Survey and Research Report

On The

Charlotte Fire Station No. 2

 

 

History of Structure:

The preservation of the Old Dilworth Fire Station provides future generations a unique vision of the past.  Completed in 1909, the structure is characterized by its original design for horse-drawn firefighting apparatus. It stands today a monument to that forgotten era.  The City of Charlotte operated several other stations at that time, but they have all been demolished, The Old Dilworth Station is now the oldest extant station in the city.

At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, Charlotte was a fast-growing city.  City government was supported by a mayor, a recorder, and a Board of Aldermen. The Board of Aldermen included seven members, one from each of the four wards of the city, and three elected at large. According to the Federal Census of 1900, the city’s population within its corporate limits was 18,091.The municiple census of 1901 indicates 27,752 people living in the city and its surrounding suburbs. The city fathers were building and expanding the foundations of services necessary to support its growing population. By the year 1902 the city owned the city hall, the water works, a sewerage system, a crematory, three school buildings, two fire departments, a modern fire alarm system, and over forty miles of macadamized roads.  The street car system and lighting plants were excellent.  Latta Park, at the southern end of the street car line, was a “popular pleasure resort.  Latta Park was located outside the city limits in an area known as Dilworth. The Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company, the 4-Cs, owned the land within this suburb. Edward Dilworth Latta, for whom the development was named, was President of the 4-Cs.  In 1891 the 4-Cs launched, a campaign to attract industry as well as private residents to settle in Dilworth.  At an April meeting of the Chamber of Commerce “it was decided to raise $10,000 for advertising our city abroad. The 4-Cs agreed to contribute $5,000 to that end . . .”

On May 20, 1891, the 4-Cs held a large land auction in Dilworth.  It was a gala affair with a festival atmosphere.  “In three days several hundred lots were sold ranging from $5 to $16 a front foot.  The bidding was lively and the 4-Cs have every reason to be gratified at the result of their sale.” One of the lots sold that week was to be the future location of the Dilworth Fire Station.

“Lot number four in square number 9 … being fifty feet by one hundred fifty feet fronting on the street known as ‘Boulevard’ …” was purchased by James M. Gates on May 23, 1891. According to early real estate maps of Charlotte, James Dates owned several lots in downtown Charlotte and probably was a local real estate speculator. He paid the 4-Cs $375 for lot number four. Gates held the property for 16 years until it was purchased by the City of Charlotte as the location for its new fire station to serve the fast-growing street car suburb of Dilworth.

 

 

The growing population in Dilworth, both residential and industrial, began to show concern over the lack of a conveniently located fire station. Before the new station was constructed, Dilworth residents received fire protection from the downtown station headquartered at 6 East 5th Street. Even when a fire was detected in its early stages, horse-drawn apparatus was slow in reaching a fire in the prosperous suburb.  Residents were aware that precious minutes during a fire crisis could be saved if a station were located in their neighborhood.

Yet, before a station could be built in Dilworth, the suburb had to be designated an official borough of the City of Charlotte. The great desire of Dilworth residents for local fire protection was their main concern when a committee from the suburb appeared before the Board of Aldermen on May 7, 1907 asking that a fire station be constructed in the southern section of the city and that Dilworth be admitted as a borough of Charlotte. That evening Dilworth was admitted as a borough of Charlotte. The request concerning the establishment of a fire station was deferred.

Nearly nine months passed before the issue of a fire station for Dilworth was renewed. The concern was “. . . agitated anew since a recent fire in that ward.”¹¹ At a meeting of the Finance Committee on February 27, 1908, Colonel T. L. Kirkpatrick, Alderman from Dilworth, requested an appro­priation for the establishment of a station.  Still, funds for such a project were not available, and the committee could only give assurances that efforts were being made to raise money needed for such a project.

Several days later, on March 2, 1908, the matter was again discussed at a meeting of the Board of Aldermen. At this meeting a resident of Dilworth, Mr. Joseph Garibaldi, offered to purchase a lot and build a station if the city was not financially able to undertake the project.  He offered to “… accept the cities note for 4 or 6 years at 6% interest for same.”  The Chairman of the Fire Department, Colonel A. L. Smith, agreed at that meeting that “. . .a station in Dilworth was a necessity . . . but owing to the financial condition of the city he would not press the matter.” He suggested that the city might instead consider purchasing an automobile that might provide more efficient service to that part of the city. The matter of establishing a fire station in Dilworth “… was referred to the Finance Committee with power to act.”  Seven months later at a meeting of the Finance Committee, a committee from the Public Safety Committee reported that several locations for a Dilworth Station had been examined.  “Col. T. L. Kirkpatrick moved that it be recorded that it is the sense of the committee that a sub fire station be established in a convenient point for the .purpose of serving the Dilworth section and Ward II at a cost not exceeding $4,000.”¹⁶ Ten days later, on October 17, 1908, the Finance Committee unanimously authorized the purchase of the lot owned by James M. Gates on the west side of South Boulevard. The purchase price was $1,000, and the deed to the property was signed October 20, 1908.

Finally, residents of Dilworth would get their new station.  The wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly, but Dilworth would not be deprived of its right to efficient city services. Three branches of city government were respon­sible for the creation of the Dilworth Station.  The aldermen authorized and paid for it.  The Board of Public Safety was responsible for the equipment, and the Board of Public Service would build it.   Chosen as architect for project was the Charlotte firm of Wheeler, Galliher and Stern.   The building contract was awarded to J. A. Jones at a cost of $3,000.   The construction of the station began on January 7, 1909.   According to a local newspaper article, the Dilworth Station was the same size and design as Station No. 1, headquarters on E. 5th Street.

Two months later Chief of the fire department, W. S. Orr, reported to the Board of Public Safety that the station was “completed and equipped.”  Applications were received from 25 men for positions in the new fire station. Five were chosen: J. E. Morris, Cliff Spense, J. A. Lawing, T. M. Davis, and G. P. Caldwell. These men were not assigned to the Dilworth Station in particular.  Chief Orr would fill some of the openings at the Dilworth Station with experienced men from other stations. The new station would have three men on duty at all times.²³ W. B. Glenn, who was already employed by the city fire department, was chosen Captain for the new station.   Equip­ment for the station would consist of a combination hose and chemical wagon with two ladders attached and a steamer.   Two horses were also purchased for the station.”

 

 

Most of Charlotte’s early firefighting was accomplished with chemical engines.  Developed by French scientists in 1864, mixtures of bicarbonate of soda, sulfuric acid and water created a pressurized gas, carbon dioxide. Being heavier than air, the chemical solution removed oxygen from air thus smothering a fire.²⁷ Eighty-five percent of the fires in Charlotte were fought with chemicals in the early 20th century.²⁸ At first these engines were pulled by hand, but in the 1870s, horse-drawn chemical engines were introduced.²⁹ The Dilworth station was equipped with two horse-drawn engines, one chemical and one steam.

When horses were first used in firefighting, it was customary to board them outside the fire stations in nearby stables.   But much time was lost bringing the horses to the station for harnessing after an alarm was received. Eventually, the horses were stabled in the fire station along with the equipment and the men.  The idea took some getting used to, but soon firemen horses began “more than half a century of mutual affection.”

Dilworth^‘s station was originally designed to house its horses on its first floor level.  Architectural specifications indicate there were two stalls, one located on each side of the first floor. The stalls are no longer there, but worn flooring bears witness to the years of impatient pawing of horses hoofs. To save time in harnessing the horses after an alarm was received, the heavy harnesses were hung from the ceiling directly above the stalls. Using a system of chains and pulleys the harness could be dropped onto the horse and fastened by the men in a matter of seconds.  Remnants of the “quick hitch” system can still be seen in the old station.

In 1912 the City of Charlotte purchased its first motorized firefighting apparatus.-*³ By 1917 the era of horse-drawn apparatus ended in Charlotte.  By the late 1940s the Dilworth station could no longer accommodate the larger, more sophisticated motorized equipment.  The city purchased a lot across the Boulevard from the old station and built a new one. The new Station No. 2 . still serves the Dilworth section today. The old station on lot number four was sold to W. E. Price and Ethel R. DeLaney on June 29, 1948.

Price and DeLaney held the property until January 1976. At that time the station was deeded to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fire Museum, Inc., a non-profit corporation dedicated to the preservation and restoration of the old Dilworth Station No. 2.  It is their desire that the station be adaptively utilized as a museum of firefighting history of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County.

Nothing will more graphically demonstrate Charlotte’s early firefighting history than the preservation and restoration of the Old Dilworth Station. While the City of Charlotte has destroyed, lost, and forgotten much of its past, the Old Dilworth Station has survived.  Its preservation will provide the citizens of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County a unique understanding of turn-of-the-century life in Charlotte.

 

_________________________________________________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources:

Index to City Minutes.  A to M.  From June 24, 1816 to May 6, 1935.  City Clerk’s Office, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Aldermen.  BooJks 10 and 11, 1907-1908. City Clerk’s Office, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Minutes of the Meetings of the Finance Committee of the Board of Aldermen. City Clerk’s Office, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Minutes of the Board of Public Safety.  May 1, 1908 – April 6, 1909.  City Clerk’s Office, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Minute Book – Executive Board.  City of Charlotte.  May 6, 1909 – February 12, 1913.  City Clerk’s Office, Charlotte, North Carolina.

State of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County Record of Deeds.  Office of the Register of Deeds, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Daily Logs of the Charlotte Fire Department.  1891-1909.  Charlotte Fire Department, Headquarters Office, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Charlotte, North Carolina, City Directory.  1904-5 through 1911.  Charleston, South Carolina:  The Welsh Directory Company.

Charlotte Daily Observer.  1907 – 1909.  Charlotte Public Library, Carolina Room, Microfilm.

Charlotte Evening Chronicle.  1907 – 1909.  Charlotte Public Library, Carolina Room, Microfilm.

Mecklenburg Times.  1907 – 1909.  Charlotte Public Library, Carolina Room, Microfilm.

Original architectural specifications of the Dilworth Fire Station.  Office of Jack 0. Boyte, AIA, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Sanborn Insurance Maps.  1905-1909.  Charlotte Public Library, Carolina Room., Microfilm.

Tompkins, D. A.  History of Mecklenburg County and Charlotte.  Charlotte, North Carolina:  Observer Printing House, 1903.

