This report was written on 4 May 1990

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the McNinch House is located at 2727 Sharon Lane in Charlotte, NC.

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

William J., Jr., and Mary Ellen Wortman
2401 Sharon Lane
Charlotte, North Carolina

Telephone: (704) 365-3293

Tax Parcel Number: 183-012-04

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 this property is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 3759 at page 746. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 183-012-04.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Ms. Barbara M. Mull.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Mr. Joseph Schuchman.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets criteria for designation set forth in NCG.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 McNinch House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:
1) the McNinch House was constructed in 1925 for Frank Ramsay McNinch, one of North Carolina’s most prominent political figures;
2) while mayor of Charlotte, Mr. McNinch guided the city into the Commission form of government and curbed the bloody streetcar strike of 1918;
3) while serving two United States presidents in Washington, D.C., Mr. McNinch filled various high ranking positions including that of President Roosevelt’s representative to the World Power Conference at the Hague;
4) the McNinch House later served as a home for the family of C. P. Street of the prominent construction firm, McDevitt and Street;
5) the McNinch House is an excellent example of the Colonial Revival style of architecture that flourished following the restoration of Mount Vernon;
6) the McNinch House is an example of the early 20th century country estates that lured Fourth Ward residents from the downtown area;
7) the irregular chimney, with two windows in it, is a unique feature; and
8) the McNinch House serves as a focus on Sharon Lane and a reminder of an earlier era.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Ms. Barbara M. Mull which is included in this report demonstrates that the McNinch 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 improvements is $197,140. The current appraised value of the 3.1 acres is $167,400. The total appraised value of the property is $364,540. The property is zoned R15.

Date of Preparation of this Report: 4 May 1990

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

Telephone: (704) 376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview  

Barbara M. Mull

In the mid-1920s when Frank Ramsay McNinch (1873-1950) commissioned Thies-Smith Realty Company to construct the house at 2727 Sharon Lane, he envisioned practicing law in Charlotte and living in the quiet of the country, surrounded by great oaks and peach orchards he had cultivated since purchasing the 43.4 acre tract of land in 1913. At the time the house was built Frank McNinch had no way of knowing that he and his family would be able to enjoy living in their new home for only a few years, and that after 1930 he would spend the rest of his life in Washington, D. C., as a high ranking government official appointed by both Republican and Democratic Presidents.³ For thirteen years the McNinches kept the house, but their visits to Charlotte were confined to holidays and vacations.⁴

The Mount Vernon-styled house Frank McNinch built for his family was impressive with its stately columned veranda stretching across the full length of the front of the house. This feeling of spaciousness was continued inside the fourteen-room residence when the architect designed the entrance hall and adjacent living and dining rooms with only Corinthian columns defining the end of one area and the beginning of another. French doors on either side of the living room fireplace opened into the sunroom, while another door led into the study. The large dining room, complete with fireplace, easily seated sixteen to twenty people. Beyond the dining room was a breakfast room, kitchen, pantry, and two small rooms. A staircase near the service area led to the basement and laundry facilities.

Upstairs there are five bedrooms, a sewing room, and two baths. Both of the end bedrooms on the front of the house have fireplaces, and the bath in the master bedroom has a unique feature, a window which extended into a portion of the chimney. The attic, which was reached from a full-sized stairway from the second floor landing, was well-lighted and provided a large storage area. To reach the widow’s walk on the roof, it was necessary to stoop low and pass through a trap door, but the view from that vantage point was said to be magnificent.⁵

The grounds on the property were beautifully landscaped with an abundance of flowers, shrubs, and trees of many verities. Beyond the garden at the rear of the house are servants’ quarters and a two-car garage. A large red barn and a cottage were located further back on the McNinch land. Landscaping plans had originally called for formal gardens, a swimming pool, and a greenhouse, but before those things could be completed the family made the move to the nation’s capital.⁶

Political involvement had become a tradition in Frank McNinch’s family, beginning with his father, Franklin Alonzo McNinch (1841-1893), a South Carolina native who fought in the Civil War. Frank McNinch’s mother was Sarah Virginia Ramsay (1842-1898) from Rowan County, in North Carolina. Franklin Alonzo McNinch settled his family in Charlotte in 1866, and over a period of twenty-five years he held many public offices in the city. For three terms he served as Charlotte’s chief of police, and he was a highly respected trial justice for fifteen years. The old Pioneer Fire Company elected him as its first chief, and later he was elected chief of the Volunteer Fire Department.⁸ In 1883 a statue was placed in Elmwood Cemetery near the entrance gate as a memorial to Charlotte’s firefighters. It was made in Italy by craftsmen who worked from a photograph of Franklin Alonzo McNinch, who had been chosen by his fellows for this honor.⁹ His last post of public service was that of superintending the city quarry, where he expanded operations and increased productivity dramatically.¹⁰ Part of the legacy Franklin Alonzo McNinch left his children was the example he set in making decisions based on principles, regardless of the personal price involved.¹¹

In later years the McNinch family made their home on N. Poplar Street and the four McNinch children grew up there. Franklin Alonzo McNinch’s sons, Frank Ramsay and Samuel Sylvanus (1867-1929), followed their father into politics. During the period 1905 to 1907, S. S. McNinch was mayor of Charlotte. He served a number of terms as a member of Charlotte’s board of aldermen. Businesses he founded were the S. S. McNinch Real Estate Company and Charlotte Brick Company. Franklin Alonzo McNinch’s daughters married men who became pioneer builders in Charlotte. May McNinch (1879-1974) married Frank Brandon Smith and became prominent in civic, cultural, patriotic, and social organizations where she provided outstanding leadership for sixty years. When she was president of Charlotte’s Council of Parent-Teacher Associations, May McNinch Smith was one of the first women to speak to various groups in support of teaching the Bible as literature in the public schools, an issue which was not at all popular at the time. Her sister, Virginia Juanita “Nettle” McNinch (1868-1912), married Oscar J. Thies, a mining engineer who later founded Carolina Realty Company, Thies-Smith Realty Company, and Thies Realty Company. Nettie McNinch Thies was described as “high spirited,” with a sweet disposition, and as an accomplished pianist of concert quality. Her early death cut short a life already deeply involved in the betterment of Charlotte.

The McNinches, with their close-knit family ties and staunch Presbyterian background, produced in Frank Ramsay McNinch one of North Carolina’s most prominent political figures. Young Frank McNinch was educated in Charlotte schools and attended Barrier’s Military Institute. In 1900 he received his law degree from the University of North Carolina and returned to Charlotte to practice law. The year his brother became mayor of Charlotte, Frank McNinch was elected to the state House of Representatives. Twelve years later, in 1917, Frank McNinch was elected to the mayoral office and found himself faced with the difficult task of guiding the city through the years of the first World War and into the new Commission form of city government. When a bloody streetcar strike occurred in 1918, Mayor Frank McNinch authorized a group of citizens as special police officers and charged them with restoring order. A recall campaign was launched against him, but rather than destroying his political career, the vote added to McNinch’s reputation as an effective administrator.¹⁵ After his election to a second term as mayor, Frank McNinch resigned in 1921 to become the regional representative of the National Recreation Association. Charlotteans have ranked Frank McNinch as “one of the city’s ablest and best mayors of this century.” He was recognized as “a man of exceptionally keen intellect, diligent, energetic and virile, a fluent and forceful speaker, a gifted writer, a most attractive personality, and withal a man of high ideals.”

A Presbyterian elder, teacher of the Men’s Bible Class at Second Presbyterian Church–and a “dry”–Frank McNinch led the 1928 opposition to Al Smith, the Democratic Party’s nominee for president and a “wet” who promised repeal of Prohibition. McNinch stumped the State for Herbert Hoover, and the Republicans carried North Carolina for the first time since the Civil War. In 1930 President Hoover appointed the independent Democrat, Frank McNinch, to a seat on the Federal Power Commission as the Democratic party member, and he was confirmed by the Senate after heated opposition from North Carolina Democrats. Although McNinch rejected his party’s nominee in 1928 and actively campaigned for Hoover, he remained a Democrat and did not leave his party. When Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to the presidency, he named Frank McNinch as Chairman of the Federal Power Commission, where he served from 1933 to 1937. This placed McNinch in the middle of the controversy over the Tennessee Valley Authority. President Roosevelt had a great deal of trust in Frank McNinch’s judgment and leaned heavily on him for guidance in matters of public power policy. It was McNinch who was Roosevelt’s representative to the executive council of the World Power conference at the Hague.

In 1937 a controversy began to brew over at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and President Roosevelt sent one of his best trouble-shooters, Frank McNinch, over as chairman. Time magazine’s cover story of May, 1938, on Chairman NcNinch of the FCC, called McNinch “a small but fearless Presbyterian Elder,” a man who had “lots of political nerve.” When Roosevelt sent McNinch over to the FCC to untangle the problems in its administration, Time says that McNinch took immediate and decisive action: “Within the first few months of his FCC Chairmanship, Mr. McNinch served notice on lobbyists that their visits and pleadings to Commissioners would receive the fullest publicity. He brought the Commission up to date on its hearings, eliminated departmental divisions, which caused the dismissal of a friend of Jim Farley, a relative of Justice Black and the nephew of Sam Rayburn.”¹⁹ Being one of Roosevelt’s “troubleshooters” and working under constant pressure took its toll on McNinch’s health. In 1939 he resigned the chairmanship to accept less taxing duties as Special Assistant to the Attorney General, a position he held until his retirement in 1946.²⁰

Frank McNinch and his wife, Huldah (1894-1969), chose to remain in Washington after his retirement. They were married in 1917 when she was a young school teacher and he was mayor of Charlotte, a widower with three small children. Frank McNinch’s first marriage, in 1905, was to Mary Groome (1880-1915), a writer whose poetry was well known in North Carolina. Huldah Groome McNinch and Mary Groome McNinch were sisters, daughters of Dr. P. L. Groome, a prominent clergyman in the Methodist Episcopal Church South. Frank and Huldah McNinch’s two children, Robert and Huldah, were living in Washington. Frank, Jr., Mary, and Ariel, children of Frank and Mary Groome McNinch, were located much nearer to Washington, D. C. than to North Carolina. By 1943, already in declining health and nearing retirement, Frank McNinch had to come to grips with the fact that he and his family had located permanently in and around the nation’s capital, and it was no longer feasible to keep the house in Charlotte.

During their years in Washington, the McNinches had rented the Sharon Lane house from time to time and in between tenants, his sister and her family–the Frank Brandon Smith ‘s–moved out of their house and into her brother’s place to take care of it and decide what should be done by way of repairs. The house was large, and the grounds, buildings, and peach orchards required a great deal of upkeep. May McNinch Smith’s daughter, Virginia Smith Johnston, still lives in the Charlotte area and enjoys talking about the many pleasant memories she has of those days. Frank McNinch corresponded frequently with his sister May over the years, and the two families spent Christmases together, with the McNinches returning to Charlotte or the Smiths making the trip to Washington. Any time Frank McNinch was in Charlotte on Sunday, the Men’s Bible Class at the Second Presbyterian Church expected him to teach the class. He found it quite difficult to sever his ties with Charlotte, and on the occasion of the house’s sale, he wrote to May, saying, “We hated to part with the house–many happy days were spent there. Many happy recollections cling to the lovely place, but we could never hope to live there again.”

