After extended debate, the Cambridge City Commissioners used a late agenda addition at their Dec. 22, 2025, special meeting to weigh in on a sensitive question about the redevelopment of the downtown: how much of Race Street’s historic fabric can be removed and still be considered preservation?
The discussion was prompted by the possibility of partially demolishing the Hearn and Skinner buildings along the 500 block of Race Street as part of a redevelopment effort by Green Street Housing. Ward 5 Commissioner Brian Roche introduced a resolution intended as a statement of principle and a show of support for the city’s Historic Preservation Commission, the volunteer body that will ultimately decide demolition and design approvals.
“This resolution addresses the proposed partial demolition of historic buildings on the 500 block of Race Street,” Roche said, stressing that it was not meant “to oppose redevelopment or any particular applicant,” but to reinforce historic district standards and ensure demolition is treated “as a last resort.”
In considering the measure, commissioners found themselves in a difficult position: wanting to speak early without appearing to pressure a process designed to operate independently of the council.
Roche said a recent presentation to the Historic Preservation Commission proposed “further demolition” than had been previously discussed, involving both the Hearn and Skinner buildings. He reminded colleagues that the structures had already received significant state investment for stabilization. Public money, he said, had been spent to preserve the buildings, not clear the site.
Ward 1 Commissioner Brett Summers, a real estate developer working on his own Race Street project, argued that adaptive reuse is both feasible and consistent with successful historic tax credit projects. He said his redevelopment retained “the existing walls on all four sides,” both to strengthen a Maryland Historical Trust tax credit application and because “it’s kind of like recycling a building.”
Summers said he was “disappointed” that Green Street had concluded the existing building envelope would not work for its plans. He also questioned claims that demolition is structurally necessary, suggesting engineering conclusions often reflect the outcome a client seeks.
While he said he supports Green Street as a developer. He wants the buildings activated, Summers argued redevelopment should work within existing envelopes and said denial of demolition could “force everyone back to the table,” including Green Street, state housing officials, and the city.
Ward 2 Commissioner Shay Lewis-Sisco shifted the conversation toward process. While supporting preservation in principle, she said she lacked sufficient context to vote comfortably.
“I clearly am missing some of the context to the resolution,” she said, citing the absence of a staff recommendation and formal Historic Preservation Commission action on demolition. Her concern, she said, was not opposition to preservation but acting without a clear record.
City Manager Glenn Steckman acknowledged procedural problems regarding the measure, noting the resolution reached the agenda without the usual legal review. He also made “crystal clear” where the administration stood. “The staff would like to see this building preserved,” Steckman said, adding that the city had discussed hiring an outside expert so the Historic Preservation Commission would have information beyond the applicant’s submissions.
Planning and Zoning Director Brian Herrmann explained that Green Street requested an informal review, allowed under the Historic Preservation Commission’s guidelines, a pre-application step intended to gather feedback before filing. “There has been no application to date,” Herrmann said.
He added that the Maryland Historical Trust had indicated it would be “reluctantly supportive” of demolition while still preferring conservation. In response, Herrmann said, the Historic Preservation Commission acknowledged practical constraints but asked Green Street to “sharpen their pencil” and return with alternatives that would preserve more of the street wall and avoid a patchwork outcome.
Herrmann said adaptive reuse projects often hinge on balancing preservation standards with construction economics and financing needs. He noted that limited density can drive up per-unit costs and said the commissioners discussed whether increased density could enable greater conservation.
As the conversation turned to structural claims, Herrmann suggested commissioning an independent structural assessment paid for by the city. While the Historic Preservation Commission includes architects and engineers, he said an outside review could help avoid a decision based solely on competing reports prepared for the applicant.
Roche returned to what he described as the core concern: timing. He said he had been involved in the Hearn Building project since early stabilization efforts and argued its original purpose was preservation, not clearance, reframed as redevelopment.
“It is not an urban renewal project,” Roche said. “It is a preservation project.” He added that waiting for a formal decision before expressing support could leave the council’s views irrelevant. “We can’t wait until [HPC] makes their decision to express our support of them,” he said.
Council President Sputty Cephas urged caution. While acknowledging the desire to be proactive, he stressed the importance of trusting appointed boards and staff. “At some point, we really have to trust the people that we put in place to make the decisions,” he said, warning against undermining confidence in the process.