Secondary Sources:

Atkins, Jesse, Chief of Charlotte Fire Department.  Interview 22 January 1979.

Ditzel, Paul C.  Fire Engines Firefighters.  New York, N.Y.:  A Rutledge Book, Crown Publishers, Inc., 1976.

 

 

This report was written on June 6, 1984

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Old Charlotte Cotton Mill is located at 508 W. 5th St. in Charlotte, North Carolina.

2. Name, address and telephone number of the present owner of the property:
Speizman Industries, Inc.
Box 31215
Charlotte, N.C., 28231

Telephone: 704/372-3751

3. Representative photographs of the property: This report contains representative photographs of the property.

4. A map depicting the location of the property: This report contains a map which depicts the location of the property.

---

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deeds to this property are listed in the Mecklenburg County Deed Books 1909, page 288; 2037, page 303; 2791, page 499. The Tax Parcel Numbers of the property are: 078-052-02, 078-052-03A; 078-052-03B, 078-052-04.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Dr. William H. Huffman, Ph.D.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains an architectural description of the property prepared by Lisa A. Stamper.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria set forth in N.C.G.S. 160A-399.4:

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Old Charlotte Cotton Mills does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Charlotte Cotton Mills, erected in 1880-81, was the first cotton mill situated in the City of Charlotte; 2) the Charlotte Cotton Mills set into motion a series of forces which made Charlotte a leading center of textile manufacturing in the United States; and 3) R. M. Oates, the principal founder of the Charlotte Cotton Mills, was a leading business figure in this community.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the attached architectural description by Miss Lisa A. Stamper demonstrates that the Old Charlotte Cotton Mills meets this criterion.

9 . Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral or 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” The current appraised value of the 1.465 acres of land is $170,420. The current appraised value of the improvements is $299,810. The total current appraised value is $470,230. The property is zoned I3.

Date of Preparation of this Report: June 6, 1984

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Director
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission
1225 S. Caldwell St. Box D
Charlotte, N.C., 28203

Telephone: 704/376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview  

by Dr. William H. Huffman
August, 1983

The Charlotte Cotton Mills building represents the first cotton mill to be built in the city, which then set the trend for others to follow and made Charlotte an integral part and center of the growing Piedmont textile industry in the late nineteenth century. Built in 1880 and operating by 1881, the mill was only the third in Mecklenburg County, but of potentially greater influence because of its location in the city as well as being the only one operating in the county at the time.

Charlotte Cotton Mills began as an enterprise of Robert Marcus Oates (1829-1897) and his three nephews, David W. Oates (1844-1911), John E. Oates (1849-1897), and James M. Oates (1847-1925). ¹ Born on a farm in Cleveland County, N.C., R. M. Oates came to Charlotte in 1853 and became a salesman in W. W. Elms grocery store. The following year he journeyed to Texas, and upon his return twelve months later went into the grocery and other cotton business with Lewis S. Williams. When the early part of the next decade brought a call to arms, in 1862 he received a lieutenant’s commission in the 37th North Carolina Regiment and eventually rose to the rank of Colonel and became a brigade quartermaster. He was reputed to be one of the best quartermasters in the Confederate Army, and received a number of commendations from General Jackson. After surrendering with Lee’s army at Appomattox, Oates returned to Charlotte and about 1866 started a new grocery and cotton business, R. M. Oates and Company, into which he brought his three nephews who had left their Cleveland County home after the war.

In 1872, R. M. Oates retired from being active in the cotton brokerage business, and his nephews formed a new firm, Oates Brothers, cotton factors (brokers) and buyers. The senior Mr. Oates devoted his time to refurbishing the Central Hotel in Charlotte, in which he had a half interest. In addition to being a charter director (beginning in 1866) of the First National Bank, and being elected president of the bank in 1889, R. M. Oates served various terms as County Commissioner and City Alderman. His personality was described thusly:

 

Colonel Oates was one person who was literally what he appeared to be. He was candid and outspoken, saying always what he thought, and meaning what he said. If he liked you, you knew it. He was strong in his convictions, conservative in his ideas, and these two characteristics together with his mental ability and correctness of life made him a tower of strength to the community. ²

Much of Oates’ good fortune had to do with the fortuitous timing of his business career, which paralleled the growth and development of Charlotte as a center of cotton trade and later textile manufacturing. When he set up business trading in cotton and groceries in the early 1850’s, Charlotte was just being linked with South Carolina and the rest of North Carolina and beyond through new railroad lines. In 1852, track was opened to Columbia, which gave Charlotte, for the first time, easy access to the sea, and in 1855 a line was completed to Norfolk, thus making the Queen City a booming cotton trading center. After the war, cotton trading quickly surpassed prewar levels, and, in the 1860’s and 70’s, more rail lines were established, including one stretching from Richmond to Atlanta. ³

In the 1870’s another phenomenon took hold in the area which would benefit both the Oates family and Charlotte: the industrialization movement of the “New South.” In previous years, most textile mills were located in New England, though the cotton came from the South, because of the availability of cheap water power to run the mills. With the advent of inexpensive and reliable power from steam boilers, however, mill owners began to relocate their factories in the South to be closer to raw material and have access to cheap labor. In this way, the Piedmont region began to see a growing number of mills from the mid-1870’s.

As an already long established cotton trading center with good rail connections, Charlotte was a logical place to eventually host textile manufacturing as well. It was R. M. Oates who first took full advantage of the opportunity. Though a small mill was set up in the county in the 1850’s and a larger one (Glenroy Cotton Mill) was in business for about eighteen months starting in 1874, the county had no operating mills in 1880 when Oates and his three nephews decided to organize Charlotte’s first. ⁴ They purchased the block bounded by West Fifth, Graham, West Sixth, and the Atlantic, Tennessee and Ohio (later Southern) railway tracks in February, 1880, and the contractor, R. H. Morse, commenced to make the brick locally when weather permitted. ⁵

The somewhat modest, original mill building was a one story structure built in an uncommon L-shape, with rows of arched windows along Fifth Street and topped by several skylights on the tin-covered roof. Tenement houses for the workers were built along Graham and Sixth Streets (see Figures 1 and 2). ⁶ All the machinery, including two large 75 horsepower capacity boilers and the 127 horsepower, one cylinder engine, came from the North. ⁷ Its unusual design and potential as a draw for more business were aptly commented on in the Charlotte Observer:

 

when completed, this factory will perhaps be the best in North Carolina, and as far as the writer knows, the only one built like it, in that it has only one story. That it will add much to Charlotte’s material prosperity no one doubts, and some predict that it will be the means of bringing similar enterprises into operation. ⁸

Within a few years, these words proved to be right on the mark. But for some eight years, the Charlotte Cotton Mills operated as the sole enterprise of its kind in the city. Originally set up as a partnership between R. M. Oates and his nephews and operating as the Alpha Cotton Mills, the factory began limited operations in December, 1880, and by the following March, 1881, had 5800 of its planned 6240 spindles running. At that time, sixty employees, mostly women, were processing five bales of cotton a day under the supervision of G. A. Gray, who had been the foreman for C. J. Lineberger in Lowell, Gaston County. Also in 1881, it appears that the owners decided to change the name of the business from Alpha to Charlotte Cotton Mills, and two years later the partners incorporated under that name. ⁹ (Alpha was picked up and used again for Charlotte’s second cotton mill, built in 1888-9 at East 12th and Brevard Streets). ¹⁰

From the beginning, R. M. Oates was president of the mill, and David W. Oates, the oldest of the nephews, was secretary and treasurer. ¹¹ In its first fifteen years of operation, Charlotte’s population jumped from 5,500 to 19,000, and the Charlotte Cotton Mills had expanded to about 9000 spindles and added a large weaving operation with 208 looms in a separate building at the corner of Graham and 5th Streets, where sheeting was made (see Figure 3). ¹² By 1895, Charlotte, as well as the Piedmont region in general, had seen many new mills come into operation, and the city had become a leading textile manufacturing center, true to the words of the Observer editorial writer of 1880. This was due in great part to the enterprise of Daniel Augustus Tompkins (1852-1911), a Northern-educated engineer from South Carolina who, lured in part by the success of the Charlotte Cotton Mills and the potential he saw in the city as a regional center, established a mill machinery firm (the D. A. Tompkins Company) in Charlotte in 1884. He subsequently built over one hundred cotton mills and two hundred cotton oil plants in the Piedmont and was a key figure in the industrial expansion of the region. ¹³

Thus by 1895, Charlotte boasted four yarn mills (Atherton, 1893; Ada, 1889; Victor, 1889; all were set up by the D. A. Tompkins Company); a gingham mill (Highland Park, 1891); a sheeting mill (Charlotte Cotton); a towel factory (Crowley Manufacturing); a stocking plant (Cold Crown Hosiery Mills, headed by R. M. Oates, Jr., son of D. W. Oates); and a sash cord manufacturer (Robbins Cord Factory). ¹⁴ In the ensuing eighteen years, nine more cotton mills would be added to the city’s total. In 1897, Charlotte’s cotton mills alone totaled about 75,000 spindles, which consumed 20,592 bales of cotton per year. The cotton mills were operated by 1345 workers, who received annual wages of $253,240; this was about $5.00 per week for an eleven-hour day, less 20 cents per room rent every week for living in a mill-owned house. ¹⁵ In the next seven years, seven more large mills were added to this total, clearly making Charlotte a major textile center. ¹⁶ However, the firm that started this enterprise, Charlotte Cotton Mills, because of its limited size, could not remain competitive forever in the booming textile market. After R. M. Oates’ death in 1897, the nephews continued to run the business until 1910, when the firm was dissolved and the land sold to the Southern Real Estate Loan and Trust Company. ¹⁷ So, after thirty years of operation, Charlotte’s pioneer cotton mill passed into the annals of the city’s history.

Southern Real Estate subdivided the property into several lots, and the building itself was divided into four main sections and sold to various businesses and investors. Over the years, some of the occupants of the former mill have been the Charlotte Leather Belting Company, Southern Dairies, the Model Steam Laundry Company and the J. B. Ivey Company (warehouse). In the 1940’s, Morris Speizman opened a textile machinery business in part of the old mill, and over the years has expanded to take over all the old Charlotte Cotton Mills land and what remains of the building. ¹⁸ A few reminders are still visible of Charlotte’s first cotton mill however: the brick arched windows on 5th Street, and the name of the narrow street parallel to and between 5th and 6th, Oates Street.

