Click here to return to ToC

New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources

Pages 1-20 of 118
AREA FORM NHDHR AREA LETTER: BER-BHA
  Berlin Heights Addition Project Area

Name, Location, Ownership

 

  1. Name of District or Area: Berlin Heights Addition Project Area
  2. City or Town: Berlin
  3. County: Coös

 

Function or Use


  1. Current use(s): domestic
  2. Historic use(s): domestic, commercial,

 

Other Information


  1. Period of Significance: ca. 1892- ca. 1930
  2. General Condition: good
  3. Setting: city/town neighborhood
  4. Acreage: N/A
  5. UTM reference Zone: N/A
  6. USGS quadrangle and scale: Berlin, 1:24000

 

Form prepared by


  1. Name: Elaine Stiles, Amy Seavey
  2. Organization: Preservation Company
  3. Date of survey: Fall 2002

 

Plan D The Property, Berlin Heights Addition
Berlin Heights Addition Subdivision Plan D, 1892


Location map

 

20) Property Map: see large maps

 

 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

NH Route 110 is a significant truck route connecting the mills in Berlin with the western part of the state. The project was necessitated by the dangerous intersection of NH Route 110 and the St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad which goes over Route 110 with a low, narrow overpass. The area west of the overpass is a residential neighborhood laid out ca. 1892. NH Route 110 zigzags around blocks through this neighborhood and continues west to Colebrook. This project area form analyzes the possibility of a historic district in this neighborhood and individual eligibility in the stretch of Wight Street to the north.

 

21. METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Work on the first phase of the project involved the field work, photography, mapping, research and writing, evaluation and production necessary to produce a project area form documenting the Berlin Heights Addition area, the upgrade of NH Route 110, and an analysis of the effects of six alternatives for the siting of the NH Route 110 Improvement Project in Berlin. (Presented as a separate document.) In the project area all properties constructed before 1955 and neighborhoods potentially affected by the project were photographed. Historic research focused on the industrial development and worker immigration associated with the construction of the neighborhood. Two comparable neighborhoods, "Irish Acres" and Forbush Park, were investigated with minimal historic research and windshield survey to help identify the potential significance of the project area.

 

The dating of buildings for this report was based on the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps covering the area, dated 1901, 1905, 1909, 1914, 1920, 1928, and 1938-50. The categorization of single-, two-, and three-family structures was based on observable features in field photographs. Future field inspections may lead to corrections in the date range or the number of families for which buildings were designed.

 

Survey was conducted at two levels in three different areas as requested by NHDOT. The most intensive-level was in the neighborhood historically known as the Berlin Heights Addition, which is the subject of this NHDHR Area Form. The possibility of two different boundaries for possible historic districts is discussed and shown on Map 2.

 

Two additional areas were surveyed at a windshield level. these areas are tangential to the south side of the Berlin Heights Addition, the blocks extending south from Mt. Forist Street and the neighborhoods east of the Grand Trunk Railroad, centered on York/Willow Street. These areas were driven and historic properties were identified on a map, recording various characteristics such as integrity, era of construction, use, number of stories, single or multi-family. No photographs were taken; no narrative was prepared. These are shown on Map 3.

 

Photographs are identified on Map 1. The neighborhood blocks were numbered and the numbers circled, and photo numbers are placed on the building(s) in question. In cases where multiple buildings are shown in one shot, those buildings are circled together with the photo number. Buildings are identified in the text with Block numbers and photo numbers for ease of review.

 

The second phase of the project will involve a focused documentation of individual properties and/or a historic district. It will include the survey of individual properties and the production of individual survey forms.

 

22. GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT:

As the largest city in the northern part of the state and a major industrial center, Berlin is well served by state highways and railroads. Berlin is the last major settled area on NH Route 16, a state highway that runs north from the seacoast, passing through the White Mountain region and then continuing into Maine. In the immediate area, Route 16 hugs the west bank of the Androscoggin River, paralleling the river through the city. Route 16 becomes Main Street within Berlin city limits and comprises the heart of the city's commercial district and civic center. NH Route 110 (Wight Street, Third Avenue, Green Street) begins in Berlin, branching northwest from Route 16 in the downtown area, and proceeding northwest through the project area. NH Route 110 continues northwest to Vermont and is a major trucking route between Vermont and the White Mountain region.

 

The Berlin Heights Addition project area is located in the southwestern part of the City of Berlin. The project area follows the path of NH Route 110, a northwest-southeast route connecting Berlin with Vermont. NH Route 110 branches from NH Route 16 in Berlin's downtown district, crosses the St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad tracks (historically Grand Trunk Railroad), and parallels the path of the Dead River as the highway heads northwest to West Milan and beyond. The route passes through a densely-settled, urban, residential neighborhood alternatively called the Berlin Heights Addition or the Avenues, which was developed between the early 1890s and the late 1920s. NH Route 110 currently zigzags through the gridded street pattern of the neighborhood before resuming its historical path.

 

The City of Berlin is located along NH Route 16 at the confluence of the Dead and Androscoggin Rivers in the northern, White Mountain region of New Hampshire. Berlin is the largest city in the northern part of the state, and has a population of approximately 10,000 people. The city fills a relatively flat river valley surrounded by mountainous topography. Nearby peaks include Mount Carberry to the southeast (1,754 feet), Mount Forist (or Mount Forest) to the west (2,068 feet), Mount Jasper to the north (1,584 feet), and Mount Success to the east (1,873 feet). Berlin has historically been the site of major lumber, wood pulp, and paper manufacturing interests, which operated most heavily between the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The mills were powered by the dramatic falls on the Androscoggin River, which measures approximately one-eighth of a mile wide as it flows south through Berlin. Two major mills, the Brown Manufacturing Company and International Paper Company were located on opposite banks of the river in the center of the city. The Brown Company mill continues to operate today under different ownership. The second river flowing through Berlin, the Dead River, is significantly smaller than the Androscoggin. It forms a series of small pools as it flows southeast toward the larger river, but has little volume and was only minimally used for water power.

 

The Atlantic & St. Lawrence Railroad (later Grand Trunk and Canadian National) began service to Berlin in 1854 (Merrill 1888:794). The tracks approach the city from the south, running parallel to the west bank of the Androscoggin River. After entering the city, the tracks turn west and parallel the south bank of the Dead River. The Grand Trunk tracks continue to operate under the St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad. The Whitefield and Jefferson branch of the Boston, Concord and Montreal Railroad reached Berlin in 1899. This line was used primarily for timber transport and was later leased to the Boston & Maine Railroad. The former Boston, Concord and Montreal Railroad line approaches the city from the south, paralleling the east side of the Androscoggin River. The tracks end just inside the northern city limits. Various sidings extend from both railroad lines to service the manufacturing interests in the city. The largest of these is a long siding that arcs to the northeast from the Grand Trunk Railroad tracks near the Dead River. This siding crosses through  New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources Page 5 of 118 AREA FORM NHDHR AREA LETTER: BER-BHA BERLIN HEIGHTS ADDITION PROJECT AREA the downtown area and connects the Atlantic & St. Lawrence with the major timber and paper mills located along the Androscoggin River and the Boston & Maine Railroad line on the east bank.

 

Most of the physical fabric of the City of Berlin is arranged linearly along the banks of the Androscoggin River. The city's infrastructure consists of a series of grid plan neighborhoods expanding outward in all directions from the city's center along Route 16 and the Androscoggin River. The major portion of the city is located on the west side of the river, though there are also two significant neighborhoods on the east side. The project area is located within a grid plan neighborhood on the west side of the city, across the Atlantic & St. Lawrence Railroad tracks near the confluence of the Dead and Androscoggin Rivers. This neighborhood, alternatively called the Berlin Heights Addition or the Avenues, was planned by the Berlin Heights Addition Land Corporation between 1892 and 1893. The corporation's first development, Berlin Heights, was a more expensive neighborhood located on the lower slopes of Cates Hill, across the railroad tracks and slightly northeast of the Addition. To create the Addition, the Corporation purchased large tracts of land in this area from members of the Green Family, who were some of Berlin's first settlers. Daniel and Thomas Green historically used this area as timberland for their sawmill, which was located nearby. Later inhabitants had small-scale farming operations near the northern end of the project area and also worked in a variety of paid jobs in the city's mills.

