When looking at a city from a bird’s eye view, patterns of development can be found throughout it quite easily, while remaining indiscernible to the pedestrian’s eye. Indeed, this particular site was chosen by the seemingly random layout of the streets on the present-day map. How did all of of these different breaks come to be, when the preferred layout of American streets was the grid? Looking for answers in the historical maps of Cambridge, the site was studied in detail, and it was found to hold far larger developments than those simply contained in a few streets. Being more than a simple set of stones, the site has mutually influenced and has been changed by its residents. This collection of blocks in the middle of Cambridgeport have come to represent some of the major upheavals in US society and industry, being an industrial center throughout the ages and a home to immigrants looking for the American dream.

To understand the present-day world we live in, one always finds the answer in the past. One of the main questions that have pervaded the study of this site is the disposition of the streets, but looking at historical maps these mysteries start to unravel. For, looking at the full map of Cambridge in 1830 (Fig. 1), the unseeming triangle formed by the present-day Hampshire St., Windsor St, and Webster Av. can start to be explained. Hampshire St. was once the Middlesex Turnpike, indicating that it was an important road, and by how it since it connected to the West Boston bridge, it must have been the most efficient way to the center of Boston. Furthermore, Broadway was once one of the throughways for Boston-Harvard via the West Boston Bridge, and Windsor St. served to cut across to Cambridge St. which was another connector using the Canal Bridge. Finally, the last seemingly random orientation of street is Webster Av. since it cuts diagonally both Hampshire St. and Windsor St.. However, it appears to be run parallel to the marshlands, so it could have simply been as far as they could go to the east to set up another connector.
In the subsequent years, many more streets appeared in the area as the grid in East Cambridge expanded south-west. This is visible on the present-day site, and causes even more clashing street patterns than in 1830. However, instead of just setting up a timeline of the development of the area, looking at how the industrial and residential areas grew out the area, changing the initials streets in some ways and being confined by the overarching order, is a lot more interesting.

When looking at this site since its start, the tension between residential and industrial purposes of the land jump out to the eye. Both seem to have been present since Cambridge was first developed, even though Cambridge was conceived as a suburb, an area away from the hustle and bustle of Boston. However, by 1877 as seen on Fig. 2, it’s obvious why industries of various sorts were attracted to the area: proximity to the Broad Canal, as a way for cooling, waste management, and water transportation (at least before the Charles River Dam was constructed); proximity to the Boston and Albany Branch Railroad depot, for land transport; finally, open land ready to be converted for several different uses. With this mind, it isn’t surprising that the street grid existing in the 1870s was morphed by the fancies of the subsequent landowners. For example, Bristol St. notably had ceased to be connected between 1861 and 1877, probably by the decision of the owners of the plot of land in-between Hampshire St. and Webster Av.

Another interesting result of the coexistence of stores and residents is the repurposing each other’s spaces. From walking about the site, there are visibly stores and restaurants that have made a home out of a former residence. These are also visible in several maps as commercial land uses only occupying a fraction of a larger dwelling or plot. Also from the maps, the opposite transformation can be seen, like an ice-cream factory changing locations, and its former location remaining as an “iron oven” in the middle of a residential area (see Fig.3). Another variation of this is a former bakery becoming a residential building, while the oven remained a free standing oven lasting several decades side-by-side with its former proprietor. All in all, how the land was previously used affects the present-day uses of the land.


Even though this site has some industries and commercial land uses interspersed in the whole, the heavy industries have been especially concentrated in south-east corner of the site (see Fig. 4). More importantly, this particularly block has represented the major technological advances, and so popular demand, of the past 150 years, and subsequently affected the neighborhood that contained it. Until the end of the 19th century, the major building component was wood, so having a nursery (tree growing facility) meant that it didn’t have the extra charge of transportation. Thus, the great majority of buildings in the surrounding area were built out of wood (as can be seen in the large map in Fig. 4, where the yellow highlights represents wood structures). Starting at the very end of the 19th century, major production advancements meant that the production of iron was reduced in cost, indicating an increase in its use. This especially applied to the rise of the automotive industry, as the Ford T model hit the market in 1906. Starting in 1894 and until the 1960s, the iron foundry was in high production, growing to cover the whole block and absorbing Davis St. in the process. The surrounding area then accumulated other aspects of the automotive industry, such as garages, parking lots, repair shops, filling stations, and rubber factory. Starting in the 1950s, there was also an auto junk yard, possibly indicating a working class population in the area. In the following years, the plot morphed more rapidly, going from a plastics company (The Morningstar Corporation) in the 1970s after the material had been developed, to being an parking lot and wood posts factory in the mid 1980s so in a way going back to its initial industrial land use, to a research and development site in the present day (Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories). The present day use could be a result of MIT influencing more and more the development of Kendall Sq. and its surrounding areas, attracting large companies with the brainpower concentrated on campus.
Having such an industrial presence in this area, even though it presents itself as logical by the present infrastructure, is surprising since Cambridge was first developed as a suburb. As the present industries have been found to have influenced the development of the streets and building patterns, these industries have also influenced the populations that came to inhabit the area, which in turn also changed their habitat.