Howard M. Wade, a manufacturer of bank and office furnishings, purchased the house in 1943 as a gift for his daughter, Isabelle Reynolds, and her family. The Reynolds adapted the house to their needs, replacing the Corinthian columns with squared doorways, making the sewing room into a bathroom, and building the bedroom fireplaces in flush with the walls and plastering over them. The Reynolds family settled into the house, but the marriage ended in a divorce, and the house was placed in a trust. Isabelle Reynolds later married Charles F. Bacon and the couple moved to New York, but the house was not closed. Mrs. Bacon kept it furnished and operating so Rosalie Reynolds, her daughter, could stay there when she visited Charlotte. In a recent interview, Mrs. Bacon talked about her years in “the house with the most beautiful view in Charlotte.” It was, she said, a lovely place and quite comfortable, but she finally decided to sell it because she had no plans for returning to Charlotte to live.

When C. P. and Ruth Street bought the house in 1959,²⁸ they had already reared a large family and had only one son at home, but they still needed a place with plenty of room to complement their lifestyle. One of the first things they did in making changes in the house was to create closet space at the rear of the front entrance hall and install a bath on the first floor. The middle bedroom on the second floor was turned into a customized dressing room. French doors in the living room were replaced by bookcases; the sunroom was greatly expanded, with entry rerouted through the study. The house, Mrs. Street said, was just right for them, and they spent sixteen of the happiest years of their lives there. Family gatherings were held in the sunroom; the dining room was so large it easily took care of the Street clan when they got together; and there was plenty of bedroom space when children and grandchildren came to visit. C. P. Street, of McDevitt and Street, especially enjoyed the gardens, and there was a wealth of vegetables and flowers grown on the place. The time came when the Streets felt that it would be better for them to move into an apartment, so they parted with the house with mixed emotions. Mrs. Street now lives within a few blocks of the house and passes by often. She says she hardly ever goes by 2727 Sharon Lane without thinking about how much she loved the place when she lived there. ²⁹

As a boy, Dr. William J. Wortman, Jr. used to ride his bicycle past the Mount Vernon-styled house and think about how much he would really love to live in a house like that. His boyhood daydreams about the place became a reality when the Charlotte obstetrician-gynecologist and his wife, Mary Ellen, purchased it in 1975.³⁰ During the eleven years the Wortmans have lived there, working on the house has been a way of life. Between the two of them, they have had the patience, talent, and mechanical expertise to do most of the repairs, remodeling, and refurbishing themselves. Although they have completed major projects, such as expanding the basement, installing a temperature-controlled wine cellar, and engaging a contractor to help incorporate the four small rooms and back porch into a well-equipped, contemporary kitchen, they continue to be involved in the process of adapting the house to fit the way they live.

Because they enjoy the back garden and yard, the Wortmans built a deck across the full length of the back of the house, complete with a Jacuzzi, which gives them a more informal and relaxed setting for entertaining in the summer months. In the dining room, the Wortmans comfortably seat as many as sixteen for formal dinners, but they also like to do casual entertaining in the newly completed kitchen. For these occasions, Dr. and Mrs. Wortman do their own gourmet cooking and bring carefully selected bottles of wine up from the racks in what they call “Bill’s special hideaway.” He keeps a wine diary, making careful notes about every bottle he opens. Actually, according to Mary Ellen Wortman, the diary has chronicled the history of their family life.³¹

When Bill Wortman walks through the house, he experiences a certain sense of satisfaction with the things he and Mary Ellen have accomplished, but he is also keenly aware of new projects he would like to begin. One of those is finishing off the attic and turning it into a third floor retreat or recreation area, maybe something for Richard, a son who is a third-year engineering student at Duke University. When Bill Wortman steps outside and looks across the lawn towards the winding drive leading up to the house with its ancient oaks, he wonders about the future of the place. He has a well-developed sense of the past and its importance to on-coming generations. In the house there is a subtle blend of the old and the new, but Bill Wortman sees that there is nothing subtle about the changes in South Charlotte and along Sharon Road and Sharon Lane. The house is located on three acres of choice real estate, and Bill Wortman thinks it ought to be allowed to remain there, safe from bulldozers and apartment complexes, a protected historic property.³²

 

---

NOTES

¹ Frank R. Thies, Sr., President of Thies Realty and Mortgage Company, letter to Barbara M. Mull, September 25, 1985 affixes the date the house was built as “the mid-1920s;” City of Charlotte Water Department records, May, 1925 show a tap was installed on the property; Earl S. Draper, Sr., Landscaping Plans, signed November, 1924.

² Deed Book 302, pages 552-553, February 21, 1913.

³ The Charlotte Observer, Editorial, October 13, 1984.

⁴ Virginia Smith Johnston, personal interview by Barbara M. Mull, February 8, 1986.

⁵ Dr. and Mrs. William Wortman, personal interview by Barbara M. Mull, January 30, 1986 Virginia Smith Johnston, personal interview by Barbara M. Mull, February 8, 1986.

⁶ Earl S. Draper, original landscaping plans, November, 1924, per Miss Huldah McNinch, Silver Spring, Maryland; Virginia Smith Johnston, telephone interview by Barbara M. Mull, February 14, 1986.

⁷ Obituary of Franklin Alonzo McNinch, The Charlotte Daily Observer, April 11, 1893, on file in the Carolina Room at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library, main branch at Tryon and Sixth streets. Virginia Smith Johnston, personal interview by Barbara M. Mull, February 8, 1986.

⁸ Obituary of Franklin Alonzo McNinch, The Charlotte Daily Observer, April 11, 1893.

⁹ The Charlotte Observer, July 26, 1980, article furnished by Virginia Smith Johnston with original photographs from which the statue of Franklin Alonzo McNinch was made.

¹⁰ Obituary of Franklin Alonzo McNinch, The Charlotte Daily Observer, April 11, 1893.

¹¹ Virginia Smith Johnston, personal interview, February 8, 1986.

¹² Obituary of Samuel S. McNinch, The Charlotte Observer, March 1, 1929.

¹³ The Charlotte Observer, “Women Builders of Charlotte,” undated article. The Charlotte News, “At 89, Mrs. Smith Is Belle of the Convention (DAR),” February 28, 1968.

¹⁴ Obituary of “Nettle” McNinch Thies, The Charlotte Observer, July 22, 1912.

¹⁵ TIME, The Weekly Newsmagazine, “FCC’s McNinch,” May 16, 1938, pp. 25-28. In this issue Frank Ramsay McNinch is the subject of Time’s cover story.

¹⁶ Obituary of Frank Ramsay McNinch, The Charlotte Observer, April 11, 1950.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ TIME, May 16, 1938.

²⁰ Commissioner Walker, Resolution offered to the Federal Communication Commission, April 21, 1950, in recognition of the service Frank R. McNinch gave to the FCC as its chairman during a crisis period, 1937-1939. A copy of the resolution was sent to his family.

²¹ Obituary of Mary Groome McNinch, The Charlotte Daily Observer, February 22, 1915; Obituary of Mary Groome McNinch, The Charlotte News, February 22, 1915; Virginia Smith Johnston, personal interview by Barbara M. Mull, February 8, 1986.

²² Charlotte City Directories, 1930-1943; Virginia Smith Johnston, interview February 8, 1986.

²³ Frank R. McNinch, letter to May McNinch Smith, at the time of the house’s sale (from May McNinch Smith’s private papers).

²⁴ Deed Book 1114, page 3, December 30, 1943; Isabelle Wade Bacon, telephone interview, February 3, 1986. Mrs. Bacon says positively the house was not empty between the time she moved to New York and the time it was sold–it remained furnished and was used from time to time by her family when they returned to Charlotte to visit. Another error connected with the house while Mrs. Bacon owned it is that she operated a dancing school there. The fact, Mrs. Bacon says, is that she lectured at schools, clubs, etc., across the South on folkdancing, and that she never taught dancing per se, certainly not in the house.

²⁵ Deed Book 1519, pages 263-265, September 10, 1951.

²⁶ Isabelle Bacon, telephone interview by Barbara M. Mull, February 3, 1986.

²⁷ Deed Book 2037, pages 397-398, January 5, 1959.

²⁸ Deed Book 2037, pages 587-589, January 9, 1959.

²⁹ Mrs. C. P. Street, personal interview by Barbara M. Mull, January 30, 1986.

³⁰ Deed Book 3759, pages 746-749, May 28, 1975.

³¹ Dr. and Mrs. William J. Wortman, Jr., personal interview by Barbara M. Mull, January 30, 1986.

³² Ibid.

 

 

Architectural Description  

Mr. Joseph Schuchman

The Samuel McNinch House is the notable seat of an early twentieth century landed estate. This Colonial Revival structure was constructed about 1925 ¹ by Samuel McNinch, a former mayor of the City of Charlotte. Situated at the apex of a graded drive, the house is significantly recessed from Sharon Lane. Although now surrounded by handsome suburban-style dwellings of more recent construction, the McNinch House recalls an earlier time when farmland dominated the immediate environs and the City of Charlotte was a distant car ride away. As the Queen City has grown, particularly in the past two decades, the surrounding land has become a prime commercial and residential area. The McNinch House and its immediate surroundings still retain the charm and character established by its original occupants.

The McNinch House clearly owes its Colonial Revival design to two strongly related historical movements, the restoration of George Washington’s beloved Mount Vernon and the reawakened interest in Colonial American art and artifacts brought about by the celebration of the United States Centennial in 1876. Mount Vernon was rescued from oblivion by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association in 1853. The house of the nation’s first president was so revered that the movement for its restoration attracted nationwide support despite growing sectional differences which ultimately led to Civil War. Following the rediscovery of colonial crafts and designs, Mount Vernon and other sites associated with the young American republic became the inspiration for numerous builders in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Across America, Mount Vernon has served as a model for numerous structures, from academic style mansions to humorously conceived “Colonial-inspired” roadside restaurants. Perhaps influenced by the historic romanticism associated with the man Washington and the era in which he lived, Mount Vernon became the leading prototype for Colonial Revival residential architecture. Stylistically, details were, for the most part, classically derived. A freestanding portico across the main facade was a typical element applied to larger residential structures.

 

---

¹The date of construction is strongly based upon the date of the issuance of a permit for sewer service. A permit for sewer service was issued on May 5, 1925, Permit Number 2402, Service Number 7880, Service Book 7001-9000, approximating the construction date, the overall appearance of the house and the year in which the land was acquired by Samuel McNinch were also taken into consideration.

---

This substantial house is of frame construction. Exterior elevations are weatherboarded. A gable roof covers the two and a story main block. Typical of the strong classical influence in the building’s design, the main facade is symmetrically arranged and presents a dignified street appearance. Side and rear elevations are less strictly arranged, the fenestration pattern being determined more by interior needs rather than the desire to create a balanced exterior appearance. Twelve/twelve and eight/eight sash are prominently used. Window openings are set in two part surrounds and are framed by wooden louvered shutters. The upper panel of each shutter displays a five pointed star and a quarter moon.

A two story porch shelters the front elevation. The first story of the main facade is five bays wide; six window openings punctuate the second floor. Red-colored bricks, laid perpendicular to each other, form a continuous V-pattern and serve as the porch floor. A series of six wooden piers support the flat-roofed porch. Each pier rests upon a molded baseboard and rises to a molded capital. The porch entablature is composed of a molded architrave, plain frieze and modillioned cornice. A Chippendale-style balustrade sits atop the porch roof. The underside of the porch roof is sheathed in tongue and groove ceiling.

The main entrance is centered on the front elevation and is set within an oversized Georgian surround. A handsome brass door knocker highlights the six panel entrance door. Five light sidelights, placed above a recessed molded panel, adorn either side of the entrance. Wood piers frame both sides of each sidelight composition. The piers feature recessed panels, rest upon molded bases and rise to a molded capital, the two center piers project beyond the line of the entrance wall. An entablature, composed of a three part architrave, plain frieze and a molded cornice, runs across the entrance bay; a simple angular pediment is set above the entrance door. Antique coach lamps, which were installed by the present owner, replaced existing brass lamps; these lights frame either side of the main entrance.

