Building with Sconset in Mind - Sconset Trust

Building with ’Sconset in Mind

Building with ’Sconset in Mind

Michael May • Edited by Cynthia Fraser Gallagher

Copyright

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form by any means, including digital, electronic or mechanical, photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without the written permission of the publisher, except where permitted by law.

Editorial and Production

Author: Michael May

Editor: Cynthia Fraser Gallagher

Design, photography, map design, and print production: Eileen Powers

Additional photography: Rob Benchley and Michael May

Historic architectural drawings: Library of Congress, Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), loc.gov

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps can be accessed at nha.org or loc.gov

’Sconset

Trust

Clement Durkes, president

Elizabeth Grubbs, executive director

Building with ’Sconset in Mind is published by the ’Sconset Trust and printed in the USA.

P. O. Box 821

Siasconset MA 02564

sconsettrust.org

Dedication and Acknowledgments

This volume is dedicated to all ’Sconset preservationists past, current, and future.

Special Thanks

The Judy Foundation for underwriting support

The ’Sconset Trust board of directors and members of the preservation committee for supporting this publication

Lynn Filipski and the ’Sconset Civic Association for endorsing this initiative in the 2021 ’Sconset Area Plan

The ’Sconset Advisory Board and the Historic District Commission

Mary Bergman and the Nantucket Preservation Trust

Nantucket Historical Association

We would also like to thank those who volunteered their time to advise and assist in the production aspects of the book:

Holly Backus

Rob Benchley

Clement Durkes

Caroline Ellis

Cynthia Fraser Gallagher

Jamie Holt

Angus McLeod

Brook Meerbergen

The tireless work of author and preservationist Michael May, editor Cynthia Fraser Gallagher, and graphic designer and photographer Eileen Powers of Javatime Design made this publication a reality. They have our deepest thanks for writing the next chapter in preserving ’Sconset and its incredible architectural legacy.

xi General Recommendations

1 Chapter 1 • Historic Core

1 History

3 Defining Featur es

9 Threats to ’Sconset’s Historic Core

11 Recommendations: Historic Core

41 Chapter 4 • Main Street

41 History

43 Defining Featur es

49 Threats to the Main Street Neighborhood

25 Recommendations: Main Street

53 Chapter 5 • New Street

53 History

56 Defining Featur es

49 Threats to the New Street Neighborhood

25 Recommendations: New Street

64

72

25

Introduction

’SCONSET’S unique architectural heritage has attracted people to the community for generations. As early as the late 18th century, travelers wrote about the village’s distinctive setting, dwellings, and way of life. Incredibly, ’Sconset’s 18thand 19th-century built environment has survived largely intact and, with sensitive growth, the special character that has charmed visitors and residents alike for centuries has been protected.

Although the village still retains a strong preservation ethic and love of history, change has been occurring at an accelerating pace, and ’Sconset’s preservation is not guaranteed. Like any community, the village continues to evolve and faces frequent threats to historic structures and neighborhood character. How it changes and how it protects its character are key. To assist in the process of safeguarding ’Sconset’s architectural integrity, The ’Sconset Trust prepared this study of the village’s neighborhoods and their defining architectural features to educate, encourage discussion, and champion not only preservation but change that is thoughtful and sensitive.

The island has a long history of preservation and preservation regulation. In 1955, the historic cores of ’Sconset and Nantucket town were the first in the Northeast to be designated local historic districts. Since then, the entire island has become a local historic district and a National Historic Landmark. Today, ’Sconset’s historic neighborhoods include not only 18th-century fish houses, but 19th- and early20th-century neighborhoods with a remarkable variety of architecturally significant structures. The diverse sections of the village complement each other, but each also has distinct characteristics that are important to protect and are often overlooked in the construction-planning process as well as in formal architectural review.

This study is designed to provide a road map for families and individuals contemplating changes to their properties and to assist architects, designers and others involved in the process of building additions and new structures in the village. In addition, the study should prove to be helpful to review agencies – and ideally serve as neighborhood guidelines

for the Historic District Commission and its ’Sconset Advisory Board to consider in their discussions and deliberations. Lastly, it is hoped the report will spark conversation among planners and community leaders and lead to refining zoning regulations where necessary to better protect ’Sconset’s distinct historic neighborhoods.

In 1999, the ’Sconset Trust published Saving ’Sconset, which outlined what villagers can do to protect this fragile place. In that publication, architectural features such as scale, site, design, and materials were cited as important characteristics to consider when undertaking a building project.

This new study is intended to build on these key characteristics for each of ’Sconset’s neighborhoods and to provide easy-tounderstand and useful guidance for property owners, the building community, and governmental bodies alike. As it should, the study also utilizes important preservation guidelines already in place, such as Building with Nantucket in Mind and the National Park Services’ standards, to assist in the identification of key character-defining elements.

North and south elevations of the The Helm on Pochick Avenue in Sunset Heights.

COURTESY OF ANGUS MCLEOD

The covers of Saving ’Sconset and Building with Nantucket in Mind.

General Recommendations

The best practice for reviewing additions, new construction, and other changes in any historic district is to establish and adhere to a series of carefully considered guidelines. Doing so helps to ensure that the aims of the historic district designation are achieved.

For the Nantucket Historic District Commission (HDC), Building With Nantucket in Mind (BWNIM) — first published in 1978 and updated in 1995 — has been an essential resource in this regard for many decades. But most of the discussion and guidance in BWNIM relates to the Old Historic District in Town, not the historic core of ’Sconset or its later neighborhoods, each of which has its own setting, history, and collection of historic structures.

Given the special character of the natural and built environment in ’Sconset, those considering building projects in the village, as well as their designers, the HDC and its ’Sconset Advisory Board, would benefit from a supplemental set of recommendations that apply specifically to ’Sconset and its individual neighborhoods.

About the recommendations

The recommendations in this report focus both on issues that have arisen with new construction and additions and on potential issues that may arise with continued development pressures. However, it is not meant to address each building element. Established practices by the HDC have

been tailored and refined for many years to do just that and to ensure appropriate and good design throughout the island.

Placement, scale, and design

A basic tenet of all standards, including those outlined here, is that the placement, scale, and design of new construction should relate to the surrounding district. Another guiding principle is that proposed new construction does not need to replicate the existing style of nearby historic structures, but it should be compatible. This compatibility is founded in key criteria including: the placement of a structure within the site; its massing, proportion, and scale; its materials; and its architectural characteristics (ornamentation and fenestration).

On the next page are general standards for ’Sconset that are sufficiently broad so that they can be adapted to any proposal in any village neighborhood. More detailed, neighborhood-specific standards are listed in the six neighborhood sections of this report.

General Recommendations

Construction of a new building:

• A new building in ’Sconset should sensitively reflect the character of the surrounding area through careful consideration of its location on the site as well as its scale and massing.

• New construction should always be in harmony with the old and at the same time may be distinguishable from the old so that the evolution of the district can be clearly interpreted. Distinguishable in this case may mean only a subtle difference.

• The scale of a new structure (its footprint size, height, size of window and door openings, decorative trim, and other architectural elements such as porches and bays) should be in keeping with its neighbors.

• The height of new construction should fall within the ranges seen for the streetscape. To preserve neighborhood character, height should be based on historic structures rather than newer, non-contributing buildings.

To assist in the design and review process, applications for new construction should include a streetscape elevation, ideally a line drawing. A streetscape elevation enables reviewers as well as the public to more easily determine a new building’s compatibly with its neighbors and to clearly identify potential problems.

Additions to a contributing building:

• An addition should be subordinate to — smaller in scale than — the historic or existing structure. Setbacks and lower rooflines can help appropriately distinguish new additions from the historic core of a structure.

• An addition to a historic building should preserve the building’s historic character by reflecting its massing, scale, and form. The historic building should not be significantly changed, nor should its defining elements be obscured by the addition.

• The original orientation of a historic building should not be altered by an addition. Only minimal changes, if any, should be made to the front or visible side elevations of a historic structure.

• An addition should be located where the least amount of historic material and character-defining features will be altered or lost — ideally to the rear or a secondary side. Locating an addition to the rear or to a secondary elevation will have less of a physical and visual impact on the historic building and neighborhood.

• An addition may have subtle differences from the historic structure as a way to distinguish it from the original. This could include simplifying details, changing materials, or modifying proportions on the new section.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Also Keep in Mind:

xxxxxxxx

• It is also critical when planning a new wing or building, as well as reviewing plans, that the project is not considered in isolation, but in collaboration with the surrounding historic context. Individual buildings within the historic district are important on their own, but as a collective group they form a neighborhood that provides a sense of place. Any new construction should fit into the vocabulary of the village and more specifically its neighborhood, streetscape, and adjoining structures. The character of neighborhoods can be eroded when plans are completed and approved without a close investigation of a building’s setting. How it will relate to the historic structures already there as well as its impact on its setting in general is critical to good design and ensuring the project is an asset to the community. In short, a building that might be ideal elsewhere on island can be out of place and inappropriate for the village if neighborhood characteristics are not evaluated and considered. One size does not fit all — close inspection and review are needed to ensure that the application is “building with ’Sconset in mind.”

For the Nantucket Historic District Commission (HDC), Building With Nantucket in Mind (BWNIM)

published in 1978 and updated in 1995

About the recommendations

The recommendations in this report focus

structures, moving is never an appropriate option unless the building is in jeopardy and relocation is required for its protection. In fact, elsewhere in the U.S., moving structures usually disqualifies a building and/or district from the National Register since it destroys the historic context and/or creates a fake historic setting. On island, moving buildings so they conform to zoning has been used as another reason to allow a move to happen. Doing so in a historic district can diminish the quirks that give the neighborhood and district its charm. Rearranging a historic district to conform to zoning is counterproductive and should be a red flag in the review process.

• The relocation of buildings has become commonplace on island. The reuse of building materials and the removal of structures from one site to another has occurred for centuries on Nantucket and especially in ’Sconset. However, in recent years this practice has been used for inappropriate reasons. All too often, the moving of buildings is proposed for on-site or elsewhere to accommodate new construction and/or make subdivision possible. For historic

• Zoning is an impor tant part of the planning progress, and historic district regulation should be seen as overlay of zoning that overrides a regulation when important characteristics of a streetscape or neighborhood may be compromised. It is important to remember that zoning is meant to provide an overall plan for an area, not to reconfigure existing structures. Many historic buildings were in place prior to the establishment of zoning regulations. Complying to zoning in such cases should not be required nor

ROB BENCHLEY

General Recommendations

should it be encouraged to further development plans. The quirks and evolution of historic buildings and neighborhoods may not comply with zoning but that doesn’t mean the features should be changed. Zoning needs to be adhered to whenever possible, but a new building design must first and foremost fit into its historic setting.

• Many old homes on Nantucket and in ’Sconset are restored properly, but wholesale reconstruction of historic buildings without the maintenance, repair, or reuse of historic materials has become widespread. Too often, contractors find it easier to “build entirely new” than to use historic materials and replace them only when they are shown to be rotten and not able to be repaired. In many cases, historic material is being lost with little or no review to determine if material could remain part of the building or be reused.

• Similarly, in many cases, regulations against demolition are bypassed by the practice of retaining one or two old walls only temporarily until new walls replace them to show the building has not been razed at one time. This practice is demolition, not restoration, and should be addressed to ensure that old buildings are retained. In the past, the HDC has often addressed wholesale demolition of historic elements such as windows by requiring window surveys to assess the potential for historic windows to be repaired rather than replaced. Demolition plans and detailed historic structure reports should be required for historic buildings.

• All too often, the planning for new construction is viewed only from the inside out — that is, the design of the interior dictates the design of the exterior. Although the review boards want to work with applicants and come to reasonable solutions, exterior design considerations should be primary in a historic district. For example, a kitchen window above the sink should not be allowed to be shorter if that compromises the exterior design. The exterior elevations in the public view — most importantly fenestration (windows and doors) — need to be appropriate to the building, the streetscape, and the neighborhood.

