FRIENDS OF HISTORIC MISSION HILL
81 Lawn Street,
Roxbury, Ma. 02120

November 5, 2002

H. Peter Norstrand,
Deputy Commissioner for Real Estate Services
DCAM
One Ashburton Place, 15th floor
Boston, MA. 02108

Dear Commissioner Norstrand:

The following comments on the Final Project Proposal to the Asset Management Board- Redevelopment of the Massachusetts Mental Health Center (MMHC) Site are submitted from the Friends of Historic Mission Hill (FHMH), a resident-based group actively concerned with issues affecting the preservation of our neighborhood's historic buildings and streetscapes. We appreciate this opportunity for public review and base our comments on a recent tour of the MMHC complex accompanied by the director of the Boston Preservation Alliance.

Our evaluation of the Commonwealth's plans has several strands, however the overall theme is very simple- this proposal deserves significant citizen participation. Creating a collaborative framework should be the goal of the Asset Management Board's review. In order to build something actually needed and wanted, it would be advisable to slow the fast track process this project seems to be on. One of the speakers at the Oct. 8 public hearing strongly and eloquently requested more time for greater neighborhood input. The explosion of development in the Longwood Medical Area indicates the wisdom of some reconsideration about further new construction. In our experience, when the neighborhood (residents and institutions alike) has the opportunity to brainstorm real solutions, the final project benefits tremendously.

Our specific comments will discuss the following- the preservation of the original 1912 facility, the relationship of the site to the Riverway, one of Olmsted's most well known 19th century parkways, and the adequacy of the proposed 70,000 Sq Ft MMHC DMH clinic to be sited within a much larger new real estate development.

The original 1912 four-story brick Gothic Revival structure should be preserved. The building presents a handsome façade towards Fenwood Road, and holds much psychiatric history. New construction doesn't have the grandeur that can be achieved with an older rehabbed building. Historic preservation has a significant role as a civic- building influence and perhaps even more dramatically in the environment for mental health programs. The main building represents to current clients the security and familiarity needed for their well-being and medical treatment. Retaining this part of the complex would provide critical therapeutic continuity for those who so desperately need it. There is a realistic concern that DMH's current plans will relegate MMHC clients to a "back door" metaphorically as well as physically. The historic grand central entrance and the luxurious lobby have an emotional significance; literally evoking the connection to the building's significant history and also the open door policy and the interactive atmosphere of the MMHC environment.

Of the 1912 structure, the most prominent features consist of the central staircase and lobby on the first floor, the library on the second floor and assembly hall above it on the third. These large and well-appointed spaces appear to us as worthy of preservation. The remainder of the 1912 building, changed greatly over the decades, would lend itself to an extensive rehab and renovation. The original cast iron fence and the perimeter red oak trees along Fenwood Road are also character- defining elements that should be preserved. .

The 1912 building has been enlarged over the years obscuring the original complementary relationship with the historic Riverway. Removing the additions -the blank 5th floor attic story, the 1957 Therapeutic wing near Brookline Avenue and the tacked on Vining Street appendage would actually reduce the interior space to a size comparable to DMH's required 70,000 Sq Ft. The remainder of the complex- the power plant building and the 1954 Research facility would give way for new construction.

In order to ensure continuity in the immediate area for patients and staff during construction, the Fenwood Inn/ Day Hospital and therapists' offices could perhaps be temporarily relocated to 20 Vining Street, the former Nurses' Residence. The identity of the location would thus be preserved for the MMHC clients, with an imminent return to the building they regard as home.

With therapeutic services retained in the historic MMHC, new construction on the rest of the nearly three-acre site could thus be designed to accommodate uses as determined by community input. Housing, office and/or research space may be the obvious choices, but may not be the best ones. Research space already projected by the Joslin Diabetes Center, Brigham & Women's Hospital, the Blackfan Research Center and the Beth Israel/ Deaconess in addition to the facilities under construction (Emmanuel's Endowment Campus, Harvard Medical School and Children's Hospital) will probably render further research space unnecessary. A need for housing remains constant, particularly for affordable housing. Unfortunately the Commonwealth's strategy is creating the financial incentive for a project that will be much denser than the neighborhood desires.

There is legitimate concern that the site's relationship to adjacent streets has been poorly defined and redevelopment represents an opportunity to improve "the edges". Historically Vining Street intersected with the Riverway. A curb cut still exists; now it appears to lead to a sprawling surface parking lot, however it also connects to the public way providing an unofficial shortcut to the LMA. (According to Boston's Public Works Dept., "Vining ends somewhere past Fenwood"). Instead of widening the Riverway, a less intrusive plan would be to officially reopen the Riverway/Vining intersection for one-way northbound access. The impact of area traffic has been exacerbated over the years by the closure of local interior streets; redefining the lost intersection would improve the edges of the MMHC site immeasurably.

A major threat to the Olmsted park system has been inappropriate use of adjacent land including large surface parking lots and free standing garages. Because the park boundaries are so narrow, the visual impact of nearby buildings is correspondingly increased. The City of Boston's ordinances governing development within 100 feet of the Riverway restrict the height of potential buildings to 70 feet and also require a 20-foot setback. Can these requirements be met when the state process is effectively demanding 70,000 Sq Ft of free space from the chosen development team?

Realistically the question must also be asked as to whether the specified 70,000 is actually adequate for the desired facilities for the MMHC clients, the existing Harvard training program and the research needs. Will there be a gift shop, client cafeteria, coffee shop or a place to shoot hoops or play volleyball, activities that have all been provided to clients in the past? The courtyard gardens that provide fresh air and sunlight to all four floors also are spaces where patients and staff can mingle. It is not likely that the "living room" lobby with the wainscoting, marble floors and fireplaces will be duplicated if the old one is demolished.

To conclude, we recognize the need for updated facilities for the Mass. Mental Health Center. We are convinced however, that a first -class renovation of the original structure to include preservation of the heart of the 1912 building - its lobby and rooms directly above- would be of greatest value to the MMHC in its mission to serve the individuals who sorely need its services. A commitment to preserve/rehab the existing original building would also assure the neighborhood of the absolute likelihood that MMHC would remain in our area.

And secondly, we respectfully request an extension of the RFP process, to consider further the acceptable possibilities for the site. The prospect of a greatly improved final project justifies such a request.

Yours truly,

Alison Pultinas and Lois Regestein
Friends of Historic Mission Hill

Cc: Ann Lattinville/MHC
City Councilor Michael Ross
State Representative Kevin Fitzgerald
Owen Donnelly/BRA
Ellen Lipsey/BLC
Betsy Shure Gross/ EOEA
Julia O'Brien/MDC
Margaret Dyson/ BP