An irregularly-shaped chimney dominates the east elevation. The chimney is constructed of stretcher bond brick and rises to a corbelled cap; its south side presents a narrow paved shoulder while two wide paved shoulders highlight the north side. In its design, the chimney recalls the romantic motifs present in both the English Tudor and Colonial Revival styles. A 12/12 sash and 4/4 sash are each set into the chimney on the first and second stories respectively. Multi-paned transoms flank the chimney in the attic story.

On the west elevation, a one-story sun porch projects from the main block. The porch is original but was doubled in size by a sympathetically designed extension in 1956. A series of casement windows and entrance doors, on the front and rear elevations, punctuate the structure’s walls. Simple piers frame the openings. Windows are placed above recessed wood panels. A simple frieze and cornice, surmounted by a crown molding, encircles the porch. A Chippendale-style balustrade atop the roofline is similar to the entrance porch balustrade.

The porch largely covers the randomly arranged west side. An irregularly massed chimney with a north (left) shoulder is centered on the elevation and rises to a corbelled cap. As on the east elevation, multi-paned transoms in the attic story flank the chimney.

The rear elevation is asymmetrically massed, largely as a result of subsequent additions to the original exterior wall. The elevation, as originally constructed, may have presented a more balanced appearance. At the rear’s east end, a one story projection, which may have been original, was altered by the present owner; the entrance door was removed and the fenestration pattern was changed. A one story sun porch, which contains the sliding glass door rear entrance, was built by the present owner. The wood deck, which was constructed at the same time, features a Chippendale-inspired balustrade, an attempt to incorporate a decorative motif of the 1920’s structure.

Typical of the Colonial Revival residence, the interior detailing is elegant yet restrained. The interior has received some modifications, all in a manner in keeping with the houses original design. The first floor follows a center hall plan. The wide hall leads from the main entrance and terminates at the entrance to the kitchen. A handsome half-turn stair rises to the second story. Plain balusters, three per stair tread, support the molded rail. At the foot of the staircase, identical balusters, set in a circle, form the newel post; a lead crystal ornament sits atop the newel.

Two reception rooms, containing the dining room and parlor, open off the east (left) and west (right) sides of the hall respectively. Oversized oval arches originally defined the openings between the hall and the adjacent reception rooms. The arches were enclosed and replaced with the present rectangular openings in 1935. The center hall is ornamented by a molded two-part baseboard, plastered wainscot and a wide molded cornice.

The main rooms on the first floor carefully respect the Georgian ideal of symmetry. The focus of the dining room is the handsomely ornamented mantle. Centrally placed along the east wall, the mantle displays a plain frieze with circular insets at each end; the denticulated cornice is set beneath a molded shelf. Stately fluted piers, which rest upon molded bases, flank the mantle. Floral ornamented capitals support a wide molded cornice, which carries across the ceiling cornice. A paneled wainscot, which encircles the room, is set between a molded baseboard and a narrow molded chair rail.

Directly across the hall, the mantle in the spacious parlor is similarly detailed. Round arched openings, each with a central keystone, flank the living room mantle. These openings originally served as entrances into the adjacent sun porch and now contain similarly detailed bookshelves. These rounded openings originally echoed the oval opening between the center hall and the living room. At the rear (south) of the living room, a single door entrance provides access to the informal sitting room. A paneled wainscot, set between a molded baseboard and chair rail, highlights this simply executed-chamber.

The sitting room provides the only interior access to the sun porch. Vertical casement windows, which may have replaced screened openings, dominate the porch’s wall surface. A molded edge highlights the simple surrounds. A molded baseboard and cornice encircles the porch. Double door entrances, on the front and rear elevations respectively, are set on a direct access; paneled wood transoms are placed above each entrance.

The kitchen occupies its original location in the house’s southeast quadrant. The present owner has greatly expanded and modernized the kitchen; food storage and preparation facilities and a dining area are housed in a single room.

As is to be expected, the second floor is more simply executed. The main hall runs widthwise and is set perpendicular to the stair hall. Rooms are placed off the second floor hall. The second floor has undergone a variety of alterations resulting in changes in room size and configuration.

The attic is partially finished and is used primarily for storage. The unfinished basement contains service facilities; a small enclosed space houses the owner’s notable wine cellar. At the rear of the house stands a one story frame building which is believed to date from the mid-1920s; the structure contains a garage and a small servant’s residence. The present garage door was installed in 1985 and replaced a series of moveable wooden doors. An attractively landscaped yard surrounds the main house.

---

Erratum: page 13, paragraph 1- Mr. Schuchman reports that the McNinch House was built for Samuel McNinch; however, the Chain of Title (page 12) shows that the only McNinch to own the property was Frank Ramsay McNinch.

 

This report was written on June 8, 1989

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the McNeil Paper Company Warehouse is located at 305-07 E. 8th Street, Charlotte, NC.
2. Name, address and telephone number of the present owner of the property: The owners of the property are:

Claes C. Honig Rudy & Jacqueline Heer 311 E. 8th St. Charlotte, NC 28202

Telephone: (704) 376-0107

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: This is in the Mecklenburg County Deed Book 5871, page 837. The most recent deed to his property is #5871. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 080-043-15.
6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Mary Beth Gatza.
7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Mary Beth Gatza.
8. How property meets the criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S. 160A-399.4:

 

1. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the McNeil Paper Company Warehouse does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the McNeil Paper Company Warehouse is a good, primarily intact example of its genre; 2) the warehouse and its site reflect the importance of the railroad in the growth and development of Charlotte during the late-Nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries; 3) it is an integral component of a small enclave of industrial and warehouse buildings close to the center of Charlotte.
2. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Mary Beth Gatza, which is included in this report, demonstrates that the McNeil Paper Company Warehouse meets this criterion.
3. 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 “historic property.” The current total appraised value of the improvements is $29,370. The current appraised value of the .197 acres of land is $10,320. The total appraised value of the property is $39,690.

Date of preparation of this report: June 8, 1989

Prepared by: Mary Beth Gatza 2228-E East Seventh Street Charlotte, NC 28204

Telephone: (704) 342-2268

 

 

Historical Overview

 

The McNeil Paper Company Warehouse building is located in the First Ward section of Charlotte. During the later years of the nineteenth century, First Ward was a quiet residential neighborhood which bordered on the center of Charlotte. Over the years, as Charlotte has grown larger and larger, the area has changed in response to urban pressures. In the 1880s Southern Railway built a spur line along what was then called “A” Street, which fed into their main track, and to the freight depot nearby. After the track was laid, warehouse buildings eventually sprang up alongside it, as railroad frontage made the moving of large quantities of merchandise more feasible and economical. The McNeil Paper Warehouse building stands within a small enclave of warehouse buildings of this period, and serves as a reminder of the importance of light industry to the growth and development of Charlotte.

The lot (# 58 in Beers’ and Butler’s maps of Charlotte) was used for residential purposes during the late nineteenth century. Two large frame dwellings formerly stood just behind the warehouse (fronting Brevard Street) well into this century. One was torn down within the past fifteen years, and the other about twenty five years ago.¹ A one story frame house stood on the warehouse lot as late as 1911. It was replaced by this and the adjacent warehouse building sometime during the 1910s or early 1920s. The warehouse lot passed through various owners until it was purchased by the McNeil Paper Company in 1934.²

The McNeil Paper Company was a wholesale supplier of paper products, which included wrapping paper, paper bags, twine, and school supplies. Thomas C. McNeil served as president and treasurer, and Felix G. McNeil functioned as vice-president and general manager.³ No manufacturing of products took place here, since the business was a wholesale distributor. Merchandise was shipped in by rail, unloaded onto the platform at the front of the building, and then moved inside for storage. As orders were filled, the goods were packed inside the warehouse and loaded out the back door. Local deliveries were made by mule-drawn wagon in the early days; other orders were shipped by railway express throughout the state.⁴

As the business grew, more and more space was needed. An addition was built onto the rear of the warehouse during the early 1940s.⁵ Around this time, also, and opening was cut into the west wall which permitted access to the adjacent building. It appears that McNeil Paper Company was using space in that warehouse as well. The McNeil Paper Company carried on business in this building until 1949 when financial changes within the company necessitated a restructuring of the business. The property was transferred in bankruptcy proceedings in that year. Thomas C. McNeil, however, continued to operate a wholesale paper distributor out of the building, changing the name of the operation to the Industrial Paper Company. The Industrial Paper Company did not ever have legal title to the land or building.⁶

The Industrial Paper Company was both a large and a renowned operation until its demise in the 1960s. Since that time, various owners have used the building for general storage. The current owners are in the process of restoring the building and converting it for use as artists’ studio space.

 

Notes

¹ Interview with Stephen Davis, Charlotte, NC, June 1989.

² Sanborn Insurance Company Map, 1911. Mecklenburg County Deed Book 844, p. 148.

³ Charlotte City Directories, 1937.

⁴ Interview with Thomas C. McNeil, Charlotte, NC, June 1989.

⁵ Interview with Stephen Davis, Charlotte, NC, June 1989.

⁶ Interview with Thomas C. McNeil, Charlotte, NC, June 1989.

⁷ Mecklenburg County Deed Book 473, p. 49; Interview with Stephen Davis, Charlotte, NC, June 1989; Charlotte City Directories, 1950, 1960.

 

 

Architectural Description

 

Built during the 1910s or early 1920s, this building has always served as a warehouse. Of solid masonry construction, it is laid up in six-course common bond brick, with brick segmental arches over each door and window opening. It stands two stories tall, but is banked into its site, so that it gives the appearance of a one-story building from the front. The upper story opens out to a platform which is just above ground level. The platform, a concrete deck supported by brick piers, faces the railroad spur line which runs through the middle of the block. It was here that cartons of goods were loaded and unloaded. The facade features a centrally-placed double-wide doorway and two arched windows on either side of it. The doorway is now fitted with a modern garage door, and the four windows have been replaced with glass block (as a security measure). The facade of the building is topped by a simple brick parapet. The roof is not visible.

The east elevation faces an eleven foot alley. Full-sized windows overlook the alley on the second story, and smaller windows pierce the lower story. All of the windows have been rebuilt, using new glass but retaining as much of the original sash and frames as possible. All of the windows are fitted with iron bars. One bay of the east elevation has been altered; it was originally a window which was enlarged at some point, and then later bricked in. The west elevation of the building abuts another warehouse and is not exposed. At one time an opening was cut into this wall, giving access to the adjacent warehouse. It has since been bricked up.

The rear of the building has received an addition, probably in the early 1940s. It is laid up in five-course common bond brick, two stories tall and three bays deep. Industrial steel sash windows were used in the addition, both on the side and rear elevations. There are two windows and three doorways on the first story of the rear elevation. All of the doorways have been retrofitted with modern doors. The upper story windows in the addition (two on the side and one on the rear elevation) are small, half-sized windows topped by segmental arches.

The interior of the building is largely intact, although altered. It was originally a single open space on each floor, but interior partitions have been added on the second story of the original portion and on the first story of the addition. This breaks up the interior into three spaces on each floor. A stairwell has been cut through the floor of the older portion, beneath the original skylight. Previously, the only access to the upper floor was by a steep ladder or stair which led to a trap door in the ceiling. The skylighted space on the second floor retains the beaded board ceiling and wall surfaces. The floors throughout the building are constructed of three-inch thick splinted floorboards. The floors of the upper story are supported by 17 1/2″ beams which are braced and in turn supported by 7 1/2″ square posts. There is a poured concrete floor on the lower level. The interior walls are exposed brick, though traces of plaster remain in sections. A steel vault encased in brick sits tucked into the southeast corner of the older portion of the building. It may be original, but could have been added sometime after the initial date of construction.