West elevation of the The Helm on Pochick Avenue in Sunset Heights. COURTESY

CHAPTER 1

Historic Core

BROADWAY, Center, Front, and Shell streets form the historic core of the village (Figure 1) and contain some of Nantucket’s earliest structures. It was from the beach just below here that whales were first hunted from shore and where fishing became an important island industry. As early as the last quarter of the 17th

century, temporary shelter was constructed for fishermen. These buildings, known as “fish houses,” were built on common land, but by 1772, 27 “shares” or lots perhaps noting the number of fish houses then extant were officially laid out by the Proprietors. In the late 18th century, the small village’s appeal broadened, and it also became a place of leisure, setting the stage for what would become one of the nation’s first resort communities.

The construction of fish houses rose during critical times in Nantucket’s history. Much of this development occurred as the wealth of the island rose with the expansion of the whaling industry in the second half of the 18th century. This era of growth peaked between the American Revolution and the War of 1812, when fish from ’Sconset became a vital part of the island’s food supply. As the village grew, fish houses were expanded to accommodate not only fishermen, but their families too. Over time, the simple fish house was improved with brick chimneys, wood floors, plastered walls, and new wings, known locally as “warts” (Figure 2).

In the 19th century, ’Sconset remained a place for Nantucketers to escape everyday life in Town. It was not until the late 1800s that the village became popular with off-islanders. The quaint old cottages

Figure 2: Auld Lang Syne at 6 Broadway with its wart at left.

COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, SC659-7.

Figure 1: Historic Core Map

appealed to the new summer visitors, who quickly bought them up. The village boomed and fish houses were further expanded and new buildings catering to the emerging tourist trade were constructed (Figure 3). One of the largest developments for summer visitors was White’s Hamlet (now Wade Cottages, 35 Shell Street) at the northern end of the village. The land for this cluster of buildings was purchased in 1882 by Henry White of Detroit, who hired Charles H. Robinson to build 13 cottages in the popular Gothic Revival style (Figure 4). Several stores for dry goods and provisions were soon constructed nearby.

At the southern end of the historic core, a commercial hub—centered around the rotary prospered at the turn of the century with the conversion of a house into the post office and a building known today as the ’Sconset Bookstore.

In the early 20th century, Philips Store (now demolished) became the old village’s largest structure, standing two stories tall with three storefronts (Figure 5). The 1920s saw the construction of the first market and gas station and the commercial area near the rotary expanded with the building of the Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (now Claudette’s) about 1930 (Figure 6).

Today, most of the commercial buildings scattered in the historic core have been replaced or converted into housing, but the commercial hub at the rotary remains, as do most of the early fish houses and the handful of cottages built for summer residents during the Victorian era.

top to bottom:

Figure 3: Looking south on Broadway, c. 1900. Expansion of the old fish houses was common in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, GPN 2461.

Figure 4: White’s Hamlet, now Wade Cottages, with thirteen Victorian Gothic Revival houses featuring gingerbread trim.

COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, P3007.

Defining Features

No other community in the United States has structures like the ’Sconset fish house. These rare survivors of the late 1600s/early 1700s are significant, irreplaceable landmarks. Their very gradual and sensitive evolution over more than 300 years has only added to their charm and helped to ensure their preservation. Today there are over a dozen fish houses in remarkably original condition and another twelve or more hidden behind later sections that now have taken on architecturally significance in their own right.

The ’Sconset fish house remains the predominant and most iconic house form in the historic core. These one-story shingled structures have L- and T-shaped plans and sit close to the ground with low gable roofs, plank windows, and plank doors. Their crooked rooflines, human-scale proportions, and huddled-together placement make them especially appealing to residents and visitors alike.

left to right:

Figure 5: Phillips Store, now demolished, was one of the largest village structures at the turn of the 20th century.

COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, A48-35-C.

Figure 6: The Post Office and commercial buildings at the rotary, c. 1940s

COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, SC660-5.

’Sconset Fish House (Figures

7, 8, 9, 10)

• One-story frame shingled structures

• Low, steep gable roofs, often in cedar shake

• Centralized chimneys of brick (sometimes parged—that is, covered with plaster)

• T- and L-shaped main blocks

• Lateral additions over time

• Small, shed-roof wings (warts)

• Variety of windows, from small fixed, six-over-six double-hung sash, plank windows on early structures

• Plank doors, opening out

• Later roof and wall trellises, window boxes

Figure 8: Planked windows were typical of the early fish houses. This example has four-over-four doublehung sashes.

Figure 7: Dexioma at 7 Broadway is one of a handful of quintessential fish houses. Typical of the form, it has a T-shaped plan core (right) and lateral additions (left), with a central chimney, warts, and simple trim.

Figure 10: San Souci at 26 Broadway, the first two-story cottage in the village, was moved to ’Sconset and added to with features typical of early fish houses. Note the restored chimney and plank doors.

Figure 9: Lateral wings were added to fish houses. At the Corners, 8 Center Street, the flounder wing or half gable pictured here is an early 19th century addition.

A handful of other structures with late 19th century features also are found in the historic core. These include fish houses that were altered with additions as well as newer buildings with hints of Victorian-era Queen Anne or Shingle style elements (Figures 11, 12). Overall, these later cottages tend to be simple and utilitarian in design. However, all are products of their time rather than reproductions of the early fish houses. They are often embellished with sawn decorative elements and other typical Victorian features.

top to bottom:

Figure 11: The Hope Chest at 25 Broadway employs elements typical of late 19th century structures on its 1880s addition, such as exposed rafters, shaped shingles, and sawn and applied elements.

Figure 12: House of Lords at 11 Broadway is a fish house that was expanded in the late 19th century and today is significant for both its early history and later architectural changes.

Victorian Cottage (Figures 13, 14)

• Two-story, steep gable-roof structures

• Rectangular main blocks, rear wings

• Shingled exteriors, some with patterned shingles in peaks or other areas

• Deep eaves

• Porches

• Decorative details such as shaped rafters, turned posts

• Larger two-over-two windows, decorative stained-glass lights

top and right:

Figure 13: Deep eaves are a common feature of Victorian architecture on island. Also note the simple corner board trim

Figure 14: Steep gable roofs, an open porch and a Queen Anne style door are features found on many Victorian houses.

Landscape Features

(Figures 15, 16, 17, 18)

Much of the appeal of the village’s historic core is tied to its small scale, quirkiness and simple charm: the grassy passageways between cottages; the simple window boxes; the evident, almost organic connection between the buildings and their gardens. For much of ’Sconset’s history, the landscape in the historic core was minimal, with few trees and flowering plants, and characterized mostly by simple sand paths and native grasses. By the mid-1800s, low picket fences marked some property lines and by the late 19th century it had become common for small gardens to be found near cottage doors. It was not until the early 1900s, however, that gardens began to be found in large numbers and trellises and climbing roses became associated with ’Sconset.

• Low picket fences and low hedges

• Garden plots in front yards, trellises with climbing roses

• Narrow grass pathways between cottages

• Shelled paths

• Very few driveways, minimal hard surfaces, including the use of cobbles and brick

top to bottom:

Figure 15: Grassy paths and low painted picket fences are among the important landscape features of the historic core

Figure 16: Small sheds and the use of cobble and brick are found in yards in the historic core.

Threats to ’Sconset’s Historic Core

The historic core is largely built out, with very few spaces for expansion or new construction. However, the village’s density and human scale and the degree to which its structures are visible to the public from almost every angle means that even small alterations or additions to existing structures can threaten the core’s integrity.

Many of the threats to ’Sconset’s historic core are tied to the desire by homeowners to create additional indoor space and to provide 21st century conveniences. For example, a number of houses have been lifted to allow for the construction of new foundations and/or concrete-walled basements. This can pose several risks, both to the historic fabric of the existing structure and to the historic integrity of the building and its neighborhood.

Lifting can compromise a building’s historic timber frame and sometimes can create structural issues that might not be immediately apparent. Lifting also can damage or result in the elimination of original masonry elements or negatively impact neighboring structures and infrastructure. Due to the concentration of buildings in the historic core, pre-drilling therefore is preferable to driving/pounding when excavation of basements must be completed. Unfortunately, lifting all too often involves placing the building on a new foundation that is higher than the original, forever changing the streetscape of low-to-theground cottages and creating new basement openings such as windows and doorways.

Besides lifting structures, other more traditional ways to provide additional space have raised concern in recent years, include changing rooflines and adding dormers. Raising rooflines and the height of historic sections of a house, especially rare and nationally important structures, is always inappropriate.

top to bottom:

Figure 17: Roofs covered with roses have become an important landscape feature in the neighborhood.

Figure 18: Lattice is a common feature on cottage roofs and walls throughout the village.

What may seem like a small change to a structure can create a dangerous precedent. For example, the installation of air-handling equipment has become more common in recent years. Inappropriate placement of this equipment in public ways or other publicly visible locations can mar the quaint appearance of a historic house and of the core area itself. The impact to the historic district becomes exacerbated when neighbors also add these features. The desire to make “improvements” is understandable, but not always appropriate in a neighborhood that is so visible, so closely situated, and so highly regarded for its originality. Although adding these elements to the exterior may be the easiest way, it is not always the only solution (Figure 19)

Zoning allowances can also have a potential negative effect on the historic core. The neighborhood is zoned SOH (’Sconset Old Historic), which allows for buildings as high as 30 feet. Although there were a handful of two-story buildings constructed in the village in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, most structures and all the original fish houses are much lower, in some cases less than 15 feet high to their ridge lines. Likewise, zoning setbacks, especially the zero front yard requirement, is potentially an issue if the placement of a new building or an addition does not take the core area’s building patterns into account.

Due to the density of the historic core, any green space is cherished, but it is also threatened. Today, the landscape is slowly changing, and more green space is being lost to additions, mechanical equipment, new and expanded patios, basement stairs, trash-can enclosures, and sheds. Likewise, creating driveways threatens to eat up more green space and alter the historic appearance that so many cherish.

Landscaping itself can also have a negative effect. The desire for privacy has spurred the planting of more hedges, which if allowed to grow unchecked can create more insular spaces, blocking off public views of the historic houses and the interrelationship of the gardens and buildings.

Figure 19: Screening air handlers and other mechanical equipment is essential to minimize their visibility from public ways.

Recommendations: Historic Core

The rarity of the ’Sconset fish house makes it critically important that any proposed change to a building in the historic core be carefully studied and reviewed in relationship to the surrounding neighborhood. Stewardship of fish houses should be considered first and foremost.

Small additions and even new buildings can be thoughtfully designed, but any proposal for these should ensure that their siting, scale, and massing are highly sensitive to nearby structures and the historic core generally. Even minor changes should be carefully reviewed prior to approval, especially those that would establish any precedent that, if repeated, could have a larger impact on the character of the neighborhood.

All too often there is a tendency among reviewers to try to accommodate the wishes of an applicant so building goals can be achieved. Unfortunately, compromise usually results in serious consequences for historic buildings. It is important to remember that maintaining the integrity of ’Sconset’s historic core should remain the primary consideration. Denying an application sometimes can be the right thing to do. Although this might seem extreme, protection of the rare, nationally significant fish houses should be paramount.

Building with Nantucket in Mind states that in ’Sconset and other settlements outside of Town “the primary goal for new construction is to harmonize with the existing building pattern and character.” Regarding the village’s historic core specifically, the manual notes: “the key criterion of relatedness is the intimate scale of human dimension marked by the width of lanes and crosswalks, cornice heights (some lower than a human figure), size of house masses, etc. Most roofs are an accumulation of varied pitches. The edges of the lanes are clearly defined by the close rhythm of the buildings and the space between them. Details at this close scale are critical as are the extra niceties of rose trellises, little fences, window boxes, etc. Informality and understatement are paramount qualities. As a policy, no new construction should be allowed to obliterate or overwhelm an original historic structure. Additions to old buildings may be made in careful supplementary fashion.”

Recommendations: Historic Core

To build on these guidelines, it is recommended that the following standards be adhered to:

• Special attention should be paid to any proposed new residential structures, additions, and demolitions. A review of the surrounding parcels should be completed when a proposal exceeds the height of adjacent historic structures or any building along the broader streetscape.

