Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission

Author: Mary Dominick

Lee, William House

This report was written on April 7, 1982.

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the William Lee House is located at 6415 Gaywind Dr. in Charlotte, NC.

2. Name, address, and telephone number of the present owner of the property:
The present owner of the property is:
Steven W. Kohlhagen
6415 Gaywind Dr.
Charlotte, NC 28226-6900

Telephone: (704) 373-0330

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.

 

 

 

 

Click on the map to browse
5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 2884 at page 228. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is: 211-112-03.

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

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

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

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the William Lee House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the William Lee House was built ca. 1828 and is one of the older plantation houses in Mecklenburg County and the only extant plantation house in this section of Mecklenburg County; 2) members of the same family resided in the house from ca. 1828 until 1956; and 3) the house represents a rare remnant of antebellum society in the Sharon community of Mecklenburg County.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association: The house has undergone major renovations, especially during the 1950’s. However, the Commission believes that the house retains the overall feel of its antebellum origins, especially because of the magnificent setting which the William Lee House retains.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply annually for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” The current appraisal of the William Lee House is $35,520. The current appraisal of the 3.57 acres of land is $17,700.

Date of Preparation of this Report: April 7, 1982.

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

Telephone: (704) 332-2726

 

 

Historical Overview
 

Dr. William H. Huffman

From 1794 through the first two and a half decades of the 1800’s, William Lee, Sr. bought up considerable acreage along McMichaels Creek in south-central Mecklenburg County to establish his plantation in that area. Between 1810 and 1827, Lee also accumulated land for a plantation on McAlpine Creek in Sharon and Providence Townships.1 His son, William Lee, Jr., who was born in February, 1802, was married to Mary Ann McKnight (1810-1851) on November 6, 1826 in the county.2 After their marriage, William Jr. and Mary Ann Lee established their residence on the McAlpine Creek plantation, and, about 1828, built a roomy, two-and-a-half-story frame house on top of the hill overlooking the Swan Run branch of the creek. The nearby road carried the stagecoach line from Charlotte to Charleston.3 By 1850, the Lees were a prosperous planter family with real estate valued at $5000.00, and had four children living at home: Jane, who was then 20 years old; Mary, 17; John, also 17; and Nancy, 9. On February 4th of the following year, Mary Ann Lee died after a prolonged illness at the age of forty-one. She was buried alongside two sons who had died in infancy.5 Five years later, William Lee, Jr. died at the age of 54 on July 28, 1856.6

About seven months after his death, the oldest Lee daughter, Jane E. (1835-1907), married John O. Alexander (1832-1912) on February 17, 1857.7 They took up residence in the plantation house built by her father, which must have been her share of the estate division, since in the 1860 census the value of their real estate is shown as $1720.00.8 The oldest of the Alexander’s five children, who were raised on the plantation, was Marcellus Allan (M.A.) Alexander, who was born February 2. 1859. When John O. Alexander died in 1912, he willed his estate to be divided among his four living children: the “Davis place” on Four Mile and McAlpine Creeks was given to daughters Mollie Grier and Nannie Reid; the”Ross place” and the “William Lee place” (the latter containing about 180 acres) went to M.A. Alexander; and the “home place” was given to daughter Ida Nesbit, who was also required to pay $2000.00 to John O. Alexander’s “unfortunate grandson,” Clayton Alexander.10 The grandson had been blinded in a wood-chopping accident while a boy of about five.11

M. A. Alexander and his wife, Cora Brown Alexander (1861-1948), farmed the William Lee place for many years and raised their four children there. After M. A. Alexander’s death on July 27, 1933, Cora continued to live in the house with a woman companion until her own death in 1948.12 Since M.A. and Cora Alexander both died intestate, it took nearly two years to settle the estate, during which time the house stood vacant. In the settlement, the estate was divided into lots, and Clayton Brown Alexander, who was the only surviving son (and the same one who was bequeathed the trust fund from his grandfather above), received a lot of 9.22 acres which encompassed the early nineteenth-century Lee house in February, 1950. Despite his blindness, Clayton Alexander (1889-1968) pursued undergraduate and graduate studies at Davidson College and the University of North Carolina, where he received his Ph.D. degree. Following his studies, he taught history at Catawba and Rutherford Colleges, and was married for a number of years to the former Norma Black (1895-1968), a native of Ivanhoe, N.C. When Clayton and Norma Alexander acquired the Lee place in 1950, they undertook extensive renovation of the house, but disturbed as little of the original architecture as possible.15 They also subdivided their tract and sold off two parcels, one of 3.03 acres and another of 2.62 acres, leaving the house on the present lot of approximately three and a half acres.16 In 1956, the Alexanders sold the Lee house to Bernard G. and Patricia O’Brien Collingwood.17 Mr. Collingwood was a cotton broker in Charlotte, and, after owning the house for nearly eleven years, he and his wife sold it to the present owners, Eric C. Clark III and Bettie U. Clark.18 The Clarks have done extensive restoration work on the house and have taken a great interest in its early history and preservation.19

 


NOTES

1 Mecklenburg County Index to Real Estate Conveyances. Grantees. from 1763 to 1840; “L,” p.5.

2 Monuments in Sharon Presbyterian Church cemetery; Mecklenburg Marriage Bonds (n.p., n.d.), p. 138.

3 Charlotte Observer article by Rita Adams (Simpson), c. 1950.

4 1850 U. S. Census: North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, p. 90.

5 Monuments in Sharon Presbyterian Church Cemetery.

6 Ibid.

7 Monuments in Old Providence Presbyterian Church cemetery; Marriages of Mecklenburg County 1763-1868 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1981), p. 5.

8 1860 U. S. Census: North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, p. 39.

9 1880 U. S. Census: North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, p. 22; Monument in Old Providence Presbyterian Church cemetery.

10 Mecklenburg County Will Book Q. p. 223, probated 7 Sept. 1912.

11 Interviews with B. Tate Denton and Gene Denton (Mrs. Allen H.) Singer, Charlotte, N.C., 9 September 1981.

12 Monuments in Old Providence Presbyterian Church cemetery; Mecklenburg County Certificate of Death, Book 43, p. 555; interview with B. Tate Denton.

13 See note 3.

14 Mecklenburg County Orders and Decrees, Book 45, p. 149, 12 March 1949; Deed Book 1415, p. 379, 28 Nov. 1949; Deed Book 1464, pp. 75 and 83, 20 Feb. 1950.

15 Monuments in Sharon Memorial Park; interview with Lillian Alexander (Mrs. Percy) Stewart, Charlotte, N.C., by Eric Clark, 17 Oct. 1972; Charlotte Observer article cited above in note 3.

16 Deed Book 1470, p. 513, 25 Sept. 1950; Deed Book 1516, p. 221, 17 August 1951.

17 Deed Book 1864, p. 523, 5 Nov. 1956.

18 Deed Book 2884, p. 228, 23 Aug. 1967.

19 Interview with Eric and Bettie Clark, Charlotte, NC, 29 August 1981.

 

 

Architectural Description
 

Thomas W. Hanchett

The William Lee residence is an early nineteenth century wooden frame “I” house, two stories tall with a hall-and-parlor plan. It is sited on a partly wooded knoll, facing south away from the present Sharon View Road. Over the last thirty years it has been extensively added to and remodeled. The original farmhouse was a two story gable-roofed block one room deep, with two rooms on each floor flanking a central stairway. The foundation is composed of large random-laid boulders flecked with quartz. There are two matching brick end chimneys, double shoulder stepped at attic level. At the point that they narrow they also step away from the walls of the house. Chimney bricks are laid generally in common bond, but there are three courses of headers near the base of each chimney, and occasional sections of headers are mixed randomly in upper courses. The tops of the chimneys feature a course of corbelled brick, a band of stucco said to contain shell fragments, then three more bands of corbelled brick. Pairs of double-hung windows flank the end chimney on each floor, and smaller pairs of swinging windows light the attic.

The front facade of the residence displays an unusual combination of symmetry and asymmetry. It consists of three upstairs windows aligned directly over two downstairs windows and a central front door. The openings display bilateral symmetry around the front door as was customary in the period. The door is not centered in the facade, instead being located about three feet closer to the west end of the house, making all the openings off-center in the mass of the building. This arrangement is also found in the upstairs windows at the back of the structure. The wooden front door consists of six vertical panels. It is topped by a fixed transom with four, square, handblown panes of dark glass. The door opening is surrounded by wooden molding, which is also found around all window openings on the home. Windows are all double-hung six-over-six pane sash, and date from an extensive remodeling of the house in 1956. Exterior walls are surfaced with pine clapboard four inches to the weather. According to an interview with owner Clayton Alexander published in the Charlotte Observer about 1950, “three main oak beams twelve by thirteen and one half inches in size stretch from the eastern to the western end of the house. The floor joints are morticed in and held together with hickory pins. At each corner is an eight-inch-square oak post for additional support….”

From the crawlspace door at the east side of the house one can see the heavy secondary floor beams, with visible hewing marks, that run north-south under the building. Six inch wide floorboards of pine rest on these. In the attic the handhewn rafters are still scribed with the Roman numerals that allowed them to be easily reassembled in place after trial assembly on the ground. The house may have originally had a two-tier porch extending across the entire front. Such a porch appears, enveloped in wisteria vines, in a photograph of the home dated 1923. The photo shows old-fashioned chamfered columns that appear to have been handmade. In the early 1950s owner Clayton Alexander removed rotted porch floors and columns and created the present two-story high portico with its four, square, built-up columns. An early 1950s photo shows a one-story shed-roofed lean-to across the back of the house, which may have dated to the nineteenth century. By the early fifties the kitchen chimney at the east end of this lean-to had been removed and replaced with a pair of windows, but its stone bed is still visible today. In the 1956 remodeling of the residence by the Collingwoods, half of this kitchen wing was extended further back over a brick foundation.

In 1975 the Clark family, the present owners, added the large rear porch. They also added a new kitchen/dining room at the west side of the house, designed with the help of architect Richard Gillespie to look like a separate early nineteenth century outbuilding connected to the house by an enclosed passage. The new kitchen building, constructed by contractor Cecil Hicks, has an end chimney that mimics the original ones on the house. Inside, the house still retains its basic hall and parlor plan, but remodeling have made it grander looking than it was in 1828. One enters through the front door into the “hall,” now the living room. The room is dominated by an elaborate wooden mantel at the end of the room. The mantel has fluted round columns, and a central carved sunburst, a symbolic sunset for this west-facing room. Opposite the fireplace is the open central stair which rises from the back of the room, with turned balusters and open-string sides. Moving through a door at the foot of the stairs one enters the “parlor”, now a bedroom. Its mantel is as fine as the one in the hall, featuring a carved rising sun motif as befits the room’s easterly orientation. At the top of the stairs is a small landing with two doors that open onto the east and west bedrooms. While the stair woodwork and two downstairs and one upstairs mantels are probably original, additional woodwork was added in the 1956 remodeling for the Collingwoods by contractor Frank Lowrance. Walls were sheet-rocked and cornice molding was added throughout the home. Both downstairs main rooms and the lean-to at the rear now have elegant paneled wainscoting.

A hint of what the walls originally looked like may be seen in the stairwell to the attic which is sheathed in carefully planed and matched vertical heart pine planking. Oak floors had been installed earlier over the pine floorboards downstairs. The 1956 remodeling also saw replacement of the old wood shingle roof with asphalt shingles on a plywood base. A new bathroom was carved out of the upstairs east bedroom, and the earlier bathroom below it on the first floor was redone. Steel beams boxed in wood were added across the living room ceiling to stabilize the floor above. A furnace and accompanying ductwork were unobtrusively installed. On the grounds the Collingwoods built a swimming pool, pumphouse, and a small barn.


Lee, Praise Connor and Harriet

 

  1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Praise Connor and Harriet Lee House is located at 3714 Country Ridge Road in Charlotte, North Carolina.
  2. Name, address, and phone number of the current owner of the property:

Leslie E. Fleck, Jr. and wife, Dorothy H. Fleck

3714 Country Ridge Road

Charlotte, NC 28226

704-552-1737

  1. Representative photographs of the property: This report includes representative photographs of the property.
  2. A map depicting the location of the property: The Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates for this property are 17 516425E 3887875N. The following map depicts the location of the property:
  3. Current deed book reference to the property: The current deed book reference for this property is Book 04750, Page 805. The tax parcel identification number is 209-041-03.
  4. A brief historical description of the property: This report includes a brief historical description of the property.
  5. A brief architectural description of the property: This report includes a brief architectural description of the property.
  6. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria for historic landmark designation, as set forth in North Carolina General Statute 160 A-400.5
  7. Special significance in terms of history, architecture and cultural importance:

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission judges that the P. Connor Lee House possesses special significance in terms of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County.

  1. The Praise Connor Lee House, built in 1963, is an excellent example of the Modernist Style of architecture that gained a larger acceptance in Charlotte during the years following World War II.
  2. The P. Connor Lee House, designed in the Contemporary Style popular among Modernist architects in the 1950s and 1960s, is a rare example of Modernist residential architecture in Charlotte. The house is also representative of the ways in which architects used the features unique to post war suburban neighborhoods to create progressive houses that existed in harmony with their surroundings.
  3. The house was designed by Praise Connor Lee, a North Carolina architect and graduate of the prestigious School of Design at North Carolina State College. Lee was an enthusiastic proponent of Modernist architecture, and designed numerous Modernist buildings during his short career.
  4. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and association:

The Commission judges that the architectural description by Lara and Emily Ramsey demonstrates that the Praise Connor Lee House meets these criteria.

  1. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal:

The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which is designated “historic landmark.” This property, including a single-family dwelling and 0.498 acres of land, is currently appraised at $163,020. The property is zoned R3.

Date of submission of this report:

March 1, 2002

Prepared by:

Emily and Lara Ramsey

2436 North Albany Ave., #1

Chicago, IL 60647

773-645-5062

sparqq@earthlink.net

lararamsey@hotmail.com

SUMMARY

The Praise Connor and Harriet Lee House, at 3714 Country Ridge Road, possesses local significance as an excellent example of the Modernist style of architecture that emerged in Charlotte and throughout North Carolina in the years following World War II. With its roots in the International Style espoused by architects like Mies van der Rohe and Walter Gropius, as well as the Prairie School of Frank Lloyd Wright, Modernist architecture did not fully come into its own in America until after World War II. After years of building restrictions and rationing of building materials, Charlotte, like the rest of the country, experienced a building boom at the end of the war. This dramatic increase in construction, coupled with a general emphasis on progress and the influence of educational institutions like the School of Design at North Carolina State College (now North Carolina State University), led to the proliferation of Modernist architecture in Charlotte.

The Lee House is also significant as a rare example of Modernist residences built in postwar Charlotte. While more progressive architectural styles were widely used for institutional and commercial buildings, Modernist residences were relatively unusual. In the city’s growing number of suburban developments, the handful of Modernist houses was far outnumbered by more traditional styles, which were generally easier and cheaper to build and appealed to a wider number of potential homeowners. Those Modernist houses that were built in postwar suburbs were designed to take advantage of the naturalistic layout of these developments, using building materials that would harmonize with the landscape, incorporating large expanses of glass in the rear of the house to maximize views and natural light, and integrating the topography of the site into the design by designing two or three stories at the rear of the house.1  The Lee House is a fine illustration of these design principles used in Modernist residential architecture.

