Name and location of the property: The property known as the Calvin and Margaret Neal House is located at 612 Walnut Avenue in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Name and address of the current owner(s) of the property:

The current owners of the property are:

John Caratelli and David Greer

612 Walnut Avenue

Charlotte, NC

Telephone: (704) 331-0120

1. Representative photographs of the property: This report contains representative photographs of the property.
2. A map depicting the location of the property: This report contains a map depicting the location of the property:
3. Current deed book reference to the property: The most recent deed to the property can be found in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 3994, p. 713. The tax parcel number for the property is 071-021-41.
4. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Emily D. Ramsey.
5. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Emily D. Ramsey.
6. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S. 160A-400.5.

• Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural

importance. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission judges that the Calvin and Margaret Neal House possesses special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:

1. The Calvin and Margaret Neal House, constructed in 1927, is an unusual and excellently-preserved example of early twentieth-century rubble stone veneer in Charlotte. The house, one of only approximately 22 rubble stone veneer houses built in the city between 1920 and the early 1940s, is an unusual mix of architectural detailing, and, unlike most of its stone contemporaries, every major exterior feature of the house (including the front portico and porte-cochere) is covered entirely in fieldstone.
2. The Neal House is the only stone rubble house in the Wesley Heights neighborhood, a 1920s Charlotte suburb characterized by its homogenous housing stock, and is a testament to the high level of craftsmanship possible in what would otherwise be considered a common vernacular structure.
3. The Neal House, constructed most likely from stock plans, is a tangible reflection of the way in which homeowners during the twentieth century post-war housing boom found ways to individualize their homes. The unusual and striking use of masonry (both in the stonework walls and the unique brick detailing around windows and doors) in the Neal House reflects the care with which Calvin Neal oversaw the construction of his home.

• Integrity of design, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association.

The Commission contends that the architectural description prepared by Emily D. Ramsey demonstrates that the Calvin and Margaret Neal House meets this criterion.

1. 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 that becomes a designated “historic landmark.” The current appraised value of the house and two-story garage apartment is $54,710. The appraised value of the .189-acre lot is $7,500.

Date of preparation of this report:

February 1, 2003

Prepared by:

Emily D. Ramsey

2436 N. Albany Ave., #1

Chicago, IL 60647

Statement of Significance

The Calvin and Margaret Neal House

612 Walnut Avenue

Charlotte, NC

Summary

The Calvin and Margaret Neal House, erected in 1927, is a structure that possesses local historic significance as a rare and excellently preserved example of early stone rubble veneer construction in Charlotte and as the only stone house in the Wesley Heights neighborhood. The decade between the end of World War I and the beginning of the Great Depression in 1929 were years of significant economic and physical growth in Charlotte and throughout the country. Although advances in building technology during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century made building materials like wood, glass, and brick more affordable and widely available to even the humblest homeowner, stone was still seen as a costly and extravagant material within the building trade—a material meant for imposing civic and commercial structures, but rarely used for residential buildings. The popularity of the Arts and Crafts Movement, which emphasized the use of local, natural materials in building, brought stone into residential areas, but it was most commonly used only as a decorative accent on porches and chimneys. Brick and wood were cheaper, easier to build with, and more widely available. Consequently, even during the post-World War I building boom, a time of unprecedented growth for Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, only around 20-25 rubble stone residences (a tiny percentage of the total number of houses built) were constructed within the city.1 The Neal house is an unusual example of a type of construction rarely seen in Charlotte; and, within the context of the conservative, white-collar Wesley Heights neighborhood, its exuberant rubble façade breaks through the uniformity of the suburb’s standard brick and frame residences.

The Neal House, most likely constructed from stock plans, is also significant as a tangible reflection of the way in which middle-class homeowners during the twentieth century post-war housing boom found ways to individualize their homes without the expense of employing an architect. The unusual and striking use of masonry—both in the nine-inch-thick stone walls and the unique brick details around the house’s windows and doors—reflects the degree of craftsmanship that went into the house, and the care with which Calvin Neal oversaw the construction of his first and only home. What would have been considered a rather ordinary example of a twentieth century vernacular form takes on a completely different character when rendered in irregular, colorful fieldstone. The simple massing of the house, the front portico, and porte-cochere, accented with graceful arched entryways and side openings, serves to highlight, but not distract from, the beauty of the natural materials.

Historical Background Statement

The Calvin Neal House, like most of the houses constructed during the 1920s in Charlotte’s burgeoning suburbs, was part of a post-World War I building boom that peaked in the middle of the decade and ended with the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the beginning of the Great Depression. Charlotte had arisen during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries as a shining example of the New South. By the time the U.S. entered into World War I, local historian Thomas Hanchett writes:

Charlotte…was the headquarters of a large textile region, with a diversified economic base including banking, power generation and wholesaling. A bustling mass transit system, the backbone of big-city growth, now served an expanding ring of suburbs. In the 1910 census Charlotte…finally overtook the port of Wilmington to become North Carolina’s largest city, symbolizing the shift in the state’s economy from cotton and tobacco export to textile production.2

Although such rapid expansion slowed during wartime, the end of the war in 1919 ushered in another period of growth for Charlotte, characterized particularly by the development of middle-class automobile suburbs like Wesley Heights. The city’s pre-war prosperity had given rise to the first generation of Charlotte suburbs—carefully planned mixtures of mansions and more modest middle class housing with public recreation spaces and, in the case of Dilworth, even an industrial corridor included. All of these suburbs were connected to the center city by a web of streetcar lines. By contrast, suburbs that were developing in the 1920s (and, to a larger degree, during the post-World War II period) tended to be strictly residential, segregated by economic class, and dependent more on the automobile than on the streetcar.3

The earliest example of this new type of Charlotte suburb is the Wesley Heights neighborhood. Plans for a suburban development began on what was originally the Wadsworth family farm northwest of the center city as early as 1911. However, active development of the land did not begin until 1920, when C. B. Bryant and local developer E. C. Griffith formed the Charlotte Investment Company and bought the tract for $200,000 from the Wadsworth Land Company. The Charlotte Investment Company “redrew the original 1911 survey plat, laid out the lots, and added improvements, such as sidewalks and public utilities.” 4 They named the new suburb Wesley Heights, and began selling lots in December 1921. The E. C. Griffith Company encouraged brisk lot sales and rapid construction of homes on these lots by offering incentives, discounts, and special financing for early buyers. The response was so encouraging that the Charlotte Investment Company decided to expand the boundaries of the development. A tract lying between the Piedmont and Northern tracks and West Morehead Street was hastily plotted. Principal streets like Walnut Avenue were extended southward, but no cross streets or alleyways were laid so that lot sales and home construction could begin immediately. Deed covenants regulating setback, fencing, cost of construction, and other variables assured that the entire suburb would maintain some degree of cohesion.5

Such precautions, coupled with the neighborhood’s relatively rapid development and the growing preference among the middle-class for stock house plans in lieu of architect-designed homes, gave Wesley Heights a much more homogenous streetscape than most of Charlotte’s earlier suburbs. Dilworth, Elizabeth, and Myers Park had developed over the course of several decades. The architecture of the houses in these suburbs (many of which were drawn up by professional architects) reflected changing styles over time. Wesley Heights, in contrast, was a neighborhood made up almost exclusively of similar bungalows, Tudor Revival cottages, and Colonial Revival homes constructed of brick and wood. Fully two-thirds of the homes in Wesley Heights were constructed between 1921 and 1930.6

It was during this period that Calvin A. Neal bought a lot on Walnut Avenue and began the process of building a home for his wife, Margaret, and their growing family. The new suburb was a perfect fit for the Neals—Margaret Severs Neal was the granddaughter of Henry C. Severs, who had developed the small enclave of middle-class white housing known as Seversville, just south of Johnson C. Smith University, around the turn of the century.7 Margaret’s family was deeply rooted in the northwest side of the city, and the Neals had been living with one of Margaret’s relatives on Tuckaseegee Road before deciding to move to nearby Wesley Heights. Calvin Neal, a native of Charlotte, had worked his way from meter-reader to bookkeeper and accountant at the Southern Power and Utilities Company (later known as Duke Power) during the 1920s. Margaret worked for Efird’s department store as a clerk until the birth of the couple’s first child, Doris Jean, in 1927.

By that time, the Neals had saved enough to build a home of their own. The Moretz Reality Company signed the building permit for the house, which was most likely constructed using one of many stock plans owned by the company.8 The plan of the house itself was simple, with hardly any decorative detailing. To make the house distinctive from the brick Colonials and frame bungalows going up in the neighborhood, Calvin Neal decided that his home would be clad entirely in rustic rubble fieldstone—the first, and only, stone house that would be built in Wesley Heights.9 The stone was delivered by rail on the Piedmont and Northern line, which ran through Wesley Heights and crossed Walnut Avenue just north of the Neal’s lot. Construction proceeded through 1927 on the modest single-family residence; but the Moretz Reality Company went out of business in 1928 and the Neals had to hire another contractor to finish the exterior stonework.10

The family had barely gotten settled into their new home when the Great Depression hit in 1929. Though Calvin Neal managed to keep his job with Duke Power, the company reduced his salary several times. To help make the monthly payments on their house, the Neals rented out their front bedroom during the 1930s.11 By 1936, the family had grown to include two young sons, Donald and Jerry. The Neals continued to live in the house through the 1940s and 1950s. In 1946, frustrated by the lack of housing in the area after the war and needing a place of their own, Doris Jean and her husband asked brother Donald to draw up plans for a two-story garage apartment that could be built on the rear of their parents’ lot. The simple frame structure remains on the property. It is no longer occupied, and the first floor garage opening has been replaced with a sliding glass door.

Calvin Neal retired from Duke Power in 1965; he died just one year later. Margaret Neal continued to live at 612 Walnut Avenue until 1977. The house was sold to the Dean family, who lived in the house until November of 2001, when they sold the house to John Caratelli and David Greer. Caratelli and Greer have recently finished restoring the exterior and interior of the house, utilizing National Register tax credits and adhering to the standards for restoration and rehabilitation set forth by the Secretary of the Interior.

Architectural Description and Context Statement

Architecturally, the Calvin and Margaret Neal House is significant as a rare and excellently preserved example of early twentieth-century rubble stone veneer in Charlotte. The use of masonry, and stone in particular, as a building material carries with it ideas of solidity and permanence that were established throughout North Carolina and most of the South as early as the mid-nineteenth century, when many towns and cities began the process of replacing “‘ephemeral’ wood buildings and ‘unsightly wooden shanties’” with solid, handsome masonry structures. As historian Charlotte V. Brown writes in Architects and Builders In North Carolina: A History of the Practice of Building, this shift from wood to masonry “was considered an especially significant accomplishment in a town’s effort to gain a ‘City-like appearance.’” In the hierarchy of building materials, stone was at the top—towns took “special pride in construction of stone buildings.”12 It was considered “the king of building materials.”13 By the end of the nineteenth century, as rail lines expanded and the production of most building materials became increasingly mechanized, products such as dressed lumber, brick, and glass became more affordable and readily available to even the most modest homebuilders. Stone, however, was still seen as a costly and extravagant material within the building trade—a material meant for imposing civic or commercial structures, but rarely used for common residential buildings.

The popularity of the Arts and Crafts Movement, which emphasized the informal use of local, natural materials in building, brought rubble stone into residential areas of Charlotte during the 1920s and 1930s, but it was most commonly used only as a decorative accent on porches and chimneys.14 Even after the technique of veneering stone onto wood-framed structures was perfected in the late 1910s, “allowing smaller versions of stone houses [like the Neal House] to be built in middle-class suburbs throughout the country,” very few stone houses were built in the Charlotte area.15 A survey of stone rubble houses in Charlotte completed by Mary Beth Gatza in the fall of 2002 uncovered only twenty-two existing stone rubble houses built between 1920 and 1942. Stone rubble houses represent a minute percentage of the houses built during the city’s post-World War I building boom—a period of prosperity from which “large portions of present day Charlotte date.”16 Most of these stone structures are bungalows or Craftsman style houses with rubble stone exterior foundations and walls accented by wooden porch supports, dormers, and detailing, such as the houses at 320 Tuckaseegee Road, 509 Sylvania Avenue, and 2204-06 Roslyn Avenue. A few, such as 2325 Crescent Avenue and 2531 Commonwealth Avenue, use stone in conjunction with painted half-timbering details and steeply gabled entryways with rounded door openings associated with the Tudor Revival style. Later examples, like the ones at 4915 Monroe Road and 203 Karendale Avenue, are basic rectangular, side-gable structures clad in rubble stone (See Appendix).

