Cambidge Common Historic District Amendment
The National Park Service has not published a boundary polygon for this district; the map shows the listed properties inside it and the district's reference point.
Why it's listed
This amendment revises the boundary of the Cambridge Common historic district in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The area covers roughly 27 acres around the Common and includes public, private and institutional properties built between about 1770 and 1940. The buildings represent many architectural styles and serve mixed uses, and their condition is recorded as good to excellent. Named properties on the survey photographs include Agassiz House in Radcliffe Yard and houses at 69 and 77 Brattle Street. Reviewers noted that the change removes some properties from the original district and places them in the proposed Old Cambridge district. The boundary change was accepted in June 1983. Reviewers said it corrects the earlier boundary and replaces it with one that follows the buildings and can be defended on the basis of significance. The new line also recognizes the boundaries of the adjacent districts. The document supplies little descriptive or historical narrative beyond these administrative and survey details.
Machine-generated summary. This summary was generated by a language model from the official nomination document and has not been reviewed line by line by an editor. It may contain errors. Check the source document before relying on any detail. Source: nomination document (PDF) · catalog entry. Generated October 2026 (model claude-sonnet-5-5, prompt v1.0-2026-10-29).
| Period of significance | 1770-1940 |
|---|---|
| Styles | Many styles; the area is described as not uniform in style. |
| Areas of significance | Military, Architecture |
| Acreage | 27 |
| Boundary source | not published |
| Full listing page | Cambidge Common Historic District Amendment (property record) |
What listing means for this property
This is a historic district. Buildings within its boundary are either contributing (they add to the district's significance) or non-contributing. Owners of contributing income-producing buildings can claim the 20% federal rehabilitation tax credit; homeowners should look at state credits. National Register districts impose no design review by themselves; a local historic district ordinance, if one exists, does (the difference explained).
General information, not legal or tax advice. Rules change; confirm with your State Historic Preservation Office or a qualified adviser.