Reforming Somerville’s Demolition Review Ordinance
Somerville has two systems for protecting historic buildings. One is careful and targeted, with significant oversight. The other is overly-broad, acts as an obstacle to housing production, and deserves reform.
The System That Works
Since 1985, Somerville enacted its Historic Districts Ordinance, which let it create Local Historic Districts. These are specific properties (usually just one home, despite the name) that the city has determined are historically significant enough to warrant protection.
Each designation goes through an involved process:
A study committee investigates the property and prepares a report.
The report is sent to The Planning Board and the Massachusetts Historical Commission to weigh in.
A public hearing is held.
The City Council must approve the designation by a two-thirds supermajority.
A supermajority is a very high bar (you can pass a new ordinance with just a majority!), but this is an appropriate requirement. Designating a property as historic imposes meaningful restrictions and costs on private property. The city can and has designated properties as historic against the wishes of their owners. Actions such as these should require significant oversight and broad agreement across the Council.
Despite the high bar, Somerville has used this process to designate 432 locations in the city as historic.
The System That Needs Reform
In 2020, Somerville passed the first version of its Demolition Review Ordinance.
This law requires any building more than 75 years old to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission before it can be demolished or have its exterior substantially altered.
Unfortunately, the choice of 75 years as an automatic cutoff isn’t very sensible in our city: ~91% of Somerville’s buildings are more than 75 years old1.
When a rule captures that much of the city’s building stock, it is no longer functioning as a focused preservation measure, but as a blanket permitting obstacle. And unlike the Local Historic District process, this obstacle can be imposed without state input or City Council oversight.
If the HPC does determine that the building is historically significant (which it can do with very broad latitude), it can impose a demolition delay of up to 18 months.
This extreme delay and its associated costs amount to a backdoor ban on demolishing the building, but without the due process required to have something marked as an Historic District.
We can do better.
Three Proposed Reforms
1. Replace the Age Threshold with a Fixed Date: Pre-1900
The current 75-year threshold captures 91% of Somerville’s buildings. Limiting review to buildings constructed before 1900 drops the figure to about 14%.
This change would dramatically narrow the scope of automatic review, while retaining the Local Historic District process for preserving significant buildings regardless of age.
And unlike a rolling age threshold, a fixed date doesn’t gradually swallow more of the city’s housing stock with each passing year.
2. Reduce the Demolition Delay from 18 Months to 6 Months
Half a year is time enough for the Commission and the property owner to have a genuine conversation about alternatives to demolition. Eighteen months is punitive.
If a building is important enough to merit permanent protection, the city already has a mechanism for that: Local Historic District designation. Demolition review should not function as a year-and-a-half penalty box.
3. Create a Categorical Exemption for Projects That Add Housing
If a proposed project results in a net increase in dwelling units, we should consider exempting the project from review entirely.
This is a strong action, but something I think should be on the table during declared housing emergencies (which we are currently in!).
Preserve the Real Thing, Reform the Dragnet
None of these reforms would affect Somerville’s Local Historic District protections. The 400+ individually designated historic properties in the city would continue to receive the same protections they have today, with the option to carefully add more.
We should rely on that better tool for preservation, and reform the messier one so it blocks less housing.