Although the Neal House is most likely not architect-designed and does not strictly adhere to any particular style of architecture, the house is a thoughtfully-executed structure with an unusual mix of simple decorative details—including a Greek Revival-influenced front pediment, unique red-brick window and door surrounds, and graceful rounded-arch openings on the front portico and porte-cochere—that are enhanced by the application of the irregular stonework. The Neal House is also unique in that, unlike most of the stone rubble houses in Charlotte, every major exterior feature of the house (including walls, portico and porte-cochere) is covered entirely in fieldstone. The use of concrete and brick in place of wood around the windows and doors are unusual accents to the all-masonry exterior. What would have been considered a rather ordinary example of a twentieth-century vernacular form takes on a completely different character when rendered in colorful and decorative masonry. In this way, the house remains a tangible reminder of how middle class homeowners like the Neals found ways to personalize stock plans without the expense incurred by employing an architect.

The Neal House, located at 612 Walnut Avenue in the Wesley Heights neighborhood in northwest Charlotte, is a one-story rectangular frame structure clad in rough rubble stone (ranging in color from light brown to deep orange and dark blue-gray) set with raised mortar joints. The building’s roofline features a pedimented façade, a center cross gable, and a hipped roof in the rear. The house has three chimneys, all covered in the same rubble stone as the house. The house retains all of its original six-over-six wood windows. The façade of the house includes one set of paired windows and one set of three windows, each separated by wide concrete mullions. The front portico features rounded-arch openings on each side, and a rounded-arch entryway framing the main entrance to the house. A substantial porte-cochere on the south (side) elevation also features arched openings on each side. A side driveway leads through the porte-cochere and to the 1946 two-story frame garage apartment behind the house. A small enclosed frame porch set on a large rubble stone foundation extends from the back of the house (west elevation) off of the kitchen. Current owners John Caratelli and David Greer, as part of an extensive restoration of the house, have restored the bead board ceilings in the portico and porte-cochere, renovated the deteriorated back porch, replaced the front door with one more closely resembling the original door, and restored the original doorway on the north elevation off of the dining room (which had been turned into a closet by the previous owner). The exterior of the house remains almost exactly as it was when it was completed in the late 1920s.

The Neal House interior is laid out on a simple floor plan—a living room and dining room (separated by original French doors), breakfast nook and kitchen on the north, and two bedrooms, a bathroom, and a front den (separated from the main living space by French doors) on the south side. The interior features three fireplaces, each one of a different material based on the importance of the room. The primary fireplace in the living room is surrounded by an impressive mantel of blue-gray rubble granite; the fireplace in the den has a painted brick surround capped with a simple wooden mantel, and the front bedroom features a light, almost delicate painted wooden fireplace surround. Although the kitchen and bathroom have been updated, the owners have taken care to preserve even the smallest original details, including the medicine cabinet and sink in the bathroom, the glass doorknobs and metal hardware on the interior doors, and original light fixtures above the granite fireplace and in the breakfast nook. The Neal House is an excellently preserved example of a building technique that is rare in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, and it remains a structure unique to the Wesley Heights neighborhood.

1 See Appendix. This number comes from a survey of stone rubble houses completed by Mary Beth Gatza in the fall of 2002. Ms. Gatza located 22 extant stone rubble houses (including the Neal House) in Charlotte dating from 1921 to 1942. Of these, 13 were constructed after 1930, and only two examples (a house constructed in 1921 at 726 Bromley Road and the Seversville house at 315 Tuckaseegee, built c. 1925) predate the Neal House. Indeed, 192 7 saw the greatest concentration of stone houses built— four in all, including the Neal House.

2 Thomas Hanchett, “The Growth of Charlotte: A History,” (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, www.cmhpf.org).

3 Ibid. Mary Beth Gatza, National Register Nomination for the Wesley Heights Historic District, Mecklenburg Co., NC (Division of Archives and History, Raleigh, NC: 1995) 8.1-8.3.

4 Gatza, National Register Nomination for the Wesley Heights Historic District, 8.4-8.5.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid, 8.7.

7 A Brief History of the Severs Family (Charlotte: 1943), 3-4. Margaret’s brother, W. A. Severs, built a house on Walnut Avenue as well, just a few houses down at 532 Walnut.

8 Charlotte City Directory, 1916-1929. Building Permit dated July 25, 1927. McCoy Moretz, the founder and president of Moretz Reality, had worked for E. C. Griffith Company in the late 1910s and had served briefly as the company’s vice president before forming his own company in 1922.

9 The house in nearby Seversville where the Neals had lived before moving to Walnut Avenue is a Craftsman style house that featured stone rubble walls. The house was built around 1925, and may have influenced Neal’s decision to build a stone house.

10 Donald Neal, interview with Emily Ramsey on January 14, 2003.

11 Ibid.

12 Catherine W. Bisher, Charlotte V. Brown, Carl R. Lounsbury, and Ernest H. Wood III, Architects and Builders in North Carolina: A History of the Practice of Building (Chapel Hill: 1997), p.137.

13 Ernest Flagg, Small Houses, their economic design and construction: essays on the fundamental principles of design and descriptive articles on construction (New York: 1922).

14 Although most of Charlotte’s bungalows were not built using stone, practically all of the stone houses that were built in the city during the post-World War I period were bungalows or Craftsman style houses, and include some of the best examples of the housing type in Mecklenburg County. 2144 Park Road is an excellent example of a Japanese-inspired bungalow, while the stone house a 724 Edgehill Road features the curved, organic lines and rounded features of an English-cottage-inspired bungalow.

15 Lee Goff, Stone Built: Contemporary American Houses (New York: 1997), 27.

16 Hanchett.

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Calvin and Margaret Neal House is located at 612 Walnut Avenue in Charlotte, North Carolina.
3. Name and address of the current owner(s) of the property:

The current owners of the property are:

John Caratelli and David Greer

612 Walnut Avenue

Charlotte, NC

            Telephone:  (704) 331-0120

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

 

1. A map depicting the location of the property:  This report contains a map depicting the location of the property:

1. Current deed book reference to the property:  The most recent deed to the property can be found in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 3994, p. 713.  The tax parcel number for the property is 071-021-41.

 

1. A brief historical sketch of the property:  This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Emily D. Ramsey.

 

1. A brief architectural description of the property:  This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Emily D. Ramsey.

 

1. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S. 160A-400.5.

 

1. 1. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural

importance.  The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission judges that the Calvin and Margaret Neal House possesses special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg.  The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:

 

1. The Calvin and Margaret Neal House, constructed in 1927, is an unusual and excellently-preserved example of early twentieth-century rubble stone veneer in Charlotte.  The house, one of only approximately 22 rubble stone veneer houses built in the city between 1920 and the early 1940s, is an unusual mix of architectural detailing, and, unlike most of its stone contemporaries, every major exterior feature of the house (including the front portico and porte-cochere) is covered entirely in fieldstone.
2. The Neal House is the only stone rubble house in the Wesley Heights neighborhood, a 1920s Charlotte suburb characterized by its homogenous housing stock, and is a testament to the high level of craftsmanship possible in what would otherwise be considered a common vernacular structure.
3. The Neal House, constructed most likely from stock plans, is a tangible reflection of the way in which homeowners during the twentieth century post-war housing boom found ways to individualize their homes.  The unusual and striking use of masonry (both in the stonework walls and the unique brick detailing around windows and doors) in the Neal House reflects the care with which Calvin Neal oversaw the construction of his home.

 

1. 1. Integrity of design, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association.

The Commission contends that the architectural description prepared by Emily D. Ramsey demonstrates that the Calvin and Margaret Neal House meets this criterion.

1. 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 that becomes a designated “historic landmark.”  The current appraised value of the house and two-story garage apartment is $54,710.  The appraised value of the .189-acre lot is $7,500.

Date of preparation of this report:

February 1, 2003

Prepared by:

            Emily D. Ramsey

            2436 N. Albany Ave., #1

            Chicago, IL 60647

Statement of Significance

The Calvin and Margaret Neal House

612 Walnut Avenue

Charlotte, NC

 Summary

The Calvin and Margaret Neal House, erected in 1927, is a structure that possesses local historic significance as a rare and excellently preserved example of early stone rubble veneer construction in Charlotte and as the only stone house in the Wesley Heights neighborhood.  The decade between the end of World War I and the beginning of the Great Depression in 1929 were years of significant economic and physical growth in Charlotte and throughout the country.  Although advances in building technology during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century made building materials like wood, glass, and brick more affordable and widely available to even the humblest homeowner, stone was still seen as a costly and extravagant material within the building trade—a material meant for imposing civic and commercial structures, but rarely used for residential buildings.  The popularity of the Arts and Crafts Movement, which emphasized the use of local, natural materials in building, brought stone into residential areas, but it was most commonly used only as a decorative accent on porches and chimneys.  Brick and wood were cheaper, easier to build with, and more widely available.  Consequently, even during the post-World War I building boom, a time of unprecedented growth for Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, only around 20-25 rubble stone residences (a tiny percentage of the total number of houses built) were constructed within the city.1  The Neal house is an unusual example of a type of construction rarely seen in Charlotte; and, within the context of the conservative, white-collar Wesley Heights neighborhood, its exuberant rubble façade breaks through the uniformity of the suburb’s standard brick and frame residences.

The Neal House, most likely constructed from stock plans, is also significant as a tangible reflection of the way in which middle-class homeowners during the twentieth century post-war housing boom found ways to individualize their homes without the expense of employing an architect.  The unusual and striking use of masonry—both in the nine-inch-thick stone walls and the unique brick details around the house’s windows and doors—reflects the degree of craftsmanship that went into the house, and the care with which Calvin Neal oversaw the construction of his first and only home.  What would have been considered a rather ordinary example of a twentieth century vernacular form takes on a completely different character when rendered in irregular, colorful fieldstone.  The simple massing of the house, the front portico, and porte-cochere, accented with graceful arched entryways and side openings, serves to highlight, but not distract from, the beauty of the natural materials.              

Historical Background Statement

The Calvin Neal House, like most of the houses constructed during the 1920s in Charlotte’s burgeoning suburbs, was part of a post-World War I building boom that peaked in the middle of the decade and ended with the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the beginning of the Great Depression.  Charlotte had arisen during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries as a shining example of the New South.  By the time the U.S. entered into World War I, local historian Thomas Hanchett writes:

 

Charlotte…was the headquarters of a large textile region, with a diversified economic base including banking, power generation and wholesaling.  A bustling mass transit system, the backbone of big-city growth, now served an expanding ring of suburbs.  In the 1910 census Charlotte…finally overtook the port of Wilmington to become North Carolina’s largest city, symbolizing the shift in the state’s economy from cotton and tobacco export to textile production.2

 

Although such rapid expansion slowed during wartime, the end of the war in 1919 ushered in another period of growth for Charlotte, characterized particularly by the development of middle-class automobile suburbs like Wesley Heights.  The city’s pre-war prosperity had given rise to the first generation of Charlotte suburbs—carefully planned mixtures of mansions and more modest middle class housing with public recreation spaces and, in the case of Dilworth, even an industrial corridor included.  All of these suburbs were connected to the center city by a web of streetcar lines.  By contrast, suburbs that were developing in the 1920s (and, to a larger degree, during the post-World War II period) tended to be strictly residential, segregated by economic class, and dependent more on the automobile than on the streetcar.3

The earliest example of this new type of Charlotte suburb is the Wesley Heights neighborhood.  Plans for a suburban development began on what was originally the Wadsworth family farm northwest of the center city as early as 1911.  However, active development of the land did not begin until 1920, when C. B. Bryant and local developer E. C. Griffith formed the Charlotte Investment Company and bought the tract for $200,000 from the Wadsworth Land Company.  The Charlotte Investment Company “redrew the original 1911 survey plat, laid out the lots, and added improvements, such as sidewalks and public utilities.” 4  They named the new suburb Wesley Heights, and began selling lots in December 1921.  The E. C. Griffith Company encouraged brisk lot sales and rapid construction of homes on these lots by offering incentives, discounts, and special financing for early buyers.  The response was so encouraging that the Charlotte Investment Company  decided to expand the boundaries of the development.  A tract lying between the Piedmont and Northern tracks and West Morehead Street was hastily plotted.  Principal streets like Walnut Avenue were extended southward, but no cross streets or alleyways were laid so that lot sales and home construction could begin immediately.  Deed covenants regulating setback, fencing, cost of construction, and other variables assured that the entire suburb would maintain some degree of cohesion.5