Since the building was always a warehouse and not a manufacturing facility, no equipment is ever known to have been used there. There is a pit, however, in the rear addition, which was where the scale for weighing the paper products was located. There was a wooden chute which led down to it, and the paper was slid down from the second floor (where it would have been stored), weighed, loaded, and carted out the back door.

 

Note made July 22, 2014:  The McNeil Paper Company Warehouse building was demolished in 2010 to make way for the University of North Carolina at Charlotte’s Center City building (located at 320 East Ninth Street).  The Center City building opened for classes at the beginning of the Fall 2011 semester.  Designed by KieranTimberlake, the new structure features exterior glass walls individually tailored to the amount of sunlight, and cantilevered multi-story blocks which provide shade and give the building a distinctive look resembling a stack of books.

This report was written on June 1, 1977

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the McManaway House originally stood at 406 W. Trade St., the third dwelling on the north side of Trade St. east from Graham St. in Charlotte, NC. It now stands at 1700 Queens Rd. in the Myers Park section of Charlotte, NC.

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

David M. LaFave & Associates, Inc.
1900 Brunswick Ave.
Charlotte, NC

Telephone: (704) 375-9377

Robert Downie & Sally Cannon Saussy
2601 Roswell Ave.
Charlotte, NC

Telephone: 377-6154

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

4. A map depicting the location of the property:

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent reference to this property is found in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 3939 at page 288. The Parcel Number of the property is 153-063-05.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property:

Construction of the house began on the morning of Thursday, August 20, 1874, on a lot on W. Trade St. which Samuel Wittkowsky and Jacob Rintels, two prominent merchants, had purchased from Jacob Duls on December 30, 1873. In many ways this pretentious dwelling reflected the value systems and priorities which had shaped the careers of its initial owners. Both Wittkowsky and Rintels came to Charlotte in the mid-1850’s as young adults who had immigrated from Prussia. They met as co-workers for Levi Drucker, a leader of the local Jewish community and owner of a mercantile establishment. In 1857 the two men formed a partnership for purposes of opening a general store in Ellendale, a small community in Alexander Co., North Carolina. Their total operating capital was less than $500. The firm was dissolved in 1859. Jacob Rintels then moved to Statesville, NC., where he met Bettie Wallace, sister of one of his partners in a newly-established mercantile house with which he became associated in 1860. They were married the same year.

In 1862 Jacob Rintels returned to Charlotte and joined forces once again with Samuel Wittkowsky. The firm of Wittkowsky & Rintels, located on S. Mint St., prospered and soon became one of the major wholesale mercantile establishments in North Carolina. That the proprietors functioned effectively in this era of laissez faire capitalism is certain. Indeed, by the early 1870’s they belonged to the wealthiest elements in the community. Indicative of their economic prowess was their decision to expand into the retail market in 1874. They leased a building on W. Trade St. near the square and erected what many believed was the “most attractive sign in town.” The issues of the Daily Charlotte Observer began to feature a large advertisement on the front page which described the “new and desirable goods” that the firm received by railroad from New York.

Jacob Rintels was the more flamboyant and colorful of the two entrepreneurs. He obviously enjoyed the making and spending of money. Although he and Wittkowsky jointly owned the house and lot on W. Trade St., Mr. Rintels and his family lived in the structure. No doubt its imposing and stately appearance pleased the ego of a man who had come to the community as an almost penniless immigrant. Now in his late 30’s, Jacob Rintels had every reason to anticipate a bright and prosperous future. In early 1876 a daughter, Bessie, became the sixth child of Jacob and Bettie Rintels. The pattern of daily living at 406 W. Trade St., however, was decisively disrupted on the morning of June 13, 1876, when Jacob suffered a stroke and became completely paralyzed. He never recovered, dying on June 20, 1876, at the age of 40.

The Daily Charlotte Observer of June 21, 1876, announced that the funeral would take place at 9: 00AM the following day in “his late residence on Trade St.” It was an impressive ceremony. The local Masonic lodge, of which Jacob Rintels had been a member, formed a procession at the Masonic Temple Building and marched to the house, where Mr. Mendelssohn, Jewish Rabbi of Wilmington, N.C., conducted the service. After the ceremonies at the house a funeral cortege was formed, consisting of a line of carriages “nearly a mile long,” as well as a large number of mourners on foot. Internment was in “the Jewish Cemetery, about a mile and a half north of the city.” Business establishments throughout the community were closed on the morning of June 22, 1876, to honor the memory of Mr. Rintels. The Daily Charlotte Observer lamented his passing. Indeed, when first reporting his malady, the newspaper had stated: “Mr. Rintels is a valuable citizen, and Charlotte Cannot afford to lose him. It is hoped that he will soon be entirely well.”

Even more illustrative of his accomplishments was the fact that the Statesville American commented at length upon his career. (As reported in the Daily Charlotte Observer: “Mr. Rintels was noted for his business energy, having in that line no superior, and in connection with his partner, Mr. S. Wittkowsky, had founded one of the largest and most successful mercantile houses in the South, which has done more for the prestige of Charlotte than can well be estimated. In habits of business he was strict, in expenditures and deeds of kindness, liberal. In the community in which he resided, his place will be hard to fill, and can hardly be expected.”

Bettie Rintels lived in the house at 406 W. Trade St. until 1901, when she sold the property to B. D. Heath and Nettle M. Heath. Samuel Wittkowsky, who sold his interest in the property to Mrs. Rintels on January 22, 1878, moved into a house next door soon after Mr. Rintels’s death, probably so he could assist the widow and children of his deceased partner. Mr. Wittkowsky continued to be prominent in local business affairs until his sudden death by heart attack on the afternoon of February 13, 1911. In the mid-1890’s Mrs. Rintels hired Mrs. Lucy Nethers, and later Mr. William B. Gooding, to manage the structure as a boarding house, even though she and two of her daughters (Eugenia and Bessie) continued to reside there. It is reasonable to assume that this transformation resulted from the fact that Mrs. Rintels no longer needed the amount of space which she had required when all of the children had been young. In late 1900 or early 1901 Mrs. Rintels moved to New York City, probably to live with one of her sons.

On February 26, 1901, Dr. Charles G. McManaway purchased the house and lot at 406 W. Trade St. from B. D. Heath and Nettle M. Heath, the letter couple having acquired it from Mrs. Rintels on February 11, 1901. The structure continued to serve as a boarding house until 1911, when Dr. McManaway, having sold his previous home on E. 6th St., moved into the house.

Dr. McManaway was born in Bedford Co., VA, September 2, 1857, and received his medical training at Baltimore College and at the Medical College of Louisville, KY, graduating from the latter institution in 1883. He first practiced his profession in Franklin Co., near Louisburg, NC. On September 13, 1883, he married Miss Virginia Rella Harris of Wake County, who died in 1894. She bore him five children, three sons and two daughters. On May 9, 1900, Dr. McManaway married his second wife, Miss Josephine Pharr, daughter of Hugh Smith Pharr and Martha Means Pharr of Charlotte, NC. Born January 1, 1876, Miss Pharr graduated from Converse College in 1894. She had one child, Hugh McManaway, born in 1912.

Dr. McManaway lived at 406 W. Trade St. in 1911-13, sharing the house with several of his children, including his son, Charles R. McManaway, and his wife, Eloise Libro McManaway. By 1914 Dr. McManaway had moved to a house on Hawthorne Ln., an act probably prompted by the birth of his son, Hugh. His son and daughter-in-law continued to reside at 406 W. Trade St., where misfortune struck on April 14, 1914, when one of two infants (twins) was dead at birth. In 1916 Dr. McManaway moved the house to a lot on Queens Rd., which his wife had acquired on January 14, 1916, from the Stephens Co., initial developers of Myers Park. He, his wife, Josephine, a daughter by his first marriage, Moselle, and Hugh moved into the house in late 1916 or early 1917.

Like Jacob Rintels before him, Dr. Charles Gustavus McManaway died soon after moving into the house. In April 1917 he became ill. Since coming to Charlotte in 1890, Dr. McManaway had risen to the top of the medical profession of this community. Consequently, he received the best of medical care. His colleagues urged him to bring a specialist from New York City to diagnose his malady. An operation in September confirmed Dr. McManaway’s suspicions. He had cancer of the liver, a condition for which there was no cure. The Charlotte Observer described what followed: “Brave man and able physician that he was, he faced the inevitable with heroic courage, knowing only too well the physical agony that must be his before the end would come. Days and nights of excruciating suffering followed. His fellow physicians ministered unto him with heart and skill. Two weeks ago his condition became desperate, and from that time he literally died daily.”

Dr. McManaway died at home on February 15, 1918, with the members of his family at his side. Almost the entire membership of the Mecklenburg Medical Society attended the funeral at the house on February 16, 1918. Interment was in Elmwood Cemetery.

Mrs. McManaway and her son, Hugh, continued to live in the house at 1700 Queens Rd., until her death at 87 on February 11, 1963. She was the organizer of the Liberty Hall Chapter of the D.A.R. and a charter member of Myers Park Presbyterian Church. She is also buried in Elmwood Cemetery. Hugh McManaway lived in the house until early 1977, when he moved to the Green Acres Rest Homes at 9300 N. Tryon St.

On April 28, 1977, David M. LaFave & Associates, Inc., Robert Downie Saussy and wife, Sally Cannon Saussy, purchased the house. At this writing it is being refurbished.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains an architectural description 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. Historical and cultural significance: The McManaway House is historically and culturally significant for two reasons. First, the structure has architectural worth because of the quality of the interior appointments. Second, and more importantly, it is historically important because of its association with the early history of the Jewish community in Charlotte, NC.

b. Suitability for preservation and restoration: As mentioned above, the house is currently being refurbished. Moreover, the present owner intends to restore much of the original exterior, including the upper portion of the front portico.

c. Cost of acquisition, restoration, maintenance or repair: At present the Commission has no intention of purchasing this property. It assumes that all costs associated with renovating and maintaining the structure will be paid by the owner or subsequent owners of the property.

d. Educational value: The property has educational value because of its historic and cultural significance.

e. Possibilities for adaptive or alternative use of the property: Although the property could serve as an effective house museum, the Commission believes that it is best suited to continue to function as a residence.

f. Appraised value: The current tax appraisal of the structure itself is $640. The Commission is aware that designation of the property as a historic property would allow the owner to apply annually for an automatic deferral of 50% of the rate upon which the Ad Valorem taxes are calculated.

g. The administrative and financial responsibility of any person or organization willing to underwrite all or a portion of such costs: As indicated earlier, at present the Commission has no intention of purchasing this property. Furthermore, the Commission assumes that all costs associated with the structure will be met by whatever party now owns or will own the property.

9. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria established for listing in the National Register of Historic Places: The Commission believes that the property known as the McManaway House in Charlotte, NC, does meet the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. Basic to the Commission’s position is its understanding of the purpose of the National Register. Established in 1966, the National Register represents the decision of the Federal Government to expand its listing of historic properties to include properties of local, regional, and state significance. The Commission believes that the McManaway House is of local historic significance and therefore meets the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

10. Documentation of why and in what ways the property is of historic significance to Charlotte and/or Mecklenburg County: The McManaway House is historically important to Charlotte for two reasons. First, the structure has architectural worth because of the quality of the interior appointments. Second, it is important because of its association with the early history of the Jewish community in Charlotte, NC.

 

---

Bibliography

An Inventory Of Older Buildings In Mecklenburg County and Charlotte for the Historic Properties Commission.

