This report was written on September 1, 1983

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Poplar Apartment Condominiums is located at 301 W. Tenth Street, in Charlotte, North Carolina.

2. Name, address, and telephone number of the present owner and occupant of the property: (Please see attachments for the present owners and occupants of the property).

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

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

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deeds to this property are listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Books (see attachments). The Tax Parcel Numbers of the property are: 078-037-16 through 54.

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

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

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

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Poplar Apartment Condominiums does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Poplar Apartments, completed in 1930 and designed by Lockwood, Greene and Company, represented a major breakthrough in the local apartment development business in terms of the elegance and lavishness of its architectural appointments; 2) the Poplar Apartments document the transformation of Fourth Ward into a fashionable multi-family residential district in the 1920s; 3) the building is the most elegant early 20th Century apartment building which survives in uptown Charlotte; and 4) the Poplar Apartments have more recently participated in the conversion of Fourth Ward into the residential showcase of uptown Charlotte.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association: The Commission contends that the attached architectural description by Lisa A. Stamper demonstrates that the Poplar Apartment Condominiums 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 1.149 acres of land is $543,200. The current appraised value of the building is $2,411,100. The total current appraised value is $2,954,300. The property is zoned UR2.

Date of Preparation of this Report: September 1, 1983

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Director
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission
218 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Telephone: (704) 376-9115

Dr. William H. Huffman

The Poplar Apartments, located at the corner of Tenth and Poplar Streets in Charlotte’s Fourth Ward, is still one of the most majestic and well-built multiple-unit buildings in the South. This landmark was a physical representation of the growth, confidence and affluence of Charlotte in the late 1920s. Coming as it did at the very end of the boom of the Twenties and beginning of the Great Depression, if it had been delayed even six months or a year, it is doubtful that this unique building would ever have been constructed at all. The bad economic times of the early Thirties still played a role in the Poplar’s early history, however.

The site where the Poplar now stands had been occupied by the residence of Professor George B. Hanna (1835-1906) and his wife, Nola Alexander Hanna (1857-1927). Hanna, a Massachusetts native, was an assayer at the Charlotte mint for nearly forty years, from 1868 to 1906, and president of the Charlotte YMCA for twenty-nine years.¹ Nola Hanna, who was the daughter of Dr. A. W. Alexander of Charlotte, lived in the house alone after her husband died until her own death in November, 1927.² In a deed handled by the Home Real Estate and Guaranty Company of Charlotte, the property was subsequently sold by Mrs. Hanna’s executor (her brother, Charles L. Alexander), to Willetts Construction Company of New York in July, 1928.

It was Willetts’ intention to build the five-story Poplar as “cooperative homes,” that is, similar to those in New York, it wanted to sell 99-year leases and issue stock in a cooperative apartment house. In January, 1929, three local businessmen set up the Poplar Apartments Corporation, headed by Hal L. McKee (1898-1979), a Charlotte realtor, to contract the building for Willetts. To design the structure, the firm of Lockwood, Greene and Company was engaged, which was a major architectural and engineering company with offices in Charlotte, as well as Atlanta, Chicago, New York, Detroit, Cleveland, Montreal, and Paris. Among others, Lockwood, Greene also designed the Charlotte Supply Company building on Mint Street in Charlotte’s Third Ward. In the building permit taken out on January 25, 1929, the apartment house was estimated to cost $250,000, which was a considerable sum for a residential building not in the very center of town, even though within walking distance.

By that fateful month of October, 1929, work on the building had progressed to the point where Willetts contracted with Home Real Estate and Guaranty to manage and handle leases for the apartments. It was signed on the 24th, the day of a massive sell-off of stocks in New York, and five days before “Black Tuesday,” when the bottom fell out of the stock market. Nonetheless, construction of the apartments continued, and in December, 1929, Willetts borrowed $125,000 from the Independence Trust Company in Charlotte to help finance the project, and by March, 1930, the Poplar was completed and ready for occupancy. On Thursday, Friday and Saturday, March 20-22, 1930, a truly exciting event took place in Charlotte on the occasion of the Poplar’s formal opening. Home Real Estate and Guaranty took out three full-page ads in the Charlotte Observer inviting the citizens of the city to visit “Charlotte’s newest and most elaborate project”:

“The Poplar Apartments represent an investment of a half-million dollars and are the latest things in ultramodern large apartment. Above 23,000 visitors saw our model home. Attendance at exhibition of model apartment expected to be as large….. The comfort, convenience and high quality of these magnificent apartments is rapidly filling the 39-family structure with select and highly pleased tenants. Representatives and hostesses will be in attendance to escort visitors from top to bottom of the building, explaining its fine features and the excellent material that went into its make-up.” The showplace of the grand opening was indeed the model apartment, which had been furnished by the W. T. McCoy Company of Charlotte, one of the finest in the area, and the Smith-Wadsworth Hardware Company (which provided bric-a-brac), all done in the best of taste for comfortable middle-class living of the time. It also featured a shiny new majestic four-legged radio, and “even the refrigerator has been stocked by E. W. Berryhill, neighborhood grocer.”³

The Poplar Apartments were truly unique in a number of ways, making them unusual not only in Charlotte, but among those in the South. Not only was the building fireproof and soundproof, every apartment had cross-ventilation (there were no inside rooms) and an unobstructed view. The thirty-nine unit building ranged from a three-to a seven-room apartment, with corresponding rents from $70 to $150 per month, and each apartment was equipped with a working open fireplace in the living room. All also had a completely equipped modern kitchen of the day with electric refrigerator, tiled baths (the larger apartments had two baths) and the latest steam heat and incinerator. Included as well was a garage basement for the residents’ motor cars.¹⁴ In sum, the Poplar was clearly one of the best, if not the best, multi-family dwelling to be erected in Charlotte and the entire region. It was a splendid anchor for Charlotte’s residential Fourth Ward.

Unfortunately for the owner, Willetts Construction, the economic climate worsened rapidly after the stock market crash, and just over four months after the grand opening, Willetts defaulted on their note to Independence Trust, and the Poplar was sold to S. T. Henderson of Charlotte for $165,000 in August, 1930.¹⁵ Stephen Thomas Henderson (1896-1940) was quite familiar with the elegant apartment building, because he was president of Home Real Estate and Guaranty at the time of its construction and opening. After his successful bid, Henderson assigned ownership to another of his companies, Henderson, Whitener and Company, which had been formed in 1928 with Henderson, his brother-in-law, J. H. Whitner, and H. L. McKee and John D. Shawl. Two months later, Henderson, Whitner sold the Poplar to Home Real Estate and Guaranty, which then made the original agent and manager also the owner.

When Home Real Estate borrowed money in October, 1930, they also eventually fell victim to the effects of the Depression, although they lasted through five of the worst years. Poplar Apartments, Inc., a company formed in August, 1935, by W. Latimer Brown, his wife Ruth Harding Brown, and H. B. Lockwood, bought the building through a foreclosure sale for $32,000, plus the assumption of a $135,000 deed of trust in September, 1935.²¹ For fifteen years, Poplar Apartments, Inc. successfully guided the dwelling through the remainder of the Depression and the following wartime years. In 1950, the corporation was taken over by a new set of stockholders, headed by Edwin L. Jones, Sr., and included his wife, Anabel L. Jones, their son, Edwin L. Jones, Jr., a daughter, Louise Jones Brown, and son-in-law, W. Franklin Brown, and the name was changed to Jones Realty Co., Inc. (later Jones-Brown Realty Co., Inc.).²²

After nearly thirty years of ownership of the Fourth Ward landmark, Jones-Brown sold the Poplar to NCNB Community Development Corporation in 1978.²³ Two years later, under a joint development venture with SYNCO, Inc., a major Charlotte developer, the venture, going under the name Hackberry Place Associates, converted the Poplar into condominiums. Under the conversion, the first units were sold in September, 1980, some fifty years after its much-heralded opening during a very different time.

