Cambridge Designers: R. Clipston Sturgis

In part two of our Cambridge Designers series, we are highlighting a Boston-born architect who had a lasting impact on architecture and the arts in the Boston area, R. Clipston Sturgis (1860-1951).

R. (Richard) Clipston Sturgis was born in Boston on Christmas Eve in 1860, the son of Russell and Susan Codman Welles Sturgis. As he was born into a wealthy family, Richard was schooled at the prestigious George Washington Copp Noble School (now known as the Noble and Greenough School) in Boston and at St. Paul’s in Concord, New Hampshire to prepare for college. He entered Harvard University in 1877, graduating in 1881 with a degree in architecture.

1881 Harvard Class photo of R. Clipston Sturgis. Courtesy of Harvard University Archives.

From 1881 to 1883 to worked in the office of his uncle, John Hubbard Sturgis (1834-1888), a partner in the firm Sturgis & Brigham, the designers of the original Museum of Fine Arts building in Boston and the Arthur Astor Carey house on Fayerweather Street in Cambridge. The Carey House in Cambridge was one of the earliest and high-style examples of Colonial Revival architecture in the region. It was during this time at his uncle’s firm that R. C. Sturgis married Esther Mary Ogden of Troy, New York in 1882.

The young couple then sailed to England, where Sturgis worked until late 1884 for London architect Robert William Edis, who worked on an extension to Sandringham House in Norfolk, England, one of the royal residences of King Charles III. It was during this period that Richard and Esther had their first child, Richard Clipston Sturgis, Jr. in Canterbury, England in March of 1884. Sturgis Jr. (1884-1913), closely followed in his father’s footsteps, attending the same schools and majoring in architecture at Harvard. Tragically, he died at 30 years old, possibly due to life-long illness as the family had a live-in nurse at their home in Boston. They had two other children, George Ogden Sturgis (1889), who died in infancy, and Dorothy Mary (Sturgis) Harding (1891-1978).

Richard Clipston Sturgis with newborn son Richard Clipston Sturgis, Jr. c.1884. Photo courtesy of F.S. Watt, Ancestry.com
Esther Mary Ogden Sturgis and son Richard Clipston Sturgis, Jr.
c.1890, courtesy of F.S. Watt, Ancestry.com

After leaving Edis’ employ, Sturgis spent two years touring Europe, studying and sketching in France, Italy, Germany and Holland until he returned to the United States in September 1886, when he took charge of his uncle’s firm after the partnership between Sturgis and Brigham dissolved. His uncle, John Hubbard Sturgis retired in May of 1887 and died in February of 1888.

The project that perhaps launched the career of ‘Young Clip’ was the Church of the Advent in Beacon Hill. While working with his uncle, he assisted in the design and took over the project when his uncle died. He is credited with overseeing the completion of the project, designing the spire, lectern and the west porch. After his uncle’s death, Clip partnered with William Robinson Cabot forming Sturgis & Cabot from 1888 to 1893. From 1902 to 1907 Sturgis practiced with George E. Barton as Sturgis & Barton. From 1907 until his retirement in 1932 he practiced independently.

Church of the Advent, Beacon Hill, Boston. The project that helped start R. Clipston Sturgis’ career in the United States.

Clip’s career really took off in the first two decades of the twentieth century. In 1900, he was commissioned by John A. Little, the owner of two large private dormitories for Harvard students in Harvard Square to furnish designs for a new athletic building for his properties. The cramped site on Holyoke Street, just steps from Harvard Yard, featured a large tree at the middle, which Sturgis hoped to incorporate into his design. The Big Tree Swimming Pool as designed by Sturgis, was an excellent example of Collegiate Gothic architecture in the English tradition, typical for his work. The U-shaped brick building was sited around the preserved tree and also included two squash courts with limited windows for the interior programming. The building was razed in 1962 for the Holyoke Center.

Sturgis’ only residential project in Cambridge was during his partnership with George Barton. The firm was hired by James D. Prindle, who sought to develop the lot at the corner of Bates and Raymond streets. Sturgis and Barton designed a three-unit row that turns the corner lot. The 2 1/2-story homes are Queen Anne/Tudor in style and constructed of brick on the first floor and shingle siding above. The buildings were constructed in 1905.

32-34 Bates Street, Cambridge.