Beers Map of Charlotte, 1877.

Charlotte City Directory (1875-76, p.72, p.89);(1879-80, p.86, p.101); (1893-94, p.116, p.119); (1896-97, p.155); (1897-98, p.114, p.231); 1899-1900, p.136, p.287); (1902, p.173 ; (1903, p.281, p. 488); (1910, p. 158, p.285, p.459); (1911, p.291); (1912, p.302) ; (1913, p. 291); (1914, p. 342); (1915, p.332, p.485); (1916, p. 317, p.620); (1917, p.360).

Daily Charlotte Observer (January 13, 1874, p. l,; (April 28, 1874, p. 1); (June 4, 1874, p. 1); (August 21, 1874, p. 1); (June 14, 1876, p. 1); (June 15, 1876, p. 4); (June 17, 1876, p. 4); (June 20, 1876, p. 4); (June 21, 1876, p. 1, p. 4); (June 22, 1876, p.47).

Estate Records of Mecklenburg County (Will Book K, p. 220).

Records of the Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office (Deed Book 4, p. 119); (Deed Book 9, p. 418); (Deed Book 156, p.81); (Deed Book 156, p.155); (Deed Book 276, p.38); (Deed Book 351, p.508); (Deed Book 3939, p. 2885).

Records of the Mecklenburg County Tax Office, Parcel Number 153-063-05.

Sanborn Insurance Maps of Charlotte (1885, p.2); (1896, p.2); (1900, p.9); (1905, p.12); (1911, p.3); (1929, p.412).

The Charlotte Observer (February 15, 1911, p.6); (February 17, 1918, p.12); (February 12, 1963, p. 9-B); (February 13, 1963, p. 11-A); (February 16, 1918, p. 8).

Vital Statistics of Mecklenburg County (Birth Book 1, p.4); (Death Book 1, p.939); (Death Book 3, p. 287).

Date of Preparation of this Report: June 1, 1977

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Director
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission
139 Middleton Dr.
Charlotte, N.C. 28207

Telephone: 332-2726

 

 

Architectural Description
Jack O. Boyte, A.I.A

When first built the house rested on a high foundation wall which enclosed a full, inhabited, cellar seen today the large square building rests on a low foundation and has an excavated, partial service cellar below ground. Originally there was a broad piazza across the front, supported by delicate posts. Centered in the front was a wide stair rising eleven steps from grade and flanked by solid stuccoed wing walls. Massive square pedestals anchored these wing walls at the ground and supported planters filled with lush greenery. The stair was abandoned when the house was moved, and now the piazza rests on grade one step above the yard. Surrounding the building the projecting roof is supported by a wide bracketed overhang. Here and there the frieze is dotted with cast iron medallions formed in stylized floral patterns.

An extraordinary balustrade enclosed the original piazza at the main floor with closely spaced, sturdy, turned balusters. Under a molded cap, this railing connected columns of typical Victorian elegance and set off the elaborate facade, which included paired windows in three panels on each of three floors. The projecting center panel provided a base for an elaborate mansard tower which rose high above a low, tin covered roof. With empire dormer windows centered at each side, this tower crowned the symmetrical front with extroverted elegance.

Windows on all floors are tall double units with single center muntins in upper and lower sash emphasizing vertical lines. Heads are all arched with plain stucco surrounds. On the second floor front, the center pair of windows has an extra dimension in height which creates access from the center tower to the piazza roof. Above these tower windows are arched molded bonnet heads with center garland cresting. At each side paired second floor windows have straight sided arches with molded architraves bent around curved heads, again with styled garland crests.

When the house was moved, the delicate balustrade was lost, as was the spectacular tower. In the new location Dr. McManaway replaced piazza roof supports with thick wooden Doric columns. In addition he had a narrow porte cochere at the left which connects to a side entrance. This roof is also supported by Doric columns which deny the Victorian-Tuscan origins of the first design. At the rear there is a substantial enclosed two-story wing added during the latter remodeling. On the right there is another small added wing which provides a bright, many-windowed sitting area adjacent to the original dining room. All of these additions are carefully stuccoed to match the original exterior wall finish window and door openings, however, are not arched in concert with the original openings, and the later windows have divided lights quite unlike the original center muntin vertical units typical of all Victorian modes.

The plan of this house is classically symmetrical. Center halls run front to rear on both floors. Opening to each side there are two huge rooms. At the left front downstairs is a lofty music room featuring a carved, brown and black marble mantel. There is no overmantel. Small white ceramic tile surrounds the fireplace opening, where a cast iron coal grate is installed. A narrow hearth consists also of small white ceramic tile. The entrance to this room and to a matching parlor at the right is through sliding paneled doors which roll into wall pockets. These doors tower ten or more feet above the floor, reaching nearly to the thirteen foot ceiling.

On the left a large bed chamber appears behind the music room. Here a simple oak framed mantel and overmantel encase a fireplace. The overmantel contains a wide beveled mirror. Typical of fireplaces in all rooms, there is a cast iron coal grate and an elaborate figured cast iron removable closer.

Across the hall and adjoining the front parlor is an even larger dining room where wall treatment is noteworthy. Surrounding the room are repeated panels of pressed leather, divided and cased with molded natural pine trim, all rising to a wide plate shelf six feet above the floor. This room also contains an oak framed fireplace with white ceramic tile trim.

In the wide center hall an imposing stairway rises in one run of twenty-four treads to the upper hall. From a massive carved mahogany first floor newel, turned balusters and a molded rail rise with the stair. At the second floor the stairwell is surrounded by a solid rail which is finished in repeated panels of wood trim and patterned wallpaper sections. The rail above this is unusually wide and of dark oak with the dating of age and wear clearly evident.

On the second floor there are four large bed chambers, each with a small coal burning fireplace trimmed with oak and small white ceramic tile. At each side these rooms connect through bath compartments where tub and lavatories were placed. There is one water closet for the floor located in a small hall closet at the rear of the center hall.

Important and delightful appreciation of the quality of work in the original house comes from the fine millwork throughout the interior. In each room door and window openings are trimmed with extraordinarily wide molded casing which forms fluted and reeded frames around each aperture. Windows in all rooms have wide extended lambrequin enclosures designed to receive full length, adjustable louvered blinds. At the floors the molded wall baseboards are wide and scaled correctly for the unusually high ceilings.

Throughout the interior on both floors the well preserved plaster wall surfaces are covered with varying patterns of early wallpaper. Reputed to be unique, these decorative papers are in fine condition and present a rare glimpse of Victorian decorative art.

This house has been preserved with obvious care and concern by the McManaway family reflecting much of the warmth and charm of Victorian architecture, the structure is an important segment in Charlotte’s architectural heritage.

 

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the McLaughlin-Bost House, located at 415 West John Street, Matthews, North Carolina.

 

2. Name and address of the present owner of the property:

 

Dixie Land Company LLC

PO Box 761

South Boston, VA 24592

 

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

 

4. Maps depicting the location of the property: This report contains a map depicting the location of the property.

 

5. UTM coordinate: 17 524848E 3886231N

 

6. Current deed book and tax parcel information for the property:

The Tax Parcel Number is of the property is 22702604.  Deed book number:  10848-835 (10/22/1999)

 

7. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property.

 

8. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property.

 

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

 

1. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the McLaughlin-Bost House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:

 

1)      The McLaughlin-Bost House, built ca. 1891, exhibits a high degree of integrity, and is distinctive in design from the other historic home in the Town of Matthews.

2)      Situated on East John Street, the McLaughlin-Bost House is a prominent component of the historic landscape of the Town of Matthews.

3)      The McLaughlin-Bost House was built by Joseph McLaughlin, a prominent Mecklenburg County businessman who was formative in the shaping of Matthews in the late 19^th century.

 

1. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association: The Commission contends that the physical and architectural description which is included in this report demonstrates that the McLaughlin-Bost House meets this criterion.

 

10. 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 total appraised value of the improvements is $89,800. The current appraised value of the land is $987,700. The current total value is $1,077,500.

 

11. Portion of property recommended for designation: The exterior of the house and the property associated with the tax parcel are recommended for historic designation.

 

Date of preparation of this report: March 2005

 

Prepared by: Stewart Gray and Dr. Paula M. Stathakis

Historical Overview

 

McLaughlin-Bost House

 

The land on which the McLauglin Bost House is located was once part of two parcels acquired by Charles Rhyon McLaughlin from T.A. Squires in the spring of 1891. These parcels, totaling 61 acres were purchased for $1245.00[1] Charles McLaughlin was the son of Joseph McLaughlin, a Charlotte businessman. Joseph McLaughlin was an early investor in Matthews’ newly developing commercial row. In 1880, he and J.T. Barrnett of Matthews became partners in the town’s first General Store, McLaughlin and Barrnett.[2] Joseph McLaughlin built the house for his son, and also built a house of the same plan, the Carpenter House, for one of his daughters. The companion house was located on the current site of Matthews Elementary School and was moved to a site across the street sometime before 1935.[3]

 

Matthews experienced significant growth in the late nineteenth century, all of it a result of the construction of a segment of the Central Carolina Railroad through the town. Prior to the arrival of the railroad, Matthews was a small crossroads community. The town was originally and informally known as Stumptown, because of the number of tree stumps left from its earliest construction projects. Stumptown acquired a Post Office in 1825 and the town named changed its name to Fullwood after the first postmaster John M. Fullwood. The area was settled by small farmers who raised cotton, corn and subsistence crops. Prior to the arrival of the railroad, Fullwood was also a stagecoach stop between Monroe and Charlotte.[4]

 

The tenor of the town changed irrevocably in 1874 with the construction of a rail line and a stop for the Central Carolina Railroad, placing Fullwood on the line between Wilmington and Tennessee. Railroad officials decided to rename the stop in honor of Watson Matthews, director of the Central Carolina Railroad. The first train blasted through town on December 15, 1874. By the 1920s, thirteen trains passed through Matthews every day. The water tank for the locomotives was located in an area that came to be known as Tank Town. Now known as Crestdale, the area is historically home to the Matthews’s African American population.[5]

 

The railroad connected Matthews with the outside world and brought new employment opportunities to local citizens, both black and white. The railroad offered unique prospects to the local African American population who were traditionally relegated to field labor and domestic service. The railroad offered steady employment, cash wages, housing, and later, insurance benefits.[6]

 

Railroads breathe new life into sleepy crossroads communities, and subsequent to the arrival of the Central Carolina, Matthews developed a with commercial purpose. Farmers had the means to send commodities to market and local entrepreneurs had the means to bring in merchandise and produce from other areas. A small commercial district developed near the railroad tracks by 1880.Within four years of the establishment of McLaughlin and Barrnette six other stores and a druggist joined them on commercial row. The 1889 Charlotte City Directory had an advertisement inviting investors to consider Matthews where land was cheap and prospects just beginning. By 1900, Captain T.J. Renfrow started his general merchandise business and in 1906, he built the town’s cotton gin behind his store. Matthews grew to the extent that it received its town charter in March 1879. The 1880 census shows 91 residents in the new town of Matthews.[7]

 

Charles Rhyon McLaughlin was a business and civic leader in Matthews. He married Mary Belle Grier, the youngest child of Eli Clinton Grier and Lydia Reid Grier. Eli Clinton Grier was a prominent farmer and entrepreneur in the Providence Township. His substantial property holdings were dedicated largely to the production of cotton. He is credited with the construction of the first spinning mill in Mecklenburg County. This enterprise, begun in 1874, had 350 spindles and operated for eighteen months.[8]

 