Because many individual clients and developers in post war Charlotte were wary of building Modernist homes, a good deal of Modernist residential architecture can be found in the homes that architects built for themselves. Such is the case with Praise Connor Lee, who designed his house at 3714 Country Ridge Road in 1963, a few years after his graduation from the School of Design. P. Connor Lee was an enthusiastic supporter of Modernist architecture, and incorporated it into many of his designs for commercial and institutional buildings throughout the 1960s and early 1970s. The Lee House is one of two Modernist houses that Lee designed for his family in Charlotte.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Residential Development in Post War Charlotte

In the years that followed World War II in North Carolina, as in the rest of the country, a population surge caused by the return of soldiers from Europe and the Pacific and the resulting “baby boom,” coupled with a newly revived economy just emerging from years of depression and wartime restrictions, resulted in a building boom that would continue through the 1950s and 1960s. The demand for housing was the primary impetus for the building boom in Charlotte, as well as in other cities throughout the state— building permits for housing charted in an Analysis of Charlotte, North Carolina Housing Market as of April 1, 1965, published by the Federal Housing Administration, showed that over 50 percent of existing housing in Mecklenburg County had been built between 1950 and 1965.2  Institutional and governmental building also showed a marked increase in the years following the war, mainly in the form of schools needed for the growing number of schoolchildren born just after the end of the war.3

The slow shift in North Carolina from a rural to an urban population also meant that the majority of post war building occurred in or around metropolitan centers. Traditionally, most residents of North Carolina lived in rural communities, with a smaller number located in towns or small cities. However, this had begun to change by the early twentieth century. The 1930 census showed for the first time a larger gain in urban populations than those in rural areas. By 1950, over a third of the state’s population was living in urban areas.4

This new urban population was not moving into the older centers of North Carolina’s cities, but was settling into the ever-growing number of post war suburbs. These suburbs offered homeowners the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of cities without having to endure the crowding, noise, pollution, or crime associated with them. Charlotte was no exception to this trend of suburban expansion; suburban neighborhoods sprang up around the entire periphery of the center city, with the majority of these developments located to the south and east, where the availability of water and waste facilities and the lack of industrial and commercial development made these areas ideal for new residential growth. The Next Twenty Years: A General Plan for the Development of the Charlotte Metropolitan Area, written in 1960 to address the city’s rapid expansion, encouraged low density levels in residential areas to allow for “yards, open spaces, a quiet, restful atmosphere and family privacy.”5  The citizens of Charlotte embraced this new suburban way of life. In an article entitled “Suburbs? They’re ‘Wonderful’” in the September 12, 1959 edition of the Charlotte Observer, Wayne Moore says of his new home in a Charlotte suburb: “It’s wonderful, wonderful, wonderful . . .The tranquility I mean. To sum it up in a single word, tranquility.”6

Modernist Architecture in Charlotte

With North Carolina and the rest of the United States in a period of growth and economic prosperity, there was a general feeling of optimism and excitement about the future, as well as an overwhelming faith in new technologies to solve many of life’s problems, big and small. This new progressive outlook was evident in the growth of the Modernist movement in America. With its roots in the International Style of Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe and the Prairie School of Frank Lloyd Wright, Modernism found its way into North Carolina through the influence of the School of Design at North Carolina State College. The school’s reputation as one of the most prestigious design programs in the South was largely due to the work of its first dean, Henry Leveke Kamphoefner.

Henry L. Kampheofner

Kamphoefner came to the School of Design from the University of Oklahoma in 1948. Kamphoefner was drawn to the state because of its progressive reputation in art and politics, and was especially interested in the experimental Black Mountain College. In a letter to Josef Albers, a Bauhaus painter working at Black Mountain, Kamphoefner admitted, “When my colleagues and I decided to come to North Carolina, being near Black Mountain College was considered by all of us to be on of the advantages.”7 Under Kamphoefner, the School of Design became the leading proponent of Modernist design in the state. “Architects, through both the school and the new buildings they designed, strongly promoted modernism as the ‘correct’ style. In the state’s new prosperity, they saw the opportunity for a new beginning.”8

Many of these architects settled in Charlotte, bringing the Modernist design principles espoused by the School of Design. Large firms like A.G. Odell and J.N. Pease Associates led the way for Modernism in the city, with a number of smaller firms also producing commercial and institutional structures that stressed functionality and simple expression of materials. What was acceptable for the office buildings and schools, however, was not acceptable for the home; residential architecture in Charlotte and throughout the state remained staunchly traditional through the postwar decades.9  Even new types of housing, such as the ranch house, were dressed up with traditional ornamentation. This lack of interest in Modernist residential architecture was probably due to developers wanting to appeal to the greatest number of potential homeowners at the lowest cost. Traditional architecture was easier and cheaper to construct on a large scale and was familiar to homebuyers.10  The relatively small numbers of Modernist residences built in Charlotte were built in the new subdivisions; these houses were usually architect-designed, taking advantage of the naturalistic landscaping of the developments with simple forms and natural materials. An excellent example of the typical Modernist residence built in the 1950s and 1960s in Charlotte is the house that Praise Connor Lee built for his family at 3714 Country Ridge Road.

The Praise Connor Lee House

Praise Connor Lee was born in Grimesland, North Carolina in 1929. Upon his graduation from Atlantic Christian Academy (now known as Barton College) in 1951, Lee joined the United States Air Force and served in Korea and Japan until October 1955. According to Lee’s wife Harriet, P. Connor planned to settle down near his hometown to farm.11 When farming proved too expensive for the young couple, Lee decided to go back to school, and entered the engineering program at North Carolina State College. Lee, who had a talent for drawing, quickly discovered that his interests were in architecture and transferred to the School of Design. Through the influence of the School, Lee became an enthusiastic student of Modernist design. Under the study of George Matsumoto, a well-known professor at the School of Design, Lee was awarded first place in the 1959 Edison Electric Light for Living Home Design Competition for his design.12

Praise Connor Lee (1929-1977)

Lee graduated from the School of Design in 1960; like many graduates from the program, Lee decided to stay in North Carolina, moving to Charlotte and joining J. N. Pease Associates, a firm known for its Modernist designs. Lee worked for the firm for four years, and received several awards during his time there, including an A.I.A. Merit Award for his design of a branch bank for First Citizens Bank & Trust. After leaving J.N. Pease, Lee worked in Charlotte as a partner with Brackett, Sadri & Lee before moving to Raleigh to establish a branch office for Lyles, Bissett, Carlisle & Wolfe. Lee and his family returned to Charlotte in 1966, and Lee joined Cameron, Little & Associates; Lee became partner in the firm after Mr. Cameron’s death in 1967.13  During his time with the firm, Lee designed a new headquarters for the Federal Home Loan Bank in Greensboro. Harriet Lee recalls that this was one of her husband’s favorite projects—he was given an unlimited budget and was responsible for designing the building, interior and landscaping.14  The design for the Federal Home Loan Bank is an excellent example of Lee’s innovative commercial work. Lee left Little, Lee & Associates to establish his own firm in 1971, and continued to work until his death in 1977.

Federal Home Loan Bank, Greensboro, N.C.
  1. Connor Lee designed the house at 3714 Country Ridge Road in the neighborhood of Mountainbrook in 1963. Like other suburbs in the area, Mountainbrook’s curving streets held traditional housing—the Lee House was one of a handful of Modernist designs in the neighborhood. The design of the house was heavily influenced by the residential work of George Matsumoto, one of Lee’s professors at the School of Design. Like many of Charlotte’s Modernist residences, the Lee House was designed to take full advantage of the large wooded lot sloping down toward a creek; the rear of the house included two full stories, with a bank of second-story sliding glass doors opening out to an open porch. Lee kept the landscaping to a minimum, preserving the natural look of the lot. Lee and his wife helped to build the house, and tried to involve the family in the process—each of their three children were allowed to choose the color of the carpets in their bedrooms, and Lee used a leftover bucket of plaster to create a hand-drawn picture of the family standing before their new home.15
George Matsumoto
  1. Connor Lee and his family lived in the house until 1965, when a move to Raleigh forced them to sell it. The house has since had six owners since the Lee family moved; with the exception of some minor alterations to the house and the landscaping, the house remains remarkably intact.16 This is due mainly to the respect that the current owners, Leslie and Dorothy Fleck, have shown to the original design of the house. This kind of integrity is rare in Charlotte’s Modernist residences, many of which have undergone extensive interior and exterior alterations. The house is an excellently preserved example of Modernist residential architecture in Charlotte, as well as a reflection of the ways in which Modernist houses fit into the new suburban developments surrounding the city in the 1950s and 1960s.

 

ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AND DESCRIPTION

 

The Praise Connor Lee House is located at 3714 Country Ridge Road in the Mountainbrook neighborhood in the southeastern section of Charlotte, North Carolina. Mountainbrook was one of a number of suburban developments that were built around the city in the 1950s and 1960s; with its curvilinear streets, limited access, and naturalistic setting, Mountainbrook is a typical suburban neighborhood. The Lee House is located on the north end of a .498-acre lot, which is heavily wooded behind the house and slopes down toward a small creek. The house sits relatively close to the street, allowing for a large back yard. A series of natural brick steps leads from a terrace opening from the basement level of the house down to the rear of the property. The landscaping of the property is minimal, and takes advantage of the natural look of the lot.

The Lee House is an example of the flat-roof subtype of the Contemporary Style, a residential design described by Virginia and Lee McAlester in A Field Guide to American Houses as “a favorite for architect-designed houses built during the period from about 1950 to 1970.”17  The Contemporary Style is considered a descendent of the International Style, but differs in the use of natural materials for exteriors and in the importance placed upon integrating the house into the landscape. Sherry Joines-Wyatt and Sarah Woodard expanded upon the definition of the Contemporary Style in their Survey of Post War Architectural Resources in Charlotte. In the survey, the Lee House is cited as an example of a contemporary sub-type called the shoebox, which, as the name suggests, is essentially a rectangular box. “The type may be small, or it may only appear small, while in fact is two or more stories in height, with the other levels concealed in the landscape. The shoebox is generally clad in wood siding, which is often vertical, and has Asian influences. The shoebox has either a flat roof or a non-traditional roof . . .Usually, the rear and/or sides of the type will have large expanses of glass.”18

The Lee House fits the description of a shoebox Contemporary exactly. The simple, one story facade, with its recessed entrance containing a double door flanked by two sets of sliding glass doors, is unassuming from the street; however, the side and rear reveal a basement level that completely changes the appearance of the house and takes advantage of the sloping lot. Along both levels of the rear elevation is a series of sliding glass doors—five on the main level and two at the basement level—that maximize views of the property and natural light. On the second story, a screened cedar porch running the length of the rear elevation extends over the basement level.

The east and west elevations of the house reveal both the main and basement levels of the house. Both elevations feature a single, two-light, steel casement window; the windows are accentuated by plywood sheets above and below the openings, creating a textural contrast with the rest of the exterior. On the east elevation is a two-car garage at the basement level; a driveway extends from the garage to the front of the property along the east edge of the property line. The house has a flat tar roof with a slight overhang at the eaves. The exterior of the house is covered in vertical wood siding painted a pale gray-green, with a darker gray-green on the main entry.

There have been several minor alterations made to the exterior of the Lee House. The small ramp that originally led to the narrow front stoop has been removed and replaced by a series of four stacked wood platforms that serve as steps leading to the entrance. The carport on the east elevation has been enclosed to create the existing garage. On the west side of the house is an exterior fireplace of natural brick that was added in the mid-1970s. The rear terrace that opens out from the basement was probably built around the same time; the bricks used in the edging of the terrace, the steps leading to the back yard, and in the short wall running from the west elevation of the house to the edge of the property match those used in the fireplace. The exterior of the house has also been repainted—according to Harriet Lee, the house was originally stained a soft gray, with the door and some trim painted black.19

The interior of the Lee House illustrates the innovative use of space indicative in Modernist residential design. The main level of the house consists of the central living area flanked by two matching suites, each with two bedrooms connected by a shared bathroom. A central core that contains the stairwell, two storage closets, and the main wall of the kitchen separates the space in the main living area. The open stairwell is centered between these two closets, and faces the main entrance. The kitchen wall is on the opposite side of the stairwell in this center core, and faces the main living area and the enclosed porch beyond. This wall contains the refrigerator, range, a double oven, dishwasher, and upper and lower cabinets. The kitchen is separated from the living/dining area by a low countertop island that houses the sink, a small eat-in bar, and cabinets on both sides of the island. With the exception of the refrigerator and the dishwasher, all the appliances and materials in the kitchen are original.20

This photograph demonstrates Lee’s sensitivity to  the house’s setting, a cardinal principle of Modernism.  The house appears to be suspended on a cliff even though it is in a Charlotte suburb.
This was Connor and Harriet Lee’s second and larger home in Charlotte.  It too takes advantage of the terrain.  It shares many features with the other house, sliding glass doors, built-in cabinets, and spiral metal stairway.

The kitchen opens directly out onto the living and dining area, which faces the bank of sliding glass doors and the porch beyond. This area is essentially a large, open space, with a wood-burning stove located at its east wall. White wooden beams running from the kitchen wall, continuing through the living room and the screened porch, punctuate the ceiling of the main living area. These beams are supported by wooden posts, and are meant to resemble steel beams—artificial “rivets” enhance the effect.

The bedroom suites connect to the living area by way of small hallways that open onto both bedrooms. The south bedrooms open out onto the porch through sliding glass doors; the north bedrooms each have a single casement window. Some interesting features in the bedroom suites include the storage units along the walls separating the living area from the suites. These units are also in the main living area. Each unit extends out from the wall, and spaces are left above and below the units, giving the impression that they are floating.

The basement level of the Lee House is reached by a narrow, metal, spiral staircase located just across from the main entrance. At the landing of the stairs are a small bathroom and the door to the garage. To the right of the stairwell, a large living area opens out. The room has the same ceiling beams that are on the main level; the walls are covered in wood paneling. On the west wall of the room is the large brick fireplace that was added in the 1970s. The room opens out onto the rear terrace by way of two sliding glass doors. The east end of the basement contains what was originally P. Connor Lee’s darkroom, and is now the laundry room.21

The interior of the Lee House remains essentially as it was when the Lee family lived in the house. Some minor alterations include the installation of parquet wood flooring on the main level, and the painting of the wooden beams, which were originally black. The small bathroom in the basement level of the house was originally the laundry area; however, P. Connor Lee’s working drawings of the house (which were given to the Flecks by Harriet Lee) indicate that the room was intended to be a bathroom.

The P. Connor Lee House, despite minor changes to the exterior and interior, retains its architectural integrity. This retention of the most of the original fabric of the house is an exception to the usual treatment of Modernist houses, whose owners wish to build anew or change them completely. The rarity of Modernist residences like the Lee House remaining in Charlotte is compounded by the fact that many of these houses have been demolished or have undergone extensive interior and exterior restoration. Modernist architecture, although used regularly in commercial and industrial sectors, was never truly considered an accepted style, especially for housing. The Lee House, a unique residence when built in 1963, is now among a handful of Modernist residences left in the city, many of which are quickly disappearing from Charlotte’s landscape.

1 Sherry Joines Wyatt and Sarah Woodard.  Final Report:  Post World War Two Survey (Available throughthe Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission Website at         www.cmhpf.org/hlc/postww2survey.htm), 39.

  1. Final Report:  Post World War Two Survey, 4.
  2. Catherine W. Bishir, Charlotte V. Brown, Carl R. Lounsbury, and Ernest H. Wood, III.  Architects and Builders in North Carolina:  A History of the Practice of Building (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Publishers, 1990), 355.

4 Ibid, 354.

5 Final Report:  Post World War Two Survey, 8, 14.

6 Ibid,

7 Architects and Builders in North Carolina, 359.

8 Ibid, 358.

9 Sarah W. Baker.  Survey and Research Report for the P. Connor Lee House (written for Historic Preservation Course and UNCC), 2.

