Boston Officials Want to Know if You Think This Dilapidated Shack Is Historically Significant
The city's solicitation of public input on the demolition of shacks, sheds, and boarded up homes is an invitation for NIMBYism.

Boston is one of America's oldest cities. As such, it is brimming with buildings that served as the setting for some of the country's most formative events.
One of those buildings might just be a dilapidated shack in the neighborhood of West Roxbury. Earlier this month, the Boston Landmarks Commission tweeted out a request for public comment on the potential historical significance of this single-story wood structure, which is slated for demolition.
Boston Landmarks Commission received an application to demolish the garage at 196 Park Street #WestRoxbury, MA 02132. If you have input about the significance of this property, please send to blc@boston.gov before 5pm on 10/29/2021.https://t.co/KE534Ym5d1 pic.twitter.com/9PqprgracM
— Boston Landmarks (@BostonLandmarks) October 19, 2021
Any members of the public with information on whether John Hancock stored his potting soil here has until the end of the week to submit their comments to the commission, which will then decide whether to let the shed's owner go ahead and tear the thing down (if a slight breeze doesn't do the job first).
This is hardly the first time the city's landmarks commission—which is responsible for identifying and preserving historic buildings in the Massachusetts city—has asked Twitter for input on buildings that have seen better days.
Earlier in October, they also solicited feedback on an application to tear down this detached garage in the city's Brighton neighborhood.
Boston Landmarks Commission received an application to demolish the detached two car garage at 8-10 Newcastle Road #Brighton, MA 02135. If you have input about the significance of this property, please send to blc@boston.gov before 5pm on 10/29/2021.https://t.co/5BVUmrMVSE pic.twitter.com/EprdB60MnE
— Boston Landmarks (@BostonLandmarks) October 19, 2021
It also sought the community's take on the significance of this two-story parking garage in Fenway-Kenmore. Maybe Sam Adams parked his car there once?
Boston Landmarks Commission received an application to demolish the two story parking garage at 49-67 Lansdowne St #FenwayKenmore, MA 02215. If you have input about the significance of this property, please send to blc@boston.gov before 5pm on 10/17/2021.https://t.co/sVJD6gLDHO pic.twitter.com/jiYXjlHqXY
— Boston Landmarks (@BostonLandmarks) October 7, 2021
Indeed, Bostonians have been asked to weigh in on the demolition of everything from empty shopfronts to boarded-up single-family homes.
Boston Landmarks Commission received an application to demolish the house at 38 Cass Street #WestRoxbury, MA 02132. If you have input about the significance of this property, please send to blc@boston.gov before 5pm on 10/3/2021. https://t.co/iZXQJeqePU pic.twitter.com/k9n3udIcCt
— Boston Landmarks (@BostonLandmarks) September 23, 2021
Boston Landmarks Commission received an application to demolish the one-story retail building at 11 Faneuil Street #Brighton, MA 02135. If you have input about the significance of this property, please send to blc@boston.gov before 5pm on 10/11/2021. https://t.co/bldkkKUZmo pic.twitter.com/TwxZQ0Uhwy
— Boston Landmarks (@BostonLandmarks) October 1, 2021
Boston Landmarks Commission received an application to demolish the garage at 20-22 Danube Street #Dorchester, MA 02125. If you have input about the significance of this property, please send to blc@boston.gov before 5pm on 10/11/2021. https://t.co/FsSnothtSz pic.twitter.com/58UkYBvmNg
— Boston Landmarks (@BostonLandmarks) October 1, 2021
These requests for comments might come across as silly. But they're an integral part of Boston's historic preservation process.
Back in 1995, the city amended its zoning code to add Article 85—a program intended to give both the public and historic preservation officials a chance to vet applications for the demolition of older buildings.
Article 85 requires that any application to demolish a building in the city's Downtown and Harborpark neighborhoods, or that's at least 50 years old, first be reviewed by the landmarks commission. The commission will then have 10 days to collect public feedback on the proposed demolition and to decide if the building in question is "significant."
There's a long list of criteria for what could possibly make a building significant.