It is entirely fitting, however, that the Poplar should be a part of the revitalization of Fourth Ward in Charlotte. It was built at a time when that mostly-residential neighborhood near the city center was enjoying the peak of its prosperity, as was the rest of the city. Its massive elegance and exceptionally solid construction, complete with the best equipment of the time, and fine tile, marble, terrazzo and woodwork, represent a visual testament to the belief the developers had in the life of the city then and in the future. Their view has proven true through the renaissance of Fourth Ward following a decades long period of decline. Through it all, the Poplar remained the vision of the solid, lasting values of the community.

NOTES

¹ Charlotte News, May 21, 1906, p. 1.

² Mecklenburg County Certificate of Death, Book 28, p. 121.

³ Deed Book 717, p.65, 26 July 1928.

⁴ Deed Book 764, p.260, 24 October 1929.

⁵ Record of Corporations, Book 11, p.356.

⁶ Building Permit No. 9781, dated 25 January 1929.

⁷ Plans in possession of O’Dell Associates, Charlotte, NC.

⁸ See note 6.

⁹ Deed Book 764, p.260, 24 October 1929.

¹⁰ Deed Book 766, p.288, 15 December 1929.

¹¹ Charlotte Observer, March 16, 1930, Section 4, p.1.

¹² Charlotte Observer, March 20, 1930, pp.l9-21.

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Deed Book 766, p.288; 15 December 1929; Deed Book 754, p.433, 8 August 1930.

¹⁶ See note 11.

¹⁷ Deed Book 754, p.433, 8 August 1930; Record of Corporations, Book 11, p.l9, 27 February 1928.

¹⁸ Deed Book 778, p.l50, 3 October 1930.

¹⁹ Deed Book 785, p.289, 20 October 1950.

²⁰ Record of Corporations, Book 15, p.132, 30 August 1935.

²¹ Deed Book 876, p.28, 28 September 1935.

²² Record of Corporations, Book 30, p.178, 3 May 1950.

²³ Deed Book 4101, p.786, 7 September 1978.

²⁴ Deed Book 4317, p.362, 30 June 1980; Deed Book 4334, pp.288-345, August 1980 (Declaration of Condominium).

²⁵ Deed Book 4383, p.300, 19 September 1980, et seq.

Lisa A. Stamper

Being a relatively new concept in American housing, the public was just beginning to accept the apartment house in the late 1910s and 1920s as a decent and even fashionable residence. Modern conveniences available in luxury apartment buildings were overcoming the stigmas of the lower-class connotation of tenement houses, the fear of health hazards, and the critics warnings that apartment house living would foster moral degradation into the eventual fall of the American family. Large apartment houses moved onto the outskirts of residential areas close to city centers.

Charlotte’s Poplar Apartments were a good example of this trend. Located at the corner of West Tenth and Poplar Streets, within easy walking distance from the central business district, the Poplar Apartments were built c. 1929. These luxury apartments were built in Charlotte’s old Fourth Ward residential area, then and now considered a fashionable address. Today the building retains its residential appeal, and is known as “The Poplar” following a 1980 condominium conversion.

The Poplar Apartments are five levels high. The apartment building has an underground parking garage, one of the first residential parking garages in Charlotte. The overall shape is a double-cross, with various bays and rectangular protrusions with crenels. These double-cross shapes with various slight protruding elements create a very visually stimulating back and forth movement.

Another significant design feature of this building is that each apartment was designed for maximum natural light and cross-ventilation. At the center of each cross is a circulation core with an elevator, a main stair, and two servants’ stairs plus a short cross-shaped hallway to four apartment units. Each unit occupied a leg of the cross, thus giving it natural light on three sides as well as cross-ventilation. These two circulation cores are connected at the ground floor level only.

This Jacobethan Revival style building was constructed with Flemish bond brick, limestone blocks, and concrete. The limestone blocks were cut into various angular shapes which were cut to fit together beautifully and which add a great deal of visual interest to the exterior. During restoration, the building was repainted with the original mortar color taken into consideration. Based on ancient English models, the Poplar Apartments are the large-scale counterpart of the Tudor Revival cottages popular in wealthy Myers Park in the 1920s.

The roof is flat with crenels cut into a concrete band which surrounds the top of the building. A short shingled, pyramidal-roofed tower topped by a weathervane is located near the front end of the building. Brick chimneys, elevator shafts, and other mechanical enclosures extend past the flat roof line, but are largely invisible from the street level. Also, a wooden deck was built on the roof. The deck is invisible from the street. The horizontal character of the roof is reinforced by the crenellated concrete band, a brick work section below it, and a solid concrete band underneath the brickwork. The continuously surround the building and carries one’s eye horizontally along the perimeter. In the brickwork section between the concrete bands, occasional Jacobethan decorative elements are found, such as diamonds and shields.

Rectangular casement windows of various sizes dominate the building. The windows are of metal and are composed of many rectangular panes. The window sills are of concrete. Most of the first level windows have brick lintels, but others are surrounded by large rectangular one-story sections of stone blocks with a crenel at either end and which have an arch cut over the window openings. Above most of these windows, a concrete band surrounds each of the four upper level windows as well as encompassing all four windows into one vertical unit. Rectangular brickwork between windows is divided vertically in half by another concrete band. At the time of restoration in 1980, individual heating/cooling units replaced the original central heating system. Unobtrusive vents were cut under the appropriate windows of each apartment.

The first floor front of the Poplar Apartments, which faces West Tenth Street, is recessed to form a porte cochere with a half-circle concrete drive. Two large Tudor arched openings allow the driveway to swing up to the front doors. Decorative carved stone reliefs are directly below the window sills above the Tudor arched openings. The outside wall of the entryway has three openings with grillwork: a large Tudor arched opening like those on the sides, and flanking thin rectangular openings. These openings allow natural light into the entryway. The front facade above the entryway is emphasized by limestone quoins.

For security, there were only two entrances to the building. One door was for guests arriving on foot, and the other was for those arriving by auto. Both entered into the front lobby. The main entrance is the door within the porte-cochere. The Tudor arched double door is wooden with glass in its two upper panels and two wooden panels in the bottom portion of each door. The doorway is decorated with a stone label hood mold and label stop as well as stone reliefs. Two round arched brick niches flank the entrance door. These niches contain brick and concrete benches on which to sit. The pedestrian entrance also opens into the lobby, but from the Poplar Street side. Rounded brick steps and a brick walkway lead from the street to the doorway. Although smaller than the main door, this one is of the same style. Quatrefoils, towers, shields, etc. elaborately decorate this entrance. All door knobs are of intricately detailed metal.

The entrance the underground garage is located on the back portion of the building on the Poplar Street side. Limestone block walls with rusticated gray stone corners lead down from the street to the garage area. A new garage door has been added at the bottom of the drive; however, it is not obvious from the street. Each resident had a parking place originally. This indicated that the Poplar Apartments was intended to be inhabited by the upper class. Simple, square concrete columns which fan out at the top and base are found here. The mechanical operations which were located in the underground area off from the garage area in 1919 are still intact. The garage/basement is still used as much as it was originally except that storage closets have been added for each resident. A laundry area was added for the residents’ convenience.

