Click here to view photo gallery of the McAuley Log House

Tax Parcel Number 025-081-07

Deed Book 2198, Page 262 Zoning:    R15 Appraised Value: Land   (16.160 acres)

Improvements

Total:                         
$45,250
86,710
$131,960

6. A brief historical sketch of the property. This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Dr. William Huffman, Ph.D..
7. A brief architectural description of the property. This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Dr. Richard Mattson, Ph.D.
8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S.  16QA-40Q.5.
9. special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and /or cultural importance. The Commission judges that the property known as the Ephraim Alexander McAuley Farm does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following consideration: l) the Ephraim Alexander McAuley Farm represents the typical development of a Mecklenburg County farmstead in the early 19th and 20th centuries, 2) the ca.1780 log house is among the most intact of the ten similar log dwellings inventoried in Mecklenburg County; 3) the ca.1880 farmhouse is one of seven two-story log houses identified in the county and the only one erected after the Civil War; 4) the property contains several log building types and methods of construction; 5) John Ellis McAuley, son of Ephraim, was a well-known builder in the Hopewell and Long Creek areas (his buildings include the landmark, St. Mark’s Episcopal Church); 6) in an era of limited opportunities for women, Alice Eugenia Johnston McAuley, wife of John Ellis McAuley, successfully managed the farmstead, and 7) the property is a rare example of a Mecklenburg County farm held in the same family for three generations.
10. integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling., and/or association. The Commission contends that the architectural description by Dr. Richard Mattson which is included in this report demonstrates that the Ephraim Alexander McAuley Farm meets this criterion.
11. 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 $121,560. The current appraised value of the 32.96 acres is $92,290.    The total appraised value of the property is $213,350.   The property is zoned R15.

Date of Preparation of this Report: February 1990

Prepared by:

Dr. Dan L. Morrill in conjunction with

Nora M. Black

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission

1225 South Caldwell Street, Box D

Charlotte, North Carolina 28203

Telephone:   704/376-9115

Architectural Description:

Comprising two log houses, a complex of associated outbuildings of both log and frame, and about 14 acres of pasturage and cropland, the McAuley Farm represents the development of a typical Mecklenburg County farmstead in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and is therefore eligible under Criterion A (see Historic Context Statement – Post-Bellum Agriculture). The McAuley Farm is also significant under Criterion C for its illustration of traditional log building types and methods of construction. It is further significant under Criterion C for its expression of typical early 20th-century farmhouse architecture and outbuilding types in the county. The one-story, single-pen log house, said to date from ca. 1780, is among the most intact of ten one-story and story-and-a-half, single-pen log dwellings inventoried in Mecklenburg County. Said to have been the initial homeplace of Ephraim McAuley, the original owner of the McAuley Farm, this house retains its original basic form and one-room plan, as well as its original half-dovetail notching which is clearly visible behind subsequent weatherboarding. The interior includes exposed whitewashed log walls and original wooden flooring. Modifications which took place probably in the early decades of the 20th century, such as the frame shed-roofed rear addition and common-bond brick end chimney, do not obscure its traditional form, plan, and log construction. Rather, they typify changes that occurred to smaller log and frame dwellings county-wide during this period (Gatza 1987). The ca. 1880 McAuley farmhouse is one of seven two-story log houses identified in the county, and the only one erected after the Civil War. Although remodelled and expanded to the rear, and now aluminum sided, the house retains its original I-house form and central-hall plan (see Associated Property Type 1 – Houses – Log Dwellings). The principal renovation of this ca. 1880 house occurred in 1914, and many of the features added at this time survive to portray a middle-class farmhouse of this period in Mecklenburg County (see Associated Property Type 1 – Houses – Early 20th-century Small-Town Dwellings and Farmhouses). Designed and crafted by Ephraim McAuley’s son John Ellis McAuley, a local house builder, the wraparound turned-post front porch, mantels, doors, and staircase are notable features of this 1914 remodelling that survive essentially intact. The McAuley farm complex includes a ca. 1880 log corncrib and log barn that represent in their basic forms and half-dovetail notched construction outbuildings constructed of log in the county from the earliest period of white settlement to the early 20th century. They are basically intact vestiges of such log barns and cribs which once prevailed on farmsteads across rural Mecklenburg but which are now rare. The contributing early 20th-century frame auto garage and privy also represent in their forms and construction these buildings types as they appeared locally in this period (see Associated Property 2 – Outbuildings).

Historical Context:

In 1859, Ephraim Alexander McAuley (1826-1909) bought a 98-acre tract from Samuel Garrison for one thousand dollars, which began the since uninterrupted McAuley presence on this land that continues today.¹ The farm contained a small log cabin, which McAuley and his family lived in until they built a larger, two-story log house in 1881.² According to family tradition, McAuley preferred to build the house out of logs, even though such construction was long out of favor. The logs were acquired from a neighbor, Columbus McCoy (1834-1912), and with the help of other neighbors, the house was raised in April, 1881.³

The small log cabin was, according to family tradition, built in 1780, but this date cannot be independently verified. Although they are not clear, it appears from the deed records that the original owner of the site was either a James Sharpe, who acquired property in the area from 1794 to 1801 and is not otherwise identified, or John McKnitt Alexander (c.1733-1817), who sold 225 acres to Sharpe in 1801*

The year after he bought the 98-acre farm, E. A. McAuley is shown in the 1860 census records as having 2 horses, 2 milk cows, 1 other cattle and 5 hogs. He raised 117 bushels of wheat, 200 bushels of corn, 10 bushels of oats, 1 bale of cotton, 10 bushels of peas and beans, 20 bushels of Irish potatoes, 30 bushels of sweet potatoes, and produced 100 pounds of butter, 4 pounds of beeswax and 50 pounds of honey.5 Ten years later, his production was still quite similar. In livestock, he had 2 horses, 1 mule, 3 milk cows, 2 working oien, 5 other cattle, 7 sheep and 6 hogs; and produced 70 bushels of wheat, 300 bushels of corn, 30 bushels of oats, 3 bales of cotton and 6 pounds of wool.⁶ In both crops and livestock, this picture is typical for Mecklenburg County farmers in the post-bellum nineteenth-century (see Historic Contest Statement – Post-Bellum Agriculture).

At E. A. McAuley’s death, the farm passed to his son, John Ellis McAuley (1861 -1929)7 John Ellis was a well-known builder, master carpenter and toolmaker in the Hopewell area. He built a number of houses in the Long Creek community that are still occupied today; and also made the brick for, and constructed St. Mark’s Episcopal Church and its rectory.⁸ Taking great pride in his work, McAuley was meticulous about his tools, many of which he fashioned himself:

His tools were his great pride. They were stored in a special chest, which fit on the back of his wagon, and when the chest was loaded, it weighed five hundred pounds. Each tool was cleaned and polished and whetted… At the end of the day’s work, the tools were cleaned again, cared for like favorite friends, neatly laid in their places again in the chest.⁹

The wooden toolbox he carried with him on the back of his wagon is presently stored in the small log cabin.

Sometime in the 1890s, he moved in the two-story house to care for his father, and, on the senior McAuley’s death in 1909, inherited the family farm. In 1914, John Ellis made extensive changes to the two-story house, which is the appearance that it has today.¹⁰

Since John Ellis usually stayed with the family for which he was building a house, coming home only on weekends, and was not interested in farming, the farmstead was successfully managed by his wife, Alice Eugenia Johnston McAuley, who put five children through UNC-Chapel Hill.¹  After John Ellis’ death in 1929, Alice McAuley received a life estate in the farm, and at her death in 1960, Murray McAuley (1900-1982) received the newer two-story house and farm as an inheritance and Murray’s brother Cecil R. received the adjoining parcel that has the smaller log cabin.¹² Murray McAuley farmed the land, and in addition to raising cotton and corn, also had cows, mules and chickens. ¹³ The two-story house is presently owned by Evelyn R. McAuley, widow of Murray, and the adjoing parcel by Paulette McAuley, widow of Cecil R.

Although threatened by rampant development and an outerbelt highway route, the McAuley farm remains as a fragile example of a pre- and post-Civil War Mecklenburg County farm that has been in the same family for three generations.

Footnotes:

¹ Mecklenburg County Deed Book 42, p. 395.

²  Interview with Paulette (Mrs. Cecil R.) McAuley and Evelyn (Mrs. Murray) McAuley by Mary Beth Qatza, 1988.

³  lbid.

⁴  Mecklenburg County Deed Books vol.14, p. 190; 16, p. 137; 17. p. 783; 15, p. 27; 14. p. 333; and Vol. 17, p. 612.

⁵  1860 U.S. Census, Agricultural Schedules, Mecklenburg County, N.C.

⁶  1870 U.S. Census. Agricultural Schedules,     Mecklenburg County, N.C.

⁷E.A. McAuley is buried in the Gilead ARP Church cemetery. There is no record of the         transfer.

⁸  William H. Huffman. “A Historical Sketch of the St. Mark’s Episcopal                        Church,”

Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1983; Mary     Ellen Droppers. “John Ellis McAuley: craftsman-builder of Hopevell.” Mecklenburg Gazette. May 28, 1981, p. 16.

⁹  Droppers, cited above.

¹⁰  Intervievs vith Evelyn McAuley by Richard Mattson and William H. Huffman, 1989.

¹¹ Droppers, cited above.

¹²Mecklenburg County Will Book 19, p. 394; Deed Books 2148. p. 262 and 4407, p. 446.

¹³Seenote2.

This report was written on January 5, 1987

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Henry M. McAden House is located at 920 Granville Road, Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

David M. McConnell & wife, W. Ona McConnell
920 Granville Road
Charlotte, NC 28207

Telephone: (704) 333-8716

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 deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 2759, page 302. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is: 155-053-06.

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

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Thomas W. Hanchett.