As the building which represents the engine that pulled a long train of textile related businesses into the city, the Charlotte Cotton Mills is beyond doubt one of the most historically significant structures of the city’s industrial past and richly deserves designation as such.

 

 

---

NOTES

¹ Dates from monuments in Elmwood Cemetery.

² Charlotte Observer, December 28, 1897, p.6; Jerome Dowd, Sketches of Prominent Living North Carolinians (Raleigh: Edwards and Broughton, 1888), pp. 283-4.

³ Tom Hanchett, “The Growth of Charlotte: A History,” Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1983, p.13.

⁴ Dan Morrill, “A Survey of Cotton Mills in Charlotte,” Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1979, pp.1-2.

⁵ Deed Book 23, p.394, 9 February 1880; Charlotte Observer, February 5, 1880, p. 3.

⁶ Charlotte Observer, May 27, 1880, p. 3.

⁷ Ibid.; Ibid., August 21, 1880, p. 3.

⁸ Ibid., May 27, 1880, p. 3.

⁹ Ibid., December 21, 1880, p.3; Ibid., March 9, 1881, p.3; Act of Incorporation, 13 February 1883, Secretary of State’s Office, Raleigh.

¹⁰ Morrill, cited above, p. 2.

¹¹ Charlotte City Directories, 1884/5, et. seq.

¹² Charlotte Observer, December 28, 1897, p. 3.

¹³ George Winston, A Builder of the New South: Being the Story of the Life Work of Daniel Augustus Tompkins, Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1920.

¹⁴ Charlotte Observer, August 4, 1895, p. 5.

¹⁵ Ibid., December 28, 1897, p. 3.

¹⁶ Morrill, pp. 2-4.

¹⁷ Deed Book 269, p. 93, 3 October 1910.

¹⁸ Charlotte City Directories, 1910-present; Deed Book 2908, p. 98, 10 November 1967; Deed Book 2791, p. 499, 22 September 1966; Deed Book 1909, p. 288, 1 April 1957; Deed Book 2037, p. 303, 7 January 1959.

1. Name and location of the property. The property known as the Charlotte Coliseum is located at 2700 East Independence Boulevard in the Echo Hills neighborhood of Charlotte, North Carolina.
2. Name and address of the present owner of property: The City of Charlotte, 600 E. 4^th Street, Charlotte, NC 28202
3. Representative photographs of the property. This report contains representative photographs of the property.
4. A map depicting the location of the property. This report contains maps which depict the location of the property.

Portion of Property Recommended for Designation

1. Current Deed Book Reference to the Property. The most recent deed to this property is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 1469 at page 62. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 159-028-01.
2. A brief historical sketch of the Property. This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Ms. Paula M. Stathakis.
3. A brief architectural description of the property. This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Mr. Davis H. Liles.
4. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria for designation set forth In N.C.G.S. 160A-400.5.
5.  special significance In terms of its history, architecture, and cultural importance. The Commission judges that the property known as the Charlotte Coliseum does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following consideration: 1) the construction of the Charlotte Coliseum was completed in 1955 to provide the first single-purpose sports facility in the area; 2) the construction of the Charlotte Coliseum was the culmination of an intense fifteen year promotional effort by civic and political leaders; 3) the Charlotte Coliseum, designed by Odell & Associates, was the largest free-span dome in the world at the time it was built; 4) the Charlotte Coliseum was important for its pioneering architectural design; 5) the Charlotte Coliseum fostered major economic growth for the city at large and Independence Boulevard in particular; and 6) the Charlotte Coliseum housed a large variety of events that entertained and enriched the citizens of the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County and the region.
6.  integrity of design, setting, workmanship. materials, feeling and or association. The Commission contends that the architectural description by Mr. Davis H. Liles which is included in this report demonstrates that the Charlotte Coliseum meet this criterion.
7. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal. The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50 % of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes a designated “historic landmark.” The current appraised value (as of April 2009) of the improvements is $14,557,300. The current appraised value of the 18.83 acres is $5,741,600. Approximately 6 acres of the property is being recommended for landmark designation. The property is zoned B-2.
8. This report finds that the exterior, and land associated with the Charlotte Coliseum should be included in landmark designation of the property.

Historical Essay prepared by: Paula M. Stathakis

Date of Preparation of this Report: 30 July 1990

Updated in 2001, Lara Ramsey

Updated in April 2009, Mary Dominick

Historical Essay 

by Paula M. Stathakis

Charlotte did not have a coliseum until 1955, although the need for such a facility was apparently recognized in the early 1930’s.  Charlottean and civic booster Clarence Kuester was a vocal early advocate for a coliseum, but World War II prevented consideration of any such plan.1   The idea of a city coliseum and auditorium was revived in the late 1940s and was well received. Two mayors, Herbert Baxter and his successor Victor Shaw, devoted much of their energies and influence to these civic improvements.

Herbert Baxter

In 1947, while Baxter was Mayor, a proposal to build a coliseum was introduced to the City Council. A bond referendum was scheduled for October 28. The request was for $2.5 million, but there was no plan or even a specific site. Mayor Baxter wrote a series of six articles for the Charlotte Observer in which he presented six different arguments to the effect that the project was essential for the city’s growth. Maintaining that prompt action was essential for the city’s future, he urged a positive vote. This, he promised, would be followed by quick action to create a commission to assess such questions as location, design, costs, and method of financing. The Mayor also recommended that the existing armory-auditorium (the present Grady Cole Center) be converted into a coliseum at a cost of $250,000, thus saving the city the expense of two major new buildings. Baxter insisted that two separate structures were necessary because sports events and cultural programs had very different needs. A single multi-purpose building would not suffice; a basketball game in an adjacent room would ruin the evening for theatergoers.2

The special election of October 28, 1947 presented voters with a proposal to build a municipal auditorium and civic center at a cost not to exceed $2.5 million. Mayor Baxter, who could not share with the voters  any details about the buildings because there were none to share, did promise that bonds would not be issued nor would construction begin until there were favorable circumstances in the construction market and on the bond markets.3

The eligible electors totaled 4831. According to the vote­-against registration law, the votes of those who were eligible but did not cast their ballots were counted as votes against the measure. The bond issue was defeated by the slim margin of 83 votes. Some supporters blamed their defeat on rainy Election Day weather, while other observers blamed the vote-against law itself.4

Perhaps the voters had failed to support the bond issue because there were too many unanswered questions about the proposal. Mayor Baxter was never able to tell Charlotteans what the $2,500,000 would buy or even the approximate location of the new facilities. His third article acknowledged that site selection was critical; easy access and ample parking were essential. It was, however, impossible to select a location before the election because there were no funds to acquire options on potential sites. The Mayor was not unduly concerned about this, arguing that there would be “plenty of time to determine the proper location after the vote is recorded.”5 On the issue of the lack of plans, Baxter maintained that it would be “illegal for the city government to spend one cent on the project until the people approve.” Since architects could not be hired, the buildings would have to remain mysteries until after the bonds were approved.6

In fact, the only thing that many Charlotte voters were sure about on October 28 was that they had to decide whether or not to spend $2.5 million. Given the many uncertainties, it is surprising that the proposal lost by only 83 votes. The next mayor, Victor Shaw, argued that the failure of the bond election was not due to “public indifference,” but was because the people would not “buy a pig in a poke.”7

Prior to the construction of the coliseum, the only comparable facility was the Armory-Auditorium on Cecil Street (now on Kings Drive). This structure was generally considered barely adequate at best. Charlotte was not able to attract high-quality entertainment because the hall was so inferior. During the next bond campaign, a newspaper article flatly stated that such celebrities as Sonja Henie, Jimmy Durante, Ray Bolger, and Danny Kay refused to book Charlotte because they would not work in the Armory-Auditorium.8

In 1949 Mayor Shaw received an unsolicited letter from self-described showman, Ned Alvord of Chicago, who had recently passed through Charlotte. Alvord told Mayor Shaw that the Armory Auditorium needed to be replaced, but that great care was essential in the design of auditoriums and theaters. Not just any architect would do, he warned. When Charlotte was ready to build, Alvord urged the city to study the “excellent municipal houses planned by those who knew their trade” in Charleston, W. Va., Louisville, Fort Worth, and San Antonio. The ending of his letter pungently describes the status of a city without an adequate public auditorium: “….For a horrible example, you only have to look at your      Armory-Auditorium or recall the one uptown that preceded it.

Certainly I have an axe to grind. For some 45 years I have been a showman frequently exposed to the necessity of playing attractions in houses shunned by the solvent public because of inadequate facilities. If you have a suitable theater, it means just that more favorable reception of traveling attractions.”9

Mayor Victor Shaw

Shaw campaigned for mayor as the man who would bring progress and development to Charlotte. His interests ranged from traffic problems and rent control to what he considered essential improvements, a civic center and a municipal auditorium. Shortly after his election in April 1949, Mayor Shaw began behind-the­-scenes negotiations to secure an auditorium. The Mayor’s extensive correspondence with A. J. Gocking indicates that a group of local businessmen and the Mayor were interested in adding a city auditorium to the Oasis Temple of the Shrine on South Tryon Street. A letter from Gocking to Shaw, dated June 18, 1949 contains cryptic references to this plan, in which Frank Sherrill (co-owner of the S & W Cafeteria), Caspar Chandler, George Ivey (of Ivey’s Department Store) Norman Pease (architect), and Lee Folger were also involved. Gocking, the intermediary between this group and the Mayor, sent regular reports to Shaw from his summer home in Highlands, NC, where most of these early meetings took place. In mid-June the group unanimously agreed to locate the city auditorium at the rear of the Shrine building. The Potentate of the Shrine, however, had not yet been approached. This task was delegated to Frank Sherrill, who developed second thoughts and had to be pushed back into line by the Mayor.10

Gocking reported to the Mayor that the Potentate favored the idea, and Gocking was certain that the public would receive the plan well. “I am positive that the citizens will vote for it, if presented in the proper manner with all the cards face up.”11   By July Gocking was so confident of the plan that he wrote to Caspar Chandler that he hoped that it could be brought out in the open “for discussion by all.” Blueprints for the proposed layout were already drawn.12

Even though plans were not yet made public, the movers and shakers of Charlotte were aware that something was up. Mayor Shaw complained to Gocking that he was besieged daily by people wanting information and a chance to become involved. Murray Atkins made a special visit to the Mayor’s office to discuss the sale of revenue bonds. 13

The plan to build next to the Oasis Shrine Temple was fraught with problems, although these difficulties are perhaps more apparent with the advantage of hindsight than they were to contemporaries. Gocking feared that it might be difficult to sell the plan to the general membership of the Shriners.14  A portion of the proposed site behind the Temple was owned by the Bruns family, which did not wish to sell; Gocking admitted that getting an option on this lot would be a “master stroke.”15 Furthermore, when Gocking talked personally with the Potentate, it was apparent that the Shrine leader was not as enthusiastic as Gocking had been led to believe.