As the debate unfolded, it became clear that the disagreement was not simply preservation versus development, but also about governance. Commissioners wrestled with how much guidance becomes pressure, whether early statements empower or bias a commission, and whether restraint or urgency best serves the city. Lewis-Sisco framed that tension directly, saying she wanted the Historic Preservation Commission “to feel empowered” and not deliver a recommendation influenced by council opinion.
Ultimately, the council chose a middle course. It moved forward, but revised its approach.
Ward 3 Commissioner Frank Stout moved to amend the resolution to preserve its intent while correcting procedural issues identified during discussion. Lewis-Sisco pressed for changes to remove language suggesting an application had been submitted and to avoid singling out a specific applicant, instead articulating a district-wide principle.
One change was both personal and procedural. During the amendment discussion, the mayor asked to have her title removed from a section of the resolution, saying she did not have enough information to object formally. That request was incorporated into the revised language.
Stout then moved to send the resolution to City Attorney Patrick Thomas for proper formatting and incorporation of the council’s feedback. The amendment passed with Lewis-Sisco opposed. A subsequent vote adopted the amended resolution, again with Lewis-Sisco voting no.
What the council approved was not the original draft introduced late in the week, but a revised statement shaped by the meeting’s own uncertainties and designed to avoid claims the record could not support.
The episode highlighted a broader challenge for Cambridge as it seeks to revive long-troubled downtown properties. Projects like the Hearn Building present both housing opportunities and tests of whether preservation standards hold when costs rise and timelines tighten. Even among commissioners inclined toward preservation, differences emerged over how elected officials should engage before the Historic Preservation Commission has a complete application, staff analysis, and formal vote.
For a council aware of how quickly redevelopment proposals can harden into fait accompli, the Race Street debate highlighted a familiar challenge in downtown projects: ensuring clarity and proper sequencing as preservation questions move from early discussion to formal review.
Hearn building defense
I am Jay Corvan local Architect. I live in Trappe, Maryland and I’ve worked and practiced architecture in Cambridge for thirty years as a practicing registered Architect, restored and renovated ten buildings near poplar and race street and in particular I have worked on the Hearn building for three different owners trying to restore this building that’s proven to be extremely challenging.
This application from Green street should not be given any thoughtful consideration, it is a travesty. It is not something the preservation commission should allow to happen, it is against your responsibility as commissioners to allow this project to proceed as drawn, the applicants should reconsider their approach entirely, and be made to work within the existing framework of the historic shell of the building. This is what all developers are asked to do in the downtown area and the memorial memorandum of understanding that Maryland historical trust has prepared with Dhcd prodding, is an outrageous violation of the Preservation districts responsibility. This project should never have gotten this far along, should never advocate for the removal of historic material because the building has been preserved for adaptive reuse and is a perfect example of a building waiting to be redeveloped not destroyed.
In addition to this outrageous development scheme, the destruction and demolition of 505 Race St. To be replaced by another building is equally repugnant. I have also worked on this building in the past and this building is a perfect candidate for adaptive reuse. You will see attached is another scheme to reuse this building, as is, minimum changes for exterior, all very doable, simply what should be demanded at this time, a refusal of this application.
The Hern building was built in 1911 by Herbert Hearn after the Hearn hardware building was destroyed in the second great Cambridge fire, that destroyed a large portion of the downtown race street area, the Hearn building was the first fireproof building constructed in Cambridge. It had a fire suppression system installed originally, and 8 foot alleys to either side to prevent spread of fire from building to building. The building is unique in Cambridge because of its size, it is 10,000 ft.² each floor 30,000 ft.² total workable space with a 10,000 square-foot basement.
In its heyday, the Hearn building was a model of hardware, store and retail store design, functioning something like a department store in largest cities, the main floor had very high 15’ ceilings with a mezzanine level front and back of the building that was designed for store manager and other employees to preside over the retail floor sales area .
The upper levels were never developed as actual retail areas, but were used as storehouse or warehouse levels for materials that would change from season to season. A large elevator in the rear of the building accommodated the transfer of materials from floor to floor, large enough that an entire horse drawn carriage could be stored upstairs and brought down through the elevator. There are pictures of this carriage conveyance actually happening.