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

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Henry M. McAden House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Henry M. McAden House, built in 1917-18, was the residence of Henry M. McAden (1872-1957), a leading bank executive and member of a family of important textile manufacturers in this region; 2) the present owner, David M. McConnell, has held many important public offices during his distinguished lifetime, including United States Ambassador to the United Nations in 1968-69; 3) the Henry M. McAden House was designed by Louis Asbury, an architect of local and regional importance; 4) the grounds of the Henry M. McAden House were designed by Earle Sumner Draper, a landscape architect of local and regional importance; and 5) the Henry M. McAden House is one of the older and more distinguished houses in Myers Park, an elegant streetcar suburb designed for the George Stephens Company by John Nolen, a nationally-important landscape architecture and urban planner.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description included in this report demonstrates that the property known as the Henry M. McAden 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 “historic property.” The current appraised value of the improvement is $249,240. The current appraised value of the 1.217 acres of land is $60,000. The total appraised value of the property is $309,240. The property is zoned R12.

Date of Preparation of this Report: January 5, 1987

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission
1225 S. Caldwell St.
Charlotte, NC, 28203

Telephone: (704) 376-9115

Dr. William H. Huffman

The McAden stands out as being different from many of the other large houses in Myers Park. Located at 920 Granville Road, it was built by textile man and banker Henry M. McAden in 1917-1918, and was designed by Charlotte architect Louis Asbury. The modified Roman and English country house with Roman Doric columns still retains a great deal of its original style, character, and detail.

Henry M. McAden (1872-1957) was born in Charlotte, and was one of the five survivng children of Rufus Yancy and Mary Terry McAden. His father, who had served in the state legislature from 1862-1867, and was Speaaker of the House in 1866, came to Charlotte in 1867 to become president of the two-year old First National Bank. In 1881, the elder McAden bult the McAden mills and McAdenville in Gaston County, and became involved in building the Atlantic & Charlotte Airline Railway, which was later absorbed into the Southern system.¹ Henry McAden was educated at the old Barrier School in Charlotte and Hampden Sydney College in Virginia. After graduation he became president of the Piedmont Fire Insurance Company and an official of McAden Mills. In 1907, Henry McAden became president of the First National Bank, a position he held from 1907 until the bank closed in 1930, and also succeeded as head of the McAden Mills.²

On April 2, 1902, the successful young man married Alice Broadnax Jones, the daughter of Col. and Mrs. Hamilton C. Jones of Charlotte.³ The newly married couple originally took up residence on Park Avenue in Dilworth, but shortly thereafter moved to 915 S. Tryon Street. From Tryon, the McAdens moved to 3 Elizabeth Avenue, then to the new Myers Park streetcar suburb about 1914, on a street originally known as Road F, later #6 Granville Road.⁴

Alice Broadnax Jones McAden, ca.1934 reprint of

wedding portrait in the Society section of the Charlotte Observer

The Myers Park subdivision is an outgrowth of a period of sustained prosperity for Charlotte that began in the 1800s and ran to the end of the 1920s, and the vision and enterprise of John Springs Myers and his son-in-law, George Stephens. Myers, who had inherited 306 acres south of town from his father, Col. W. R. Myers, in 1869, added to it over the following twenty years until he acquired about eleven hundred acres. He built a country house on the Providence Road about two miles south of town, and the idea began to form that someday his plantation might become a residential area in a park-like setting. George Stephens, a star athlete at UNC, came to Charlotte after graduation in 1896, and shortly thereafter became a successful insurance man, realtor, banker, and developer. In 1911, he formed the Stephens Company for the purposes of developing a new streetcar suburb, Myers Park, and acquired the necessary land from his father-in-law and adjacent landowners, particularly the McD. Watkins farm. To service the subrub, a new streetcar line was bult that went out form Elizabeth Avenue along the entry gates at Queens Road to Providence Road, where it turned to continue on just past Queens College, which Stephens had secured for Myers Park by outbidding his rival developers with offers of free land, streetcar service, and purchase of their old property.⁵

To design the layout of Myers Park, Stephens hired John Nolen, a Harvard-educated landscape architect and pioneer in town planning who had previously designed Independence Park for the City of Charlotte in 1907. Nolen laid out a suburb with gently curving streets, limited access, and a wide variety of careful plantings, which gave it a unique and much copied character that was most unusual for the time. To oversee the landscape development, Nolen sent associates from his office, the most important of whom was Earle Sumner Draper. Draper came to Charlotte in 1915 to carry out and modify Nolen’s plan, and also to provide a landscape design for individual buyers. Two years later, he started his own business and eventually became one of the country’s best-known town planners. He built his own Tudor revival house in Myers Park at 1621 Queens Road in 1923.⁶

Although Nolen designed the subdivision to include houses of different economic levels, many wealthy Charlotte families built large houses along the main boulevards and major streets; Henry and Alice McAden were among them. In 1916, they decided to build a large house next to the one they were living in on Granville. To design their grand new home, the McAdens commissioned Charlotte’s first professionally trained architect, Louis Asbury, on June 8, 1916.⁷ The son of S. J. and Martha Moody of Charlotte, he attended Trinity College (now Duke University) and graduated in architecture from MIT. After practice with some firms in New York City, Asbury returned to Charlotte in 1908 and launched a career which spanned nearly fifty years and included over one thosuand commisssions in the area. Among the many outstanding designes may be included the Old County Courthouse, the C. P. Moody and John Jamison houses on Providence Road, Myers Park Methodist Church, the Law Building, the Hawthorne Lane Methodist Church.⁸

During the first week in June, 1917, work began on the McAden’s new house, and it was probably late 1917 or early 1918 when it was ready for occupancy,⁹ but it took until 1920 before every last detail was completed, which included landscaping according to a design by E. S. Draper.¹⁰ The total cost of destruction is reported to have been over $150,000. The McAdens were very active in civic and social affairs, and the home became one of the city’s centers of hospitality.

Unfortunately for the McAdens, the Great Depression brought devastation in its wake. On December 4, 1930, the First National Bank was in default, and had to close permanently.¹² In 1935, the McAdens Mills also shut down because of a jurisdictional dispute between rival unions, and they did not open again until they were sold to the Stowe Mills of Belmont in 1939.¹³ In 1940, unpaid back taxes forced the sale of the Myers Park house, which was bought at auction by William Henry Belk of the Belk Brothers Department Store for $11,230.00. Belk conveyed the property back to Mrs. McAden, who in turn immediately reconveyed it to George M. Ivey, owner of Ivey’s Department Store, doubtless according to a prearranged agreement.¹⁴ Following the demise of his bank, Mr. McAden semi-retired, but he and Mrs. McAden continued to live in their Granville home until about 1942, when they moved to Cherokee Street in Eastover.

From 1948 to 1958, the McAden house was owned and occupied by Bessie Leslie, whose brother, also a resident of the house, donated the sedan chair of Queen Charlotte to the Mint Museum. Following her death, Carolyn Kirkpatrick Smith purchased the property, and in 1965, it was sold to the present owners, David M. and Ona A. McConnell.¹⁵ Mr. McConnell, an attorney, has a distinguished record of government, military, political and civic service. Prior to World War II, he served in various government legal positions, and during the war rose to the rank of colonel. He received, among other decorations, the Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, and attained the rank of Brigadier General in the North Carolina Militia. In 1968-9, he was a U. S. Ambassador to the United Nations and special adviser to the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Mr. McConnell has alos chaired the NC Board of Elections, the executive committee of the Mecklenburg County Demographic Party, been a member of the national platform committee of the Democratic Party, and served as an elector of the U. S. Electoral College. In Charlotte, he has also served on many civic and institutional boards.¹⁶

The McAden House is one of the unique features of Myers Park, which in itself has national historic importance, and its distinction as a Louis Asbury design with Earle Draper landscaping as well as its association with some of the city’s leading citizens make it fully worthy of historic designation.

Notes

¹ Robert A. Ragan, The Pioneer Cotton Mills of Gaston County, NC and Gaston County Textile Pioneers (Charlotte: n.p., n.d.); Samuel A. Ashe, Biographical History of North Carolina V, 198-202.

² Charlotte Observer June 23, 1957, p. 2D; LeGette Blythe and Charles Brockman, Hornet’s Nest (Charlotte: Charlotte Mecklenburg Public Library, 1961), p. 304.

³ Charlotte Observer June 23, 1957, p. 2D.

⁴ Charlotte City Directories 1902-1918.

⁵ Mary Norton Kratt and Thomas W. Hanchett, Legacy: The Myers Park Story (Charlotte: Myers Park Foundation, 1986), pp. 16ff; William H. Huffman, “A Historical Sketch of Queens College,” Charlotte Mecklenubrg Historic Properties Commission , 1984.

⁶ Legacy, cited above; William H. Huffman, “A Historical Sketch of the Draper House,” Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1983.

⁷ Architectural Job List, #229, Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

⁸ Information on file at Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission.

⁹ Charlotte Observer, June 10, 1917, p.14.

¹⁰ Interview with Ona McConnell, Charlotte, NC, November 21, 1986 with Louis Asbury on visit with McConnells, October 1966.

¹¹ Conversation with Louis Asbury, Jr. and Thomas R. Neukom.

¹² Charlotte Observer December 5, 1930, p. 1.

¹³ Ragan, cited above.

¹⁴ Mecklenburg County Deed Books 1026, p. 545; 1029, pp. 167, 168.

¹⁵ Mecklenburg County Deed Books 1341, p. 431; 2212, p. 13; 2759, p. 302.

¹⁶ Who’s Who in America, 1985 edition.

Thomas W. Hanchett

The H. M. McAden House is one of the finest architectural speicmens in Myers Park, Charlotte’s premier streetcar suburb. Designed by MIT-trained Charlotte architect Louis Asbury and built about 1917 by contractor J. A. Gardner, the two-story dwelling commands a tre-shaded site located on curving Granville Road near the center of the neighborhood. Scorning the earlier excesses of Victorian architecture, Asbury gave the house a clean rectilinearity influenced by English and Italian country-house design. Its smooth stucco exterior is embellished only with understated Roman Doric columned porches. The spacious interior features handsome mantels, a panelled library and a grand horseshoe stair. Louis Asbury used an open, flowing plan and abudnat windows to connect the interior with the grassy front lawn and rear Italian garden created by noted planner Earle Sumner Draper. The landscape design was a major one in Draper’s career, and was featured in the magazine Southern Architect in 1924. The residence and grounds have seen no major changes in their seventy-year existence.