Such precautions, coupled with the neighborhood’s relatively rapid development and the growing preference among the middle-class for stock house plans in lieu of architect-designed homes, gave Wesley Heights a much more homogenous streetscape than most of Charlotte’s earlier suburbs.  Dilworth, Elizabeth, and Myers Park had developed over the course of several decades. The architecture of the houses in these suburbs (many of which were drawn up by professional architects) reflected changing styles over time.  Wesley Heights, in contrast, was a neighborhood made up almost exclusively of similar bungalows, Tudor Revival cottages, and Colonial Revival homes constructed of brick and wood.  Fully two-thirds of the homes in Wesley Heights were constructed between 1921 and 1930.6

It was during this period that Calvin A. Neal bought a lot on Walnut Avenue and began the process of building a home for his wife, Margaret, and their growing family.  The new suburb was a perfect fit for the Neals—Margaret Severs Neal was the granddaughter of Henry C. Severs, who had developed the small enclave of middle-class white housing known as Seversville, just south of Johnson C. Smith University, around the turn of the century.7  Margaret’s family was deeply rooted in the northwest side of the city, and the Neals had been living with one of Margaret’s relatives on Tuckaseegee Road before deciding to move to nearby Wesley Heights.  Calvin Neal, a native of Charlotte, had worked his way from meter-reader to bookkeeper and accountant at the Southern Power and Utilities Company (later known as Duke Power) during the 1920s.  Margaret worked for Efird’s department store as a clerk until the birth of the couple’s first child, Doris Jean, in 1927.

By that time, the Neals had saved enough to build a home of their own.  The Moretz Reality Company signed the building permit for the house, which was most likely constructed using one of  many stock plans owned by the company.8  The plan of the house itself was simple, with hardly any decorative detailing.  To make the house distinctive from the brick Colonials and frame bungalows going up in the neighborhood, Calvin Neal decided that his home would be clad entirely in rustic rubble fieldstone—the first, and only, stone house that would be built in Wesley Heights.9    The stone was delivered by rail on the Piedmont and Northern line, which ran through Wesley Heights and crossed Walnut Avenue just north of the Neal’s lot.  Construction proceeded through 1927 on the modest single-family residence; but the Moretz Reality Company went out of business in 1928 and the Neals had to hire another contractor to finish the exterior stonework.10

The family had barely gotten settled into their new home when the Great Depression hit in 1929.  Though Calvin Neal managed to keep his job with Duke Power, the company reduced his salary several times.  To help make the monthly payments on their house, the Neals rented out their front bedroom during the 1930s.11  By 1936, the family had grown to include two young sons, Donald and Jerry.  The Neals continued to live in the house through the 1940s and 1950s.  In 1946, frustrated by the lack of housing in the area after the war and needing a place of their own, Doris Jean and her husband asked brother Donald to draw up plans for a two-story garage apartment that could be built on the rear of their parents’ lot.  The simple frame structure  remains on the property.  It is no longer occupied, and the first floor garage opening has been replaced with a sliding glass door.

Calvin Neal retired from Duke Power in 1965; he died just one year later.  Margaret Neal continued to live at 612 Walnut Avenue until 1977.  The house was sold to the Dean family, who lived in the house until  November of 2001, when they sold the house to John Caratelli and David Greer.  Caratelli and Greer have recently finished restoring the exterior and interior of the house, utilizing National Register tax credits and adhering to the standards for restoration and rehabilitation set forth by the Secretary of the Interior.     

Architectural Description and Context Statement

Architecturally, the Calvin and Margaret Neal House is significant as a rare and excellently preserved example of early twentieth-century rubble stone veneer in Charlotte.  The use of masonry, and stone in particular, as a building material carries with it ideas of solidity and permanence that were established throughout North Carolina and most of the South as early as the mid-nineteenth century, when many towns and cities began the process of replacing “‘ephemeral’ wood buildings and ‘unsightly wooden shanties’” with solid, handsome masonry structures.  As historian Charlotte V. Brown writes in Architects and Builders In North Carolina: A History of the Practice of Building, this shift from wood to masonry “was considered an especially significant accomplishment in a town’s effort to gain a ‘City-like appearance.’”  In the hierarchy of building materials, stone was at the top—towns took “special pride in construction of stone buildings.”12  It was considered “the king of building materials.”13  By the end of the nineteenth century, as rail lines expanded and the production of most building materials became increasingly mechanized, products such as dressed lumber, brick, and glass became more affordable and readily available to even the most modest homebuilders.  Stone, however, was still seen as a costly and extravagant material within the building trade—a material meant for imposing civic or commercial structures, but rarely used for common residential buildings.

The popularity of the Arts and Crafts Movement, which emphasized the informal use of local, natural materials in building, brought rubble stone into residential areas of Charlotte during the 1920s and 1930s, but it was most commonly used only as a decorative accent on porches and chimneys.14  Even after the technique of veneering stone onto wood-framed structures was perfected in the late 1910s, “allowing smaller versions of stone houses [like the Neal House] to be built in middle-class suburbs throughout the country,” very few stone houses were built in the Charlotte area.15  A survey of stone rubble houses in Charlotte completed by Mary Beth Gatza in the fall of 2002 uncovered only twenty-two existing stone rubble houses built between 1920 and 1942.  Stone rubble houses represent a minute percentage of the houses built during the city’s post-World War I building boom—a period of prosperity from which “large portions of present day Charlotte date.”16  Most of these stone structures are bungalows or Craftsman style houses with rubble stone exterior foundations and walls accented by wooden porch supports, dormers, and detailing, such as the houses at 320 Tuckaseegee Road, 509 Sylvania Avenue, and 2204-06 Roslyn Avenue.  A few, such as 2325 Crescent Avenue and 2531 Commonwealth Avenue, use stone in conjunction with painted half-timbering details and steeply gabled entryways with rounded door openings associated with the Tudor Revival style.  Later examples, like the ones at 4915 Monroe Road and 203 Karendale Avenue, are basic rectangular, side-gable structures clad in rubble stone (See Appendix).

Although the Neal House is most likely not architect-designed and does not strictly adhere to any particular style of architecture, the house is a thoughtfully-executed structure with an unusual mix of simple decorative details—including a Greek Revival-influenced front pediment, unique red-brick  window and door surrounds, and graceful rounded-arch openings on the front portico and porte-cochere—that are enhanced by the application of the irregular stonework.  The Neal House is also unique in that, unlike most of the stone rubble houses in Charlotte, every major exterior feature of the house (including walls, portico and porte-cochere) is covered entirely in fieldstone.  The use of concrete and brick in place of wood around the windows and doors are unusual accents to the all-masonry exterior.  What would have been considered a rather ordinary example of a twentieth-century vernacular form takes on a completely different character when rendered in colorful and decorative masonry.  In this way, the house remains a tangible reminder of how middle class homeowners like the Neals found ways to personalize stock plans without the expense incurred by employing an architect.

The Neal House, located at 612 Walnut Avenue in the Wesley Heights neighborhood in northwest Charlotte, is a one-story rectangular frame structure clad in rough rubble stone (ranging in color from light brown to deep orange and dark blue-gray) set with raised mortar joints.  The building’s roofline features a pedimented façade, a center cross gable, and a hipped roof in the rear.  The house has three chimneys, all covered in the same rubble stone as the house.  The house retains all of its original six-over-six wood windows.  The façade of the house includes one set of paired windows and one set of three windows, each separated by wide concrete mullions.  The front portico features rounded-arch openings on each side, and a rounded-arch entryway framing the main entrance to the house.  A substantial porte-cochere on the south (side) elevation also features arched openings on each side.  A side driveway leads through the porte-cochere and to the 1946 two-story frame garage apartment behind the house.  A small enclosed frame porch set on a large rubble stone foundation extends from the back of the house (west elevation) off of the kitchen. Current owners John Caratelli and David Greer, as part of an extensive restoration of the house, have restored the bead board ceilings in the portico and porte-cochere, renovated the deteriorated back porch, replaced the front door with one more closely resembling the original door, and restored the original doorway on the north elevation off of the dining room (which had been turned into a closet by the previous owner).  The exterior of the house remains almost exactly as it was when it was completed in the late 1920s.

The Neal House interior is laid out on a simple floor plan—a living room and dining room (separated by original French doors), breakfast nook and kitchen on the north, and two bedrooms, a bathroom, and a front den (separated from the main living space by French doors) on the south side.  The interior features three fireplaces, each one of a different material based on the importance of the room.  The primary fireplace in the living room is surrounded by an impressive mantel of blue-gray rubble granite; the fireplace in the den has a painted brick surround capped with a simple wooden mantel, and the front bedroom features a light, almost delicate painted wooden fireplace surround.  Although the kitchen and bathroom have been updated, the owners have taken care to preserve even the smallest original details, including the medicine cabinet and sink in the bathroom, the glass doorknobs and metal hardware on the interior doors, and original light fixtures above the granite fireplace and in the breakfast nook.  The Neal House is an excellently preserved example of a building technique that is rare in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, and it remains a structure unique to the Wesley Heights neighborhood.

1 See Appendix.  This number comes from a survey of stone rubble houses completed  by Mary Beth Gatza in the fall of 2002.  Ms. Gatza located 22 extant stone rubble houses (including the Neal House) in Charlotte dating from 1921 to 1942.  Of these, 13 were constructed after 1930, and only two examples (a house constructed in 1921 at 726 Bromley Road and the Seversville house at 315 Tuckaseegee, built c. 1925)  predate the Neal House.  Indeed, 192 7 saw the greatest concentration of stone houses built— four in all, including the Neal House.

 

2 Thomas Hanchett, “The Growth of Charlotte: A History,” (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, www.cmhpf.org).

 

3 Ibid.  Mary Beth Gatza, National Register Nomination for the Wesley Heights Historic District, Mecklenburg Co., NC  (Division of Archives and History, Raleigh, NC: 1995) 8.1-8.3.

 

4 Gatza, National Register Nomination for the Wesley Heights Historic District, 8.4-8.5.

 

5 Ibid.

 

6 Ibid, 8.7.

 

7 A Brief History of the Severs Family (Charlotte: 1943), 3-4.  Margaret’s brother, W. A. Severs, built a house on Walnut Avenue as well, just a few houses down at 532 Walnut.

 

8 Charlotte City Directory, 1916-1929.  Building Permit dated July 25, 1927.  McCoy Moretz, the founder and president of Moretz Reality, had worked for E. C. Griffith Company in the late 1910s and had served briefly as the company’s vice president before forming his own company in 1922.

9 The house in nearby Seversville where the Neals had lived before moving to Walnut Avenue is a Craftsman style house that featured stone rubble walls.  The house was built around 1925, and may have influenced Neal’s decision to build a stone house.

 

10 Donald Neal, interview with Emily Ramsey on January 14, 2003.

 

11 Ibid.

 

12 Catherine W. Bisher, Charlotte V. Brown, Carl R. Lounsbury, and Ernest H. Wood  III,  Architects and Builders in North Carolina:  A History of the Practice of Building (Chapel Hill: 1997), p.137.

 

13 Ernest Flagg, Small Houses, their economic design and construction: essays on the fundamental principles of design and descriptive articles on construction (New York: 1922).

 

14 Although most of Charlotte’s bungalows were not built using stone, practically all of the stone houses that were built in the city during the post-World War I period were bungalows or Craftsman style houses, and include some of the best examples of the housing type in Mecklenburg County.  2144 Park Road is an excellent example of a Japanese-inspired bungalow, while the stone house a 724 Edgehill Road features the curved, organic lines and rounded features of an English-cottage-inspired bungalow.

 

15 Lee Goff, Stone Built: Contemporary American Houses (New York: 1997), 27.

 

16 Hanchett.

Click here to view Charlotte Observer Article on the Myers Park Streetcar Waiting Station

This report was written on June 4, 1980.