• It is critical that the application/building should not be presented as an isolated object, but as part of an established context.

A streetscape elevation plan showing the relationship of the new building or addition to its neighbors should be required to assist the ’Sconset Advisory Board and HDC in the review process. Doing so will provide for clearer, more consistent reviews based on the relationship of buildings to one another (Figure 20).

• New buildings should never be taller than existing structures on either side of the proposed project or taller than any building along the broader streetscape.

• The front yard setback of neighboring structures should be maintained to preserve the existing “street wall.” No new construction should be closer to the front property line than buildings on either side of it.

• New buildings or additions should be very modest in design and scale, with simple roof lines that fully reflect the historic built environment. For additions, one-story wings that reflect the scale and massing of early fish houses should be encouraged.

• Any additions should be subordinate (lower and smaller in massing) to the historic section of the house.

• The lifting of structures in the historic core should be strongly discouraged because of the negative impact the practice can have on the building and neighboring properties. If a basement is necessary, the best practice is to create it in a non-historic section of a house and/or to do so without lifting (hand/machine digging). Ideally, any basements that are allowed should be created to provide room for mechanical systems, not additional living space.

Figure 20: Streetscape view of 12 Shell Street showing its relationship to adjoining houses. 12 SHELL STREET, COURTESY OF MEERBERGEN DESIGNS

• Exterior mechanicals should be placed in the most inconspicuous location possible. If they would be visible from the public way the condenser should be screened and air ducts and other equipment should be installed on the interior rather than left exposed or wrapped in shingle. Mechanicals should be screened by fencing and/or landscaping (Figure 21).

• Additions involving new dormers should be carefully reviewed. Rooflines of historic sections of buildings should not be altered to accommodate dormers. As a rule, new dormers should not be allowed on fish house main-block roofs (Figure 22)

• Chimneys should be maintained and restored, ideally with traditional building methods (appropriate lime mortar).

• Later historic changes made to an early fish house should be maintained whenever possible to show the slow evolution of the building over time.

• Fences, if proposed, should be simple, with examples being those with pickets (type 1 & 2). Only low fences appropriate to the scale of the fish houses should be installed.

• For any proposed hardscaping, the use of shell, brick, or cobble should be encouraged, and non-historic materials should be discouraged. Simplicity and scale are key. Hardscaping should be clearly compatible and appropriate to the scale of the building. Maintain gardens and open green areas.

• Hedges can provide privacy in rear yards, but they should not overwhelm or fully obscure historic structures from passersby.

Figure 21: Trash bins, propane tanks, and electric meters can be sensitively screened.

Figure 22: Shed dormers are the most appropriate dormer type for the historic core. The pitch of the main roofline should not be changed to accommodate the dormer.

CHAPTER 2

Codfish Park

CHARACTERIZED by small, low-scale cottages that have evolved over time with “make-do” additions, Codfish Park is one of ’Sconset’s special places.

For much of the 19th century, there was only a narrow beach below the bank. In the 1830s and 1840s, storms caused part of the bluff to collapse and several structures along Front Street tumbled into the sea; others were rescued and moved to new locations in the village. It was not until

Figure 23: Codfish Park from the North Bluff, c. 1880s. Note the sheds and rectangular form of the first structures. COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, F3259.

Figure 24: Codfish Park map

into bath houses to provide daytime shelter and a place to change clothes. New bath houses were built in the same fashion. These bath houses were clustered along Beach Street, ’Sconset’s main thoroughfare to the ocean. A boardwalk from Middle Gully was built to make access from the village to the beach easier (Figure 26).

Unfortunately, there are few records to reveal the builders, occupants, or dates of construction of the early Codfish Park structures. The narrow beach below the bank belonged to Henry Coffin, who in 1886 deeded it to the Proprietors of Nantucket. Coffin stipulated that “no building or other obstruction of any kind be erected or maintained on the premises, except bath houses, to be used as such.”

the 1880s that enough sand had accumulated below the bank for the development of Codfish Park to begin in earnest (Figure 24) Consequently, many of the now-historic cottages in the low-lying neighborhood were built over a 40-year span that extended to the 1920s (Figure 23).

The first structures were fishermen’s storage sheds used to store the dories used for fishing and the wooden flakes used to dry codfish. These sheds, also called fish houses like the earlier structures above-bank, were often built of scrap lumber, and were first found along the bottom edge of the bluff to provide protection from the sea.

In 1884, the railroad line from Town to Surfside was extended to ’Sconset and a depot was built just to the south of Gully Road. That spurred development throughout the village, including in the area that would become Codfish Park (Figure 25). With the influx of summer tourists, a few fish houses there were remodeled

Figure 25: Codfish Park from the North Bluff, c. 1890s. A dramatic increase in building activity to convert the sheds into residential structures occurred in a relatively short time. COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, P10199

Figure 26: Boardwalk at Beach Street, c. 1885. COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, P5477.

The Harry Platt Map of ’Sconset, published in 1888, shows that there were a few dozen small buildings in Codfish Park by the end of that decade (Figure 27). These structures are more clearly identified on the 1898 Sanborn Insurance Map of the village, where they are labeled one-story frame fish and bath houses, as Coffin noted in his deed. However, the Sanborn Insurance Map of 1904 indicates that one of the fish houses had been converted for a residence (it is labeled with a “D” for dwelling; Figure 28).

Five years later, the 1909 map shows there were at least seven dwellings in Codfish Park. And by 1923 most structures—new and existing were being used for residential purposes.

These early Codfish Park structures were simple, rectangularshaped sheds constructed of wood with shingled exteriors and topped with steep gable roofs. They were easily moved about and in some cases were attached to another shed to increase a new dwelling’s size. New cottages were also built in a similar utilitarian manner, possibly due to the fact the beach was squatter’s land and clear title for the properties would be hard to come by. In 1912, George Sheffield Davis of Broadway was noted as “adding to the architecture of the park with the construction of a hipped roof igloo,” perhaps the first in a vernacular bungalow style.

In the early 1900s, the former fish and bath houses became ideal, inexpensive summer homes for ’Sconset’s growing ranks of domestic servants and others working in the service industry for the community’s tourist trade. Codfish Park inhabitants were ethnically diverse, with structures there housing African Americans as well as newly arrived immigrants from the Azores, Ireland, and other distant lands.

The first reference to “Codfish Park” is found in the Inquirer and Mirror in 1908, when the area was described as developing quickly

Figure 27: The Harry Platt Map of ’Sconset, 1888 COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.

with “at least twelve families quartered there.” Early cottage owners referenced in the newspaper from 1908 through the early 1910s included Edward Swain, Antone Swasey, Charles C. Taber, John Thomas, Manuel Thomas, Weston Esau, Henry Holmes, Larry Welch, Jesse Eldredge, and Chris Williams. Unofficial street names in Codfish Park included: Boardwalk Avenue, Breeches Terrace, Brinton Road, Cement Promenade, Chitterling Road, Eel Avenue, Fin Street, Hampton Road, Quahaug Lane, Scales Street, Shadow Street, and Skate Street.

Development of Codfish Park continued after World War II with the construction of bungalows and other small-scale cottages. Maps and histories reveal that there were a few businesses in the area such as a fish store, Ma Ayer’s candy store, and a laundry near Gully Road. Codfish Park eventually expanded to include several rows of houses on the ocean side of today’s Codfish Park Road; these were later moved or washed away by storms, most recently in the 1990s.

Figure 28: Detail of the Sanborn Insurance Map showing Codfish Park, 1904.

COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.

Defining Features

Codfish Park’s historic buildings fall into one of two main architectural styles: the Codfish Park Fish House and the Vernacular Bungalow.

Figure 29: A typical Codfish Park Fish House along Bank Street. Note the old section at right and the appropriate subordinate extension to the left. The gable roof was changed at some point to enlarge the old fish house. A simple unpainted fence protects the garden.

Figure 30: Single-leaf doors with lights prevail in Codfish Park in both the fish house and bungalow.

left to right:

31: The Codfish Park Fish House has a variety of window types. Small, fixed windows are found on many early structures and wings.

32: Double-hung sash windows are the most common window type in Codfish Park.

Curiously, the Codfish Park Fish House is in many ways a late 19th century redesign of the early 18th and 19th century fish houses on the bank. Like the earlier fish houses, the ones built between the 1880s and 1920s were built as temporary and seasonal structures and were utilitarian in nature. The form was found elsewhere on Nantucket and in fact there are several structures built in the village above Codfish Park that are similar in scale, massing, and design. These were first constructed as sheds, shops, and other commercial structures (e.g., The Gift at 2 Elbow Lane, and the front section of La Petite Cottage at 28 Shell Street), all with one- or two-room plans. Many were later remodeled and/or expanded into housing.

Over the years, the Codfish Park Fish Houses were often pierced by doorways and windows, augmented with chimneys, and expanded with the addition of more rooms. The defining exterior features of the Codfish Park Fish House include:

• Low one-story steep gable roofs, many only about 15 feet high.

• Narrow rectangular footprints or plans, often with the gable end facing forward (note that early fish houses along Bank Street are the exception and have side facing gable ends and longer front elevations)

• Shingled exterior walls

• Simple flat-board rakes, corner board moldings, and window and door trim

• A variety of window types, but most often six-over-six and twoover-two double-hung sash and multi-paned fixed sash

• Doors originally in the gable end. Many doors were board and batten and pierced by small windows.

• Early additions tend to have similar narrow, rectangular footprints and additive massing

Codfish Park Fish House (Figures 29, 30, 31, 32)

Figure

Figure

Vernacular Bungalow (Figures 33, 34)

The Bungalow style was popular throughout the country in the first decades of the 20th century. Pattern books and builders’ guides provided plans for local builders to assist them in the construction of dwellings for summer use. These structures are vernacular in the simplest manner and can be found in other early 20th century developments on the island. The Codfish Park Vernacular Bungalows have low pitched gable or hip roofs, and overhangs, often with exposed rafters. They have a squarer plan than a fish house and broader elevations that give them a horizontal feel. Like other structures, however, they incorporated local building preferences, including the use of shingled walls. They also tend to be devoid of decorative features. The defining features of the Vernacular Bungalow include:

• One- or one-and-a half-story with low-pitched gable or hip roofs

• Squarer plans/footprints

• Deep eaves sometimes with exposed roof rafters

• Shingled walls

• Porches incorporated into the roof or on front or side elevations, many of them later enclosed

• Simple flat-board rake, and door and window trim

• Two-over-two and six-over-one windows predominant

• Windowed doors

• Dormers, often with a gable or shed roof

top to bottom

Figure 34: Two-over-two and two-over-one windows were common in the bungalows built in the early 20th century. Note the simple exposed rafters above.

Figure 33: This typical Codfish Park Bungalow has all the elements of the style, including a square plan, a variety of window types, a porch incorporated within the roof, and a single-leaf doorway with upper windows panes.

Landscape Character Defining Elements (Figures

35, 36, 37)

For the most part, Codfish Park’s landscape features are as simple as the historic dwellings. Small gardens and minimal landscaping are found on most lots. Other defining features include:

• Small outbuildings, sheds with gable or shed roofs

• Fences (low pickets or two split rails), unpainted

• Low native vegetation, low hedges, gardens

• “Nantucket driveways” of grass or grass with crushedshell strips

Figure 35: Small outbuildings, reminiscent of the early fish shed, are found throughout Codfish Park.

Figure 36: Simple fences and gates are appropriate in the neighborhood.

Figure 37: Shelled driveways are widespread in Codfish Park.

Threats to Codfish Park’s Neighborhood Character

Today, the primary threats to Codfish Park’s character are new houses and additions that are larger and taller than the predominant small-scale historic structures in the neighborhood. Preserving defining architectural features and ensuring that any new dwellings or expansions are sensitive to the area’s historic scale and simplicity are key to protecting Codfish Park’s special nature.