10 Final Report:  Post World War Two Survey, 28.

11 Harriet J. Lee.  Interview conducted by Emily and Lara Ramsey, January 14, 2002.

12 Survey and Research Report for the P. Connor Lee House, 3.

13 Ibid.

14 Harriet J. Lee Interview.

15 Ibid.

16 Survey and Research Report for the P. Connor Lee House, 4.

17  Virginia and Lee McAlester.  A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Knopf, 1998), 482.

18  Final Report:  Post World War Two Survey, 43.

19 Harriet J. Lee Interview; Dorothy and Leslie Fleck.  Interview conducted by Emily and Lara Ramsey,  January 10, 2002.

20 Dorothy and Leslie Fleck Interview.

21 Harriet J. Lee Interview.


 

 

 

  1. Name and location of the property. The Elizabeth Lawrence House and Garden are located at 348 Ridgewood Avenue in Charlotte, North Carolina.
  2. Name and address of the current owner of the property is:

Mrs. Mary Lindeman Wilson             348 Ridgewood Avenue             Charlotte, NC 28209

  1. Representative photographs of the property: This report contains representative photographs of the property.
  2. A map depicting the location of the property. This report contains a map depicting the location of the property.
  3. Current deed book reference to the property: The most recent deed to the property is that of 1986 from James B. Sommers and wife to Mary Lindeman Wilson in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 5172, pp. 0480-0481. The tax parcel number is #15114210.
  4. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a historical sketch of the property prepared by Davyd Foard Hood. See continuation sheets.
  5. A brief architectural description of the property. This report contains an architectural description of the property prepared by Davyd Foard Hood. See continuation sheets.
  6. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S. 106A-4005.
  7. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission judges that the Elizabeth Lawrence House and Garden possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg County. The commission bases its judgment on the following considerations.
  8. The Elizabeth Lawrence House and Garden, constructed in 1948-1949 and the home of Elizabeth Lawrence (1904-1985) from 1949 to 1984, is the single surviving property in North Carolina that holds strong associations with the distinguished career of the celebrated garden writer and plantswoman. The Lawrence family house in Raleigh, where she lived from 1916 to 1948 and wrote A Southern Garden, was lost in 2004. Just as gardening in Raleigh had been the genesis of A Southern Garden, published in 1942, her Charlotte garden played a central role in two further books that are also considered classics in garden literature. Elizabeth Lawrence wrote both The Little Bulbs: A Tale of Two Gardens, published in 1957, and Gardens in Winter, published in 1961, in her study here. While a resident at 348 Ridgewood Avenue, she incorporated her experiences as a gardener in the weekly columns she wrote for the Charlotte Observer from 1957 to 1971, and in numerous articles she prepared for horticultural journals and magazines.
  9. Elizabeth Lawrence was not only an important writer of her time, but a writer whose works have achieved the status of classics not only in North America but also in England. Both A Southern Garden and The Little Bulbs: A Tale of Two Gardens remain in print as does her memoir of Carl Krippendorf’s garden, Lob’s Wood, published in 1971, and two collections of her shorter writings, Through the Garden Gate (1990) and A Garden of One’s Own (1997). Also still in print is a collection of letters she exchanged with Katharine S. White, Two Gardeners:  A Friendship in Letters (2002). Miss Lawrence is also the only twentieth-century American garden writer ever to be the subject of a book-length biography. No One Gardens Alone:  A Life of Elizabeth Lawrence was published in 2004.
  10. The Elizabeth Lawrence Garden is the most intact and best preserved work of Miss Lawrence, who was the first woman to earn a degree in landscape architecture from present-day North Carolina State University. Having received the degree 1932, she enjoyed a brief partnership with Isabel Bronson Busbee (1880-1966) in Raleigh. While this area of her career remains to be fully understood, for both the periods she lived in Raleigh and in Charlotte, a small group of projects is known (and is being studied by this author). With the loss of Elizabeth Lawrence’s Raleigh house and garden, the survival and integrity of this garden are all the more remarkable and important to the history of landscape architecture in North Carolina.

8.b.      Integrity of design, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association. The Commission contends that the architectural description and integrity statement prepared by Davyd Foard Hood demonstrates that the Elizabeth Lawrence House and Garden meet this criterion.

  1. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property that becomes a designated “historic landmark.” The current appraised value of the house is $111,000.00. The appraised value of the lot is $351,100.00.

Date of preparation of this report:  30 June 2005.

Prepared by:     Davyd Foard Hood Isinglass 6907 Old Shelby Road Vale, NC  28168 704/462-1847 dfhood@conninc.com

 

  1. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY

 

SUMMARY

The Elizabeth Lawrence House and Garden at 348 Ridgewood Avenue, Charlotte, holds historical significance in Charlotte, the state of North Carolina, and the nation, as the home of the celebrated plantswoman and garden writer from 1949 to 1984. The property reflects and holds association with two critical aspects of her life and career:  her work as a garden designer, and her life’s work as a writer. With the loss of the Raleigh house and garden, where she resided from 1916 to 1948 and wrote A Southern Garden, published in 1942, the Charlotte house and garden is the single surviving property associated with her lifetime career as a horticulturist and writer. She acquired this property in May 1948, oversaw the house’s construction in 1948-1949, and occupied it with her mother in the later year. The garden at 348 Ridgewood Avenue dates to 1949-1950, when she laid out its paths, beds, and borders on the grounds around the newly-completed residence and set about the process of planting. Today the garden survives as the most intact and best preserved example of the work of the first woman graduate in landscape architecture from (present-day) North Carolina State University. That significance is underscored by her use of the garden as a laboratory for plants, a place where she continually cultivated a wide range of both heirloom plants and modern cultivars, studied their habits, and used the experience as the grist for her columns in the Charlotte Observer from 1957 to 1971 and for the two books published during her years here, The Little Bulbs in 1957 and Gardens in Winter in 1961. Her experience here also figured in the revision of A Southern Garden for its reprinting in 1967.

As Allen Lacy has written, “Her three major books—A Southern Garden (1942), The Little Bulbs: A Tale of Two Gardens (1957) and Gardens in Winter (1971)—are horticultural classics, fully a match for anything written by such British gardening writers as Gertrude Jekyll and Vita Sackville-West” (TGE, 156). And there, of course, lies her distinction and significance. While a Southern-born writer, who wrote largely about Southern gardens, Elizabeth Lawrence was in no way provincial. She continually evaluated her own experience as a plantswoman and gardener in two North Carolina gardens with that shared by her many correspondents. She then combined this valuable perspective with a detailed knowledge of garden history and a remarkable gift for language to produce writings far above those of most of her American contemporaries. Today, A Southern Garden and The Little Bulbs as well as two posthumous works, Gardening for Love:  The Market Bulletins (1987) and A Rock Garden in the South (1990) remain in print as do two collections of her shorter works for newspapers, magazines, and horticultural journals, Through the Garden Gate (1990) and A Garden of One’s Own (1997). Two Gardeners: A Friendship in Letters (2002), her correspondence with Katharine S. White, has been issued also in a paperback edition. This body of work, unequaled by her contemporaries in its quality, appeal, and timelessness, has earned her the first book-length biography accorded an American garden writer. Emily Herring Wilson’s No One Gardens Alone: A Life of Elizabeth Lawrence was published in 2004. This house and garden, Elizabeth Lawrence’s home from 1949 to 1984, retains its association with her extraordinary achievement

Elizabeth Lawrence with her nephew

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

In 1946-1947 Elizabeth Lewis Lawrence (1904-1985), the gifted American garden writer, plantswoman and landscape architect, was forced to make a painful decision, that of giving up the Raleigh garden she had nutured for many years and celebrated in A Southern Garden. The house and garden at 115 Park Avenue in Raleigh had been the residence of the Lawrence family since 1916, when they rented it, and after January 1918 when Samuel Lawrence purchased it from Charles V. and Daisy Young Albright (Wake County Deeds, 327/149). It had been Miss Lawrence’s home for all but the first twelve years of hr life.1

Elizabeth Lawrence was born at the home of her paternal grandparents in Marietta, Georgia, on 27 May 1904, the daughter of Samuel (1874-1936) and Elizabeth Bradenbaugh (1876-1964) Lawrence,. The Lawrence family relocated to Hamlet, North Carolina, and then lived in Richmond, Virginia, and Garysburg, North Carolina, before they moved to Raleigh. Elizabeth Lawrence enrolled at St. Mary’s School. After graduation there in 1922 she entered Barnard College in New York City where she received a bachelor’s degree in 1926. She did coursework as a special student at North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering (now North Carolina State University) in 1928 and 1929 and then completed a three-year degree, receiving a Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture degree in 1932. Miss Lawrence remained at home and began a professional design partnership with Isabel Bronson Busbee (1880-1966), who had studied at Lowthorpe School of Landscape Architecture and enjoyed a small design practice in Raleigh. During this time, Elizabeth Lawrence turned to writing about gardening, and in 1932 she saw her first article published in “Garden Gossip,” an organ of the Garden Club of Virginia. Four years later, her publication in House & Garden launched her as a national garden writer. She continued to work as a free-lance garden journalist up to the publication of A Southern Garden in 1942 and through World War II.

The decision to move from Raleigh to Charlotte, North Carolina, came as a result of personal, family concerns. The Depression and the death of Samuel Lawrence in 1936 had left his widow and their family in reduced circumstances. When Miss Lawrence’s sister moved to Charlotte, she and her mother followed. Elizabeth Lawrence was one of two daughters born to the couple. The Lawrences’ younger daughter, Ann De Treville Lawrence (1908-1980), was married to Warren Wade Way, Jr. (1905-2003) in 1941, and she became the mother of two children born in 1943 and 1945, respectively. For periods during World War II and after Mr. Way’s discharge from the United States Army, the Ways were also at 115 Park Avenue. By 1947 Mr. Way had taken a position with the Internal Revenue Service in Charlotte. The Ways moved to Charlotte with their two children and occupied a rental apartment at Morris Field. Meanwhile, the house on Park Avenue was rented for a period and a part of it sublet as an apartment.2 With a large house and garden in Raleigh they could not continue to maintain, and as Mr. Way was the single person in the family with a permanent position and a guaranteed income, Mrs. Lawrence and her daughters concluded the best arrangement was for her and Elizabeth Lawrence to move to Charlotte and re-establish themselves in a house near the Ways. The family would live together, in a fashion, and Mrs. Lawrence would be with her two daughters and her only grandchildren.

When Mrs. Lawrence, Miss Lawrence, and the Ways set about choosing the location of their new houses in Charlotte, they followed the example of Samuel Lawrence. Three decades earlier when he relocated the family to Raleigh, he sought an appealing, substantial house in a good neighborhood. A likely house was one that enjoyed the benefit of close proximity to the capital’s main residential thoroughfare, Hillsborough Street, and the handsome new residential development, Cameron Park. Another consideration was proximity to St. Mary’s School where he enrolled his daughters as day students.

He found just such a house at 115 Park Avenue, an imposing two-story early-twentieth-century weatherboarded frame house that stood a few doors south of Hillsborough Street. The northern extension of Park Avenue was a part of the road system of Cameron Park. The Lawrences’ new house was thus close to the imposing houses lining Hillsborough Street, a favored address of Raleigh’s nineteenth-century elite, and the newer bungalows and Colonial Revival-style houses of their sons and daughters in Cameron Park. It also enjoyed a proximity to both St. Mary’s School and North Carolina College of Agricultural and Mechanical Arts whose campuses lay but a few blocks, respectively, to the northeast and west. This choice proved propitious, and the Lawrences made many friends among the academic and professional families who resided in the favored enclave between two important educational facilities. The friendships formed over three decades here, from 1916 to 1948, would become critical to Elizabeth Lawrence’s work as a landscape architect and garden writer.

Elizabeth Lawrence in her garden in Raleigh

Relocating in mid life, when enjoying the promise of success as a garden writer, Elizabeth Lawrence was three days shy of her forty-fourth birthday when the deed for this property was executed (Mecklenburg Deeds, 1316/313). She acquired the undeveloped lot, measuring seventy feet in width and 225 feet in depth, for $2,200 from Timothy M and Esther Prigden.3 That same day, 24 May 1948, Ann (Lawrence) and Warren Wade Way, Jr., purchased the small, narrow lot of the same dimensions on the northeast from the Prigdens for the identical price (Mecklenburg Deeds, 1316/312). These adjoining lots were located in a now little-known subdivision on the southwest edge of Myers Park that was initially platted in June 1925 for James P. Tucker as a part of “Mecklenburg Heights” (Mecklenburg Deeds, Map Book 3/190). Between June 1925 and October 1925 Mecklenburg Heights was sold to Wesley T. Heath who renamed it “Poplar Gables.” He widened most of the lots on Ridgewood Avenue from sixty to seventy feet and ordered a new plat of the subdivision which remains the point of reference to the present (Mecklenburg Deeds, Map Book 3/221).

The subdivision’s three main parallel streets, Ridgewood, Hillside, and Tranquil avenues, all extended off the west side of Selwyn Avenue, one of Myers Park’s principal roadways. The back property lines of the Lawrence and Way lots were coterminous with the southwest edge of Myers Park and coincident with an alley that carried along this edge of the more exclusive development. A series of one-story apartments on the north side of the alley faced onto Lynnwood Drive and were a part of Myers Park. In 1948 the Lawrence and Way parcels were among the last undeveloped lots in Poplar Gables, whose streets were lined with mostly two-story Colonial Revival houses or variations of period cottages. The soon-built Lawrence and Way houses, of similar, modest design, were among the few one-story houses in the neighborhood and remain so to the present.

The choice of these lots proved to be an inspired decision for Elizabeth Lawrence, who built and occupied 348 Ridgewood Avenue with her mother. It would be their joint home until Mrs. Lawrence’ death in 1964 and hers until she departed Charlotte in 1984. The neighborhood, while newer than their old home grounds in Raleigh, was similar in status with a close proximity to Myers Park and its amenities. Queens College, located on Selwyn Avenue, was about ten blocks away. Exactly how the sisters came to choose these lots remains unclear; however, the fact that well-known gardeners Edwin Osborne (1900-1993) and Elizabeth Barnhill (1904-1988) Clarkson lived at 248 Ridgewood Avenue was likely a determining factor. The Clarkson garden, known as Wing Haven, was then one of the finest gardens in the larger Myers Park area. Elizabeth Lawrence and the Clarksons would become gardening friends and neighbors, and Miss Lawrence soon formed lasting friendships with other gardeners here including Hannah Withers (1902-1999) who gardened at 2001 Queens Road East, Dr. Walter Brem Mayer, and others, like Dr. Herbert Hechenbleikner (1909-2004), a professor of biology at Charlotte College (now UNCC) who lived at a further distance.

Elizabeth Lawrence’s Charlotte house and garden reflected her accommodation to a new life and changed circumstances. The lot, at 15,750 square feet, was just over one-third the size of the Raleigh property which comprised just under one acre. The house would be smaller and so, too, would her garden. The adjoining houses of the Lawrence sisters were completed and occupied in 1949, and both families are listed in the 1950 Charlotte city directory at their respective addresses. The design and planting of the garden began in 1949 and continued through the early 1950s with further plantings and the addition of stones along its paths and borders as they became available.

Settling into her new house and garden, Elizabeth Lawrence continued her work as a garden writer. Although her relocation from Raleigh to Charlotte forced her to give up one garden to gain another, the many professional and personal friendships she developed while in Raleigh, and particularly after the publication of A Southern Garden, remained true as she enlarged her circle here. Elizabeth Lawrence was an inveterate letter-writer with a correspondence that ranged wide through society and across the nation. A love of plants and gardening and a poet’s skill with words enabled her to communicate as easily with the host of gardening friends she developed through Southern market bulletins, as with the botanists, horticulturalists, plantsmen, and writers who occupied higher stations in life and their professions. Letters enabled Elizabeth Lawrence to converse with people she had met and those she might never meet, to share her knowledge with fellow gardeners, to gain theirs in turn, and, all the while, to further develop her talents as a writer and a gardener.