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Myers Park Streetcar Waiting Stations are situated at two locations. Two are at the intersection of East Fourth Street and Queens Road in Charlotte. One is at the intersection of Hermitage Road and Queens Rd. in Charlotte.

2. Name, address, and telephone number of the present owner of the property: The property is situated in the public right-of-way and is, therefore, owned by:

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

Telephone: (704) 374-2241

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: There is no deed recorded on this specific property. There is no Tax Parcel Number assigned to this specific property.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property:

The growth and expansion of Charlotte in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were intimately bound up with the installation and development of its streetcar network. Streetcars initially appeared in charlotte in January 1887, when a horse-drawn system commenced operations.¹ It was the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company, locally known as the Four Cs which revolutionized the transportation facilities of Charlotte, however. In February 1891, the Four Cs signed a $40,000 contract with the Edison Electric Co. to construct an electric streetcar on trolley system.² Work began in march and terminated on May 18, 1891, when the first trolley departed from Independence Square, the intersection of Trade and Tryon Sts. in the heart of Charlotte.³ The system consisted of two lines, one from the Richmond and Danville Railroad Depot Carolina Central Railroad Depot on N. Tryon St. to Latta Park in Dilworth, the streetcar suburb which the Four Cs opened May 20, 1891.⁴

The accessibility of residential property to the trolley system became indispensable for successful real estate ventures in Charlotte after 1891. The initial expansion of the electric streetcar network occurred in September 1900, when a line opened which extended through Fourth Ward to Elmwood Cemetery on the western edge of the city.⁵ In May 1901, the Four Cs began service on a line which meandered through First Ward or the northeastern quadrant of Charlotte.⁶ In March 1902, trolleys initiated service to Piedmont Park, Charlotte’s second streetcar suburb.⁷ On December 13, 1902, the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company opened a streetcar line which extended approximately three-fourths of a mile from the intersection of East Ave. (now E. Trade St.) and McDowell St. along Elizabeth Ave. to a point three hundred feet west of the main building of Elizabeth College, thereby providing a powerful impetus for the growth of Elizabeth as an affluent residential district.⁸

The Elizabeth College streetcar line enhanced the prospects for real estate development in the surrounding countryside including the farms along Providence Rd. Among the more prominent residents of this area was J. S. Myers, whose farm embraced approximately 1200 acres. In 1902, his daughter, Sophie, married George Stephens. This was to be a propitious connection for Charlotte’s future.

George Stephens was a talented, sensitive and gregarious man. A native of Guilford Co., North Carolina, he entered the University of North Carolina in 1892, where he excelled as a student and as an athlete. Indeed, he was offered a contract as a professional baseball player because of his prowess as a pitcher. Stephens decided instead to move to Charlotte following his graduation in the mid 1890s. Having written his senior thesis on the subject of road paving materials, he was attracted to Mecklenburg County because of its reputation for good roads.¹⁰ In 1899, he joined with F. C. Abbott in establishing Abbott & Stephens, a real estate firm. In 1901, Stephens became vice-president of tile Piedmont Realty Co., the developers of Piedmont Park. Also in 1901, he, Abbott, B. D. Heath and Word H. Wood founded the Southern States Trust Co., later the American Trust Co., of which Stephens became president following F. C. Abbott’s withdrawal from the company in 1902.¹¹

In 1905, George Stephens brought John Nolen (1869-1937), who was to become one of America’s premier landscape architects and comprehensive planners, to Charlotte to design Independence Park, the first public park in the city. Interestingly, this was Nolen’s initial job. He was still a student in the School of Landscape Architecture at Harvard University.¹² During his sojourn in Charlotte, Nolen commented that Stephen’s father-in-law, J. S. or “Jack” Myers, resided on a farm which had enormous potential as a residential development. It is reasonable to infer that this observation, coming as it did from such an impressive source, made a profound impression upon George Stephens. Jack Myers had long dreamed that his 1200-acre farm might become a fashionable residential development. However, he lacked the business skill that was necessary to achieve this objective. That was the ingredient which his talented, astute, and earnest son-in-law, George Stephens was to provide.

In 1911, George Stephens became the founder and president of the Stephens Co., a real estate firm committed to transforming the Myers Farm and certain contiguous parcels into a lavish, sophisticated suburb.¹⁴ Not surprising, Stephens selected John Nolen as the landscape architect who would design Myers Park. On November 6, 1911, the Charlotte Evening Chronicle reported that Nolen had had “the tract in hand for some time.” According to the Chronicle of December 30, 1911, the scope of Myers Park was “one of the biggest ever undertaken in this section of the South.”¹⁶ “In residential developments of this character we get a good idea of what can be done by municipalities in beautifying the cities of the country,” John Nolen asserted.¹⁷ On March 13, 1912, the Charlotte Observer exclaimed that Myers Park could be “a suburb of surpassing elegance and attractiveness.”¹⁸ This expectation would be fulfilled.

Among the essential amenities of Myers Park was a streetcar line. Grading for the line was well under way by February 1912, and trolleys began serving the suburbs on September 1, 1912.¹⁹ The Myers Park line branched off from the Elizabeth College line at the intersection of Elizabeth Ave. and Hawthorne Ln. and extended southward into the suburb, entering Myers Park at the intersection of E. Fourth St. and Queens Rd.²⁰ On August 29, 1912, the Charlotte Observer announced that the Stephens Co. would erect a “combination gate and waiting station on any car line in the South,” the Charlotte Observer asserted.²² The contractor, J. A. Gardner, brought granite from Winnsboro, SC for the job. The waiting station and gate were completed by late September or early October 1912.²³ The waiting station at the intersection of Queens Rd. and Hermitage Rd. was erected soon thereafter. ²⁴ One cannot definitively attribute these structures to John Nolen. However, logic suggests that he would have designed landscape features of this order of magnitude. In the opinion of the Charlotte Observer, the entrance gate was waiting stations typified the elegance of Myers Park. “The expenditure of money which the Stephens Company is putting into the feature, largely ornamental, is an illustration of the care which is being taken to secure artistic finish in every detail,” the newspaper stated.²⁵

Myers Park prospered. John Nolen sent landscape architects to Charlotte to prepare site plans for the purchasers of lots in the suburb. The Stephens Co. provided this service, thereby underscoring its commitment to excellence in fashioning its streetcar suburb. In 1915, Earl S. Draper, an associate of Nolen’s, located in Charlotte and oversaw the planting of trees along the streets of Myers Park. George Stephens resigned as president of the Stephens Co. in July 1922 and moved to Asheville, NC.²⁵ Streetcar service in Charlotte terminated on March 12, 1938.²⁷ Sometime thereafter, the entrance gate to Myers Park was demolished.²⁸ However, the waiting stations at the entrance and the one at Hermitage Rd. and Queens Rd. survive.²⁹

 

---

Footnotes:

¹ The Charlotte Home Democrat (January 7, 1887), p. 3.

² The Charlotte News (February 12, 1891), p. 1.

³ The Charlotte News (March 17, 1891), p. 3. The Charlotte News (May 19, 1891), p. 1.

⁴ The Charlotte News (May 21, 1891), p. 1. The Morning Star (Wilmington, NC) (May 22, 1891), p. 1.

⁵ The Charlotte Observer (September 20, 1900), p. 5.

⁶ The Charlotte Observer (May I5, 1901), p. 5.

⁷ The Charlotte Observer (March 21, 1902), p. 5.

⁸ The Charlotte Observer (December 13, 1902), p. 6.

⁹ “Charlotte – Real Estate and Subdivisions. Myers Park” a folder in the vertical files of the Carolina Room of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library. Hereafter cited as Myers Park. “Stephens, George (Mr. and Mrs.)” a folder in the vertical files of the Carolina Room of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library. Hereafter cited as Stephens.

¹⁰ Stephens.

¹¹ F. C. Abbott, Fifty Years in Charlotte Real Estate (Charlotte, N.C., n.d.). A monograph in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library. For additional information on Word H. Wood, see Dr. Dan L. Morrill, “Survey and Research Report on the Wood-Platt House” (prepared on October 30, 1978, for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission).

¹² Myers Park. Robert Livingston Schlyler, ed., Edward T. James, assoc. ed., Dictionary of American Biography (Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1958), Vol. 22 (Supplement Two), pp. 490-491.

¹³ Myers Park. Stephens.

¹⁴ For the major acquisitions of the Stephens Co., see Mecklenburg County Deed Books 268, p. 353; 277, p. 189; 268, p. 597; 280, p. 41; 280, p. 201; 277, p. 638; 276, p. 496; 283, p. 222; 276, p. 508; 283, p. 337; 280, p. 491. For maps or the locations of the waiting stations, see Mecklenburg County Map Book 230 p. 122 & 124.

¹⁵ Charlotte Evening Chronicle (November 6, 1911), p. 6

¹⁶ Charlotte Evening Chronicle (December 30, 1911), p. 1.

¹⁷ The Charlotte Observer (March 21, 1912), p. 7.

¹⁸ The Charlotte Observer (March 13, 1912), p. 6.

¹⁹ The Charlotte Observer (February 8, 1912), p. 6. (September 2, 1912), p. 5.

²⁰ Charlotte Evening Chronicle (November 6, 1911), p. 6. Initially known as the Boulevard, Queens Road acquired its name in February 1913 in honor of Queens College, which would be locate at the southern terminus of the thoroughfare (Charlotte Observer [February 1, 1913], p. 7). John Nolen also designed the Queens College Campus (Charlotte Observer [March 22, 1912], p. 6).

²¹ The Charlotte Observer (August 29, 1912), p. 6.

²² The Charlotte Observer (September 2, 1912), p. 5.

²³ The Charlotte Observer (August 29, 1912), p. 6.

²⁴ The Charlotte Observer (October 10, 1912), p. 5. Technically, Hermitage Court was not part of Myers Park. It was developed by the Simmons Co., not the Stephens Co.

²⁵ The Charlotte Observer (August 29, 1912), p. 6.

²⁶ Myers Park. Stephens.

²⁷ The Charlotte Observer (March 13, 1938), p. 1.

²⁸ For a photograph of the entrance gate, see William T. Simmons and L. Brooks Lindsay, Charlotte and Mecklenburg County: A Pictorial History, (Donning Co., Norfolk, VA., n.d.), p. 59. It should be noted that this volume contains many errors.

²⁹ Local residents recall that there were other waiting stations on the Myers Park line. None, however, survive.

 

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains an architectural description of the property prepared by Jack O. Boyte, A.I.A.

 

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 Myers Park Streetcar Waiting Stations does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) they conform to the plan devised by John Nolen, a landscape architect of national renown; 2) they have strong associative ties with George Stephens, an individual of local and regional importance; 3) they are the only surviving elements of the Myers Park streetcar line and, except for a substantially altered streetcar barn in Dilworth, of the entire Charlotte streetcar system, which served this community from May 1891 until March 1938.

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 Myers Park Streetcar Waiting Stations 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 subject property is owned by the City of Charlotte and is, therefore, not subject to Ad Valorem taxes.

 

 

---

Bibliography

F. C. Abbott, Fifty Years In Charlotte Real Estate (Charlotte, NC, n.d.).

Charlotte Evening Chronicle.

The Charlotte Home Democrat.

The Charlotte News

The Charlotte Observer

“Charlotte – Real Estate and Subdivisions. Myers Park. “A folder in the vertical files of the Carolina Room of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library.

The Morning Star (Wilmington, NC).

Dr. Dan L. Morrill, “Survey and Research Report on the Wood-Platt House.” (Prepared on October 30, 1978, for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Tax Office.

Robert Livingston Schlyler, ed., Edward T. James, assoc. ed., Dictionary of American Biography (Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1958), Vol. 22 (Supplement Two).

William T. Simmons and L. Brooks Lindsay Charlotte and Mecklenburg County: A Pictorial History (Donning Co., Norfolk, VA, n.d.).

“Stephens, George (Mr. and Mrs.)” a folder in the vertical files of the Carolina Room of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library.

 

Date of preparation of this report: June 4, 1980.