The lobby contains most of its original wood-paneled wainscoting which extends approximately seven feet high from the floor. Even the large square columns are paneled in the same manner. There is painted paneling above the wainscoting. Dentil molding defines the transition from wall to ceiling. The stone floor is now covered by a red carpet; however, the stone can be seen around the perimeter of the lobby and does not appear to be damaged. It is composed of irregular shapes and colors of stone held together by a black joining material.

From the lobby, stone steps lead one up to the hallway which leads to circulation cores located in the center of each “cross” in the building plan. The elevator in each core is an Otis elevator with the original fixtures intact. The secondary stairwells were probably used as servants’ stairs and only one can be entered through the hall. These stairs are of metal. Next to the main stair is a maid’s closet with a sink and what is believed to have been a trash or laundry chute.

The condominiums stem off in four directions from each circulation core. There are nine types of condominiums ranging from an one bedroom 800 square foot unit to a three bedroom, two bath with sunroom, 1,550 square foot unit. In the 1930s, the lure of these apartments were their modern conveniences without the bother of maintaining a house. Modern baths were provided, some apartments even had two. Both a living room and dining room were available as well as a modern kitchen.

Although some of the walls and moldings were removed by some of the residents, most condominiums still retain many of their original elements: original walls, molded window sills, moldings which formed rectangular panels on the walls, ceiling molding, wood floors, mantels, door knobs, and other fixtures. All doorways had heavily molded frames and all the doors were paneled. Heavily molded mantels were of wood, with brick inside. Niches flanked these mantels, giving the wall the same in-and-out movement of the exterior of the building. When changes were made, for example replacement of cabinets, most were made with thoughtful consideration of the original style.

The exterior of The Poplar is surrounded by sensitive new brickwork and beautiful plantings. West Tenth Street runs in front of the building. The street has a landscaped median with benches for sitting. On the opposite side of West Tenth Street recently constructed townhouses can barely be seen through the trees. Poplar Street runs lengthwise on the southeast side of the building. Across Poplar Street is Edwin Towers. Behind The Poplar is Setters Land, a new condominium development. On the northwest side of The Poplar a parking lot was built during the restoration for residents and their guests. A small shed was built between the building and parking lot to shelter a staircase which leads down to the parking garage. A brick and cast iron fence was built to enclose the parking lot. On the other side of the fence is property to be developed into condominiums. Brick and cast iron fences are also located along the back of The Poplar and on the Poplar Street side to enclose court yards. The fences were built at the time of restoration. Brick sidewalks run alongside the building next to Poplar and West Tenth Streets. Small, rectangular courtyards are formed where the shape of the building creates recesses. Decorative stones and bricks are used in landscaping these areas, as well as grasses, bushes, and small trees. Many trees and bushes, following the original landscape theme, were planted along the building foundation.

The Poplar Apartments building is an architecturally important part of Charlotte’s residential historical development, and represents an excellent example of the national trend of the late 1920s and early 1930s. The Jacobethan style of the building reflects one of the most popular residential styles of the city’s prosperous years before the Depression in a new and progressive form. Charlotte was very fortunate to have had the Poplar Apartments built, considering the drastic economic shift shortly after construction began, and Charlotte would be very unfortunate to let anything harm the character of its first luxury apartment building.

This report was written on July 3, 1989

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Palmer Fire School is located at 2601 East Seventh Street, Charlotte, NC.

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

City of Charlotte
c/o O. Wendell White
City Manager
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
600 East Fourth St.
Charlotte, N.C. 28202

Telephone: (704) 336-2241

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

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

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: There is no record in the Mecklenburg County Tax Office of the listing of the most recent deed to this property. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is: 127-091-01.

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

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Mary Beth Gatza.

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 Palmer Fire School does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Palmer Fire School, a WPA project which opened on May 13, 1940, served as a training center and social center for the Charlotte Fire Department until 1976; 2) the Palmer Fire School, named for Charlotte Fire Chief Hendrix Palmer, was at the time of its opening one of the finest facilities of its type in the United States; and 3) the Palmer Fire School, especially the rubble stone education building, possesses architectural significance.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Mary Beth Gatza which is included in this report demonstrates that the Palmer Fire School 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 improvements is $270,080. The current appraised value of the 5.250 acres of land is $288,130. The total appraised value of the property is $558,210. The property is zoned 06.

Date of Preparation of this Report: July 3, 1989

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

Although it may not be well-known among the general public, the Palmer Fire School, often known also as Fireman’s Hall, nonetheless enjoyed state-wide and national prominence for many years. Located on East Seventh and Fifth Streets, it was designed by the City Engineering Department and built in 1938-40 at the edge of the city limits of the day. In addition to being the best fire training facility in the state, it was also one of the finest in the country.

It was named for the man most responsible for its construction, William Hendrix Palmer (1884-1955), who was a forty-four-year member of the city fire department and its chief from 1927 to 1948. Chief Palmer began his fire service with the city on October 1, 1904, and through the years held nearly every job in the department. Recognized internationally as a progressive innovator in fire fighting, the York County, SC native had, among other distinctions, credit for “designing and promoting the manufacture of the first enclosed fire truck in America,” ¹ which went on to become standard equipment throughout the country. Its design was prompted by the death of a firefighter from riding on the side of a fire truck, and the City of Charlotte was the first in the country to adopt the new equipment. Twice elected president of the North Carolina Firemen’s Association, Palmer also helped organize the NC Fire Chiefs Association and became its first president. The highlight of his career came in 1940, when he was elected president of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the most prestigious post of his profession.²

Over the years, Hendrix Palmer saw many changes take place in the business of putting out and preventing fires. In 1906, he fired the horse-drawn engine operated by his father, J. P. Palmer, when they fought a stable fire at the time of the county fair in Dilworth, and in 1912, he saw Charlotte’s first motor fire truck take its place alongside the horse-drawn ones.³ Continued subsequent modernization of equipment and techniques, and the enlargement of the department as the city grew necessitated more and better training for the crews. The records dealing with training in the department begin in 1930, three years after Hendrix Palmer became chief, when forty-eight men of a 190-member department received Red Cross instruction. Regular training drills lasted 30 days, and included all aspects of equipment handling. Hose layout and pump operation were taught by Assistant Chief C. M. Griswold at Seigle and Orr Streets. That same year, 1930, the chief submitted a request to the city for a drill school and practice tower.⁴

In 1932, the request was again sent forward, and two years later the project was approved for construction by the Public Works Department, but due to a legal technicality, it was nullified by the North Carolina Supreme Court before it could be built.⁵ In addition to the necessity of requesting a change in the laws by the city council to remove the legal barriers, Chief Palmer had to begin all over again fighting for the funds to build the project in the face of an ever-deepening economic depression. Finally, in 1938, success came. To combat unemployment in the nation’s longest and worst depression, the Roosevelt administration had set up the Works Progress Administration (WPA) in 1935 to put people to work on a wide variety of federal, state and local public works projects, all funded by the government. The fire training school was approved as a WPA project, with an estimated cost of $54,000, and plans were drawn by the City Engineering Department.⁶

In order to build the kind of facility he wanted, Chief Palmer involved the firefighters themselves in helping out. Some of the building materials for the school and tower came from an old incinerator on the site, but most of the stone for the hall came from an old tannery on Burton Street, which used to be operated by the father of former Charlotte Mayor Victor Shawl. Stone by stone, the firefighters hauled the material from the abandoned tannery to the school site according to predetermined work schedules. They were carried on a two-wheel pole trailer that was pulled by a maintenance truck.