Charles and Mary Belle McLaughlin had three children, Charles Joseph [1891-1946], Mattie Grier [b. 1893], and Edmonia Martin [b. 1900]. Charles Joseph, or “Charlie Joe” as he was known about town, married Valeria Rippey Webster and they had no children. Mattie and Edmonia never married. Edmonia, Miss Monie, worked in the Mecklenburg County Deeds Office under John Renfrow who was the Register of Deeds.[9]

 

According to lifelong Matthews residents, sisters Margaret and Mary Louise Phillips, Charles McLaughlin’s daughter Mattie claimed she was born in the house. The date of her birth is 1893, and this ties the house, generally assumed to have been built in 1891, more concretely to a date in the early 1890s.[10]

 

During his lifetime, Charles R. McLaughlin was a prominent Matthews citizen. He was a merchant, the mayor of Matthews, and a tax lister for the Morningstar Township. He also donated land for the original site of the Matthews United Methodist Church, approximately 7/8 of an acre, on the corner of Charles and Ames Streets.[11] He and his wife also sold an acre of land to the Morningstar Township Public School Committee for one dollar.[12]

 

The McLaughlin family owned the house for a few years. Charles McLaughlin sold the house and 61 acres in 1900 to W.W. Alexander.[13] In 1912 Alexander deeded 27 ½ acres, the tract with the house, to his son-in-law, W.J. Bost. Bost was married to Alexander’s daughter Maggie and in the following year she acquired “the house and lot in Matthews” in his will.[14] The 1900 census describes Bost as a farmer.[15]

 

The property subsequently occupied by Ernest Harold Bost and his wife Sallie Q. Bost.[16] Harold Bost was employed by Southern Engineering. Sallie Bost, originally from South Carolina, taught second grade at Matthews Elementary School. Even during Harold and Sallie Bost’s tenure in the house, the town maintained a rural character. Like many of their neighbors, the Bosts had a large garden and they kept a cow in the rear yard.[17] Harold and Sallie Bost had no children.  After Harold’s death, Sallie Bost had a lifetime interest in the house.  The property passed from brothers Lloyd and Cliff Bost to Lloyd C. Bost Jr. who is the current owner of the property.[18]

 

 

Architectural Description

 

 

The ca. 1891 McLaughlin-Bost House faces roughly north and sits approximately 50’ from the busy West John Street, four blocks west of historic center of the town of Matthews.  The one-story house was built upon tall, closely spaced brick piers, and is protected by a low-pitched hipped roof.  The principle section of the house is three bays wide, and two bays deep, and appears to be rigidly symmetrical.  A low-pitched hipped-roof porch, covered with metal roof panels, spans nearly the entire width of the façade.  The porch roof is supported by four substantial chamfered posts, and two chamfered pilasters.  The posts and pilasters are connected by guardrails that feature diagonal pickets.  Dilapidated wooden steps lead up to the porch.  The porch shelters double front doors that are centered between tall window openings containing paired narrow double-hung four-over-four windows.   The front windows feature side-hinged screened shutters.  The most notable architectural feature of the McLaughlin-Bost House is the front doorway, which contains paired panel-doors with round-arched upper panels.  The door panels display notable relief and are framed with deep moulded trim.  The doors are topped with a transom featuring two horizontal oval lights.  The doorway also features double screen doors with sawn-work corner braces.  In contrast to the typical weather-board siding that covers most of the house, the wall sections sheltered by the front porch are clad by tongue-and-grooved boards, moulded with a corrugated pattern.

 

Detail of Front Porch	Side Porch

 

The McLaughlin-Bost House features a water table topped with a drip-cap, corner boards, and a wide freeze board below a boxed soffit.  The only element that breaks with the strict symmetry of the principal section of the house is the interior corbelled chimney which pierces the roof to the west of the roof’s peak.

 

East Elevation	West Elevation

The side elevations of the principle section of the McLaughlin-Bost House appear to be identical.  The front-most bays of the east and west elevations each feature a small hipped-roof porch sheltering a single door topped with a transom.  The side porches are supported by chamfered posts like those found on the front porch, and feature the same corrugated siding attached to the façade.  Each of the side porches is supported by a pair of brick piers.  No steps lead to the side porches.  The rear bays of the side elevations contain double-hung windows.

 

A hipped-roof wing, built on tall brick piers, extends from the rear of the principal section of the house.  The rear wing is not centered on the rear elevation of the principal section.  Although it is set back slightly, the narrow rear wing is aligned with the west elevation of the principal section.  The rear wing is two bays deep and features a tall corbelled chimney.  The west elevation of the rear wing features two double-hung windows.

 

Deterioration appears to be limited to the front porch.	Several outbuildings survive on the property.

 

The house suffers from some obvious wood deterioration that may be limited to the front porch steps and boxing.  Unlike the vast majority of Mecklenburg County’s historic houses that were built on piers, the McLaughlin-Bost House has never been underpinned.  The only major alteration to have affected the house is a block-construction bathroom attached to the rear of the south-east corner of the principal section of the house.  Several early 20^th century outbuildings survive, although their original usage is difficult to determine.  A large gabled shed sits to the west of the house.  A gabled building in poor condition sits directly to the rear of the house.

Carpenter House

 

Grier-Furr House – 500 W. John Street, Matthews	Reid House – 134 W. John Street, Matthews

In terms of the built historic environment of the town of Matthews, the McLaughlin-Bost House holds an important position. The massed, square plan of the house is at odds with the more traditional single-pile, or one-room-deep, houses that dominated Mecklenburg County’s landscape until the 1890’s.  The nearby ca. 1880 Grier-Furr House is an example of the single-pile design built in a T-plan, one of the last incarnations of the single-pile design.  In form, the McLaughlin-Bost House is more similar to the one-story, massed-plan Reid House.  But where the Reid house features a prominent corner tower and a wealth of decorative sawn-work details, the McLaughlin-Bost House exhibits distinctive but restrained decoration and symmetrical design.  Built by the same family, the Carpenter House appears to follow the same plan as the McLaughlin-Bost House.  The spacing of the fenestration and the roof design of the two houses are nearly identical.  However, having been moved and featuring a later Craftsman Style front porch, the Carpenter House does not exhibit the same high degree of integrity found in the McLaughlin-Bost House.

 

 

[1] Mecklenburg County Courthouse, Deeds 77-298 (March 2, 1891) and 77-286 (February 24, 1891). Deed 77-298 conveyed the land on which the house is located.

[2] Paula Hartill Lester, Discover Matthews. From Cotton to Corporate, (Town of Matthews Tourism Council: Herff Jones Publishers, 1999), p 9.

[3] Interview with Margaret and Mary Louise Phillips, March 4, 2005.

[4] Ibid, pp. 5-7.

[5] Ibid, pp, 7, 55-56.

[6] Survey of African American Billings and Sites in Mecklenburg County, Contextual Essay, Paula Stathakis and Stewart Gray, 2002.

[7] Ibid, pp. 7, 9-13.

[8] Survey and Research Report, The Sidney and Ethel Grier House.

[9] Hood, The Tunis Hood Family, p. 345; Interview with Talita Morgan, Historian for United Methodist Church of Matthews, March 2005.

[10] Interview with Margaret and Mary Louise Phillips; Dellman O. Hood, The Tunis Hood Family: Its Lineage and Traditions [Portland, Oregon: Metropolitan Press, 1960], p.345.

[11] Charlotte Observer, February 11, 1952, p. 8-A, “Charles McLaughlin, Matthews Pioneer Succumbs at 83;” Lester, Discover Matthews, p. 66

[12] Deed 129-306, April 9, 1898. This conveyance was valid as long as the land was used as a site for a public school.

[13] Deed 152-166, November 8, 1900.

[14] Deed 303-76, November 19, 1912; Will Book Q, p. 437. March 17, 1913, Will of W.W. Alexander.

[15] U.S. Census of the Population, 1900.

[16] Ernest Harold Bost was a son of W.J. and Maggie Bost.

[17] Interview, Margaret and Mary Louise Phillips.

[18] Deed 4496-624, December 28, 1981. Deed 10848-835, October 22, 1999 transfers the property into Dixie Land Company, LLC.

This report was written on November 20, 1998

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the S. Bryce McLaughlin House is located at 2027 Greenway Avenue in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

Munro B. & Belva H. Sefcik
2027 Greenway Avenue
Charlotte, NC 28204

3. Representative photographs of the property: This report contains representative black and white photographs of the property. Color slides are available at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission office.

4. Maps depicting the location of the property: This report contains three maps depicting the location of the property.

5. Current deed book reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 7483 on page 827. The tax parcel number of the property is #127-046-09.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural background and a physical description of the property.

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 S. Bryce McLaughlin House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:

1) The S. Bryce McLaughlin House was built by S. Bryce and Bertha Dotger McLaughlin in 1911 on a portion her family’s land. It is the only remaining historic structure associated with the Dotger farm, which stretched between Caswell Road and Briar Creek.

2) The S. Bryce McLaughlin House predates, and is therefore the earliest house in, the Rosemont section of Charlotte’s historic Elizabeth neighborhood.

3) The S. Bryce McLaughlin House, a one and one-half story shingled bungalow, is a genuine Craftsman House and a good example of the style. It was built from a plan that was published in 1908 in The Craftsman magazine, and is thus the product of the legendary furniture designer and architect Gustav Stickley. There are no other known Stickley designs among the designated Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association: The Commission contends that the physical and architectural description which is included in this report demonstrates that the S. Bryce McLaughlin House meets this criteria.

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 total appraised value of the improvements is $ 182,200. The current total appraised value of the lot is $ 80,000. The current total value is $ 262,200. The property is zoned R-5.

10. Portion of the property recommended for designation: The interior and exterior of the S. Bryce McLaughlin House and its lot are currently being considered for designation.

Date of preparation of this report: November 20, 1998
Prepared by: Mary Beth Gatza
P. O. Box 5261
Charlotte, NC 28299

(704) 331 9660

 

 

Historical Overview  

Historical Significance

The S. Bryce McLaughlin House was built in 1911 by S. Bryce and Bertha Dotger McLaughlin on a portion of the Dotger farm. At the time, it was sited to face what is now called Caswell Road. During the mid-1910s, the house was picked up and turned around to face Greenway Avenue, which was still undeveloped at the time. It is the earliest house in the Rosemont section of Charlotte’s Elizabeth neighborhood, and is the only remaining residence associated historically with the Dotger farm (which stretched from Caswell Road to Briar Creek).

Land History

At the turn of the twentieth century, the land surrounding downtown Charlotte was overwhelmingly rural. Andrew J. Dotger owned a farm where the Rosemont section of Elizabeth now stands. Andrew Dotger was originally from the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area, and ultimately returned to the northeast. During his stay in Mecklenburg, however, he purchased three tracts on Monroe Road in the 1890s.¹ Together they totaled 89 acres and included an old plantation house on Monroe Road.² It is unknown whether Andrew Dotger ever resided in the house, but what is known is that by 1899, he had left Charlotte and settled in Essex County in northern New Jersey.³

“Because of my love and affection,” Andrew J. Dotger granted a life estate⁴ to his brother, Henry C. Dotger (1862-1936), Henry’s wife, Bertha M. Dotger (1861-1932), and their heirs. In the deed, Andrew stated that Henry, Bertha and their survivors “may occupy and use the said plantation as a home” rent free (provided they pay the taxes) “as long as they…may elect to live upon the said place.”⁵ Andrew’s gift of tenure to his brother was not without conditions. Andrew was specific on a number of points, as follows: 1) The title to the land would transfer to the children of Henry and Bertha Dotger upon their deaths 2) “No partition of said land nor any sale thereof shall be made…until the youngest child shall arrive at the age of twenty-one years…” 3) “Upon my death…the title to the said land shell vest in the executor of my will to be held by him…” In making these stipulations, Andrew effectively prevented Henry from controlling the future disposition of the property.⁶

By the first decade of the twentieth century, Charlotte’s urban development pressed outward, inching closer and closer to the Dotger Farm. Dilworth, Charlotte’s first suburb, had opened in 1891, and various other neighborhoods around town experienced their genesis within the next two decades. Four of the five developments which make up the neighborhood now called Elizabeth were started in the decade surrounding the turn of the century. They are: Highland Park (Elizabeth Avenue), 1897; Piedmont Park (Sunnyside Avenue, Central Avenue), 1900; Oakhurst (Bay Street, Hawthorne Lane), 1903; and Elizabeth Heights (East Eighth Street, Clement Avenue), 1904.⁷ The fifth and final section, Rosemont, was yet to be.