With rising property values and the trend toward luxury short-term rentals, there has been pressure throughout Nantucket to maximize the size of buildings and add as many amenities as possible. Codfish Park is particularly vulnerable to this pressure due to the modest scale and simple decoration of its historic buildings, and perhaps due to the perception that the neighborhood offers better value than other parts of ’Sconset, as well as ocean views and easy access to the beach.

It is important to remember that although the buildings in Codfish Park are not as old as many of those in the heart of the historic village above-bank or as grand as those in other parts of ’Sconset, they reflect a significant part of history. They contribute to ’Sconset’s unique sense of place and are worth protecting.

Well-intentioned regulations have exacerbated integrity issues. The current SOH zoning in Codfish Park allows for much larger structures than those historically associated with the neighborhood, including buildings as tall as 30 feet. Although the height of new buildings to date has remained below the zoning allowance, these newer structures have begun to dominate and overpower the streetscape (Figure 38).

In recent decisions, the HDC has tried to rectify the problem, and, after initial review, applicants have often reduced the height of proposed buildings. However, even these new dwellings (between 22 and 23 feet) overwhelm the scale and massing of the historic cottages and negatively impact the historic character of Codfish Park. Establishing a new guideline for a building height has been suggested, including a height cap of 24 feet as proposed in the ’Sconset Area Plan (June 2021). Although reducing the height restriction is admirable, recent construction suggests that setting a rule on building height will only help protect the neighborhood if it reflects the height of nearby structures.

Figure 38: The new house, center, is higher and closer to the road than other structures on the block.

Other zoning regulations such as minimum lot sizes of 5,000 square feet and allowable lot coverage of 50% also can pose threats to the neighborhood. The lot size and coverage often make adding height an enticing option for creating more space. Similarly, the lack of a minimum front setback and side-yard setbacks of only five feet in the SOH can create integrity issues when applied to new construction unless the established patterns along the streetscape are maintained.

Historic district regulations are intended to address these potential issues to ensure appropriate design that is sensitive to a neighborhood. All too often, however, a new building is reviewed in a vacuum without considering the attributes of its neighbors and historic buildings. In Codfish Park there are now a number of structures that are significantly out of scale with their neighbors. Without strict review and following guidelines, some applicants to the HDC will argue that their taller buildings should be allowed because others have been in the recent past. This use of precedent has resulted in new buildings that reflect the height, massing, and details of newer structures rather than the historic buildings in the area or other conforming structures along the streetscape.

Building height is the primary issue, but other threats also can be detrimental to the character of Codfish Park. For example, inappropriate additions visible from public right of ways such as balconies and large decks have no historic precedent in the neighborhood. Likewise, the practice of saving only a small section of a historic structure and overwhelming it with a large addition has recently occurred. This practice, known as facadism, was employed in the late 20th century by developers in many cities and towns but, in retrospect, has been found to be inappropriate in a historic district (Figure 39).

Figure 39: Today, facadism (the practice of saving a front of a building and constructing a new building behind it) is considered to be inappropriate.

Related to the height issue is the overall visual impact of new, outsized construction on the larger historic district. Codfish Park’s unique location nestled just below the older historic village has made it a special enclave. Views into Codfish Park and over the neighborhood to the sea beyond are critically important to the historic character of ’Sconset. The siting of a structure and its height and massing can impact centuries-old scenic viewsheds from Front Street, the start of the Bluff Walk, and the narrow byways within the historic village above-bank.

Although protecting an individual’s views is not a mandate of local preservation control, preserving the character of the larger neighborhood by promoting the public benefit is the foundation for creating a historic district and perhaps the most important part of historic district regulation. Maintaining the small-scale character and historic integrity of Codfish Park would not only benefit those who live there but ’Sconset and the island community as a whole.

Finally, it should be noted that despite the handful of oversized structures that have been built in Codfish Park over the past several years, the neighborhood still retains its overall character. Today, the overwhelming majority of the 38 or so dwellings are not overly tall most are one or one-and-a-half stories high, with one-story structures still predominating. Only one contributing building is classified as a full two-story structure.

Figure 40: Preserving defining features and keeping changes simple are key to protecting Codfish Park’s special character.

Recommendations: Codfish Park

Requiring that new construction relate to surrounding buildings in its siting, scale, and massing is a basic tenet of historic district regulation and a common guideline for all preservation review agencies.

Encouraging applicants and review agencies to adhere to this basic preservation principle should help to ensure that Codfish Park’s historic integrity remains intact.

Building with Nantucket in Mind, the official design guidelines manual for applications to the HDC, states that in ’Sconset and other settlements outside of Town, “the primary goal for new construction is to harmonize with the existing building pattern and character.” Regarding ’Sconset specifically, the manual identifies these important criteria:

• New construction in Codfish Park “should fit the predominant scale of these structures (the fish houses and bungalows) and reflect their simplicity and honesty of form and detail.” (Figure 41)

• “The application/building should not be presented as an isolated object, but as par t of an established context.”

• “To be appropriate, the new construction must instill a sense of relatedness to the surrounding buildings, siting, scale, and massing.”

• Retain small outbuildings (Figure 43)

Figure 41: New construction can fit into the architectural context of Codfish Park. This one-story house incorporates elements of the typical Codfish Park Bungalow.

Recommendations: Codfish Park

To supplement these guidelines, it is recommended that the following standards be followed:

• Special attention should be paid to proposed new residential structures, additions, and demolitions in Codfish Park. A review of the surrounding parcels should be completed when a proposal exceeds the height of adjacent historic structures or any building along the streetscape.

• A streetscape elevation plan showing the relationship of the new building to its neighbors should be required to assist the ’Sconset Advisory Board and HDC in the review process and provide for clearer, more consistent reviews based on the relationship of buildings to one another.

• New buildings should not be taller than existing structures on either side of the proposed project or taller than any building along the broader streetscape.

• The front yard setback of neighboring structures should be maintained to preserve the existing “street wall.” No new construction should be closer to the front property line than buildings on either side of it.

• New buildings or additions should be modest in design and scale, with simple roof lines that reflect the historic built environment. One-story additions that reflect the scale and massing of early fish houses and bungalows should be encouraged.

• Any additions should be subordinate to the historic section of the house. Rear additions should be encouraged, but they too should be subordinate.

• Additions involving new dormers to existing structures should be carefully reviewed. Ideally, dormers should be only added in areas where they will be less visible. Single shed and gable-roof dormers are the simplest and therefore the most appropriate for Codfish Park. Rooflines of historic buildings should not be altered to accommodate dormers.

Figure 42: New building setbacks should conform with the front yard setbacks of neighborhood structures.

• Balconies, roof walks, and cupolas are generally inappropriate additions and should be discouraged, unless historic documentation of these items is found.

• If proposed, any deck should be low to the ground and located only in the rear yard, out of public view.

• If proposed, fences should be simple, with examples being those with two split rails or pickets (type 1 & 2), ideally unpainted. (Figure 44, 45)

• For any proposed hardscaping, the use of shell, brick, or cobble should be encouraged and non-historic materials such as Belgian block should be discouraged.

Other creative ways to help maintain the character of Codfish Park should be explored. Although often controversial, the construction of basement living areas to maintain the small-scale nature/ character of the neighborhood may be favored over increasing the height of a structure. However, adding a basement should not increase the overall height of a building and may raise other concerns such as flooding/climate-change issues in vulnerable areas, and potential damage to neighboring structures.

top to bottom:

Figure 43: Sheds are an important part of the Codfish Park landscape.

Figure 44: Simple gates, often with a more modern take on traditional design, are appropriate.

Figure 45: The split rail fence is an appropriate and common fence type in Codfish Park.

CHAPTER 3

Sunset Heights

IN 1871, island builder Charles H. Robinson and his early business partner, Dr. Franklin A. Ellis, purchased two sheep common parcels just south of the village and subdivided the land for development as a seaside resort that they named Sunset Heights (Figure 46). A survey of the land shows two main roadways: Ocean Avenue, the main boulevard and eastern boundary, and Atlantic Avenue, now Morey Lane, forming the southern boundary. Twenty lots lined Ocean Avenue and 67 lots were found along interior lanes identified as Cottage, Grand, Magnolia, Carew, Hawthorne, Linden, Laurel and Cypress avenues (Figure 47). Robinson and Ellis began advertising lots for sale and Robinson started building cottages for the new owners or as rental cottages for summer visitors.

Robinson was not new to the construction field; he came from a family of house carpenters and was responsible for the construction of numerous Victorian-era structures elsewhere on Nantucket. Robinson soon became the island’s premier builder and continued his work into the early 1900s. Among his ’Sconset buildings were dozens of dwellings in the Sunset Heights neighborhood, 13 structures at White’s Hamlet (now

Figure 46: Sunset Heights Map

Wade Cottages), as well as the ’Sconset Chapel. Robinson’s first structures were designed in the Gothic Revival style, featuring steep gable roofs with deep eaves and pointed-arch windows. However, he employed a variety of styles over the years, including popular modes of the day such as the French Second Empire, Italianate, and Queen Anne. In addition, he and his partner constructed a footbridge over the gully to connect the development to the old village and anchored Sunset Heights with a hotel called the Ocean View House near the foot of Main Street. Ocean View House quickly became a popular hotel for summer tourists and an important meeting place for the island community. Robinson expanded it over the years and the hotel operated into the early 20th century.

Robinson and Ellis’ success may have spurred Edward F. Underhill, a New York City reporter (and early supporter of women’s rights), to purchase land adjoining Sunset Heights in 1879. Underhill laid out Pochick Street through the center of his land and began the construction of small cottages. Unlike the larger Victorian dwellings built by Robinson, Underhill’s cottages mimicked ’Sconset’s old fish houses. In 1882, he purchased additional land and laid out Lily and Evelyn streets, eventually building a total of 17 rental cottages. The Underhill cottages attracted off-islanders, largely New Yorkers, including members of the Broadway theatre community. The large concentration of actors who summered at Underhill’s complex and elsewhere in the village eventually led to ’Sconset’s nickname as the Actors’ Colony (Figure 48).

In 1885, the year after the Nantucket Railroad was extended to ’Sconset, Isaac Hills purchased land from Robinson abutting the land of Underhill. This property, along Magnolia Avenue,

Figure 47: Robinson and Ellis’s Plan of Sunset Heights. COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORIC ASSOCIATION. MS1000-5-3-10.

Figure 48: An Underhill cottage, c. 1890s. COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORIC ASSOCIATION. GPN1641.

already held two of Robinson’s houses and Hills contracted with him to build additional cottages. Hills’ complex was dubbed the ’Sconset Cottage Club, and included Rudder Grange, 21 Ocean Avenue at the corner of Magnolia Avenue, that served as the club’s headquarters and dining hall (Figure 49).

Other buildings were constructed in the neighborhood in the early 1900s, including Beach House (Figure 50), a large hotel along Ocean Avenue. Once the largest hotel in ’Sconset, Beach House was built in 1900 – 01 by Robinson for H. G. Brinton, who previously managed Main Street’s Atlantic House (27 Main Street). Beach House was three stories high and designed in the Shingle Style. It stood until 1957.

Building with ’Sconset in

Figure 49: Rudder Grange, c. 1911. COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORIC ASSOCIATION. SC147-541.

Figure 50: Beach House Hotel, c. 1910s.

COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORIC ASSOCIATION. SC612-19.

Besides the inns and hotels, the neighborhood held some of ’Sconset’s most elaborate architect-designed cottages, such as Aloha, a Hawaiian-style house built in 1903 (7 Morey Lane) and a Shingle/Colonial Revival cottage called Wide-a-Wake built in 1904 (23 Morey Lane) (Figure 52). In 1919, the Ocean View House Annex was demolished to make way for a summer home for industrialist Harry Burrage and his actress wife Mabel Davis. Now known as One Ocean Avenue, it was designed in the English Tudor style.

Today, Sunset Heights retains a significant portion of its diverse and distinct 19th and early 20th century summer cottages, even though its large anchor hotels Ocean View House and the Beach House are now gone.

