Will Novak, a stand-up comedian, recently moved to Boston from Phoenix (Ed. note: Smart move). He compares neighborhood identity in Boston vs. that in Phoenix - where branch libraries are named after desert plants, rather than the neighborhoods they're in.
Comments
Back Bay has really grown ...
A couple of the "editors" covering the Back Bay for the new neighborhood sites (not UH of course) have no idea where it is. It's fun to read what they think is Back Bay.
Is this happening in other neighborhoods as well?
Back Bay's boundaries are fuzzy
Does it include the Prudential Center and Hancock Tower? Maybe, maybe not. Back Bay Station is several blocks south of Boylston Street in an area that the South End also can 'claim'.
Does it include St. Botolph Street?
Does it extend west of Mass. Ave. to Charlesgate or even Kenmore Square?
Does it include Mass. Ave. down towards Symphony Hall? That stretch used to have a concert hall called the "Back Bay Theatre' (originally Loew's State)
The back bay
This should pretty much be a no brainer. If it is built on fill that was dumped into the back bay, then it's in the back bay.
In that case, much of the South End and Fenway
is really part of Back Bay. Even the 'flat of Beacon Hill' (the part west of Charles Street) is part of Back Bay.
There's more than one Back
There's more than one Back Bay. As noted above, there's the district that was created when the back bay was filled - that's an easy one. Then there's the planned Back Bay residential district, between Beacon and Boylston streets. Since it was laid out as a conscious effort to provide upscale housing for Boston's Yankee population, it's reasonable to define that area on it's own.
You could also reasonably cut off today's Back Bay at Mass ave, which was built at the old Cross Dam that extended from Roxbury's Gravelly Point to the Mill Dam (which became Beacon street). That would define the Back Bay as the filled land north of Gravelly Point, and would exclude the filled land to the south, which takes care of the Fenway, which stays its own district. By the time you get south to Kenmore, you're at former Brookline land, so that's clearly not part of the Boston's Back Bay.
May I recommend: http://goodoldboston.blogspot.com/2011/02/book-club-gaining-ground-history-of.html
On the South End side, much of that land was filled in from Boston Neck, and was not part of the Back Bay landmaking. Looking at a map, the streets coming out of Boston to the south run along four lines - the parallel South End streets, a small district including Warren and Appleton streets, Columbus ave and Huntington ave, and the Back Bay residential district.
The South End streets are self-explanatory - they parallel Washington street, which was the only road across the Neck. The Back Bay streets were run parallel to the mill dam and Beacon street. Columbus ave and Huntington ave were forced to run parallel to the Boston Providence rail line, and the Warren/Appleton sts district was aligned perpendicular to the cross streets of the Back Bay.
The only real problem is the district between Tremont and Huntington from Arlington/Herald south to Mass ave. Physically, it's part of the old back bay. Culturally, not so much. Personally, I'd use the old Boston Providence rail line - east of there, South End, west, Back Bay. Those tracks have been a barrier since the land was filled in, and Columbus ave has more in common with Tremont street than it does with Huntington ave.
Back Bay's Cross Dam
ran along what today is Hemenway Street, not Mass. Ave.
Ron - Hemenway street -
Ron - Hemenway street - formerly Parker - was laid down the middle of the Gravelly Point peninsula. The Cross Dam ran from the tip of Gravelly Point to the Mill Dam. The Cross Dam formed the path later followed by West Chester - later Mass ave.
Correction: I was WRONG! Ron gets it right. ;-)
We're both partly wrong and partly right
On the old maps of pre-fill Back Bay, the line of Parker/Hemenway Street continued north to Beacon Street (Mill Dam), which it no longer does. That line intersected Beacon Street pretty close to where the Mass. Ave bridge is now.
When I thought it over,
When I thought it over, that's what I assumed I was remembering.
But St. Botolph too maybe.