In 1907, the boundaries of the burgeoning city of Charlotte were extended in all directions, greatly enlarging the size of the city. To the southeast, the city line now came right up to Henry’s side yard (near present-day Ridgeway Avenue), and included a portion of the Dotger land. Henry, no doubt, was aware of the development opportunities and the potential for profit therein. Due to the terms of the life estate, however, Henry’s ability to sell the land was restricted, forcing him to petition the courts for permission to subdivide. The Mecklenburg Superior Court ruled in January 1912 that the land could indeed be sold. The court order reads, in part, that “the interest of all parties concerned would be materially enhanced if the lands…were sold…”⁸ Purchase offers were already pending for three tracts in 1912. One offer was from S. Bryce McLaughlin for .45 acres near what was then described as the intersection of East Sixth Street and Old Monroe Road (now Greenway Avenue and Caswell Road).⁹

The deed to the McLaughlin property was not in fact delivered until 1915. The reason for this delay is unclear. A court document dated October 1915 authorizes again the sale of “the said property to the said Bertha Dotger McLaughlin, wife of S. Bryce McLaughlin…” This document mentions that “the said lot has a residence upon it of the value of about $5000.00 which was erected…by the said S. Bryce McLaughlin at his own cost and expense with the understanding…that a deed to said lot would be made to him or his said wife at a fair price when the same could be done legally…” The deed was finally executed on October 20, 1915, to a home that the McLaughlins had lived in for four years.¹⁰

Later sections of this same court document address the lots and houses of two of Bertha’s sisters. Freda L. (Mrs. A. W.) Burch and Anna C. (Mrs. W. C.) Kirby both had homes on East Seventh Street that they desired legal title to. In both sections, the legal language and the description of the house is the same as for the McLaughlin House. In both cases, the court ordered the sales–for the Burch House in 1919 and for the Kirby House in 1920.¹¹ Neither house is still standing.

Rosemont Company

The Rosemont Company incorporated on February 20, 1915. 1,250 shares of stock were authorized, valued at $100 each (total $125,000). There were seven original stockholders, who divided 500 shares unequally among themselves. They were: George W. Watts (200 shares); G. C. White (100 shares); C. B. Bryant (50 shares); Cameron Morrison (50 shares); W. S. Lee (34 shares); Z. V. Taylor (33 shares); and E. C. Marshall (33 shares). The Rosemont Company was empowered to do the following:

1) buy and sell land
2) lay out lots, block and streets
3) own, construct, sell or lease buildings
4) buy and sell their capital stock
5) enter into contracts
6) issue bonds

No doubt the Rosemont Company was created specifically in order to develop the Dotger farm, because they purchased the remainder of the Dotger tract in March of 1915, and made no other major purchases. Since they paid $110,000 for the land, they apparently were able to sell more shares or otherwise raise capital quickly.¹²

Developing the Dotger tract took the Rosemont Company a good six years. The earliest plat on file in the Mecklenburg County courthouse is dated May 1921.¹³ By then the development was officially named “Rosemont.” The map is labeled as a revised plat, implying that an earlier plan existed. Research done in the 1980s states that a map was drawn in 1913 and another in 1916. The 1916 plat, which has never been found, was reportedly drawn by noted landscape architect John Nolen,¹⁴ who designed Independence Park (1905) on East Seventh Street and was chief planner of the Myers Park neighborhood (1911). Earliest lot sales in Rosemont, as listed in the deed indexes, were in March of 1921.¹⁵

Greenway Avenue was created in the 1910s. The first mention of it in the city directories is in 1916, at which time it was named as the address for the S. Bryce McLaughlin House. Although the house had been standing since 1911, it had originally faced Monroe Road (now Caswell Street). It was moved sometime between 1914 and 1916–it was reportedly lifted and rotated on its site to face the new and as-yet-undeveloped Greenway Avenue. No other houses show up in the city directories on Greenway Avenue until 1923/24, at which time seventeen addresses were listed. Thus, the S. Bryce McLaughlin House stood alone facing Greenway between the time it was moved in the mid-1910s and 1923–almost ten years.

Henry Dotger Family

Henry Casper Dotger (1862-1936) was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on September 12, 1862. It was there, presumably, that he met and in 1884 married another Philadelphian, Bertha Marie Shutt (1861-1932). They arrived in Charlotte in the 1890s and by 1899 were settled on the Monroe Road tract of land Dotger’s brother owned. Henry worked the land as a dairy farm and raised his family there. Four of the Dotger’s five children made the move to Charlotte with their parents, the youngest child was born here. The children were: Freda (1885-1973), Anna (1887-1953), Frederick (1888-1969), Bertha (1886-1919) and Dorothy (1901-1989).¹⁶ Fred became a dairy farmer in his own right, leaving the family land but remaining in Mecklenburg County. All four daughters attended Elizabeth College in Charlotte. At that time, the college was located at the end of Elizabeth Avenue at Hawthorne Lane (now Presbyterian Hospital), and thus was within walking distance for the girls.¹⁷

Freda Dotger (1885-1973) was married twice–first in 1908 to Albert Waterman Burch (1861-1924), and second to Charles R. Nisbet (1871-1943) in 1931. Together A. W. and Freda had two daughters, and built and lived in a house (no longer standing) on East Seventh Street and Caswell Avenue.¹⁸

Anna Dotger (1887-1953) was well-educated–she attended Swarthmore College and Columbia University before returning to Charlotte to teach at Elizabeth College. She married William C. Kirby (1872-1967), and they built and resided in a home next to her sister, Freda, on East Seventh Street near Caswell Avenue. This house is no longer standing. Anna and William Kirby had three children, a son and two daughters.¹⁹

Dorothy (1901-1989), the youngest daughter, achieved success as a professional golfer. She married Richard Thigpen, and had three children with him.²⁰ Together they resided in the Dotger farmhouse after the death of Henry and Bertha Dotger.

Bertha Dotger (1886-1919) chose for her husband Samuel Bryce McLaughlin (1886-1969). They were wed “on the lovely green in front of her father’s house” on May 24, 1911. The “beautiful setting” was “redolent with the fragrance of honeysuckle and magnolia;” the ceremony itself was “marked with charming simplicity.” At the time, the bride was described as “cultured and charming,” “gifted with beauty of face and grace” and “exceedingly popular.” After the “elegant reception” at her parent’s house, the couple departed for their honeymoon to three northern cities–New York, Philadelphia and Washington, DC.²¹

In preparation for their life together, Bryce and Bertha built a house in 1911 on her family’s land. Their wedding announcement in the Charlotte News mentioned that after their honeymoon “they will occupy their pretty new bungalow near the Dotger home.”²² Bryce and Bertha built from a plan that had been published in The Craftsman magazine in December 1908. They sited the house facing, yet well back from, what was then called Monroe Road (now Caswell Road). Just a few years later, in the mid-1910s, they turned the house to face what was to become Greenway Avenue.

S. Bryce McLaughlin Family

S. Bryce McLaughlin was the son of Margaret Gillespie and John B. McLaughlin (1855-1937). J. B. McLaughlin served as alderman for the city of Charlotte for fourteen years, and as chairman of the board of county commissioners for four years. Bryce was well-educated–he attended Baird School for Boys, Brown University, Davidson College, and Erskine College. Upon the occasion of his marriage, it was said of Bryce that he was “of Mecklenburg traditions and inherits with them the characteristics of his forebears–high integrity, honor, strong convictions and close adherence to principle.”²³ Years later, his daughter would describe him as “a wonderful man,” “stately,” “dignified,” and very “knowledgeable.” She remembers him as “loving” and extremely kind to others.²⁴

As a young man, Bryce McLaughlin worked in his father’s store, Cochrane & McLaughlin Company, on College Street. Bryce was listed in the city directories at various times as salesman, bookkeeper or manager. At some point, he shifted careers and went into real estate loans and insurance. He is known to have worked for the Federal Land Bank (Columbia, SC) from 1917-1919, and for the State and City Bank and Trust Company (Richmond, VA) from 1922-1924.²⁵ Although it involved much travel away from his family, McLaughlin stayed in this line of work for many years. He employed a housekeeper who lived in the house and helped look after the children.²⁶ Bryce McLaughlin died at home in 1969 at the age of 83.

Bryce and Bertha McLaughlin had three children: S. Bryce, Jr. (1914-1921), Harry (1916-1989) and Bertha (b. 1919). Bryce died at age seven of spinal meningitis. Harry graduated from Davidson College in 1938, fought in World War II, worked for the post office, and served as a church elder. He lived in Waxhaw at the time of his death in 1989.²⁷ Daughter Bertha eventually married and moved away. Young Bertha never knew her mother, because, tragically, Bertha, Sr. died only hours after giving birth to her only daughter.

Bertha’s death on February 12, 1919, at age 28, was sudden and unexplained. The newspaper reported that it “was a shock to scores of friends.” She was described as “delightful in personality and possessing of the love and esteem of many friends.” Her obituary further noted that “she loved the home life and was a devoted mother.”²⁸

Bryce McLaughlin mourned the loss of both his eldest son and his wife. Eventually, though, he got remarried to Miss Anne Graham Kyle (1895-1973). They were wed on April 15, 1927 at her father’s home near Lynchburg, Virginia. She reportedly hailed “from families widely known in this section of Virginia” and was a graduate of Agnes Scott College in Decatur, Georgia.²⁹

After graduating from college in 1917, Anne relocated to Richmond, Virginia, where she worked for the YWCA in 1917 and 1918. She then moved to Charlotte, where she remained in the employ of the YWCA from 1918-1921. She was active in the Daughters of the American Revolution both here and in Virginia. She died on May 6, 1973.³⁰

After the death of Anne McLaughlin, the S. Bryce McLaughlin House passed to Bryce’s surviving children, Harry and Bertha, who sold the property in 1973. It passed through a succession of owners between 1973 and 1993 when it was purchased by the current owners.

 

 

Architectural Description  

Gustav Stickley

Gustav Stickley (1858-1942) was one of eleven children born on a farm in Wisconsin to Leopold and Barbara Stoeckel. The family moved to Pennsylvania in 1874 or 1875, and there Gustav began the first phase of his career–making furniture. For the next decade and a half, Stickley produced and sold wooden furniture, working at times with various partners, including an uncle and a brother.³¹ From these inauspicious beginnings, Stickley would parlay his interest and experience in furniture design into an historic empire. Within two short decades, the name Gustav Stickley would become synonymous with the Craftsman Movement, which had a major impact on early-twentieth century furniture, decorative arts, textile design and architecture.

Arts & Crafts Movement

By the end of the century, Stickley had developed an active interest in the Arts & Crafts Movement, which had enjoyed a steady following in England since the 1860s. Proponents of the Arts & Crafts Movement argued for a departure from the fussy, mass-produced, and often poor-quality objects that were abundant during the Victorian era. They desired, instead, a more prideful, professional approach to the decorative arts, such as was found in the medieval crafts guilds.