The efforts of the department personnel did not end there, however. Two captains, J. R. Jamison and R. T. Barnes landscaped the five-acre grounds with trees, shrubs, posts, and other improvements, and later, when they needed more room, the firefighters dug out and finished the remaining two-thirds of the basement. Since in those days the department maintained its own shops, many of the interior improvements came from there, including the old wood benches with the department insignia at the ends. The woodworking shop was under the direction of Captain Glen Beckham, who formerly worked for H. M. Wade, manufacturer of office and bank furnishings.⁷

Years of effort finally bore fruit on May 13, 1940, when the Palmer Fire School was dedicated. Preceding the dedication was a luncheon at the Hotel Charlotte, hosted by Mayor Douglas and Chief Palmer, where, in speech to the gathering, Samuel J. Pope, Chief of the Boston, Massachusetts Fire Department and president of the New England Fire Chiefs Association called Hendrix Palmer “one of the outstanding fire chiefs in America.” Other guests of honor were D. W. Brosnan, Chief of the Albany, Georgia Fire Department and ex-president of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and Sherwood Brockwell, the North Carolina state fire marshal.⁸

At the 3 P.M. dedication, Mayor Ben Douglas was master of ceremonies, where T. P. Richardson, Charlotte area supervisor of the WPA, handed the keys to the new school and drill tower to C. C. McGinnis, state WPA administrator, who gave them to Charlotte City Manager J. B. Marshall. He in turn presented them to the beaming Hendrix Palmer. Addressing a large audience at the ceremony, State Fire Marshal Brockwell praised both Chief Palmer for his tireless efforts, and the work of the department personnel, who helped bring the finished project in for about $50,000, some $4,000 under the estimate. He went on to say that “Charlotte now has the finest training center for firemen in the United States,” and announced that starting immediately, the annual three-day North Carolina Fire College and Drill School, which had traveled around the state, would be held at the Charlotte facility.⁹ Ten years later, when he was retired, Chief Palmer was as proud as ever of the five-acre school: “That’s a unique setup out there. Nothing like it in the country, except at Brookline, Massachusetts.”¹⁰

For thirty-six years, the Palmer Fire School and drill tower not only provided training for local firefighters and those from throughout the state (some also came from Rock Hill, South Carolina) in one of the best facilities in the nation, but it also served as a clubhouse and social center for the fire personnel as well. For many years, the Benefit Fund held square dances in the hall, and annual barbecues were festive affairs looked forward to by the department members. The hall was also rented out to civic groups, and the proceeds allowed the hall to be self-sufficient in maintenance.

In 1976, the training division moved out to a newly constructed fire/police training facility, and shortly thereafter it was transferred to the City Parks and Recreation department. The hall and drill tower have since been used by various civic groups for such things as wilderness training and rehearsal space for the Charlotte Shakespeare Company. Indeed, the Palmer Fire School and drill tower not only have the historical distinction of being perhaps the best of their kind in the country when first put into use, but also could have a long and useful life of service to the community in the years ahead.¹⁰

NOTES

¹ Charlotte News, August 26, 1955, p. 1.

² Ibid.; Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1940.

³ Charlotte Observer, February 28, 1950, p. 7J.

⁴ T. E. Gardner, “History of Training in the Charlotte Fire Department,” unpublished typescript, March 9, 1976.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Charlotte News, May 13, 1940, p. 11; plans on file at City of Charlotte Engineering Department.

⁷ Ibid.; Interview with Chief R. L. Blackwelder, Charlotte, North Carolina, 16 August 1984; Interview with Joe Morris, retired-Fire Marshal, 9 October 1984.

⁸ Charlotte News, May 13, 1940, p. 11.

⁹ Charlotte Observer, May 13, 1940, p. 11

¹⁰ Ibid., February 28, 1940, p. 7J.

¹¹ Interview with Chief Blackwelder.

M. B. Gatza

Two structures stand at the Palmer Fire School site, both erected around 1938-40. The first is the school building and the second is a six-story all-brick tower, presumably used for drills. The most salient feature of the school building is the crenellated parapet at the roofline, which is slightly reminiscent of a medieval castle. Laid up in uncoursed rubble stone with wide mortar joints, the building is rectangular in shape. The facade (the narrow side of the rectangle) is five bays wide. The two end bays project from the plane of the facade and are pierced only by tall, narrow windows. This treatment suggests a fortified tower. The inner two bays each hold an 18-pane industrial steel sash window. The central entrance is composed of a double door with a half-round overlight. An aluminum marquis (not original) has been installed which conceals the overlight and shields the stoop. A set of stone and concrete steps extend down to a concrete sidewalk, and another set reaches down to the paved drive.

The north and south elevations are-not identical. The north side of the building faces the practice tower, and is therefore an important elevation. It is nine bays wide, including a functioning exterior fireplace (located in bay #5). As on the facade, the end bays project from the wall surface and are pierced only by tall, narrow fixed-sash windows. Bays #2, #4, #6 and #8 (counting from the east) hold 24-pane industrial steel sash windows. Bays #3 and #7 contain single entry doors, both reached by a small set of stone and concrete steps. A modern wheelchair ramp has been built over the steps on bay #3, but it is compatible in materials and construction. There is a sunken basement entry located under bay #8, which consists of a single door, and is reached also by a stone and concrete ramp. Black pipe railing shields the entry. There is an aluminum marquis (not original) over the entry in bay #3, but the one over bay #7 is missing. The fireplace and its chimney project slightly and are also laid up in uncoursed rubble stone. The top of the chimney, though, is stuccoed from the level of the parapet upwards.

The south elevation, like the north side, is symmetrical. Nine bays wide, it features a central entrance. The entry has a double door with an aluminum marquis, and stone and concrete steps. The two end bays project and have the same narrow windows as on the other elevations. The remaining six bays all hold 24-pane industrial steel sash windows. Two basement entries are located beneath bays #4 and 8, and feature curved decorative curved concrete hoods. The entries are reached by concrete steps, which are shielded by iron pipe railings.

The ‘tower’ treatment is repeated on the rear of the building in the two end bays, but it is otherwise unfenestrated. A modern gable-roofed addition and chimney have been constructed out of a gray-colored brick. The tower stands six stories high and is laid up in five-course common bond brick. There are window openings on all four sides and on all six stories, but only those on the ground-floor level are glazed. They are fitted with 12-pane industrial steel sash windows, and wooden shutters. Openings on the upper stories are simply left open. All of the openings have concrete sills. The original glazed door and transom are in place. On the interior, the six levels are divided by concrete slab floors, and a metal stair risers all the way to the top in the southeast corner.

1. Name and location of property: Overcarsh House, 326 W. Eighth St.

2. Name, address, telephone number of present owner and occupants:
C. C. Dees
3609 Tuckasegee Rd
(The occupants are renters).

3. Representative photographs of the property: Four photographs of the structure are included in this report.

4. A map depicting the location of the property: The report includes a map depicting the location of the Overcarsh House.