I'd really want to include St. Botolph street in the Back Bay too. It looks like before the Prudential Center and the Christian Science Center was built, there was more of an unbroken path of townhouse-type architecture, but Huntington became what it is today, St. Botolph Street ended up getting cut off from the rest of the Back Bay/Symphony townhouses and ended up getting absorbed by the rest of that already ambiguous chunk of the South End.
If you follow my 'west of the
If you follow my 'west of the Amtrak, north of Mass ave.' rule, St Botolph is part of the Back Bay district.
This is what I've always
This is what I've always thought to be the case. And the street parking signs agree.
I wouldn't rely on street
I wouldn't rely on street parking signs. Each city department makes its own rules, and the decision-makers aren't chosen based on their knowledge of the city.
Well yeah but so?
Yeah, but my point is... damn the history, it just makes more sense to call it the South End. It in no way resembles the part of the Back Bay to which it is adjacent, whereas it highly resembles the part of the South End to which it is adjacent. History's nice and all, but labels exist for today.
And I mean, what's one extra street between friends?
Where does that leave
Where does that leave St Germain St, which is in the style of St Botolph St, but halfway to Boylston?
Before the Prudential Center
the land that the Pru now occupies was just a huge railroad yard, plus the Mechanics Building. So St. Botolph St. was always pretty separated from the rest of Back Bay. Some apartment townhouses were torn down for the Christian Science plaza and reflecting pool (as well as for the unfortunate Church Park apartments on Mass. Ave. and Midtown Hotel on Huntington)
Sort of
Between the Pike/RR track and the river, I understand Back Bay to extend to Charlesgate East, and Kenmore Square to begin at Charlesgate West. In other words, that border is formed by the Back Bay Fens/ Muddy River/ Bowker Overpass.
On the south side of the other "natural" border, the Pike/RR track, everything from Ipswich/ Hemenway westward, including Charlesgate East, is understood to be part of the Fenway. Except it votes with Kenmore Square. Go figure.
Back Bay Borders
The articles of incorporation of the Neighborhood Assn of the Back Bay define the residential community of the Back Bay as follows (three borders are easy - it's the southern border that's a mess):
North - Charles River
East - Arlington Street
West - Charlesgate (the street that runs parallel to the overpass that leads to the Bowker intersection with Storrow Drive)
The south runs as follows from Arlington (these are my descriptions of the map - in general it seems to draw the southern border along the Mass Pike plus all inclusive of Copley and the Pru which are partly in the Back Bay but span the Pike or what was historically the RR yards separating Back Bay from the South End):
Right on Columbus to Chambers
Draw a line from Chambers to the back of the John Hancock guest house-southwest corner of the building)
From the southwest corner of the Hancock guest house to Harcourt (looks basically like the Copley Mall is included)
Down Harcourt in a northwesterly direction to Huntington
West on Huntington to Belvedere
Along Belvedere and Dalton Back to Boylston
Diagonally from the corner of Dalton to Mass Ave basically excluding the Berklee properties on the corner of Mass Ave and Boylston
Half a block of Mass Ave
The other side of Newbury (west of Mass Ave)
Where the line links with Charlesgate
Bottom line - it's defined as the Historic District from the river out to the Mass Pike plus the Pru and Copley which are built partly on either side of the pike and over it.
Yes, the south border is a
Yes, the south border is a mess. Why do you think that is? This is a residential neighborhood group. The residential neighborhood of the Back Bay was laid out and built up very simply. Arlington, Beacon, Boylston, south until interrupted by the old Boston and Albany railroad tracks, just before Mass ave.
So what's with this ding-dong route around Columbus ave and the Mass Pike/railroad tracks? Why is the business district over at Stuart street part of a historic residential district?
When you think about it, it's obvious. Without that hump growing out of their rectilinear district, they'd lose Copley Square, Trinity Church and the BPL. They had to find some way of rationalizing Copley square in to 'their neighborhood,' so they ran over to Columbus ave and the Mass Pike to get it in.