After a trip to Great Britain in 1898, Stickley expressed the design ideals and philosophy of the Arts & Crafts Movement through his furniture. He abandoned the standard ornate Victorian motifs and constructed furniture that was simple, robust and straightforward. His designs were unique and represented a complete departure from all that was popular at the time. “Craftsman” was the name he gave to his style, though it is sometimes generically referred to as mission furniture. Stickley stamped or labeled each piece with his own maker’s mark–a drawing of a medieval joiner’s compass and the motto “Als ik kan” (as I can).

The Craftsman

In 1901, Stickley created a magazine with a dual purpose–to preach the Arts & Crafts philosophies and to market his own furniture. The premier issue of The Craftsman appeared on October 1, 1901. The magazine was widely distributed and proved to be immensely popular. During its fifteen-year run, The Crafstman magazine featured articles on many diverse topics, but always retained its focus on Arts & Crafts ideals. The magazine was so influential that eventually the Arts & Crafts Movement came to be called the Craftsman Movement.

It was only natural that Stickley’s interest in home furnishings would expand to include architectural design. In August of 1902, the first house plan appeared in the pages of The Craftsman magazine. In mid-1903, he hired two professional architects, Ernest G. W. Dietrich (1857-1924) and Harvey Ellis (1852-1904), and published plans in the magazine for the first of many “Craftsman Houses.” In November of 1903, The Craftsman readers saw the introduction of the Homebuilder’s Club. In this program, subscribers could order any published house plan free of charge. The Homebuilder’s Club was so successful that it remained active for the remainder of the magazine’s run. Stickley boasted in 1915 that over $20 million dollars worth of Craftsman homes had been built that year across the United States and in such far-flung places as Fiji.³²

Craftsman Houses

At the turn of the century, a brand-new house type, called a bungalow, was on the horizon. The bungalow represented a radical change from Victorian architecture not just stylistically, but also functionally. It was anticipated that the modern twentieth-century family would not rely as heavily on domestic servants, and would lead a less formal lifestyle than their parents did. Voices of progressive reformers, feminists and home economists were all calling for a new, modern, efficient home environment. Bungalows were thus streamlined and designed to make housework simpler and easier. This was achieved, in part, by building smaller houses with fewer, larger rooms and by opening up floor plans. Architects strove to minimize clutter and dust-catching surfaces. They dispensed with elaborate moldings and woodwork, and reduced the need for free-standing furniture by incorporating built-ins (bookcases, cabinets, seating, dressers, etc.). This new approach to domestic architecture fit nicely with the Arts & Crafts ethic, and Stickley quickly gravitated toward it.

The bungalow aesthetic included simple lines, low-pitched gable roofs, engaged porches (where the porch is sheltered by the main roof, with no change in pitch), dormers and grouped windows. Honest, natural materials were favored, especially wood, brick and uncut stone. Architects were not afraid to show construction details, like exposed roof rafter ends on the outside and boxed ceiling beans on the inside. Design lines were kept simple–straight lines and clean surfaces.

Stickley’s Craftsman houses, like his furniture, focused on strength and simplicity. He made full use of the bungalow vocabulary, and yet created plans with his own unique style. Believing that the hearth was the center of the home, Stickley’s plans featured predominant fireplaces, and he included fireside inglenooks wherever possible. Stickley’s hallmark was interior woodwork, virtually always stained in a dark finish. His designs included liberal use of door and window trim, hardwood floors, wainscoting, ceiling beams, staircases, and built-in furniture. He always drew clean, simple lines. The overall effect was richness without fussiness.

Stickley’s mating of the Arts & Crafts idiom with the bungalow house type was a success. He was not the first or only architect using the bungalow house type or the Arts & Crafts style. Stickley was, however, the most influential, since it was he who disseminated the Craftsman House across America. Through The Craftsman magazine, he brought his unique style to the forefront by giving it wide distribution. Never before had an architectural style been popularized in such a manner.

 

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

Architectural Significance

The S. Bryce McLaughlin House has architectural significance as a good example of a genuine Craftsman House with exceptional integrity. The one and one-half story wood-shingled bungalow was built in 1911 following plans printed three years earlier in The Craftsman magazine. The plan was published by Gustav Stickley, whose influential magazine, The Craftsman, popularized his unique Craftsman House style and ultimately spawned an empire revolving around Stickley’s own designs in architecture, furniture and decorative arts.

S. Bryce McLaughlin House

S. Bryce McLaughlin based his modern new home on a plan that first appeared in The Craftsman magazine in December of 1908. It was described there as “a roomy, inviting farmhouse, designed for pleasant home life in the country.”³³ Some minor modifications were made to the plan–namely McLaughlin’s choice to eliminate a fourth bedroom upstairs and to use the big room on the first floor (originally planned as a kitchen) for living space and build a smaller kitchen next to it, in an area that had been planned as an outside kitchen. He also opted to reverse the plan, flopping it so the entry would be on the right instead of the left. Otherwise, the S. Bryce McLaughlin House is identical to the published plan.

The house is a one and one-half story bungalow with a low-pitched, side-gabled roof. A full-width front porch shields the entire facade, and is composed of a broad shed roof supported by tapered, square wood columns. Windows throughout the house are four-over-one double-hung sash, placed in groups. The facade wears two sets of two windows and a group of three windows. A very broad shed dormer pierces the roofline and holds similar grouped windows–two sets of two and a group of three. Exposed roof rafter ends delineate the eave line all around the house. The entry is located in the right (east) bay of the facade and features a wide, glazed front door. The exterior of the house is clad with wood shingles. There is a wide, brick exterior end chimney with gently sloping shoulders on the east side elevation.

The only modification to the exterior of the house in its eighty-seven year history is the enclosing of a screened porch on the left rear (northwest) corner. This was accomplished by using wood-shingled walls and one-over-one double-hung sash windows of a similar size and shape to the original. As a result, the alteration blends almost seamlessly with the original fabric.

On the interior, Stickley’s trademark emphasis on dark-stained woodwork is apparent. Every surface in the living room is trimmed in dark woodwork–the floors are hardwood, the ceiling in beamed, the walls are sheathed with board-and-batten wainscot. The same dark trim surrounds the doors and windows, including the panelled pocket doors to the dining room.

 

Dining Room
Built-In Window Seat

The central focus, of the room, however, is the fireplace inglenook at the left (east) end of the room. Here Stickley placed a brick fireplace in an alcove and surrounded it with built-in benches, creating a cozy, intimate space. Stickley favored enclosed stairways in his Craftsman Houses, and that inclination is seen here. The stair begins in the living room, takes a quarter-turn and rises up through the wall cavity to the second floor. There is no newel post or balustrade, but instead the stringer (the side piece of the staircase) extends upward high enough to function as a railing.

The second floor holds three rooms and a bath. Originally, there were three bedrooms, but the wall between the center room and the hallway was removed by previous owners. It is still a distinct room, but is now open to the stairway. The characteristic dark wood found downstairs is also repeated on the second floor in the panelled doors and trim. In the bathroom, the original clawfoot tub is still in place.

A few alterations have taken place on the interior since the house was built in 1911. They include: the addition of a few closets and a second bathroom; the removal of a wall on the second floor; and a kitchen remodeling. Virtually no original material has been removed.

A two-car garage stands to the rear of the lot (northwest corner). It is a rectangular frame building with a front-gabled roof and is covered with German siding. It is not thought to have been built at the same time as the house (1911), since it is positioned relative to the current, and not the original, siting. It is, however, thought to date from the repositioning of the house in the mid-1910s, and should therefore be considered contemporary with the house.

 

---

Notes

¹ Mecklenburg County Deed Book 104, page 122; Mecklenburg County Deed Book 110, page 306; Mecklenburg County Deed Book 134, page 497.

² In current terms, the Dotger house was located on East Seventh Street between Ridgeway and Laurel Avenues. Demolished in the 1960s, it is now the site of the Carolina Eye Associates building.

³ Mecklenburg County Deed Book 134, page 497.

⁴ A life estate is an arrangement where the first party gives the second party the legal right to occupy the property for the remainder of the second party’s life, without actually transferring legal ownership to the second party.

⁵ Mecklenburg County Deed Book 134, page 497; Mecklenburg Superior Court Civil Minute Book 18, page 175.

⁶ Mecklenburg Superior Court Minute Book 18, page 175; Mecklenburg County Deed Book 134, page 497.

⁷ Thomas W. Hanchett, “Charlotte and Its Neighborhoods: The Growth of a New South City, 1850-1930” (draft manuscript for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1985), pp. 5-11.

⁸ Mecklenburg Superior Court Minute Book 18, pages 174-78.

⁹ One offer was from the Sisters of Mercy for five and one-third acres (most likely the site of the present-day Mercy Hospital), and another was from a W. L. Nicholson for 1.87 acres on East Seventh Street.

¹⁰ Mecklenburg Superior Court Minute Book 24, page 75; Mecklenburg County Deed Book 351, page 188.

¹¹ Mecklenburg Superior Court Minute Book 24, pages 75-77.

¹² Mecklenburg County Records of Corporation, Book 4, pages 270-71; Mecklenburg County Deed Book 337, page 455.

¹³ Mecklenburg County Map Book 322, page 230.

¹⁴ Hanchett, “Charlotte and Its Neighborhoods” (draft), pp. 20-21.; Black & Black, “Elizabeth Historic District National Register Nomination,” p. 8.7.

¹⁵ Mecklenburg County Grantor Index, 1919-1936.

¹⁶ The Charlotte News, 11 October 1936, p. 1B; The Charlotte Observer, 11 October 1936, p. 1; The Charlotte Observer, 10 September 1932, p. 7; The Charlotte News, 1 January 1970, p. 4A.

¹⁷ Interview with Bertha McLaughlin Johnson, 25 October 1998.

¹⁸ The Charlotte Observer, 5 November 1924, p. 1; The Charlotte Observer, 6 June 1943, sec. 2, p. 1.

¹⁹ The Charlotte News, 19 October 1967, p. 8A.

²⁰ The Charlotte Observer, 5 October 1989, p. 9B.

²¹ The Charlotte News, 25 May 1911, p. 2.

²² The Charlotte News, 25 May 1911, p. 2.

²³ The Charlotte News, 25 May 1911, p. 2, The Charlotte News, 6 September 1969, p. 3A.

²⁴ Interview with Bertha McLaughlin (Mrs. Grant) Johnson, 25 October 1998.

²⁵ Charlotte City Directories, various years; The Charlotte News, 6 September 1969, p. 3A.

²⁶ Johnson interview, 25 October 1998.

²⁷ The Charlotte Observer, 3 June 1989, p. 12A.

²⁸ The Charlotte Observer, 13 February 1919, p. 5.

²⁹ The Charlotte Observer, 17 April 1927, sec. 2, p. 3.

³⁰ The Charlotte Observer, 9 May 1973, p. 18B.

³¹ Barry Sanders, A Complex Fate: Gustav Stickley and the Craftsman Movement (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996), pp. 4-9; Mary Ann Smith, Gustav Stickley, The Craftsman (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1983), pp. 1-7; Jeff Wilkinson, “Who They Were: Gustav Stickley.” Old-House Journal Vol. XIX No. 4. (July/August 1991), pp. 22, 24.

³² Sanders, Complex Fate, pp. 85-88; Smith, The Craftsman, pp. 45, 54-57, 77.

³³ Gustav Stickley, Craftsman Homes (NY: Craftsman Publishing Co., 1909; reprint ed., NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1979) pp. 52-3.