5. Current Deed Book Reference of the property: Mecklenburg County Deed Book 2793, page 157

6. A brief historical sketch of the property:

The property was purchased in 1879 from D.H. Byerly Mecklenburg County Deed Book 22, pages 436-437. The exact date of construction is not known; however the 1879-1880 City Directory indicates that Rev. Elias Overcarsh was living at 338 W. Eighth St. at that time. This strongly suggests that the house was constructed in 1879-1880. Rev Elias Overcarsh was a school teacher and Methodist minister in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. In 1896, Rev. Elias Overcarsh sold the property to his son B. J. (Bryan) Overcarsh (Mecklenburg County Deed Book 110, page 179). In 1945 B. J. (Bryan) Overcarsh sold the property to his son B. J. Overcarsh, Jr.(Mecklenburg County Deed Book 1157, page204). In 1966 Mildred Hartman Overcarsh, widow of B. J. Overcarsh sold the property to C. C. Dees (Mecklenburg County Deed Book 2793,page 157). The property will be purchased by Calvin E. Hefner and Dennis Cudd within the next two weeks. The Overcarsh House is of the Queen Anne style with Italianate and Eastlake features exhibiting a tower with “fish scale” shingles, an unusually large front porch, and large sun bursts in the gables. The carving around the front entrance is especially notable. The majority of the interior trim is intact. The doors and windows are all heavily molded. A wainscoting runs throughout the entrance hall, central hall and staircase, and through the upstairs hall. The oval windows in the dining room and the upstairs bedroom are cost unusual and were repeatedly noted by the Survey team as was the heavy rail in the dining room. The downstairs mantles all have overmantels. There is decorative, stamped hardware throughout the house. There is an etched window over the door that leads from the front porch to the master bedroom.

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

a. Historical and cultural significance: The house is a good example of the Queen Anne style of architecture. It is one of only a few left in Mecklenburg County. It was the home of a local schoolteacher and minister who influenced the religious development of Mecklenburg County.

b. Suitability for preservation and restoration: The house has been modified only slightly and this addition will be removed. The evaluation of the Survey Team of March, 1975, indicated that the interior of the house should be restored. There are fine mantels, stairs and doors and decorative brass hardware throughout.

c. Educational value: This Queen Anne style home exhibits a tower, sun burst gables, carved doorways and etched windows, all of which constitute craftsmanship exemplified by few remaining structures.

d. Cost of acquisition, restoration, etc: Calvin E. Hefner and Dennis Cudd have acquired the house for the purpose of restoration and to be used as their residence. Financing has already been arranged through local banks.

e. Possibilities for adaptive or alternative use of the property: The survey team of March, 1975, recommended restoration or preservation only. If used for adaptive purposes, the details, both interior and exterior should be maintained.

f. Appraised value: 1975 assessed value = $14,060.00

g. The administrative and financial responsibility of and person or organization willing to underwrite all or a portion of such costs: Dennis Cudd and Calvin E. Hefner have been approved by the banks and will be given the financial backing for restoration costs.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria established for inclusion on the National Register:

a. Events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history: Elias Overcarsh lad a great influence on the religious development of Mecklenburg County serving as minister in eight area churches. His grandfather, Franz Oberkirsh was a founder of the Organ Church in Rowan County.

b. Associated with lives of persons: The house was built by Elias Overcarsh who came to Charlotte in 1866. He established a grocery business and a farm in the area between Poplar and Church to Trade Street; taught school in two area schools and was a minister to eight churches in the area.

c. Type, period, method of construction: The Queen Anne style house, built in 1880, is one of only a very few remaining structures that exhibit the use of a tower, projecting bays, carved doorways, heavy moldings and mantles and the brass decorative hardware.

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission maintains that the evidence presented in this report demonstrates that the property known as the Overcarsh House does meet the criteria for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places.

9. Documentation of why and in what ways the property is of historical importance to Charlotte and/or Mecklenburg County: Elias Overcarsh, whose grandfather was a founder of the Organ Church in Rowan County, came to Charlotte in 1866. He had a grocery business on the corner of Trade and Church Streets. His farm extended from the present McClung House on Poplar Street to Trade and ran between Poplar and Church. He taught school in Charlotte at Prospect and Hickory Grove. In 1870 he was licensed as a minister by the Quarterly Methodist Conference meeting at the First Methodist Church. Serving as minister at eight churches: Fair Prospect, Calvery, Hebran, Big Springs, Harrison, Dows, Trinity, and Hickory Grove, Reverend Elias Overcarsh had a significant influence on the religious development of Mecklenburg County. An incident of interest: Bryan Overcarsh, son of Elias Overcarsh, was noted in Charlotte for his artistic ability. He designed and built the prize winning float in the parade of May 20, 1909, celebration when President William Howard Taft was a guest in the city.

Bibliography

Charlotte City Directory 1879-1880

The Charlotte Observer (March 30, 1930)

Mrs. T. L. Milwee, 824 Henley Place, interviewed by Dennis Cudd

Mr. Creasy Overcarsh, 254 Hillside, interviewed by Dennis Cudd

Mrs. Hazeline Overcarsh, 254 Hillside, interviewed by Dennis Cudd

Mr. A. H. Overcarsh, 812 E. Kingston, interviewed by Dennis Cudd

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission Preliminary Survey of Fourth Ward, March, 1975.

Records, Deeds, Wills on file at Mecklenburg County Deeds Office and Court House.

The late Victorian period house at 326 West Eight Street, known as the ‘Overcarsh’ house is one of the few remaining Queen Anne style buildings remaining in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The house is a simple rectangular structure, as compared to the vigorously irregular plans of many structures of the time done in Queen Anne style. Variations in the exterior are achieved with a moderate angular two story bay on the west side, a round turreted tower of the southwest corner facade, one story wings extending to the east and to the north, and a rectangular gabled turret added to the southeast second floor corner bed chamber. The simplicity of the execution does not diminish the significance of the house. It represents, with selective detailing, many of the appealing design elements of the popular Queen Anne architecture of the late nineteenth century. A style which was often repeated in Charlotte in the post civil war years and was the motif of many elaborate mansions in elegant Queen City neighborhoods, as well as the guiding light for more simple dwellings as represented in this house. During these years designers were influenced by styles other than Queen Anne and there are some suggestions of other influences on this house.

While ‘Queen Anne’ design meant variation in exterior surfaces, steep pitched roofs, verandas and porches, light frame construction, and open interior spaces, some “Eastlake” influence is noticeable in the elaborate trim, oval decorative motifs, and shingle surfaces here and there. Additionally, there is some hint of the ‘stick style’ appearing in gable stick work and in the curious built-up flare of roof overhangs where gutters are concealed. The exterior wall surfaces are covered with square edge, lapped clap board beginning suddenly above a low brick foundation wall with no drip molding. This siding extends to the second floor roof cornice where a wide overhang defines the roof line. This overhang is simply trimmed, lacking the expected ornamental brackets. Across the front is a narrow tin-roofed veranda sheltering the main entrance and turning down the east side a short distance. Here a side door connects to an unusually high ceilinged one story east wing. This side door has a unique patterned glass transom. The veranda roof is supported by solid square wood columns with intermediate chamfered edges and elaborate Eastlake carved brackets. The porch railing is a geometric pattern with turned, widely spaced posts connected with molded and fluted rails.