 

The Berlin Heights Land Corporation designed the neighborhood with a series of north-south, numbered avenues and east-west named connecting streets. Though they envisioned building eight avenues, only six were ever constructed. Third Avenue is the largest of these, measuring almost twice as wide as the other avenues and streets. Research and oral history have not been able to determine why this is so. The planned connecting streets conceived by the Berlin Heights Addition Land Corporation were built over a period time, with the final streets constructed in the 1920s. The Corporation's grid plan was laid over the original path of NH Route 110 (historically West Milan Road), which ran northwest-southeast through the neighborhood. NH Route 110 was absorbed into the grid, and now zigzags through the neighborhood on Green Street, Second Avenue, Madigan Street, Third Avenue, and the original path for the route, now called Wight Street. Each street has sidewalks on both sides, though there are few internal circulation patterns within the blocks.

 

Within the Berlin Heights Addition neighborhood, the project area is roughly bounded by the Grand Trunk Railroad tracks to the east, Hamlin Street to the south, and arbitrary lines to the west and north. The area encompasses all of Green Street west of the railroad tracks; the northern portions of First through Third Avenues, including all of Gilbert, Boulay, and Roderick Streets; the north side of Hamlin Street; the southern portions of Madigan, Mannering, and Hinchey Streets; Wight Street from Third Avenue to the northern boundary; the north side of Labossiere Street, and the far northern ends of Fourth through Sixth Avenues. The northern boundary of the project area is immediately south of the City of Berlin Department of Public Works garage and incinerator, located on the east side of Wight Street. Primary entry to the project area is via Green Street, which connects the Berlin Heights Addition neighborhood to the downtown area. The Grand Trunk Railroad tracks cross over Green Street on a metal trestle with stone abutments. Before 1892, Green Street flowed directly into West Milan Road (NH Route 110) after crossing the railroad tracks (Norris 1888). Hillside Street also accesses the project area at Second Avenue, connecting it to the Berlin Heights neighborhood. The railroad tracks cross Hillside Street/Second Avenue at grade.

 

The Berlin Heights Addition is situated on gently sloping topography rising up from the Dead River and Grand Trunk Railroad tracks in the east. The grade increases as it approaches Mount Forist in the west, which rises precipitously to form the northern boundary of the neighborhood. The only notable topographic features within the grid system are the fifteen-foot drop from Second Avenue to First Avenue between Hamlin and Green Streets, and a high rock outcropping at the intersection of Green Street and Second Avenue. Second Avenue curves at this point, breaking the grid, in order to avoid this obstacle. There are also two rock outcroppings near the railroad tracks, north of Green Street. Overall, the neighborhood has few trees, though some do remain on the interiors of the blocks, shading rear yards. There are no street trees or open park spaces.

 

The grid pattern is densely developed at the southern end of the project area near the railroad tracks, with houses filling each buildable quarter-acre (or smaller) lot. On the upper avenues west of the project area, the density drops considerably. As the project area approaches the northern boundary on Wight Street, the density also lightens and eventually breaks up into larger lots. The project area is predominantly residential. The houses in the neighborhood are almost exclusively wood-frame, detached units. Single-family housing dominates, but there are also many two, three, and three-plus-family houses. The neighborhood also contains several automotive repair garages and related commercial services scattered throughout. These businesses are almost exclusively located on Third Avenue and Wight Street. The northern end of the project area also has a few modern commercial buildings, including a Midas car repair shop and a car wash. There are a few remaining industrial or industrial-related buildings in the project area, all located on Gilbert Street near the Grand Trunk Railroad tracks. All are vacant.

 

23. ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE - Describe important predominant architectural styles and evaluate in terms of other areas within the Town/City.

 

Project Area: General Description and Historical Influences

The Berlin Heights Addition neighborhood was laid out by the Berlin Heights Addition Land Corporation between 1892 and 1893. The primary impetus for developing the project area was the 134 percent increase in Berlin's population between 1880 and 1890 (Bureau of the Census 1880, 1890). This dramatic increase was the result of greater capital investment in the development of large paper and wood product mills on the Androscoggin River, which in turn attracted many newcomers to the area in search of jobs (Berlin 1929:41, Pillsbury 1927:671). The influx of workers earning relatively high wages at the mills created a strong demand for housing within Berlin's city limits. Speculators such as the members of the Berlin Heights Addition Land Corporation organized to meet that demand, purchasing large amounts of land around the early settlement core on the west bank of the Androscoggin River, and subdividing the land for sale. Previous to being purchased by the Corporation, the land on the west side of the Grand Trunk Railroad tracks was sparsely settled near the northern end of what is now Wight Street. Approximately seven dwellings were located there, occupied by small-scale farmers, mill laborers, woodsmen, and teamsters (Hurd 1892, Bureau of the Census 1870, 1880).

 

The Berlin Heights Addition Land Corporation's choice for a site for their speculative land deal was largely governed by geography. Developable land in Berlin was limited by the surrounding mountainous topography and the need for residential development to be within easy on-foot commuting distance of the mills at the city center. The land between the Grand Trunk Railroad tracks and Mount Forist presented a suitable location in that it was relatively flat and located less than 1.5 miles from the mills. The layout the Corporation devised for the Addition was designed to make maximum use of the available land. The plans the Corporation filed for the Addition show a densely settled neighborhood arranged on a grid of eight north-south avenues set parallel to the Grand Trunk Railroad tracks and intersecting east-west streets at regular intervals. Near the railroad tracks, the grid superceded the older, meandering path of West Milan Road (now Wight Street, Third Avenue, and NH Route 110), which originally ran roughly northwest-southeast through the project area. In applying the street grid in the project area, the Land Corporation largely disregarded topography, maintaining straight paths over the Mount Forist foothills. The grid diverges only at the intersection of Second Avenue and Green Street to avoid a high rock ledge. The lots devised by the Berlin Heights Addition developers were small in size from the outset, measuring approximately one-tenth to one-quarter of an acre. Though the Corporation filed plans for eight avenues, only six were built. First through Fifth Avenues were in place by ca. 1900, and Sixth Avenue was added ca. 1915 (Pike, Perkins and Macy 1893, Anonymous 1910, 1920). Cross streets were also constructed over time. Madigan, Jolbert, and Mount Forist Streets were present by ca. 1900 and additional cross streets detailed on the Corporation's plan were constructed every two to three years thereafter (Anonymous 1901-1950).

 

While the Berlin Heights Addition Land Corporation provided an initial layer of design for the project area, contractors, carpenters, and individual home and business owners added a second layer through the residential, commercial, and industrial buildings they constructed in the neighborhood. The actual development of the neighborhood took place over the thirty-year period between the early 1890s and the late 1920s, and was the product of numerous independent efforts rather than the work of a few speculative builders (Sanborn 1901-1950). As such, the project area lacks the standardization of housing types or the repetitive streetscapes commonly seen in other regional urban neighborhoods. Residential buildings make up the preponderance of the structures within the project area. Most business owners operated out of their homes and there were few specialized commercial buildings constructed in the project area before the 1920s. There are similarly few industrial buildings left in the project area, though historically there was a large shoe factory and coal yard sited on the Grand Trunk Railroad Tracks near Green Street. Most of the surviving industrial structures are small in scale.

