This week we enter 2026. But what was Watertown like in 1926? The year 1926 found Watertown at a critical juncture, grappling with the growing pains of a rapidly modernizing suburb. As the town transitioned from its industrial roots toward a more residential future, the municipal government faced the daunting task of balancing fiscal conservatism with the urgent need for infrastructure expansion. The following history, drawn from the 1926 Watertown Annual Town Report, reveals a community navigating the complexities of the early motor age, educational demands, and the eternal debate over the “tax burden.”
A Crossroads of Growth and Governance
By 1926, the town’s budget had soared to over $2,400,000, a figure that prompted the Finance Committee to issue a stern warning to its citizens. The town was at a “cross-roads”: it either had to curtail its expanding municipal activities or accept a “constantly increasing tax rate.” This fiscal anxiety was driven by a population boom that outpaced the growth of taxable property, creating a tension between those who owned land and the increasing number of renters and consumers who, according to the committee, were indirectly bearing the cost of these expenditures through higher rents and commodity prices.
The Evolution of the Streetscape
The physical landscape of Watertown was under constant revision to accommodate the rise of the automobile. The Selectmen reported on several massive projects, including the widening and subgrading of Common Street and the paving of Mt. Auburn Street with “bitulithic construction.” These improvements were not merely for aesthetics; they were essential responses to a “dangerous traffic problem” that plagued the town’s center. The introduction of granite block pavement on concrete bases for Main Street signaled a shift toward durable, heavy-duty infrastructure designed to survive the transition from horse-drawn carriages to heavy motor vehicles.
The Dawn of Automated Traffic Control
One of the most modern developments of 1926 was the “exhaustive study” into traffic signals. In cooperation with the General Electric Company, the town explored estimates for centralized traffic control units to manage “foot traffic” and vehicular flow in Watertown Square. This period marked the beginning of the end for the manual direction of traffic by police officers, as the Selectmen sought technological solutions to the chaos of the streets. The “Delta” at Watertown Square, the intersection of Main, Galen, and Mt. Auburn, remained the focal point of these modernization efforts.
Public Transit and the Decline of the Railway
The year also witnessed a significant shift in public transportation. The Middlesex and Boston Street Railway began discontinuing its car services (trams) in favor of operating buses. This transition was met with both relief and concern; while the roadbeds occupied by the old tracks were often in “deplorable condition,” the town’s progress depended heavily on affordable fares to Boston. Meanwhile, residents of North Watertown successfully petitioned for a new bus line operated by the Boston Elevated Company, finally connecting a previously isolated section of the town to the commercial heart of Watertown Square.
Expanding the Educational Footprint
Education was a primary driver of the town’s rising expenses. The Finance Committee noted an “ever growing expense of education,” yet the necessity of new facilities was undeniable. Under Article 26, the town considered the construction of a new ten- or twelve-room schoolhouse on Orchard Street (the “Town Farm” site) with an appropriation of $165,000. This massive investment, worth millions in today’s currency, reflected a commitment to the “financial and administrative aspect of our public schools” as a vital public interest, despite the committee’s general call for austerity.
The Library and Community Spaces
Civic life extended beyond the classroom to the proposed East Branch Public Library. Under Article 30, the town debated erecting a dedicated building on a parcel of land between School and Boylston Streets. This proposal, requested by the East End Library Committee, highlighted the neighborhood’s desire for intellectual and social hubs. However, the Finance Committee often recommended that such articles be “referred to a later Town Meeting,” practicing a form of bureaucratic delay to manage the immediate financial impact on the treasury.
Eminent Domain and the Mapping of New Streets
The legal expansion of the town was frequently handled through eminent domain. Articles 31 and 32 detailed the laying out of new ways like Bigelow Avenue and Short Street. These were not mere paths but engineered developments, with plans drawn by T. A. Anderson and filed with the Town Clerk. The town had to vote on whether to accept these as “public ways,” a process that involved acquiring land by purchase or seizure to ensure the town’s grid could expand in an orderly, albeit expensive, fashion.
Public Health and the “Cost of Drainage”
Beneath the surface of the new roads lay the critical, if unglamorous, work of sanitation. The Finance Committee recommended $3,700 for the “cost of drainage” in specific sectors, a necessity for a growing suburb prone to the problems of wastewater and runoff. Furthermore, the report mentioned the “relaying of cast iron water mains” in Mt. Auburn Street to replace “obsolete cement-lined mains.” This transition to more durable materials was a key component of the town’s effort to build a permanent, modern utility infrastructure.
The Fire and Police Signal System
Public safety in 1926 was also looking toward the future. The report called for a survey of the “fire and police signal system,” which officials described as “antiquated and of a temporary nature.” There was a growing realization that these systems needed to be housed in a “fire-proof building” away from the very dangers they were meant to report. This era saw the professionalization of emergency services, moving away from informal volunteerism toward a centralized, technologically aided department.
The Ethics of Public Service
The 1926 report contains a fascinating philosophical thread regarding the nature of local government. The Chairman of the Finance Committee, Charles F. Sanborn, emphasized that it was not the “form of government” that mattered, but the “interest shown … by its citizens.” He warned against electing a “good fellow” without proper qualifications, urging voters to select men and women who were “actively engaged in large undertakings.” This call for a “business-like” administration reflected the Progressive Era’s emphasis on efficiency and expertise in municipal management.
The Burden of the Non-Owner
A recurring theme in the 1926 report is the perceived disconnect between property owners and “non-owners.” The committee lamented that residents who did not own taxable property often felt they paid “nothing to the cost of municipal expenditures.” This tension led to a proposal for a “poll tax bill,” suggesting that for every increase in the property tax rate, a corresponding increase should be added to the poll tax. It was a clear attempt to ensure that every citizen felt the “weight” of the town’s growth and would thus be more likely to vote for fiscal restraint.
A Legacy of Service
As the fiscal year closed on December 31, 1926, the town leaders looked back on a year of “trying and complex questions” handled in a “harmonious manner.” The 1926 report stands as a testament to a community at the peak of the Roaring Twenties, balancing the excitement of new technology and expansion with a deep-seated New England tradition of caution. The decisions made that year to pave with granite, to build new schools, and to modernize the traffic lights laid the literal and figurative foundation for the Watertown of the next century. Furthermore, anyone who follows current local news and politics will no doubt hear the echoes of 100 years ago in our discussions today. One wonders what Watertown will be discussing in 2126 and if it will even be humans or robotic artificial intelligence leading those discussions. It is impossible to tell, but as we can see from the 1926 report, the actions we individually and collectively take in 2026 will no doubt reverberate through history, impacting future generations just as the actions of those who came before us impacted all our lives.
Source of information: 1926 Watertown Annual Report: https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=15941&repo=r-5ece5628
Teddy Kokoros
Lifelong Watertown Resident