Soon after the close of the old Atlantic House on Main Street in 1909, a new Atlantic House was constructed along Ocean Avenue; it was then renamed the Old ’Sconset Inn and later known as the Moby Dick (now Summer House). The complex, which included the old railroad station below the bank (destroyed by fire in 1956), was expanded in 1946 with the addition of seven cottages described at the time as a “miniature ’Sconset village” located between Ocean, Cottage and Grand avenues (Figure 51). With the demolition of the Beach House in 1957, materials were used for construction of additional “miniature cottages” around Moby Dick’s main building. Properties held by Robinson and Hills as well as some of the Moby Dick cottages were eventually sold off as single-family homes.

Figure 51: In 1946–47, the Old ’Sconset Inn expanded with the addition of seven cottages. The Moby Dick News, published by Old ’Sconset Inn, June 21, 1947.

COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET ATHENEUM DIGITAL NEWSPAPER COLLECTION.

Figure 52: Group portrait at Aloha, 7 Morey Lane, c. 1900.

COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORIC ASSOCIATION. PH56-10-11.

Defining Features

Most buildings in Sunset Heights were constructed in the last quarter of the 19th century and the early years of the 20th century. The earliest buildings had simple rectangular or T-shaped plans and were decorated with Gothic Revival pointed-arched windows and elaborate vergeboard detailing along their rooflines and porches (Figure 53). Beginning in the 1880s, dwellings in a variety of other modes were built, including those with Italianate, Second Empire, Queen Anne, Shingle, Colonial Revival, and even Prairie-style features (Figures 54, 55). Although the details may vary, these dwellings are generally similar in size and are found on larger lots with front, side, and rear yards.

Perhaps the most prolific house form in Sunset Heights is the reproduction fish house built in the 1880s by Underhill. The form was also copied in the mid-20th century as part of the Moby Dick complex. These small cottages often have L-shaped plans typical of the earlier fish houses, and side and rear wings. The Underhill cottages are found on slightly larger lots than those of the original fish houses in the heart of the village or the later reproduction fish houses along Cottage Avenue and at Summer House (Figure 56).

Figure 53: The earliest buildings in Sunset Heights were designed in the Gothic Revival style with pointed-arch windows and doors.

clockwise from top left:

Figure 54: A Queen Anne style house.

Figure 55: An example of Prairie style.

Figure 56: Fo’Castle is one of the reproduction fish houses built in the 1880s by Edward F. Underhill. Note the “warts” or extended roofs along the front that mock those in the historic core.

Victorian Dwellings with Queen Anne, Italianate, Shingle, Colonial Revival

(Figures 57, 58, 59, 60, 61)

• Two- and 2½-story frame houses, often with irregular plans

• Gable roofs prevail but gambrel and hip roofs can also be found

• Shingled exteriors, often with painted corner boards, raking; some Queen Anne structures have patterned shingles and sections of clapboard siding as well as other decorative features such as roof pinnacle, and shaped rafter ends

• Variety of window types, including six-over-six, two-over-two single and paired, bay windows, and fixed windows with multi-colored glass

• Front porches, enclosed porches, turned posts, vergeboard originally but often removed

• Variety of door types, some with glass, often with transoms

top left:

Figure 57: Large 2½-story cottages grace many Sunset Heights properties, including The Sheiling along Ocean Avenue, constructed in the Colonial Revival style with a gambrel roof and fanlight in its upper floor.

above:

Figure 58: Patterned shingles, exposed rafters, and pendants crowning the roof at Wild Goose on Magnolia Avenue.

above & top right:

Figure 59: Diamond-paned windows and doors were employed in many ’Sconset houses built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Figure 60: An example of a diamond-paned window.

Fish House Revival (Figure 62)

• Mostly one-story cottages, some with small second-floor sections

• Gable roofs

• Shed-roof wings (warts) and other sections such as Flounder wings (half gables)

• Shingled exteriors

• Simple corner board, raking, door and window trim

• Six-over-six windows, multi-paned windows, fixed Queen Anne style lights

• Front porches

Figure 61: Porches were a common feature of Victorian architecture. The open porch at Davy Jones’s Locker has a shingled balustrade with Doric columns.

Figure 62: Flounder wings or half gables were used on several Underhill cottages. Porches graced many original Underhill cottages and have been added to others over the years.

Landscape Features

(Figures 63, 64)

Sunset Heights properties have defined front, side and rear yards typical of 19th century suburban-type developments.

• Hedges and low front fences

• Tree-lined and shelled lanes

• Gardens, trellises with roses, hydrangea

• Grass lawns

• Shelled driveways

• Small sheds in rear and side yards

top and bottom:

Figure 63: Low hedges and fences as wells as front gardens and roofs covered with trellises for roses are defining landscape features for the Underhill cottages and many other properties in Sunset Heights.

Figure 64: Small sheds and garages are typically found in side and rear yards.

Threats to Sunset Heights

Sunset Heights retains much of its historic character and has been protected through proper stewardship and restoration of its historic structures. The subdivision of lots for the construction of new housing, as well as additions to existing buildings and construction of secondary structures, are likely to change the neighborhood in the coming years.

Most of Sunset Heights is zoned SOH with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. This minimum lot size is appropriate for the Underhill section of the neighborhood since the cottages generally are found on small parcels. However, the required minimum setbacks—especially the zero front yard setback—are not reflective of historic patterns. Likewise, building height allowances of up to 30 feet is a concern in the Underhill section and along adjoining properties where one-story buildings prevail. The low scale and massing of the 1880s Fish House Revival structures are unique and at risk of being lost if larger structures or large additions are constructed.

In other areas of Sunset Heights, several parcels have been recently subdivided and new housing constructed (Figures 65, 66). Although a few successful infill dwellings have been completed, other new buildings have overpowered neighboring structures or have been placed in accordance with zoning regulations rather than conforming to streetscape norms of the historic structures.

The zero front yard setback for the SOH has allowed for a few structures to be built too close to the narrow lanes. In addition, the minimal side yard allowance (5 feet) has resulted in the loss of once-open areas between some properties. The awkward placement is apparent and is out of character with the neighborhood.

Throughout Sunset Heights, the construction of large accessory buildings and/or increases in impervious surfaces have occurred. The SOH zoning allows for structures to be set relatively close to property lines and for 50% lot coverage potentially reducing green space that helps to characterize the area. A loss of green space could hamper the overall integrity of the neighborhood.

Figure 65: A sensitively designed new cottage along Morey Lane employs Colonial Revival elements.

Figure 66: A new house on Grand Avenue incorporated an old Queen Anne style door to help it blend into the area.

Recommendations: Sunset Heights

Sunset Heights not only has some of the best views in the village, affording glimpses of the Atlantic Ocean over protected moorlands, it also is a highly desirable neighborhood, largely due to its planned uniform feel and the spacing between houses. The 19th and early 20th century architecture is restrained and complements the location, and the large yards and landscaped streets offer a calm retreat from busy areas of the island.

Retaining the relationship of the environment and buildings is key to protecting this special place.

• Attention should be paid to proposed new residential structures and additions. A review of the surrounding parcels and streetscape should be completed to ensure compatibility.

• If any new construction is proposed along the Underhill streets (Lily, Evelyn, Pochick) and adjoining lots on other streets, low, one-story structures should be encouraged. Taller buildings in this area would negatively impact the visual appearance of the Underhill cottages.

• Additive massing to suggest construction over time should be the rule throughout the Sunset Heights neighborhood. Importantly, any additions should be clearly subordinate to the historic section of the house. Rear additions, or small additions behind the plane of the main blocks, can be appropriate (Figure 67).

• Restraint should be used when designing new houses. Although there is an abundance of architectural features present in the neighborhood, new design should be simple like the historic architecture. It is important that roofs and decorative elements complement the architecture of the neighborhood (Figure 68).

Figure 67: The new additions to the rear and sides do not overwhelm this Underhill cottage. A new garage has also been sensitively added.

• Shingled exteriors should prevail.

• Porches along the façade and/or side elevations can be suitable (open or enclosed if appropriately fenestrated) for buildings of this era.

• Small secondary shingled buildings such as garages should be located behind the dwellings. When placed along the setback lines, special care should be taken with secondary dwellings to ensure they are subordinate not only to the main structure on the property but to any adjacent main houses. Secondary buildings should be small in scale.

• The front yard setback of neighboring structures should be maintained to preserve the existing “street wall.” No new construction should be closer to the front property line than buildings on either side of it.

• The rhythm of open space and buildings is important in this neighborhood and should be maintained whenever possible. The percentage of building coverage now allowed by zoning should be decreased to maintain significant green space. Likewise, side yard setback requirements should be increased in this area to better reflect historic patterns.

Figure 68: It is best to keep rooflines simple. This example has too many peaks.

Figure 69: Appropriate restoration of the Underhill cottages is critical to maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood. COURTESY ANGUS MACLEOD

Recommendations: Sunset Heights

Landscape Features

Sunset Heights has a spacious feeling due to its historic building setbacks. These patterns provide for generous green space and room for gardens and other plantings. Retaining these features will help to ensure the integrity of the neighborhood.

• Maintaining green spaces is encouraged to enhance the current rhythm of the streetscape

• Painted/unpainted picket fences, gates

• Low hedges in front yards

• Lawns bordered by gardens, trees along interior lanes

• Shelled driveways are preferred, but additional parking areas can be hidden with grass and pavers (Figure 70)

Figure 70: Shelled driveways are preferred, but additional parking areas can be hidden with grass and pavers, as seen along Grand Avenue.

CHAPTER 4

Main Street

MAIN STREET, at the eastern end of Milestone Road, has served as the primary throughfare to ’Sconset for centuries, but development along the roadway did not begin until the 1820s. Over the next few decades, as the whaling era reached its zenith and islanders built fine homes in Nantucket town, ’Sconset’s Main Street, lined with newly constructed summer cottages, became the most fashionable spot in the village (Figures 71, 72).

A group of prominent Nantucket businessmen, including bank president Frederick Mitchell, began purchasing land along Main Street in the 1820s. The first cottage (20 Main Street) was built by Mitchell and was likely used as a prototype for subsequent dwellings constructed on his land and elsewhere along the wide, boulevard-like roadway. Mitchell and partners would also be responsible for the construction of the Atlantic House (27 Main Street), the island’s first resort-era hotel, which was completed in 1848 and quickly became the centerpiece of the village. Although larger than the surrounding summer cottages, the Atlantic House

Figure 71: Main Street from Bunker Hill, c. 1910. COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, SC777-23.

Figure 72: Main Street Boundary Map

was sensitively designed to be compatible echoing the style and materials of the classically inspired cottages (Figure 73).

The Atlantic House and the cottages along Main Street were carefully sited, constructed in a set pattern along a wide roadway with large side and rear yards. Unlike the earlier fish houses in the village core that were built and expanded over many decades, often using secondhand materials, Main Street cottages were constructed within a relatively short period and in an orderly fashion by house carpenters who used pattern books featuring the fashionable Federal and Greek Revival styles of the time (Figure 74)

Among the most curious facts about early Main Street is that it was an enclave of wealthy whale-oil merchants and bankers and their families who resided here off and on in the high season from April to October. These families also had large, year-round mansions along Main Street in town. Starbucks, Mitchells, Barneys, Hadwens, Coffins, Crosbys, Barretts, and Folgers were among the early owners of the ’Sconset Main Street cottages. Why neighbors in town decided to congregate again in ’Sconset is unknown, but their association with Main Street in Town is likely how the eastern end of Milestone Road also became known as Main Street.

Although largely developed by the mid-1800s, a handful of new summer cottages were constructed along the street a few decades later. These structures maintained the established setbacks and patterns of the earlier cottages but embraced new styles of the day. In addition, the original cottages evolved with changes that embraced Victorian features of the late 1800s. Over time, much of these later decorative elements have disappeared or been replaced by Colonial Revival features, leaving the houses with a simpler Federal/Greek Revival appearance.

Today, Main Street retains much of its original character and still reflect its early days.