 

The pace, character, and concentration of development in the project area was influenced by geography and population pressures. First through Third Avenues and the lower cross streets were the earliest and most heavily developed, most likely because of their closer proximity to the downtown area and relative flat topography. The proximity to the downtown area and railroad tracks offered by these streets attracted most of the industrial and heavy commercial use in the project area before ca. 1920. The lots on First and Second Avenue were completely developed by ca. 1909 while Third Avenue and those above it were filled in more slowly (Sanborn 1901-1950). The upper, more steeply pitched avenues were more removed from the industrial and heavy commercial uses near the railroad tracks and developed later and in a less dense fashion, with primarily single-family houses and almost no commercial development. Wight Street extended beyond the Addition grid system to the north, accessing a more rural area of the city and the location of the few farms that continued to operate in that period. This portion of the project area was initially lightly developed, but came to acquire the same level of density as the grid system by the late 1920s (Sanborn 1928-1950). Industrial development was limited to the area near the Grand Trunk Railroad tracks and the less populated area on the northern end of Wight Street. The industrial development did not predate the creation of the largely residential Addition, but rather developed separately in zones perceived as being appropriate for that activity, i.e., the railroad corridor and the less densely populated outlying areas of the dense residential neighborhood.

 

The grid system of streets and one-quarter-acre or less lots laid out by the Berlin Heights Addition Land Corporation created the neighborhood's original density. Within the street system, however, many of the initial residents of the neighborhood purchased more than one lot, deconstructing the system to a certain degree. Owners used the lots to create a buffer between properties, or reserved them to sell at a later date. This pattern ended within ten years in response to population and housing pressures (Sanborn 1901-1910). After a brief lull in population growth between 1900 and 1910, Berlin's population rose 32 percent between 1910 and 1920, and 36 percent between 1920 and 1930 (Bureau of the Census 1900-1930). The rise spurred more housing development in the project area, resulting in the sale and development of most of the earlier buffer lots. Less desirable building lots that had previously lain vacant were also developed during these years. The flat floor of the deep ravine between First and Second Avenues, for example, was developed by ca. 1900 with houses constructed behind those fronting on First Avenue, accessed by a small, unnamed drive. Development on the steep, upper edge of the ravine on Second Avenue did not occur until necessity dictated ca. 1930 (Bureau of the Census 1900-1930).

 

The physical character of the individual dwellings in the project area were influenced by a number of factors, including the initial design laid out by the Berlin Heights Addition Land Corporation, the type of residents buying homes in the neighborhood, population pressures, and broader perceptions of what constituted acceptable forms of urban housing at the turn of the twentieth century. The initial grid and lot plan shaped dwellings by regulating the land available for building. As in many urban neighborhoods, the lots are long and rectangular, with the narrow end oriented to the street, in order to fit as many buildings as possible within a city block. This type of lot produces buildings with the same proportions and orientations, and regardless of how many lots initial owners in the neighborhood purchased, the homes they built conform to this pattern. There are no examples of domestic buildings taking up more than one original lot within the project area. Neither are there any instances of connected dwellings or massive tenement blocks found in other regional urban areas (Sanborn 1901-1950). Individual builders and homeowners chose somewhat different setbacks for each property. Most houses sit close to the street line, but as there was no known citywide standard for setback until well after the completion of the project area, there is little uniformity. Some blocks and streets have fairly consistent setbacks, and where properties do vary in their setback, the difference is rarely dramatic. The addition and removal of front porch structures over time and the fencing of front yards in the project area have also affected the setback for many individual buildings. These factors often disrupt the visual rhythm of streetscapes where setback was fairly consistent.

 

Builders and homeowners in the project area overwhelmingly embraced the model of a single, freestanding, wood-frame building on each house lot, with air, light, and a small amount of land on all sides. By the turn of the twentieth century, most builders, homebuyers, and local governments had turned away from the large tenement buildings and connected dwellings of decades past in favor of a more suburban model of residential planning. This concept of a freestanding house with some measurable space between it and the next structure is rooted in the writings of landscape architects such as Andrew Jackson Downing, who in the 1830s put forth the pastoral garden suburb as a serene respite from the crowded, multifamily conditions then found in most urban environments. The freestanding, single-family house became a vessel for the social reformers of the late nineteenth century, who railed against the health and moral risks they associated with the crowded rabbits' warrens of some large multifamily dwellings. The concept took hold among the shapers of American urban areas, and even under the increased pressure and potential for profit, most builders and buyers hesitated to connect buildings and thus forgo the perceived health and social benefits available with the freestanding form (Heath 2001:125).

 

Despite the high rise in population and increased need for housing in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, single-family houses historically made up the majority of dwellings within the project area. While the single-family house has been found to be the dominant method for housing urban residents nationwide during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, regardless of class, it is somewhat unusual for the Northeast, where a regional pattern of two- and three- family houses is commonly found in urban centers (Raub 1990:3). The preponderance of single-family houses in the project area may have been due in part to the type of residents who initially settled the neighborhood: a class of moderately skilled workers, including shoemakers, mill engineers, papermakers, carpenters, contractors, and others. The relatively high wages paid by the wood and paper mills in Berlin allowed many families to purchase their own homes. Renters initially outnumbered homeowners in the neighborhood between 1900 and 1920, but after that date, the ratio was nearly equal (Bureau of the Census 1900-1930). The large, unskilled labor force generally associated with large multifamily housing forms was certainly present in the project area, but was not the majority demographically. Single-family homes may also outnumber multifamily homes in the project area because local builders were able to keep up with the demand for housing. Single- family housing is less efficient than multifamily housing in the use of building labor and capital. If time or money were of the essence in housing production, it is reasonable to assume that more originally multifamily housing would have been built in the project area. Though Berlin experienced rapid bursts of population growth at different times in its history, it appears from federal census information that between 1900 and 1920, the average number of families per dwelling in the city never rose above 1.5 (Bureau of the Census 1900-1920). This figure indicates that there was sufficient housing stock constructed across the city in order to accommodate the population at a relatively low level of density (Raub 1990:8).

 

Although single-family housing dominated in the project area and the surrounding neighborhood, the area also includes a wide variety of multifamily dwellings. Some were built as such, and others were converted later as the neighborhood population increased and developable land was at maximum capacity. Multifamily housing was attractive to builders, buyers, and renters because the form made more efficient use of land, labor, and materials and served several important social functions. Rental income from the additional unit(s) in the building helped provide economic stability or increase the standard of living for the homeowner. For immigrant families, which made up between 40 and 50 percent of the population in the project area, multifamily housing allowed extended family to live under one roof and facilitated the preservation of ethnic traditions and lifestyles (Raub 1990:13-14). Many multifamily dwellings in the neighborhood were constructed between 1910 and 1920, a period which coincides with a 60 percent rise in the population in the neighborhood and a 32 percent rise in overall population within the city (Sanborn 1901-1950, Bureau of the Census 1900-1930). Multifamily dwellings within the project area are almost exclusively two- or three-family structures arranged with a single living unit on each floor. There are only limited instances of dwellings with four or more units. Most of the multifamily dwellings in the project area display common urban housing features, such as separate exterior entrances for each unit and multi-story porch structures on the front and rear of the buildings. The multifamily houses in Berlin as a whole have significantly larger porch structures than commonly seen in other urban environments, and tend to have porches on two or more elevations. Many of these porches provide exterior access to each living unit, even when evidence of an internal circulation pattern between units exists. It is not known if the porches serve this function because of building code requirements for fire safety, or if having separate exterior access to each unit was a feature Berlin residents deemed important.