The most important obstacle was that the auditorium and also the Charlotte Shrine headquarters would occupy the same building, with the top two floors committed to the Shrine.16 In September, the newspaper broke the story, describing a five story structure with a 3500 seat auditorium and the two top stories allocated to the Shriners. The City would provide elevators, heat, water, and janitorial service for the whole building. If the City abandoned the property at any time or failed to provide facilities for the Oasis Temple, the title would revert to the Temple. 17

Mayor Shaw responded to this publicity by stating that the final decision on a site would by made by the people. He publicly bristled at allegations that he had “engineered” agreements that would bind the city to the Shrine plan. Shaw announced that he and City Manager Henry Yancey would sample public opinion, perhaps by mailing questionnaires. The Observer countered by urging the City to consider a site on the Thompson Orphanage property or an area on East 4th Street.18

The plan to combine the Auditorium with the Shrine building met an unfavorable response from the public and from the members of the Shrine Club. At a meeting in Asheville, Shriners voted against the proposal. Mayor Shaw then decided to ask the City Council to name a citizens committee to select a site. “It is important,” he stated, “that we go ahead with this venture and build Charlotte the kind of auditorium we need so urgently.” Residents were asked to suggest possible sites. The key issue was whether to locate the new facility downtown, or in a more remote place with better parking. 19

Mayor Shaw, estimating construction costs of about $1.5 million, presented two financial options. A referendum could be held to authorize a bond issue and low-interest long-term loans, or the city could use a new law authorizing local governments to issue revenue bonds that would not be a debt against the city, but would be repaid from operational revenues of the Auditorium. 20

David Ovens

On October 27 a planning committee was created under the leadership of David Ovens, Vice-President and General Manager of J. B. Ivey and President of the Charlotte Community Concert Association. The Mayor described Ovens as “the most public­-spirited citizen that Charlotte ever had.” 21 Ovens’s appointment had been in the wings since mid-summer. The other members were Henry Allison, President of Allison-Erwin; Claude S. Cochran, Attorney; Frank 0. Dowd, President of Charlotte Pipe and Foundry; James P. McMillan, President of Southern Radio Corp.; Ivey W. Stewart, President of Commercial National Bank; and Frank 0. Sherrill, President of S & W Cafeteria. The Committee’s tasks were to determine the size and type of building, its general location, the method of finance, and the selection of an architect.22

In addition to its local work, the committee traveled to other cities to learn from their experiences. Few cities had been able to build new auditoriums in the post-war years, but the committee profited from its visits to Chicago, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee. The Chicago Coliseum, which seated over 20,000, was the most impressive, and the members became even more convinced of the value of a quality facility to a city. James McMillan captured this feeling well, lamenting that “When I saw the Sonja Henie Show in the Chicago Coliseum, I realized all over again just what Charlotte is missing by not having a coliseum completed and in operation ”  23

The Ovens Committee selected architects A. G. Odell and Associates to design two structures, a coliseum and an auditorium. The Odell firm, after working informally with the committee for months, was formally appointed by the City Council in May, 1950. The contract retained A. G. Odell and Associates to design and supervise the construction of the buildings, if and when work was authorized. Initial projections were for a 10,000 seat coliseum. 24

The City Council delayed approval of the contract for a week. At the insistence of Councilman Basil M. Boyd the contract was amended to include a clause providing that no fees be paid to the architects in the event that the necessary bonds were not approved by the voters. 25

Although selection of an architect was an important step, the City still had not found a site nor developed a plan to finance construction. The site problem was especially difficult. The Ovens Committee could not find a large enough tract of land to accommodate the buildings and adequate parking, and was unable to decide between a downtown or more suburban location. The Thompson Orphanage site and a four-block area between East Fourth Street and Independence Boulevard remained under consideration, but neither seemed ideal. 26    By May, Ovens thought that he might have to settle for two separate sites, as it seemed impossible to assemble a 12 acre tract adequate for both buildings.

In order to give impetus to a project which had been limping along since October, in late May the Council planned to rush a $3 million bond election for water, sewer, and street improvements and to reserve $2.5 million of the allowable debt limit for the coliseum. Mayor Shaw hoped for a late summer or early fall vote. 28

A bond issue of at least $3 million to build on a site on Independence Boulevard was recommended to the Council on August 16. The breakthrough on the site came with the committee’s announcement that it had obtained a 90 day option on land 1/4 mile south of the Chantilly School. The property, owned by Dwight Phillips, had 1000 feet of road frontage and was 1000 feet deep. It was large enough for a 10,000 seat coliseum with adequate parking, and was far enough out of town to prevent traffic congestion.29

The Council, relieved by the discovery of this apparently ideal site, set the bond referendum for October 14. The Council also approved the Ovens Committee’s recommendation that a separate Coliseum authority be created to manage the facility. 30

A. G. Odell, Jr.

Although Odell and Associates had not begun to prepare detailed blueprints, the firm provided drawings of the proposed buildings to help generate public enthusiasm. One architect recalled that he and others worked extra hours at night to complete this work. These preliminary drawings were for a rectangular coliseum which bore no resemblance to the circular plan that was actually adopted. The auditorium did look like the structure which was later built. 31

Voters were bombarded with literature extolling the advantages of the bond. The Charlotte Chamber of Commerce issued a brochure to urge Charlotteans to support the $3 million bond issue on the 14th of October. The brochure gave citizens a much more detailed explanation of what they were voting on than they had in 1947. With a population of 200,000 in the metropolitan area and approximately 1 million within a fifty mile radius, it was inexcusable, the Chamber argued, that Charlotte did not already have a modern auditorium and coliseum. Rejection of the bond issue would stunt the city’s growth and keep major entertainers away. “The impresarios of the amusement world are giving us the cold shoulder. We are shunned, ignored, and even scorned…. Nobody likes to sit in our Armory-Auditorium warehouse, let alone try to put on a show there.”32

The brochure explained the purpose of each building and why the city needed both, why they could not be located downtown, and land and construction costs. An architect’s drawing showed the rectangular coliseum, described above, on the left side of the plot and the auditorium on the right, the reverse of what was actually done. 33

The local papers were not able to resist this opportunity to engage in some civic boosterism. For several days prior to the election, the Charlotte Observer ran a series of articles promoting the Auditorium bonds. One article reminded the electorate: “There are few who will not admit the inadequacy of the Armory-Auditorium, jerry-built in the ’20s in 90 days to take care of a reunion of Confederate war veterans.” 34

The full-scale promotional onslaught worked on this second attempt to obtain a coliseum. The dominant front page headline on October 15, 1950 screamed “City Auditorium Bond Voted.” Out of forty-one precincts, thirty-nine approved the bond. Of the 7000 eligible voters, 5915 cast their vote: 3763 in favor, 2152 against. With the bond secured, the next step was to create a coliseum authority to supervise the affairs of the building. 35

Odell and Associates then began to work in earnest. In order to keep costs down and to reduce the number of undesirable seats, they decided on a circular design for the coliseum. Such a circular structure was reminiscent of classical designs. A major feature of the Charlotte building, in contrast to ancient Roman designs, was that the actual arena surface was rectangular rather than round. By placing a rectangle inside a circle, rather than a circle within a circle or a rectangle within a rectangle, Odell created an excellent seating arrangement. This design also allowed the use of a bold but economical dome roof.  The use of pre-cast straight seats rather than curved seats cast in place also helped to minimize costs.

                 

The Council authorized the purchase of the Phillips tract for $2500 an acre, as stipulated in the option agreement. Mayor Shaw confidently planned to break the ground for the long-awaited project before his term expired in May, 1951.36  By early November a topographical survey of the site had been completed and transmitted to the architect.37  Planning construction of the coliseum was more difficult than for the auditorium. A major issue was whether to use steel or reinforced concrete for the roof beams. The New York based structural engineering firm of Severud-Elstad-Kruger had been hired to assist Odell.38   Together, the two firms were able to design and build what was at the time the largest free‑span dome in the world An important innovation provided by Severud-Elstad-Kruger was the use of a computer to carry out the complex mathematical calculations necessary for this difficult structural problem.39 The building is supported by concrete columns which lean inward, not outward.40 To compensate for this, a tension ring carries the thrust of the roof. The dome spans 332 feet, 4 inches. 41

 

 

Preliminary plans for the entire project were presented to the public in October, 1951. The Charlotte News published photographs of the models, which gave the first indication that the coliseum would seat more than 10,000 people. Capacity was 12,500 for basketball and could reach 14,000 for boxing. The coliseum was big enough to fit the old Armory-Auditorium on the arena floor.42 In addition to this large, flexible seating capacity; there was also a mechanism to make ice on the floor for skating shows or hockey.43

Unfortunately, construction was substantially delayed, as federal government controls on steel consumption and a general rise in construction costs soon brought the project to a halt. Of the $3 million approved for the project, $225,000 had already been spent on site preparation, architects’ fees and other costs by October, 1951. A. G. Odell Jr. was already concerned about cost increases. A federal ban on the construction of amusement buildings was enacted in response to the nation-wide steel shortage caused by the Korean War and the effects of the steelworkers strike of 1949, and the Charlotte facility fell into the category of “amusement buildings.” 44

These problems delayed construction until 1953. By that time, the City discovered that it was $500,000 short for the new estimates. Bids were received on March 13, 1953, and even the lowest exceeded the funds voted.45   The Council was forced to propose an additional $1 million bond issue to the voters. Supporters took out a full page advertisement in the Observer on June 5, explaining that material shortages had prevented construction in 1951 and 1952, and that costs had risen in the meantime. 46 The bond issue passed. Construction was scheduled to begin on July 1 and to be completed in 1955. Contracts were awarded to the following firms: Thompson and Street, construction; P. G. Godfrey, plumbing; Hopkins, Hicks, Ingle, heating; F. E. Robinson, electrical; and Amreco of New York, the ice rink.47