Exterior

In massing, the McAden House is a rectangular block with its long side facing the street and with a smaller rectangular service wing projecting from the rear. The hip roofs are covered in green tile. Under the wide overhanging eaves the rafter ends are left exposed and cut in subtlely scalloped shapes for ornamental effect. Heavy square downspouts of copper or brass catch rainwater from the gutters and direct it towards the ground.

The front elevation is symmetrical, framed by massive stucco interior end chimneys. The second story has five window openings with double-hung six-over-one-pane sash and slender decorative shutters. At the center of the first story is a shallow one-story portico that shelters the entrance. The portico features two pairs of Roman Doric columns supportico a heavy cornice, all executed in masonry. The entry itself consists of “French” double doors, each with twelve square panes of glass, flanked by full-length sidelights and topped by a fan-light transom. On either side of the portico is a trio of French doors, highlighted by a label molding above the lintel. These doors, which open onto the front terrace, were designed to allow parties held inside in the dining room and living room to spill outdoors. The red-brick terrace extends the full width of the front facade.

An important part of Asbury’s design, as seen from the street, are the matching side porches. These heavy one-story flat-roofed structures echo the front portico with stuccoed Doric columns and chunky cornices. Between the columns, all is glass, divided into small-paned windows and doors and fan-light transoms just like the main entrance.

The side and rear elevations of the house incorporate the same elements as the front, but with less concern for symmetry. Windows are double-hung units with single-pane lower sash and either four or six panes in the upper sash. There are no decorative shutters, but the elaborate downspouts seen at the front are used here as well. French doors open from the library and from the south side porch onto a back terrace much like the front one. The projecting rear service wing is two stories tall and has a one-story extension (part of the original design) at its rear.

Inside the McAden house, architect Asbury was somewhat less restrained in his use of historical embellishment. The floorplan itself is simple and elegant. Much of the first floor is devoted to areas for entertaining. A grand hall forms the core of the plan. To the left of it, through a wide archway (with sliding pocket doors, believed to be mahogany) in the large living room. To the right, through a similar opening, is the equally large dining room. Somewhat hidden, to the rear of the living room, is the library. To the rear of the dining room are the pantries and kitchen. The focal point of the house is the grand stair which ascends dramatically from the rear of the hall. It rises three steps to a landing, then splits in two, forming a horseshoe rising to the second floor landing. Bedrooms, all interconnected, radiate from the landing.

The living room features panelled wainscoting and elaborate cornices with egg-and-dart molding. The original electric “candle” sconces still grace the walls. The south end of the room is dominated by an Adam style mantel executed in cream and sienna marble and carved with a relief of seven children at play. French doors which flank this fireplace lead to the south side porch, called the solarium. The solarium ceiling has two light fixtures of milk-glass and brass. One wall of the solarium is a huge fireplace with a heavy Neoclassical mantel said to be of carved granite (now painted white).

The dining room also has an egg-and-dart cornice and panelled wainscoting, but it also features molding applied to the upper walls in rectangular shapes. Sconces here are said to be brushed steel. The present crystal chandelier replaces a smaller original fixture. There is a second creme and sienna marble Adam style mantel, of somewhat different design. French doors flank this fireplace and open onto the north side porch, the breakfast porch. It is nearly identical to the solarium in its granite mantel and abundant windows. Only the hanging light fixtures are different, variations on the milk-glass and brass theme.

The library is panelled floor to ceiling in a dark wood believed to be mahogany. Built-in bookcases, perhaps five feet high with leaded glass doors, line three walls. At the north side of the library a door leads to a small hall, which holds closets, a telephone room (relic of the early years when only the wealthy had phones, and even they had only one in the house), and a bathroom. The bathroom is finished in the same manner that all the dwellings bathrooms are.

Tile wainscoting extends some seven feet up the walls to a line of molding. Similar molding frames and oval mirror over the pedestal sink. The toilet here (and those in most other bathrooms throughout the house) is of comparatively recent vintage.

The service areas behind the dining room begin with an extremely large butler’s pantry. Low cupboards topped by counters (updated with formica) line the walls. Above the counters are glass-fronted china cabinets. Near the center of the floor is a radiator-like cast-iron warming table, a common feature in expensive houses of that day. A hallway runs from the rear of the butlers pantry — past a food-storage pantry and a walk-in refrigerator room — to the kitchen. This space has been almost completely renovated over the years, and a wall has been knocked out to turn an enclosed north porch into a breakfast nook. But the kitchen still has the original servants’ call-box on one wall. On command from elsewhere in the house, numbers flipped down behind the glass to let servants known where they were requested. Behind the kitchen is an enclosed rear entrance and a large laundry room. One can return to the grand hall by means of a back hall leading from the kitchen. This space includes the servants’ stair to the second floor, and also a high-ceilinged drapery closet which still has its hooks for hanging unneeded curtains.

The grand hall has a dentilled cornice, sconces, and panelled wainscoting. Umbrella closets flank the front door. The wells were at one time lined from wainscot to ceiling with wallpaper painted in European landscape scenes. Today only two sections of this survive, now set off with frames of molding. The horseshoe stair at the rear of the hall appears to follow Adam style precedents. Slender turned balusters support the with balustrades. A tall rear window lights the stairwell, and walls are completely panelled in wood.

Upstairs, opening directly onto the landing, is a small front sitting room. Around the landing are the doors to the bedrooms. Three bathrooms link the bedrooms, and there are also a pair of rear “sleeping porches.” These many-windowed rooms were a favorite of health-minded Americans in the 1910s. At the north rear corner of the second floor, at the top of the servants’ stair, is a small corridor with doors to a walk-in linen closet and a separate ironing room which once had its own Paul Bunyanesque built-in ironing board.

The master bedroom is at the south front corner of the second floor. It has a delicate carved wooden mantel, a clothes closet with built-in drawers and a light (apparently original) that goes on when the door opens, and on the wall next to the bed the original push-button electric light switch plus an elaborate system of call buttons for servants. The adjoining bathroom has the tile and fixtures already described downstairs, plus a tub and shower designed for all-body spray. An interesting feature is the provision of two sinks and two oval mirrors for the convenience of the lord and lady of the house. The other bathrooms and bedrooms are similar (including lighted closets with built-ins) but smaller. In the north front bedroom is a notable milk-glass and brass ceiling fixture taken from a downstairs room and said to hwe been designed by Tiffany Studios.

The house has a large attic with plastered walls and abundant natural light. The plaster has deteriorated in recent years and has fallen away from the wooden lath. One section of the attic is a walk-in cedar closet, still sweet with the aroma of the wood. There is also a basement under the house. Under the main house it is excavated to nearly full height, and is filled with brick structural piers with florins of the living red clay. Under the service wing the basement is more fully excavated and fully finished with brick walls and concrete floors. Segmental arched doorways here lead to a workroom and to the furnace room, where there is a new furnace. Asbury designed the house with a built-in “central vacume” system, a popular house-cleaning tool among the well-to-do of that time. Piping throughout the house leads to a unit which still stands in one corner of the furnace room. Also extant under the service wing is the mechanism for the mechanical sprinkler system, a fire-prevention feature that presumably is still hidden throughout the residence.

Grounds

Earle Sumner Draper’s grounds for the McAden house featured a tree-shaded front lawn with a brick drive running straight up one side to a circle in front of the detached rear garage. The brickwork here and throughout the grounds is (remarkably) in as good condition as the day it was laid, thanks to a concrete subbase. The garage, presumably by Louis Asbury, has stuccoed walls and a tile hip roof just like the main house. The original garage doors have given way to an overhead door. On either side of the automobile space is a servants’ apartment. Some interior changes have been made in the north apartment but the south apartment remains in original condition with two bedrooms, a bathroom, a kitchen, and a sitting room.

It was at the beck of the house that the most elaborate landscape work may be seen. Draper, one of the South’s prolific and influential landscape designers in the early twentieth century, crested Italian gardens. Writes historian Mary Kratt in the 1986 book Legacy: The Myers Park Story:

“‘Henry McAden was a particular friend of mine,’ remembers Earle Draper…. ‘I spent a lot of time laying out his estate gardens. His wife was the most enthusiastic gardener and we planted some very interesting and rare plants. She spent most of her time in the garden with flowers'” While Draper was working on the McAden garden, he and Mrs. Draper went abroad for several months to study European gardens. ‘It was one of the more elaborate gardens I planned for a limited space,’ remembers Draper. ‘We used every square foot of it.’ The [Southern Architect] article that featured McAden’s garden described … ‘an out-of-door living room with all its beauty, fragrance and color … shut off from the hurry and worry of the outside world [where] one can enjoy complete rest and receive inspiration from the ever-changing works of nature.'”

The design featured strict geometry defined by brick walkways. Draper divided the garden into two spaces. A patio-like area, which nestled within the “L ” formed by the rear wall is of the house, featured square walks and flowerbeds and had a large curved seat of carved marble at one edge. Adjacent was the second space, which featured a round walkway and a central fountain. Draper remembers that there were even native cedar trees trimmed to represent Italian cypress.

Today most of Mr. Draper and Mrs. McAden’s plants are gone, but the beds still hold their shape, the brick walkways survive in mint condition, and the marble seat remains a focal point.

This report was written on September 5, 1988

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Mayfair Manor is located at 237 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, N.C.

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

Dunhill Associates Ltd. Partnership
PO Box 37321
Charlotte, N.C., 28237

Telephone: 704/377-0517

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

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

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 5580, Page 009. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is: 078-013-16.

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

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

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

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Mayfair Manor does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Mayfair Manor, erected in 1929, was designed by Louis H. Asbury, an architect of local and regional importance; 2) the initial owners of the Mayfair Manor, Drs. J. P. Matheson and C. N. Peeler, were prominent citizens of Charlotte; 3) the Mayfair Manor, because it was designed to accommodate some permanent residents, documents the multi-functional nature of Uptown Charlotte in the late 1920’s; and 4) the Mayfair Manor makes an important contribution to the historic streetscape of North Tryon Street, a major axial thoroughfare in Charlotte.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Nora Mae Black which is included in this report demonstrates that portions o the Mayfair Manor meet 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 “historic property.” The current appraised value of the improvement is $257,350. The current appraised value of the .80 acres of land is $104,940. The total appraised value of the property is $362,290. The most recent annual Ad Valorem tax bill on the property was $4,712.67. The property is zoned UMUD.