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Director
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission
3500 Shamrock Dr.
Charlotte, NC 22215

 

 

Architectural Description  

By Jack O. Boyte

On the southeastern fringe of Charlotte a new residential subdivision was spread across rolling farm land in the first decade of this century. This neighborhood called “Myers Park” was designed by landscape architect John Nolen to include convenience as well as beauty and comfort. A primary convenience, advertised by the developers, was easy access to the new electric trolley which snaked through the subdivision in a landscaped median. No house lot was to be more than two blocks from the street car. Furthermore, shelters were erected at regular intervals along the line to protect waiting commuters; a line which reached as far as the Queens College campus. Three of the original shelters remain much as they were when new in 1912. Two of these shelters identify the original subdivision gateway at the intersection of East Fourth Street and Queens Road. Here there was a large center trolley shed, since demolished, through which double tracks entered the grass median. Smaller sheds at each side of the divided street covered the paved walks. These flanking shelters anchor semi-circular low stone walls which flare out further to give a grand scale to this main Myers Park entrance. On the east side of the intersection at Queens and Hermitage Roads is the third shelter, also remarkably preserved with most original material intact.

The three shelters have uniform design and detailing. The one remaining at Hermitage Road was intended to provide a covered bench waiting area, while those at Fourth Street are larger, more impressive gateway canopies. The structures have broad over hanging wooden roofs, twelve feet wide and eight feet front to back, resting on two large granite pillars. Unusual features on the Fourth Street shelter piers are small stone lugs projecting from three sides to support wood roof overhang knee brackets. Built of rough faced random ashlar, the sturdy piers rise more than eight feet to a bracketed rectangular frame. Above this is a low tripped roof covered with sawn cedar shingles. While not original, the wood roof surfaces have weathered to a soft gray patina consistent with the shelters’ years.

The wood superstructure is framed of finished 4 x 4s and 4 x 6s. Rafter ends are exposed and chamfered to align with a narrow fascia on the roof perimeter. There is a painted ceiling of 4 inch boards, beaded at the edge and center in the typical turn of the century manner. A small crown mold trims the ceiling edges.

The granite blocks, rough cut from the popular “blue” Winnsboro stone of the time, vary in size and shape. Chiseled edges abut in generally uniform joints which are tooled with a square edged rustication line designed to emphasize random coursing. The stone cork in the shelter pillars and curved gate walls is an exceptional example of the skilled stone masonry common at the turn of the century, and the original surfaces show no apparent deterioration.

The shelters have been carefully, and fortunately, preserved since the last trolley ran nearly forty years ago. Few changes have occurred, though the piers at Fourth Street have poorly built shoulder additions which should be removed, and one ceiling has been repaired with plywood instead of beaded ceiling boards. Otherwise, these fine little structures are in good condition and are significant architectural remnants from a colorful era in Charlotte’s recent history.

 

---

Addendum to the Survey and Research Report on the Myers Park Streetcar Waiting Stations

The Hermitage Court Gateways

1. Brief historical sketch of the property:

On February 28, 1912, the Charlotte Observer announced that Floyd M. Simmons of the Simmons Company, a local real estate firm, had purchased a tract of land which was contiguous with Myers Park, the elegant streetcar suburb which the Stephens Company had recently begun. John Nolen (1869-1937), the landscape architect for Myers Park, also designed Simmons’ development, which was named “Hermitage Court.”¹ Hermitage Court opened on October 10, 1912.² Among the amenities of the suburb were massive entrance gates at either end of the boulevard.³ “It is believed by the developers these gateways will lend a tone and exclusiveness to the suburb which could be derived in no other way,” the Charlotte Observer reported on March 21, 1912.⁴ Construction of the gateways was in progress by early September 1912.⁵ They were finished before the official opening of Hermitage Court on October 10, 1912. The Charlotte Observer was expansive in its description of these edifices: “At either entrance to Hermitage Court is a handsome granite gateway, pointed with red cement mortar, the work on these was done by two Scotchmen who came here for the purpose from Aberdeen Scotland last June. On one gate appears the inscription, “Ye Easte Gayte,” and on the other, “Ye Weste Gayte.” Many are designed after the entrance ways to Andrew Jackson’s old home near Nashville.”⁶

 

---

NOTES

¹ Charlotte Observer (February 28, 1912), p. 6.

² Charlotte Observer (October 10, 1912), p. 5.

³ For an early photograph of the western gate, see Charlotte Observer (November 3, 1912), p. 9.

⁴ Charlotte Observer (March 21, 1912), p. 6.

⁵ Charlotte Observer (September 2, 1912), p. 5.

⁶ Charlotte Observer (October 10, 1912), p. 5.

Date of preparation of this Addendum: July 2, 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  

Jack O. Boyte

A short distance beyond the imposing “Myers Park” entrance, a new subdivision was also opened in 1912 whose gateways matched the masonry design of the main “Myers Park” gate as well as the nearby trolley shelter at the intersection of Queens and Hermitage Roads. Borrowing the adjoining street name, as well as the granite “Myers Park” entrance details, Hermitage Court connected Hermitage Road to Highway 16 (Providence Road) which ran parallel to Queens Road about a half mile to the east. The new development had unique east and west gates. At each end of the long median divided street, the sidewalks and drives were flanked by massive granite piers and low curved walls which guarded and defined the new subdivision. This extraordinary stone work remains today undisturbed and still an impressive community feature.

From Hermitage Road one may walk into Hermitage Court between tall blue granite pillars at either side. Or vehicles can enter one way drives left or right which are also flanked by tall stone piers. The walkway gate piers are three feet square and rise seven feet to sloped stone peaks. In the center, a landscaped median with twin pillars and a connecting, low, undulating wall complete the impressive gateway. These center piers are four feet square and rise more than nine feet to stone caps which also slope up to low peaks. At the top are remnants of brass brackets which give evidence that at an earlier time the center piers were crowned with decorative lanterns. Small round granite wheel bumpers protrude from the base of all curb side piers.

At the east end of Hermitage Court is another gateway of massive granite pillars and low walls. This gateway faces Providence Road with the same impressive masonry details as those at the Queens-Hermitage Road end. The stone work in the twin entrances is similar to that found in the original trolley line gates and shelters. The rough face random granite ashlar is the same, and the joints show the same careful workmanship. However, pink colored mortar appears on the Hermitage Court stonework whereas, it is ordinary gray in the earlier Myers Park installations.

These remarkable old gateways represent a time when impressive entrance details were regularly used to define important boundaries. County lines, for entrance, were often graced with such structures. As rare survivors of that time and as significant elements in the early development of suburban “Myers Park,” the Hermitage Court granite gates are important architectural remnants.

This report was written on 30 October 1990

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Murkland Presbyterian Church is located at Old Providence Road in Charlotte, NC.

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

Matthews-Murkland Presbyterian Church
7001 Old Providence Road
Charlotte, North Carolina

Telephone: (704) 365-5032

Tax Parcel Number: 211-021-01

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

4. A man depicting the location of the property: This report contains maps which depict the location of the property.

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 312 at page 315. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 211-021-01.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Paula Stathakis.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Nora M. Black.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S. 160A-400.5:

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Murkland Presbyterian Church does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following consideration:
1) the Murkland Presbyterian Church was founded by ex-slaves and freedmen who left the Providence Presbyterian Church about 1866;
2) the Murkland Presbyterian Church was named for its first pastor, Rev. Sidney Murkland;
3) the ca.1912 structure that formerly housed the Murkland Presbyterian Church is architecturally significant as an early 20th century vernacular interpretation of the carpenter Gothic style;
4) the two entry towers of the west facade serve as focal points of the Old Providence Road landmark;
5) interior details such as the curved ceiling are examples of a high level of local craftsmanship; and
6) the property is a visual reminder of the varied contributions made by all aspects of religious life to the black community of Mecklenburg County.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Nora M. Black which is included in this report demonstrates that the Murkland Presbyterian Church meets this criterion.

9. 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 of the improvements is $263,670. The current appraised value of the 6.540 acres is $163,500. The total appraised value of the property is $427,170. The property is zoned R-15.

Date of Preparation of this Report: 30 October 1990

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill in conjunction with Nora M. Black
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
1225 South Caldwell Street, Box D
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203

Telephone: (704) 376-9115

 

Historical Overview  

Paula M. Stathakis

The Murkland Presbyterian Church (now the Matthews-Murkland Presbyterian Church) was organized under the director of the Reverends Samuel G. Alexander, Sidney Murkland, and Willis L Miller. These men organized three other black Presbyterian congregations: The McClintock Church, the Seventh Street Church, and the Woodland Church. They were also instrumental in the development of the Biddle Institute (1867), a school for the education of black ministers. In addition to their work in Mecklenburg County, they also secured the organization Catawba Presbytery, the first all black Presbytery in the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., which was authorized in 1887 Murkland Church was included in this Presbytery.¹

The date of the actual organization of the Murkland Church was never recorded. An informal church history claims that the church was founded as early as 1864, but taking the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation into consideration, the year of organization was probably 1865 if not later. The majority of the first members of Murkland Church were ex-slaves, who were formerly compelled to attend the dominantly white Providence Presbyterian Church. Slave members of Providence Presbyterian Church were allowed to attend church services from the upstairs gallery built especially for this purpose. Providence Church historian Louise Barber Matthews found that the slave members wished to have their own prayer meetings on Sunday afternoons. By 1862, they were given permission to do so only if two or more white men were present for fear of insurrection. By 1864, the rigors and the stress of war had a dispiriting effect on the Providence congregation. The session books record that “servants” were disinclined to take communion and were prone to drunkenness and fighting. These problems were also prevalent among the white members of the church.

Beginning in 1865, the Providence Presbyterian Church Session minutes indicate the elders’ concern about the “irregularities with the Colored people” which seemed in some way connected with their new freedom. In May of that year, many black members of the church formed a Sunday School under the supervision of William Rea. They met for one hour starting at 10:00 a.m. devoting one-half hour to teaching letters, spelling, and reading. The other half hour was devoted to catechism lessons. By October of 1887, the Rev. Willis L Miller of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. intervened to advise the black members or Providence to form their own church. This rankled the session of the Providence Church because many black members left without asking permission to organize into a church “separate and distinct from ours.” The session decided to “omit from the roll of members of this church without censure” those ex-slaves who chose to leave. According to Matthews, former black members of the Providence Presbyterian Church have “name erased, April 29, 1866” on the church rolls when they withdrew from the church. Many left to go to Murkland. ³

Little is known about the original members of Murkland church. Murkland does not have any extant records from this period. According to the Rev. D. G. Burke, who grew up in the Murkland Church, and who wrote a general history of the Catawba Presbytery, most black churches from this period have few or no records from the period of their organization.⁴ What is known is that the Rev. Sidney Murkland was the first pastor of the church. The next pastors Rev. Matthew Ijams was the first black to minister to the Murkland congregation. The first elders were G. W. Grier, M. W. Peoples, James Porter, and Henry Porter. The first deacons were John Burke, William Hines, and Aron Stitt. There is also a list of fifteen original members; however, it is probably safe to assume that these fifteen represent only a portion of the total original membership.⁵

The original church building is no longer standing. No one remembers what it looked like, but some members vaguely recollect that it resembled the Providence Presbyterian Church. Mr. Adolphus Jones, oldest living member of the church at age 102, remembers that this church was called “Little Providence” and Providence Presbyterian was called “Big Providence.” He also remembers a session house was built behind the church.⁶ Rev. Burke believes that the church was constructed according to plans provided by the Presbytery, and paid for with a loan from the national church. This structure burned in the first decade of this century. The precise date of the destruction of the old church and the construction of the second structure were never recorded and are long-forgotten. One may estimate the date of the fire by the memories of some of the long-time church remembers. Mr. John McGrant vividly remembers the fire; he thinks he was either six or eight at the time. Mrs. Rosa Bell Cuthberson remembers hearing the bell that signaled the fire at age four. Mrs. Cuthberson was born in 1907, Mr. McGrant was born in 1903; this would put the date of the fire c. 1911.⁷

A brush fire that burned out of control caused the fire. Mr. Jones, who owns a farm across the road from the church, says that the fire came from behind his property. The church, which was built of wood, burned quickly. Somebody managed to get inside and worked in their fields. When it was apparent that it was impossible to save the building, Mrs. Alexander White and Mrs. Maggie Grier ran into the church and managed to haul out some of the pews. Some Bibles were saved as well. Benches, Bibles, and the church bell were the only objects to survive the blaze.⁸

A new church was built on the same site as the old church. The date of construction is uncertain, but it was probably c. 1912. The style of the church, Carpenter’s Gothic, is not common in this area, but a few other churches in the area that exhibit this design were built between 1911 and 1915.⁹

This church was built by Mr. Billy Stewart and Mr. Charlie Jarman (Yarmouth?). They were assisted by any members of the congregation who were able to contribute time or materials. Mr. McGrant helped Stewart and Jarman by doing odd jobs, such as carrying water. This church is an impressive structure for a community volunteer effort. There were professional carpenters in the church membership, and as one member has pointed out, the people were able to lay straight rows in their fields without surveyors. That they could build a solid church is not so surprising. It is not known if they were assisted with any details, such as the installation of the windows.¹⁰ The stained glass windows in the new church were a gift from the Matthews Presbyterian Church, which was in the process of building a new church. Two women from the Murkland Church, Jennie Morrison, and Nancy Grier, worked for a physician who was a member of Matthews Presbyterian Church, and who arranged this donation.¹¹

The bell was saved from the first church, and in addition to signaling Sunday morning services, was a vehicle that relayed news to the surrounding community. If the bell rang fast, it announced an emergency, such as a fire. If it rang slowly, it tolled someone’s death.¹²

A cemetery is situated behind the church. The majority of graves there are unmarked, which makes it difficult if not impossible to know how many people are buried there and who is there. Most of the churchyard is cleared land, but the lot is very deep and some graves are now hidden in the overgrowth of trees in the furthest reaches. The graves that are marked are oriented with the feet facing east. The oldest marked graves belong to Eliza Peoples, May 1, 1848-October 1, 1866-January 31, 1905; Harriet Ann Stitt, November 6, 1848-December 19, 1895; Lucinda Peoples, 1848-1908.