A strike by sheetmetal workers interrupted construction in November, 1954. The strike, which involved 200 workers in Charlotte, combined with winter winds and low temperatures to delay completion from May, 1955 to late summer.48

In May, 1955, however, the Coliseum was opened to public view. On the first weekend of the month about 12,000 people toured the complex. The open house was sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, and members of the United States Marines acted as tour guides. 9 The official opening of both buildings was held as scheduled on September 11, despite some last minute delays.50

The dedication ceremonies of Sunday, September 11 attracted 13,000 people to the coliseum. Activities began at 2:30. Highlights of the program included music by the 101st Airborne Band, remarks by A.  Grant Whitney, Mayor Philip L. Van Every, James P. McMillan, architect A. G. Odell, Jr., and Governor Luther H. Hodges. Billy Graham, whose crusades would fill the building in later years, gave the dedication address. After the formal part of the service, the audience was treated to an entertainment program with selections from fine arts as well as from popular culture. Presentations were given by the Charlotte Opera Association, the Ballet Society, the Symphony Society, the Little Theater, the Myers Park and Second Ward High School Bands, the Arthur Murray Dancers, a YMCA trampoline duo, and Arthur Smith and the Crackerjacks. Charlotteans were not only entertained, but they were given an important demonstration of the many possible uses of the building. The fitting finale for the afternoon was “Bless This House.”51

In its first year of operation the Coliseum hosted events such as the Ice Capades and the DeSoto Dealers Dinner. 52    During its first full year, the 1956-57 season, the Coliseum was booked from September through April. A partial list of events presented to Charlotteans that year includes the NC Motor Carriers Association Truck Rodeo, the Ice Capades, the Italian Carabinieri (Police Marching Band), the Dixie Fashion Show, thirty ice hockey games, the Esther Williams Water Show (with Esther Williams in person), college basketball, professional basketball (the Fort Wayne Zollners versus the Saint Louis Hawks), and the Carolina Lumber Dealers Annual Show. The manager, Paul Buck, seemed to have something for every taste. 53

The newspapers regularly advised its readers that the Coliseum was operating in the black. On June 30, 1965, at the end of the first decade of operations, the Coliseum Authority reported that it had experienced only one losing year. Manager Paul Buck attributed the Coliseum’s success to big attractions like the Ice Capades, basketball, and country and western concerts.54 In 1982 the Coliseum Authority had a record‑breaking year with a profit $595,880. The biggest single money maker was $21,356 on a Kenny Rogers concert. Total profit on concessions was $30,000. Rock concerts and Amway conventions were also significant sources of revenue that year. 55

The Coliseum building has historical significance for Charlotte on several different levels. It is important for its pioneering architectural design; it has had both direct and indirect influence on the city’s growth, and the huge variety of activities that took place in the facility were, in one way or another, important events in the lives of the people of the city and region.

From the moment that Odell & Associates unveiled the first model, the Coliseum was featured in professional architecture journals and trade publications. The buildings legendary claim to fame is that it was the largest free-span dome in the world at the time it was built.56 Another unique design feature was that the building could be completely evacuated in four minutes.57 Architecture and Building featured the Coliseum as an example of a welded radial structure, and it received international notice in an article in a Madrid journal.58 Look published a three-quarter page color photograph of the “world’s biggest dome.”59

The Baltimore American carried a full page story entitled “Charlotte, N.C. How City Built a Civic Center.” The Baltimore paper picked up the story because their local hockey team, the Baltimore Clippers, had been burned out of their arena in 1956, and, having no other facility in the Baltimore area, decided to play the rest of their “home” games at the new Charlotte Coliseum. The article lauded the city for its foresight in building the Coliseum-Auditorium complex. The paper praised the warm welcome given the Clippers, the Coliseum dome, its flexible seating arrangements, the “perfect” acoustics of the Ovens auditorium, and the parking lot for 2000 cars which “can be emptied in 15 minutes.”60

The Coliseum’s aluminum dome also attracted much notice and the building was liberally used in Alcoa’s advertisements. In 1956 it was featured on the Alcoa Hour, a TV program aired on NBC TV on July 8, but not shown in Charlotte until July 15. The promotional pamphlet for the program proclaimed: “See what Charlotte has done with aluminum on the Alcoa Hour.  Presenting views of the new modern aluminum domed civic center.”61 Alcoa also featured the dome in its 1955 and 1956 newsletters, describing the Coliseum as “futuristic,” “graceful,” and “spectacular.”62  The Bethlehem Steel Company used a photograph of the steel ribs of the building, taken during an early phase of construction. According to this advertisement, 1000 tons of steel were used in the building.63 The Coliseum also appeared in Popular Mechanics and on the covers of Construction and The National Insurance Buyer. 64 All of these notices brought Charlotte to the attention of a wider audience, and it seems clear that the Coliseum helped to put Charlotte on the map.

The growth of the city, especially business growth along Independence Boulevard, also owes something to the Coliseum and the activity it created. In 1966, ten years after the Coliseum had become fully operational, growth in its vicinity was estimated to be worth 20 million dollars. When the complex opened in 1955, the only neighboring businesses were the Coliseum Motor Courts, a service station, a hamburger stand, and a Howard Johnson’s restaurant. These structures were built in anticipation of the Coliseum and Auditorium crowds. By 1966, commercial development was even more impressive. Three new shopping centers were built, each of Charlotte’s four major banks had branches in the area; North Carolina Savings and Loan had constructed a seven story headquarters building nearby; and car dealerships and several restaurants stretched the business strip along Independence Boulevard half way to Matthews. The Charlotte Merchandise Mart, a major national marketplace for men’s and women’s clothes, was built across a side street from the Coliseum. 65

The Charlotte Coliseum has been a significant part of the lives of at least two generations of Charlotteans. The building was the site of the circus, the Ice Capades, and music events from Elvis and Kenny Rogers to Lawrence Welk. In September 1965 12,300 fans went to see the Welk show at the Coliseum. A highlight of the evening was the Lennon Sisters dressed in “form fitting sleeveless black tops, bright figured skirts, and new upsweep hairdos.”66

The Coliseum was the focus for regional sports. Basketball, the most popular sport in the Carolinas, was a staple of the featured athletic fare. Professional wrestling also flourished. The 1956 season gave Charlotte its first taste of the alien sport of ice hockey when the Baltimore Clippers temporarily adopted the Coliseum for its home ice. The Clippers played five games in Charlotte to finish their year; they attracted 41,200 fans for an average of 8400 per game. Two games were sellouts.  A team represented Charlotte in the Eastern Hockey League the next year. 67 The Coliseum Authority purchased its own hockey team in 1960. Charlotteans were also introduced to ice skating in the Coliseum, because the building was open for public skating from 1956. Skate rental in 1960 was 50 cents. 68

More solemn events also took place at the Coliseum. Many Charlotte residents sat through their high school or college graduation ceremonies there, or attended one of several Billy Graham crusades.

The Coliseum may be unique because, more than any other building in the region, it has played some part in the life of nearly every Charlotte area resident. Even in the shadow of its larger successor, the old Charlotte Coliseum might still prove useful as a place to play college basketball, house a new hockey team, or accommodate concerts whose audiences would be swallowed up in the new 24,000 seat structure.

1. This example of Kuester’s civic activity was noted in a typescript in the Herbert Baxter Papers, with no author and no date indicated. Herbert H. Baxter Papers, Special Collections, UNCC, series 4, folder 4.
2. Baxter’s articles appeared in the Charlotte Observer, October 5-October 10, 1947.
3. Charlotte Observer, Oct. 28, 1947 “Voters Settle Auditorium Bond Issue Today,” by Hal Tribble, p. 1B.
4. Charlotte Observer, October 29, 1947, “Auditorium Bond Issue Beaten by 83 Votes,” p. 1A.
5. Charlotte Observer, October 7 1947, by H. H. Baxter. Clipping file, reel 5, UNCC Library, no pagination.
6. Charlotte Observer, October 9, 1947, by H. H. Baxter, ibid.
7. Victor Shaw, radio campaign speech, April 19, 1949, Victor Shaw Papers, Special collections, UNCC, Box 3, Series 2: Speeches, Folder 1.
8. Charlotte Observer, June 5, 1953, “Large Turnout is Called for in Bond Vote,” p. 1B.
9. Ned Alvord to Victor Shaw,  August 6, 1949,Victor Shaw Papers, Box 1, Series 1: Correspondence, 1949, Folder 3.
10. A.J. Gocking to Victor Shaw, June 18, 1949, Shaw Parers, Box 1, Series 1: Correspondence, Folder 2. According to Shaw, Sherrill had to be prodded to approach Oasis Potentate J. Y. Jordan with the proposition. Shaw to Gocking, July 5, 1949, Ibid.
11. Gocking to Shaw, July 7, 1949, Ibid.
12. Gocking to Chandler, July 7, 1949, Shaw Papers, Box 1, Series 1: Correspondence, Folder 2.
13. Shaw to Gocking, July 12, 1949, ibid.
14. Gocking to Shaw, July 7, 1949, ibid.
15. Shaw to Gocking, July 22, 1949, ibid ; Gocking to Shaw July 24, 1949, ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Charlotte Observer, September 26, 1949, “Oasis Potentate J. Y. Jordan, Mayor Shaw, Discuss Proposition in Letters,” by Hal Tribble, Clipping file, UNCC Library, no page; Charlotte Observer, October 19, 1949, “Oppose Shrine Site for City Auditorium,” by Hazel M. Trotter, p. 1B.
18. Charlotte Observer, October 29, 1949, “Shaw Explains Shrine Deal,” p. 1B.
19. Charlotte Observer, October 28 1949, “New Auditorium Plans are Shaped,” by Hal Tribble, p. 1B.
20. Ibid.
21. Shaw to Gocking, July 9, 1949, Shaw Papers, ibid.
22. Charlotte Observer, October 27, 1949, “City Council Takes Steps for New Auditorium,” by Hal Tribble, Clipping file, UNCC Library, reel 5, no page; Ibid, November 3, 1949, “Ovens Selects Aides in Study,” by Hal Tribble, p. IB.
23. Charlotte Observer, January 10, 1950, “Group Studying Coliseum Plans in Other Cities,” Hazel M. Trotter, Clipping file, no p. 6.
24. Charlotte Observer, May 12, 1950, “Contract will be Submitted to Governing Heads Today,” by Hal Tribble, Clipping file, no p.
25. Charlotte Observer, May 18,1950, “Approval of Architect’s Contract is Held Up for One Week by City Council,” Clipping file, no p.
26. Charlotte Observer, December 18, 1949, photo diagram, p. 1B.
27. Charlotte Observer, May 20, 1950, “Two Sites Proposed for Auditorium, Coliseum,” by Hazel Trotter, Clipping file, no p.