Date of Preparation of this Report: September 5, 1988

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

Telephone: 704/376-9115

Paula M. Stathakis
August 8, 1988

The Mayfair Manor was built on the corner of West Sixth Street and North Tryon Street in 1929 by Drs. J.P. Matheson and C.N. Peeler, who were perhaps better known as two of the founders of the Charlotte Eye, Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital. ¹ The ten story, 100 room hotel was intended for use by permanent and transient guests, with fifty rooms reserved for permanent residents. The earliest administration of the hotel included C.L. Lassiter, manager, J.W. Cole, assistant manager, C.B. Holmes, night manager, and W.R. Albea, dining room manager. ² The Mayfair’s location was well suited for either the resident or the guest because it was situated only two blocks north of the city square, in close proximity not only to the heart of the business district but also to the many amenities downtown Charlotte had to offer patrons. Various small shops were well within walking distance of the Mayfair Manor as were larger establishments such as Ivey’s and Belk’s department stores and Montaldo’s. The Carolina Theater and the Charlotte Public Library were across the street from the hotel. The Tryon Cafe, Karnezes Confectioners, Sanitary Bakery, George Washington Lunch, Carolina Cafe, and Ridgeway’s Bakery would surely satisfy any culinary need that might conceivably be found lacking in the Mayfair restaurant. Second Presbyterian Church, First Baptist Church, and St. Peter’s Episcopal Church were all situated within two blocks. ³

The hotel stands on the site formerly occupied by the Tryon Street Methodist Episcopal Church, which purchased the property in 1862 from Joel A. Huggins for $2300.00. ⁴ The Tryon Street Methodist Episcopal Church sold the property to Home Real Estate and Guaranty Company on May 5, 1926 for $250,000.00. ⁵ On July 31, 1926, the property was purchased by Dr. J.P. Matheson with the provision that the church had the right to remove detachable personal property in the church, and the right to retain the church and Sunday School buildings without rent for a period of 18 months, beginning May 5, 1926. ⁶ By 1928, Matheson had hired Charlotte architect Louis Asbury to design the hotel. This agreement is listed as job number 723 in Asbury’s log book dated September 28, 1928 and is described as an apartment/hotel. ⁷ The structure destined to become the Mayfair Manor was unveiled for public inspection on the evening of November 15, 1929, a little more than a year later. ⁸

The Mayfair Manor debuted as a bright spot in the pall cast by the dramatic crash of the stock market just a month earlier. The same newspaper that duly reported a sluggish stock market also presented an enthusiastic two page tribute to Charlotte’s newest hotel.⁹ Much of the spread was dominated by contractors who had taken part in various stages of the hotel’s construction, and who took advantage of the opportunity not only to advertise their wares, hut to also tantalize the public with their specific contribution to the hotel. For example, the tile and marble work in the mezzanine and the tenth floor were an exact replica of that found in Atlanta’s Biltmore Hotel, the tile floor of the dining room was made of a material described as tile-tex , which was guaranteed for “life time service, a low initial cost, and no maintenance cost.” The furnishings came from McCoy’s Furniture of South Tryon Street, and the “Iron Fireman”, a new automatic stoker furnace was installed by A.Z. Price Company, Inc. ¹⁰

The unidentified reporter who wrote the preview article about the Mayfair Manor for the Charlotte Observer was ecstatic. ¹¹ Adjectives such as “impressive”, “modern”, “luxurious”, and “massive” pepper the journalist’s narrative. This article is a valuable source of information about the original design and interior of the Mayfair Manor. The reporter began his tour of the building in the lobby which was summarily described as “impressive”; the floors were a terrazo with a tile base, the walls were covered with a material called craftex, the woodwork was crafted in walnut, and the fixtures were made of bronze. A “huge oven fireplace” was the focal point of the lobby. It was in this tastefully decorated lobby that one might also purchase cigars, cigarettes, and tasty Martha Washington Candy. The Mayfair Manor was the sole agent for Martha Washington Candy in Charlotte. Beneath the lobby on Sixth Street was the Mayfair Manor Barber Shop, managed by C.M. Brady, who supervised a five chair and one manicurist operation. The mezzanine had a lounge where guests could relax and meet their friends.

French doors marked the entrance to the dining room, the decor there followed the walnut and bronze motif of the lobby. Arched windows, craftex walls in soft colors, and a black and brown checked tile-tex floor all bestowed upon the dining room an “air of dignity”. The kitchen was described as spacious with the latest in cooking conveniences. A sampling of the original kitchen inventory of the Mayfair Manor included an electric dishwasher, a sterilizer with a 5000 dish capacity, steam tables, electric potato peelers, and mixing machines. A ventilating system capable of changing the kitchen air every three minutes was also on the list of notable extras. A skylight was built into the kitchen ceiling for the benefit of the workers. The dining room management planned to include a bakery in the future, and a special dessert and salad department was already incorporated into the kitchen organization.

“Every room has a bath” hailed the reporter as he continued his armchair tour. Tiled baths in various colors with tubs and showers were in each room. The rooms were furnished in “living room style” with double or twin Murphy beds, “luxurious” carpets and “fashionable” wallpapers. Each room had individual telephone service. The tenth floor was designed as a penthouse suite of “two skyscraper piazzas” which afforded what the reporter considered great views of Charlotte. Dr. Matheson planned to occupy the top floor along with Mr. Julian H. Little, president of the Independence Trust Company, Dr. Leinbach, and Mr. Little’s two nieces. ¹²

References were made in the article to a previously existing Mayfair Manor, and that the same high quality one had come to expect from the old establishment may be observed in the new one as well. Evidence of the “old” Mayfair Manor is scarce, but it was listed in the 1929 Charlotte City Directory under the management of C.L. Lassiter at 406 North Tryon Street, approximately two blocks north of the “new” Mayfair Manor. The new Mayfair Manor was the culmination of thirty years of effort by Mrs. Fannie L. Holmes, who began her career in Charlotte with a modest dining room and boarding house at 513 South Tryon Street. Mrs. Holmes, a Statesville native, ran this boarding house together with C.L. Lassiter. ¹³ By 1930, Mrs. Holmes had acquired two other businesses: The Hawthorne Dining Room and The Mayfair Manor. The 1930 Charlotte City Directory lists C.L. Lassiter as the president of the Mayfair Manor Inc., Mrs. Fannie L. Holmes was the vice-president, and Emmet S. Gray, as the secretary-treasurer. ¹⁴

Thus, the Mayfair Manor entered into Charlotte history. It was not the biggest, nor the grandest of our hotels, but it was considered quite fine in its day. In 1929, there were no less than fifteen hotels in Charlotte. The largest were the Charlotte Hotel at 239 West Trade and the Clayton Hotel at the corner of Church and Fifth streets. The Charlotte Hotel was undoubtedly the hallmark of the city, boasting a fireproof structure with 400 rooms, 400 bathrooms, a European Plan, and a dining room visited by such dignitaries as President and Mrs. Franklin and Roosevelt. The Mayfair Manor does not seem to have attracted such stellar guests, presumably because it was built for different purposes. The Mayfair Manor quietly thrived, however, on its corner long after the demolition of the Clayton Hotel, and it appears that it will outlive the Charlotte which was recently scheduled for demolition.

Dr. Matheson died in August 1937, and the property was acquired by the Mayfair Realty Corporation shortly afterward. ¹⁵ On September 1, 1959, the Mayfair Realty Corporation sold the property to Dwight L. Phillips. The new proprietor spent $225,000.00 in renovations and improvements on the hotel. ¹⁶ In December 1960, D.L. Phillips and his wife Louise sold the property to D.L. Phillips, Builders of North Carolina. ¹⁷ Following this transaction, the name of the hotel changed to the James Lee Motor Inn. ¹⁸ By October 1965, D.L. Phillips Investment Builders acquired additional property to the rear of the hotel. ¹⁹ These two tracts were sold in December 1980 to A.B. Wilkins Jr., owner of Delta Capital, for $300,000.00. ²⁰ This transaction began what was to result in an unproductive series of acquisitions of the property by various investors who hoped to upgrade the hotel, which had suffered as the result of the decline of downtown Charlotte, into fashionable condominiums. The previous hotel owner, Charles Kinnard, had intentions of doing this himself, but could not afford the staggering cost of conversion estimated at $225,000.00 per floor. In December 1980, A.B. Wilkins announced his intention to work with Kinnard toward this end. ²¹

By February 1981, Kinnard and Wilkins came to an impasse. Kinnard placed an advertisement in the Charlotte papers announcing that the property was for sale by the owner; the ad was quickly denied by Wilkins. Kinnard’s actions were based on his desire to buy the hotel back from Wilkins. Therefore, Wilkins gave Kinnard an option to buy the hotel back if he could raise the funds. Kinnard’s time on this option had expired when he placed the ad. At that point, Wilkins had no interest in helping Kinnard, and he had already made plans for a joint renovation with another investor. ²²

Wilkins posted signs around the hotel notifying the tenants that the hotel would close October 1, 1981, and that it would later re-open as a luxury hotel. ²³ Wilkins’s plans never came to fruition. He sold the James Lee Motor Inn on January 4, 1982 for $392,000.00 to an investment firm of the Netherlands-Antilles , Elko Corporation, N.V., which planned to convert the hotel into a $4 million office condominium project, with completion projected for the summer of that year. ²⁴ The renovation supervisor for Elko, Mr. Farley Gharagozlou, disclosed that the interior of the hotel had been completely stripped, and that future plans included the installment of a coffee shop in the basement and a restaurant in the penthouse. ²⁵ These plans suddenly changed when the Elko Corporation decided to convert the James Lee Motor Inn into an elegant hotel, the Uptown Nova Plaza, which delayed the completion until summer 1983. ²⁶

As the projected opening deadline drew near, the Charlotte News reported in May 1983 that an internal re-organization of the Elko Corporation would delay the project for an unspecified time.²⁷ The fate of the former Mayfair Manor was vague at best, and the structure stood useless for another three years. Burt Gellman, whose firm owns Jonathan’s, a fashionable downtown restaurant one block north of the hotel site, made an unsuccessful bid to acquire the property in 1984. The Elko Corporation allegedly reneged on an agreement to sell the vacant hotel to him, and he took the matter to court in 1985, but he never gained the property. ²⁸

Fallswood Investment Inc. purchased the hotel in May 1986, and then sold the property on December 18, 1986 to Omniswiss Properties Ltd. ³⁰ The present owners of the property, The Dunhill Hotel Associates, purchased the hotel from Omniswiss Properties on August 6, 1987. ³¹ After six years of uncertainty, the former Mayfair Manor has a new lease on life. The Dunhill Hotel Associates have returned to the idea of restoring the building to a luxury hotel. The revival of this structure will be an asset to the Charlotte community, not only as a new and viable business, but also as a tangible part of Charlotte’s past.

