A plan to demolish the A.J. Spears Funeral Home and construct a six-story residential building in its place faced pushback from residents in a long, contentious meeting of Cambridge’s Historical Commission on Thursday.
Ultimately, the commission and developer agreed to defer a vote on demolition to a later meeting but expressed a desire to see the project at 122-132 Western Ave. continue.
The hearing was intended to decide whether the Riverside neighborhood property would be subject to a yearlong demolition delay, which is required for buildings deemed “significant” and “preferably preserved” by the commission. Real estate attorney Patrick Barrett said at the meeting that such a delay would likely render the project financially infeasible.
Members of the commission voted to deem the property significant but asked the developer to revise its plans with feedback from the community before taking a final vote on preservation.
Owners of the funeral home announced in June that they would cease operations next year and would sell the land to a developer, DND Homes, if construction was permitted. DND’s planned building will be up to 74 units, 20 percent of which would be affordable, in accordance with new zoning laws, and will have zero carbon emissions, with fully electric utilities.
Executive director of the Historical Commission Charles Sullivan began the hearing by providing a detailed history of the property, especially its associations with multiple prominent members of Cambridge’s Black community in the 20th century. These include Donley Turpin, a dentist who lived there in the 1920s, the original owner of the funeral home, Madison Brand, and Andrew Spears, who bought the property in 1964 and began what is now known as A.J Spears Funeral Home.
Sullivan noted that the buildings, all put up between 1855 and 1860, are examples of the Italianate architecture style that characterizes many of the buildings in the area.
“They’re just lovely buildings in the neighborhood around them, and they fit right in there,” said commission member Scott Kyle at the hearing, explaining his vote to deem them significant.
Speaking on behalf of the Spears family, who are in favor of the demolition, and the developers, Barrett called the project “a test of the new zoning.” He said that he has received informal support from most members of the City Council and many direct abutters, although some expressed concern over the six-story height of the building.
“Our intent is to build this building,” he said. “We are doing it with the mandate of the City Council, we are doing it with proponents of housing. And Western Avenue is the perfect corridor for multifamily zoning.”
“I would ask that the city keep an open mind,” he said. “We’re asking the board to consider what the future looks like.”
Public comment at the meeting lasted several hours and was overwhelmingly critical of the project, as residents expressed concerns that it would drastically alter the character of their neighborhood and asked that developers take more time to speak with and respond to community members before demolition.
Several commenters, including city councillor Paul Toner, spoke in favor of the demolition and the opportunity it provides for increased affordable housing in the area.
The commission agreed to a continuance, the mechanism to delay the vote to a later date, at the end of the meeting.
“I don’t feel like this is ready, but I’m not against the project in theory,” vice chair of the commission Liz Lyster said. Other members agreed, asking that the developer’s team do more work with the community and come back with more detailed plans.
“We want these projects to be successful in the long run, and so just, you know, ramming something through because it’s the law just doesn’t make for good neighborhood feelings all around,” said Chandra Harrington, the commission’s chair.
This post was updated Aug. 14, 2025, to correct that the Spears property has not been sold.
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.
Ultimately the reasons it’s significant are “a dentist lived there 100 years ago” and “it looks like other buildings that were built around the same time”. Did I miss anything?
In my view, this is an old building, not a historic one. None of the people speaking against demolition likely ever thought about the property until they learned a six-story building was proposed, and they’d find any reason for any project site to be cancelled.
This commission is out of control and borderline lawless. Leave it to a historical commission staffed by a bunch of old white people to rob a black family of their retirement for a building that obviously has no historical significance on its own merits.
This commission is begging for lawsuits.
There’s nothing significant about the building. It’s an insult to Tony Spears for the CHC to pretend otherwise. This is an abuse of power by unelected commissioners who are trying to overrule a law they don’t like. I’m glad that Councillor Toner showed up to explain that yes, this is exactly what the council had in mind.
Just as disappointing is the conduct of staff. Without the Executive Director making a bogus initial determination of significance this case would’ve never gone to the commission. Staff shouldn’t be subverting the council with this nonsense. When everything is significant, nothing is.
I don’t think this article quite captures the full tenor of the meeting. Numerous supporters spoke, and at the very end, after back and forth on the design, the Chair told the Spears family not to worry.
While this proposal has further work to do on design to satisfy the Commission (which is totally fine and exactly as it should be!), it appears headed to passage, bringing desperately needed new housing—including $15-17 million worth of subsidized affordable homes—to Cambridge.
Who knew Chandra Harrington, Paula Paris and Yuting Zhang, to name only three, were old white people? And it’s nice to discover that the comments already posted as I write this comply with the strict civility requirements imposed by Cambridge Day’s gatekeepers.
A lesson I’ve learned from observing these meetings and the detractors here is that you can’t make them happy. Remove the Affordable Housing voucher units; remove a couple stories; more setbacks — they will still be red hot angry mad. Makes you think.
The CHC is out of control. Noone ever intended to give them veto power over such sensible proposals. We need to redefine their mission far more narrowly than what they seem to think. Or disband them entirely.
BTW, nice article in the Globe today about how Massachusetts ranks at the bottom for home ownership among younger people. Who knew.
This project is sensible, if not ideal.
It will add up to 74 much-needed homes, with 20% affordable under the city’s new zoning mandate. The building will be all-electric and zero-carbon, advancing Cambridge’s climate goals and setting a strong precedent for sustainable development.
But we can’t have what we need because some will oppose any change, no matter what.
The Historical Commission has to go. It’s a tool for blocking development and protecting wealthy interests.
And let’s be honest, “preserving neighborhood character” is often a dog whistle for “I don’t want those people living near me.” Exclusionary zoning has its roots in racism.
An alternate approach to historical preservation would be that the city just has a budget for it, and they buy buildings that are significant. If they want to keep it as a funeral home worth $5M instead of an apartment building worth $100M, then this would be $95M on the city’s budget. This way the costs would at least be made explicit.
Right now, the CHC is imposing staggering costs on the city and there is no clear accounting of it.
I forgot to say that the numbers in my last comment were made up for the sake of illustration.
Didn’t notice this the first reading…
One of the chief reasons it’s considered “significant” is because the Spears family lived there, but the Spears family wants to sell and develop! The absolute gall
Good work by the commission to fight for the historical building. Developers can’t just steamroll the community and everything good about it.
That building is worth preserving, because it’s “so beautiful”? The Spears family can’t sell to developers because the Spears family once lived there?
NIMBY logic has tied itself in pretzels. The lengths people go to just to keep “outsiders” from moving in are astounding. Shameful.
This project would add much-needed housing, including 20 affordable units. Wealthy homeowners will use any excuse to label a building “historical” if it keeps less affluent people out of their neighborhood.
It’s “historical” because a dentist once lived there? Because the Spear family lived there, even though they’re the ones trying to sell it?!
One day, I’d like to see one of these homeowners blocked from selling their own house because it’s suddenly deemed “historical.” Let’s see how they feel then.