The building last used as a meetinghouse for nonprofits called the Democracy Center was recommended for landmark status on Thursday by the Cambridge Historical Commission. The decision goes to the City Council for its final decision.
The owners of the building at 45 Mount Auburn St., Harvard Square, opposed the commission’s finding, warning that landmarking would make preservation harder. Ian Simmons, president of the Foundation for Civic Leadership, called the designation “unnecessary and burdensome.”
“Maintaining this building as a community hub requires flexibility,” Simmons said. “A landmark designation could constrain that flexibility at a time when the city most needs places like this to grow.”
Simmons said that the building, known as the Nathaniel Stickney House or Stickney-Winn House, needs major repairs and updates to keep operating as a civic center. He pointed to the building not being accessible to people with disabilities, having old and inefficient heating, electrical and plumbing systems, and being overdue for extensive renovation.
“We had purchased the building … for the purpose of opening it up to be a civic site, which we’ve done successfully, but it was in terrible condition. It remains in terrible condition,” Simmons said.
Built in 1846, the house is a rare surviving mid-19th century wood-frame residence in Harvard Square. With a 1926 addition, it has served as a boardinghouse, speakers club and later as the Democracy Center – its identity from 2001 to the summer of 2024. The landmark proposal stems from a citizen petition filed last year after the owners ended leases for several progressive nonprofits. The move sparked public concern and calls for landmark status to ensure transparency and preservation oversight.
“Some of the tenants were still upset that it was no longer operating as the Democracy Center, even if the point of suspending operation was to allow for more civic space,” Simmons said. “The irony is that landmarking could actually make it harder to preserve that civic function.”
Intentions of the petition
The petition was “not initiated because of its historic value,” as the structure is already listed on the National Register of Historic Places and included in the Harvard Square Conservation District, Simmons said. “A landmark designation would not strengthen the balance. It would simply duplicate existing oversight and add layers of restriction and uncertainty for a nonprofit organization like ours.”
It’s true that by being in the conservation district, even without landmark status, the site has some protections: Exterior changes would still need approval, Historical Commission executive director Charles Sullivan said. The landmarking provides broader authority over alterations, not just appearance.
Petitioners disagreed with the idea that landmarking would prevent changes or updates, and that the petition was motivated by anger.
“I’m not somebody who just pulled the fire alarm because I was mad about what was happening,” said Dan Totten, the lead signatory of the petition. “We are here because we love this building, and we want to make sure that the significance of this building is respected as the petitioner moves forward.”
Future of the Nathaniel Stickney House
Without the landmark designation, the commission would not have appropriate input into the development of the site, Totten said, pointing to a recent decision by the City Council to remove oversight authority from conservation districts.
“If you reject this landmark petition, you will have no say,” Totten argued to commissioners.
The commission outlined guidelines for suggested renovations: Preserve original materials when possible, match replacements to original designs, allow distinct but compatible additions, permit removal of nonsignificant sections and possibly rotate the house to face DeWolfe Street.
Totten said there are aspects of Simmons’ plans he agrees with, such as removing the brick addition and rotating the building. He said landmarking would ensure these changes stay balanced with the site’s historical value and that future conversations about design and use happen transparently.
“Because we’re in Harvard Square, which is a global destination for people who want to experience the history,” Totten said, “it’s very important that we get this right.”
Commissioners in favor
Alternate commissioner Scott Kyle said he was surprised that the owners seemed “threatened” by community involvement in the building and that he sees that the “opposite would be true.”
In response, Simmons explained that the conversations and work that have been done with the commission so far have been helpful, despite not agreeing with the original petition. He said that the concern lies in the long-term implications of landmarking and how the new restrictions could create uncertainty and more rigidity over time.
“We just anticipate there could be things we’re not even aware of that we would want to anticipate,” Simmons said. “We get nervous about what happens if it changes.”
The recommendation for landmarking the site passed with no opposition and only one abstention by Gavin Kleespies, because he missed part of the meeting.
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.