The church has played a central role in the lives of its members. Going to church on Sundays was the culminating event of the week. Those who lived close to church walked to Sunday services; those who had to travel long distances arrived in surreys, mule carts, and ox carts. It was common for families to travel well over three miles for Sunday services.¹³

Sunday School began at 9:00 a.m. Every child brought an offering to Sunday School, usually a penny or a nickel, which Miss Elnora Stitt remembers taking tied to a handkerchief for safekeeping. Church services followed Sunday School and lasted until 1:00 p.m.¹⁴ The Church had no piano, and singing was accompanied by clapping. A lead singer would “pitch” the melody and the rest of the congregation would follow.¹⁵

Seating was arranged by sex; men sat on one side, the women opposite them, and children and visitors sat in the rear. Before the church had electricity, gas lamps lit the interior and a large wood stove sat in the middle of the sanctuary. This spatial arrangement meant that when it was time to give the weekly offering, each person walked up to the altar to present their money as their name and amount given was recorded in a ledger. The return trip to their seat entailed continuing from the altar and around the stove. This process took each individual on a complete trip around the sanctuary.¹⁶ On special occasions, such as Homecoming, Children’s Day, or Communion, the congregation stayed after church for a picnic. Everyone contributed food for these events.¹⁷

The ministers of Murkland were paid a salary that was provided out of the offerings of the members. When money was scarce, the congregation took care of their preacher by paying in fatback, ham, butter, chickens, eggs, and milk: Visiting preachers frequently participated in homecomings and the revivals that were part of these events. To accommodate the visiting clergy, a different family fed him each day of the week. The preacher and the adults ate before the children of the house, whose duty was to shoo flies, since no one had screened windows and doors. Mrs. Rosa Bell Cuthberson recalled tending to a visiting preacher in her parents’ home: “we didn’t eat–we just shooing flies.” The children ate after the adults finished and there was always enough food left, but as Mrs. Cuthberson remembers, it took too long to get it.¹⁸

In addition to revivals, the Murkland community met on Saturdays for baseball games, the premier activity to “let your hair down.” Baseball was clearly serious business. Team pitcher John McGrant, could hardly wait for Saturday noon, to put up the mule and go play ball. The church sponsored a men’s baseball team and a women’s softball team. Not all team members were part of the church community, but an effort was made to recruit good ball players from the area as ammunition against the opposition. Both teams had uniforms with “Murkland Team” on them. These uniforms were described by John McGrant as first class, similar to those worn by professional teams.¹⁹

The ballfield was located on Alexander Road, approximately one mile from the church. Ballgames were invariably accompanied by picnics; refreshments were available across the road from the ballfield. Lemonade, made in a tin washtub with a block of ice to cool it, sold for five cents for all you could drink. Watermelon and home-made ice cream were also available, as well as fish that sold for ten to twenty-five cents. Additional entertainment at ball games in the 1920s was provided by a band organized by eight men from Murkland who played at picnics and ball games.²⁰

Spectators sat under the trees at the fringe of the field where they offered words of encouragement to the team, or advice when necessary. “Get an apron!” was the phrase best-remembered for players who let balls slip through their legs. The games usually lasted until 9:00 p.m. If a game lasted into darkness, those how brought cars would turn their headlights on the field so the players could see to finish the game.

Saturday nights, when not taken up with ball games, were the time for fish frys or chitterlings dinners, with lemonade and home brew. These events were held at home, and the evening was not complete without square dancing. There was no music for dancing, just a caller, usually Walter Harrison.²²

The membership of the Murkland Church came from the outlying farming community. Their weekdays were spent hard at work in the fields, and their meager leisure time was reserved for church, baseball, and fish frys. These were self-sufficient people who raised everything they needed except coffee and sugar. Cotton was their cash crop. Church members now in their seventies and eighties remember picking cotton to earn enough money buy candy on Saturdays. A cotton gin was located in the vicinity operated by a Mr. Funderburke. Mr. Jones remembers two other cotton gins: one in Matthews owned by John Crittendon and one in Pineville owned by the Miller brothers.

Corn and wheat were ground at a mill in Monroe, or some had small, hand-crank mills at home. Two general stores in the neighborhood, Roger’s store (located the fork of Providence Road and Old Providence Road where an Exxon station stands today) and Hunter store provided these families with equipment, fertilizer, and other supplies that they could not grow or manufacture for themselves. ²⁴

The second Murkland Church served the congregation until a third church was built in the adjoining lot in 1976. The Matthews Chapel, also organized in the Catawba Presbytery in 1876 merged with Murkland in 1969. The reason for the merger was that Murkland pastor Dr. Daniel O. Hennigan was responsible for both congregations since 1963, and as a result each church had services every other Sunday. The consolidation of the churches seemed the best solution to the problem. The new church was called the Matthews-Murkland Church, and a new building was constructed on “neutral” to accommodate the congregation.²⁵ The second church was used for an arts and crafts building until 1983. It is not currently used.

The membership of the church is now scattered throughout Charlotte, but Sundays bring them all together again. This is a significant testimony of the enduring tradition of a community whose origins go back to a small group of freedmen and a handful of free blacks who founded the church. The second Murkland Presbyterian Church is significant. First, it is an important historical link to the community’s past, and there are many people who are able to personally identify with this structure as the place of Sunday School in their youth, where they married, or where they buried friends and family. Second, the church is a significant part of the greater Mecklenburg community. It is noteworthy as a country church, as a post-war southern church established outside the jurisdiction of the then Presbyterian Church in the United States (the southern church), and as the focus of a rural black farming community.

---

NOTES

¹ Reverend D.G. Burke, The Catawba Story, 1886-1980. Historical Committee of the Catawba Presbytery, 1981, p. 1.

² Louise Barber Matthews, A History of the Providence Presbyterian Church. Charlotte, NC: Books-Litho, 1967, pp. 138, 147, 143.

³ Matthews, History of Providence, pp. 145,146. The session minutes of the Providence Presbyterian Church were not made available to verify this. There is no reason to assume that Matthews omitted any detail from the minutes in her church history. The Rev. D. G. Burke has seen the records at Providence Presbyterian Church, and confirms that the details concerning the names of black members who withdrew from the church at this time are virtually non-existent.

⁴ In his research for the Catawba Story, 1886-1930. Rev. Burke was unable to find any records for the Murkland church during the period of its organization. Rev. Burke has conducted thorough search in the Presbytery records and in the Assembly Records located in Philadelphia. He believes that this church probably kept records of members, but that this information was probably discarded by the church every time a new session was installed and began a new series of records that were simply more pertinent for their purposes at the time.

⁵ This information was taken from a History of the Murkland Presbyterian Church, submitted by C.A. Burke, clerk of session. This is an unpublished report to the session which is the property of the church and has no date.

⁶ Interview with Mr. Adolphus Jones, 8-1-90.

⁷ Interview with Mr. Adolphus Jones 8-1-90. Interview with long-time members of the Murkland Presbyterian Church, 8-5-90.

⁸ Interview with Mr. Adolphus Jones, 8-1-90; Interview with long-time members of Murkland Church, 8-12-90.

¹³ Interview with Mr. Adolphus Jones; Interview with long-time members of Murkland Church, 8-5-90, 8-12-90. Mr. Jones recalls some people using dog carts as another variety of travel.

¹⁴ Interview with long-time members of Murkland Church, 8-1-90. Mr. Walter Cuthberson managed to save six ledger books from the second Murkland Church. Some of these ledgers are the Sunday School records which show for the lessons read each Sunday, who was in attendance and the amount collected in offerings. Other ledgers are accounts of what individuals gave in church offerings.

¹⁵ Interview, 8-12-90.

¹⁶ Explained by Mr. Walter Cuthberson, 8-5-90.

¹⁷ Interview 8-12-90.

¹⁸ Interview, 8-12-90.

¹⁹ Interview, 9-2-90. The uniforms were purchased from Sears and Roebuck, the ever popular purveyor of material goods in the early twentieth century.

²⁰ Interview, 9-2-90. The members of the band were: Walter Harrison (lead horn), Jim Hood (bass drum), Tom Down (kettle drum), Bridey Morrison (alto horn), Ed Dunn (bass horn), Tom Barber (drum), Ed Massey, and William Weathers.

²¹ Interview, 9-2-90.

²² Interview, 8-12-90.

²³ Interview with Mr. Adolphus Jones, 8-1-90; Interview, 8-12-90.

²⁴ Interview, 8-12-90.

²⁵. From a historical sketch in the Homecoming Service Bulletin, 11-14-82. Access kindly provided by Mr. Harvey Boyd.

 

 

Architectural Description  

Nora M. Black

Murkland Presbyterian Church, located on the east side of Old Providence Road, presents a facade virtually unchanged since it was constructed during the early 20th Century. Sited on a low hilltop in a curve of Old Providence Road, the structure’s entry facade fares approximately west. Small additions on the northwest and southwest corners are in keeping with the original building.

The design is that of a carpenter Gothic building. It should be noted that carpenter Gothic buildings usually had very steeply pitched roofs. The pitch of the Murkland Presbyterian Church is not as steep as many buildings constructed in this style. Additionally, the weatherboarding is placed horizontally rather than vertically as might be seen in this style. Both the roof pitch and the horizontal cladding add to the vernacular interpretation of the style. The bold cross gables are indicative of the “Greek cross” plan featuring four arms of the building of equal length.

Facing Old Providence Road, the symmetrical one-story entry facade features twin recessed towers, one to each side of the centered gable wing. This breaks the entry facade into three vertical sections. The gable wing has two centered double-hung wooden sash with stained glass. Above the windows there is a pointed arch which has been infilled with weatherboarding. The arch extends into the wall surface of the gable, a feature typical of the carpenter Gothic style.

The twin towers provide distinction to the church and clearly mark the location of the doors. Since the vestibules and sanctuary are built over a crawl space, a flight of five steps leads up to the double doors at the base of each tower. The towers provide space for a vestibule on each side of the sanctuary. Above each set of double doors there is a pointed arch with tracery and stained glass. The six panel wooden doors have a single doorknob and lock; at the eave there are two electric lights above the doors. Each tower protrudes from the roof of the vestibule providing some of the most intricate detailing on the exterior of the building. The spire of each tower is topped with a metal finial. The roof of the sawer slopes down, then curves gently outward to the cave. On the two outside faces of each tower, there is a very steep gable cut into the curving roofline. There is a diamond shaped wooden vent directly beneath each gable.

The church was originally supported on brick piers; however, the brick piers have been infilled with concrete blocks. Both the piers and the infill have been painted white. The weatherboarding and trim have been painted white as well. The moderately steep pitch of the roof makes it a dominant feature. The black hexagonal-shaped shingles, with a pattern of French-method shingles, add visual interest to the building and the twin towers.