In 1902, Sturgis was appointed by the Mayor of Boston to the newly established Boston Schoolhouse Commission, a three-person independent board that would oversee the process of building schools for the City of Boston including the hiring of architects and shaping of the plans. From this expertise, Sturgis was called in to various cities all over the region to share how municipalities can provide high-quality and cost-effective new school buildings. In 1909, Sturgis spoke before the Cambridge Public School Association on this matter, explaining how that Boston commission set design standards and a standard cost structure for new buildings as to keep projects from ballooning in value. Sturgis would also serve as a consultant as the designated architect for the Museum of Fine Arts, providing a study and recommendations on the new building in the Fenway.

The Cambridge Chronicle, 23 October 1909

Sturgis was highly influential in school building construction and design in the Boston area (Cambridge included) and always advocated for English-inspired design, a personal favorite of his as he was an anglophile. He specialized in large civic buildings including schools, but also designed clubhouses, stately manors, banks, and churches. Early school buildings designed by Sturgis include the Winsor School in Boston (1908) and designing the new Perkins School for the Blind campus in Watertown in the Neo-Gothic and Colonial Revival styles. A few years after he oversaw the design and construction of the Perkins School campus, the institution hired him again to design the Woolson House Shop building (1914) on Inman Street in Cambridge. The brick building was constructed at the rear of the Woolson House at 277 Harvard Street and served as a workshop for blind women to learn a trade and sell their creations to the public. The modest Colonial Revival building was cost-effective and provided three floors of workspaces inside.

Woolson House, 48 Inman Street, Cambridge. CHC photograph, 2022.

The same year he was commissioned to design the Woolson House on Inman Street, Clip was hired to design a new clubhouse for the Delta Upsilon Fraternity at Harvard, on Harvard Street, a short walk to campus. Sturgis designed the Colonial Revival style building elevated on the site, reusing the existing topography and adding a new stone retaining wall. Inside, the main feature was the hall, somewhat like an English college hall, which extended two stories high opening on the east to a lounge and to the west as a dining room. Above was the library with an opening looking down to the great hall and modest chambers for graduate members visiting. The building was purchased by the Cambridge Lodge of Elks in 1943 and is now home to the Ikeda Center, a non-profit whose mission is to “build cultures of peace through learning and dialogue“.

396 Harvard Street, Cambridge. Former D.U. Clubhouse.
Early sketches of D.U. Club. Richard Clipston Sturgis Special Collection of sketchbooks and notebooks, Boston Athenaeum.

Besides his career as an architect, Clip was involved in many social and professional organizations. Sturgis maintained a strong interest in promoting the arts and in serving community endeavors in the Boston area. In his early years, he was president of the Draughtsmen’s Club, later known as the Boston Architectural Club (now the Boston Architectural College). He was on the organizing committee for the Society of Arts and Crafts Boston and served as its president from 1917 to 1920.
He was a member of the Tavern Club for more than 60 years and a Fellow of the Academy of Arts and Sciences. He also was a member of the Harvard Clubs of Boston and New York, the Union Boat Club, the Colonial Society, and more. Most notably, he as President of the Boston Society of Architects and as President of the American Institute of Architects for the years 1914-15.

Sturgis was also a prolific writer and critic. He gave many speeches on architecture and planning and wrote articles that appeared in various publications. He was a popular advocate for more thoughtfully designed suburbs, writing in the 1890s that “our suburbs for the most part, are composed of frame houses, looking unsubstantial and temporary. They convey no suggestion of
dignity and retirement.” He thought that high quality design of houses and landscapes would make for better neighborhoods, no matter their scale. From this, he sought commissions for working class housing, designing high-quality buildings for the South Bay Union and the Elizabeth Peabody Settlement House in Boston, and Federally funded neighborhoods in Bridgeport, Connecticut and Bath, Maine.

Sturgis would retire in 1932, moving full-time to Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where he had maintained his summer residence since 1890. His summer and later permanent residence, “Martine Cottage”, made Sturgis a neighbor to friend Arthur Astor Carey, who also summered and retired in Portsmouth. The two were likely friends since Richard Clipston Sturgis’ time at his uncle’s firm, when Arthur Astor Carey’s home in Cambridge was designed by them in the early 1880s. The firm was then reorganized as Sturgis Associates Inc., led by William Stanley Parker and Alanson Hall Sturgis, his nephew. Clip would remain associated with the firm as a consultant. One of the first projects of this new firm with Clip as a consultant would be the new Central Fire Station at Broadway and Cambridge streets. It is clear that the firm utilized a timeless Colonial Revival design due to the adjacency of the site to Harvard Yard, an area where Sturgis spent much of his time. This would be his last commission in Cambridge.

Cambridge Central Fire Station, 489-491 Broadway, CHC photograph, 2015.