ENDNOTES

¹ Wade Harris, ed. The City of Charlotte and the County of Mecklenburg. Charlotte: Chamber of Commerce, 1924.

² The Charlotte Observer 15 November 1929, p.10.

³ Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps 1929, Sanborn Map Company, New York. Skeleton Maps 2 and 3, sections 2a and 3b; Charlotte City Directory, 1929.

⁴ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 4 pg. 791.

⁵ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 625 pg. 225.

⁶ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 628 pg. 511.

⁷ Southern Historical Collection, Louis Asbury Papers, No. 4237. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

⁸ The Charlotte Observer 15 November 1929, p. 11.

⁹ Ibid., p. 10, 11.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 10.

¹¹ Ibid., p. 11. All information concerning the original interior of the hotel was taken from this article.

¹² Ibid.; Charlotte City Directory, 1930.

¹³ Charlotte City Directory, 1926.

¹⁴ Ibid., 1930.

¹⁵ Records of the Mecklenburg Medical Society; Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 1120-254.

¹⁶ The Charlotte News 21 October 1981, p. 1.

¹⁷ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 2220 pg. 46

¹⁸ The Charlotte Observer 8 October 1985, p. 12a.

¹⁹ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 2689 pg. 308.

²⁰ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 4376 pg. 298. The Charlotte Observer 25 January 1981, p. 5b.

²¹ The Charlotte Observer 21 January 1981, p. 5b.

²² The Charlotte News 12 February 1981, p. 12a.

²³ Ibid., 17 September 1981, p. 13a.

²⁴ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 4500 pg. 395

²⁵ The Charlotte Observer 11 April 1982, p. 5b.

²⁶ The Charlotte Observer 25 October 1982, p. 1a.

²⁸ Ibid., 10 August 1985, p. 12a.

²⁹ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 5223 pg. 339, Deed Book 5403 pg. 647.

³⁰ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 5580 pg. 9.

By Nora Mae Black

The former Mayfair Hotel, located on the northwest corner of the intersection of North Tryon Street and 6th Street, is an example of one of the small, privately-owned hotels that provided a resting place for travelers to Charlotte during the beginning of this century.

The design of the building was executed by Louis H. Asbury, a Charlotte architect. The building was originally known as the Mayfair Hotel. Later it became the James Lee Motor Hotel. A top to bottom renovation of the building is on the drawing board. Under this proposal, the building would become a luxury hotel known as The Dunhill Hotel.

The building consists of eleven floors. There is a basement with a small sub-basement. The first floor, or Tryon Street level, housed the lobby. At the northwest end of the building, the first floor gives way to two mezzanine levels. The protective railings are missing from the lobby level and the upper mezzanine; however, a metal stairway still connects the levels.

Above the lobby, or first floor, there are eight floors that formerly contained the guest rooms. The ninth floor contained a penthouse suite for the owner of the Mayfair Hotel as well as a few guest rooms.

Exterior

The Mayfair Hotel has a nine-story symmetrical facade facing North Tryon Street. The West 6th Street facade overlooks Discovery Place and from the upper floors, Fourth Ward. The entire structure is covered with a sand-colored brick (much darkened due to dirt) laid in running bond. Cast stone decorates the remains of the North Tryon Street entrance and the brick facade at the top of the second floor windows. The cast stone continues on the West 6th Street facade and becomes a surround for the tops of the last three windows on the second floor. A cast stone course wraps all four facades at the top of the eighth floor windows. All windows have cast stone sills. The original windows were removed during an earlier renovation and replaced with double-hung residential windows. Double windows are usually 6/6 while others are 8/8 and 2/2. On the North Tryon Street facade the three-ranked windows consist of a single window flanked by pairs of adjacent windows. On the 6th Street facade the seven-ranked windows consist of the following pattern a single window, a pair of adjacent windows, a single window, a single window, a single window, a pair of adjacent windows, and a single window. The south facade has an irregular pattern of windows of several different sizes. The west, or rear, facade has three windows of differing sizes on each floor above the second floor.

Most of the North Tryon Street level facade has been removed. However, it is still possible to see the remains of Corinthian capitals that once decorated the pilasters at the front entrance. The most impressive remaining part of the facade is at the penthouse level. There the owner’s living quarters overlooked North Tryon Street. The sitting room did not extend the full width of the facade, it became a square room flanked by two balconies. The brick of the facade formed the protective barrier on the Tryon Street elevation. Topping the protective barrier, each balcony had a cast stone urn and a cast stone circular medallion for decoration. On the north and south elevations, the small balconies have balustrades of cast stone with flower boxes. On the Tryon Street elevation a narrow center balcony, flanked by single windows, projects over the street. A half round pediment extends over the balcony. To each side of the pediment decorative cast stone ovals are laid into the brick over the windows. There is a circular stone medallion in the center of the pediment. A raking cornice of cast stone tops the pediment. A cornice of cast stone continues part way around the side (north and south) elevations.

Interior

Much of the interior of the building was destroyed during an earlier attempt at renovation. Masonry interior bearing walls that provided wind bracing were removed and replaced with steel structural members. The original elevators were removed and never replaced. Part of the roof is gone with the result that much water enters the building. At places, the concrete floors have holes in them. Ceilings have been taken down exposing the open web steel joists. Plaster and other wall coverings have been removed exposing the structural steel frame. The partitions that separated the ‘guess rooms have been torn down.

The most intact portion of the original building is the penthouse suite of the owner. The penthouse has a marble floor. A fireplace in the sitting room overlooking North Tryon Street has an ornate carved plaster mantel with a green marble fire surround. Plaster crown molding with carved dentils decorate the sitting area. In another room of the owner’s suite, original wood paneling covers the walls.

In Closing

The Mayfair Hotel building provides a solid architectural presence at the corner of North Tryon Street and 6th Street. Its proximity to Discovery Place, Spirit Square and the new market make it an ideal overnight location for visitors to Charlotte. Those having business in the central business district would also find that it is within walking distance of the many office towers. Since so much of the original exterior fabric is unchanged and in relatively good condition, it could be rehabilitated and become a landmark building in a revitalized North Tryon Street corridor.

SPECIAL NOTE: The Mayfair Manor has been substantially renovated since the above architectural description was written. This renovation, however, has not destroyed those portions of the property which possess historic significance.

This report was written on February 22, 1993

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the John and Idella Mayes House is located at 435 East Morehead Street, Charlotte, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

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

JFW Realty Incorporated
435 East Morehead Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Telephone: (704) 331-0767

Tax Parcel Number: 125-137-04

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 deed to Tax Parcel Number 125-137-04 is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 7199 at page 755.

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

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

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

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the John and Idella Mayes House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:
1) the John and Idella Mayes House was built ca. 1902;
2) the John and Idella Mayes House is one of the last vestiges of the grand residential boulevard that formed the northern boundary of Dilworth;
3) the career of John H. Mayes was intertwined with that of Stuart W. Cramer, also a Morehead Street neighbor;
4) John H. Mayes, with Cramer and three other men, organized the Mayes Manufacturing Company in 1906 with Mayes as president;
5) the group built a cotton mill and the mill village of Mayesworth in 1907;
6) in 1922, Mayes Manufacturing was absorbed into Cramerton Mills, Incorporated, and the name of the mill village, Mayesworth, was changed to Cramerton;
7) the John and Idella Mayes House has survived through the years with most exterior appointments, such as the slate roof and leaded glass windows, intact and in very good condition;
8) the John and Idella Mayes House has survived with most interior appointments, such as wood paneling, embossed wallcoverings and wooden pocket doors, intact and in very good condition; and
9) the John and Idella Mayes House is architecturally significant as one of the finest examples of the Shingle Style house to be found in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Nora M. Black included in this report demonstrates that the John and Idella Mayes 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 $68,160. The current appraised value of Tax Parcel 125-137-04 (0.28 acres) is $245,680. The total appraised value of the property is $313,840. The property is zoned B1.

Date of Preparation of this Report: February 22, 1993

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill & Nora M. Black, Associate A.I.A.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
500 North Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina

Mailing Address: P. O. Box 35434
Charlotte, North Carolina 28235

Telephone: (704) 376-9115

Dr. William H. Huffman

The Mayes House is the only surviving turn of the century house remaining in Charlotte’s old Second Ward; one of the few remaining fine houses built on the once-fashionable Morehead Street; and a rare intact example of the Shingle Style in Charlotte. Built about 1902 by John Henry and Idella Green Mayes, the house features an asymmetrical form dominated by a cross-gambrel roof, shingle upper elevations, brick first story and raised basement. The interior is equally distinctive, highlighted by fashionable late Victorian elements which include a large living hall with a massive fireplace; a prominent staircase with steps cascading into the living hall; and a tripartite stained glass window lighting the landing. John H. Mayes ( 1856-1947) came to Charlotte around the turn of the century, and spent most of his career as a textile machinery agent and mill executive and designer, while his wife, Idella Green Mayes (c.1869-1939), raised their three children and participated in the social life of early twentieth-century Charlotte. They built their stately Shingle Style house, which they occupied for twenty-four years, in an upscale section of East Morehead Street at the edge of the city’s first suburb, Dilworth: their immediate neighbors included Stewart W. Cramer, a major New South textile entrepreneur, and William States Lee, who became the president of Duke Power Company and the Piedmont and Northern Railroad.