Figure 73: The Atlantic House Hotel, c. 1870s. COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, A44-62.

Figure 74: The south side of Main Street, c. 1880s. COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, GPN-592.

Defining Features

Perhaps the most appealing features of Main Street are its uniformity and sense of calm. As you arrive at Bunker Hill, a broad park-like roadway lined with trees and punctuated by green lawns leads slightly downhill to the village rotary. This unique entranceway is similar to the classic New England town green in that it symbolizes your arrival to an important area. Like the town green, Main Street serves as a formal entranceway or centerpiece to the entire village and provides a feeling of relaxation, orderliness, and tranquility that reflects ’Sconset’s role as a resort community. Architecturally, there are two main house types that are common along Main Street: the Federal/Greek Revival Cottage and the Gable End House. Other forms with Colonial Revival and Gothic Revival elements are also evident.

left and bottom:

Figure 75: Green Chimneys at 20 Main Street is a typical Federal/Greek Revival Cottage. The front section and its rear ell are the original house. In the early 20th century, the house was sensitively extended with additive massing by architect Frederick P. Hill. Hill also incorporated early structures into the design.

Figure 76: Green Chimneys circa 1940s. COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, P23-33.

Federal | Greek Revival Cottage

(Figures 77, 78, 79, 80)

The earliest form along Main Street is the classically inspired cottage with Federal and/or Greek Revival features. In ’Sconset, this form is represented by a one-and-a-half-story high frame house with a gable roof and rectangular main block, often with T- or L-shaped rear wings and additions. The cottages are vernacular in style with only a hint of classical detail such as tapered porch columns, fanlights in their gable ends, and Federal window and door trim.

The form is not unique to ’Sconset but is found in many communities along the Eastern Seaboard. Similar dwellings are also found at the edge of the village Bunker Hill at 34 Main Street, for example, and the old ’Sconset Golf Course clubhouse (west of the village along Milestone Road), both of which were built just prior to Mitchell’s cottage at 20 Main Street (now known as Green Chimneys). The grouping of these structures along Main Street is rare, however, due to their similarity and how they work together, providing an impressive row and creating a soothing rhythm of buildings and open space.

Typical of the Greek Revival style cottages, the façades are graced by porches that often wrap around to the side elevations, and by large, double-hung windows with shutters. For the most part, symmetry prevails throughout the house design. Often, a pair of chimneys are found at the end or slightly off the ends, as in Federal homes in town. Most of the early ’Sconset cottages on Main Street are clad with clapboard or painted shingles. Historic photographs show that several of the cottages were updated with bargeboard and other Victorian-era elements.

Figure 77: Several cottages have lunettes or fanlights in the gable ends.

• One-and-a-half stories high

• Gable roofs pierced by one or two chimneys

• Main rectangular blocks with rear wings and additions

• Narrow front porches with tapered posts, often continuing along the side elevations

• Large six-over-six, six-over-nine, or nine-over-nine windows; louvered shutters

• Simple Federal and Greek Revival window and door trim

• Corner boards and raking

• Central or slightly off-center doorways, sometimes with sidelights

• Clapboard façades, sometimes continuing throughout the main block and on wings

• Lunettes, blind fanlights and/or small windows in the gable ends

left to right:

Figure 78: Narrow porches with tapered columns are common features of the 1830s cottages along Main Street.

Figure 79: Six-over-six double-hung sash windows with simple molded trim and flat lintels and sills were typical of the early Main Street cottages.

Figure 80: A single-leaf doorway with sidelights and classically inspired surround.

Greek Revival Gable End House

The Greek Revival Gable End House was a common form throughout the country in the mid-19th century (Figures 81, 82, 83, 84). On Nantucket, this style was popular in town and was adapted in ’Sconset for the summer cottage. The gable end facing forward is typical of the style, reflecting the temple form associated with Greek architecture. Of special note is the Atlantic House, which originally had a front-facing gable. (The structure was turned 90 degrees and reduced in size in the early 20th century.) The two-and-a-half-story hotel had a Doriccolumned porch that served as the focal point or main “temple” along the streetscape.

Changes to the Greek Revival Gable End House were often made in the 19th century, with the addition of bargeboard and other gingerbread trim, much of which has since been removed. Some Victorian-era changes remain. For example, Edgemoor and Top of the Hill, both built by the Coffin brothers (31 and 33 Main Street), retain the addition of extending bays on the second floors of their gable ends, and are crowned by pitched roofs. Elements of their Greek Revival origins such as their entablatures remain, however.

• One-and-a-half stories high

• Rectangular main blocks (short end facing front) with rear wing

• Gable facing front

• Roof returns and wide, unadorned entablature

• Large six-over-six windows and simple (flat) Greek Revival surrounds

• Single, gable roof dormers

• Clapboard or shingled façades

• Porches

Figure 81: The Greek Revival entablature (the wide horizontal board below the roof) is visible in the rear wing of 31 Main Street.

Figure 82: 31 Main Street, c. 1880s. COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, GPN2520.

left to right:

Figure 83: The Moorings/Bell Haven at 2 Chapel Street was altered in the early 20th century but is one of the original gable-end facing cottages. Historic photo, c. 1890s.

COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, PH53-35.

Figure 84: 2 Chapel Street today.

Other styles

Several late 19th and early 20th century styles, including the Colonial Revival, vernacular Gothic Revival and Victorian/Queen Anne, are represented at the western end of Main Street. These structures tend to be two stories high with shingled exteriors. Their placement on their lots and their setbacks from the road are compatible with earlier structures (Figures 85, 86).

The architecture along Main Street has historically had other features that are no longer extant. Perhaps the most noted is the Gothic Revival pointed arch window, originally appearing in several of the gable-end structures. Likewise, bargeboard and a few cupolas have disappeared over the years.

left to right:

Figure 85: Colonial Revival houses were perhaps the most popular house form of the early 20th century on island.

Figure 86: Simple Victorian cottages were popular in the late 19th and early 20th century. This cottage has the typical wrap-around porch and simple two-overtwo windows of the period.

Threats to the Main Street Neighborhood

Main Street’s historic buildings have been carefully maintained and thoughtfully preserved over the years. New construction has largely been limited and, for the most part, new houses have only been built at the edges of the neighborhood away from the historic resources.

Fortunately, Main Street’s graceful, calming character remains, but several island trends may impact the neighborhood’s integrity in the future. A tree-lined roadway with houses set back and surrounded by green space is an increasing rarity on island. Land values, the demand for new housing and the appeal of ’Sconset have been spurring development pressure. Today, seven lots in Main Street’s central area appear to have development potential. If new construction were to advance, Main Street’s unique sense of place might be threatened.

In addition to the potential for new structures to be added, the remodeling of historic buildings remains a constant threat, especially as houses change hands. There are several historic buildings of outstanding value along the street, including the early Late Federal/Greek Revival cottages. Major alterations to these dwellings could have a significant negative impact on the streetscape.

Zoning regulations often conflict with the attributes of the historic structures along Main Street. For example, zoning allows for buildings to be as high as 30 feet. The low scale of the early cottages is well below this height limit. Likewise, setbacks could deviate from the historic building pattern. Although the street has a uniform quality, it curiously has three zoning levels, SOH, SR-10 and SR-20, each with its own frontage and side setback requirements.

Both the SR-10 and SR-20 zones also allow for pools with 20foot setbacks, rules that have the potential to drastically change the character of the neighborhood. Pools have been removed as an accessory use for much of the village (areas zoned SOH) due to space requirements and outcry from residents who expressed concern about placing pools alongside the historic structures. Along Main Street, the placement of pools in the front yards is also possible; the HDC has already approved front-yard pools elsewhere on island including, in the Old Historic District.

Other modern elements, such as permanent fire pits, large areas of impervious surface, and large-scale landscape lighting, are also often proposed. Such additions could have a detrimental effect on Main Street if poorly planned and allowed to spread in the village.

Recommendations: Main Street

Special care should be taken when building additions and new construction along Main Street. The historic houses in this area were carefully situated and relate strongly to one another, adding to the street’s unique character. Any new building should be carefully sited to respect this rhythm as well as the area’s established building scale. On the south side of the road, the low height and small-scale of the buildings and their setbacks from the road should be strictly maintained.

Building with Nantucket in Mind notes: “Along Main Street the houses represent a peculiar brand of Nantucket post-Colonial style. Small street elements such as trellises, fences, hedges, gates, and lamps are prevalent. New construction should contribute to this character.”

• Special attention should be paid to proposed new residential structures and additions. A review of the surrounding parcels should be completed especially when a proposal exceeds the height of adjacent historic structures.

• One-and-a-half-story dwellings in the SR-10 should be encouraged to retain the street’s character.

• Additive massing to suggest construction over time should be the rule when adding to an existing structure or planning a new dwelling. However, any addition to existing structures should be subordinate to the historic section of the house. Rear additions, or small additions behind the plan of the main block, are appropriate (Figure 88).

• Shingled exteriors should prevail, although clapboard facades for parcels east of Morey Lane might be considered — today there are five cottages with clapboard. Ideally, clapboard should be painted in tones appropriate to Late Federal/Greek Revival architecture. Historically in ’Sconset, the prominent colors have been white, off-white and yellow.

• Porches along the façade and/or side elevations should be encouraged.

• Small secondary shingled buildings (garages/barns) should be located behind the dwellings unless specific historic precedent for the site notes otherwise (Figure 87).

• The front-yard setback of neighboring structures should be maintained to preserve the existing “street wall.” No new construction should be closer to the front property line than buildings on either side of it.

87: Small, one-story secondary shingled buildings (garages/barns) should be located behind the dwellings. The one exception in the neighborhood is this historic barn located adjacent to the house at 26 Main.

Figure 88: The Marconi Wireless Station cottage was restored and expanded with subordinate wings that complement the historic core of the structure.

left to right:

Figure

Recommendations: Main Street

Landscape Features

• Maintaining green spaces is encouraged to enhance the current rhythm of the streetscape.

• Pools, spas, fire pits and an abundance of impervious surface are inappropriate, especially if visible from public right of ways. Pools located in front and side yards are inappropriate in the historic district. A historic district overlay removing pools and similar accessories should be considered, as should the removal of pools as an accessory use in the SR-10.

• Painted picket fences, gates

• Hedges, roses

• Lawns and gardens

• Tree-lined street

• Shelled and cobbles for driveways (Figure 89)

Figure 89: Shelled driveways with cobbled aprons are appropriate for Main Street.

CHAPTER 5

New Street

& Surrounding Neighborhood

THE NEIGHBORHOOD to the northwest of the village core includes New, Chapel, West Sankaty, King, Lincoln, Sunset Ridge, and Pitman streets; portions of Coffin and Burnell streets; and Park Lane (Figure 90). The area was developed in various stages in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The earliest development occurred along New Street, which was laid out in the mid-1830s with 20 lots (Figure 91). Once known as Tremont Street and later as Jefferson Street, this broad new road provided an alternative entry to the village from the west. The first structures built along New Street were found at its eastern end near Pump Square and were classically inspired cottages with Greek Revival features. Major development began in earnest in the 1880s with the construction of the ’Sconset Chapel (Figure 92). At that time, Chapel Street was also laid out and several houses were built along it and New Street. Likewise, at the turn of the 19th century, the erection of the ’Sconset Casino spurred construction.

Figure 90: Boundary of New Street and surrounding neighborhood.

Figure 91: New Street looking east, by H. Wyer, c. 1890s.

In addition to residential buildings and important religious/ civic structures, New Street also was lined with buildings that offered commercial services for the summer trade and yearround communities. Among these were an icehouse, livery, lumber yard, car repair service, ice cream parlor, restaurants, and other shops (Figure 93). The ’Sconset School was also built at the west end of the road at West Sankaty Road; it was later converted to a fire station.

