by Jonathan Feist

The bright yellow concrete setting for the new stop sign recently placed in the heart of the Harvard Common Historical District is right in front of the newly restored General Store. The store’s owners have been heroically painstaking in the building’s historical preservation, spending inordinate expense and time in not only complying with our laws, but also in creating something masterful and beautiful, which has in turn become greatly cherished in Harvard and beyond. And then without any warning, the town stuck an architecturally incongruous permanent structure in one of Harvard’s most conspicuous spots. It’s worse than a finger in your eye. It represents a double standard that would seem to inspire people to take the law less seriously.

The reinforced stop sign in front of the General Store on the corner of Ayer and Still River Roads. (Photo by Lisa Aciukewicz)

One might be moved to ask, How could the Historical Commission allow such a thing? Answer: We have no say. This is beyond our legal jurisdiction. Another question: Why can the town do whatever it wants in the historical district, when residents have to go through the formal legal process of applying for approval, often with public hearings, legal announcements in newspapers, and a two-month turnaround time? Answer: Uh, I dunno.

Periodically, people get fed up with how long it takes to get anything done, and make unilateral decisions to get things done. I think that’s how we ended up with the hideous yellow base for the stop sign. An unsafe situation was noticed; the old sign kept getting bonked. So, let’s make something bright yellow and sturdy, that nobody would miss. Let’s do it quickly, so that we don’t have endless discussion. Let’s get the job done. Safety first.

Now, we the people have a choice. Do we let it stay or do we try to improve it? Personally, I think we should improve it. Something that garish and contemporary has no place in a historical district. Small encroachments such as this add up, and escalate the overall aesthetic decline of an area, and I feel that they have to be addressed. But how? Someone needs to research suitable alternatives. We need to convince the selectmen and the Department of Public Works (DPW) that it’s worth it. We likely have to fundraise, perhaps battling other worthy projects for scarce community preservation funds.

I’ve been trying for more than four years to get an improved application form for residents who want to modify properties in historical districts. Four years! But it’s a relatively low priority, and we have limited time, so it doesn’t get done. We’re working on more urgent issues, like preserving various Shaker landmarks, or the powder house, or the new design guidelines, not to mention our usual work of reviewing project proposals. The nasty form is just a minor bureaucratic annoyance, really.

But now, because general communication between the DPW and the Historical Commission has been non-existent, it looks like we’ll have to add something new to our agenda. We’ll devote scarce resources toward undoing something that really could have been avoided in the first place. From my perspective, all the DPW efforts and expense that went into creating this concrete base have been utterly wasted, and the waste will lead to distractions from other pressing issues. This is why our application form is so awful. It’s why our district maps had been so confusing for so many years. And maybe, it’s even why we formally approved some things that in retrospect might have been improved, had we given them more attention.

Before the picnic tables moved in to the town-owned grassy area near the cemetery, between the General Store and the church, as a courtesy, the Board of Selectmen invited the Historical Commission to review their plan and provide feedback. Picnic tables are temporary, easily movable structures, and as such, are not legally required to have our official stamp. But the selectmen thoughtfully realized that we might care, as it would indeed be a long-term change to how the historical district looks, and that we could even have useful insights. They gave us their plan. We made some suggestions. I think the area turned out better as a result of our involvement. Our group has the passion and the experience to make such things better. We care a lot about details, and preserving Harvard’s unique “vibe,” so we agonized. Should the tables be rectangles or octagons? Should they be wood or metal? Should they have umbrellas?

Our involvement delayed and complicated the process, slightly, as it often does. But I think we made the plan better and cheaper than it was originally suggested.

Legally, the DPW has the right to put up ugly concrete stop-sign footings. They don’t have to have a public hearing, and they don’t have to ask the Historical Commission for permission. I think, though, that we’d all be better off if changes like this were run by us first. Surely, we could have arrived at a better solution than the one so hastily completed, which in my opinion, requires undoing and replacement with something that contributes to the aesthetic of the center.

Shaker Road resident Jonathan Feist is chairman of the Historical Commission.