Elizabeth Lawrence’s letters, like her Raleigh and Charlotte gardens, were the trial grounds for manuscripts which bloomed in her lifetime and afterward. So, too, were the many articles she wrote for magazines and horticultural journals. The move to Charlotte and to 348 Ridgewood Avenue occasioned little disruption to the output of either letters or articles, and soon she was engaged in other literary efforts. Two initiatives met with reward in 1957. Elizabeth Lawrence’s friendship with Carl Krippendorf (1875-1964), had begun in 1943 with a letter he wrote appreciating her article on North Carolina amaryllids in Herbertia, the yearbook of the American Amaryllis Society. Mr. Krippendorf gardened at Lob’s Wood, his estate near Cincinnati, Ohio. When Elizabeth Lawrence addressed a meeting of the Garden Club of America in Cincinnati in 1945, they met for the first time. Their previous, polite exchange deepened and broadened, and it provided the basis for her second book, The Little Bulbs: A Tale of Two Gardens, published in 1957 and dedicated to Mr. Krippendorf. One of the gardens in the title, of course, was his at Lob’s Wood. The other was hers, the garden at 348 Ridgewood Avenue.

This is a tale of two gardens: mine and Mr. Krippendorf’s. Mine is a small city back yard laid out in flower beds and gravel walks, with a scrap of pine woods in the background; Mr. Krippendorf’s is hundreds of acres of virgin forest. Both are perfect for little bulbs, for no garden is too small to hold them all if only a few of each are used, and no forest is too large to show them off if enough of one kind is planted (LB, 1).

Readers throughout the country came to know Elizabeth Lawrence’s Charlotte garden through The Little Bulbs, as some 17,000 copies of the book were sold through its offering as a selection in the American Garden Guild Book Club in addition to those sold through conventional book shops (NOGA, 308).

Readers of the Charlotte Observer were also introduced to the Ridgewood Avenue garden in 1957 when the newspaper initiated a weekly garden column, written by Miss Lawrence, in its Sunday edition on 11 August. That first column was illustrated with a photograph of Miss Lawrence standing at the gate, opened for her readers, that looks much the same today, in 2005, as it did then.

This is the gate of my garden. I invite you to enter in; not only into my garden, but into the world of gardens—a world as old as the history of man, and as new as the latest contribution of science; a world of mystery, adventure and romance; a world of poetry and philosophy; a world of beauty; and a world of work.

Over time, and through the course of another 700-plus columns published in the period up to her last column of 13 June 1971, readers came to understand that romance, poetry, history, and philosophy were attributes as important in gardens as plants.

Gardens in Winter, the third of four books written by Elizabeth Lawrence that were published in her lifetime, also followed the example of The Little Bulbs in being both a celebration of her Charlotte garden and garden friendships. One of these friendships was with Caroline Dormon (1888-1971), a pioneering Louisiana environmentalist, forester, botanist, and native plant enthusiast who produced the illustrations for Gardens in Winter. Published by Harper & Brothers in 1961 the book was dedicated to Miss Dormon, with whom Elizabeth Lawrence had first corresponded n 1944 but did not meet until 1958, the year in which Miss Dormon’s Flowers Native to the Deep South was published. The following year, 1959, Caroline Dormon was an overnight guest at Ridgewood Avenue while on a lecture tour (NOGA, 225). Miss Lawrence introduces readers of Gardens in Winter to the Ridgewood Avenue garden in its opening paragraphs and never allows them to stray too far from its seasonal embrace.

How beautiful it is when the pattern of the garden becomes clear again; when no leaves blur the long straight line or gentle curve, or the restful circle laid on the square; . . . On chance-mild days when and incandescent light falls on thin twigs, throwing their fine shadows across gravel walks, my garden seems more beautiful than at any other time. The essence of warmth and light is in this delicious sun that seeps into the spirit and penetrates the marrow. At no other season is the sun so grateful, so gentle and so healing (GIW, 3-4).

Gardens in Winter appeared during the long, steadily debilitating illness that would claim Mrs. Lawrence’s life on 31 July 1964. Elizabeth “Bessie” Lawrence had suffered a stroke in 1957, and she increasingly required the attentions of Elizabeth Lawrence, her sister, and a series of nurses through seven long, difficult, and demanding years. In retrospect, her mother’s care took up both time and energy at a critical point in Miss Lawrence’s career; long necessary periods of contemplation and study were lost to her. However, through these years Elizabeth Lawrence continued to produce weekly columns for the Charlotte Observer and longer articles for horticultural journals and magazines. In 1966-1967 she was engaged in revisions for the reprinting of A Southern Garden. Her last book, Lob’s Wood, an essay on Carl Krippendorf’s gardens, was published in 1971 by the Cincinnati Nature Center which occupies the estate property.

During this period Elizabeth Lawrence maintained a steady correspondence with many friends and welcomed several of them as guests at Ridgewood Avenue. Foremost among this group were Eudora Welty and Katharine S. White. Elizabeth Lawrence met Eudora Welty (1909-2001) in Raleigh in the 1930s, when Miss Welty also visited the Lawrences’ Park Avenue garden. Theirs was a unique friendship. Elizabeth Lawrence, the gardener, had an immediate rapport with Miss Welty’s mother, Chestina Andrews Welty (1883-1966), who had developed the gardens at the Welty home at 1119 Pinehurst Street in Jackson, Mississippi. Miss Lawrence, the poet and writer, enjoyed the companionship of a Southern woman writer and gardener who, like her, had remained unmarried and at home with her mother. Eudora Welty visited Elizabeth Lawrence twice on Ridgewood Avenue:  in April 1963, and last in April 1982.

Elizabeth Lawrence’s friendship with Katharine S. White (1892-1977), an editor and writer for The New Yorker, was of shorter duration. Their correspondence began in 1958 and continued into June 1977, a few weeks before Mrs. White’s death on 20 July. Through the course of this exchange Elizabeth Lawrence provided a great deal of horticultural information, advice, and recommendations that Mrs. White readily accepted and incorporated into her occasional column “Onward and Upward in the Garden.” During this near twenty-year exchange of letters the two women met but once, in New York in 1967. Their correspondence, edited by Emily Herring Wilson, was published in 2002 as Two Gardeners: A Friendship in Letters..

Beginning in the 1960s with the deaths of both her mother and Carl Krippendorf in 1964 and that of her long-time friend and editor, the playwright Ann Preston Bridgers, in 1967, the deaths of a series of friends accompanied the denouement of her career as a writer and gardener. The death of Caroline Dormon in 1971 marked the end of a close personal and professional friendship unlike few others she enjoyed. The fact that Elizabeth Lawrence chose to deposit her personal papers in the archives of Northwestern State University of Louisiana, which held Miss Dormon’s papers and was far away from the state of North Carolina where she lived all but a few years of her life, is one indication of the depth of their friendship.4 As one after another of her friends passed, the ongoing, lively, and rewarding exchange with Katharine S. White gained in meaning to Miss Lawrence. It, too, came to an end in 1977. Through this period, however, Elizabeth Lawrence could always count on her sister Ann, living next door. Her death in 1980 removed that critical pillar of Miss Lawrence’s life.

Elizabeth Lawrence took the first steps that led to her departure from Charlotte in the later 1970s. On 21 September 1978 she signed a document granting power of attorney to her nephew Warren Wade Way III. Although notarized that same day, it was not registered until 31 January 1983 (Mecklenburg Deeds, 4621/0254-0256). It was also in 1978 that she sent the first group of her professional papers to the archivist at Northwestern State University of Louisiana. A second, larger donation of papers was sent in 1979.5 She had kept, however, the draft manuscripts for books on the market bulletins and rock gardening. Not until the summer of 1984, shortly before leaving Charlotte, did Elizabeth Lawrence convey this material to Joanne Ferguson, editor-in-chief of Duke University Press (NOGA, 271-273).

Following the death of her sister in February 1980, an independent life for Elizabeth Lawrence at 348 Ridgewood Avenue became increasingly difficult. Domestic affairs were one issue, another was the care and maintenance of her garden. Over the course of years she had employed men to help her with the hard, difficult work of gardening, and in fall 1972 she had had the good fortune to gain the assistance of a helper, Jamie Stemple, a student of Dr. Herbert Heckenbleikner’s. He helped her at least until 1979 (NOGA, 289-291). Meanwhile, another helper in the garden on an occasional basis was Steve del Vecchio. He had started working for the Clarksons at Wing Haven in 1969, and helped Miss Lawrence, on request, into the early 1980s, until about 1983 when Elizabeth Lawrence essentially ended her attention to it.6

But even in its decline the garden stirred memory and evoked appreciation from those who came to see Elizabeth Lawrence in the 1980s. In early April 1982 Eudora Welty returned to visit Miss Lawrence for the first time since 1963. Miss Welty had just participated in a writers’ conference at Converse College and was traveling to Durham for a visit with Reynolds Price. Both women were in their seventies, and it surely went unsaid, if acknowledged in other ways, that the visit would likely be their last meeting. Miss Lawrence was a generous host, and packed a lunch and other treats for Miss Welty to carry away. Eudora Welty was equally gracious in her reply, dated 5 April 1982 from Jackson, and crafted a letter of warm remembrance of hours spent with Elizabeth Lawrence—in her house and garden.

How lovely & how rewarding a day like that can be. . . . You made it happen, and as far as I was concerned it was perfect—the shortness of time wasn’t of any consequence at all, it was so fixed with pleasure, and the joy of walking in your garden again and seeing how you’d kept its continuing identity and its peace [marginal note–& as is] & in the beauty of the time of year—I was so glad to see you! and to see you where you belong most, just as always, and garden & house & yourself all looking in charge of one another in the same lively and complete accord—well, it’s not easy to express, but so easy to bask in and thank heaven for. (NOGA, 266).

It was also in 1982 that Elizabeth Lawrence saw her last writings published. One was a memoir of Dr. Edgar T. Wherry, a fellow botanist, writer, and champion of rock gardens, published in “The Newsletter of the North Carolina Wildflower Preservation Society” in Fall 1982. The other was an introduction to a selection of newspaper columns and articles written by William Lanier Hunt (1906-1996) which was published by Duke University Press as Southern Gardens, Southern Gardening. Mr. Hunt, who had written a foreword for the reprint of A Southern Garden in 1967, asked Miss Lawrence for the honor. Her short essay, a light-hearted elegy on their gardening friendship, returned the favor.

When my mother and I came to Charlotte to live, I thought we would see less of Bill, but as it turned out we saw him more often. He came, bringing with him young botanists, students or faculty of the university; he came, bringing bulbs and plants for my new garden, and once he brought a rectangular block of slate from Morgan Creek Valley. We set it, like a jewel, in a low stone wall. The valley slate is dark gray when dry, but when it rains it reveals tones of Mulberry, Mauve, and Perilla Purple.Between visits there were letters: . . . (SC, SG, xiv).

In 1983 and 1984 Elizabeth Lawrence resolved three important considerations as her days at 348 Ridgewood Avenue came to a necessary end. She entrusted the manuscripts that were published posthumously as Gardening for Love and A Rock Garden in the South to Joanne Ferguson (b. 1930), editor-in-chief at Duke University Press. The resolution of two other matters concerning her future were intertwined. After extended discussions with her niece and nephew, she set about the process of selling her house and relocating to Annapolis, Maryland, to live near her niece and namesake, Elizabeth Lawrence (Way) Rogers (b. 1945). On 17 October 1984 the deed for 348 Ridgewood Avenue was executed and the property sold for $90,000 to James B. Sommers, a vice-president with North Carolina National Bank then residing at 226 Huntley Place, Charlotte (Mecklenburg Deeds, 4917/0207). Mr. Sommers’ ownership of the Lawrence property was a brief point of transition in its history. On 11 February 1986 he and his wife conveyed 348 Ridgewood Avenue to Mary Lindeman Wilson (b. 1932) for $121,000 (Mecklenburg Deeds, 5172/0480).

Elizabeth Lewis Lawrence died within a year of leaving her Charlotte house and garden. In Maryland she first occupied rooms in the home of her niece, her husband, and their family at 201 Norwood Road in Annapolis. She subsequently moved to a small apartment. When her health declined further she was moved to Pleasant Living Convalescent Center in Edgewater, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, where she died on Tuesday, 11 June 1985. Her body was cremated and the ashes interred in the yard of St. James Episcopal Church, Lothian, Maryland. Her obituary appeared in the Charlotte Observer on 16 June under the heading “Elizabeth Lawrence, Wrote A Southern Garden.”7

Elizabeth Lawrence’s house and garden have been the beneficiary of a remarkable stewardship by Mary Lindeman “Lindie” Wilson. A native of Petersburg, Virginia, a well-informed lifetime gardener, and the divorced mother of two, she relocated to Ridgewood Avenue from a house at 4919 Gorham Drive in Charlotte.8 She was also the owner/proprietor of Interior Greenworks, Inc., a firm which designed, installed, and maintained tropical foliage plants and interior landscapes in business and institutional settings. Mrs. Wilson continued this enterprise into the mid 1990s at an off-site office and warehouse facility.

The house built by Miss Lawrence had remained unchanged during her years here and Mr. Sommers’ brief tenure as owner, but with the passage of thirty-seven years, maintenance and certain upgrades became necessary. When effecting these and two more substantive improvements to the house, Mrs. Wilson and her architect, David Wagner, exercised restraint and sensitivity to the house and its character. While the two-bedroom house had been satisfactory for Miss Lawrence and her mother, whose closest relatives lived next door, Mrs. Wilson needed additional space to accommodate her family on visits. Mr. Wagner provided a new second-story suite for Mrs. Wilson in the existing attic of the Lawrence house by adding a small dormer window on the south façade and a larger shed-roof dormer, incorporating seven windows, on the north elevation overlooking the garden. This suite included a spacious bedsitting room, bathroom, closets, and laundry closet while reserving the unfinished west end of the attic for household storage. On the first story the terrace was enclosed as a garden room with a brick floor and windows overlooking the garden. These improvements were completed by June 1986 when Mrs. Wilson occupied the house.

The garden at 348 Ridgewood Avenue, little attended in the last years of Miss Lawrence’s life here and largely neglected during Mr. Sommers’ ownership, had become much overgrown by June 1986 when Mrs. Wilson moved into the house and set about her work outside. With careful attention—and knowledge—the garden was reclaimed through pruning, removal of unwanted, volunteer, and invasive growth, and replanting over the course of years. As the work advanced through the late 1980s, the plan devised by Miss Lawrence, with its rock-lined gravel paths, beds, and borders, reappeared with all its simple linear clarity. The essential hard-scape features of the garden had survived altogether intact. Many of the trees, woody and herbaceous plants, bulbs, and perennials dating to Miss Lawrence’s period also survived, and they responded well to a delayed but welcome nurturing.9 Mindful of the plants Miss Lawrence had grown here with success, Miss Wilson replanted in like fashion, in sympathy with the character of Miss Lawrence’s garden, but never slavishly. In 1992, six years after acquiring the property, the garden was open to view on the Mint Museum House and Garden Tour. By coincidence it was also the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of A Southern Garden.

Public interest in Elizabeth Lawrence was rekindled in 2002 with the publication of Two Gardeners: A Friendship in Letters and the knowledge that Emily Herring Wilson was at work on a biography of the garden writer. No One Gardens Alone: A Life of Elizabeth Lawrence was published in 2004. Interest also turned to Miss Lawrence’s Charlotte house and garden and its future. Under the auspices of The Garden Conservancy, a preliminary meeting was held at 348 Ridgewood Avenue on 4 March 2003. This initiative resulted, in 2004, in the organization of The Friends of Elizabeth Lawrence, which is now leading efforts to acquire and preserve the house and garden.