By the end of the 19th century, other roads were established in the neighborhood. Side Street (later known as School and West Sankaty), Clam Street (the eastern portion of King) and Park Lane are evident on the 1898 Sanborn Map of the village. In 1893, Henry Coffin’s land in this area was divided into lots and established West Sankaty and the western end of King Street. As development progressed, King Street was eventually connected to Shell Street by way of Clam Street.

left and below:

Figure 92: The ’Sconset Chapel is a landmark in the neighborhood. It once had more Victorian Gothic features, as seen in this 1903 view.

COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, P21990.

Figure 93: The Chanticleer is one of several establishments that cater to the summer community. Mid-20th century postcard highlights the rose-covered lattice and arched gateway that still grace the property.

COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, SC777-20.

In the 1920s, several undeveloped parcels in the western and northern sections of the neighborhood were surveyed and divided into lots. Here, island builders began constructing “spec” houses for sale and also sold lots to potential homeowners. The new houses were generally small bungalows based on plans found in pattern books. These houses were first built along the western end of King Street and on West Sankaty, soon followed by houses on Lincoln and Pitman (Figure 94, 95).

Although development continued through the 1920s, construction slowed during the Depression and World War II. The Sunset Ridge development, (along Lincoln, Burnell and the western side of Coffin), for example, was laid out as early as 1921, but many lots remained empty until the post-war era.

left to right:

Figure 94: Land of Henry Coffin, surveyed in 1893.

TOWN OF NANTUCKET, REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Figure 95: School Street at right near New Street. This view, looking north, shows only a few scattered structures in the neighborhood in 1910.

COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, F849.

By the mid-20th century, the New Street neighborhood was home to both summer residents and a large percentage of Sconset’s year-round population. Today, the construction patterns established in this area over 100 years ago continue in the adjacent lands to the north and west.

Defining Features

Due to the long period of development, a variety of architectural styles are found in the area, but the housing stock has several common features that provide a unified character. In general, the housing in the neighborhood tends to be smaller than the grand houses along the north and south bluffs. The houses are often one or one-and-a-half stories high and found on compact rectangular lots with common setbacks that helped to establish the sense of order.

Many of the historic buildings are simple bungalows that reflect popular forms of the early 20th century often with Arts and Crafts and Colonial Revival elements (Figure 96). Several cottages also appear to have been influenced by earlier village dwellings, evoking characteristics found in the Underhill cottages and the early fish houses in the historic core. All of these 20th century buildings have typical Nantucket features such as shingled exterior with gable roofs, and simple corner boards and raking. Porches and simple decorative elements such as stainedglass fixed lights or shaped rafters are also found (Figure 97). A handful of 1840s houses are located along the eastern end of New Street. These houses have simple rectangular plans and are similar in design to the early classical cottages along Main Street (Figure 98). The buildings have clapboard fronts, symmetrically placed fenestration, and nods to Greek Revival

Figure 96: Bungalows were the most common house form in the early 20th century in the neighborhood. Typical of the style are deep eaves with shaped rafters and enclosed front porch.

Figure 97: Charming features such as this Colonial Revival arched window are found in the early 20th century cottages in the neighborhood.

architecture such as roof returns. In true ’Sconset fashion, several houses in the neighborhood were older buildings relocated from other parts of the village or from Town. These relocated structures are now part of several houses along New Street, including numbers 2, 5, 9, 19. Other houses such as 9 King Street were also earlier relocated structures (Figure 99).

The neighborhood is unique in that it features several landmark/ pivotal structures that anchor the area, including the ’Sconset Chapel, built with Gothic Revival features; the more functionally designed ’Sconset Casino, with its later glassed-in porch; the Chanticleer, with cottage/Colonial Revival features; and the Colonial Revival-style schoolhouse/fire station.

left to right:

Figure 98: Several Greek Revival cottages, similar to the early houses on Main Street, are found along the north side of New Street.

Figure 99: 9 King Street was relocated from White’s Hamlet (now Wade Cottages). It was originally one of the 13 cottages built along the bluff about 1882.

Vernacular Bungalow

The Bungalow style was popular throughout the country in the first decades of the 20th century. Pattern books and builders’ guides provided plans for local builders to assist them in the construction of these dwellings (Figures 100, 101). The ’Sconset houses are vernacular versions of the style and similar forms are found throughout the island in the early 1900s. These vernacular bungalows feature low-pitched gable or hip roofs with overhangs, often with exposed rafters. They typically have a simple square or rectangular plan and broad elevations that give them a horizontal orientation. Like other structures, however, they incorporated local building preferences, including the use of shingled walls and simple trim. They also tend to be devoid of decorative features common to the high-style buildings of this type.

left and below:

Figure 100: Bungalows were built along King Street in the early 20th century.

Defining features of the Vernacular Bungalow

• One- or one-and-a-half-story houses with low-pitched gable or hip roofs

• Square or rectangular plans/footprints

• Exposed roof rafters

• Shingled walls

• Porches incorporated into the roof or on front or side elevations, often glass-enclosed

• Simple flat-board rake, and door and window trim

• Two-over-two and six-over-one windows predominant

• Windowed doors

• Dormers, often with a gable or shed roofs

Figure 101: Bungalows with open porches incorporated into the main roof were common throughout the island in the early 20th century.

Other common forms are Cape Cod style houses that are simple square or rectangular plan houses with gable roofs, symmetrically arranged fenestration (door and window placement) and a hint of Colonial Revival elements (Figure 102). Vernacular ranch houses were also constructed during the mid-20th century; these are onestory dwellings with gable roofs, sometimes with sprawling plans with side and/or rear wings. Picture or bay windows are common (Figure 103)

left and right:

Figure 102: A Cape along West Sankaty Avenue with hints of Colonial Revival elements, including the use of twelve-over-twelve windows and its doorway surround.

Figure 103: One-story ranch houses were a popular form in the neighborhood during the mid-20th century. This example has a large picture window as well as shutters with decorative cutout designs.

Landscape Character Defining Elements

For the most part, landscape features in the New Street neighborhood are simple and low-key. Lawn areas with minimal landscaping are found on most lots and the majority are defined by low privet hedge or picket fencing. Most properties have front, side, and rear yards that establish a neighborhood wide rhythm between open space and housing.

• Small outbuildings, garages, and sheds with gable or shed roofs in the rear or side yards (Figure 104)

• Fences (low pickets or two split rails), usually unpainted

• Driveways, often shelled, leading to rear yard garages

• Trees help define the neighborhood on several interior roadways

left and right:

104:

and

outbuildings are an important part of the landscape and should be maintained. Shell driveways are found throughout the area.

Figure

Garages

small

Figure 105: An example of a low picket fence on King Street.

Threats to the New Street Neighborhood

Perhaps the most serious threats to the New Street neighborhood are insensitive alteration and the demolition of smaller homes and subsequent replacement with higher structures with greater massing. Although not yet widespread, these threats may materialize in coming years due to ’Sconset’s increasing attractiveness and higher land values. Houses constructed in the first half of the 20th century are particularly vulnerable due to their small size. Today, new houses and additions tend to be larger and taller than the predominant small-scale historic structures in the neighborhood. Preserving defining architectural features and ensuring that any new dwellings or expansions are sensitive to the area’s historic scale and simplicity are key to protecting the neighborhood’s special character.

Although many of the buildings in the neighborhood are not as old as those in the heart of the historic village or as grand as those in other parts of ’Sconset, they reflect a significant part of village and island history. They too are contributing to the village character and to the island’s National Historic Landmark designation and deserve to be protected and sensitively updated.

The area retains many early secondary buildings garages and small sheds. With the introduction of the automobile to the island in 1918, garages were often constructed in tandem with the main dwelling. Retaining these early garages and their key design elements is important to preserving neighborhood character.

Today, most of the neighborhood is zoned SOH, which requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Although most lots are small, there are a few larger lots that could be subdivided for the construction of new housing. In addition, the expansion of existing buildings and construction of secondary structures are likely to change the neighborhood in future years.

Retaining established setbacks will be critical to preservation of neighborhood character. Zoning allows for zero front yard setbacks, which would be inappropriate in the neighborhood. Several new lots have been created and new structures built in recent years. These properties have minimum setbacks, making them appear out of character with the surrounding buildings. Both front and side yard setbacks should conform to established patterns.

Recommendations: The New Street Neighborhood

The variety of architecture in the New Street neighborhood should be embraced. Each contributing house should be carefully studied before major alterations or demolitions occurs. Unfortunately, historic research on structures in this area is limited. More information about the buildings and their history should be compiled to help access their significance prior to major alteration or demolition. Individual lot research is recommended to help protect neighborhood character and to document the current architecture. This material should include a simple deed research to establish construction dates as well as a list of property owners. Past owners can then be identified and researched online, including in the Atheneum’s digital archives of the Inquirer & Mirror.

Building at a scale that reflects the historic development of the neighborhood will help to ensure the preservation of the New Street area.

• Special attention should be paid to proposed new residential structures, additions, and demolitions in this neighborhood.

• A review of the surrounding parcels should be completed when a proposal exceeds the height of adjacent historic structures or any building along the streetscape.

• A streetscape elevation plan showing the relationship of the new building to its neighbors should be required to assist the ’Sconset Advisory Board and HDC in the review process and provide for clearer, more consistent reviews based on the relationship of buildings to one another.

• New buildings should not be taller than existing structures on either side of the proposed project (Figure 106).

• The front yard setback of neighboring structures should be maintained to preserve the existing “street wall.” No new construction should be closer to the front property line than buildings on either side of it. Likewise, side-yard setback patterns should be followed to continue the rhythm of open space and building.

Figure 106: New buildings should not be taller than existing buildings on either side.

• Any additions should be subordinate to the historic section of the house (smaller and lower). Rear additions should be encouraged.

• Balconies, roof walks, and cupolas are generally inappropriate additions when visible from the public way and should be discouraged, unless historic documentation of these items is found.

• Original or early outbuildings should be preserved, especially early 20th century garages, even if they are sensitively converted to new uses.

• If proposed, fences should be simple, with examples being those with two split rails or pickets (type 1 & 2). In lieu of fences, low privet should be used (Figure 107).

• For any proposed hardscaping, the use of shell, brick, or cobble should be encouraged.

Although often controversial, the construction of basement living areas to maintain the small-scale nature/character of the neighborhood may be favored over increasing the height of a structure. However, adding a basement should not increase the overall height of a building and special care should be taken in the placement of basement fenestration.

The neighborhood boundaries are not as clearly defined as other village neighborhoods and these recommendations can be applied to similar properties (those contributing to the historic district) located north of Coffin Street and west of Sankaty Road.

Figure 107: Simple fencing such as this split rail fence with privet is appropriate for the neighborhood.

Baxter Road CHAPTER 6 & the North Bluff

THE DEVELOPMENT of ’Sconset’s North Bluff began in the 1880s with land speculators purchasing large parcels and dividing them into lots for summer homes. This trend followed the success of Sunset Heights at the village’s south end and was also part of a national movement of seaside resort development (Figure 110).

The land along the North Bluff was laid out in three major sections. The first subdivision was completed in 1882 by William J. Flagg, a New York lawyer, businessman, and writer. Flagg had built his own summer cottage at the northern edge of the village in 1875, and soon realized the development potential of this stretch of coastline. His subdivision, on land adjacent to his home along the south end of Baxter Road, included 13 lots.

Figure 108: Idlemoor at 11 Baxter Road was constructed in 1884 in the Queen Anne/Stick style popular at the time. Note the use of patterned shingles and cutout designs in the roof raking.

A subdivision called Aurora Heights was surveyed in 1887 and adjoined Flagg’s subdivision to the north. This land was held by Robert B. Coffin, a Nantucket native, who partnered with Emily P. Rice, widow of Abraham Rice. Rice was the owner of Idlemoor (11 Baxter Road), which was constructed in 1884 on one of Flagg’s lots. Aurora Heights contained 39 lots, including 15 prime parcels along Atlantic Avenue (now Baxter Road) and 24 interior lots bordered on the west by Sankaty Road (Figure 109)

The third and northernmost subdivision was established in 1885 on additional land purchased by Flagg. This property, north of Anne’s Lane and extending to the lighthouse, is where Flagg and his wife Eliza established Sankoty Heights (later changed to Sankaty). The largest of the North Bluff subdivisions with 87 lots, Sankoty Heights was where the Flaggs built a new summer home named Flaggship for their own use (Figure 111). Flagg would

Figure 109: Plan of Aurora Heights surveyed in 1887.