Like many members of the “old guard” in the Society of Arts and Crafts, Sturgis was a life-long advocate for high-quality design with handcrafted features, which was in stark contrast to the emerging Modernist/Bauhaus movement that arrived in the United States in the 1930s. In New Hampshire, an entire state away from Harvard, Sturgis was troubled by the new modern design framework of Harvard’s building program under Walter Gropius. In 1950, an 89-year-old Sturgis would pen an open letter to his alma mater in the Harvard Alumni Bulletin, with great disdain for the shift in design and craftsmanship the University had taken.

He wrote, “Time Magazine published a cut of the brutally ugly buildings designed by Gropius for Harvard and [they] actually had the temerity to say ‘the buildings are true to an old Harvard tradition…From Colonial to Bulfinch Federal, to Victorian Gothic, to nineteenth century Romanesque, Harvard has moved with the tides of U.S. architecture… these new buildings show not a gleam of interest in Harvard’s past not any sense of value of beauty.” These strong words were the result of the new Graduate Commons and also the new Allston Burr Lecture Hall, the latter would be sited adjacent to the Yard and his firm’s Central Fire Station.

Allston Burr Lecture Hall, 1951, Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson, and Abbott, architects. Photo by Daniel Reiff, CHC Collections.

In response to the letter penned by Sturgis, Gropius’s students responded to the 90-year-old retired architect in 1951, attacking his traditional position: “must we take the word of our older alumni that ivory tower is the only true architecture? An ivory tower… is a beautiful thing… but Harvard prides herself, not on her ivory tower, but rather on her free marketplace of ideas.”

Sturgis died in 1951 in his beloved Portsmouth cottage. Local papers would write, “R. Clipston Sturgis, 91, national architectural authority for more than 60 years, who almost single-handedly set Boston area’s architectural fashions…died in his home in Portsmouth, N.H. yesterday”. He is remembered for his nearly seventy years of designs, consultations and critiques with witty remarks and a staunch commitment to traditional architecture. He is buried at the Forest Hills Cemetery in Boston.

Photograph courtesy of Find a Grave, by user pstott.

Wet or Dry?

From sea to shining sea

Section 1: After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. (https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-18/)

In December 1917 Congress sent the proposed 18th Amendment to the states for ratification, which was achieved in January 1919. National Prohibition went into effect a year later on January 17, 1920, at precisely 12:01 a.m. Wikipedia reports that the first violation of the new law occurred in Chicago at 12:59 a.m. the same day, when six armed men stole $100,000 worth of so-called “medicinal whiskey” out of freight cars.

Cambridge had not waited on the federal government. The No-License question (that is, no liquor licenses) first appeared on city ballots in December 1882; it was defeated over and over again, in spite of the tireless efforts of a coalition comprising the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), clergy and youth groups from many churches, business and political leaders, and other organizations.

Former Tin Village Saloon, 717 Cambridge Street.

The Tin Village neighborhood (aka the Lava Beds) was a “rum ridden” warren of streets west of the Grand Junction Railroad between Cambridge Street and the Somerville line. Nine saloons occupied that short stretch of Cambridge Street, and a like number did business on the side streets. Two more flanked the Gannett Elementary School at 20 Jefferson Street. Ten No-License Year in Cambridge, 1887-1897. Photo opp. page 117

Dewire’s (former) saloon at the corner of Kirkland and Line streets, facing Kirkland.

Michael B. Dewire was a notorious scofflaw, who evaded arrest for years. His saloon fronted on Line Street, (the border between Cambridge and Somerville). Dewire stationed look-outs in bushes in the front yard; the police concealed themselves in a nearby garden nursery. Inside the establishment, panels could be quickly turned around to hide the bar and liquor bottles in case of a raid. Ten No-License Year in Cambridge, 1887-1897. Photo opp. page ?

Finally, in 1887 the voters approved a No-License in Cambridge law, which was still in force when the 18th was repealed.

Cambridge Tribune, December 10, 1887

Rolling back

“By the 1930s, it was clear that Prohibition had become a public policy failure. The [amendment] had done little to curb the sale, production, and consumption of intoxicating liquors. And while organized crime flourished, tax revenues withered.” In February 1933 Congress approved a proposed amendment, the 21st, that could repeal the 18th. By early December the states had ratified it, and on December 5, 1933, “… with little pomp and circumstance, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a proclamation declaring the end of prohibition, while also admonishing the country to drink responsibly and not abuse this return of individual freedom.” The Volstead Act (Prohibition’s enabling legislation) was made void, and control of the manufacture and sale of liquor returned to the states. (https://www.history.com/news/the-night-prohibition-ended)

American in Paris celebrate the end of Prohibition. New York Times photo, 1933

The Friday, December 8, 1933, issue of the Cambridge Chronicle did not, like many other newspapers, trumpet the end of Prohibition. Instead, an article on the front page announced a special liquor election to be held on December 19th and another discussed, “The Local Situation on Liquor Licenses,” a look at what would happen if Cambridge became wet.