SIGNIFICANCE

In a short autobiography published in Herbertia in 1943, Elizabeth Lawrence recounted her mother’s encouragement to gardening, her telling of the Parable of the Sower, and the magic she herself found among the plants in the garden of the Raleigh house that became the Lawrences’ home in fall 1916. The garden had been established by the house’s former owners, and in the 1910s and 1920s, including the period when Elizabeth Lawrence was a student at Barnard College (1922-1926), Mrs. Lawrence nurtured its development. Her efforts proved more influential than she could have foreseen at the time. Elizabeth Lawrence concluded the paragraphs on her early life with a remembrance. “The first spring in the South after four years in New York led me to choose gardening as a profession” (AGOO, 3).

Garden Design

Elizabeth Lawrence Garden during her time in Charlotte

A year would pass between that spring of 1927 and spring 1928 when Elizabeth Lawrence began studies as a special student at North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering. This course of education was interrupted by a trip to Europe and it was not until spring 1929 that she was again taking courses. With those completed she entered a three-year program in landscape architecture offered in the School of Agriculture’s horticultural department. In June 1932 Elizabeth Lawrence became the first woman to receive a Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture degree from the North Carolina school (NOGA, 88-90). Although Elizabeth Lawrence soon joined her friend Isabell Bronson Busbee (1880-1966) in a garden design partnership, the circumstances were not propitious for a career as a landscape architect. The financial exigencies of the time severely circumscribed opportunities for landscape architects in general, and the opportunities for women undertaking a career in that field in the South were even less promising. Nevertheless, some few modest commissions came her way, and these are simply noted by her biographer, who acknowledges documentation is “scant” for the period preceding the move to Charlotte (NOGA, 124).10 One such project, garden improvements to the grounds of Chosumneda, a nineteenth-century plantation house in Edgecombe County, came to her in 1948 because its owner Martina (Carr) Fillmore (1904-1972) had been a St. Mary’s classmate.

Written records are also thin for the period after she established herself in Charlotte in 1949 except for occasional letters surviving in her papers at Northwestern State University of Louisiana, personal remembrances, and some few rare surviving plans.11 These suggest that it was two pillars of her life, the Episcopal Church and St. Mary’s School, around which work came her way. In about 1959-1960, Rebecca Bennahan (Wood) Drane (1892-1984), the wife of the Reverend Frederick Blount Drane, sought Miss Lawrence’s advice on improvements to the grounds of The Homestead, an ancestral place in Edenton to which the Dranes retired in 1958 after Mr. Drane’s tenure as rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Monroe.12 Then, at the end of the 1960s, Hugh Boyer, who had grown up in Myers Park and later relocated to Hickory, engaged Miss Lawrence to help with the garden for a house at 824 Seventh Street, NW, whose grounds he was enlarging.13 In each of these cases, Miss Lawrence consulted on site, made recommendations in conversation and later in letters to the clients, and often provided favored plants from her own Ridgewood Avenue garden that were supplemented by larger purchases from nurseries. The custom of site visits and letters also occurred at Hope Plantation, Bertie County, North Carolina, in 1967, for which she recommended the standards of historic Southern gardens—magnolia, boxwood, Virginia cedars, and crepe myrtles (NOGA, 282-284).

Despite the good efforts of her biographer and those of this writer, the account of Elizabeth Lawrence’s work as a landscape architect and garden designer remains to be thoroughly addressed. To date, few plans for gardens made by her hand are known to survive and the extent to which she directed the design and planting of the entire grounds for a property is unconfirmed. There is the further question of the extent to which the plans she proposed for particular sites were developed. Another serious complication to developing a chronological list of projects is the fact that Miss Lawrence did not usually include the year on her letters and as often as not simply referenced days by a church calendar, such as “All Saints” day, etc. In consequence, the survival of the garden at 348 Ridgewood Avenue is all the more remarkable—and important. Here, it would appear, she had an absolute hand in the design of her grounds and garden. Confined to a small lot measuring seventy feet in width and 225 feet in depth, she treated the entire property as a garden and laid out an axial series of paths, beds, and borders centered on a pool, that both delighted the eye and provided her with the necessary plots for horticultural experiment. She later reflected on the dual function of her garden, “I cannot bear for people to say (as they often do) that I am better at plant material than design; I cannot help it if I have to use my own well-designed garden as a laboratory, thereby ruining it as a garden” (quoted in GFL, 18, and TTGG, x).

Front entrance to Elizabeth Lawrence House

This garden, having survived well-preserved for a near score of years in the stewardship of Mary Lindeman Wilson, is both an important regional example of a designed landscape from the post-World War II period and a reflection of what might have been, had Elizabeth Lawrence not been restrained by personal obligations and had actively pursued a career in design. Even though acclaim came to Miss Lawrence as a writer, rather than as a garden designer, she identified herself as a “landscape architect” when a profession was first listed beside her name in the Raleigh city directory in 1933. That professional identification held through her (last) listing in the capital in its 1945-1946 directory. She held to that identification in Charlotte. After being simply listed by name in the 1950 and 1951 city directories, in 1952 she is identified as a landscape architect in both the alphabetical list of residents and in the classified business directory. This pattern held through her final appearance in the Charlotte city directory in 1984. This said, however, Miss Lawrence apparently developed an unexplained aversion to the term. In an undated letter she replied to a magazine editor, “Don’t know what this means, but for the record: I design gardens but cannot bear to be called a Landscape Architect; lecture and write about gardening, but cannot bear to be called an expert. Cannot bear to be called an amateur, but like to be taken seriously as a gardener and a writer” (quoted in TTGG, x).

Garden Writing

The death of Elizabeth Lawrence in 1985 prompted a reassessment of her career, and a series of publications culminated, on the centennial of her birth in 2004, with the appearance of a biography, No One Gardens Alone. Upon publication it became the first book-length biography of an American garden writer and it retains that distinction to the present. This process of renewed appreciation, with no known like example among American garden writers of the twentieth century, actually began in 1984, when the University of North Carolina Press issued A Southern Garden in its first paperback edition. Following her death, The Little Bulbs was reprinted in 1986, and A Southern Garden was reissued in a special hardback edition in 1991, which was illustrated with watercolors of her Charlotte house and garden.

The manuscripts of two other books which had occupied the last decades of her life were edited and seen into publication by Duke University Press as Gardening for Love: The Market Bulletins in 1987 and A Rock Garden in the South in 1990. Two collections of her newspaper articles and shorter writings, Through the Garden Gate and A Garden of One’s Own, were published in 1990 and 1997, respectively. In 2001 UNC Press printed a paperback edition of the 1991 version of A Southern Garden. Then, in 2002, the letters exchanged between Miss Lawrence and Katharine S. White were published to rave reviews as Two Gardeners: A Friendship in Letters by Beacon Press. Early in this period, in 1989, Elizabeth Lawrence’s Library of nearly 500 books was sold for $10,000 by her niece to the Cherokee Garden Library in Atlanta.

Those involved in this renaissance of interest in Elizabeth Lawrence represented a range of talents and areas of specialization in gardening and garden writing. This diversity also reflects the growing, widespread appreciation that people in both North Carolina and the nation, as well as England, have come to hold for her writings. First, chronologically, among this group was William Lanier Hunt (1906-1996), a close friend and gardening colleague since the 1930s when they encouraged gardening and the garden club movement in the Southeast. They shared remarkably similar interests, both were writers for newspapers–he for the Durham Herald–and both were well- and widely-respected in the South. He was instrumental in the first reprinting of A Southern Garden in 1967. One can quickly see Bill Hunt’s hand in encouraging the press to reprint The Little Bulbs and persuading Miss Lawrence to entrust her manuscripts for two books to Mrs. Ferguson, to whom he had dedicated Southern Gardens, Southern Gardening.

Joanne Ferguson, in turn, went about finding editors for the manuscripts, succeeded in her work, and quickly oversaw the reprinting of The Little Bulbs by her press in 1986. This effort, no doubt, was a step in the anticipated promotion of the two Lawrence books to follow. The reprint carried a new introduction by Allen Lacy (b. 1935), a professor of philosophy at Richard Stockton College of New Jersey and gardening columnist for The New York Times, who also took on the task of editing the market bulletin manuscript into Gardening for Love: The Market Bulletins. Allen Lacy also collaborated with Nancy Goodwin, the internationally-known gardener at Montrose in Hillsborough, on the preparation of A Rock Garden in the South. The publication of Gardening for Love whetted the appetite of readers for both the rock garden book and a compilation of Miss Lawrence’s Charlotte Observer articles published in 1990 as Through the Garden Gate. It was edited by Bill Neal (1950-1991), a gardener and writer better known as a chef and the proprietor of Crook’s Corner, a legendary restaurant in Chapel Hill, but someone whose appreciation of Miss Lawrence and her writing was as keen as that of professional garden writers and gardeners.

In September 1992 a symposium was mounted in the Research Triangle Park area to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Elizabeth Lawrence’s 1942 classic. Speakers at “A SOUTHERN GARDEN:  Past, Present, and Future” included Pamela Harper, a highly respected garden writer who has long cited Miss Lawrence as her mentor; Felder Rushing, the prolific Jackson Mississippi-based garden writer; Nancy Goodwin; Edith Eddleman, who designed the Elizabeth Lawrence border at the North Carolina State University Arboretum in Raleigh; Douglas Ruhren; William Lanier Hunt; and Allen Lacy. In 1997, fifty-five years after publishing A Southern Garden, the University of North Carolina Press published A Garden of One’s Own. Edited by Barbara Scott and Bobby J. Ward, this book is a compilation of fifty-four articles Elizabeth Lawrence had written for magazines, garden club journals, and horticultural publications between 1933 and 1982.

Today, sixty-three years after its publication, A Southern Gardener, a timeless meditation on gardening, has become a classic. It remains in print as do The Little Bulbs, Gardening for Love, and A Rock Garden in the South, and the two compilations of her shorter works, Through the Garden Gate and A Garden of One’s Own. Two Gardeners: A Friendship in Letters has been issued in a paperback edition. No One  Gardens Alone is in bookstores in both hardback and paperback editions. This in-print status is one enjoyed by none of Elizabeth Lawrence’s American contemporaries in garden literature. Helen Van Pelt Wilson (1901-2003), probably the most prolific twentieth-century writer on gardening and plants and the published author of at least thirteen books and the co-author or editor of another eleven, has only The New Perennials Preferred in print. (Interestingly enough, it is actually a revised reprint of her second book, Perennials Preferred, that was first published in 1945.) Other garden journalists and authors of the period—and their works—have faded into a certain obscurity. Dorothy Helen Jenkins (1907-1972) and Joan Lee Faust (____-____), columnists/garden editors for The New York Times, Thomas Henry Everett (c. 1903-1986), who also contributed articles to the Times as well as the New York Herald Tribune, while director of the New York Botanical Garden, and George Taloumis (____-____), a garden columnist for the Boston Globe and the author of many articles for popular and garden interest magazines, are names that are virtually unknown today. However, it should be noted that Miss Lawrence had books by both Mrs. Wilson and Mr. Taloumis in her library.

While these writers are indeed her contemporaries they were not her equals as writers. In his sketch, “Listening to Miss Lawrence,” published in 1992 in The Gardener’s Eye and Other Essays, Allen Lacy put the matter succinctly.

Although her reputation has been primarily as a regional, specifically southeastern, writer, Elizabeth Lawrence is one of the best writers we’ve ever had. Her three major books—A Southern Garden (1942), The Little  Bulbs: A Tale of Two Gardens (1957), and Gardens in Winter (1971)—are horticultural classics, fully a match for anything written by such British gardening writers as Gertrude Jekyll and Vita Sackville-West. Furthermore, she transcends the usual category of “gardening writer”: she wrote about gardening only in the same sense that M. F. K. Fisher writes about cooking (TGE, 156).

Mr. Lacy, who never met Elizabeth Lawrence, was repeating a view he first aired in his introduction to Gardening for Love. But, in fact, it was William Lanier Hunt, Miss Lawrence’s long-time friend and an inveterate reader of both American and English garden books, who first placed her in the larger English garden writers tradition. In his foreword to the 1967 reprint of A Southern Garden he described it as being “to American gardeners what the best English books are to the Britons. It follows in the tradition of the very rare books of the late E. A. Bowles, which are considered the most readable books ever written on gardening” (ASG, 1967, vii).

Placing Miss Lawrence in the literary company of these now legendary figures is rightful, if not physically possible. She never met them but she knew them and their books well. The works of all three are in her library, now at the Cherokee Garden Library, which includes eleven works by Miss Jekyll and five books by Edward Augustus Bowles (1865-1954). Both writers influenced Elizabeth Lawrence’s writings, and there are clear links between Mr. Bowles’ works on bulbs and his My Garden series and her three classics. Another figure who could be added to the roster is Jane Loudon, the great nineteenth-century writer, who, with Miss Jekyll, is among Elizabeth Lawrence’s most often cited authorities.

Today, with the long-ago loss of Elizabeth Lawrence’s Raleigh garden and the demolition in 2004 of the house in North Carolina’s capital which was her home from 1916 to 1948, her house and garden at 348 Ridgewood Avenue is the single property associated with her long and important career as a plantswoman and writer. Her home and garden from 1949 to 1984 holds significance in the history of Charlotte, the state, and the nation. In her letter of 5 April 1982, following a visit with Miss Lawrence, Eudora Welty phrased the remarkable association of person and place as well as possible for anyone—but here for Elizabeth Lawrence, her house, and her garden in Charlotte:

I was so glad to see you! and to see you where you belong most, just as always, and the garden & house & yourself all looking in charge of one another in the same lively and complete accord—well, its not easy to express, but so easy to bask in and thank heaven for (NOGA, 266).