28 Charlotte Observer, May 25, l95O, “City to Rush $3 Million Bond Election Plans,” by Hal Tribble, p. 1B.

29. Charlotte News, August 16, 1950, “Committee Urges Site on Cities East Edge for Facility,” by Tom Fesperman, Clipping file, no p.
30. Charlotte Observer, August 17, 1950, “Committee recommends Special Election to Finance Project,” Clipping file, no p.
31. Interview with Scott Ferebee, Jr., project architect for Odell during the planning phases of the coliseum-auditorium project, July 25, 1990.
32. Chamber of Commerce Brochure, 1950, Property of A. G. Odell and Associates. Access generously provided by Mr. Davis H. Liles.
33. Ibid.
34. Charlotte Observer, October 10, 1950, “A Building For Every Purpose, ” p. 1B.
35. Charlotte Observer, October 15, 1950, “City Auditorium Bond Voted,” p. 1A.

36 Charlotte Observer, October 16, 1950, “Speedy Action Seen on Auditorium Site,” Clipping file, no p.

37. Charlotte Observer, November 8, 1950, “First Step Completed on Auditorium Project,” p. 1B.
38. Charlotte Observer, February 23, 1951, “Few details Unsettled on Auditorium Project,” Clipping file, no p.
39. Ferebee interview, July 25, 1990.
40. Odell remarked that he preferred this design “…to keep the Coliseum from looking like a gasoline storage tank.” The Chattanooga Times, November 20, 1955, “New Auditorium, Coliseum Give Charlotte Sharp Focus On Entertainment,” p. 17.
41. Ferebee interview, July 25, 1990; Architectural Record, “Structural Forms Keynote Civic Center,” December, 1952, p. 122.
42. Charlotte News, October 11, 1951, “Planning on Auditorium-Coliseum Gets Go Ahead from City Council,” by Tom Fesperman, p. 1B.

43 Ferebee interview, July 25, 1990

44. Charlotte Observer, October 12, 1951, “Coliseum Still Facing Major Hurdles,” by Hal Tribble, p. 1B; ibid., October 27, 1951, “NPA Ban Won’t Halt Auditorium Planning,” Clipping file, no p.; ibid., October 22, 1951, “Coal Crisis Causes Rail Restriction,” p. 1A.
45. Charlotte Observer, March 13, 1953, “Coliseum-Auditorium Bids Will be Received Today,” Clipping file, no p.
46. Charlotte Observer, June 5, 1953, “Vote Yes.  We’ve Waited Long Enough,” p. l0A.
47. Charlotte Observer, June 9, 1953, “Auditorium‑Coliseum to be Ready in 1955,” p. 1B.
48. Charlotte Observer, November 4, 1954, “Coliseum Job Halted by Strike,” Ibid , December 18, 1953, “Coliseum-Auditorium Project Progressing Despite Cold,” both Clipping files, reel 5, no p.
49. Charlotte Observer, May 2, 1955, “12,000 Persons Tour Auditorium-Coliseum,” Clipping file, no p.
50. Charlotte Observer, June 4, 1955, “Coliseum Opening May be Postponed,” Clipping file, no p.
51. Program, Charlotte Coliseum-Ovens Auditorium Dedication Service, Sunday, September 11, 1955. Property of A. G. Odell Jr. and Associates; access kindly provided by Davis H. Liles.
52. William H. Sumner Photographic Collection, Special Collections, UNCC.
53. Charlotte Observer, August 15, 1956, “Buck Gives Schedule,” by Dick Banks, Charlotte Public Library Clipping Folder, Charlotte Public Buildings, Charlotte Coliseum, Folder 1.
54. Charlotte News, September 15, 1965, “Coliseum, Ovens Auditorium End Tenth Year With $38,751 Profit,” by Emery Wister, p. 1B.
55. Charlotte News, September 3, 1982, “Coliseum Shows Record Profit,” by John Wildman, p. 1B.
56. Architectural Forum, “World’s Largest Dome,” November, 1954, p. 159.
57. Progressive Architecture, September 1956, p. 120. The ribs of the Coliseum Dome were featured on the cover.
58. Architecture and Building, “Exhibition Hall,” October 1956, pp. 388-392; Revista Informes de la Construccion, “El palacio de los deportes y auditorio de Charlotte,” November 1955, no. 75, pp. 72-75.
59. Look, “World’s Biggest Dome,” January 20. 1956, p. 37
60. Baltimore American, April 6, 1956, “Charlotte, N.C. How a City Built a Civic Center,” by James C. Mullikin, no p. Copy in possession of Odell and Associates, generously provided by Davis H. Liles.
61. Pamphlet for the Alcoa Hour, 1956. Property of A. G. Odell and Associates, generously provided by Davis H. Liles.
62. The Alcoa News, February 14, 1955, p. 3; Alcoa Aluminum News Letter, February 1956, pp.3‑4. A stylized color drawing of the Coliseum is on p.1 of the latter issue.
63. Architectural Record, “On the News Front With Structural Steel,” April 1955, p. 108.
64. Popular Mechanics, “Two Acre Dome,” February 1957, p. 71; Construction in North Carolina Virginia. and West Virginian , June 7 1954; and The National Insurance Buyer, Vol. 11, no.3, May 1964.
65. Charlotte News, September 7, 1966, “On Independence Boulevard a $4.7 Million Magnet for City,” by Emery Wister, Charlotte Public Library, Clipping Folder, Charlotte Public Buildings, Charlotte Coliseum, Folder 1.
66. Charlotte News, September 27, 1965, “12,300 Hear Lawrence Welk,” p. 6A.
67. Newsletter from Robert P. Elmer, Jr., Director of Public Relations, Charlotte Clippers, September 1956. Copy in the possession of A. G. Odell and Associates.
68. Charlotte Observer, July 23, 1960, “City Youths Can Skate for Less,” Charlotte Public Library, Clipping Folder, no p.

Architectural Description

by Davis H. Liles, AIA

The original Charlotte Coliseum is located on a 17.67-acre site between Independence Boulevard East and Coliseum Drive. The 208,400 square-foot arena shares the site with the 68,452 square-foot Ovens Auditorium. The two separate buildings were both constructed in 1954‑55. The Coliseum’s location, three miles from the center of town, was considered on the outskirts of the city of 135,000 residents at that time. The building was designed by A.G. Odell, Jr. and Associates, and received international publicity during and after its construction. The original design of the Coliseum was modified in 1970 with the construction of a new entrance on the north side leading to the parking lots, closing off the existing east side lobby for coliseum offices and erection of a building on the west side to enclose air conditioning and mechanical equipment which were added at the time. The circular drive around the building was closed and the new entrance entered at the upper concourse level of the building.

Ovens Auditorium under construction, photograph taken on July 22, 1954

At the time of its construction, the building was noted by Look Magazine (January 24, 1956) as the “world’s largest dome”. St. Sophia’s great Byzantine dome is 107 feet in diameter and the dome at St. Peter’s in Rome is just under 138 feet. Charlotte Coliseum’s circular dome spans 332 feet and is 112 feet above the floor at its peak. Throughout history significant religious and civic buildings have been a source for major advances in architecture and engineering. The combined requirements for economy of construction and maintenance, safety, flexibility, ease of circulation and need for an exciting but simple shape determined a circular domed design. Architecturally, this type of dome is a space frame‑-no piece of steel in it is more than 18 inches deep.

Using a design technique invented in 1863 for considerably smaller domes by German steel expert J.W. Schwedler, the weight of the domed structure was reduced such that it could be held by 48 cast‑in‑place columns sloped outwards 7 feet from bottom to top to keep rain off the exterior windows and add visual interest. The aluminum sheathed dome covers a two acre area. It consists of a lightweight aluminum roof laid on a precast concrete and wood fiber deck resting on a metal-ribbed, convex latticework. A 172 ton tension ring, sitting atop the 48 columns, resists the outward thrust of the dome’s 970 tons of steel. Severud-Elstad-Krueger of New York were the consulting structural engineers and the steel erector was Southern Engineering of Charlotte.

Precast concrete bleachers serve as a base on all four sides for 10,000 permanent seats. While the building is circular, the straight seating on the four sides of the 99 foot x 212 foot arena floor eliminate any undesirable corner seating and maximize seating on the side. Aisles and exits were designed to empty the building in four minutes. The upper level concourse completely circles the building and large glass openings on the exterior bring in natural light to the circulation areas and provide a strong visual connection with the outside plaza. The glass expanses also reinforce the drama and spectacle associated with large assembly buildings of this type. On the exterior undulating precast concrete panels appear to float on top of the glass and provide a strong contrast to the shining aluminum panels on the roof. On the lower level the exterior is finished with blue glazed ceramic tile underneath a continuous overhang.

Space underneath the seating areas is used for support functions including offices, ticket offices, locker rooms, dressing rooms, concessions, vending areas and service areas. All of the glass areas are below the line of seating levels. Most of the exposed surfaces are structural concrete, steel, and terra cotta block partitions. Intense primary colors are used as accents to brighten the interior. On each side a large open area with a 35 foot high wall of glass provides an open intermission area. The floor of the arena was designed with ice-making capacity for local hockey events and touring ice shows. Public restrooms are provided on both levels. Storage areas are provided for temporary seating, portable staging and a portable basketball floor. A central scoreboard provided game information and a catwalk system hung from the roof provided access to the lighting and sound systems, also hung from the dome. Press boxes and special spotlighting are located between the top of the seating and the dome’s perimeter.