Cambridge was first conceived as a suburb, for those who could commute daily to their jobs in Boston. In this particular area, the presence of the streetcar along Broadway across the West Boston Bridge must have contributed to its popularity for inhabitation. The character of the residents can be seen by Kenneth Jackson’s description in Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States:

Having a young and wealthy population affected the development of the area in several ways, which can be seen in Fig. 5. There were more single-family homes built on moderate sized parcels of land, but also several largely undeveloped tracts of land under one owner. One owner, Alexander Dickenson, seems to be the one who decided to break up Bristol St, whereas the Boston Cricket Grounds in the north-east corner of the site decided to also overrun the existing street. Simply having the presence of cricket grounds indicates the high social standings of the neighborhood, having the association with Great Britain’s wealthy. Thus, at its first conception, the area was going to be inhabited by the upper-middle class.

In the following 30 years, there was a lot of residential development throughout the site, with a preference for the single-family home to flats, as seen in the Fig. 6. From the form of the houses though, one can infer that there were in reality two entrances, which would mean two single-family homes housed under the same roof, as far as the fire insurance companies were concerned. In Jackson’s words:

Combined with the presence of flats, one can note a decrease in social standing in the area, since at the time flats were not looked upon well by the society as a whole. There’s an alternation with the words flats, tenements, and apartments, but all of them mean the cohabitation of three or more families in the same building[3]. One should also note the decrease in size of the lots as the proximity of the industrial site towards the south increases.

In the next half century, the revolutionary automotive industry takes a hold in the area and formerly vacant lots were put to use as factories or businesses (see Fig. 7). As was mentioned previously, across from the foundry a filling station and garages was established, as well as a rubber company. Throughout the site there is also the appearance of personal automobile garages for homes (indicated by bright yellow on Fig. 7). From previously established walking about the site, it was found that some were from the 1920s, or the very beginning of the popularity of the automobile. Furthermore, former commercial lots were converted into dwellings and vice versa, indicating a lot of turnover as a result from the Depression: former uses of the land could possibly not be maintained during the worst years. For example, an ice-cream factory changed locations, leaving its former location as an “iron oven” which was stand alone for the next couple of decades (indicated in pink on the map).

Towards the end of the 20th century, the majority of previously industrial lots of land had been converted to residential land uses (see Fig. 8). However, this is a different form of residence than the previous flats and single-family homes: these combined multiple families into the same building, housing up to 5 families in the previously single use building. This distinction from the other types of use was made on the figure by including a brown line to separate one land use from another. One of the reconverted land lots that once housed the rubber company became a housing complex, with yards associated to the homes. The row of small plots of land owned by individuals was completely wiped out by the construction of this complex and the neighboring Italian Cultural Center. Another way land was reused in that area of the site was the industrial lot becoming part wooden posts fabrication part garage, in this way summarizing its whole evolution. On an interesting note, in the middle of the site along Webster Ave. there is one lot that remained vacant since the 1830s.

Nowadays, with the lack of recent Sanborn or Bromley maps, there was no data to pull from except field observations (see Fig.9). The formerly industrial vacant land has been replaced by two large office buildings with restaurants one their first floor. One of them houses the research and development company Mitsubishi Electric. The houses continue to hold more than one family by the number of mailboxes present on the majority of the houses, and the multiple doors permitting entrance. Thus, over the past almost 20 years there hasn’t been much of a visible change, at least from a pedestrian’s point of view.

The side-effect of the presence of industries in the neighborhood was the workers possibly living close-by, in a way to save time and money for transportation. Using survey maps such as the Bromley maps, the possible nationalities of the immigrant workers could be extracted from the last names that appeared. In 1900, the owners of the land seemed primarily Anglo-Saxon or of Irish descent, with owners having names like Patrick Crowley, John McFarlane, and William O’Connell. It’s probable that many weren’t recent immigrants, since several owned multiple plots of land of considerable size. This could have resulted from the wave of Irish migration which resulted from the Great Potato famine which occurred from 1845 to 1852[4]. In that way their influence on the area was considerable, leading to the establishment of St. Patrick’s Church which housed the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston. Many of them subsequently built the flats that helped define the area. In the following years, as early as the 1930s, the immigrants arriving to the area appeared to diversify, possibly coming from Portugal (owners like Cuelho, Ferreira) and Eastern Europe (Lapanisk, Jaworski). However, the lasting influences on this area have been the Irish Catholic, with their many institution buildings neighboring the park, and the Italian, having the Dante Alighieri Italian Cultural Center established by 1996. The Italian population can be determined to be prominent in the area by the sheer number of squares with Italian names (Frisoli Sq., Depina Sq., Souza Sq, ...) in the area. These only come to be through petitions and votes, making it a consensus of the community. Their presence might not have been visible on the land survey maps because they rented or simply started arriving to the area past 1934.