 

Because the Berlin Heights Addition is made up of primarily residential buildings of three units or less, most buildings constructed in the project area are 11⁄2 to 21⁄2 stories in height, and no building in the neighborhood rise above three stories. There was no known building or zoning code prohibiting higher buildings in the area; rather, the forms followed prescribed functions. In fact, the first imposition of a zoning code in the City of Berlin in 1929-1930 had almost no measurable effect on the project area. The code postdated the major period of development within the project area, and the zoning assigned to the district reflected the building types already present. The project area was divided into two fairly liberal zoning districts. All of Jolbert Street and Fourth through Eighth Avenues south of Madigan Street were zoned as General Residential, meaning that single-family, and "double or semi-detached houses" were allowed, as long as multifamily dwellings had less than three contiguous units divided by party walls. Given that multifamily dwellings in the project area are almost exclusively arranged with a single unit per floor, the distinction of party wall divisions had little meaning in this context. The remainder of the project area had the least restrictive zoning available, reflecting the wide variety of uses concentrated there. The project area was zoned Semi- Residential, meaning that single- and multifamily residences, and businesses such as stores, offices, banks, hotels and clubs were allowed in the district. Semi-Residential districts could also contain buildings in which the first floor or basement of a residential structure was used for a business purpose, excepting a garage, car repair shop, or junk business (Anonymous 1929). Builders also used local materials in housing construction. Most dwellings in the project area have native stone foundations and are of wood construction. With one exception, brick construction was reserved for dedicated commercial or industrial buildings within the project area.

 

The surviving commercial and industrial buildings in the project area were constructed at varying times over the neighborhood's thirty-year development history. The most common businesses were retail and service-oriented, intended to serve the immediate neighborhood. Surviving commercial buildings are largely concentrated along Third Avenue and Wight Street, while remaining industrial buildings are primarily located along Gilbert Street and northern Wight Street. The construction of some buildings, particularly those on Third Avenue, resulted in the demolition of earlier structures, where as others, such as those along Gilbert Street, were built on vacant lots (Sanborn 1901-1950). The buildings range in size, style, and purpose, but the majority of the surviving buildings are related to automobile or truck transportation. These include former gas stations and auto repair garages, as well as a trailer truck dealership and passenger car dealership. These businesses most likely developed in such numbers because the project area was located on a primary transportation route in and out of the city to points north. Many of the automobile related commercial buildings remain in use for the same purpose. There is no longer any industrial activity in the project area.

 

The Berlin Heights Addition is more than the mere sum of its architectural parts. Like many urban neighborhoods, the land, buildings, and underlying organizational pattern of the project area create significant component landscapes and associated landscape features. The interiors of the blocks created by the ca. 1893 street grid form an important secondary landscape within the project area. On many block interiors, garages and other utilitarian buildings are arranged in rhythmic rows, backed up against the rear property lines of facing lots. The block interiors are most commonly accessed via the paved drives located to the side of most dwellings in the project area. There are few instances of alley or service spaces on the block interiors, generally because the density of development and sloping topography discouraged this practice. The ravine floor between First and Second Avenues south of Green Street is one exception. This area has a well-developed interior scheme of residential and service buildings accessible via a drive off First Avenue. The five houses located on the stone outcropping above Second Avenue also have an interior drive running behind the structures from Jolbert Street. The drive provides service access and automobile parking for the dwellings. The sloping topography in the project area has also produced a varied collection of decorative and utilitarian stone retaining walls lining lot frontages. The stone walls visually demarcating property boundaries with changes in design and materials.

 

Few structures within the project area retain defining characteristics of a style of construction beyond overall form. This is due in part to the application of synthetic siding, window replacement, and significant reconfiguration of porches that took place over the course of the early twentieth century. Most of the commercial and industrial buildings have also been altered over time through reconfiguration of door and window openings and residing with metal or other synthetic materials. The domestic buildings in the project area have a high degree of integrity of location and setting, as there seem to have been no instances of moving buildings from lot to lot, or within single house lots. There have also been few instances of individual building demolition within the project area according to Sanborn fire insurance maps. The neighborhood retains integrity of feeling and association as a mixed-use, primarily residential neighborhood that developed through individual efforts over a forty-year period. Individually, most buildings have lost some degree of integrity of workmanship, materials, and design due to window replacement, the application of synthetic siding, and removal or addition of porch structures. Porch addition and removal contribute less to a loss of integrity because most changes observed in the project are occurred before 1950. Porches by their nature are often the first thing lost from single and multifamily housing in harsh climates because they decay quickly and can be costly to replace (Heath 2001:172). Climate also influenced the treatment of surviving porches within the project area. Because of the harsh winters experienced in northern New Hampshire, many front and rear porch structures on all types of dwellings are enclosed, providing a more sheltered area in which to dry laundry and creating a protected transition from outdoors to indoors.

 

Because of the general loss of integrity of materials and workmanship among most component buildings within the project area and the relatively short development period of the neighborhood, it is more useful to categorize the buildings by function and form than period or style of construction. Broadly categorized, the component buildings in the project area include one-, two-, and three- family homes of varying sizes and forms; four-plus unit dwellings; mixed-use residential and commercial buildings; and dedicated commercial and small industrial buildings.

 

Single-Family Houses

Single-family houses in the project area take a variety of forms popular in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The majority of single-family homes in the project area are variants on the sidehall form, ranging in height from 11⁄2 to 21⁄2 stories. This widely popular vernacular housing form exists in many manifestations within the project area. There are a number of sidehalls in the project area that have stylistic features commonly associated with Greek Revival style buildings. Representative examples include various buildings on the northern end of Wight Street (before 1928; Photos 1, Block 2 and Photo 2, Block 1), a grouping of four sidehalls on the west side of Fourth Avenue (before 1928, Photo 3, Block 4), one on Mannering Street (ca. 1909, Photo 4, Block 7), and two similar examples on Third Avenue near the corner of Mannering Street (ca. 1909, Photo 5, Block 7). The late construction dates for these buildings illustrate the long-lived popularity of the style. The various houses display Greek Revival characteristics such as molded cornices and cornice returns, wide frieze boards along the roofline on the primary elevations, pedimented gable dormers, and cornerboards with capitals. Most of these structures were constructed with single-story front porches, a feature not found on older Greek Revival sidehall forms. Some of the porches retain original square posts with capitals, a feature more commonly found on early twentieth century porches.

 

There are few examples of Greek Revival sidehalls that retain any degree of physical integrity. The best example in the project area is located at 820 Second Avenue (Photo 6, Block 12). This ca. 1901, 11⁄2-story sidehall house with wing retains original wood trim, including clapboard siding, frieze boards, cornerboards with capitals, and cornice returns. The house originally had a single- story porch along the front elevation of the wing; the porch was removed after ca. 1950 (Sanborn 1938-1950). Number 105 Wight Street (before 1928, Photo 7 and 8, Block 3) also retains a good degree of physical integrity, retaining original windows, exterior wood trim, and pedimented dormers, despite being resided in asphalt shingles. Though constructed as a single-family dwelling, this structure has since been converted to two-family use. The 11⁄2-story rear ell has a two-story porch addition allowing access to the upstairs unit.

 

There are only limited examples of the sidehall form adapted to the Queen Anne style, characterized by a steeply-pitched roof, asymmetrical façade, and partial or full-length front porches. These include 729 Second Avenue and the two houses located just north of that dwelling near the corner of Sessions Street. All three dwellings were constructed ca. 1895 by local carpenter and contractor Augustin Gilbert, who purchased five lots on the rise above Second Avenue in 1896. Seven hundred twenty-nine Second Avenue is a 2-story dwelling with a hipped roof (Photo 9, Block 11). There is a two-story projecting bay window on the south side of the façade, and a pedimented gable peak above the off-center entry bay. According to Sanborn maps, this dwelling also had a single-story porch that extended from the bay window to the north side of the façade. This has subsequently been replaced with a small entry porch. The next Queen Anne form house to the north of 729 Second Avenue is also 2 stories high and has a hipped roof (Photo 10, Block 11). This house differs by having a significantly larger projecting bay on the north side of the façade, culminating in a high, hipped roof to create a tower form. This house retains the original single-story porch, which shelters the off-center entry and connects to the tower. The third Queen Anne form on the block is a 21⁄2- story house with a gable roof (Photo 10, Block 11). The half-story is set off on the façade with a narrow pent roof and the first story of the façade has a projecting bay window. A wrap-around porch was added to this house ca. 1928, and has since been removed from the façade and enclosed on the north elevation.