ENDNOTES

  1. The principal published source on Elizabeth Lawrence is Emily Herring Wilson’s No One Gardens Alone: A Life of Elizabeth Lawrence. This author readily acknowledges its value in the preparation of this survey and research report together with that of the other works and sources cited in the bibliography. Where appropriate, quotations and documentation are noted internally with the use of acronyms, for instance NOGA for No One Gardens Alone, etc. Conventional endnotes are also used herein.
  2. The circumstances of the Lawrence family in the immediate post-World War II period are unclear. In the 1945-1946 Raleigh city directory Mrs. Lawrence and Elizabeth are both listed as residents of the two-story house at 115 Park Avenue. In the 1947 directory neither are listed at that address. Instead, the house has become a duplex with Clement A. Rodwell at #115 and Mrs. Gladys B. Wheeler at 115 ½ Park Avenue. In the 1948 Raleigh directory Mrs. Lawrence is again in residence at 115 Park Avenue. In the alphabetical residential listing she appears as “Eliz (wid Saml) landscape gdnr.”
    In the 1949 directory both Clement A. Rodwell and J. Brice Moore, who (with his wife) purchased the house from Mrs. Lawrence in October 1948, are listed as residents of 115 Park Avenue while Mrs. Wheeler remains in an apartment at 115 ½ Park Avenue. The house was subsequently acquired by the Farmhouse Fraternity at North Carolina State University and occupied by the fraternity until 2004 when a new house was built on the property and the Lawrence house was demolished.
  3. Mr. Prigden, formerly a reporter for the Charlotte News Publishing Company, and his wife had resided at 312 Ridgewood Avenue. The Prigdens had purchased the lot on 18 June 1936 (Mecklenburg Deeds, 886/169). By 1948 they had relocated to Washington County, Tennessee.
  4. The choice also reflects the persistence of Carol Wells, the archivist at Northwestern State University of Louisiana, who beginning in January 1977 actively sought the Elizabeth Lawrence Papers.
  5. Author’s telephone conversation with Mary Linn Wernet, archivist, Northwestern State University of Louisiana, 14 June 2005.
  6. Author’s telephone interview with Steve del Vecchio, 19 June 2005.
  7. Author’s telephone interview with Elizabeth Lawrence Way Rogers, 12 June 2005
  8. The account of Mrs. Wilson’s occupation of 348 Ridgewood Avenue is based on an on-site interview on 2 March 2005 and a telephone interview with Mrs. Wilson on 20 June 2005.
  9. These are recorded on a site plan of the property prepared by Keyes Williamson in 2005 and submitted with this application.
  10. Plans for at least two projects survive from the Raleigh period: “Sketch of Layout of Grounds of Farmville Community Park, Farmville, N. C. by The Farmville Woman’s Club” is undated and bears the name of both “Isabel B. Busbee (and) Elizabeth Lawrence, Landscape Architects,” and “Planting Design for Dr. Bullitt,” also undated and signed “Elizabeth Lawrence, L.A.” This writer is now investigating the status of the Farmville project. “Dr. Bullitt” was Dr. James Bell Bullitt (1874-1964), chairman of the department of pathology at the University of North Carolina Medical School. The house for which Miss Lawrence prepared the planting plan was designed for Dr. Bullitt and his second wife in June 1938 by George Watts Carr and was built at 737 Gimghoul Road, Chapel Hill, where it stands to the present. The planting plan probably dates to ca. 1939-1940. The extent to which Miss Lawrence’s proposed design for the grounds behind the house, including an arbor for scuppernong grape vines, was implemented is not known. None of the plants specified on the plan appear to survive. The flagstone walk and a flight of curved steps off the corner of the house, which appear to be Miss Lawrence’s designs, do survive.
  11. One such previously-unknown plan came to the attention of this author in September 2005. Unsigned and undated, but bearing Miss Lawrence’s identifiable handwriting, it is a small sheet of tracing paper on which she had drawn the plan of a grass-covered terrace feature with brick walks and steps for the residence of James and Charlotte Trotter at 4000 Churchill Road, Charlotte. It is believed to be contemporary with the ca. 1950 construction of the suburban one-story ranch house. The terrace, brick walks, and steps remain intact as does a brick enclosed rose bed and other features that may have an association with Miss Lawrence who wrote about the garden and Mrs. Trotter’s gardening here in her columns for the Charlotte Observer. The plan, together with photographs made by the Trotters in the 1950s and 1960s, together with other images, remain in the possession of the current owners.
  12. Author’s telephone interview with Frances Drane Inglis, 16 June 2005. She provided photocopies of two undated letters written by Miss Lawrence to Mrs. Drane and a photocopy of a draftsman’s plat of The Homestead lot on which both existing trees and plants and proposed plantings are noted.
  13. Author’s telephone interview with Hugh Boyer, 14 June 2005.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

“Annotated Bibliography of the Elizabeth Lawrence Collection, Cherokee Garden Library,” Atlanta, Georgia.

Hugh Boyer, telephone interview with author, 14 June 2005.

Charlotte  City Directory, 1948-1984.

Charlotte Observer, “Elizabeth Lawrence, Wrote A Southern Garden,” 16 June 1985.

Steve del Vecchio, telephone interview with author, 19 June 2005.

Hunt, William Lanier. Southern Gardens, Southern Gardening. Durham: Duke University Press, 1982.

Frances Drane Inglis, telephone interview with author, 16 June and 10 September 2005.

Lacy, Allen, ed., The American Gardener’s Sampler, New York:  Farrar Straus Giroux, 1988.

________, The Gardener’s Eye and Other Essays. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1992.

Lawrence, Elizabeth. A Southern Garden. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1942, 1967, 1984, 1991, 2001.

________, Allen Lacy, ed. Gardening for Love: The Market Bulletins. Durham: Duke University Press, 1987.

________, Gardens in Winter. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961. Also, Baton Rouge; Claitor’s Publishing Division, 1977.

________, Gardens of the South. (The University of North Carolina Library Extension Publication, Vol. XI, No. 2, April 1945) Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1945.

________, The Little Bulbs. New York: Criterion Books, 1957. Also, Durham: Duke University Press, 1986.

________, Lob’s Wood. Cincinnati: Cincinnati Nature Center, 1971.

________, Allen Lacy and Nancy Goodwin, eds., A Rock Garden in the South. Durham: Duke University Press, 1990.

Mecklenburg County Deeds, Office of the Register of Deeds, Mecklenburg County Administration Building, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Neal, Bill, ed. Through the Garden Gate. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990.

Raleigh City  Directory, 1916-1948.

Susan Rivers, “The Enduring Gardens of Elizabeth Lawrence,” Carolina Gardener, January/February 2005, 16-20.

Elizabeth Lawrence Way Rogers, telephone interview with author, 12 June 2005.

Scott, Barbara, and Bobby J. Ward, eds. A Garden of One’s Own. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997.

Wake County Deeds and Death Certificates, Office of the Register of Deeds, Wake County Court House, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Wake County Wills, Office of the Clerk of Court, Wake County Court House, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Warren Wade Way III, telephone interview with author, 30 May 2005.

Mary Linn Wernet, telephone interview with author, 14 June 2005.

White, Katharine S., E. B. White, ed. Onward and Upward in the Garden. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1979.

Westport (Conn.) News, “Obituaries: Helen Van Pelt Wilson,” 22 October 2003.

Wilson, Emily Herring. No One Gardens Alone: A Life of Elizabeth Lawrence. Boston: Beacon Press, 2004.

________, ed., Two Gardeners: A Friendship in Letters. Boston: Beacon Press, 2002.

Mary Lindeman Wilson, interviews with author, 3 March and 20 June 2005.

After Elizabeth Lawrence left, the garden fell into some neglect

 

Garden is presently restored

  1. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION

(Note:  Although the Elizabeth Lawrence house faces south/southwest, for the ease of description it will be described as facing south, with its façade being its south elevation, the rear wall being its north elevation, and so forth. The grounds and garden will be described likewise.)

The small one-story-with-attic house at 348 Ridgewood Avenue, built by Elizabeth Lawrence in 1948-1949 and her home from its completion until October 1984, is a modest, simply-detailed dwelling whose appearance belies its importance in the areas of landscape architecture and garden literature. The house stands on its original lot, seventy feet in width and 225 feet in depth. Miss Lawrence‘s house departs from the appearance of most of its neighbors in three important respects. First, it was built as a one-story-with-attic house in the late 1940s on a street which had been built up in the 1920s and 1930s with mostly two-story Colonial Revival-style houses or period cottages. It and its neighbor at 340 Ridgewood Avenue, the one-story home of Elizabeth Lawrence’s sister, Ann Way, were two of the last built houses on the street developed as a part of Poplar Gables, adjacent to the southwest edge of Myers Park. Second, while the Lawrence and Way houses honor the established set-back from Ridgewood Avenue, Elizabeth Lawrence did not have a conventional grass-covered front lawn like her neighbors and her sister. Instead, she designed a rectangular gravel-covered entrance court for her own automobile and that of visitors and centered it in front of the house. She placed the driveway, also gravel-covered and about fourteen feet wide, at the extreme east edge of her lot. In a concession to the neighborhood, she screened this unconventional feature—and her vehicle—with a hedge of Camellia sasanqua about fifty feet in length, planted along the inside, north edge of the concrete sidewalk. This unconventional treatment of the house’s front yard was part of the larger, different point of view taken by Miss Lawrence in the development of her property.

The third distinction is this: confined in Charlotte on grounds that were about a third the size of those on which her mother and she had gardened in Raleigh since the 1910s, Elizabeth Lawrence treated the entire lot as her garden. As a gardener, writer and plantswoman, she was unique in Charlotte and so, too, was her approach to planting. Every square foot of the property was incorporated into a unified landscape, which extended from the front curb and the planted verge, to the alley carrying at the back of her lot, whose long east and west edges were marked by a low open-weave wire fence planted with big-leaf ivy. This view of her property was indeed personal; however, it was not entirely singular on Ridgewood Avenue. A block to the north, at 248 Ridgewood Avenue, Edwin and Elizabeth Clarkson had exercised a similar enthusiasm in the development of their much larger grounds as a series of gardens which they called Wing Haven.

The House

Having lived in a two-story house for virtually all of her life, one larger than was necessary and perhaps even desirable for herself and her mother, she built a small one-story-with-attic house that was entirely suited to the needs of two single women. Rectangular in plan, except for the shallow projection of the terrace in its northeast corner, the house stands on a running bond brick foundation and is covered with a side-gable roof of asphalt shingles. Its elevations are sheathed in gray-stained cedar shingles. The gray shingles, the white-painted molded trim, the recessed entrance and its six-panel door, and the multi-pane sash windows impart a late Colonial Revival-style character to the house. The recessed doorway opens into an interior of essentially two parts. The entrance hall, a small pantry, an eat-in kitchen, and a spacious living/dining room occupy the east half of the house’s plan while two bedrooms with adjoining bathrooms and Elizabeth Lawrence’s study are aligned off a hall in the west half of the house. Doors opened from the living room and the study onto the concrete-paved open terrace inset in the house’s northeast corner.

The house remained intact in plan, finish, and appearance from its completion in 1949 through its sale by Miss Lawrence to Mr. Sommers in 1984 and his, in turn, to Mrs. Wilson in 1986. Between February and June 1986 two substantive changes were made to the house. The terrace was enclosed as a garden room on its original footprint and the easternmost two-thirds of the attic was refitted and enlarged as a bedroom suite for Mrs. Wilson. This involved the addition of a small dormer window on the façade and a larger, more visible dormer on the rear elevation covered by a shed roof which extends from the house’s main ridge line. At this same time, the hood over the kitchen door on the east side of the house was enhanced with the addition of a pedimented gable. Last, about 1992-1995, Mrs. Wilson replaced the cedar shingles in kind.

Today, the Elizabeth Lawrence House presents an essentially symmetrical five-bay façade to Ridgewood Avenue, if also one partially hidden by the evergreen hedge and the plantings of shrubs and vines that embower the elevation. The recessed, centered entrance has a traditional late-Colonial Revival finish with a molded surround, sheathed sides, and a six-panel door flanked by five-pane sidelights above blind panels. The brick stoop incorporates brick steps which descend to a patterned brick and concrete block walkway to the gravel court. The bays flanking the recess each hold six-over-six sash in molded surrounds. The window opening at the west edge of the façade holds eight-over-eight sash. It is positioned to adjoin a larger window opening at the south edge of the west elevation, which holds paired six-over-six sash. This three-part corner window provided good illumination for the southwest bedroom occupied by Mrs. Lawrence. The corner window concept was reversed for the kitchen in the pendant southeast room where a large window opening at the east edge of the façade is fitted with paired six-over-six sash windows and the companion opening at the south edge of the east elevation contains eight-over-eight sash. The low, three-pane shed dormer, whose roof extends from the house’s ridge line, is centered above, behind the entrance, where it has the appearance of a clerestory. It abuts the brick interior chimney on the west.

The east gable end of the Lawrence House has an asymmetrical three-part division whose appearance, again, is partially hidden by plantings. These include the vine-covered archway set perpendicular to the elevation, incorporating Miss Lawrence’s well-published garden gate and a stand of bamboo in the center of the elevation. The south third of the elevation includes the above-mentioned kitchen window and the door opening under the bracketed, pedimented hood into the kitchen; the opening is fitted with both a screened door and a glazed and paneled door. The center third of this elevation contains an unusually wide window opening, fitted with six-over-six sash flanking a fixed panel of twenty panes, which illuminates the living/dining room. This window’s view is screened by the stand of bamboo. When the second-story bedroom suite was added  in 1986 this part of the house’s east elevation was raised to two stories to provide a full-height wall. The (former attic) window opening, centered in the top of the gable, was refitted with one-over-one sash and now illuminates Mrs. Wilson’s bedroom. The north third of the house’s east elevation is fitted with a trio of tall one-over-one sash windows that form a part of the garden room fenestration.

The asymmetrical north, rear elevation of the Lawrence House, overlooking the garden, includes the windows of three rooms. Here the projecting wall of the garden room, comprising the east section of the elevation, is fitted with paired, centered fifteen-pane French doors, below a transom, and broad flanking openings each holding three tall one-over-one sash. The long low horizontal dormer, with its seven one-over-one sash windows, rises above and behind the garden room fenestration. Elizabeth Lawrence’s wide picture window, from which she could look up from her desk and out into the garden, is positioned in the west part of this elevation. It comprises paired six-over-six sash flanking a fixed panel of twenty panes. A wood window box , added by Mrs. Wilson, carries under this window. A small window to the west illuminates the bathroom in the northwest corner of the house. The gable end rising above this original part of the elevation is finished with a ventilator with horizontal louvers.

The house’s three-bay west elevation also has an asymmetrical appearance. A window opening near its center holds paired six-over-six sash that illuminated Miss Lawrence’s bedroom. A single window to the north provided additional light and ventilation for her adjoining corner bathroom. The window opening at the extreme south edge of the elevation, with its paired six-over-six sash, formed part of the corner window in Mrs. Lawrence’s bedroom. An opening in the brick foundation wall, fitted with a board-and-rail door, provided access to the storage area where Elizabeth Lawrence kept many of her garden tools. The centered attic window in the upper gable end retains its eight-over-eight sash, and the apex of the gable is finished as a ventilator with horizontal louvers.

The interior of the house, including both its plan and finish, remains essentially unchanged except for Mr. Sommers’ addition of brass chandeliers in the entrance hall and kitchen, his installation of draperies and their rod in Miss Lawrence’s study, and certain improvements made by Mrs. Wilson. The chandelier in the entrance hall replaced one taken down when Elizabeth Lawrence left the house; she never had curtains at her study window. The enclosure of the garden room, the addition of the stair to the new second-story bedroom suite, and its installation all date to 1986. About 1992 Mrs. Wilson installed ceramic tile floors in the pantry and kitchen and made improvements to the cabinetry of both rooms. Ceramic tile floors were installed in both bathrooms in the 1990s, and some simple changes in lighting, mainly recessed lighting in the living room, were also effected. Mrs. Wilson also installed louvered doors in the opening between the entrance hall and the hall. The original interior decoration includes narrow oak flooring, molded top baseboards, and plaster walls and ceilings that are painted in all rooms except the living room, which has painted grasscloth on the walls. The entrance hall and living room have molded plaster cornices; the other rooms have no finished cornices. The traditional, three-part molded door and window frames are consistent throughout the house, and the doors all have a six-panel arrangement.

The entrance hall, immediately inside the front door, also has doorways in each of its other three walls. The opening into the living room, on axis with the front door, is fitted with double-leaf, three-panel doors. The doorway in the west wall connects with the private hall serving the bedrooms while the door in the east wall opens into a small pantry. The pantry, which housed a combination washer and dryer in Elizabeth Lawrence’s later years, is en suite with the kitchen in the house’s southeast corner. With the relocation of the washer and dryer to the second story in 1986 Mrs. Wilson installed a counter and sink with cabinets below on the south wall and added doors to the wall-hung open shelves above. Doors to the heating closet and ironing board closet are set in the north wall. Miss Lawrence apparently removed the original drawers for linens, etc., when she installed the washer/dryer. In the kitchen the original wall-hung and counter cabinets remain in place; however, the refurbishment of ca. 1992 included the new tile floor, tile counter tops, new cabinets under the south windows, shelves above windows and the door into the living room for open storage, and the replacement of the stove and refrigerator.

The large handsome living room remains as it did in Elizabeth Lawrence’s time except for two changes made in 1986, in addition to recessed lighting. The glazed doors in the two openings onto the terrace were taken down when the terrace was enclosed as a garden room. (The doors are in storage on the premises.) The enclosed stair, with visible splayed risers at its foot and a closet below its rise, was installed along the room’s west wall. The projecting chimneybreast, centered in the room’s south wall, is fitted with a Federal-style mantel and flanked by open bookshelves that rise to the ceiling from wainscot-level closed shelves. The broad, multi-pane window centered in the room’s east wall is likewise flanked by built-in corner cabinets with open shelves, above wainscot-height cabinetry, where Miss Lawrence is said to have displayed Rose Medallion and Chinese export china. She had a refectory table positioned parallel with the window. The garden room has a patterned brick floor, painted wallboard walls, molded baseboards, and both recessed ceiling lights and skylights.