Cambridge Chronicle, December 8, 1933
Cambridge Chronicle, December 22, 1933

On December 19, 1933, Cambridge lifted its no-license ban. On January 3, 1934, the Cambridge License Board met to hear applications for liquor licenses for the first time since December 1887.

Real Estate Revelations Part 4: Oh, Those College Kids!

Cambridge Chronicle October 27, 1883

We thought it would be fun to report on something on the lighter side as we enter the holiday season. With the close of the first semester and Christmas vacation looming, it’s noticeable that college students have decamped for home. Apropos of students, we found this letter in the Ellis/Andrews files in 1903, dated September 10:

Dear Sir:

Last spring the authorities of Harvard University caused to be removed from all their buildings occupied by students the signs, notices, and other objects which had obviously been taken from the streets, shops, cars, or other grounds or buildings not belonging to the students who displayed these objects in their rooms, and gave notice to all the occupants of College rooms that no such objects Could hereafter be displayed in buildings belonging to the University.  I hereby request you to enforce a similar regulation in the buildings which are under your management, and are occupied by students of the University.  Will you kindly acknowledge the receipt of this request?  It is desirable that notice of this measure should be given to students who occupy rooms under your control, and their co-operation procured in the abandonment of a practice which is not creditable to the intelligence and good feeling of University students.

Very Truly Yours,

Charles W. Eliot

President Harvard University

Why was President Eliot writing to Ellis & Melledge? Because the firm was in the business of renting rooms to students. William R. Ellis had been advertising his “Registry of Student’s Rooms” from the start—as seen in this advertisement:

Cambridge Chronicle May 4, 1889

In 1893, Robert J. Melledge had joined the firm, which now became “Ellis & Melledge.”  Melledge owned a piece of property with a house at the corner of Prescott St and Broadway. In 1893, Ellis was renting the house—listed variously over the years in maps and directories as #22 Prescott Street or #472 Broadway—even up until 1927. Ellis and Melledge planned to erect a new apartment building facing the Broadway side of the property in front of the house, aimed solely at the Harvard student population. By the time the apartments opened in 1896, the building was referred to as “the latest new college dormitory,” even though it was not (yet) owned by Harvard. This was “Prescott Hall” at 472-474 Broadway, corner of Prescott St, which was named for Prescott William Hickling (1798-1859)[i], an historian who specialized in the history of Spain and its empire.

Exterior view of Prescott Hall at 472-474 Broadway in Mid-Cambridge, photographed on August 16, 1987

On May 4, 1896, the Cambridge Chronicle ran two separate columns on the building, designed by architect Arthur H. Bowditch.  One stated that “it will not be gorgeous, but architecturally it will be the most attractive dormitory in Cambridge.” The article went on to describe the rooms:

“…all the suites will be precisely alike, a large study and two bed rooms, but the building is to be modern and with modern comforts.  The studies fact south and west and will be sunny all day; the bed rooms face north and east; each suite has its private hall with coat closet; each room has a closet.  The studies…all have bay windows the entire width of the room, with the deep-armed window seats so popular with students.  The rooms are heated by steam, and in the studies are large open fireplaces for wood fires. Each suite is to have a perfectly appointed bathroom with the best of modern open plumbing…every bathroom has an outside sunny window. The building will be piped for gas and wired for electric light….”

Talk about having all the “mod/cons!”  Not only that, but:

 “…There will be a large room [in the basement] …for the storage of bicycles, also storage for trunks; telephone room, boot blacking stand, ample rooms for janitor and wife, and for the “goodies” who take care of the rooms: also a large room…with open -fireplace; this room for the use of the tenants for boxing, fencing or light exercise; some simple gymnastic apparatus will be supplied, also lockers and adjoining will be dressing room and shower bath.”

Rents for a three-room suite were described as “moderate” with most suites renting for around $450.

The second article emphasized the quality of students expected to rent.  The rental agents (Ellis & Melledge) “are instructed, in leasing suites, to endeavor to avoid discordant elements, and the location and arrangements will no doubt attract students of a studious turn of mind.” Harrumph.