The general movement of the immigrant populations to own homes was a result of the “American Dream” and clever engineering. The balloon frame home was the embodiment of the idea of creating a better future for your children through hard work in the present: “It was in fact quite common for urban workers in America to build their own homes, a practice that would have been virtually impossible in European cities.” [5] Made of simple wood beams arranged in a specific way, these could be built in a matter of hours between two people, making it possible for families to literally provide a better home to their progeny, and remain sturdy against the elements. By having a mixture of rented and owned land by those who lived in the area, an impacting community, morphing the neighborhood, was formed. This particular site is distinguishable for an area that hugs the park to the north, which is distinguishably of Portuguese heritage. Indicators like religious and community institutions, restaurants, and street names help give the areas their very own characters.

All in all, the development of this site is a clear example that what is planned for is not what initially results, because of factors such as the nature of the available land and the people who inhabit it. The area was convenient for industrial purposes, and attracted its immigrant workers to the area, leaving little room for the suburban character of the place. This did not detract for the area continuously transforming from the influence of its residences. Morphing throughout the ages, the layout and names of the street have changed to better suit its residents. Larger single-family homes began housing more and more families to offer homes to the newcomers, whereas more established residents started building their own homes on their properties. By steadily phasing out the industrial land uses that affected the surrounding environment, such as an iron foundry releasing by-products in the air or an auto junkyard being visually displeasing, the area has now resembles the suburb that was initially planned. It no longer contains the workplaces necessary for the amount of people living on the site, and the proximity of the Red Line T Stop allows easy commuting. Its history remains alive and well with the presence of cultural centers and religious institutions, and by the active remaining of favorite spots in honor of former residents. If the American Dream is to provide a better future for the family line, then the past residents have obviously succeeded.

Footnotes:
1 K. T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States, (Oxford University Press: New York and Oxford,1985), p21
2 Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, p57
3 Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, p90
4 S. B. Warner, Jr. “A Brief History of Boston”, Mapping Boston, ed. A. Krieger, D. Cobb, A. Turner. (MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England), p.8
5 Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, p126

Bibliography:
K. T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States, (Oxford University Press: New York and Oxford,1985), pp. 21, 57, 90, 126
S. B. Warner, Jr. “A Brief History of Boston”, Mapping Boston, ed. A. Krieger, D. Cobb, A. Turner. (MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England), p.8

Figure sources: All of the figures with annotations were altered by the author.
Figure 1: J. G. Hales, “Plan of Cambridge”, Survey Taken in June 1830, (Cambridge, 1830)
Figure 2: Franklin View Co., “City of Cambridge, Mass.” (1877)
Figure 3: (from left to right) Sanborn-Perris Map Co. Limited, “Sheet 19”, Insurance Maps of Cambridge, Massachusetts, Vol. One (11 Broadway, New York, 1900)
Sanborn Map Company, “Sheet 18”, Insurance Maps of Cambridge, Massachusetts, Vol. One (New York, 1934)
Figure 4: (from top inset to bottom) G. M. Hopkins Co., “Cambridge Sheet 24”, Atlas of the City of Cambridge Massachusetts (Pennsylvania,1886)
G. W. Bromley & Co., “Part of Ward 2 - City of Cambridge - Plate 7”, Atlas of the City of Cambridge (Philadelphia, 1894)
Sanborn Map Company, “Sheet 18”, Insurance Maps of Cambridge, Massachusetts, Vol. One (New York, 1970)
Sanborn Map Company, “Sheet 18”, Insurance Maps of Cambridge, Massachusetts, Vol. One (New York, 1988)
Figure 5: G. M. Hopkins & Co., “Part of the Second Ward, Cambridge - Plate J” Atlas of the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts (Philadelphia, 1873)
Figure 6: Sanborn-Perris Map Co. Limited, “Sheet 19”, Insurance Maps of Cambridge, Massachusetts, Vol. One (11 Broadway, New York, 1900)
Figure 7: Sanborn Map Company, “Sheet 18”, Insurance Maps of Cambridge, Massachusetts, Vol. One (New York, 1950)
Figure 8: Sanborn Map Company, “Sheet 18”, Insurance Maps of Cambridge, Massachusetts, Vol. One (New York, 1996)
Figure 9: “Cambridge, MA.” Map. Google Maps. (Google, 2015)

Back to top