A small shed addition was added beside each tower/vestibule. The additions house restrooms; prior to their construction, church members had to use outhouses located some distance from the building. Although convenient for members, the location diminishes the power of the tower corners that were such a marked feature of the original facade.

Both the north and south (side) elevations of the building have three double-hung wooden sash that originally held stained glass. Each of the three windows has a pointed arch with tracery and stained glass above the double-hung sash. Some glass was broken by vandals; other glass has been removed and stored until the building is in use again. Clear glass and plywood cover some openings; other window openings are unprotected from the weather. A small square opening on each addition provided natural light in the restrooms. Originally the stained glass windows would be opened for ventilation during warm summer days.

A single side door on the south elevation at the rear of the building is approached by a set of six steps. A Lyle door gives access to the stage.

The two vestibules of the church may be entered through one of the two sets of double doors facing Old Providence Road. The church bell was rung using a rope that extends from the southwest tower into the southwest vestibule. The bell is visible through a square hole in the vestibule ceiling. In each vestibule, the exterior double doors may be locked by placing a heavy wooden bar across the center of the doors. Plaster in the vestibules has suffered some water damage.

The interior of the Murkland Presbyterian Church has a “Greek cross” plan. The original hardwood floor slopes down toward the building’s center from the west, north and south arms of the “Greek cross” plan. The east arm of the cross has a large wood-framed arched opening with a raised stage that was used by the minister and the choir. Stairs at the northeast corner of the stage lead to a small conference room above the stage. The original wooden doors between the vestibule and the sanctuary are still in place. The wooden ceiling, painted ivory, curves down to meet the walls. Metal hooks which are visible in the ceiling were used to hold gas lamps. At this time, electric lighting is provided by translucent globes hanging from the ceiling. The original wainscoting encircles the sanctuary.

A renovation after the construction of the new Matthews-Murkland Presbyterian Church turned the older building into a crafts, center. Wood paneling was used to construct walls across three arms of the “Greek cross” plan. The walls, which do not extend to the ceiling, separated the sanctuary into four separate activity areas. The paneling is not permanently attached; it is to be removed in the near future.

Murkland Presbyterian Church is no longer in regular use. The future may hold a rental of the structure to an emerging congregation. That will preserve many of the building’s fine features while providing an enduring landmark in the rapidly changing southern part of Charlotte.

 

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House is located at 800 Mt. Vernon Avenue, Charlotte, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

2. Name, address, and telephone number of the present owners of the property: The owners of the property are:

Charles Thomas and Nancy E. Humphries
800 Mt. Vernon Avenue
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203

Telephone: (704) 372-8010

Tax Parcel Number: 123-093-01

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.

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to Tax Parcel Number 123-093-01 is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 5491 on page 0077.

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

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Nora M. Black.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S. 160A-400.5:

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and /or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations
1) Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon, born in Spartanburg, South Carolina in 1869, began his service as a Methodist minister in 1889 in the Texas conference;
2) Bishop Mouzon was elected to the office of bishop in May, 1910;
3) Bishop Mouzon presided over most of the conferences of the church in the United States, as well as those of Mexico and South America;
4) Bishop Mouzon served as a delegate to the ecumenical conferences of the world in Toronto (1911), London (1921), and Atlanta (1931);
5) Bishop Mouzon set up the Methodist church of Brazil in 1930;
6) Bishop Mouzon was a widely known and respected preacher and author;
7) Bishop Mouzon and his second wife, Mary Pearl Langdon Mouzon, moved to Charlotte in 1927;
8) Bishop Mouzon was one of the country’s most prominent churchmen and the senior bishop of the Southern Methodist Church at the time of his death in 1937;
9) the Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House was designed by the Charlotte architect, Marvin W. Helms;
10) Helms, a Mecklenburg County native who was associated with C. C. Hook, learned architecture by apprenticeship;
11) Helms designed hundreds of Methodist rural churches funded by the Duke Foundation;
12) Helms was particularly adept at Gothic detail and designed the 1926 sanctuary for the Dilworth Methodist Church;
13) the Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House, completed in 1927, is architecturally significant as an Eclectic House built in the Tudor style;
14) the Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House has many exterior features, such as the Tudor false half-timbering with stucco infill, that are intact and in good condition;
15) the Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House has many interior appointments, such as the fireplaces and the woodwork, that are intact and in very good condition; and
16) the Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House can provide valuable insight into “life in the streetcar suburb” of Dilworth.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Nora M. Black included in this report demonstrates that the Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House meets this criterion.

9. 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 of the improvement is $207,860. The current appraised value of the auxiliary improvement is $2,890. The current appraised value of the 0.347 acres of Tax Parcel 123-093-01 is $100,000. The total appraised value of the property is $310,750. The property is zoned R4.

Date of Preparation of this Report: 28 December 1992

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill & Nora M. Black
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
The Law Building, Suite 100, 730 East Trade Street
P. O. Box 35434
Charlotte, North Carolina

Telephone: (704) 376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview  

Dr. William H. Huffman

The Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House is historically significant because of its association with the Methodist bishop, and its design by Charlotte architect Marvin Helms, who executed plans for hundreds of churches during his long career.

Bishop Mouzon (1869-1937) was born in Spartanburg, SC, the son of Samuel Cogswell and Harriet Peurifoy Mouzon just four years after the close of the Civil War. Following service in the Confederate army, the elder Mouzon ran a photography and artist studio, in which the young Edwin began work at the age of eleven. Years later, the Bishop recalled that at the age of fifteen he “got religion” and was called to preach. In 1889, he graduated from Wofford College in Spartanburg, and in 1905 received an honorary doctor of divinity degree from Southwestern University in Texas. He also received honorary doctor of laws degrees from Southwestern University in 1911, Duke University in 1930 and Southern Methodist University in 1935.¹

After graduation in 1889, his first ministerial assignment was in the Texas conference, and he subsequently pastured churches in Bryan, Austin, Caldwell, Galveston, Flatonia, Abilene, Fort Worth and San Antonio, as well as in Kansas City, MO. In 1908 he was appointed a professor of theology at Southwestern University, and two years later, in May, 1910, he was elected to the office of bishop, and was consecrated in Asheville, NC. In the succeeding years, Bishop Mouzon presided over most of the conferences of the church in the United States, as well as that of Mexico and South America. He was a delegate to the ecumenical conference of the world in Toronto, 1911; London, 1921; and Atlanta, 1931; and set up the Methodist church of Brazil in 1930. From his position of chairman of the Southern commission to unite American Methodism, he aggressively, but unsuccessfully, campaigned for that goal. A widely known and respected preacher and author, Bishop Mouzon was continually in demand as a speaker. Indeed, a newspaper article from the early Thirties reports that, “In a referendum among its readers by a widely read non-sectarian religious journal to find the 25 greatest preachers in America, the name of Mouzon was high up in the brackets.”²

He became nationally known for his “strongly pronounced” opposition to the election of the Democratic Governor of New York, Alfred E. Smith, for president in 1928 because of Smith’s opposition to Prohibition and his religion (Catholic). At the time, the bishop was given much of the credit for the defeat of Smith in several of the Southern states, including North Carolina. Bishop Mouzon in fact had strong views about Prohibition; he was a “consistent and vigorous opponent” of the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment and any changes to the prohibition laws.³

While serving in his first ministerial assignment, Bishop Mouzon met Mary Elizabeth Mike of Bryan, Texas; they were married on his birthday, May 19, 1890. Mary Mike Mouzon died November 19, 1917 and was survived by two sons and three daughters. On August 21, 1919, the bishop married Mrs. Mary Pearl Langdon of Dallas, Texas. The Mouzons moved to Charlotte in 1927, when the bishop was assigned the episcopacy of the Carolinas, and in 1935, he was assigned the territory that included Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. At the time of his death on February 10, 1937, he was one of the country’s most prominent churchmen and the senior bishop of the Southern Methodist Church.⁴

In 1926, Bishop Mouzon commissioned a Charlotte architect, Marvin Helms, to design his new home.⁵ Marvin W. Helms (1883-1960) was a Mecklenburg County native, the son of Henry Jackson and Matilda Marze Helms. Starting as an office boy, Helms learned architecture by apprenticeship, and was licensed about 1916. For a number of years, he was associated with the well-known Charlotte architect C. C. Hook. After Hook’s death in 1938, he practiced on his own until 1958, when he joined with his grandson, Marvin H. Saline, to form Helms and Saline. Bishop Mouzon’s choice of Helms as the architect for his Charlotte residence is not surprising: he designed the new sanctuary for the Dilworth Methodist Church (where he was a lifelong member), which had just been completed in 1926; and for many years he designed hundreds of Methodist rural churches in the area that were funded by the Duke Foundation. He was particularly adept at Gothic detail, and helped work on the Baltimore Cathedral with Father McMichael, an architect and monk at Belmont Abbey.⁶

The Bishop Mouzon House was completed in early 1927.⁷ In March of that year, the bishop purchased the lot from the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company (locally known as the 4 C’s) for $1,000. Deed restrictions required a house costing at least $7,500 to be built on the property.⁸ The 4 C’s was the company formed by Edward Dilworth Latta and others to develop the city’s first streetcar suburb, Dilworth, starting in 1890. The first phase of the development of Dilworth started in 1891, with a grid of streets off South and East Boulevards and centered around Latta Park, originally a large amusement park with a lake, pavilion and ball fields. The main boulevards had grand homes, and the side streets more modest homes for the middle-class and factory workers (including those of the Atherton Mill, built 1892-1893 by New South entrepreneur D. A. Tompkins). The first phase ended about 1912, when Latta Park was reduced to its present size, and work began on the new section designed by the Olmsted Brothers, “the most prestigious landscape architecture and city planning firm in the United States.”⁹ It was in this new section that Bishop Mouzon chose to build his house. The Mouzons enjoyed their Dilworth house for ten years before the bishop’s death in 1937. Mrs. Mouzon sold the house in 1939 to Evylyn Wrenn, who owned it until 1950, when she sold it to M. Sydney Alverson and his wife Mabel T. Alverson.¹⁰ The Alverson heirs conveyed the Mount Vernon property to William E. Eastridge in 1985, who sold it two years later to the present owners, Dr. Charles Thomas Humphries and his wife, Nancy E. Humphries.¹¹

 

---

NOTES

¹ Charlotte Observer. February 11,1937. p.1; undated newspaper article (cM933). “Portrait of a Tar Heel Bishop,” vertical files. Carolina Room. Charlotte Mecklenburg Public Library.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Thomas W. Hanchett. “Charlotte and Its Neighborhoods,” Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1986, “Dilworth,” p.18.

⁶ Charlotte Observer. December 4, 1960, p. 9F; interview with Marvin H. Saline, grandson of Marvin Helms, 2 November 1992.

⁷ Records of Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department.

⁸ Mecklenburg County Deed Book 660, p.23, 11 March 1927.

⁹ Dan L. Morrill, “Edward Dilworth Latta and the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company (1890-1925): Builders of a New South City,” The North Carolina Historical Review. LXII (July, 1985),293-316.

¹⁰ Mecklenburg County Deed Books 972, p. 9; 1426, p.603.

¹¹ Ibid., Books 5123,p. 190; 5491, p.77.

 

 

Architectural Description  

Nora M. Black

The Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House is located at 800 Mt. Vernon Avenue in the Dilworth neighborhood of Charlotte. The house occupies a corner lot on the south side of Mt. Vernon Avenue at its intersection with Lafayette Avenue. The front or north facade of the house is parallel with Mt. Vernon Avenue. The west facade is parallel with Lafayette Avenue. The rear or south facade overlooks the back yard; the frame garage is located on the southeast corner of the lot. The land on the south side of Mt. Vernon Avenue has a much higher elevation than that of the north side of the street. Consequently, the Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House is set high above street level and commands an excellent view of the skyline of Charlotte. The Mecklenburg County Tax Office lists the house as having 4,539 square feet of heated area. The house is located on a rectangular-shaped lot of 0.347 acres and is owned by Charles Thomas Humphries and Nancy E. Humphries.

The Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House is an Eclectic House built in the Tudor style. The Eclectic movement ran from approximately 1880 to 1940. After World War I, American housing was dominated by period revivals such as Italian Renaissance, Chateauesque, Beaux Arts, Tudor, or Colonial Revival during the 1920’s and 1930’s. “The resulting burst of period fashions drew on the complete historical spectrum of European and Colonial American housing styles…”² The expression “Tudor style” is misleading since most houses grouped under this type do not resemble early 16th century, Tudor English houses. The style more closely mimics late Medieval English prototypes. In the American Eclectic expression, the Tudor style is characterized by steeply pitched, front-facing gables and ornamental false half-timbering. In fact, ornamental false half-timbering occurs on approximately half of all Tudor style houses.

Masonry veneering techniques were not perfected until the early 1920s. The new masonry veneer allowed American Tudor style houses to imitate Medieval English brick and stone prototypes. The Tudor style became very popular and spread throughout the United States. In the late 1930s, the Tudor style became unfashionable and was not revived until the Neoeclectic movement started in the 1970s.³

The Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House has a simple rectangular massed plan with irregular (less than room-sized) projections from the principal mass. The house presents an asymmetrical front elevation with a cross-gabled roof. The front view is dominated by the front-facing gabled section of the large house. A one-story, projecting entry with a round-arched doorway draws attention to the front of the house. Painted brick clads the exterior to the second floor level. The second floor walls are clad with Tudor false half-timbering.

Exterior

The Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House has two types of exterior wall cladding: Tudor false half-timbering above painted brick laid in running bond. Brick wall cladding distinguishes the most common subtype of Tudor houses. Tudor false half-timbering was a common secondary influence; the treatment of stucco infill between non-structural timbers arranged in decorative patterns mimics Medieval infilled timber framing.⁴ The bricks and false half-timbering are painted steel gray; the stucco infill is white. The colors of the stone trim are mostly warm tans and light browns with contrasting dark grays. The cast concrete lintels and sills have not been painted.

The slate roof lacks the steep pitch of most Tudor style houses. It does, however, have the prominent cross gables associated with the style. Additionally, the points of the gables are clipped to form a hip-gable roof. This treatment is also called a jerkinhead. At the gable ends, the attic story projects beyond the second story to form a jetty. Small curved brackets support each jetty. Larger carved brackets are located at each corner of each jetty. The three-dimensional brackets add weight and interest to the cross gable ends. The roof of the front facade is interrupted by a gabled dormer. The dormer has curved vergeboards supported by extended decorative roof beams. Metal ridge and hip caps add a finishing touch to the roof. Copper gutters have been installed at the eaves; the downspouts are also copper. Although the open eaves are not visible since they are concealed by the gutters, closer inspection of the eaves reveals that the rafter ends are exposed.

The single massive chimney, a favorite Tudor detail, is located on the west side of the house. The base of the chimney is enclosed by the side porch. The balance of the exterior chimney, with its single shoulder, reaches high above the roof. The top of the chimney has three round, fluted chimney pots.

Most of the windows in the Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House consist of double hung wooden sash. The windows have a variety of glazing patterns ranging from 3/1 to 12/1. The majority of the first floor windows are glazed in a 9/1 pattern while the majority of the second floor windows are glazed in a 6/1 pattern. All elevations have asymmetrical window arrangements. Windows occur singularly, in pairs, and in groups of three or four. The first floor windows on the front and sides of the house have decorative cast stone lintels and sills. The first floor windows on the back of the house have lintels constructed of a soldier course of brick and sills of a header course of brick.

The asymmetrical front elevation is three units wide. The elaborate front entry is set slightly off-center. The front entry is flanked by window groups of three 9/1 double hung wooden sash. All but one of the windows of the second floor front elevation have window boxes.

Projecting toward Mt. Vernon Avenue, the front entry is one-story high with a hip-gable roof. Curved vergeboards, supported by extended rafter ends, frame the round arched doorway. Cantilevered cast concrete pieces support the arch above the door. The arch encloses an elliptical fanlight. The walls of the front entry are made of stone, in predominantly warm tans and browns. Six steps, faced with brick, lead to the terrace in front of the entry. The terrace continues on the east side of the front entry. The terrace floor is made of quarry tiles with white mortar joints. Black wrought iron rails have been installed on either side of the steps.

The front entry has a single batten door with six lights of glazing in the top half and a recessed panel of narrow battens in the bottom half. The hardware consists of black wrought iron strap hinges and entrance handle. The door casing consists of a simple arrangement of boards with a curved and molded top. The top of the casing supports an unusual fanlight divided into 6 vertical panel of glass. A doorbell, decorated with black wrought iron trim, is located on the door casing.

A side porch, another characteristic feature of the Tudor style, forms a one-story extension on the west side of the Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House. The porch is almost completely concealed by shrubbery. The two west corner piers of the porch are constructed of tan and brown stone; they are continuous from the ground level to the height of the eaves. The cast concrete trim on the west side of the porch is similar to that of the front entry. The opening on the south side of the porch has been infilled with a 12-light glass and wood door set in a heavy door surround. The other porch openings have been infilled with narrow vertical windows. The once open porch now serves as an enclosed sun room. Additionally, the house has a hip-roofed, one-story porch on the south facade. It has a steel gray and white wall treatment that matches the second floor wall treatment.

Both the east and west sides of the house have cross gables forming hip-gable roofs and attic-story jetties as described for the front elevation. Both sides have the same brick, stucco and false half-timbering wall cladding described previously. The south or back side of the house is more utilitarian in appearance. Although the same materials are used, the false half-timbering lacks the diagonal half-timbers found on the other facades. The south side also has a semi-hexagonal, one-story bay with three windows. A soldier course of brick encircles the house at the second floor level.

Interior

The interior of the Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House has been changed and modernized some over the life of the house. The current owners made repairs and did some remodeling in 1988. Much of the work was necessary to restore the house from damage it received while being used as a rooming house. The current owners returned the house to its original function, that of a single family residence. Most of the historic fabric, however, is not only intact but visible. The space provided by the large rooms has not been altered by creating smaller rooms. The house features 11-1/2″ ceilings on the first floor level and 9-1/2″ ceilings on the second. Most of the rooms have original wooden moldings and original hardware on the wooden interior doors. The original hardware includes glass door knobs and brass keyholes. Lighting fixtures, including sconces, were installed in original locations. Some rooms contain original plaster moldings. The current owners have added wooden crown moldings in some rooms. Most walls and ceilings throughout the house are of plaster. The current owners carefully restored and repaired damaged plaster themselves. Sheetrock was used only when the plaster was beyond repair. Hardwood flooring is used throughout the house with the exception of the bathrooms, the kitchen and the breakfast area. Original hardwood flooring was replaced only if it had been damaged beyond repair. The kitchen and the breakfast area have new black and white tile flooring.

The front door opens to an arched foyer. The small foyer has an arched window on the east wall. The foyer opens to a central hall that separates the living room (located to the west side) and a sitting room (on the east). At the back or south end of the central hall, an arched opening leads to the stair hall. The arched opening is flanked by Corinthian columns set on built-in cabinets. Each cabinet has a patterned glass door.

The stair hall contains a U-shaped stairway leading to the second floor. Beneath that stairway, a steep, narrow stairway leads to the basement. There is a closet and a half-bath at the east end of the stair hall. The half-bath contains new fixtures. It does, however, retain one original and unusual feature. The door to the half-bath is a narrow door constructed of six clear glass lights over a wooden panel; a curtain provides privacy. The deeply carved newel in the stair hall is topped with a realistic human figure of metal that is wired to be a lamp. The stair rail is curved and molded to fit the hand while the balusters are simple rectangular pieces of wood. Some balusters do not extend from step to handrail and form a repeating pattern of voids.

There is a small sitting room located on the east side of the central hall. French doors, each composed of ten lights over a single wooden panel, can be closed to provide privacy. Located on the west side of the central hall, the large living room (approximately 24′ by 16′) fills the northwest corner of the first floor. The living room has a fireplace on the west wall. The classically-inspired fire surround features a raised and carved oval ornament set on a raised center block. The bottom of the fire shelf is trimmed with a large dentil molding. Fluted columns, raised on plinth blocks, flank the fire opening. Most of the original fire tiles were broken or missing; the current owners covered the remaining tiles with marble. A door on the west wall leads to the enclosed side porch. French doors on the south wall of the living room open to the dining room.

The rectangular dining room occupies the southwest corner of the first floor. It has a single door on the east wall leading to the breakfast area; this area is brightened by the windows surrounding its semi-hexagonal bay. Original pantry cabinets and drawers occupy most of the North wall of the breakfast area. Two original, narrow swinging doors, leading to the stair hall, complete the north wall. A door on the east side of the breakfast area leads to the kitchen. The kitchen cabinets were installed by the current owner. The design for the cabinets is copied from an original cabinet now stored in the basement. The old-style, glass-paneled doors of the cabinets provide a reminder of early kitchens. Fixtures in the kitchen are new. A door on the south wall of the kitchen leads to the enclosed back porch. This area has been converted to a laundry area and mud room. The beveled board ceiling is original although the beaded board used on the walls is new.

The enclosed side porch, located on the west or Lafayette Avenue side of the house, is floored with quarry tiles like those found on the front terrace. The ceiling is covered with beveled boards. Thresholds to the porch are made of copper. Modern double glazing, with simulated divided lights, has been added to convert the room for year-round use and to make the house more secure.

The Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House has only one stairway to the second floor. That open staircase climbs in a U-shape from the previously-described stair hall to the second floor. A large window has been installed on the level of the stair landing to replace an earlier exit. The stairway ends in a center hall on the second floor. Doors to the four bedrooms, the bathroom, the linen closet, and the attic open from the center hall.

The largest bedroom is located in the northwest corner of the second floor. It has a fireplace with a classical fire surround similar to the one in the living room. The fire surround lends an air of formality to the room. It lacks the carved oval ornament and columns of the one in the living room. This fire surround does have fine molding, engaged pilasters and a fire shelf with dentils. As in the living room, the current owners covered the broken and missing fire tiles with marble. This bedroom has an unusual storage area. A horizontal cedar storage unit, shaped like a rectangle, slides through the wall into an open space under the stairs to the attic. This bedroom ceiling was damaged so badly that sheetrock had to be used to replace the plaster. The current owners added wooden crown molding as well. A door on the east wall leads to a full bath; it has been remodeled and has new plumbing fixtures.

A door on the south wall of the largest bedroom opens to a bedroom that occupies the southwest corner of the second floor. This smaller bedroom is filled with light from the groups of windows that line the south and west walls of the room. It has a cedar lined closet. This room also has a door on the east wall leading to the center hall.

The southeast corner of the house has the smallest bedroom. This small room has the original plaster walls; however, the ceiling is covered with sheetrock. Like the other bedrooms, it has original flooring, hardware and windows.

The northeast corner of the second floor has a large bedroom. The entry to the bedroom has an arched opening to the door swing area. A window seat that opens to reveal a storage area is located beneath the corner window on the south wall. The painted wood is curved and decorated with recessed panels.

The center room on the south side of the second floor is a bathroom. It has a single window on the south wall. The fixtures, including the rolled-top bathtub, are period pieces installed when the room was remodeled. A door on the north wall of the center hall opens directly to a steep flight of stairs to the attic. The bottom of the door has been shaped to receive the bottom step. The attic retains its original shape; however, it has been converted to a bedroom and a bathroom. Walls of sheetrock cover the rafters. The columns in the attic replace the original wooden support posts.

The basement of the house is divided into several small rooms. Walls of the basement are constructed of smoothfaced brick. The windows that provided light have been bricked up for security. The stair to the basement is a steep rough wooden affair. In the southeast corner of the basement, there is a small half-bath. Although the door is missing, the basic plumbing is still in place. Apparently, it was the servant’s facility. A gas-fired unit has replaced the coal-fired furnace. The original doorbell system is still in place in the basement.

Conclusion

The Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House is an intact example of an Eclectic House built in the Tudor style. The interior finishes and decorative details of the Bishop Edwin D. Mouzon House are well-conceived and constructed of good materials. The exterior has survived with original materials and few changes other than the application of paint. The house can provide valuable insight into one style of house that became popular in Charlotte’s first streetcar suburb, Dilworth.

 

NOTES

¹ Virginia & Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York, 1986), 355.

² Ibid., 319.

³ Ibid., 354-371.

⁴ Ibid., 356.