 

Several other single-family, sidehall form dwellings in the project area lack a well-developed Queen Anne form, but display elements of Queen Anne styling. The best example of this convention can be seen on a ca. 1920 house constructed behind the buildings on Second Avenue at the intersection with the Grand Trunk Railroad tracks (Photo 11, Block 13). This 13⁄4-story house has a combination of clapboard and wood shingle siding, wide frieze boards, and cornice returns. The apex of the gable is set nearly flush with the eave line and creates an overhang above the rest of the façade. Less elaborate use of patterned shingle work on sidehall forms can be seen on 169 Green Street, at the corner of Second Avenue (Photo 12, Block 13). This ca. 1901, 13⁄4-story sidehall has a pent roof separating the gable peak from the rest of the façade, and the peak is clad in staggered wood shingles. Another 11⁄2-story sidehall house on Second Avenue near the corner of Mannering Street has a mixture of Greek Revival and Queen Anne elements (Photo 13, Block 9). The ca. 1909 house has a molded cornice with returns, wide frieze boards, and pilaster cornerboards, but also has staggered wood shingle cladding in the apex of the gable, separated from the rest of the elevation by a trim board. The full-length front porch has a solid balustrade and square column posts typical of early twentieth century porch forms. Number 127 Roderick Street is a 21⁄2-story, ca. 1914 sidehall exhibiting both Greek Revival and Queen Anne stylistic features (Photo 14, Block 16). The dwelling has a full-length front porch with turned posts and brackets with a star motif and a single- story bay window on the east elevation. The half story of the façade is set off on the façade (north elevation) with a narrow pent roof, creating a pedimented gable. The cornerboards trimming the clapboard siding have small capitals at the tops and the roofline on the side elevations and the pedimented gable on the façade have wide frieze bands.

 

Many other single-family, sidehall forms in the project area have lost significant degrees of physical integrity due to the application of synthetic siding, window replacement, and porch reconfiguration, and no longer display any stylistic detailing. These include houses on the north side of Hinchey Street (Photo 15, Block 4 and Photo 16, Block 5), several houses near the north end of Wight Street (Photo 17, Block 6), and two small houses near the corner of Third Avenue and Mannering Street (Photo 18, Block 9). Number 111 Wight Street has lost physical integrity through the application of synthetic siding and window replacement, but retains early twentieth-century, vertically divided 4/1 windows on the enclosed front porch (Photo 20, Block 20). The porch also retains a pedimented gable ornament over the off-center entrance.

 

Cross-gabled house forms make up a small number of single-family houses in the project area, and display a variety of stylistic features. Number 116 Wight Street (before 1928) is a 11⁄2-story dwelling with a wrap around porch (Photo 21, Block 1). The house displays some elements of the Greek Revival style such as wide frieze boards, cornice returns, but also has a bay window and porch with column supports. Number 763 Third Avenue is a ca. 1905 Queen Anne-style cross-gable dwelling with a molded cornice supported by paired brackets, a prominent front gable with beveled overhangs, and a wrap around porch with square column supports (now partially enclosed) (Photo 22, Block 8). A vernacular cross-gable form on the west side of Wight Street near the north end of the project area has remnants of decorative barge boards on the gables, a square bay window, and a small porch with turned posts (Photo 23, Block 2). Number 280 Wight Street (Photo 24, Block 1) and a ca. 1901 house at the corner of First Avenue and Roderick Street (Photo 25, Block17) have some elements the Gothic Revival style in their use of steeply pitched gable wall dormers. A ca. 1901 house on the east side of First Avenue, north of Roderick Street, has a hipped roof on both the main block and cross-gable section (Photo 26, Block 17). Other significantly altered examples of the form include 709 First Avenue (ca. 1909, Photo 27, Block 17), a 11⁄2-story structure with vinyl siding and replacement windows; and a T-shaped house with asbestos siding and an enclosed wrap around porch on the west side of Wight Street (Photo 28, Block 2).

 

A small number of single-family, side gable forms are present in the project area. Most are 11⁄2 stories in height and a single cell in depth with a perpendicular, single-story ell. The oldest example is the ca. 1890 Lemieux House, located on the north side of Green Street immediately west of the Grand Trunk Railroad tracks (Photos 29 and 30, Block 16). The 11⁄2-story, much-altered building predates the development of the project area. The 3 x 2 bay, central section of the house is presumed original, with a later 2 x 2 bay, 11⁄2-story addition on the west gable end. This structure has since been converted to a three-family dwelling with a two-story enclosed porch on the east gable end serving two of the units. Other early side gable forms in the project area include 733 Third Avenue, built ca. 1905 (Photo 31, Block 8), and 656 First Avenue, built ca. 1914 (Photo 32, Block 14). Neither building displays much in the way of architectural style, though both have significant rear ells. The ell behind 733 Third Avenue nearly doubles the living space afforded in the main block. There are also a number of Gothic Revival side gable forms in the project area, including three identical Gothic Revival houses located on the west side of First Avenue, near the end of the street (Photo 33, Block 12), and a similar example on Fifth Avenue near the corner of Wight Street (Photo 34, Block 3). The examples on First Avenue were all were constructed ca 1901 with porches added later, and have a prominent centered, gable wall dormer on the primary elevation. The example on Fifth Avenue was built before 1928 and has slightly larger proportions than those on First Avenue. An even larger example of the form is located at the corner of Wight Street and Sixth Avenue (Photo 35, Block 2). This property has a similar prominent gable wall dormer on the façade and a full- length front porch. Each of these buildings has been altered with replacement windows, porch enclosure, and various synthetic siding materials. More recent side gable forms include 207 Fourth Ave, built after ca. 1950 (Photo 36, Block 5), and a ca. 1938 cape on the east side of First Avenue, near the northern end of the street (Photo 37, Block 17). Both have been significantly altered. The house at 207 Fourth Avenue has a shallow, enclosed porch across the façade and a new, three-bay shed dormer on the front roof slope. The house also has vinyl siding and replacement windows. The cape on First Avenue retains some vestiges of Colonial Revival styling, such as the pedimented roof dormers on the street elevation, but the front door has been moved from the façade to the south gable end of the building.

 

The American Foursquare form is also present among the single-family houses in the project area. This widely popular early twentieth-century form is defined as a two-story building, measuring two bays wide and two bays deep, with a hipped roof. Builders have widely adapted the Foursquare form to a variety of styles. The most dramatic example of the Foursquare form in the project area is the 21⁄2-story brick dwelling located at 771 Third Avenue (Photo 38, Block 8). Constructed ca. 1914, the house has a hipped roof with a centered, hipped dormer on the front slope, a two-story projecting brick bay window, and a half-length, enclosed porch. The building has little architectural detailing aside from the slight arch of the window openings and the interlocking brick joints on the bay windows. The remaining examples of single-family Foursquares in the project area are much more modest in scale. A wood-frame version with a good degree of physical integrity is located adjacent to 854 Fifth Avenue (Photo 39, Block 4). The 21⁄2-story house has a hipped roof with a two-bay, hipped dormer centered on the front slope. The house retains a full-length front porch with a solid balustrade and square column posts, a Craftsman inspired form commonly found on Foursquare homes. A three-part picture window on the first story of the façade is also frequently found in Craftsman style dwellings. Number 26 Hamlin Street, constructed ca. 1909 (Photo 40, Block 13), and 723 Third Avenue, built ca. 1920 (Photo 41, Block 8), are typical examples of the single-family Foursquare form in the project area. Both have lost some degree of physical integrity through the application of synthetic siding and window replacement. An unusual example of a form similar to the Foursquare is located at the corner of Labrossiere Street and Sixth Avenue (Photo 42, Block 3). The 11⁄2-story house is two bays wide and two bays deep with a hipped roof, but lacks the full two- story height common among Foursquare houses. In order to make the half story usable, the builder added a large gable wall dormer on the south elevation. This ca. 1928 house has been significantly altered with synthetic siding, replacement windows, the reconfiguration of window openings, and the relocation of the main entrance to an enclosed side porch.