John H. Mayes was born in Luftborough, England, the son of John and Mary Ainsworth Mayes, and came to the United States at the age of fourteen. As a young man, he entered the textile industry, most likely in Massachusetts, where his oldest daughter was born. When he came to Charlotte around the turn of the century, Mayes was a traveling salesman for Stewart W. Cramer, a New South entrepreneur who is credited with designing and equipping about one-third of all the cotton mills in the South prior to World War II. For much of the first two decades of this century while Mayes occupied the East Morehead Street house, his career and that of Stewart Cramer were intertwined. Cramer (1868-1940) was a native of Thomasville, NC and a graduate of the U. S. Naval Academy and Columbia University School of Mines. After graduation in 1889, he came to Charlotte and was in charge of the United States Assay office until 1893, when he went to work for Daniel Augustus Tompkins, a pioneer New South industrialist who also designed and supplied equipment for hundreds of mills throughout the South. In 1895, Cramer went into business for himself as the Southern agent for three Massachusetts manufacturers of cotton mill equipment in competition with Tompkins, and eventually acquired sixty patents for the improvement of textile mill machinery and mill air-conditioning. Cramer designed and equipped hundreds of mills in the South, developed an international reputation, and served on many state and national boards. His four-volume work on the design and equipment for cotton mills, Useful Information for Cotton Manufacturers (2nd edition, 1909) became a standard reference work for many years, and he is also known for organizing the Cramerton Mills and the mill town of Cramerton in Gaston County, NC.^l

It is reasonable to assume that Mayes came to Charlotte around the turn of the century to work for Cramer through the Massachusetts textile machinery connection. Although few details of his career are available, it appears that the relationship with Cramer proved to be an initially prosperous one, for he purchased land for a new house on the same block as Cramer’s mansion in 1901, and built a grand house the following year. In 1906, Mayes, Cramer and three others organized the Mayes Manufacturing Company, with J. H. Mayes as president, and built a cotton mill and village, Mayesworth, designed by Cramer, in Gaston County in 1907.² The company maintained its offices in Charlotte, and Mayes continued to be a sales agent for Cramer. By 1910, however, Mayes no longer appeared as president of Mayes Manufacturing, and had apparently set himself up as an independent manufacturers agent for cotton mill machinery in Charlotte.³ In 1915, Stewart Cramer took over control of Mayes Manufacturing, changed the name to Mayes Mills, Inc. and began to greatly expand its capacity by adding a second plant.⁴ On December 9, 1922, Mayes Mills, Inc. was absorbed into the newly chartered Cramerton Mills, Inc., and the name of the mill village was changed to Cramerton. J. H. Mayes was one of the directors of the new company. In 1924, Cramerton Mills added a weave plant, which bore the name “Mayflower.”⁵

It appears that John Mayes followed Stewart Cramer’s lead of branching out from manufacturer’s agent to mill designer and executive. When Cramer took control of Mayes Manufacturing in 1915, Mayes was chosen to be the “architect-engineer” (a term used at the time for a mill designer and outfitter) of a mill for the newly-organized Rex Spinning Company in Ranlo, Gaston County, NC and became its first president.⁶ Exactly how long he remained president of this company is unclear.⁷ In 1920, the 63-year-old Mayes was also the architect-engineer for another mill in Ranlo, the Pricilla Spinning Company. He was one of the organizers of the company and its first president, but his interests were bought out in 1921.⁸

Sometime in the late 1800s, John Mayes and Cora Idella Green, of Margaretsville, Nova Scotia, were married; they subsequently had three daughters and one son.⁹ One of their daughters, Idella, was born in Massachusetts in 1894.¹⁰ Exactly when the family moved to Charlotte is not clear, but they appear in the Charlotte City Directory of 1899/1900 as residing on West Vance Street.

In August, 1901, John and Idella Mayes bought a house lot on Morehead Street for $2,000 from W. B. Ryder; Ryder had originally purchased a larger tract that included the lot from the City of Charlotte in May, 1897.¹² The best available records suggest that the house was built in 1902 and that the Mayes family occupied it in the latter part of the year.¹³ S. W. Cramer built his own large house at the west end of the same block about 1896.¹⁴

The Mayes family lived in the Morehead Street house from 1902 until 1926, while John H. Mayes pursued his career as a mill machinery manufacturer’s agent, mill designer and textile executive and Idella Green Mayes raised their children and participated in Charlotte’s social life. It appears that in 1926, at the age of 70, John Mayes decided to retire and no longer needed or desired to live in such a large house. Thus in 1926, the Mayes family sold the house to J. W Barber, a vice-president of the Cathey Lumber Company.¹⁵ John and Idella Mayes moved to 307 E. Kingston in Dilworth, and in the Thirties went to live with their daughter and son-in-law, Idella Mayes and Frank Hunter at 1815 S. Boulevard, where they lived out the rest of their days.¹⁶

In 1939, the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation took over the house from the Barbers, and sold it to A. J. and Nannie Willoughby that same year.¹⁷ By 1942, the HOLC had again taken back the house, and the following year sold it to J. H. and Ada E. Bennett. John Bennett, who died in 1962, was a real estate agent. The house was conveyed by the Bennett heirs to Robert M. and Trudi N. Glenn in 1979, who also acquired the adjoining .126 acre tract in 1986.¹⁹ In 1989, the property was sold twice: first to Euram, Inc. a North Carolina Corporation, then to Walter H. Fox.²⁰ The property is now owned by attorney James F. Wyatt III, who intends to rehabilitate the house as a law office.²¹

NOTES

¹ Robert Allison Ragan, Leading Textile Mills in Gaston County. N. C.. 1904 to the Present (Charlotte: Privately Published, 1975) unpaginated typescript, Carolina Room, Charlotte Mecklenburg Public Library]; Biographical History of North Carolina (Greensboro, N.C.: Van Noppen, 1908), VII, 82-87.

² Ragan, note 1.

³ Charlotte City Directories. 1908-1910.

⁴ Ragan, note 1.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ The Charlotte city directories do not mention this or subsequent mill activities in Gaston County related to John Mayes and no other sources of information hare been uncovered to date.

⁸ Ragan, note 1.

⁹ Charlotte Observer. December 18, 1947, Section Two, p. 1.

¹⁰ Mecklenburg County Certificate of Death, Record #893.

¹¹ Charlotte City Directories 1899/1900 ff.

¹² Mecklenburg County Deed Books 139, p.139, 15 May 1897; 161, p.258, 22 August 1901.

¹³ Ibid., Book 154, p. 354, 10 December 1901; Book 175, p.82, 28 August 1902 (Deeds of Trust); Charlotte City Directory. 1902 and 1903.

¹⁴ Charlotte City Directory.1902; Sanborn Insurance Map, 1905.

¹⁵ Mecklenburg County Deed Book 618, p.660, 17 September 1926. Barber assumed the balance of the $15,000 mortgage Mayes had taken out on the house the year before (Book 591, p. 31). Mayes in turn bought a house from Barber on Greenway in the Elizabeth neighborhood (Book 618, p.670), but did not live there.

¹⁶ Charlotte Observer. July 7, 1939, p.8; ibid., December 18, 1947, Section Two, p. 1; Charlotte City Directories.1926-1950.

¹⁷ Mecklenburg County Deed Book 976, p.529, 1 June 1939; ibid., 986, p.266, 15 September 1939.

¹⁸ Ibid., 1078, p.505, 1 August 1942; ibid., 1084, p. 436, 16 January 1943.

¹⁹ Ibid., 4216, p. 828, 1 August 1979; ibid., 5181, p. 411, 26 February 1986.

²⁰ Ibid., 6061, p. 493, 29 June 1989; ibid., 6061, p.488, 29 June 1989.

²¹ Ibid., 16 February 1993 [JFW Realty, Inc.].

Ms. Nora M. Black

The John and Idella Mayes House is an excellent example of a late Shingle Style house. Few intact Shingle Style houses have been identified in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, making this a unique and remarkable house both in quality of construction and preservation of character of the Shingle Style. The Shingle Style house is considered by many architectural authorities to be the first truly American style of house. Vincent Scully, who has written extensively on the Shingle Style, dates the era of Shingle Style houses from 1874 to the end of the First World War.¹ The plan and massing of the Shingle Style house remove it from the realm of vernacular housing. In fact, Old-House Journal reports, “Although some view it as a wooden version of the masonry Romanesque Revival, the Shingle style actually helped to move American architecture several light-years away from traditional European forms….”² It has long been considered an architect’s style of building with an intricate floor plan, irregular roofline, and classical details. Unlike the Stick Style (which emphasized the skeleton or structure of the building), the Shingle Style presented a unified exterior surface with no evidence of the framing beneath.