That includes whether the building is on the National Register of Historic Places, or if it's the subject of a pending application to make it a Boston landmark. There are also some more subjective criteria that could get a building labeled significant, including a determination by city staff that it has an important association with historic persons or events, or that it has a historically significant style or method of building construction.
Activists in other parts of the country have leaned on those fuzzier determinates of historic significance to try to prevent the redevelopment of a goofy-looking diner (which was slated to become an apartment building) or a supposedly historic laundromat (also slated to become an apartment building).
Fortunately for people trying to remove their unwanted shed, Boston's Article 85 process is not as generous to would-be NIMBYs and preservationists as other cities' laws are.
If the landmark commission does determine that a building is significant, it then has to hold a public hearing within 40 days to discuss alternatives to development. It can then delay the demolition of the structure in question for another 90 days beyond that hearing. After all that, however, property owners can go get their demolition permits.
This can certainly result in wasted time, but a Bostonian's right to knock down a shed on his property doesn't appear to be ultimately frustrated by the Article 85 process.
That's good news, but it also raises the question of what the point of all that public input is. At a minimum, it reinforces the notion that what happens on someone else's property is the business of the city and the neighbors.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A private foundation could buy the shack, maintain it in its pristine condition, and charge admission.
If the roof collapses and kills some tourists, market it as a "haunted house."
Win/win.
What shack? That's Cotton Mather's summer house, which was repurposed as a scalp drying barn during King Phillip's War
Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $3850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.To You don’t need to invest FO anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..
Go Here.............CASH APP
Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $3850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.DTc You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..
Go Here..............Earn App
Massholes are gonna Masshole.
More proof that the democrats have to go.
Bunch of chowder heads!
One of those buildings might just be a dilapidated shack in the neighborhood of West Roxbury.
*Bobs head to Haddaway's "What Is Love."*
https://youtu.be/hngPAdTl-As
Why don't they make this easier and tweet out properties for public comment asking why they're NOT significant.
If we can't learn simple lessons from history; like "socialism will never work", why should we give a fuck about a piece of shit shack. Burn it and forget.
As long as you make it look like an electrical thing…..
Paint BLM slogans all over the place.
use a gentle touch, like a pickpocket or safecracker
Vaping accident.
Or a fire from cooking meth.
Hey a Kennedy may have banged some chick in there then killed her.
Could be a number of prominent democrats. They tend to kill broads who are going to blow the whistle on them.
Bonus points if code enforcement thugs fine you for having a dilapidated or unsafe nuisance structure, for each of the 90 days you wait while the landmarks commission decides if it can grant you permission to tear it down.
I kid you not, it was moving to the Peoples' Republic of Taxachussets shortly before 9/11 that flipped me from someone who grew up as a conservative Reagan acolyte into a small-l and capital-L libertarian. The first time I heard people talk about getting "burn permits" from the town to have a weenie roast in their backyards was when it finally gelled that government officials want to allow you to live in a permission-based society, instead of a rights-based society that gives a government permission to exist. All the more striking given the college team down the road are called the minutemen (or minutepeople now, I guess). A corollary epiphany was that the pilgrims who got things going in that state weren't seeking religious freedom, they were seeking to be free to oppress people who didn't go along with their particular brand of religious zealotry.
"A corollary epiphany was that the pilgrims who got things going in that state weren't seeking religious freedom, they were seeking to be free to oppress people who didn't go along with their particular brand of religious zealotry."
And that is the literal truth. Ask any (surviving) witch.
Ended up marrying a girl who lived in Salem at the time. One of my co-workers, when finding out I was engaged, said, "Salem?!? Is she a witch?" To which I replied, "Not yet."
I thought the place was called Danvers now.
She must be like 400 years old then?
So post-menopausal? Nice.
You'd have to be a witch to survive from that time.
Good to see that you've seen the light of Liberty on both economic and social issues! 🙂
If ordinances like this are to exist at all, especially when they contradict each other, I say the NIMBY crowd and the historical preservationists should be required to have gladiatorial matches to the death to see who prevails. Maybe such a requirement would make them think twice before butting into the lives and possessions of others.
Don't take a crazy-people-drug for COVID, yo!
Is it another horse dewormer? Or something expensive still under patent?
Fluvoxamine is a cheap, off-patent generic on the WHO List of Essential Medicines, like ivermectin.