This is a special interest group, and they act accordingly. They include the John Hancock tower in their residential neighborhood, but leave out St Botolph st, which is residential.
Not exactly notwhitey
If you draw a straight diagonal from the corner of Columbus and chambers to the corner of Newbury and Charlesgate East you get most of the southern border which is exactly the north border of the Mass Pike (there is no road that easily defines this border - thus the mishmosh). the Hancock tower for example is built north of the pike and thus included (as is the guest house which is residential as is The Clarendon - a trend toward more residential/hotel use in this area). St. Botolph, by contrast, is fully south of the Mass Pike.
The only exceptions that cause most of this mishmosh are Copley (which is half hotel and thus technically residential - these formal borders go back to at least 1983 - I think Copley wasn't even built then and they may have been considering more residential uses during planning) and the Pru - which despite the tower is mostly residential (the Mall and other offices weren't even considered until years later).
I think the reason these two properties are included is because their northern foundations fall in the neighborhood - on top of the fact that the issues surrounding them significantly affect the area (shadows, traffic, density, sidewalk width, architecture etc.)
The real carve-out seems to be the blocks of Bay Village along the Pike - but they traditionally have had their own fairly influential neighborhood group especially relative to size of the community so I'm guessing they wanted to be on their own when the borders were defined.
Here's an 1895 map of the
Here's an 1895 map of the area:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12157608@N07/5654148543/in/photostream
How can the district from Park Square south be part of a Back Bay historic residential district when it was a rail yard through the 19th Century? Stuart street - and much of St James - didn't even exist when the Back Bay residential streets were fully built out, and when they were laid out after the Boston Providence Depot was removed, it immediately became a commercial district.
There's just no historic justification for including the streets south of Boylston to the Back Bay historic district - unless you take it all. These people went over far enough to include Copley Square within a defensible border. If they just ran it down Boylston and then looped out to capture Trinity and the BPL, it would look silly.
It's not that many years ago that I remember a Back Bay group fighting against the Prudential Center being included as part of the Back Bay District. Remember - with high-end real estate, the more exclusive, the better.
Regarding Bay Village - it was filled in by a different contractor than the rest of the Back Bay, and is a different development. They actually had to go back at one point and raise those streets and buildings over 10 feet to get them to match up with the rest of the area.
The Back Bay proper was laid out to prevent Protestant flight from the city. The street plans they went by showed Beacon through Boylston - that was what they wanted to build. The space between those streets and the South End was an afterthought.
there's a difference
The residential district is distinct from the historic district -
Historic district (as defined by the National Register - not NABB) is (starting from Charlesgate East) - north side of Newbury, Newbury to Boylston along Mass Ave, North side of Boylston up to the Lenox Hotel where it crosses and includes the Lenox hotel and south along exeter, North side of Stuart, down trinity place (cuts off the Hancock), St. James up to Clarendon, north along clarendon for half a block, up the middle of the block from Clarendon to Berkeley extending straight up providence to Arlington. River, Arlington and C-gate East define the other boundaries.
The residential district (covered by NABB) adds:
The Prudential
Copley (hotels and Mall)
The Hancock guest house, University club
The area on either side of stanhope (which is partly residential on the south side but still north of the B&A tracks and the pike)
Columbus up to Arlington
Again - I think it comes down to this was 1983 - North of the pike (long after the NY, NH and H was gone) was the deciding factor. Any real estate project that puts a foundation in the ground north of the pike and Columbus are considered as in the residential district.
Interesting factoids on Bay Village. To the best of my knowledge there are no objections about the borders - but there are several south end groups that participate regularly regarding adjoining development in the Pru, Copley etc. Not sure if they technically "claim" them as in their district. NABB has more members - but the south end groups get a seat on development committees for each of its many sub-neighborhood groups so they tend to be equally if not more powerful in development issues around the Pru and Copley.