The Cambridge Historical Commission voted unanimously Thursday to approve a landmarking study for a home in Harvard Square that once belonged to the writer and abolitionist Harriet Jacobs. The vote represents a major obstacle in a proposal to relocate the home next door and build an additional mixed-use building on the site.
Developers presented a plan to move the home from 17 Story St. to the corner of Story and Mount Auburn streets and restore it. They hope to put up a building behind of up to 67 hotel rooms and 50 residential units. The plan involves demolishing a neighborhood building at 129 Mount Auburn St.
Patrick Barrett, the attorney who represented the property owner at the meeting, said the project could accomplish multiple goals at once: restoring the Jacobs house and increasing public access to it while adding housing and hospitality capacity in a neighborhood that he said needs more of both. Under his proposal, the Jacobs house would be fully open to the public and act as a lobby to the new building, connected with a cafe attachment.
“The full intention here is to have the building come back to life, bring it back to the public, bring it back to Harvard Square and have it open for the public,” said Timothy Mansfield, an architect involved in the planning, in the meeting.
The home, built in 1846, is one of few remaining examples of Regency style architecture in Cambridge. Jacobs, who was born into slavery and wrote the groundbreaking memoir “Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl,” lived in and managed the then-boarding house from 1872 to 1875.
Members of the commission considered two simultaneous asks regarding the property at the meeting: one an application for a certificate of appropriateness, which would allow the project to move forward, and the other a petition from Cambridge residents to begin a study into designating the Jacobs house a landmark.
Landmark designation would allow the Historical Commission greater power over proposed changes to the property, such as its height, than it currently has. After a study of up to a year in length, during which the more restrictive rules apply, final say over designation will be up to the City Council.
The commission expressed some support for the project and voted to defer a vote on the certificate until a later meeting, although Barrett said the landmark study was “putting the project at risk.”
“I appreciate the board’s interest in honoring the legacy of Harriet Jacobs, and that’s exactly what we intend to do,” he said. “But if we were coming back here to talk about a building that’s five stories” – as opposed to the proposed eight – “it wouldn’t be economically feasible.”
He also called the landmarking petition that drew 44 signatures – 30 is the threshold – misleading, because it describes a hotel with more than 100 rooms, Barrett said.
A number of residents spoke out against the project, expressing concerns that the large new building would overshadow the house, and that the plan to relocate it might cause damage. Executive director Charles Sullivan told residents he had been involved in numerous similar relocations with the city and that it was “not something to be concerned about.”
Orlando Patterson, who spoke on behalf of the petitioners, said that in addition to advocating for landmark designation, they oppose relocation of the building on historical grounds.
“[Harriet Jacobs’] story is literally built into the fabric of our city,” he said at the meeting. “he building’s location is integral to its legacy, particularly when it is historically and culturally significant. Its setting anchors it to the narratives, the community ties and the cultural context that give it meaning.”
“Jacobs devoted her life to justice, freedom and human dignity,” he added. “Preserving her home is the least we can do to honor that legacy, especially now, when so much of what we value in our shared history is at risk of being erased.”
Commissioners noted that landmark status does not guarantee funding or maintenance for a building. “If we don’t go along with this particular proposal or something like it, the house is going to be neglected,” chair of the commission Chandra Harrington said.
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.
This decision had nothing to do with preservation, as Commissioner Harrington pointed out. The house has been neglected for ages and this is the first plan to propose saving the house along with a way to pay for it. Harrington explained that if the project was built smaller, there wouldn’t be money to save the house.
The objections from the neighbors were sometimes disgraceful. More than one neighbor took issue with the owners being Chinese. It’s disturbing that people feel comfortable going on the public record with this kind of hate, and it’s ironic when done in the context of supposedly honoring an escaped enslaved woman.
I listened in on the meeting. The new Jacobs house owner did nothing to repair/protect the building and Barrett had originally asked for a 6 story building then upped it 2.5 stories and refused to meet with neighbors about the new plans before submitting them. At least 1 speaker pointed out that it likely would be a faux-residence, with rooms being managed by the hotel when not in use, switching back & forth between them (in short, transient housing) – not real housing that will benefit anyone but very wealthy investors.
The NIMBYs and the Historical Commission are out of control. The house is dilapidated, and this project would restore it. Instead, it may remain in disrepair just so wealthy homeowners can keep less affluent people out of their neighborhood. The racist undertones in the objections were disgraceful.
The City Council needs to remove power from the Historical Commission. They refuse to allow any progress and want make Cambridge into their own private park for the wealthy.
As avejolt points out, one commenter made up a story that rooms would flip back and forth between hotel rooms and rental units. In reality the two are physically separated. Besides, this is irrelevant to the jurisdiction of the CHC, because they can only regulate appearance from the public way.
While the current owner hasn’t repaired the existing house, she’s owned it since 2020. Good luck renovating anything during the pandemic. The building has been decaying a lot longer than that. I remember watching it crumble in 2010. It hasn’t been painted in decades.
@avejolt I listened in too (and was disgusted by the anti-Chinese comments). I didn’t hear what you did.
The building is in poor shape now. This project would repair and restore it.
The “faux-residence” claim came from a neighbor, not the plan. Just because someone says it doesn’t make it true.
This project would restore and preserve a historic building, provide education, and add much-needed housing. But progress is being blocked, as usual, by a few mean-spirited people who don’t want new neighbors.