You can't even buy the original brand-name version anymore; "Luvox" was discontinued quite a while back, probably in part because one of the Columbine shooters was on it.
"In the group that took the drug, 11% needed hospitalization or an extended ER stay, compared to 16% of those on dummy pills."
5%! It's a miracle drug
I know some people who took dummy pills.
They worked.
I see people all the ti.e who don't need the pills. They're that way naturally.
Is this the new pharma marketing strategy? Leak that a competing drug is good for COVID, so it can get canceled, so people who needed it need to switch to a newer more expensive drug?
If that is a reference to ivermectin, you do know that ivermectin has not been “canceled”, right? It is still being studied as a COVID-19 treatment, and you can take it for COVID-19 if you can find a doctor to prescribe it.
The media have been cancelling it. And democrats on general. Democrats like you.
I'm about to see about getting my booster shot, so I ain't crazy.
Having sex in the public restroom was historical to me!
A Burger King bathroom? Was Humpty Hump in the next stall?
if historic site does dilapidated matter?
I'll have you know I dropped acid for the first time there. Do you know what that makes it?
the Love Shack. that's where it's at.
Acid House? Isn't that a genre of Nineties music?
Glenn Greewald debates Frances Haugen. Starts about about 49:11.
Great discussion.
What if someone wants to tear down a shake and replace it with a mosque?
*shack
That would be one small mosque. A mosquito, if you will.
Only if it were Spanish, of course.
That milkshake would bring all the Muz boys to the yard 5 times daily.
At least the public has a right to chime in - "get that shack out of my neighborhood" or "oooh, it is a lovely colonial relic that should be saved." In many cities and towns, the historical review folks just go ahead and rule, usually deciding that no changes can be made to anything older than the oldest member of the review board.
So a bunch of anonymous busybodies minding your business is better than a few government burrocrats minding it?
The Individual Right to Life, Liberty and Property should not be the subject of a vote.
And if a shack isn't violating someone else's right to use their property, such as via over-hang on property lines, attracting nuisances or vermin, everyone should just leave it and the owner the Hell alone.
If someone thinks it is a significant enough historical landmark, let them make the owner an offer instead of threatening to seize it like some Salty Sam with poor Sweet Sue!
"Along Came Jones"--The Coasters
https://youtu.be/RHTspBwkjsY
"I hear you're gonna sell that old shack of yours to the Acme Development Company. Well, it's your choice, and if you don't want to sell to our Goodfellas Development Company I would certainly understand. Oh, and by the way, I got this real interesting report by a committee of historians that says the shack was where a lot of them Salem witches were locked up before getting hanged. I'm not saying it's true, just that by the time they disprove it the Acme people might have lost interest in their project. But mebbe it's possible this report can find its way to the bottom of Boston Harbor. I haven't decided. Anyway, have a nice day."
Most public notices are similarly stupid. Have you looked at the newspaper's Public Notice section? No one objects to 99% of them. The library actually gets annoyed at the notice section because the only people who come in are people dropping off and picking up (and often they don't do that). I have had one and only one response to a public notice, EVER, despite having done well over a dozen. That was the father of one of my employees checking in on his son.
We had a waiting period to tear down our 1920's ugly developer-clone house (really it was not that pretty and had no insulation to speak of) so we could build a new one. There are worse rules in other states.
Taxes are only slightly higher than median in MA (21st ranked) despite all the talk.
I’m pretty sure John Adams slept in that parking garage….Or was it Samuel Adams? Look, the one time I visited it I saw an empty beer bottle rolling around and one of those Adams guys was featured on it, OK?
As for the shack, I can’t do anything with that. Now if it was in Athens, GA I’d file a claim that it is THE original Love Shack!
"THE T-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-N ROOF...RUSTED!"
Just say the sheds were built by slave owners and boom, ANTIFA will come and remove the shed free of charge!
Sugars
https://www.lifeasible.com/category/products/plant-tissue-culture/sugars/
This product is suitable for plant cell culture. CAS NO.56401-20-8. There are less than 0.1 mol % glucose and 0.5 mol % α-D-glucose 1,6-diphosphate impurities.