Franklin Place - 17-24 Franklin Place

17-24 Franklin Place

The four double houses in Franklin Place substituted for the northern half of what was planned as a double crescent separated by an oval of grass. This solution, although less aesthetically successful, was dictated by difficulties in acquiring sufficient land adjoining the estate of Thomas Barrell for the execution of the original scheme. It is also evident that Bulfinch’s approaching financial ruin precluded the construction of anything so costly as the projected northern crescent. As it was, the architect was hopelessly in debt when he began building on the north side of Franklin Place, probably in December 1794. The earliest reference to the project is in Pemberton’s description of the recently completed Crescent: “The opposite side is intended to be built in a straight line, and in a varied style of building.” On October 15, 1795, the eastern half of one of the buildings, Number 22, was sold to John McLean for $8,000, and it is presumed the range of four brick double houses was completed shortly thereafter. The entire property, including the houses in the Crescent and the four double ones in Franklin Place, was assessed in the Direct Tax of 1798 at something over $125,000. By that time, five years after the beginning of construction on Franklin Place, all twenty-four properties had been sold and were occupied by the families of prominent businessmen and men of letters.

As the site plan made for the Historic American Buildings Survey shows, the axis of the Crescent and the double houses opposite was along the line of Arch Street with the Franklin Urn serving as a focus. The four double houses were of the same architectural proportions, although the middle pair was somewhat larger in area. The end houses were placed obliquely to the middle ones and thus corresponded to the east and west pavilions of the Crescent; the slight angle helped keep the street openings as wide as possible. The houses on both sides of the street had identical fanlight entrance doors, and despite Pemberton’s prediction of variety in architectural treatment, the double houses were quite similar to the opposing Crescent. The major stylistic differences were Bulfinch’s exclusive use of swag panels in the Crescent and recessed brick arches in the houses across the way. No floor plan has been discovered but it is presumed the double houses had the traditional arrangement of two rooms on either side of a transverse hallway divided, as in the Crescent, by main and service staircases. The two center units were much larger than the pairs at the ends and included tiny fenced-in front gardens. The row faced south on the enclosed grass plot and was considered at the time the most modern and pleasant range of houses in Boston.