 

The project area also contains a number of vernacular bungalow forms. These small, single-family dwellings are largely limited to the outskirts of the Berlin Heights Addition development area. Most were built by ca. 1928, though isolated examples were built in the 1930s and 1940s. The majority of the bungalows are located on Wight Street near the north end of the project area (Photo 43, Block 1), and an isolated example is located off Second Avenue at the intersection with the Grand Trunk Railroad tracks (Photo 44, Block 7). Typical examples are 11⁄2-stories in height with rectangular plans, gable roofs and full-length front porches, most of which are now enclosed. The ca. 1938 bungalow attached to the French Connection diner on the east side of Wight Street has large shed dormers on both roof slopes, but other examples with gable roofs in the project area do not (Photo 133, Block 1). Several bungalows also have hipped roofs and square plans. The best example is located at 284 Wight Street (Photo 45, Block 1). The 11⁄2-story, ca. 1938 building has a full-length enclosed front porch with a flat roof, solid balustrade, square column supports, and divided enclosure windows. A side porch has a similar treatment. Other windows on the bungalow have been replaced and the walls are clad in vinyl siding. A similar bungalow is located immediately south of 266 Wight Street (Photo 46, Block 1). The 11⁄2-story house has a full-length, partially enclosed front porch with column supports.

 

The most recent single-family houses in the project area are ranch and raised ranch forms. The only developed ranch form in the project area is located behind 284 Wight Street (Photo 47, 1). The house is a single story in height with a low-pitched hipped roof, L-shaped plan, wide eave overhang, and small, rectangular windows set high in the wall. Modern raised ranches are located immediately north of the former Converse Rubber factory on Wight Street and on the north side of Green Street south of First Avenue.

 

Two single-family houses on the west side of Wight Street near the northern end of the project area have no recognizable form or style (Photo 48, Block 2). Both buildings are constructed from a variety of different masses with shed and gable roofs. The construction dates for these buildings are unknown.

 

Multifamily Dwellings: Two-Family

The vast majority of multifamily houses in the project area are two-family dwellings, a form commonly built in the United States between the mid nineteenth century and the first quarter of the twentieth century (Raub 1990:3). Two-family houses were built consistently throughout the development of the project area. It is interesting to note that there were few side-by-side multi- family dwelling units in the project area according to period Sanborn fire insurance maps. Nearly all multifamily dwellings built as such adopted the "French flat" model of having a single living unit per floor. "Stacked" versus "side-by-side" units within a multifamily dwelling offered numerous advantages. The convention provided more privacy with the removal of party walls, and offered semi-private back and side yards and porches (Heath 2001:129). Each unit had features similar to a freestanding single-family home, such as a reception vestibule, a heat source separate from the cook stove, and individual indoor plumbing (Heath 2001:142). Few two-family dwellings in the project area have a common entry for both units, and most have a separate exterior entrance accessible via a two-story porch. Large porches were not always original to the two-family dwellings in the project area. Many were enlarged over time to give outdoor space to the second-floor units, or to facilitate the creation of a separate exterior entrance to the second floor.

 

Most of the earlier two-family homes constructed in the project area took the form of 21⁄2-story buildings with sidehall plans or cross-gable forms. There are several well-developed Queen Anne cross-gable forms among two-family dwellings in the project area. Number 160 Green Street, built ca. 1909, is a 21⁄2-story cross-gabled dwelling with a pent roof enclosing the gable and a two-story bay window on the façade (Photo 49, Block 12). A two-story porch with a shed roof on the south elevation provides exterior access to the second floor unit, and both the porch entrance and the main entrance to the first-floor unit have entry porches with square column supports, gable roofs, and a pent roof across the porch gable. A similar house, built ca. 1901, is located at the corner of Madigan Street and Third Avenue (Photo 50, Block 10). The 21⁄2-story structure has a cross gable roof with a pent roof enclosing the facade gable, and a 2-story bay window and pedimented entry porch on the façade. The house also has a narrow 2-story wing on the east elevation with a two-story porch. The building was initially constructed without a porch, but the owners added a 2-story porch to the façade ca. 1938. This has since been removed. The house retains original window surrounds, including the one in the façade gable, which imitates a flattened segmental arch with keystone. As originally constructed, the house had simulated quoins on each corner and around the front entrance. These have been obscured by asbestos siding. Number 772 Second Avenue, built ca. 1901 also fits in this category, though the front porches have been removed (Photo 51, Block 12). The 2-story enclosed porch that wraps around the south and east elevations beginning at the cross gable was added ca. 1928. Two houses built ca. 1909 on Gilbert Street near the intersection with Hamlin Street also take this basic Queen Anne form (Photo 52, Block 14). Number 43 Gilbert Street has a triangular section at the apex of the façade gable that overhangs the rest of the wall surface. This area retains original wood shingles. The house also has cornice returns with pent roof-style treatment on the façade and cross gables. Other examples that have been significantly altered include 765 First Avenue (ca. 1901, Photo 53, Block 12), a house near the northwest corner of Second Avenue and Madigan Street (ca. 1905, Photo 54, Block 9), and a house on the corner of Second Avenue and Madigan Street (ca. 1905, Photo 55, Block 10). The house on the corner of Second Avenue and Madigan Street has lost a significant degree of integrity through the application of vinyl siding and window replacement and reconfiguration. However, the house retains a small overhanging section at the apex of the façade gable, shingled cornice returns, and a small, three-part window in the gable with original sash divided in a star pattern. There is also an unusual cross gable form on the west side of First Avenue at the corner of Hamlin Street (Photo 56, Block 13). This ca. 1901 2-story dwelling has a long rectangular main block with a small cross gable on the south elevation, both with low-pitch hipped roofs. There is a two-story porch in the intersection of the main block and cross gable. The façade has a two-story bay window offset by the main entrance to the house. The entrance is sheltered by a Colonial Revival style entry porch with a gable roof, arched entry, and round column supports. The front roofline also has a Colonial Revival style molded cornice.

 

Less elaborate forms 21⁄2-story sidehall forms include the house on the southwest corner of First Avenue and Roderick Street (ca. 1901, Photo 57, Block 16), which has a 2-story side porch and stair tower accessing the upstairs unit. Another dwelling on Second Avenue across from the intersection with Jolbert Street is 21⁄2 stories in height with a large gable wall dormer on the south elevation (Photo 58, Block 13). This structure was built ca. 1901 as a single-family dwelling, but was converted to tenements ca. 1905. The two-story front porch on the façade provides exterior access to the second floor unit. The small, attached garage was added after ca. 1938.

 

The most popular forms of two-family housing in the project area are the American Foursquare and variants on that form adapted for multifamily living. There are nearly forty examples of these types scattered uniformly around the neighborhood. There are a significant number of true multifamily Foursquare forms, measuring two stories in height with a roughly square plan. Few of these forms are unaltered and most have significant rear additions and front and side porches. Most multifamily Foursquare dwellings in the project area are variants on the form, constructed with a basic Foursquare core, but adapted to two-family living with more elongated plans, different entrance configurations, and large porch structures. The most common architectural style applied to all Foursquare forms in the project area is the Colonial Revival.