The Shingle Style actually had its beginnings in the seaside resorts of New England. Early examples range from the Low House at Bristol, Rhode Island (1886-87) to the C. J. Morrill House at Mount Desert, Maine (1879). In fact, Henry-Russell Hitchcock calls the C. J. Morrill House, designed by William Ralph Emerson “one of the first mature examples of the Shingle Style…[where] rooms of varied shape and size are loosely grouped about the hall and open freely into one another.”³ Emerson also designed the Church of St. Sylvia in Mount Desert, Maine, showing that the Shingle Style could be used for structures other than houses. Both Newport, Rhode Island and Southampton, Long Island, have many early examples of luxurious Shingle Style houses. Scully remarks that the Shingle Style houses “…were a product of American culture’s first long, warm summertime after the Civil War.”⁴

Virginia and Lee McAlester say of the Shingle Style: “The Shingle style, like the Stick and spindlework Queen Anne, was a uniquely American adaptation of other traditions. Its roots are threefold: (1) From the Queen Anne it borrowed wide porches, shingled surfaces, and asymmetrical forms. (2) From the Colonial Revival it adapted gambrel roofs, rambling lean-to additions, classical columns, and Palladian windows. (3) From the contemporaneous Richardsonian Romanesque it borrowed an emphasis on irregular, sculpted shapes, Romanesque arches, and in some examples, stone lower stories…”⁵

Among the most obvious attributes of the Shingle Style, the John and Idella Mayes House has shingled upper story surfaces, a masonry lower story, asymmetrical forms, recessed openings with curved shingles, and a roof with gambreled cross gables and dormers. The use of the gambrel roof is seen in about 25 percent of Shingle Style houses.⁶

The John and Idella Mayes House is located on the northeast side of East Morehead Street at the intersection of South Caldwell Street. The front or southwest facade of the house faces East Morehead Street; the rear or northeast facade overlooks the skyline of Charlotte’s modern center city. The house is located on a triangular-shaped tract of 0.28 acres. A brick retaining wall with a brownstone coping runs along the southeast side of the tract. Purchased in February, 1993, by JFW Realty Incorporated, the former residence will be adapted for use as offices.

The ground plan of the John and Idella Mayes House is a compound plan with irregular room-sized projections from the principal mass. The house presents an asymmetrical elevation to East Morehead Street. The front-view is dominated by the arched windows that enclose half of the front porch. A brick half-wall encloses the balance of the front porch. The shingled surface of the second and third story gambrel roof end recedes behind the balustrade at the edge of the porch roof.

Exterior

The John and Idella Mayes Houses has four types of siding: brick, wood shingles, horizontal board siding, and asbestos shingles. The first floor of the front (southwest) facade has brick laid in common bond with sixth course headers.⁷ The second and third floor gambrel roof end has shingles laid in a coursed pattern. Like the front, the northwest facade has a first floor of brick laid in common bond with sixth course headers; however, the shingles in the gambrel roof end are asbestos shingles that appear to be of 1950s or 1960s vintage. This is logical since the original shingles on the northwest end of the house would receive much weather damage. Plans for adaptation include replacing the asbestos shingles with a product that will resemble the other original wooden sidewall shingles. The rear or northeast facade has a basement wall of brick, a first floor clad in horizontal board siding, and shingles in the gambrel roof end and the dormer end. The southeast facade (facing South Caldwell Street) has a first floor of brick laid in common bond with sixth course headers with the exception of the portion of the wall near the rear of the house. That portion is clad in horizontal board siding similar to the first floor of the rear of the house. Most of the siding appears to be original; the only exception appears to be the asbestos shingles mentioned above. The entire house had been painted light gray; the gray paint was peeling in many places. The paint obscured the masonry base and first floor of the house. The color visible where the paint has flaked off the house and on the brick retaining wall is a rich red brown.

Work, begun in March 1993, includes hand-scraping the gray paint from the shingled surfaces. Other plans include wirebrushing all masonry surfaces by hand, repainting the mortar joints with compatible mortar, and repainting the masonry surfaces a color as near to the original as possible. Trim is to be painted compatible, although contrasting, colors. The gambrel roof is deceptive; it is high enough to hold a full second story and three large attic rooms used for servants’ quarters. The original slate roof is laid in a simple, coursed pattern. The gables have a narrow overhang; the narrow, ledge-like eave is boxed.

Many of the windows in the John and Idella Mayes House contain the original leaded glass; most are double hung wooden sash. The wooden sash has an upper portion with three vertical mullions and triangular panes at the top and bottom; the lower portion of the sash is a single large pane of glass. Some broken windows have been replaced with new glass; a glaring example is a 12/1 second floor replacement on the northwest side. Original windows found in the basement may be reused if it is feasible to rebuild them (March 1993). The second floor window surrounds are wide boards and not elaborate. The first floor, with its brick walls, has brick jack arches over the windows; the window sills are stone. The half-moon basement windows have Roman arches with two header courses of brick and stone sills. Stained glass windows will be discussed in the section, “Interior.”

The front elevation is divided into four asymmetrical bays. Two windows and a double door face the front porch. To the southeast of the double door, a single door opens to a glass-enclosed area of the porch that wraps around part of the southeast facade. The front-facing gambrel roof end has two windows with triangular panes as described above. In the peak of the gambrel roof end, there is a vent with shingles curving into the recessed opening.

The entry porch on the front facade is a one-story flat-roofed porch partially enclosed with double hung wooden sash with 6/6 panes. Above the 6/6 windows are elliptical arches with multi-pane fixed sash. The roof of the porch is supported by rectangular brick columns with rounded corners. A wooden balustrade surrounds the porch roof; wide wooden half-columns (over porch columns and at corners) give definition and substance. The porch is floored with quarry tiles. It has a ceiling of beaded board. Seven brownstone steps lead to the porch. The enclosed portion of the porch on the southeast corner has 10/10 movable wooden sash and elliptical arches above with multi-pane fixed sash. Additionally, there are two radiators, two hanging light fixtures, and carpet. This portion of the porch does not have a door that gives direct access to the interior of the John and Idella Mayes House.

The main or front entry, as seen from the front porch is unassuming. Two screen doors, their frames decorated with scrollwork, are painted dark gray. There are two white, two-panel wooden doors behind the screen doors. A jack arch tops the stained glass transom light.

A molded, semi-circular roof provides an elegant cover for the side entry. The flat roofed porch on the southeast facade opens to a side passage of the main stair hall. Because of the lay of the lot, the porch is one-story above South Caldwell Street and is approached by a U-shaped set of stairs running parallel to the side of the house. Walls of the staircase are made of the same brick used for the first floor. Arched openings at the top of the stairs admit light to the porch and stairs. A balustrade like the one described in a previous paragraph decorates the flat-roof of the porch.

A porch on the back or northeast facade is approached by a single flight of steps running parallel to the back of the house. The southeast half of the porch has a flat roof; the balance of the porch is engaged beneath a rear-facing gambrel roof end. The porch has a sense of enclosure caused by the wide supports covered by horizontal wooden siding pierced by large flattened arches. The back porch has wooden flooring that has been painted dark gray. It also has a balustrade at the edge of the roof as previously described. Two doors open onto the back porch. One door opens directly into the kitchen; the other door gives access to the back part of the main hall. Plans include the installation of compatible windows to turn this porch into an enclosed break area for tenants.

The back or northeast facade is the only one that has a gambrel roofed dormer incorporated into the roof. This dormer is large enough to have a full-sized window in its back wall. It might be more appropriately termed a small gambrel roofed room.

Interior

To understand the interior of a Shingle Style house, one should study the plan. In Victorian houses and I-houses seen frequently in Mecklenburg County, the front door opens into a wide, long hallway. Rooms opened to each side of the hallway, but the hallways themselves did not provide living space for the family. The Shingle Style house sought to develop the spatial characteristics of a “living hall” integral to the life of the house. Additionally, the object was to have the rooms flow into each other rather than to remain separate entities.

Fortunately, the interior has not been changed or modernized to any great degree. Aside from some carpet laid over the wood floors and some repair of the kitchen floor, most of the historic fabric is not only intact but visible. The rooms have original moldings. Original hardware for the six panel wooden interior doors and the windows is still in place throughout much of the house. Walls are plaster; finishes include embossed wallcoverings, wallpaper, wood paneling, and paint.

A person entering the house at the two simple white panel doors on the front porch would step into a small vestibule. Immediately, the idea of simplicity is thrown to the wind. The upper walls and ceiling of the vestibule are covered with an embossed cardboard wallcovering. ⁸ The wallcovering is embossed to represent square, “raised wooden panels set in a checkerboard pattern between a lattice work of vegetation. Below the chair rail, the wainscot is wooden paneling. All of the embossed wallcovering, the wainscot, the woodwork, and the doors are stained a very dark brown. A single unshielded bulb lights the vestibule; the protective globe or fixture is missing. Above the double door, the transom light of stained glass which appears dull from the outside) takes on brilliance as the sunlight filters through. The border of opalescent glass is streaked with copper and white; the interior squares are lavender. The central design is that of laurel branches tied with blue ribbon surrounding yellow stained glass with a central white star motif. (Laurel is used as a symbol for triumph, eternity, and chastity). The floor of the vestibule is a design of mosaic tile. The tile border is a stylized rendering of the anthemion and palmetto motif that is common in Greek and Roman architectures. The center of the floor is composed of a shell and palmetto motif. The wooden door between the vestibule and the hall is finished in the same dark brown stain as the walls and ceiling. There are two rectangular panels above a middle panel of beveled glass. Below the lock rail, which appears to have the original doorknob and other hardware, there are two rows of bottom panels. The top row has three square panels while the bottom row has three rectangular panels. Above the door, there is a large movable transom light with working hardware.

The door of the vestibule opens to a large hall with the open staircase to the second floor straight ahead. The staircase literally cascades into the hall from a landing at waist height. From that landing, each step up becomes a smaller square with rounded corners reaching into the hall. The square newel resembles a short column. It has a molded capital with dentils, a shaft with wood panels surrounded by a bead motif, a rope motif on the corners, and a sturdy square base. Topping the newel is a tall brass candlestick lamp; the wiring for the lamp is concealed inside the newel.

To the left when standing in the door to the vestibule is the “living hall” that is an attribute of the Shingle Style house. It is approximately 23’6″ by 14′ with a ceiling height of eleven feet. The dado of embossed wallcovering has a motif of circles of vegetation with a many-petaled flower in the center of each circle. The circles are connected to one another by flowing vegetation and flowers. The ceiling is coffered with beams and trim stained a very dark brown. Two windows overlook East Morehead Street. Over each window, there is a fixed stained glass transom light with a laurel wreath motif. A radiator under each window provides heat. The focal point of the living hall is the massive fireplace. The fire surround is constructed entirely of pressed bricks and glazed bricks with the exception of the two wood shelves. Fluted pilasters on each side of the fireplace support a high wooden shelf. The cornice motif beneath the shelf is a single row of pressed brick in egg-and-dart design. Another wooden shelf is set in a wide recess. It is supported by three rows of egg-and-dart design corbeled out from the face of the fire surround. The fireplace opening has a massive jack arch. From the living hall, one could follow the hallway to the back of the house, climb the stairs to the second floor, or enter the dining room.