The ceiling of the porch shows a sensitive pattern of narrow beaded boards following a gentle vaulted shape as it rises from the column line toward the main house wall. On the west of the rectangular plan is a two story bay with angled corners containing windows on each floor. In the center segment of the bay unusual flat oval windows, likely stained glass originally, are set at eye level on each floor. This bay is crowned with a full gable roof frame which overhangs the angle corners, and is set off with molded supporting brackets and turned dropped pendants. In the gable face is a pattern of applied vertical and horizontal boards reflecting half timber construction. The upper panels of this framing are faced with a pattern of fan shaped wooden segments, creating a highly decorative feature. At the corner facade a circular turret tower presents the most important (and typical Queen Anne) design feature on the exterior of the house. This tower is covered with tight courses of ‘fish scale’ wood shingles through its full height, now painted but no doubt stained green initially. At the foundation wall and at the line of window sills and heads the shingles flare out to form distinctive bands at each level.

The turret rises well above the second floor roof line and includes small windows in the garret above two full length windows which occur on each floor below. The tower is capped with a high slate covered pointed roof, supported on closely spaced brackets. The peak of this roof terminates in a well proportioned turned wood crest spear. Above the veranda roof an unusual rectangular bay extends diagonally from the southwest corner bed chamber. This bay is simply detailed, containing one full size window in the outside face and being topped with a simple gabled roof. In the corner of the veranda a definitive square framing pattern in the ceiling indicates a probable cupola tower over the corner at one time. The one story east wing is covered with a slate surfaced gabled roof. On the gable wall there are small rounded ‘fish scale’ wood shingles and an arched wood louvered vent. The gable rake overhang is wide and the verge boards terminate in decorative carved motifs at the eave ends. In the gable peak a horizontal molded frame creates an elaborate design. After several attic fires damaged the original slate, the main roof surfaces were covered with asphalt shingles. It is likely that the original shingles were slate, similar to those on the one story east wing. Windows are typically high, double hung units divided in each sash with vertical center muntins creating an ‘Italianate’ theme, a theme which is reinforced in the shoulder trim of the veranda window casing. The front entrance door is heavy panelled oak with glass inserts at eye level. Framing the entrance, elaborate wide carved wood trim includes stylized pineapple motifs.

From the entrance hall inside the front door panelled folding doors open expansively to a parlor at one side and a sitting room at the other. In each room one finds carefully crafted fireplace mantels with beveled mirrors in each over-mantel. These mantels are classical in design and reflect a definite colonial influence. To the rear of the left side parlor and connecting also to a rear stair hall is a carefully detailed dining room, featuring an extraordinary molded plate shelf on four walls. Also, in the dining room is another fine classical mantel. Reflecting the simple rectangular shape of the house, the interior consists of a large central hall from which open two rooms at each side on both floors. In all first floor rooms as well as in the central hall the walls are wainscoted with carefully executed vertical ‘veed’ boards of various woods stained and finished to simulate golden oak. On the second floor the millwork has less distinction. This house is representative of probably the largest group of late Victorian Queen Anne style buildings erected in Charlotte during the late nineteenth century. While it lacks the elaboration often found in larger, more expensive structures, it was a sensitive development of the style in simpler terms and is unique in Charlotte, if not in the state.

Click Here to See Film of R. F. Outen at Work.

1. Name and location of the property:  The property known as the R. F. Outen Pottery is located at 430 Jefferson Street, Matthews, North Carolina.
2. Name and address of the current owner of the property:

Frank Outen

4000 Forest Lawn Drive

Matthews, NC 28105

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 information for this property is found in Mecklenburg County Deed Book/Page 05580-884.   The tax parcel number for the property is 22702313.
6. A Brief Historical Essay On The Property. This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Stewart Gray.
7. A Brief Physical Description Of The Property.  This report contains a brief physical description of the property prepared by Stewart Gray.
8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S. 160A-400.5.
9. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance.  The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission judges that the Outen Pottery possesses special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg.  The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:

1) The R. F. Outen Pottery is a rare surviving  example of a workshop and pottery that produced utilitarian earthenware and stoneware for local use from local clays.   This type of industry was common in the Piedmont of North Carolina in the nineteenth century but nearly disappeared as the twentieth century progressed.

2) The R. F. Outen Pottery is important for its association with Rufus F. Outen (1905-1983), one of the last traditionally-trained potters in North Carolina who continued to produce utilitarian ware in the second half of the twentieth century.

3) The R. F. Outen Pottery is significant as a rare surviving example of a twentieth-century workshop and kiln in Mecklenburg County.

4) The R. F. Outen Pottery is the most complete artifact of the pottery industry in Matthews, a town which was a significant  producer of pottery for much of the twentieth century.

1. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association:  The Commission judges that the physical description included in this report demonstrates that the property known as the R. F. Outen Pottery meets this criterion.
2. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for 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 R. F. Outen Pottery is $137,000. 
3. This report finds that the kiln, interior and exterior of the workshop building, and approximately 1.119 acres of land associated with the R. F. Outen Pottery should be included in landmark designation of the property.

Date of preparation of this report:   December 1, 2011

Prepared by:    Stewart Gray

Rufus Outen turning in 1968 at the R. F. Outen Pottery Company.

Pottery has been made for millennia in North Carolina.  Members of the Catawba Nation made pottery during the Woodland Period.  With European settlement, the Piedmont with its abundant clay became the center of  pottery production in North Carolina.  Lead-glazed earthenware, a relatively fragile and potentially toxic ware, dominated the early North Carolina pottery trade, much of it produced by the Moravians. Only one early-19th-century Mecklenburg County pottery has been documented.  William Goodwin recorded an indenture for his apprentice, seven year old Matthew Ormand, in 1802. (Perry: 3, 15)

During the nineteenth century stoneware largely replaced earthenware in North Carolina.   Stoneware is vitrified (takes on a very hard, inert, glass-like state) and is thus stronger, more durable, and not porous.  Stoneware requires a higher temperature fire (around 2,400 degrees Fahrenheit versus 1,800 for earthenware.) And whereas the clay required for earthenware could be found close to the surface, stoneware clay required deeper excavations.  The earliest stoneware in North Carolina was imported from England and New England.  But stoneware began to be produced in large numbers in North Carolina during the first half of the nineteenth century.  Early North Carolina stoneware is divided into salt glaze and alkaline glaze.  Salt glazing requires that salt be poured into the kiln when the kiln has reached its highest temperatures.  The extreme heat vaporizes the salt which fuses with the clay forming a hard glaze. Salt glaze production dominated the eastern part of the state (where salt was more abundant) and was concentrated in Moore and Randolph counties.  In the Catawba Valley near Vale, Daniel Seagle began producing alkaline glazed pottery in the 1830s.  This glaze is made up of wood ash, water, and clay and is applied to the pottery before being fired.  Alkaline glazed stoneware dominated the state from Charlotte to the west.  Salt or Alkaline glazed, the production of the pottery was virtually the same.  Clay was dug by hand.  It had to be ground to a usable consistency, which was done with an animal (horse, mule, or oxen) powered mill.  The pottery would then be turned on a foot powered wheel, a skill acquired after years of practice that often involved an apprenticeship.  The pottery was fired in a groundhog kiln, which was a long low kiln partially dug into the ground.  The groundhog kilns replaced the earlier beehive kilns used for earthenware.  This locally made stoneware was an invaluable product in the 19th century.  In the Piedmont of North Carolina there were no practical or available alternatives to the jars, jugs, crocks, pots and pitchers produced by the local potters.  (Perry: 6, 7-8, 14)  