When the Lawrence house was built, the internal access to the paired bedrooms, bathroom and study on its west side, was through the opening linking the entrance hall with the private hall serving these rooms. With the enclosure of the terrace, the fifteen-pane glazed door, opening from the study onto the terrace, became an interior door. The study, where Elizabeth Lawrence read and wrote from 1949 to 1984, producing the manuscripts for three books published in her lifetime and two others published posthumously, remains intact except for repainting. Two original features reflect her pursuits. Her writing table is a long desk-height counter about two feet in depth, carrying almost fully under the window overlooking the garden. Supported on paired two-drawer file cabinets, it abuts the room’s west wall and terminates at its east end with open curved shelves. Nearby, open bookshelves rise from floor to ceiling on both sides of the terrace door and across the opening. Doors on the opposite west side of the study open into a closet and the northwest corner bathroom which also communicates with Miss Lawrence’s bedroom in the center of the house’s west side. The bathroom retains its original corner tub, wall-hung sink, two ceiling-mounted light fixtures, and ceramic tile wainscot that almost certainly dates to the Lawrence ownership. The writer’s bedroom is also intact. Here, the door in the east wall, into the private hall, is flanked on the left (north) with open bookshelves from floor to ceiling and on the right by tiers of built-in floor-to-ceiling drawer/cabinet units that flank a mirrored recess for her plate glass dressing table. The ceiling fixture and the dressing table light are also original. The private hall, which carries from the study at its north end to a bathroom (used by Mrs. Lawrence) at its south end, is lined on its east side with floor-to-ceiling closets. Tall paired doors provide access to compartments for everyday storage while shorter doors provide access to the more permanent storage above. Mrs. Lawrence’s bedroom, in the southwest corner of the house, remains as it was in her lifetime and includes a closet with two-tiers of sliding doors and an overhead light. The adjoining bathroom retains its original tub, wall-hung-sink, commode, and the Lawrence-period ceramic tile wainscot.

The Grounds and Garden

Faced in 1949 with a city lot that was just over one-third the size of the Raleigh acreage she and her mother had given up, Elizabeth Lawrence followed both instinct and necessity in laying out her Charlotte property. She was altogether conscious of her changed circumstances and admitted as much in the opening pages of Gardens in Winter.

I should love, above all things, to have enough space (and energy) to make for myself a separate garden for winter flowers and winter greens; but since we have come to Charlotte to live I must make one small garden do for all seasons, and so I have tried to fill it with plants that are always presentable (GIW, 6-7).

Elizabeth Lawrence did not limit her intention to the new “garden” but applied her ambition to the entire lot, treating it as a landscape that she designed, shaped, and planted as the setting for her small house and garden

Her goal and its successful implementation is immediately apparent to any visitor. It is equally visible on the map of the grounds, prepared by Keyes Williamson, which accompanies this application. Elizabeth Lawrence departed from neighborhood precedent and set her front yard apart as a rectangular gravel-covered entrance court where she and callers would park their cars. The drive from Ridgewood Avenue was pushed to the east edge of the lot and also covered with pit gravel. The remaining part of the seventy-foot frontage was planted with a hedge of Camellia sasanqua, positioned immediately inside the public sidewalk, which created a sense of privacy and enclosure so dear on so small a property.

While dense, tall, and at the edge of the sidewalk, the hedge was not the beginning point of her landscape effort. Instead, she went to Ridgewood Avenue and claimed the narrow verge between the street and sidewalk, incorporating it into her grounds with plantings of small flowering trees and shrubs. The ground of the verge was then covered with an inset patternwork of brick and concrete block pavers. She repeated a variation of this paving as the walkway between the court and her front steps and for a walk that leads from the court around the front left (southwest) corner of her house to the passage along its west gable end. Elizabeth Lawrence mentions some planting in this narrow strip of ground; in her writings, however, her occasional use of it for horticultural storage has been made more permanent by Mrs. Wilson who uses it as a screened, gated garden workyard. As the map indicates, the edges of the court and foundation across the front of the house are planted with both deciduous, flowering and evergreen shrubs and an “Old Blush” roe that climbs then as now in an aged wild cherry tree that Miss Lawrence retained when she built the house.

Elizabeth Lawrence positioned the entrance to her garden on the east side of the house where it was accessible to her sister and her family at 340 Ridgewood Avenue. English boxwoods mark the transition from the gravel court to a rectangular brick paved court outside her kitchen door. Here she fashioned the gated archway, planted with Clematis armandii, that became the well-known, published entrance to her garden. The clematis failed and Mrs. Wilson planted the arch with a climbing rose. A gravel walkway leads along the extreme east edge of the lot, past the stand of bamboo outside the living room window, and around the northeast corner of the house to the stone steps now rising to the garden room doors.

Miss Lawrence designed her garden with primary and secondary axes that correspond to the house’s plan.  The principal axis, a wide gravel-covered walk, carries from the stone steps at the edge of her terrace—now Mrs. Wilson’s garden room—to the back of the garden. There it terminates with a shallow recess in a concrete block wall that forms a part of the screening of a horticultural workyard occupying the rearmost ten feet of the lot’s width. A Madonna plaque mounted at eye-level in the recess, which appeared in a photograph of this axis in the 1967 reprint of A Southern Garden, survives in place. About midway along this axis Elizabeth Lawrence located a small circular pool, lined with stones and encircled with concentric brick paving. Stones, used to line the edges of the walks and beds, also form a larger square frame around the brick circle which further emphasizes the garden’s principal ornamental feature. Because of overflow problems Mrs. Wilson has replaced the brick rim of the pool with a slightly raised edge and finished the top with stones similar to those used for edging.

When seen in plan this principal axis, while a primary design feature, becomes one of two generally parallel gravel paths that carry from the house to the back of the garden and effectively divide its surface into three linear beds. The second path carries from a point below Elizabeth Lawrence’s study window and gently curves as it nears the back of the garden, where it eases what might have been a too-obviously-insistent symmetry. (An existing, but now-lost tree may have also forced this curve.) The view along this path was the one with which Miss Lawrence opened Gardens in Winter.

I am writing, as always of my own garden, which I see, whenever I look up from my work, every day in the year—never without pleasure, and seldom without seeing something in bloom. (GIW, 11)

This view was punctuated with an allee of pruned cherry laurels, planted in a row in the centre bed, whose airy shape and weight provided a transition from the open sunny area of the garden immediately behind the house to the woodland garden at the back of the lot with its towering native pines and her own plantings. These trees and larger shrubs include Magnolia denudata, Magnolia x Veitchii, and Magnolia soulangeana, among others. The two long gravel paths have important perpendicular linkages, incorporating paths, shallow stone steps at low changes in grade, and other ornamental features, across the south front of the garden, immediately adjoining the house, and at the back of the garden. There, a gravel path provides access to a sheltered bench, centered and partially inset in the concrete-block screen wall, and to the (now) paired gates opening into the back workyard. A third perpendicular axis, punctuated with step stones marking shallow changes in grade, carries through the center of the pool. In addition to the two main gravel paths, a third path, paved with combinations of concrete-block and brick, and flagstones, extends from the gate of the enclosed workyard on the west side of the house, along a course generally parallel with the west fence line into the near center of the garden. There it terminates at a point west of the pool. Among the other Lawrence-era plants of note are her “White Empress” camellia, a Stewartia pseudocamellia, which is the largest in North Carolina and a champion big tree, and a seedling of her beloved Prunus mume, the Japanese apricot.

In short, in a very small space, Elizabeth Lawrence created a garden of rich complexity, making the optimum use of the grounds at hand, and her resources, and yet one distinguished by the deceiving appearance of simplicity. Its design served her requirements for pleasure and horticultural experiment until 1984 and its hardscape remains intact today. Through the pages of The Little Bulbs and Gardens in Winter, and her columns published in the Charlotte Observer, she frequently discusses the plants in her garden, those that thrived as well as those which did not, but always with learning, knowledge, and an enthusiasm she could convey to her readers. The plants which survive from her years here, 1949 to 1984 are noted on the maps prepared by Mr. Williamson and so, too, are those added by Mrs. Wilson beginning in 1986.

Integrity Statement

In his introduction to the 1986 reprint of The Little Bulbs, Allen Lacy wrote “Time is not always kind to the gardens that passionate gardeners bring into being and lovingly tend” (TLB, xii-xiii). He was writing, of course, about the two gardens in the book’s title and with satisfaction that Mr. Krippendorf’s estate gardens had become the property of the Cincinnati Nature Center. “It also survives,” he continued, “in the pages of The Little Bulbs together with Miss Lawrence’s own, much smaller gardens in the North Carolina piedmont” (TLB, xiii). When Allen Lacy wrote these words, some nineteen years ago, he could not have known that Elizabeth Lawrence’s Charlotte house and garden also would enjoy a remarkable degree of stewardship and preservation in private hands, those of Mary Lindeman Wilson, from February 1986 to the present.

When Elizabeth Lawrence left Charlotte and sold her property in 1984, its future carried no guarantee. Fate, with good fortune as its handmaiden, intervened. Mr. Sommers’ purchase of the property came as a result of personal, marital concerns that eventually resulted in his divorce from his wife. His occupation of the house was a temporary stage in its life and his. Consequently, in the seventeen months he owned the property his only changes were minor:  the addition of a chandelier in the entrance hall to replace a hanging lamp which Miss Lawrence’s family removed and retained, the installation of a chandelier above the table in the kitchen, and the addition of draperies at the windows in Elizabeth Lawrence’s study which she had never curtained. At points in his ownership friends of Miss Lawrence, including Jennie White, worked in the garden.

The acquisition of the property by Mary Lindeman Wilson in February 1986 assured its preservation to the present. A lifetime gardener and the divorced mother of two, Mrs. Wilson also came to the Elizabeth Lawrence House at a point of transition. Her needs at a new stage in life were simple and not unlike those of Elizabeth Lawrence and her mother in 1948:  a good house in a desirable neighborhood and grounds for a garden. The Elizabeth Lawrence House and Garden met those requirements to an extraordinary degree. As noted in section six of this report and the foregoing description, the essential character, appearance, and integrity of the house were preserved through the enclosure of the terrace as a garden room and the addition of the second-story bedroom suite. The addition of the front and rear dormer windows intrude little, and the house retains the qualities of design, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association from the period of Miss Lawrence’s ownership. The replacement of the deteriorated cedar shingles by cedar shingles of like appearance by Mrs. Wilson in the 1990s reflect her commitment to the character of the house. It can be reasonably argued that the preservation of the house’s original east gable end and its original roofline, by positioning the rear dormer as a set-back three feet or so behind the elevation, would have been aesthetically preferable to raising a part of this elevation to two stories. However, the present treatment does not seriously compromise the integrity or significance of the house. The simple improvements on the interior, likewise, do not affect the fundamental integrity of the house and are generally sympathetic to its character.

Not surprisingly, Elizabeth Lawrence’s garden and grounds have also enjoyed Mrs. Wilson’s learned and sympathetic stewardship. While maintenance during Miss Lawrence’s last years here and Mr. Sommers’ brief ownership would have been preferred, the fact that they were unattended also meant that they suffered little except in the way of certain plant losses. Likewise, the slow, careful way in which Mrs. Wilson went about reclaiming the garden in the period from 1986 to 1992 also favored the preservation of its hardscape features and many of the plants from Elizabeth Lawrence’s tenure. In this effort she was aided by Steve del Vecchio who had worked here on occasion for Miss Lawrence for over a decade, and he held a long experience with it and the important plants that survived time and neglect. Through weeding, pruning, and the removal of volunteer, invasive, and overgrown plants, and a good deal of simple cleaning and maintenance, Mrs. Wilson uncovered the physical fabric of the garden and its character. As this process advanced through the late 1980s and early 1990s, her knowledge of the garden increased and her sympathy with it enlarged. As she recently remarked, “This garden was Elizabeth Lawrence’s laboratory, and it has been my classroom” (Carolina Gardener, January/February 2005, 20). Mrs. Wilson’s learning, however, was not limited to her outdoor experiences. As the owner of Elizabeth Lawrence’s garden, she quickly turned to Miss Lawrence’s writings, and these, too, bore on her approach to the garden and new plantings. In recent years she has returned to Elizabeth Lawrence’s weekly columns for the Charlotte Observer. Insights gained from them have been applied to the garden. (This research, undertaken with Ann Armstrong, will soon result also in the publication of a new selection of newspaper columns.) Today, Elizabeth Lawrence’s garden, like that of Mr. Krippendorf, exists in literature, in the pages of The Little Bulbs: A Tale of Two Gardens, and at 348 Ridgewood Avenue.


Lawing House

 

  1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Lawing House  is located at 6100 Neck Road, Huntersville, N.C.
  2. Name, address, and telephone number of the current owner of the property:

Mont Olive Baptist Church

6101 Neck Road

Huntersville NC 28078

  1. Representative photographs of the property:  This report contains representative photographs of the property.
  2. A map depicting the location of the property: UTM coordinates 17 506711.4E  3914941.0N
  3. Current Tax Parcel Reference and Deed to the property:  The tax parcel number of the property is 02302229.  The most recent deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 06652 page 535 (9/5/1991).
  4. A brief historical sketch of the property:  This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by William Jeffers.
  5. A brief architectural description of the property:  This report contains a brief architectural description prepared by Stewart Gray.
  6. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S 160A-400.5. 
  7. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Lawing House possesses special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg.  The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:

1) The Harry C. Lawing House is important because it is a well preserved example of an early twentieth-century rural Mecklenburg County farmhouse.  Houses such as the Harry C. Lawing House are becoming increasingly rare as once rural land in Mecklenburg County gives way to urbanization.

2) The Harry C. Lawing House is important because it is an early twentieth century rural farmhouse that still retains a good degree of its original integrity.

3) The Harry C. Lawing House is important because the Lawing family is one that has a long and contributing history in the Hopewell section of Mecklenburg County.

4) The Harry C. Lawing house is important because it is a good example of the type of home available to small yeoman farmers in Mecklenburg County in the early twentieth century.

5) The Harry C. Lawing House represents the economic development of the Hopewell section of Mecklenburg County after the Civil War, development that was largely a result of innovations in the agrarian enterprise of cotton farming.  

  1. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description prepared by Stewart Gray demonstrates that the property known as the Caldwell Station School meets this criterion.
  2. 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 “historic landmark.”  The current appraised value of the house is $80,600.  The current appraised value of the 1 acre of land is $40,600.  The property is zoned R.  The property is exempt from the payment of Ad Valorem Taxes.
  3. Portion of the Property Recommended for Designation.  The interior and exterior of the house  and the 1 acre of land associated with tax parcel number 02302229.