TOWN OF NANTUCKET, REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Figure 110: Boundary Map for the Baxter Road and North Bluff Neighborhood

COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, GPN-2492.

continue to acquire lands north of the village, and by 1892 he deeded the ancient footpath along the bluff from the village to the lighthouse to the Proprietors for public use.

The North Bluff lots were created for individually designed dwellings and were owned by some of the nation’s wealthiest and most influential families. But in the Nantucket fashion, the homes were restrained cottages containing only a hint of the decorative elements common in high-style examples of Victorian architecture. Among the rich and famous who lived here in the late 19th and early 20th century were John C. Spooner, U.S. senator from Wisconsin; Thomas Beer, author;

Grace Furniss, New York playwright; and the Broadway actors Isabel Irving and husband William H. Thompson, Bertha Galland, and Frank Gilmore.

The lots closest to the village and along the oceanside were generally developed first since they afforded easy access to the historic core and unobstructed views of the sea. The 1898 Sanborn Map shows 10 cottages in the Nosegay/Butterfly area and by 1904 an additional 10 cottages were found along the lower stretch of Baxter Road. The 1923 Sanborn Map shows Baxter Road to the lighthouse containing 33 cottages, but with only a handful on the west side of Baxter Road.

Figure 111: Flaggship was the first house built in the Aurora Heights subdivision, c. 1880s. It was designed in the vernacular French Second Empire style. Note the mansard roof.

Perhaps due to its isolation north of the village, as well as the Depression and two world wars, development in the Sankoty Heights subdivision slowed, with only a handful of cottages constructed by the 1920s. It was not until the mid-20th century that construction in this area along Baxter Road was renewed in earnest. Several one-story structures were built in the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s, and by the 1980s the construction of larger, two-story homes became more common.

In recent years many of the empty lots in the North Bluff subdivisions have been filled with houses. Still, parts of the western side of Baxter Road, especially near the northern end, remain undeveloped, including portions permanently protected by the ’Sconset Trust. In recent years, several houses along the ocean side of Baxter Road have been moved due to erosion along the bank several moved toward the road within their lots, and others relocated to the west side of the road or moved elsewhere on island.

Defining Features

The earliest structures along Baxter Road were designed in a variety of Victorian styles. Although each is unique, they complement each other due to their similar size, massing, and details. For the most part, these dwellings also have similar placement and setbacks on their lots, with front, side, and rear yards, and are situated close to the road. Many of the properties on the east side of Baxter Road also have expansive lawns facing the ocean. Most cottages on these eastern lots have their main elevations face the sea rather than the road (Figure 112). The orientation of the cottages is not only due to the view, but the establishment of the public footpath the principal form of travel to and from the village and lighthouse in the late 19th century. The orientation and the desire for spacious east lawns led to the placement of outbuildings along the road essentially making what would be the front yards along Baxter Road more typical of rear yards and service areas.

Figure 112: Early cottages along the North Bluff, all with their fronts facing the sea. COURTESY OF THE NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, GPN-2489.

Popular modes adopted for these summer homes include the French Second Empire, with mansard roofs, and the Queen Anne and Stick styles, with patterned shingles and gingerbread trim. These styles were replaced by the turn of the century with more austere Shingle Style houses and Colonial Revival cottages containing fanlights and classical-inspired details that dominate the neighborhood today (Figures 113, 114)

Not all houses are large two-story structures. A count of cottages along the road surprisingly reveal that the predominant house style is still one or one-and-a-half stories high. Several cottages are small/repurposed structures, some moved from other parts of the village. Cape Cod style houses, one-story ranch houses, and

bungalows of one-and-a-half stories also are evident along the road (Figure 115). These structures date as early as the 1910s and continued to be built into the 1960s. For the most part, they lack decorative elements and are more reminiscent of the typical New England Cape Cod house, with a rectangular plan, gable roof, and symmetrical fenestration.

Many of the cottages built in the early 20th century were designed by local architect Frederick P. Hill, who worked in ’Sconset from the 1920s into the early ’50s. These houses tend to be more sophisticated in their execution of architectural details. Curiously, Hill also incorporated older structures that were moved from the village and made part of his new designs to form elegant seaside cottages.

Figure 113: Mayflower at 61 Baxter Road is perhaps one of the finest examples of the Shingle style on island. Typical of the style is a long sloping shingle roof, porches with shingled balustrade, and a lack of the details found on most Victorian homes.

Figure 114: Colonial Revival houses became the most popular house type in the early 20th century. The front section is the original home. Note its gambrel roof, typical of the style.

The neighborhood also contains a few unique cottages, including an early example of the International style (Figure 116) and nationally popular early 20th century forms that are rare on island, such as the Colonial Revival Four Square (28 Baxter Road) and even a stuccoclad bungalow (15 Baxter Road).

Late 19th and early 20th century houses

• One to one-and-a-half and two-story houses with main elevation facing the ocean (east side of Baxter Road)

• Shingled exteriors, early houses with patterned shingles

• Gable, gambrel, and hip roofs

• Chimneys

• Porches, especially on the east elevations

• Variety of window types: six-over-six, two-over-two, one-over-one, and diamond panes

• Colonial Revival features, columns, lunettes, symmetry

• Roof walks

left to right:

Figure 115: Cape Cod style houses, one-story ranch houses, and bungalows of one-one-and-a-half stories also are evident along the road.

Figure 116: Charlotte’s Web at 71 Baxter Road, built in the late 1930s, is an early example of the International Style beach cottage. The cottage was moved slightly toward the road due to bluff erosion.

Early 20th Century Cottages

• One to one-and-a-half story houses with gable roofs

• Shingled exteriors, simple corner boards and raking

• Chimneys, often exterior

• Picture windows, paired windows, six-over-six windows predominant

• Wings are common in ranch houses

• Symmetry prevails in Capes

Landscape Features

Landscape features vary depending on the location. In general, properties along the North Bluff have open east lawns and enclosed west lawns bordered by hedges.

• Large lots with side, rear and front yards

• Garages and secondary buildings along the road, usually one story (Figure 118)

• Hedged lawns

• Open east side yards, sometimes with hedge or other low shrubs dividing the lawn from the footpath

• Shelled driveways

Figure 117: Early 20th century Capes are plentiful along the North Bluff. They have simple rectangular plans, gable roofs, and symmetrical fenestration.

Figure 118: Many one-story garages and sheds are found along Baxter Road. This example has an early folding door with lights.

Threats to Baxter Road & the North Bluff

Today, the biggest threat to the neighborhood remains the erosion of the North Bluff. Losses to the bank have triggered the removal of endangered structures including contributing buildings to the National Historic Landmark designation (NHL) to other locations.

However, manmade threats also continue to shape the built environment. The replacement of small, early 20th century houses with larger new homes has occasionally occurred in the North Bluff neighborhood. Unfortunately, contributing 20th century structures are being replaced island-wide at a rapid rate since they often are not viewed as being historic, even though they are, in fact, essential elements of the National Historic Landmark designation by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Zoning allows for houses to be 30 feet tall throughout the area, yet the majority of contributing structures are only one or one-and-half stories.

Other issues facing the integrity of the North Bluff include the loss of green space due to the addition of new structures and other improvements on lots. In addition, secondary structures not appropriate in scale and massing have become more commonplace in the neighborhood.

The historic landscape of the North Bluff has changed rapidly in the past decade due to the popularity of the bluff walk. The quest for privacy has led to the enclosure of yards, with privet and other shrubbery placed to separate the walk from private property. In some instances, plantings have been allowed to grow to obscure views of the historic houses that had long been visible to the public way. The footpath, originally an open, undefined grass path, is now extremely narrow in places and at times overgrown, further constricting the pathway.

Figure 119: Erosion on the North Bluff, circa early 1990s. PHOTO BY ROB BENCHLEY

Recommendations: Baxter Road & the North Bluff

Building with Nantucket in Mind states that in ’Sconset and other settlements outside of Town, “… the primary goal for new construction is to harmonize with the existing building pattern and character.”

Regarding ’Sconset’s North Bluff specifically, the manual identifies these important criteria:.

• Essential design criteria are the harmony of the edges of the larger lots along the street (hedges and building setbacks behind the hedges) and interval spaces or side yards between structures.

• The buildings are characterized by picturesque roofs and masses as well as integral voids of porches and verandas.

• Harmonious fenestration proportions and roof and trim details are also important.

New construction and additions should use the following as a guide:

• Relocation of contributing buildings, when necessary due to erosion, should occur within the neighborhood (Figure 120).

• Houses on the east side of Baxter Road should retain their primary eastern orientations. Avoid inappropriate changes to these elevations, especially changes that are more common on rear elevations. Guidelines for review should consider that the east elevations are visible from the public footpath. New construction should follow this historic precedent (Figure 121).

Figure 120: This cottage was moved across the road due to bluff erosion. It is one of several houses designed by ’Sconset architect Frederick P. Hill.

Landscape Features

• Retain open lawns whenever possible.

• Low shrubbery along the footpath to separate the public way from private yards should be encouraged rather than fences or higher plantings. Shrubbery that blocks public views or impedes the pathway should not be permitted.

• Privet is appropriate along property lines. Low privet hedge is encouraged to retain important viewsheds (Figure 122).

• Native planting should be encouraged, especially in nondeveloped areas.

• Additive massing to suggest construction overtime should be the rule throughout the neighborhood. However, any additions should be subordinate to the historic section of the house. Additions behind the plane of the main block are most appropriate.

• The rhythm of open space and buildings is important in this neighborhood and should be maintained whenever possible. Reviewing plot plans in relationship to adjacent structures is essential to ensure the rhythm of open space and buildings.

• Small secondary buildings of one story such as garages and sheds should be retained and new construction encouraged with placement along the roadway. Two-story secondary structures should be carefully reviewed to ensure they do not overwhelm the primary residence or adjacent structures.

• Shelled driveways should be encouraged.

Figure 121: Reconstruction of the second-floor balcony and other architectural features were completed to ensure the east elevation continued to read as the main front or façade of the cottage.

Figure 122: Low privet hedges should be encouraged to ensure that the architecture remains visible from the road side as originally intended.

The ’Sconset Trust was founded in 1984 as an offshoot of the Nantucket Conservation Foundation to preserve the unique character and way of life in ’Sconset. Through land conservation, historic preservation and community outreach, the Trust protects the natural and built environment of the island’s easternmost village.

The first land donation in 1985 – 86 was 5.33 acres. Our land today totals over 130 acres including Sankaty Head Lighthouse. We hold a conservation easement on significant gardens in the village. Our robust trail program not only offers walks through our properties but also connects with other island conservation trails.

The Trust owns and maintains Sankaty Head Lighthouse which was moved in 2007 to safer ground. In the fall of 2022 we completed the second phase of restoration on this historic structure through a Community Preservation Committee grant and generous community support.

On Lighthouse Open Days the public is invited to climb to the top of Sankaty. We also open the Lighthouse for school and other community groups by request.

Working with property owners and the Town of Nantucket, a Village Neighborhood zoning district was established in 2012 to preserve our commercial core. This VN zoning protects the Village Center, One New Street, the ’Sconset Casino and the Chanticleer as commercial entities. The Village Keepers initiative is moving forward on advancing other ways to continue to support our vibrant village center.

Historic preservation is a key part of Trust work. In addition to holding two preservation easements, we have published three books on preservation including Building With ’Sconset In Mind.

We produce house profiles to highlight structures with architectural and historical interest in the village. The profiles are available online, at the Nantucket Historical Association and in our office.These profiles are also filed with the Commonwealth’s MACRIS (Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System) program.

We host programs to educate the community: guided trail and tree walks, architectural walking tours, ’Sconset History Night and children’s programming. We partner with many island groups on these efforts.