Traditional pottery of the North Carolina Piedmont began to decline with the approach of the 20th century.  Cheap metal, glass, and other factory-made storage containers hurt the business of the local potters.  In the Catawba Valley the Seagle family stopped producing alkaline-glazed pottery in 1892.  In the east, the production of salt-glazed utilitarian pottery declined even as the craft of pottery was being revived.  In the Seagrove area, outsiders who recognized the inherent beauty of the traditional pottery developed a new market for the pottery and encouraged a switch from the utilitarian work to the production of art pottery.  (Zug: 16)

The Outen Family

Potters came into Union County, North Carolina from South Carolina in the mid-nineteenth century.  Thomas Gay (1837-1909) arrived in Union County in the 1850s, and likely trained his brother-in-law Nimrod Broom (1842-1912).  Broom in turn trained his son’s brother-in-law, William Franklin Outen (1871-1947), whose family had moved to Union County from South Carolina around 1860.  William F. Outen worked with Nimrod’s son “Jug Jim” Broom (1869-1957) in Monroe making salt-glazed stoneware until around 1900.  “Jug Jim” continued to operate a shop in Monroe until 1946 and was the last traditional potter in Union County.  William F. Outen, moved to South Carolina in the early 1900s and established potteries in Lancaster and Catawba Junction (1915).  Outen finally settled in Matthews, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina in 1922 where he established Matthews Pottery.  (Zug: 66; Baldwin:139)

Matthews existed in a “ceramic no man’s land” (Zug: 197) between the salt glazing tradition of the eastern part of the state  and the alkaline glaze tradition of the Catawba Valley.   His relative isolation in this “ceramic no man’s land” may help explain why William Outen moved away from the salt glaze tradition.  It is well documented that North Carolina folk potters were adverse to change. Yet in Matthews it appears that William Outen abandoned the salt glaze and began to employ the Bristol glaze, a glaze developed in England in the first half of the 19th century that gave pottery a white or white-mottled finish. Unlike salt and alkaline, the Bristol glaze required commercially produced components.  William Outen combined feldspar, whiting (calcium carbonate), ball clay (kaolinitic sedimentary clay), and zinc and tin oxides to produce his Bristol glaze.   It is unclear why William Outen switched from salt to the Bristol glaze, but it may have been to stay competitive with the factory-made pottery coming out of the North.  The Kennedy family, traditional potters in Wilkesboro, adopted the Bristol glaze in the 1920s to compete with the white factory-made pottery coming out of Ohio. (Zug: 196 – 197)

Rufus Franklin Outen

Rufus Outen, wife Louise and daughter Doris ca. 1930 at the Matthews Pottery

William Outen’s son, Rufus Franklin Outen was born in 1905 and learned the traditional pottery trade from his father and from his uncle “Jug Jim” Broom.  Rufus Outen probably worked in his father’s potteries from an early age and certainly labored in the Matthews Pottery.   Perhaps to establish himself as a potter, Rufus Outen  moved to Marion Virginia in 1929 to work in a pottery there.  His timing was bad.  With the onset of the Great Depression, Outen was forced to come back to the Matthews Pottery.  After his return, the Matthews Pottery began to produce machine-stamped flower pots, while Rufus Outen continued to throw pots in the traditional manner.  Rufus Outen continued to work at the Matthews Pottery until he opened R. F. Outen Pottery, around 1950.  He built his shop on Jefferson Street on the edge of Matthews, next door to a home he constructed in 1947.  Rufus Outen built a vaulted brick kiln with help from a mason named Long.  The vault was formed with wood framing and was built with several layers of fire brick.  The kiln featured six chimneys when built and was fed by fuel oil (heating oil or diesel fuel) and forced air.  The process of perfecting the kiln involved trial and error.  The burners, the air flow, the fuel flow, and the exhaust draft all had to be modified until the kiln functioned optimally.  This process took years, and Rufus Outen’s children recall that “months of work” were ruined as Outen tinkered with the kiln design.  His patience paid off, and once the kiln was adjusted properly, Rufus Outen lost very few pots in the kiln for the rest of his career. (Interview, Outen, 9-8-11)

While the Matthews Pottery employed ten to fifteen workers, the Outen Pottery was a smaller business with Rufus Outen and one or two part-time helpers.   Rufus Outen would make “selling trips,” north as far a Wilkesboro, North Carolina and south as far as Greenville, South Carolina.  On these selling trips, Outen would visit hardware stores and take orders for churns, crocks, rabbit watering bowls and feeders, pots and pitchers.  When Outen had enough orders to fill the kiln, he would return home and begin turning the pieces.  Rufus Outen was prolific.  He specialized in stoneware churns, and it is claimed that he could turn 100 pieces a day. His nickname among some of the other potters was “Churn Turner.” A reporter from the Charlotte News noted that Outen had produced 300 churn lids the day of their visit. “I don’t aim to set the world on fire,” said Outen “I work as I like to.”  (Interview, Outen, 10-11-11; Gummerson, 12-16-68)

Rufus Outen’s wheel

Rufus Outen shoveling dried clay into the hammer mill at his shop in 1968.

Clay was dug locally.  Rufus Outen and his helpers would shovel the clay into the back of a truck and then unload it at the pottery.  The clay needed to be free of rocks, and thus many clay deposits could not be used.  The clay would be cleaned and worked by hand until it was ready to be fed into a pug mill.  The pug mill extruded clay that was ready to work. At some point, Rufus Outen acquired a hammer mill to process the clay before it would go to the pug mill.  A hammer mill could crush rocky deposits in the clay and thus make more clay usable.  Before being used in the hammer mill the clay had to dry.  A large shed was added to the rear of the workshop where the raw clay could be stored until it had properly dried.  After being processed in the hammer mill, water was added to the dry clay and then fed into the pug mill.  Once the clay was worked to an appropriate consistency, the helpers would make “balls” of clay that Rufus Outen would turn on a wheel.  Once turned, the pieces, known as greenware, would be carefully placed on drying shelves that literally filled the workshop.  His family recalls that their father would turn pieces for approximately one month in order to produce enough pottery to fill the kiln. (Interviews, Outen, 9-8-11, 10-11-11)

Hammer mill on right.  Pug mill center.

The next step for the stoneware was the glaze.  In the early years of his business, like his father, Rufus Outen concocted and used a Bristol glaze.  In his workshop Rufus Outen built a motorized mixing vat to mix the glaze ingredients.  Sometime in the late 1950s, Rufus Outen began to use Albany Slip, a commercially produced glazing compound that gave pottery a deep brown color.  Rufus Outen’s son, Frank Outen, believes that his father switched because the Albany Slip was simple to use and the finish was popular with the customers.  Albany slip came in a bag and was simply mixed in a trough.  Each piece would be dipped in the trough to coat the greenware with the glazing compound.  The pottery would then be set on temporary shelving to dry, and the workshop would largely fill-up with the glaze-coated-greenware.   Once dry, the pieces would be loaded into the kiln.  Filling the kiln was an art.  Rufus Outen knew exactly where different pieces should be located in the kiln.  The temperatures in the kiln varied, and different pieces needed different firing temperatures.  The fragile greenware had to be stacked one piece on top of the other.  Once the kiln was filled, Rufus Outen would seal the kiln doors with mortared brick.  The firing would begin early in the morning and last a full day.  The cool down would last several days. (Chasanoff; Interviews, Outen, 9-8-11, 10-11-11)

Rufus Outen churn glazed with Albany slip.