Atlas of the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts by G.W. Bromley and Co. (1894)
Atlas of the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts by G.W. Bromley and Co. (1903)

It wasn’t unusual to have private dormitories for students built by private investors[ii] rather than the university itself.  At the turn of the century, Harvard provided housing only for seniors in Harvard Yard. Hence the housing needs for students (and faculty and staff) were drivers in the real estate market. As stated in Building Old Cambridge, “Investors…constructed about twenty-five private dormitories around the Square between 1876 and 1904.”[iii] Undergrads had to fend for themselves finding housing. It wasn’t until Harvard required undergrads to live on campus (in 1914) that the private dormitories were either converted to apartment houses, as was the case with Prescott Hall, or bought outright by the University.

“One of the more luxurious rooms” in Claverly Hall from Scribner’s Magazine 21, no. 5 (May 1897)

In 1898, The Cambridge Tribune ran an article about these private dormitories, citing one unnamed project in progress, and five others that existed between Mt. Auburn St and Mass Ave alone.

Cambridge Tribune March 5, 1898

We find an interesting side fact in The Cambridge Tribune of August 24, 1901. A column extolling the virtues of an up and coming 26-year-old real estate and insurance whipper snapper named George Carrick. Apparently, an astonishing number of these private dormitories were managed by him. “He is the one real estateman [sic] in Cambridge today who stands in touch with the students of Harvard University and the business interests of the city, thus uniting the town and the gown. Mr. Carrick has under his charge some of the choicest suites in the choicest dormitories at Harvard, and he is the only man in town who makes a special business of that work…. the students were glad to find a man who could appreciate their needs and give them what they desired.” Wonder what Ellis and Melledge thought about that statement!

Cambridge Tribune January 9, 1897

Other Housing and Dining Accommodations for Students

Ellis & Melledge received many requests from parents looking for houses positioned close by Harvard, suitable for the entire family, or for use as a student rooming houses. The dormitory-building boom in the late 1890s and early 1900s caused a financial squeeze on those families whose main source of income was renting rooms to Harvard students. Many of these were single or widowed women.

In 1894, an interested party wrote to Ellis & Melledge: “I desire to locate in Cambridge this Fall, to be located before the opening of college with the idea of conducting a first class house for the accommodation of students (with meals) also nice families…”

The 1900 City Directory listed 97 “Boarding and Lodging Houses”—approximately 79 of them run by women.

The Samuel Flagg Sawyer house at 24–26 Holyoke Street (built 1798–99; left section added 1867; top story added ca. 1887). The Sawyer house was remodeled several times to accommodate student rooms. The building was razed in 1927 for the Manter Hall School. Photo 1926. (Caption: Building Old Cambridge)

Lucretia W. Ball was another fell into this category. She already owned a rooming house on 26 Holyoke Street,  (run by Mrs. E. G. Brandon) when she wrote in 1915 inquiring about taking over another house that “has a bad name on account of being used for a cheap boarding house but I have 30 or 40 boys that come for rooms at 26 Holyoke St. and not being able to accomodate [sic] them there thought I might take them over there. The house on Holyoke St is an awful old house but the boys seem to like the location.” Or this woman, also writing in 1915: “It is my intention, if I can find a suitable location, to open a tea-room…I intend to run a high grade place which will appeal to the better class of students, where they can entertain their friends in a sort of semi-privacy and more comfortably than in their rooms.”

From Dormitory to Apartment Building      

After the 1910s, ownership of Prescott Hall changed hands several times and perhaps as early as 1923, had been converted to an apartment building. 

Cambridge Tribune June 23, 1923

It was sold again in 1928, and by 1930 the extensive renovations made the news:

Excerpt from the Cambridge Chronicle March 28, 1930

But let’s close this piece the way it started: on the subject of student pranks. President Eliot’s letter of 1903 was not the first time students’ antics had received attention. As we saw at the beginning of this installment, stolen street signs were a favorite choice for room décor as far back as 1883. And then there was the description of this epic episode from 1891 (this excerpt is long, but it’s so cheeky we couldn’t resist clipping out most of the article):

Cambridge Chronicle February 14, 1891

Today’s post was written by CHC volunteer Kathleen Fox.


SOURCES

Cambridge Historical Commission: Ellis/Andrews Collection 

Cambridge Public Library digitized newspapers and atlases

Cambridge Buildings and Architects Database, compiled by Christopher Hale

Building Old Cambridge, Susan E. Maycock and Charles M.  Sullivan


[i] Cambridge Buildings and Architects, by Christopher Haile, 2002

[ii] Building Old Cambridge, Susan E. Maycock and Charles M.  Sullivan (2016), pg.129

[iii] Building Old Cambridge, pg. 130