I was fortunate enough to see the store before it had been thoroughly compromised by a leaky roof and literally destroyed, demolished by neglect. Some of the interiors of the building were extraordinarly beautiful studio/ art loft like warehouse places, unlike anywhere in the city, heavy timber framed open structures wuhh no walls , with raw unfinished brick, retaining and support walls on either side, a well Lighted space for its storage use , with a roughly hundred foot width between the two beating walls. The upstairs was never heated or finished. It was A large scale gorgeous building environment, it was indeed a very lovely building.
One of the problems with the Hearn building has always been its size, the difficulty in developing residential upper levels for adaptive reuse has been the limited window area and daylight coming into the interior of the building. On my most recent commission working with developer Stanley Keyser on the project , five years back, as his project, designers, we had misgivings about how to deal with the daylighting of the interior of the building, how to design spaces that would be what many considered to be modern will lighted modern habitable residential used spaces, spaces people would like to rent and dwell within using modern criteria.
Limited Windows on the exterior walls north and south sides were not sufficient to provide ample lighting on the interior of those spaces probably because those spaces were never designed to be inhabited by residential uses. The actual interior use, was only to be daylighted for the storage , not display of store merchandise.
When faced with difficult lighting situations like this, a good designer would go to an interior courtyard scheme that would allow daylight to enter through the center of the building and light the interior space through the interior courtyard, and That’s exactly what we proposed, and would have worked very well in the scheme that I attach for your review, to show that this could actually be done, I was able to get 28 units loft style units ( two floor studio apartments ) andvyei floor one s ever bedroom units. All granted, the studio units were smaller but adequate for affordable housing ,well well lit interior, modern design facing the interior courtyard spaces , exterior of the building was restoration quality not impacts by the courtyard plan.
This is one approach that could be taken with this building and this applicant, although I’ve never seen the actual drawings, they are non publicly visible. I understand via communication with Maryland historical trust , the developer requested the removal of all exterior walls, except for the front facade. This is simply just lazy it ignores the value of the already preserved exterior of the building, and the historic preservation commission should summarily Decline this application, and wait for the right developer to come along of green street can’t get the message that the scheme they propose is not acceptable in any way as an historic district application.
It is the duty of the preservation commission to decline badly conceived concepts at an early stage to avoid further confrontation and further legal action. Denying this project, any kind of design approval at this point would be the right thing to do in your position as a store commissioners. I have served on as an historic preservation commissioner in Cambridge some ten years back, and I have been reminded of the responsibility that you hold to preserve the downtown historic district, which is in fact the only Responsibility you have, it is to be sure that we don’t lose the value of our historic buildings which creates and preserves our outstanding, cultural landscape.
This building is like no other in the three cities I’m familiar with on the eastern shore Salisbury, Easton, and Cambridge. This is the architectural flagship, Of Cambridge, and to allow a developer to destroy it out of convenience is to mock the historic district and historic landscape itself
. It is essential we stand up to developers like this who are literally only concerned about profit, not about the story of Of Cambridge and it’s prominence as a strong retail corridor in the 19th and 20th century of America.
It’s true that this building has been challenging to deal with because of its size but the city has just purchased the building next-door, The Tolley theater and the Hearn building should become a part of that initiative to develop the block along Good Urban Design guidelines, not for profit, hungry developers, looking for a cheap solution, we should demand more, as a community and we will.
The city has put too much effort into this building to allow it to fall into the wrong hands, or the developer should recalibrate its approach to the building and honor. It’s historic value. The building as it stands is stable, and a perfect candidate for adaptive reuse, a brand new roof structure has been installed at great expense to the city who advocated strongly for its restoration , put up with years of false work blocking circulation the race street with structural reinforcing members , the public has already made enormous sacrifices to save this building so far and to lose the majority of the building at this point would be quite pointless. .
I submit that this building is holy restorable in its present shape and we are citizens should insist that this building be preserved as part of important legacy in Cambridge cultural artifacts.
Please see attached drawings to show how an interior courtyard scheme could work for this building, make the design designers do the right thing. Send this building design back for further consideration. Please allocate city to draw this important building into a redevelopment scheme for the five hundred block of race street that deserves its moment to shine once again.
Thanks for your time.
Jay Corvan Architect