When the kiln had cooled enough, it would be unloaded directly into the delivery truck.  Packing the truck with the finished pieces was planned so that the pieces for the first delivery would be at the top of the load, and the deliverables for the final stop would be at the bottom of the load.  For deliveries, Outen would use the same truck that he used to haul clay.  A layer of straw was laid on the truck bed, and pieces were set in the straw.  Layers of straw were added to cushion the pieces from each other.  The entire contents from the kiln would be loaded into a single truckload.  A longtime smoker, Outen once lost a load of pottery, as well as a 1960 Chevrolet flatbed truck, in a fire when one of his discarded cigarette butts landed in the dry straw during a delivery trip.  (Interviews, Outen, 9-8-11, 10-11-11)

In the 19th century, North Carolina was full of local potteries, but during the 20th century traditional pottery nearly vanished.   For most of Rufus Outen’s career, he was an anachronism.  Most traditional pottery in North Carolina ceased by the end of World War II, just when Rufus Outen was establishing his own pottery in Matthews.  Yet Outen found a way to make a living.  According to all accounts, he worked very hard.  In a 1968 interview Outen is quoted:

It’s hard work.  But I wouldn’t want to do anything else.  There is something very satisfying about it.  You can be nervous and worried when you start, but it melts away as you work.  You use mind and muscles.  (Gummerson, 12-16-68)

Outen also adapted to the market.  His sales trips through North and South Carolina dictated what he produced.  Perhaps the collapse of traditional utilitarian pottery left him a niche to fill.  Perhaps the rural economies where he sold continued to demand the utilitarian pottery, such as churns, that he continued to produce.  Outen also turned nontraditional items demanded by the market.  These included rabbit watering bowls, heavy glazed bowls with sloping side that would allow frozen water to rise up and not crack the vessel.  Outen also produced, in addition to stoneware, earthenware strawberry planters, decorative pots and pitchers, and cooking vessels.  Outen was quoted as saying ” I like making something useful.” (Gummerson, 12-16-68)  Outen did not toil in obscurity.  His exceptionalism was recognized in the 1960s.  Local TV personality Betty Feezer featured Outen on her show, and filmed him performing his trade.  Also in the 1960s, Outen taught pottery at Winthrop College.   (Interviews, Outen, 9-8-11, 10-11-11)

Rufus Outen was also responsible for keeping traditional pottery alive in South Carolina.  Outen and Horace Ratteree acquired a pottery in Bethune, Kershaw County, South Carolina in 1959 from Guy Daugherty who had operated it since 1945.  Outen and Ratteree hired Otto Brown, a fifth generation potter from Georgia, to turn ware for them. The shop produced mostly un-glazed garden ware, but it also produced stoneware jugs and churns.  The South Carolina pottery employed an oil-burning kiln like the kiln at the R. F. Outen Pottery.  Outen and Ratteree sold the pottery around 1962. (Baldwin: 142)

Above: examples of Rufus Outen’s later decorative pottery

Below: Outen in his workshop in 1975

The process of producing traditional pottery is hard work.  Around 1975 Rufus Outen fired his last batch of pottery.  He continued to produce and sell pottery clay, with his clients including the art departments of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System.  After retiring, he began to make deliveries for the Matthews Pottery and hunted clay deposits for the Matthews Pottery and for brick manufactures.  In 1976 his wife Louise died.  In 1983 he remarried, but later that year died from pneumonia.  (Interviews, Outen, 9-8-11, 10-11-11)

Architectural Description

The R. F. Outen Pottery consists of a one-story workshop with extensive shed additions and a detached brick kiln.  The buildings are set in a line that runs north-south, and are located on a roughly triangular-shaped 1.47 acre parcel.  The pottery is located in the Town of Matthews, but the location at the end of a dead-end  residential street retains a distinctly rural character. 

Kiln in 1968

The brick kiln is essentially a barrel vault.  Segmental-arch door openings are located on the north and south elevations.  The door openings were bricked-in each time the kiln was loaded and fired. 

Rufus Outen in the kiln in 1975

The kiln originally featured six square brick chimneys, five of which have survived.  A framework of steel angle bolted into the brick walls and connected by threaded steel rods reinforces the structure.  The interiors of the kiln and chimneys was laid with high-temperature fire brick, with common brick on the exterior.  The kiln is protected by wood-framed shed roof.  The roof and wood framing were completely replaced sometime after 2007. The top of the vault is parged with a coating of mortar or other masonry compound.  This may indicate that the kiln was once exposed to the elements. The center of the barrel vault is now sagging, but it is unclear if this is long term condition or due to recent deterioration. 

The kiln is no longer functioning.  It was heated by four separate fuel oil burners located in the kiln along the east wall. The piping for the burners pass through small, low, and evenly spaced arched openings in the east elevation.  Piping includes copper fuel lines and larger iron pipes that channeled forced air to the burners.  A blower apparatus located on the north elevation is still extant.  A two thousand gallon fuel oil tank was once located to the south of the kiln.  Fuel was originally gravity fed.  Rufus Outen added a small pump, scavenged from a refrigeration system, to improve fuel delivery.

The workshop is a front-gabled masonry block building.  The building is three bay wide, with a doorway centered in the facade.  The doorway and window openings are topped with wood lintels.  The door and windows are covered with plywood. The gable is covered with siding.  The low-pitched roof is covered with asphalt shingles.  A power meter is attached to the facade to the right of the doorway.   

The east elevation is four bays wide and contains four window openings.  Originally the window openings contained a single two-vertical-light sash but are now covered with metal panels.  The entire width of the east elevation is sheltered by a low-slope shed addition.  The shed roof is supported by eight posts.  The posts are a mix of rough-sawn and round timbers.  The shed addition shelters building materials and various pieces of pottery equipment including a potter’s wheel attached to an early automobile transmission.

Pottery wheel attached to automobile transmission.

The west elevation is four bays wide and is partially below grade.  The west elevation is sheltered by a shed addition with a low-slope 5-V metal roof, supported by a row of sawn posts.  The shed additions shelters pottery moulds.  The asphalt-shingle roof  over the principal section of the workshop building is pierced west of the center ridge by a brick flue.

The rear elevation is partially below grade.  Five wall openings on the rear elevation served as windows and doors that allow for light and as pass-throughs for materials.   The masonry wall is topped with a wooden gable.  A large, tall freestanding shed was built adjacent to the rear elevation. The metal shed roof is supported by three rows of round treated poles. Once Rufus Outen acquired a hammer mill to process the clay, the rear shed was needed to shelter piles of clay as they dried to a proper consistency. 

The interior of the building has a high degree of integrity.  The interior features a dirt floor and contains much of the equipment that was used when the pottery was in operation.  This equipment includes: pug mills, hammer mill, potter’s wheel, work table, glaze mixing vat, and glazing vat.

Bibliography

Zug, Charles G. III. Turners and Burners: The Folk Potters of North Carolina.  Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1986.

Gummerson, Dora “Mr.Outen’s an Artist Who Works With Clay,” Charlotte News, December 16, 1968 

“Catawba Valley Pottery of North Carolina.”  Website http://www.cvpottery.com/catawba_valley_history.htm

Perry, Barbara S., Ed. North Carolina Pottery: The Collection of the Mint Museums. Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 2004.

Interview with Frank Outen, Elenore Outen Locke, William Locke, 9-8-11

Interview with Frank Outen, Elenore Outen Locke, William Locke, 10-11-11

Baldwin, Cinda K. Great & Noble Jar: Traditional Stoneware of South Carolina. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1993

“Selections from the Allan Chasanoff Ceramic Collection,” glossary. Website (http://www.mintmuseum.org/chasanoff/process/glossary.htm)