 

The simplest examples of the Foursquare form are 862 Second Avenue, built ca. 1920 (Photo 59, Block 12), and 806-808 Second Avenue, built ca. 1909 (Photo 60, Block 12). Both buildings are two stories in height with hipped roofs and a 2 x 2 bay form. Both also have paired entries on the facades providing access to the two housing units inside. Number 862 Second Avenue has a later, 2- story rear porch addition with a shed roof and a small, single-story addition on the south elevation. Neither building exhibits many stylistic elements, though 806-808 has a Colonial Revival, pedimented door surround. Two slightly larger examples of the Foursquare form, built ca. 1909, are located on the north side of Roderick Street (Photo 61, Block 17). Both have been modified with synthetic siding and window replacement. Many other typical examples of two-family Foursquare homes in the project area have significant porch structures on the façade or side elevations. Number 38 Wight Street (before 1928, Photo 62, Block 6) and 116 Sessions Street (ca. 1920, Photo 63, Block 10) exhibit the simplest configuration, a two-story, partial length porch on the primary elevation. As with many residential structures in the neighborhood, the porches are now enclosed. Other structures, such as 740 Second Avenue, built ca. 1909 (Photo 64, Block 12), have large side porches that shelter a separate, exterior entrance to the upstairs unit. Number 740 Second Avenue originally had a single-story front porch and a two-story side porch (now enclosed) included under the roofline on the north elevation. Some vestiges of Colonial Revival styling are still visible on 740 Second Avenue, including a wide frieze band along the roof line, the tops of capitals still visible at the corners of the structure, and the "X" division pattern of the sash in the dormer windows. Number 206 Wight Street has a two-story wrap-around porch across the façade and south elevation (Photo 65, Block 1). The porch provides the primary exterior access to the second-floor unit.

 

Examples of the elongated, Foursquare, two-family form include 145 Green Street (Photo 66, Block 14), the house immediately south of 820 Third Avenue (Photo 67, Block 7), and a house on the east side of Second Avenue between Madigan and Sessions Streets (Photo 68, Block 10). Each house has a two-bay façade, but has a lot depth up to twice as long. As with other examples of multifamily housing in the project area, these forms use porch structures to access the second-floor units. Number 145 Green Street (ca. 1909) has a two-story side porch with an exterior staircase. This porch originally wrapped around the front of the building. The house on Third Avenue (ca 1914) has an original, two-story, wrap-around porch included under the hipped roofline with an exterior staircase on the side elevation. The porches on both buildings exhibit a small amount of styling in the use of tapered square column supports. A similar porch remains open on the east elevation of 145 Green Street. The house on Second Avenue (ca. 1928) has a two-story front porch included under the roofline, but no external access to the second-floor unit. An example of a similar form with a slightly wider façade is located at 830 Fifth Avenue (Photo 69, Block 4). The dwelling is slightly elongated and has a two-story, enclosed front porch included under the roofline. The structure has vinyl siding and replacement windows, but retains original early twentieth century picture windows on both stories of the façade. The large stone chimney and single-story wing are later additions. Number 700 Second Avenue takes a novel approach to the form (Photo 70, Block 13). This ca. 1920 two-family dwelling is situated at the lip of a ravine and is two stories on the street elevation, but drops to a full three stories at the rear of the building. There is a single story porch on the façade that wraps around to the north elevation and drops to two stories. A living unit is located in the basement level and is accessible via the porch.

 

Many two-family dwellings in the project area display the common Colonial Revival form of a 21⁄2- story, 3 x 2 or 3 x 3 bay structure with a hipped roof and front porch, though few retain significant stylistic elements. The best example of this form is 121 Madigan Street, built ca. 1914 (Photo 71, Block 10). The 21⁄2-story structure has a hipped roof with a two-bay hipped dormer on the front slope. The house also has a full-length porch with a hipped roof, square column supports, and pediment over the entry. Other characteristics of the Colonial Revival style include evidence of a wide frieze band along the roofline of the house and dormer, and pilasters made from the cornerboards on each corner of the building. Though most of the windows have been replaced, some openings retain Colonial Revival window caps. A dwelling on the north side of Green Street near the corner of First Avenue has the same form, but retains fewer architectural details (Photo 72, Block 16). The 2-story side porch dates from ca. 1938. Number 723 Second Avenue, built by Augustin Gilbert ca. 1901, was similar in configuration when first constructed (Photo 73, Block 11). The 21⁄2- story building had a hipped roof with a 2-bay shed dormer on the front slope, and 2-story projecting bay windows on both ends of the façade (west elevation). The 2-story enclosed porch set between the bays is a later addition. Number 738 Second Avenue presents an identical form, but a different stylistic treatment (Photo 74, Block 12). Instead of Colonial Revival styling, the ca. 1901 building has a number of Italianate features. The 2-story main block and ell have low-pitch hipped roofs scroll eave brackets. The building also has some classical features such as a single-story bay window on the south elevation topped by a pedimented gable roof and cornerboards ending with modest capitals at the eave line. The house retains original clapboard siding, and most of the original 2/2 window sash and flush surrounds. The façade has a two-story bay window, balanced by a two-story porch. The second story of the porch is enclosed.

 

Less elaborate versions of the Colonial Revival, 2-story, hipped roof form include 640 and 648 First Avenue (ca. 1914 and ca. 1901 respectively; Photo 75, Block 14), 125 Wight Street (before 1928, Photo 76, Block 3), 830 Fifth Avenue (before 1928), and 674-676 Second Avenue (ca. 1938, Photo 77, Block 13). All were constructed with broad hipped roofs, varying dormer configurations, and 2- story front porches sheltering dual entries. An example of the form with smaller porches and no surviving architectural detail is found at 866 Fifth Avenue (Photo 78, Block 4). This pre-1928 structure with asbestos siding has a centered, 2-story enclosed porch on the façade, which provides access to the single front door used for both units. Number 107 Mannering Street is similarly devoid of ornament, but retains the recognizable Colonial Revival form under a pyramidal hipped roof (Photo 79, Block 9). The ca. 1909 building originally had a single-story porch across the street elevation; the porch was relocated to the side elevation ca. 1914. Two other unusual buildings with a basic Colonial Revival, hip roof form are 786 Second Avenue (ca. 1909, Photo 80, Block 12) and 115 Madigan Street (ca. 1901, Photo 81, Block 10). Number 786 Second Avenue has a broad, four- bay façade with a centered entrance. There is a square, two-story projecting bay window on the south end of the façade with a shallow hipped roof. As originally constructed, the Number 115 Madigan Street has a three-bay façade with an off-center entrance located at the extreme west end of the elevation. A two-story bay window with a conical roof is centered on the façade. The house has a fair degree of physical integrity in that it retains wood clapboard siding and plain wood trim. It is notable that 115 Madigan Street does not have any porch structures, nor does it provide a separate entrance to each unit.

 

There are also several two-family dwellings in the project area that have a side gable orientation. The ca. 1901 side gable house located on the north side of Madigan Street near the corner of Third Avenue is unique in the neighborhood for its form and interior configuration (Photo 82, Block 9). According to Sanborn maps, this dwelling was originally constructed as two side-by-side units, though it was later reconfigured to have a single unit on each floor. The 21⁄2-story dwelling is also unique for having a side gable orientation with two small projecting gables on the east and west (gable) ends. The entrance is centered on the façade and is accessed via a single-story, enclosed wrap around porch. The house has some Queen Anne styling in the pent roofs that set off the gables on each end of the main block and on the projecting gable sections, the originally open wrap around porch, and the small pediment over the porch entrance. The house has lost integrity through the application of asbestos siding and several small additions on the south elevation, though the building retains a number of original 2/2 sash and window trim. Two other side-gable, two-family dwellings are located next to each other on the east side of Wight Street near the curve into Third Avenue (Photo 83, Block 6). One is a 21⁄2-story building with a shallow, two-story, enclosed front porch. The house immediately adjacent is a 11⁄2-story, kneewall building with a centered front entrance. The house lacks the porch structures common on other multifamily buildings in the project area. There is a small, single-story shop structure attached to the south elevation.

