{shortcode-dff02df8d07193a929817e40c9dd98e99cc28fb5}
After two hours of discussion and debate, the Cambridge Historical Commission voted to establish a historical landmark study for the Democracy Center, potentially postponing plans to remodel the space.
The Foundation for Civic Leadership — the organization that owns the building — announced plans to indefinitely close the space for renovations in April, sparking outcry from the dozens of organizations that operate out of the space.
While FCL leadership has reassured the organizations that they can return to the space following the renovation, many activists remain unconvinced. On July 1 — the day renovations were supposed to begin — protesters began a weeklong occupation of the space in a last-ditch effort to end the closure of the space.
Efforts to designate the Democracy Center as a historical landmark — a designation that would create stricter oversight of renovations — were initially proposed by Cambridge activist and former City Council candidate Dan Totten in July. Totten, who attended the Thursday meeting, asked that members accept the landmark petition to “regulate how this addition moves forward.”
“This is your only shot,” he added.
FCL president Ian T. Simmons ’98-’00 attended Thursday night’s meeting alongside James Rafferty, a lawyer known for representing development projects in Cambridge. While Simmons said that the FCL is “very aware of the history of the building,” he added the landmark proposal "might be unnecessary” and “effectively redundant,” citing the FCL’s willingness to work with the commission.
“The addition of the landmark status, we feel, would potentially be onerous and unnecessary — would certainly delay our ability to renew the site significantly, and could add uncertainty into adding additional restrictions,” Simmons said.
Commission member Jo M. Solet argued in favor of landmark status, saying that the recognition would be an “honor” for the Democracy Center and the FCL.
“I’m just wondering if Mr. Simmons and Mr. Rafferty have really considered what an honor it is to be studied for and especially accepted as a landmark in the city,” she said.
The commission members debated both the motion to establish the landmark study and a subsequent motion to deny the application — both of which resulted in a tie. Commission member Kyle Sheffield said he did not believe the building “rises to a landmark status,” adding that he was concerned about the political nature of the decision.
“I feel as though it’s not our jurisdiction — it’s not our charge,” he said. “It’s really people within the city and what they are voting against.”
Despite Sheffield’s concerns, the committee eventually voted in favor of establishing a historical landmark study. While this does not guarantee that the building will receive landmark status, it is nevertheless a win for many advocates seeking to delay or halt the FCL’s renovation plans.
“I know that an addition is likely to move forward here — I’m not expecting that this landmark addition will prevent that,” Totten said. “However, a proactive landmarking process offers the most efficient way to adjudicate this process, which has an immense public interest.”
—Staff writer Sally E. Edwards can be reached at sally.edwards@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @sallyedwards04 or on Threads @sally_edwards06.
—Staff writer Asher J. Montgomery can be reached at asher.montgomery@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @asherjmont or on Threads @asher_montgomery.