Up to 3,500 temporary seats can be added to the special arena events, depending on the type the years events have been featured such as circuses, rodeos, horse shows, trade shows, rock and country music concerts and conventions. The facility’s bold design, engineering feats and overall impact served as a significant milestone in Charlotte’s growth as a regional center both in economic terms and as a symbol of the City’s vision for the future. With the opening of the new 23,000 seat Charlotte Coliseum in 1988, its operation was halted. Recent interest has been expressed in its renovation to serve smaller scale events and to continue to provide economic support for Independence Boulevard business. The basic building remains sound and continues to serve as an engineering, design marvel that was a precursor of the enormous stadia/arenas that are being built today and also stand as visible symbols of civic pride. The magic of an unsupported 332 foot dome remains a powerful visual image today for all those who attended Coliseum events.

 

Addendum (2001)

by Lara Ramsey

The Charlotte Coliseum (now known as Independence Arena) was hailed as an “architectural marvel” by architects, public officials, and Charlotteans when they first opened to a crowd of thousands in 1955.  North Carolina Governor Luther Hodges proclaimed the Coliseum “a perfect building,” and a Charlotte resident attending the grand opening declared, “We’ve been waiting twenty-five years for Charlotte to do something like this.”1 Designed by A.G. Odell & Associates, the modern complex drew national attention for its “fresh, futuristic design” and was featured in several publications.2

The former Coliseum, with its aluminum-covered dome measuring 332 feet in diameter, received the lion’s share of the publicity.  In 1956, Look magazine printed a three-quarter page color photograph of the building, calling it the “world’s biggest dome.”3  The building’s large seating capacity was ideal for sporting events and big-name acts like Elvis Presley and the Rolling Stones.  Between 1955 and 1988, over 20 million people attended events at the former Coliseum and Ovens Auditorium.4   As the years passed, however, it became apparent that the city was outgrowing its first Coliseum.  With the building of the new Charlotte Coliseum on Tyvola Road, there were concerns that leaving the former Coliseum open would provide competition for the new 24,000-seat arena.   When the new Coliseum opened in 1988, the old Coliseum closed its doors.5

With the city’s rapid growth, many people began to rethink the idea of using the smaller venue to compliment the new Coliseum.  In 1991, the city granted a 35-year lease on the Coliseum to the Independence Arena Management Group, owned jointly by D.L. Phillips Co. (owners of Merchandise Mart) and Arena Associates, Inc.  The Group began raising funds for a renovation of the Coliseum, which was renamed Independence Arena.6  The project would eventually cost over $4 million to complete – approximately the same amount of money that had been spent to build the Coliseum and Ovens Auditorium in the 1950’s.7

Most of the renovation involved updating existing parts of the Coliseum.  The sound system and lighting system were updated, as were the restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, concession stands, and the box office.  A new scoreboard and two new message boards were installed.  The building was also made more accessible to the handicapped.  An elevator was installed to transport visitors to the upper concourse, where ramps led to six areas that could accommodate up to six wheelchairs each.8

Special care was also taken to preserve the original features of the building.  The original oak floor was refinished, and the ice floor (consisting of 12 miles of pipe) was inspected and found to be in working order.  The original maple folding seats were also refinished.  Richard Cherry, who was hired by the city to inspect the building prior to the renovation, noted that “after 37 years, there was less than 1% breakage in the seats . . .they are very sturdy, they look great, and we didn’t have to spend $400,000 for new plastic seats. 9

The former Coliseum re-opened as Independence Arena on September 18, 2001.  The building that had once been the world’s largest free-span dome was now billed as a “sidekick” to the recently built 25,000-seat Charlotte Coliseum.  The new Coliseum would house Hornets games and big-name entertainment, while Independence Arena would provide a venue for smaller events like UNCC basketball games and Charlotte Checkers matches. 10

Other changes were made to the former Coliseum in the years following its re-opening.  In 1995, color television monitors were installed in the concourses, and a restaurant-lounge called the Locker Room opened in the building to serve Charlotte Checkers fans with season tickets.11   The former Charlotte Coliseum will soon undergo yet another change – the wireless phone company Cricket has agreed to pay $100,00 to change the name of Independence Arena to Cricket Arena.12

Although Ovens Auditorium did not undergo the full-scale renovation that the old Coliseum received, the building (which remained open when the Coliseum was forced to close in 1988) has been updated over the past decade.  In August of 1990, new, dark teal seats replaced the original orange and turquoise seating.  103 extra seats were added to the auditorium, increasing its seating capacity to 26,603.13     The original concession counter in the upstairs lounge was replaced in the mid-1990’s with a counter of dark wood that blends with the surrounding bead board.  New furniture was added to the lounge, and new carpeting was installed throughout the building.  Around this time, a two-story addition was built onto the left side of the center section of the auditorium, facing the old Coliseum.  This new addition houses passenger and service elevators and restrooms on the ground floor; a hospitality area occupies the second level.14

The former Charlotte Coliseum and Ovens Auditorium, although no longer the main venues in the city, remain as architectural icons to many Charlotteans. The modern design of the Coliseum/Auditorium complex drew national attention to Charlotte, and the presence of the buildings helped the city to expand culturally and economically.

      

 

1. “Renovated Facility Flaunts Fifties Flair.” Charlotte Observer, September 15, 1993, special advertising section.
2. Ibid.
3. “Revamped arena ready for its coming out.” Charlotte Observer, August 27, 1993, 1A.
4. “The NEW old coliseum.”  Charlotte Observer, January 20, 1996. (taken from the vertical file “Public Buildings – Coliseum (Old) in the Robinson-Spangler Carolina Room).
5. “The Old Dome.”  Charlotte Magazine, p. 52.
6. “Just sit down and listen up:  new seats at Ovens Auditorium are no smaller, officials say – and that’s the bottom line.”  Charlotte Observer, October 23, 1990, 1-B.
7. Interview with George Hite, February 17, 2001.
8. “The Old Dome.”  Charlotte Magazine, p. 54 (month unknown – article provided by the Coliseum and Convention Center Authority).
9. Ibid.
10. American Institute of Architects, Charlotte Chapter.  “Survey and Research Report on the Charlotte Coliseum.”  July 30, 1990, p. 25 (copy of Look magazine article).
11. “The Old Dome”, p. 54.
12. Ibid.
13. Fans will walk into 1950’s in renovated arena.”  Charlotte Observer, October 20, 1991 (page number unknown – taken from the vertical file “Public Buildings – Coliseum (Old) in the Robinson-Spangler Carolina Room).
14. “Charlotte Landmark Gets New Lease On Life.”  Charlotte Observer, September 15, 1993, special advertising section (taken from the vertical file “Public Buildings – Coliseum (Old) in the Robinson Spangler Carolina Room).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This report was written on Feb. 6, 1980

1. Name, and location of the property: The property known as the Charlotte City Hall is located at 600 East Trade St. in Charlotte, N.C.

2. Name, address and telephone number of the present owner and occupant of the property: The present owner and. occupant of the property is:

City of Charlotte
600 E. Trade St.
Charlotte, NC 28202

3. Representative photographs of the property: This report contains representative photographs of the property.

4. A map depicting the location of the property: This report contains a map which depicts the location of the property

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The current deed to this property is re-corded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 547, Page 265. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 125-021-01.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property:

In 1891, Charlotte erected an imposing city hall at the corner of N. Tryon and Fifth Sts. Designed by Gottfrid L. Norrman (1846-1909), the building housed all city services, including the police department and the fire department. ¹ By the early 1920s, Charlotte had outgrown this facility. Consequently, James Oscar Walker (1879-1947), who was elected Mayor on May 3, 1921, advocated the construction of a new municipal complex. The City purchased an entire block on East Ave, now E. Trade St., in the midst of what was then a fashionable residential area. ² Interestingly, the Charlotte Observer proposed that the Board of County Commissioners sell the courthouse, situated on S. Tryon St., and join with the City in erecting a single structure on this location. Happily for Mayor Walker, who did not favor this proposition, the citizens rejected the idea of a joint facility at the polls on July 28, 1923. ³

On January 26, 1924, City Council authorized Mayor Walker to negotiate a contract with Charles Christian Hook (1870-1938) to design the new city hall. ⁴ A native of Wheeling, W. Va., and graduate of Washington University in St. Louis, Mo., Hook was the first architect who lived in Charlotte. He moved here in 1891 to teach mechanical drawing in the Charlotte Graded School, which stood at the corner of South Blvd. and E. Morehead St. By 1892, he was designing structures for the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company, the developers of Dilworth. ⁵ C. C. Hook occupied a place of pivotal importance in the evolution of the built environment of Charlotte, N.C. Indeed, he introduced the Colonial Revival style in this community and, consequently, established the aesthetic norm which dominated the architecture of the affluent suburbs of Charlotte. ⁶ The Charlotte City Hall is the most imposing public building of this genre which Hook designed.

The complex consisted of four structures. An administrative building, commonly known as the City Hall. was placed in the middle of the block, thereby allowing for future expansion. A fire station, a police station and public health building were constructed along the southern edge of the property. Governmental agencies occupied the new facilities on October 30, 1925, and the initial meeting of City Council occurred there on November 1, 1925. ⁷ The J. A. Jones Construction Co. erected the four structures. ⁸ Mayor Walker had resigned on December 4, 1924, so that he might devote his energies more fully to the management of an automobile dealership which he owned in Columbia, S.C. The Charlotte News was expansive in its praise of Mayor Walker, stating that he was a man “gifted with a disposition that makes for affability.” The newspaper went on to explain, however, that Mayor Walker had his share of detractors. “His have been accomplishing administrations, and, of course, as is always the case, progress and progressive policies bring about disaffections and cause sore toes,” the article explained. ⁹

Unquestionably, the decision to transfer municipal headquarters from N. Tryon St. to the residential district on E. Trade St., was of pivotal importance in terms of the physical history of this city. In addition to its symbolic significance, the placement of City Hall at this new location set into motion a series of forces which eroded the viability of the surrounding neighborhood. Noteworthy in this regard is the fact that the Board of County Commissioners did dedicate a new courthouse on an adjacent parcel on March 10, 1928. ¹⁰ City Council selected the site on E. Trade St. for the City Hall because it was, “one of the most beautiful wooded areas of the city wooded in the city.” ¹¹

 

 

---

Notes:

¹ Henry F. Withey & Elsie Rathburn Withey, Biographical Dictionary of American Architects (Deceased) (Hennessey & Ingalls, Inc., Los Angeles, 1970). p. 444.