 

There are also several two-family buildings in the project area that do not neatly fit into any formal category. Number 741 First Avenue is a ca. 1901, 2-story dwelling consisting of a square plan main block and a long cross gable wing (Photo 84, Block 12). Both parts of the building have hipped roofs, and the main block has a flat section at the apex. The house originally had a two-story wrap around porch that stopped at the wing; the building now has a ca. 1914, 2-story enclosed porch on the façade (Sanborn 1909, 1914). The house does not retain any stylistic treatment from the initial period of construction. This house is one of the few documented multifamily conversions in the neighborhood. Sanborn maps show that it was constructed as a single-family house in 1901, but was converted to tenements by 1909. Interestingly, the house across the street has a nearly identical plan and form, though it still functions as a single-family dwelling.

 

There are two dwellings in the project area that have L-shaped plans in which the ell section fronts on the street. Number 119-121 Roderick Street, built ca. 1914, is a 2-story dwelling consisting of a square main block and a 2 x 1 bay section projecting from the front elevation (Photo 85, Block 16). The main block has a hipped roof, but the projecting section has a gable roof. A 2-story porch wraps around the front (north) and east elevations of the projection, stopping at the main block. The porch provides exterior access to the second-floor unit. According to Sanborn maps, this dwelling was constructed in this configuration, and has not been significantly modified since that time (Sanborn 1914). Though the building has a high degree of physical integrity, it exhibits few elements of architectural style aside from the square column supports on the porch. A building with a similar form is located at 795 Second Avenue, built ca 1901 (Photo 86, Block 9). This house has a rectangular main block and a narrower section projecting from the south side of the façade. The 2- story, wrap around porch was present by 1914 and provides access to the second-floor unit. The top story of the porch has been enclosed and incorporated into the interior living space. This building differs from the one on Roderick Street in that it has a flat roof and a large bay window on the south elevation. Flat roofs both lowered the cost of construction by avoiding complicated roof trusses, and maximized unit space below. Like the 119-121 Roderick Street, 795 Second Avenue displays few stylistic elements aside from square column porch supports and early twentieth century decoratively divided sash in the bay window.

 

Number 669 First Avenue presents a recognized urban housing form, but one more commonly found on three-family dwellings (Photo 87, Block 13) (Heath 2001:139). The ca. 1901 2-story dwelling has a rectangular plan with a low-pitch hipped roof. The front roofline extends to cover a half- length, two-story porch, now enclosed. The portion of the roofline that does not cover the porch remains open, and is supported with a diagonal brace against the building. Sanborn maps indicate that aside from enclosing the porches, the building has not changed formally since construction (Sanborn 1901-1938). The house has been altered with wood shingle siding, replacement windows, and the reconfiguration of window openings, leaving few original stylistic elements other than a molded cornice and isolated window surrounds.

 

Some two-family dwellings in the project area have been significantly altered over time, but retain the defining characteristics of multifamily housing in the neighborhood. The house on the corner of Wight Street and Duguay Street (present 1928), for example, has a 2-story, 3 x 2-bay main block with an asymmetrical gable roof and long, rectangular ell (Photo 88, Block 2). The house has synthetic siding, replacement windows, and reconfigured window openings; however, the building retains separate exterior entrances to the two units in the building, which are arranged with one on each floor. A large porch provides access to the second-floor unit, though in this case it is a single story porch on the first story with a staircase to a smaller second floor porch. The two-family house located on the west side of Wight Street at the corner of Off Alice Street (before 1928) presents a similar situation (Photos 89 and 90, Block 2). The main block is two stories high with a hipped roof, but measures only one room deep. The main block has a long ell with a gable roof that originally had a large, 2-story porch on the south elevation. The porch has since been enclosed and incorporated into living space. Another ell with a gable roof extends from the rear elevation of the first ell, and has a two-story porch structure included under the roofline on the south side. Despite these changes, the building still has separate exterior entrances to the first and second floor units, accessed via the ell porches. There is also a small, 2-story porch centered on the façade that acts as a front entry porch for the first-floor unit, but has little function for the second-floor unit. Nonetheless, the convention of having multistoried front and/or rear porches held for this homeowner.

 

Multifamily Dwellings: Three-Family

Three-family dwellings are a minority within the project area when compared to the number of single or two-family homes. Most three-family dwellings were constructed between 1910 and 1920, when the neighborhood experienced a 60 percent rise in population. This also coincided with the increase in the construction of two-family dwellings in the project area. Three-family houses take a diversity of forms, including slightly larger versions of common Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, or American Foursquare forms. There are a few examples of the iconic New England triple-decker in the project area, as well as a specialized local version of a three-story, three-family dwelling commonly called a "block." As with two-family dwellings in the project area, the three-family dwellings are almost exclusively constructed with a single unit on each floor. Many units have their own exterior entrances, most often accessed through large multistory porch structures, which have been expanded, reduced and reconfigured at various times.

 

Freestanding three-family houses in which a single unit is located on each floor have only recently received significant scholarly attention as a building type. The form is variously characterized as the descendant of suburban sidehall houses or urban row houses, or as a smaller suburban version of the urban apartment house (Heath 2001:129, Shand-Tucci 2000:121, Krim 1977:vi). Three-story, three- family houses were most commonly constructed in the New England region between 1875 and 1925, and plans and schematics for the dwellings were dispersed in numerous trade journals. By the 1890s, three-family houses in New England assumed an easily recognizable regional form. The buildings were typically 21⁄2 to three full stories in height, with a single living unit on each floor. Inner urban examples tended to have an elongated plan with a general frontage to depth ratio of one to two, and the narrow end oriented to the street, mimicking the shape of narrow, but deep, urban house lots. Examples in outlying urban neighborhoods often had more generous lots and less elongated buildings. New England three-family houses characteristically had large front and rear porch structures, which caused them to be called three-deckers or triple-deckers in some parts of the region. Three-story, three-family houses evolved to embody many designs and forms, and were built for both the wealthy and the working classes across the region (Shand-Tucci 2000:125-126).

 

The freestanding, three-story, three-family house gained widespread popularity in the New England region for several reasons. The form provided a tidy solution to a common urban problem: how to maximize usable land while providing an attractive living environment. The houses were designed to be built on narrow urban lots and still provide light and air on all four sides of the building. The large, multistory porches on the front and rear elevations of triple-deckers visually separated each floor, and provided more personal residential outdoor space than the communal stoop of the tenement building (Heath 2001:146). In many communities, three-story, three-family dwellings were the largest structures that could be built to meet new zoning or building codes, many of which aimed to eradicate tenement conditions. Unlike most tenement buildings, these houses had air and light on all four sides of the building, separate bath facilities for each unit, and no party walls. The format of the triple-decker also made it economically attractive for buyers. As with two-family homes, the additional income from rental units helped stabilize the standard of living for many working and lower middle class families. Three-family houses also served direct social functions. Berlin historians note that the popularity of the three-family "block" was based in part on the fact that it allowed several generations of immigrant families to live in the same building, but afforded each nuclear family their own private living quarters. As with other forms of the triple-decker, the block porches were also used for drying laundry, storing household items, and outdoor recreation when climate permitted (Berlin Heritage Trail Partnership 1997:4).