Let’s be clear: exclusionary zoning is rooted in racism. All the talk about “preservation” and “character” is just its latest disguise, now that they lost that.
A perfect example of how are existing system of historical preservation is completely broken, serving to block adaptive reuse (actually preserving historic buildings and making them usable in the present moment) in favor of “preserving” rotting and empty husks until they fall over on their own accord.
It also wasn’t hijacked by NIMBYs, it was deliberately designed by NIMBYs to block development not actually preserve anything. Look at this commission’s historical mission it is right there.
The Historical Commission isn’t the problem. The owner never made the repairs after buying the property. Her business, First Cambridge Capital, is behind this, and the so-called “condos” are almost certain to become luxury hotel units, not real housing—certainly not for anyone who can’t afford $500 a night. As for race, let’s be accurate: the Story Street abutter appears to be Asian, and the petitioner of the Landmarking statute, along with several other opponents you deride as NIMBY, are African American. Your beloved upzoning is forcing out more lower income residents as it demolishes homes and paves green space and trees at an astonishing rate. As a result we are witnessing more income & race-based gentrification across the city whether here, on Ellery St, Western Ave or East Cambridge.
The Historical Commission is the problem. This is about power, not preservation. They block housing, letting buildings rot and shutting out people who need homes.
@avejolt: The proposal repairs the building. Opposing a repair project because the building hasn’t yet been repaired is peak Kafka.
Speculation that these homes will “really” be luxury hotels is just that, speculation. The actual proposal is for housing. Blocking projects over imagined worst-case scenarios only fuels scarcity and rising rents.
The effect of this landmarking is consistent. It protects current owners and worsens the housing shortage that drives displacement.
If we’re serious about fighting gentrification, the solution isn’t freezing neighborhoods in amber. It’s building more homes so people can stay.
@avejolt appearing to be “Asian” or being Black doesn’t preclude someone from having anti-Chinese prejudice.
As for “race-based gentrification” going on in the city, inclusionary zoning is one of the best tools to fight historical and current racial segregation, and the projects you’ve referenced would have added dozens of IZ units throughout the city.
Ironically, the Spears funeral homr (the site of the Western Ave project you referenced) is owned by a Black family trying to retire. The development would add many IZ units where none exist. Under the previous zoning, it likely would’ve ended up similar to the the development across the street: two $2 million townhomes. Instead, being blocked by the historical commission likely means the sale won’t go through or the value of the property will plummet.
We have a clear choice between dozens of permanently affordable homes, or trying to keep a few old, dilapidated buildings, which eventually get converted into luxury condos.
Surely there must be a middle ground between renovating and upgrading the Harriet Jacobs house in an appropriate manner vs. the grotesque structure in the photo. None of the arguments above mention anything about the deleterious effects of the potential shadows on the residences on Hilliard St. It is a charming street which I walk down almost daily.
“Grotesque” is an opinion. I like it. The Jacobs House looks like a jewel in a setting and the lobby on the side looks warm and inviting.
I think we have a stop opposition to development due to personal aesthetics or subjective opinions about things like “character”. Everyone has different tastes.
Cambervillians in the past opposed new developments like the triple decker for similar reasons. Now, some people will probably leap up to defend them as “historical”.
Everything changes. Some of us like modern architecture. All of should embrace its energy efficiency in a world threatened by climate change.
Frank & CWEC – no one is talking about freezing the city in amber except you, but excellent buildings (design oversight) and preserving important history is very important, as is providing viable affordable housing to city residents. And here is a great piece in the Globe today by one of Cambridge’s finest scholars: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/08/22/opinion/harriet-jacobs-home-cambridge-development/
Give me a break. Cambridge has plenty of people trying to freeze the city in amber. Preserving buildings based on subjective notions of “character” is exactly that.
That Globe opinion piece is just an opinion (as is “finest scholar”). The building is in disrepair. The developer would restore it and use it for education.
A better legacy for Jacobs would be providing housing, not keeping Cambridge a playground for the wealthy while the less affluent struggle.
I actually didn’t talk about freezing the city in amber, I said that we have a choice between dozens of affordable homes or a smaller number of luxury condos, and “historic” buildings left to rot.
Also, can anyone explain how “the building’s location is integral to its legacy, particularly when it is historically and culturally significant. Its setting anchors it to the narratives, the community ties and the cultural context that give it meaning,” and how moving it 50 feet to the left meaningfully change anything regards to that?
Honestly, I’m surprised by how much misinformation and pretexts are getting thrown around by the NIMBYs. A lot of comments seem to be reacting to a version of the project that doesn’t exist. The Jacobs House isn’t being torn down. It’s being restored, brought forward to be visible, and opened to the public to tell an important story.
It’s not “profit over preservation”… it’s literally preservation through adaptive reuse. That’s how we save historic buildings: by giving them life and purpose. Plus, the project adds new homes (20% affordable!) in a city where it’s DESPERATELY needed.
The support here is real. The mayor, vice mayor, many city councilors, the Jacobs Legacy Committee, HSQ Business Association, and the Historical Commission are all behind this. That should mean something.
We can argue about aesthetics, but accusing this of cultural erasure is just wrong. It honors Jacobs by making her story visible and addressing a housing crisis she would’ve seen as a justice issue too.