² Charlotte Observer (May 4, 1921), p. 1. The Charlotte News (February 10, 1924), pp. 1 & 5. The Charlotte News (October 31, 1947), pp. 1A & 12A. Charlotte Observer (November 1, 1947), pp. 1 & 3. Mecklenburg County Deed Book 547, p. 265.

³ Jack O. Boyte and Dr. Dan L. Morrill, “Survey and Research Report on the Mecklenburg County Courthouse” (a report prepared for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission) April 5, 1977.

⁴ City Council Minute Book 17, Page 357.

⁵ The Charlotte News (September 17, 1938), p. 12. Charlotte Observer (April 3, 1892), p. 4. George Welch, a resident of Charlotte, did design several structures in the city in the 1870s, including Second Presbyterian Church, the opera house and the jail. Apparently, Welch was not a professional architect (The Charlotte News (April 15, 1901), p. 1.).

⁶ Charlotte Observer (Sept. 19, 1894), p. 4.

⁷ City Council Minute Book 179 p. 508. City Council Minute Book 18, p. 295.

⁸ Charlotte Observer (July 10, 1924), p. 6. Charlotte Observer (Nov. 1, 1925), sec. E., p. 5. J. A. Jones, a native of Randolph County, N.C., moved to Charlotte in the spring of 1888.

⁹ City Council Minute Book 18, p. 57. The Charlotte News (December 5, 1924), p. 4.

¹⁰ Jack O. Boyte and Dr. Dan L. Morrill, “Survey and Research Report on the Mecklenburg County Courthouse” (a report prepared for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission) April 5, 1977.

¹¹ The Charlotte News (February 10, 1924), pp. 1 & 5.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains an architectural description of the property prepared by Caroline Mesrobian, architectural historian.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria set forth in N. C. G. S. 160A-399.4:

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Charlotte City Hall does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the structure has served as the seat of municipal government for approximately fifty-five years and is, therefore, the symbolic landmark of Charlotte’s governmental agencies; 2) it is one of the finest local examples of the beaux-arts Classicism style; and 3) it was designed by Charles Christian Hook, Charlotte’s first resident architect and an architect of regional importance.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association: The Commission judges that the architectural description included herein demonstrates that the property known as the Charlotte City Hall meets this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply annually for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” The Ad Valorem Tax appraisal on the 3.290 acres of land is $787,710. The Ad Valorem Tax appraisal on the improvements is $1,819,120. The property is exempt from the payment of Ad Valorem Taxes.

 

---

Bibliography

Jack O. Boyte and Dr. Dan L. Morrill. “Survey and Research Report on the Mecklenburg County Courthouse” (a report prepared for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission) April 5, 1977.

The Charlotte News.

The Charlotte Observer.

City Council Minute Books 17 and 18.

Gravestones in Elmwood Cemetery, Charlotte, N.C.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Tax Office.

Henry F. Withey & Elsie Rathburn Withey, Biographical Dictionary of American Architects (Deceased) (Hennessey & Ingalls, Inc., Los Angeles, 1970).

 

Date of Preparation of this Report: February 6, 1980.

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Director
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission
3500 Shamrock Dr.
Charlotte, N.C. 28215

Telephone: (704) 332-2726

 

 

Architectural Description  

Construction of the Charlotte City Hall, located at 600 East Trade Street, was begun in the summer of 1924 after designs by Charles C. Hook. The building was occupied officially on October 29, 1925, during the administration of Mayor H. W. Moore. This municipal building was one of four edifices that were erected simultaneously on the spacious block bounded by East Avenue (East Trade Street) and South Davidson, South Alexander, and Fourth Streets. The other structures were the Fire Department on the southwest corner, the Court Building or Police Department on the southeast corner, and the Health and Welfare Department, it being placed to the rear of the central administration building.

City Hall was placed approximately in the middle of the block facing to the north so that it could be enlarged if needed without increasing the height or resorting to other purchases of land. The land in front of the building was to serve as a park-like setting for the structure as well as a place where the public could assemble for official speeches. Wide curved walkways lead from either side of the grounds to the front of the municipal building and to a massive granite stairway bounded on both sides by balustrades with turned members and ornamental, round, limestone impost blocks.

Hook chose one of the most commonly employed styles for governmental buildings during that period for the design – beaux-arts Classicism. The plan is a rather simple and symmetrical rectangle (166 feet long by 70 feet wide) typical of that style. The building, of steel frame, rises three stories with a basement and an attic space.

The entrance facade is divided into eleven bays with the seven central bays being set-back to provide a break to the otherwise continuous front plane. The first story or ground floor is articulated with rusticated well-dressed ashlar masonry of buff Indiana limestone. It is pierced by eleven symmetrically placed arched openings which have no pronounced keystone. The central, recessed section contains five entranceways, the esplanade being flanked on either side by a blind archway. The two projecting sections each contain two arched windows. Window sills are of white pine painted white. The original wrought iron drill doors to City Hall have been replaced with fireproof glass and steel frame doors, these being most incongruous with the design of the facade.

A pronounced beltcourse and balustrade divide the first story from the second. The second and third stories of the central section of the front facade are joined by colossal, fluted, Corinthian limestone columns which rise from bases in the balustrade. There are six pairs of columns flanked by a single column on either side, all of which have straight bases and standard entasis in the upper sections. The capitals of the monumental order closely resemble those of the Tower of the Winds, Athens, whose capitals are of a plain, unusual type, without volutes, the upper row of leaves resembling those of the palm. The central sections of the second and third stories are set back from the row of columns, each floor being pierced by seven rectangular windows. The bays are divided by paired pilasters flanked by single pilasters, all of which are located directly behind the free standing columns and which bear similar Corinthian capitals. The windows between the two stories are separated by plain paneled blocks. The architrave and frieze are unadorned excepting for roundels placed over each abacus.

The projecting side bays are smooth-walled and contain two rectangular windows on both stories. The spandrels are ornamented with floral swags crowned by rosettes. The cornice contains pronounced dentil work which extends the course of the building; the balustrade also runs the extent of the edifice’s flat roof. Both provide continuity and fluidity to the projecting and receding planes and to the broken rhythm of the columned center section of the facade.

The South Davidson (west) entrance is reached by granite stairs flanked by round limestone impost blocks. The rusticated limestone facade is divided into five bays, the ground floor consisting of four arched windows and a centrally located arched doorway, the door proper not being original to the building. The first story is distinguished from the upper sections by a pronounced beltcourse. Five symmetrically placed rectangular windows pierce the second and third stories; the spandrels are adorned with swags capped with rosettes. The cornice work and balustrade are continuous and unifying features of the building.

The South Alexander (east) facade of City Hall is identical to the west facade.

The land slopes downward on the rear (south) side of the building so that the basement is exposed, it containing the entrance to this facade. This seven-bayed entrance area is shielded by a copper marquise on a steel frame (now painted white). The scheme of the upper three stories of this facade is similar to the front facade. The first story is rusticated and contains a seven-bayed recessed central section with arched windows flanked by two bays containing arched windows. The second and third stories bear no free standing order but are articulated by colossal Corinthian pilasters and symmetrically placed rectangular windows. The projecting double-bayed sections of the facade are pierced by rectangular windows separated by spandrels containing swags and rosettes. Unadorned architrave and frieze, dentil work, and balustrade (closed in the central section) define the uppermost sections of the building.

The lobby, which is entered immediately from the East Trade Street side, runs the length of the central section of the facade. The exterior bays are defined on the interior by exposed ceiling beams which are met by fluted, marble pilasters located both between the arched entrance openings and the service desks directly opposite them. Wide marble staircases located to the sides of the central entrance area rise in two flights with one landing to the second and third floors. A staircase, located under the northwest set, descends to the basement, which housed the central heating plant (now offices also). The lobby continues to each side of the central service area and leads to the two side entrances facing South Davidson and South Alexander Streets.

The lobby, with the exception of the entrance doors, has been kept basically in its original state. The main floor and corridors are finished in pink Tennessee marble. The pilasters, arched door frames capped with ornamental scrolls, and wainscoting on all walls also consist of the light-colored marble. The wainscoting is trimmed with a chair rail and baseboard of verde antique marble the upper sections of the walls being plastered. The staircases, with turned newel posts, duplicate the marble band arrangement on the walls. Handrails are of polished hardwood while the railing is of wrought iron painted a dark green.

Two arched elevators, located in the west corridor, are framed with light-colored marble and capped with scrolls. The segmental pediments are of verde antique marble with round, light-colored marble indicators. The doors themselves are not original.

The four service windows and centrally located doorway (door not original) are occupied by revenue and accounting departments devoted to the collection of taxes and water and light fees. The large windows are framed by polished copper, fluted pilasters and classical detailing carrying a straight entablature. The desks from which the pilasters rise are of light-colored marble; the baseboards are trimmed with verde antique marble.

The 15′-10″ plaster ceiling bays are defined by rectangular panels into which are set the original light fixtures. The cross beams and cornices contain two decorative bands, the lower consisting of a fret motif, the upper of a stylized, foliated scroll pattern. The cross beams also bear an upper band which contains a row of dentil work topped by delicate egg and dart decoration.

The other floors of the building have been altered from their original state and function. Entrances to the upper floors from the staircases are closed with fireproof doors. The 15′-8″ second story and 12′-10″ third story ceilings have been lowered. Walls are often sheathed in fabric, and the composition floors are carpeted.

The mayor’s office at the northeast corner of the second floor appears to be one of the few offices kept in something of its original state. Its plaster ceiling is intact and is articulated with cross beams and decorative wreaths. The walls are of American black walnut (all other interior wood trimming is of white pine). A fireplace with a central cartouche and floral consoles adorns the south wall of the office.

The second floor also originally housed a Confederate museum located in the north-central section as well as a veterans’ assembly room in the northwest corner of the building.

Charlotte City Hall should be protected from further damage and alteration. The exterior of the structure has been well preserved (with the exception of the entrance doors) and is a fine example of a restrained and elegant use of beaux-arts Classicism. Its grounds should also be preserved as they greatly compliment and provide a park-like setting for the building. The first floor lobby with its rich marble textures and colors, the classical pilasters, ornamented cross beams and the copper-framed service windows should also be preserved.

Cedar Grove House