To enter the dining room, a person passed through a massive pocket door from the living hall. The dining room is approximately 14’6″ by 18′ not counting the three window bay. The windows are 1/1 double hung wooden sash with beveled glass. A heavy crown molding, stained very dark brown, encircles the room. The dining room dado is a repeating rising sun motif. The fireplace occupies the southeast corner of the room to share a chimney with the living hall fireplace. The tall fire surround is flanked by Ionic columns. Three carved panels decorate the fire surround. Variegated beige tiles surround the fireplace opening. The cast iron covering for the fireplace opening is typical of a sort mass-produced; however, the torch motif is used in some of the stained glass in the house.

The dining room has a doorway leading to a butler’s pantry. The built-in cabinet with shelves and drawers is still in place. The butler’s pantry has one window, a 1/1 double hung wooden sash, on the northwest wall. A smaller storage pantry is located to the rear of the butler’s pantry. Also to the rear of the butler’s pantry is the kitchen. The kitchen was renovated many years ago. In March 1993, the 1950s fixtures were removed to allow the kitchen to be adapted to serve the offices. The kitchen does have an original door with movable transom light leading to the back porch. The floors in the butler’s pantry, the storage pantry, and the kitchen have been covered with vinyl flooring of recent vintage. All three rooms have a molded chair rail and beaded board wainscot.

From the front door, a person could continue down the hallway past the staircase to a large room on the right hand or southeast side of the house. This room could have served as a parlor or a music room. The room is approximately 16′ by 14′ and has an additional alcove of 8′ by 9′ in the northeast corner. The alcove has a stained glass window with a motif consisting of two torches crossed over a laurel wreath. Three colored spun glass “roundels” or “bull’s-eyes” are set in the bottom border of the window. The fire surround is an elegant white mantelpiece with a light, classical feel. Ivory tiles surrounding the fireplace opening have decorations of torches, laurel wreaths, and swags. Rectangular white tiles, set flush with the floor, form the hearth. A cast iron fireplace insert has a torch motif. This room has a parquet floor with hand set nails and a border pattern.

The last room to the right of the hallway is a bathroom. Located at the rear of the house, it has a 1/1 double hung wood sash with figured glass. The figured glass provides privacy from the adjacent back porch while providing light. The high sided sink is typical of the era. It has a single leg pedestal. The pedestal is much narrower at the base than at the connection to the sink. This bathroom has a radiator and a chair rail with beaded board wainscot. The floor has been covered with vinyl flooring of recent vintage.

The first floor hall is T-shaped with the top of the T running from the front door to the back door. There is a narrow, winding stair near the rear of the hall. Although this stair was meant to be used by family and servants, it has some of the same touches as the grand front staircase. The back stair is narrow and steep, but it has curved nosing and risers on the lower treads similar to that of the front staircase. The simple turned balusters support a winding handrail. The square newel post has an urn on top for decoration. Tucked beside the back stair is the door to an even narrower, steeper stair to the basement. The back portion of this hallway has a door that separates it from the grander front hallway.

The upright of the T-shaped, first floor hallway forms a side hall running parallel to the main staircase to give access to the door to South Caldwell Street. The dado that surrounds the living hall is continued in the side hall as well as the coffered ceiling with dark brown-stained beams. The side of the stair above the dado is covered with dark wood paneling.

The grand front staircase climbs to a landing floored with oak boards. The landing is open to both the first and second floors. Light from the tall stained glass window fills the staircase. The stained glass window has three fixed lower panels with the torch and laurel wreath motif. The three movable transom lights have a top border with a stylized flower motif. The balustrade has balusters turned in a rope motif. The newels at each landing are similar to the newel at the first floor although they are smaller and lighter in character without the built-in candlestick lamp. All of the woodwork of the staircase and the landing is stained a very dark brown.

To the left of the main staircase is the largest bedroom overlooking East Morehead Street. This was the room occupied by the most important people in the household, a fact made obvious by the annunciator panel. The eight pearl-covered buttons of the panel (the most of any room in the house) could summon a servant from any quarter of the house. Unlike the elaborate fireplaces of the more public first floor, the bedroom fireplace has a simple, classical wooden fire surround with a mirrored overmantel. The white paint is in sharp contrast to the dark fire tiles and cast iron fireplace insert. The bathroom adjacent to this bedroom has a roll-top tub set on a pedestal base. A high-sided sink is tucked into the corner between the door to the bedroom and the door to the closet (which opens into the bathroom). The walls are covered to shoulder height in rectangular white tiles while the floor is covered with six-sided white mosaic tiles.

A second bedroom has a crown molding with a design based on vegetation. The fire surround is identical to that of the first bedroom except that the tiles are variegated white and tan in color. A large dressing room with a window to provide natural light is located on the southwest side of this room. The wood flooring of the dressing room is pocked with the marks left by a lady’s high heels. A closet tucked under the gambrel roof is adjacent to the dressing room.

The third bedroom is just to the right of the main staircase. It has two windows that overlook South Caldwell Street; however, the most interesting view is from the window located in the alcove of the gambrel roofed dormer – the view of the Charlotte skyline. The room has a fire surround similar to that of the other two bedrooms. There is a closet on each side of the alcove. One of the closets opens into the fourth bedroom.

The fourth bedroom has two windows that overlook the Charlotte skyline. It is smaller than the other bedrooms and has a closet running along the northwest wall. A bathtub in the closet appears to have come from the upstairs hall bath. If possible, that bathtub will be moved back to its original location.

The upstairs hall bath is a large room located on the northwest corner of the second floor. It is approached by passing the back staircase to the third floor/attic. A modern tub and shower arrangement is to the left inside the bathroom door. The original sink and toilet are still in place. The high-backed sink, unlike the pedestal sinks of the other bathrooms, has two legs. The embossed pedestal of the toilet has a classically inspired design. The floor has been covered with vinyl flooring of recent vintage.

The staircase to the third floor/attic climbs steeply to a door opening to a landing in the attic. The three rooms of the attic reflect the shape of the gambrel roof. Each room has one opening on an outside wall. The openings are now covered with louvers to form vents, but the diamond-paned windows that once filled the openings are nearby. The windows could be installed again to provide light in the attic. Several doors are also stored in the attic. The three rooms have plaster in the gambrel roof area. The waist high walls and the gambrel roof ends have horizontal, flush painted boards. Small waist-high doors at floor level give access to storage space under the steep portion of the gambrel roof. Five panel doors afforded privacy for those living in the attic rooms. The bells, activated by the buttons of the annunciator panels, are still in place in the attic rooms.

The basement of the John and Idella Mayes House was obviously a working support area for the household. A steep winding staircase, beginning in the back hall, lands in the laundry area of the basement. It is difficult to imagine carrying a laundry basket down this very narrow passage. The three laundry sinks, set on pedestals, and the round washing machine still await the family’s dirty laundry. Closets for storage of foodstuffs and canned goods are located in the southeast corner of the basement. Brick columns support the floor above and the massive base of the chimney for the central core fireplaces covers a large area at the center of the basement. A separate room houses an oil-fired boiler to serve the radiators. Early electrical wires are strung from the floor joists. The basement is somewhat dark now since most of the openings have been covered to prevent break-ins. In the early part of the 20th century, the half-moon windows and the windowed doors would have provided much light. Plans to install a security system over the windows will allow the plywood to be removed so that light may enter again. Even today, the basement is remarkably dry.

Conclusion

The John and Idella Mayes House is the most intact Shingle Style house yet identified from the first part of the 20th century in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The Shingle Style is considered uncommon except in coastal New England. That fact alone increases the architectural significance of the house and, when combined with the superior details found In the original historic fabric, makes it one of the most important early 20th century houses left standing in Charlotte. It can provide insight into the ways that early Charlotte residents used the hard earned wealth accumulated from textiles during the rise of the New South. The house cries out for an adaptive use that will respect its uniqueness and style while allowing the house to return to a place of importance near the center of Charlotte. To paraphrase the Vincent Scully quote, the John and Idella Mayes House could become the useful product of Charlotte’s first long, warm summertime after surviving the ravages of the bulldozers during urban redevelopment.

Notes

¹ Vincent Scully, The Architecture of the American Summer: The Flowering of the Shingle Style (New York, 1989), 5, 10.

² James C. Massey and Shirley Maxwell, “The Shingle Style,” Old-House Journal, Vol. XVII, No.5 (September/October 1989),41-46.

³ Henry-Russell Hitchcock, Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (New York, 1987), 365.

⁴ Scully, 1.

⁵ Virginia & Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York, 1986), 290.

⁶ Ibid., 289.

⁷ A header is a brick laid such that the small end only appears on the face of the wall. A stretcher is a brick laid such that the long, narrow side only appears on the face of the wall. Brick laid in “common bond with sixth course headers” would have five rows of stretchers, one row of headers, five rows of stretchers, one row of headers, etc.

⁸ Telephone interview with Mr. Larkin Mayo, co-owner of Victorian Interiors, San Francisco, California, 27 September 1991. Embossed wallcoverings occur in several rooms of the John and Idella Mayes House. Two things lead Mr. Mayo to conclude that the wallcoverings are embossed cardboard: 1) the thickness of the material as seen in a damaged section in the dining room; and 2) the tan color of the base or backing material seen in the damaged section.

⁹ A wainscot, or wainscoting, usually refers to a wooden lining of the lower three or four feet of an interior wall when finished differently from the rest of the wall.

¹⁰ John Fleming, Hugh Honour, and Nikolaus Pevsner, The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture (New York, 1982), 15, 236. Anthemion is ornament based on the honeysuckle flower and leaves. Palmette is a fan-shaped ornament composed of narrow divisions like a palm leaf. The two types of ornament frequently alternate in border designs with Greek or Roman origins.

¹¹ A dado, in modern terms, is the decorative finishing of the lower part of an interior wall; it ranges from floor to waist height. The term dado is not confined to wood but embraces many decorative wall coverings.