I am afraid that I have picked up a habit from Al. Increasingly, my photographic interests are tied to cases I teach. A few days ago, I needed to record a land document in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The land records are located near the following neighborhood:
The building on the left (which is also the south side of the street) is a single story commercial building, now occupied by MIT. Beyond it (out of the picture) is an industrial building that has been converted into an office building (currently unoccupied). All of the buildings on the north side of the street are residential units. The land catty-corner from the commercial building is now (and, apparently, was at the time of the case), a park (Picture) which is described in an historical marker as having been a school playground.
It surprises me how little change has occurred since Justice Sutherland described the neighborhood in Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 186 (1928):
[P]laintiff in error ... is the owner of a tract of land containing 140,000 square feet, of which the locus here in question is a part. The locus contains about 29,000 square feet, with a frontage on Brookline street, lying west, ... on Henry street, lying north, ... on the other land of the plaintiff in error, lying east, ... and on land of the Ford Motor Company, lying southerly.... The territory lying east and south is unrestricted. The lands beyond Henry street to the north and beyond Brookline street to the west are within a restricted residential district.
The heavy industry that was in the neighborhood in the 1920s may be gone but its footprint is still there.
I did not know about the playground before my visit. If it was active in the 20s -- which the historical marker implies -- Cambridge’s attempt to transform the area into a more exclusively residential area becomes more understandable.
I love pictures, Ralph. Really interesting to see the context for Nectow.
Posted by: Alfred Brophy | June 27, 2012 at 06:07 PM