is part of why we all love living in the neighborhood,” Nancy Seidman said. “It’s a monstrosity,” another neighbor said.
Multiple residents suggested retaining the front of the existing structure and renovating to add units. Anderson and Barrett said renovation would not reach the desired unit count or passive house requirements.
Other speakers expressed concern at the lack of parking, the influx in traffic particularly near the school, the environmental impacts of demolition and use of brick veneer rather than thick brick.
Support for the proposal
Some community members support the push for more housing through developments like this one. “I really support this project. I think it’s going to add homes to Cambridge and allow more people to live here and help contain our skyrocketing rent costs,” said Ned Melanson, speaking as a disability lawyer and highlighting the need for more accessible housing. (He is also a candidate for City Council.)
“I have moved apartments three times in Cambridge. I have apartment-hunted three times in Cambridge, and the supply is just not there,” Isabel Almazan said. “I strongly, strongly support building new housing.”
One resident speaking in support of the project noted the concern about traffic could be helped by the lack of parking. “The way to get rid of traffic is not to reduce the number of people in an area, it’s to reduce parking.” Another noted the lack of parking could encourage residents to use public transportation, another sustainability benefit.
Difficult decision
The commission was primarily concerned with preserving the front of the historic structure and decided to continue the proposal if developers agreed to preserve or renovate the current building, with opportunity for development in the back. “That existing property is of historical significance,” commission chair Tony Hsiao said. “But the site also has the opportunity for development to create additional housing of a substantial nature.”
The project team agreed to the continuance and will work on revised plans. Members also plan to continue meeting with neighbors for further feedback. “The new zoning is putting a strain on all of us,” Barrett said. “We do the best we can with what we have.”
This project is one of several proposed developments forcing the city to reconcile its historic past with the need for increased housing. “We need to marry the forces of the need for housing, the need for density, but also the need for preserving buildings of historic significance,” Hsiao said.
This post was updated Aug. 13, 2025, to expand on the commission’s primary concern with preserving the front of the historic structure.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
I don’t think demolition was entirely denied for this project, as suggested by your title and text. They have to keep the front part of the historic home but can add taller new housing at the rear. Win. win. Please double check your facts CD and correct.
Next time I:
See a homeless person
Hunt for an apartment and nothing below $4000 per month is available
Talk to my son’s teacher who drivers for an hour to her work in Cambridge,
I will think to myself: “thank god that second empire mansard style house has been preserved at all costs”.
Historical site indeed. The Raymond family has multiple generations of noteworthy former residents of 86 Ellery St. The father of renowned architect Eleanor Raymond was a co-founder of Theta Xi national fraternity, Thomas Cole Raymond (Alpha 7 of Theta Xi). He’s buried alongside Eleanor at Mt. Auburn Cemetery.
-Cambridge Chris (Alpha 1404 of Theta Xi)
Thank you Mid Cambridge CDC for bringing some sanity to the proposed demolition of 84-86 Ellery St. And it’s replacement with an out-of-scale 6 story monstrosity that both devalues & ignores it’s street neighbors. Like putting a gorilla in a chorus line. The architects/developers need to realize that this is Cambridge & not Miami. Thank you for slowing this process down so they might build something more compatible with their historic neighbors & ‘give a little respect’ to their long- term neighbors. Also. Why is this development being proposed in one of the densest neighborhoods in the city ?We already have ( and I live in one) multiple story buildings, triple deckers, etc. We are already living-in an Inclusionary zoning area. Why aren’t these proposed new developments being built in what were Exclusionary zones? This is the height of hypocrisy for ‘Inclusionary zoning’ advocates & will not resolve our housing issues.
This boils my blood. It’s not about whether you think some old building with a mansard roof should be preserved. It’s about property rights, and about who plans the city. The Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Commission has grabbed veto power over aspects of both. This is how liberal communities fail: by a thousand arbitrary constraints placed by too many Commissions. Let’s imagine a future without the MCNCDC.
Make no mistake about the tradeoffs, this decision cost the City $10-15 million or more worth of subsidized affordable housing that Cambridge families desperately need.
If the proponents bring forward a new plan, it will include many fewer homes, and they will be much larger and more expensive. Just down the street, 107 Ellery provides an example—renting for 10,500 per month! https://www.realtor.com/rentals/details/107-Ellery-St_Cambridge_MA_02138_M45841-41012
And if the Commission’s view is that 90% of the buildings in Cambridge are historic, then we need to reassess our approach completely.
The developer should sue the NCD. They don’t have the authority to do this. Someone needs to call them out on their nonsense.
So let me get this straight: our democratically-elected council overwhelmingly voted (8-1) in favor of zoning reform, but any attempt to actually make use of those new rules is thwarted by an unelected body most people have never heard of because:
– an architect lived there, and
– it’s an old architectural style
Realistically, what do we gain by preserving the facade? It’s purely aesthetic preference, a preference that will necessarily increase the cost of the housing that will be built there.
Old is not the same as significant.
So, we can’t have much-needed housing and energy-efficient buildings because it might offend the NCD’s aesthetics?
Their real agenda, opposing development, shows in comments like, “What’s going to stop us from destroying 90 percent of buildings in Cambridge?” That’s pure scare-mongering hyperbole. A few developments are proposed and suddenly we are talking about virtually all the buildings in Cambridge?? Give me a break.
The City Council approved the new zoning. The Commission is a nuisance standing in the way of progress and democracy.
BTW, the developer will still build more housing on this site but they just have to keep the original building as a facade. Great job, Commission, you are slowing down progress and needed housing, and raising development costs for a facade.
They should rename it the Wealthy People’s Development Harassment Committee
The negative impact this decision will have on the amount & affordability of the housing yielded by this project has been covered already, so some other thoughts:
I thought the proposal was quite ugly, but it’s also very likely that the developer wouldn’t have opted for that weird pseudo-mansard design if they didn’t have to worry about appeasing the NCD in the first place!
And to honor the legacy of an architect, wouldn’t it make more sense to focus on buildings she designed (e.g. the Horace Frost house near Harvard Square)? Her childhood home isn’t particularly relevant to Raymond’s claim to fame/historical significance, and citing that connection to mandate preservation simply comes across as fishing for any excuse to block development.
Love that historical lack of accessibility as well (it’s right up there with lead service lines). Anyone in a wheelchair will be forced to deal with a roundabout ramp climb every time they want to go inside. But aesthetics trumps all, clearly.
Big thanks to the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Commission for bringing some sanity to this project.
Big “no thanks” to the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Commission, who want to make Cambridge into their own private park for the wealthy.