 

A Brief History of the Harry Campbell Lawing House

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina in the early twentieth century was predominately a collection of rural farms clustered around small townships or community churches.  While manufacturing and heavy industry was located more centrally in urban Charlotte, the rest of the county was dotted with yeoman farmers engaged in the agrarian enterprise of farming.  Since the end of the Antebellum era, “most Mecklenburg County farmers had been small landowners or tenant farmers using mules, plows, wagons, hoes, sacks for picking, and scales for their cotton production.”[1]  The years after the Civil War were a boom time for small Mecklenburg County farmers and “between 1860 and 1910, Mecklenburg County’s agricultural economy experienced a prolonged period of prosperity that would ultimately be its last.”[2]  Since this area was never saturated with the large cash crop plantations often associated with the Antebellum South the farmers of the area were not dependant on slave labor.  Therefore, “after Civil War, the majority of Mecklenburg County farmers were able to replant and recover quickly.”[3]  New innovations in the cotton growing industry which allowed for easier growing for small farmers coupled with easy access to Charlotte with its cotton mills and transportation facilities, “gave farmers easy access to a far reaching market for their cotton crops.  The impact of these developments was reflected in the rapid increase in the production of cotton in Mecklenburg County – between 1860 and 1880, the number of cotton bales produced in the county tripled, from 6,112 bales to 19,129 bales.”[4]

The cotton boom continued well into the twentieth century but changes loomed on the horizon.  “By the mid-to-late 1920’s, the cotton market in Mecklenburg County and across the South was faltering.”[5]  As cotton prices dropped precipitously, the arrival of the boll weevil wrecked havoc on cotton fields throughout the South and made life especially difficult for the small farmers of Mecklenburg County who could not afford the pesticides and equipment necessary to raise the cash crop and make a profit.

Mecklenburg County farmers also faced another emerging threat to their way of life:  urbanism.  Manufacturing and industry in Charlotte was already causing the city to expand past its original four wards at the turn of the century.  By 1910, “Mecklenburg County’s urban population surpassed its rural population for the first time in the County’s history.”[6]  Furthermore, the establishment of Camp Greene, a United States Army training base, on the city’s Westside in 1917 would effectively double the city’s population almost overnight.   The post World War era, “was a time of maturation and exponential growth as new industries flocked to the city.  By 1930, Charlotte had surpassed Charleston as the largest city in the Carolinas.”[7]  This urban expansion began to put a significant dent into the rural lifestyle of Mecklenburg County farmers.  As a result, these farmers began to abandon the farm for opportunities in the city, primarily as workers in the cotton mills that they had once supplied with their crop.  “The 1920s witnessed the beginning of the decline in the number of Mecklenburg County farms.  In 1900, Mecklenburg had been 32.7 percent urban and 62.3 percent rural.  By 1910, the urban population was 50.7 percent.  And in 1920, Mecklenburg’s urban population had grown to 57.4 percent, and farm production declined for the first time.”[8]  The Great Depression further exacerbated this trend and between “1930 and 1940, the number of farms in Mecklenburg County dropped from 3,723 to 3,223.”[9]

Despite this trend toward urbanization much of Mecklenburg County still clung to its rural roots.  The small hamlets and localities sprinkled throughout the county with names like Croft, Paw Creek, Thrift, Derita, Deweese, and Long Creek to name a few continued to operate as the focal points of their particular area serving the needs of the yeoman farmers that clustered around them.   One of these communities, Hopewell, was centered around the Hopewell Presbyterian Church.  According to United States Census Records, “the church was established in 1762.  In 1765, John McKnitt Alexander, then 32 years old, donated 21 acres of land for the building site and graveyard.  He is proclaimed as a signer of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence as he was the Secretary of the Convention held at Charlotte may 20, 1775.”[10]

Initially comprised of Scotch-Irish descent, the members of the Hopewell community have long considered themselves of the independent mindset and nowhere is this more obvious then in an early story about the community dating from the Revolutionary War.

During the war, ‘. . . it had frequently been mentioned to the King’s Officers that Mecklenburg and Rowan Counties were more hostile to England than any other in America.”[11]  Anti-British sentiment was indeed high in Mecklenburg County, and in the Hopewell community this sentiment was delivered to the British in the form of armed aggression and gunfire at the Battle of McIntyre’s Farm.  British General Cornwallis, “dispatched a foraging party, comprised of several hundred men, toward Hopewell Church in search of supplies.  At the McIntyre Farm they were fired upon from the nearby woods by a group of some dozen young farmers of the neighborhood, and were severely defeated.”[12]  The large British contingent, routed by a relatively small rebel force, gave credence to the notion that Mecklenburg County was a veritable “hornets’ nest” of rebellion during the war.

While the Battle of McIntyre’s Farm highlights the community’s patriotic zeal and their willingness to fight for their rights they were, at their core, farmers.  The community continued to make farming their chief enterprise and would continue to do so well into the twentieth century.

One of Hopewell’s residents, Harry Campbell Lawing (April 23, 1899 – March 20, 1973)[13] illustrates this ideal.  While his story may be viewed by some as typical of a yeoman farmer during the era in which he lived, the story of his family and home are vital to the historic context of quickly disappearing rural Mecklenburg County.

According to family history, the Lawing’s first came to the United States from Wales in the early 1700’s.[14]  The earliest Lawing in the area was James Middleton Lawing (1826 – 1869) who was married to Violet Isabella Dunn Lawing (1828 – 1906).  Their son, James Lafayette Lawing (1858-1934) married Margaret Jane Dunn in 1884.[15]  Originally, James L. Lawing lived in the Paw Creek section of Mecklenburg County.  However, he “moved from Paw Creek to the Hopewell section January 1, 1909 and moved his membership from Cooks Memorial, where he had belonged for about 19 years.”[16]  The Lawing’s had six children.  There were two girls:  Ada Dunn Lawing (1884 – 1973)[17] and Violet Isabella Lawing (1890 – 1971)[18], and four boys:  John Blair Lawing (1886 – 1957)[19], Graham Lafayette Lawing (1888 – 1954)[20], William Franklin Lawing (1896 – ?)[21] , and Harry Campbell Lawing.  The Lawing family settled and grew along Neck Rd., not far from Beatties Ford Rd. and Hopewell Presbyterian Church.  The History of Hopewell Presbyterian Church, first published in 1939, lists three Lawing names at that time as property owners along the road:  Ada (who also shared a home with her sister Isabella [Belle]), John, and Harry.

Harry had his house built on a parcel of family land along Neck Rd. between his sisters and brother.  Mike Lawing, Harry’s grandson, stated that Harry’s cousin, Frank Lawing built the house around 1924[22].  This is an interesting footnote to the history of this particular property because it has also been asserted that Frank Lawing also constructed several houses of the same style in the Derita community.[23]  Frank Lawing wasn’t the only person who helped build the house though.  Longtime Neck Rd. resident Mr. Samuel Carr remembered that his father had “built the chimneys in that house.”[24]

It is asserted that at one time, the Lawing family had about 3000 total acres stretching from Neck Road all the way back to N.C. Hwy 16 (Brookshire Blvd.) but as the family grew and moved away from the area that total dropped considerably[25].   Harry, like many others in the area had a small farm where he raised cotton and corn.  As Mike Lawing would relate, his grandfather had, “15 acres of cotton and he raised and slaughtered pigs.”[26]  Cotton farming wasn’t Harry’s only endeavor; he also sold food.  He would, “carry eggs to Charlotte and sell them.”[27]  According to his grandson, Harry worked, “in food sales for about 35 years.”[28]

The Lawing’s also rented out some of the land they didn’t farm to sharecroppers.  Samuel Carr’s father was one such person.  As he related his father, “grew corn and cotton and raised hay (West Virginia and Alfalfa hay) for the livestock.”[29]

Initially, the home was built without electricity.  Mike Lawing related a funny anecdote about how his father Harry Jr. (1923 – 2000[30]) went off to war in 1942 and there was no electricity.  However, three years later, “when he came back there was electricity.”[31]  Soon after he left for war, electricity finally made its way down Neck Rd. and one can only imagine his surprise after returning home and seeing the modern miracle of electricity in a home that had never known it.

Other longtime Neck Rd. residents helped shed light on the Lawing family and their home.  Ms. Louise Conner remembered that the Lawing’s “had a good relationship with the church.”[32]  The church she was referring to was Mt. Olive Baptist Church, a local African-American church situated directly across the road from the Lawing homestead.  Apparently the church was also a favorite of Harry Lawing’s two bulldogs because, as Ms. Conner relates, “they liked to lay on the church steps and Mr. Lawing had to call them back so they could go clean the church on Saturday.”[33]   Mrs. Cornelia Henderson, another long time Neck Rd. resident, remembered the Lawing family, especially Harry’s wife, Mary Esther, who she remembered as being “really sweet.”[34]  Mrs. Lawing’s cooking skills were held in high esteem because, as Mrs. Henderson related, “we always liked to go up there because she always had good food.”[35]  Mrs. Lawing was real nice to the neighborhood children too.  “She would always give my kids a quarter at Halloween,” stated Mrs. Henderson.[36]  She added that even though Jim Crow segregation was the law of the land at the time, the color line was blurred somewhat up on Neck Rd., because “even though it was segregated, we always had a good time with them.”[37]

The Harry Campbell Lawing House serves as a reminder of days gone by.  A time when Mecklenburg County was more rural and pastoral, and things moved at a much slower pace.  As the farmland and forest around the Lawing homestead gave way to highways, subdivisions, and retail stores, this house offers a unique glimpse into a time, not so long ago, when people did more with their land than simply live on it.  The Lawings, like many other small Mecklenburg County farmers, utilized their land for a myriad of purposes so as to diversify the amount of income they took in.  While life wasn’t a constant struggle to survive, it most assuredly was not a bed of roses.  Mecklenburg County’s rural farmers faced many obstacles including (but not limited to) poor soil, sick crops, and falling crop prices.  As the twentieth century progressed and Charlotte expanded, these farmers found themselves now under attack from land developers and suburban sprawl.  As the municipal line of Charlotte stretched further and further away from the city center, these small farms and the stories they held began to quickly and quietly disappear into the pages of history.  It is though the Harry Campbell Lawing House that one can still get a glimpse into the not so incredibly distant, yet quickly fading history of rural Mecklenburg County.

[1] Sherry J. Joines and Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Historic Rural Resources in Rural Mecklenburg County, North Carolina¸ Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, no date, http://cmhpf.org/surveyruralcontext.htm, (Accessed August 8, 2010).

[2] Emily Ramsey and Laura Ramsey, Survey and Research Report on the Jesse and Mary K. Washam Farm, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, January 30, 2002, http://cmhpf.org/Surveys&rwashamfarm.htm, (Accessed August 8, 2010).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Sherry J. Joines and Dr. Dan L. Morrill.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Emily Ramsey and Laura Ramsey.

[10] Jennifer A Schmidt, ed., 1850 Census of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Including the Mortality and Slave Schedules), (Spartanburg, S.C.:  The Reprint Company, Publishers, no date), p.54.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Mecklenburg County Death Certificate # 1973000733

[14] Interview of James Michael Lawing by Bill Jeffers (August 21, 2010).

[15] Reverend Charles Wilson Sommerville, The History of Hopewell Presbyterian Church:  For 175 Years from the Assigned Date of Its Organization 1762, (Charlotte, N.C.:  Hopewell Presbyterian Church, 1939), p. 153.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Mecklenburg County Death Certificate # 1973003298

[18] Mecklenburg County Death Certificate # 1971001827

[19] Mecklenburg County Death Certificate # 1957000559

[20] Mecklenburg County Death Certificate # 1954000314

[21] Sommerville, p. 153.

[22] Lawing Interview.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Interview with Samuel Carr by Bill Jeffers (August 30, 2010).

[25] Lawing Interview.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Interview with Cornelia Henderson by Bill Jeffers (August 19, 2010).

[28] Lawing Interview.

[29] Carr Interview.

[30] Mecklenburg County Death Certificate #2000002363

[31] Lawing Interview.

[32] Interview with Louise Conner by Bill Jeffers (August 19, 2010).

[33] Ibid.

[34] Henderson Interview.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

 

Architectural Description

The Lawing House is a front-gabled wood-framed house that faces north, and sits back approximately sixty feet from Neck Road.  The house is in good condition and has retained a high degree of integrity.  The house lot is approximately .75 acres.  Grassy lawn  surrounds the house,  with approximately 1/3 of the lot being wooded.  The surrounding land is undeveloped and wooded, giving the setting a distinctly rural character.

The facade is largely sheltered by a hipped porch roof that wraps around and shelters a portion of the east elevation.  The porch is supported by a continuous brick foundation laid in a running bond.  A single vent has been set in the foundation wall.  Wooden steps (recently replaced) lead to the porch in front of the front door.  The porch roof is supported by tapered posts.  Simple handrails with picket baluster are set between the posts.  Porch floor is tongue-and-groove boards, and the ceiling is composed of beaded tongue-and-groove boards.  The porch roof as well as the roof over the principal section of the house is a 5V metal roof.  The front gable projects above porch roof and features a three-part opening containing a four-light sash bordered by two rectangular louvered vents.

The house is covered with simple wooden siding, including the portions of the exterior sheltered by the porches.  The facade is three bays wide with the front door centered between two four-over-one double-hung windows.  The front door features three horizontal panels set below four vertical lights.  The pressed metal lockset appears to be original. Doors and windows are surrounded with simple boards topped with moulded trim.

The west elevation is four bay wide.  The two bays closest to the facade contain single four-over-one double-hung windows.  These windows are separated by an external shouldered chimney with a simple corbelled crown. Set near the middle of the elevation are paired windows.  The bay closest to the rear elevation contains a single double-hung window.  All of the windows are four-over-one double-hung windows.  Original brick foundation piers are joined by early curtain walls.   Rafter tails are exposed.  Near the rear  of the house a corbelled brick flue pierces the roof.

 

The rear elevations features a full-width porch covered with an engaged hipped roof.  Tapered posts are infilled with metal screen and recently added plywood panels.  The rear elevation is three bays wide, with a replacement nine-light wooden door centered between four-over-one double-hung windows.  Porch floor is tongue-and-groove boards, and the ceiling is composed of beaded tongue-and-groove boards.

The east elevation is partially sheltered by the wrap-around porch.  The east elevation is four bays wide.  Two single and one set of paired four-over-one double-hung windows in the east elevation are like those found on the other elevations.  A short six-over-six window is set near the rear of the house and reflects the addition of a bathroom.

The integrity found on the exterior of the house is also found in the interior.  With the exception of a bathroom added around World War II, the floor plan of the house does not appear to have been altered.  The front door opens directly into a large parlor that features a Craftsman Style mantle with a mirrored overmantle, and double shelves supported by brackets and short square columns.  Walls and ceiling are plastered.  Windows and door openings feature simple butted board trim highlighted with mitered band around the perimeter of the trim. Flooring is narrow strip pine boards.  The rear wall of the parlor contains a double-door opening (doors missing) opens into a dining room.  A two-panel door on the east side of the parlor opens into a front bedroom.  The room features an original mantle with decorative beading and a single shelf supported by curved brackets.  The room also contains a closet with a six panel door.

The parlor also opens into a long narrow hallway that extends down the center of the house to the rear door.  Like the parlor, the hall features plaster walls and ceiling.  Flooring is narrow pine strip.  The hallway and most of the other rooms contain tall beaded baseboards.  The doors opening onto the hallway are all two-panel doors.  Most of the interior doors have retained their original pressed steel knobs and escutcheons.

To the rear of the front bedroom is located another bedroom that shares an internal chimney.  The mantle in this room is simpler, without beading, and the flooring in this room is wider (approximately four inches).  Like the front bedroom, this room contains a closet with a six-horizontal-panel door. A grid and panel ceiling was recently added to the room.

The dining room contains a masonry flue thimble that once served a stove.  It also contains a drop ceiling.

The integrity of the interior decreases as one goes toward the rear of the house.  The hallway opens onto a bathroom that was carved out of an existing rear bedroom.  The bathroom features mid-twentieth century fixtures.  The kitchen walls have been covered with paneling.


Latta Plantation

 

Click here to view Charlotte Observer Article on the Latta Place

The Latta House is a rectangular two-story frame dwelling covered with beaded weatherboards and resting on a low stone foundation. The west side is five bays long. and has tall windows with molded architraves and sills, those at the first level containing nine-over-nine sash while those at the second have nine-over-six. The eaves of the low gable roof on both the east and west sides are accented by a box cornice with a pierced Wall of Troy motif.

The gable ends are three bays wide with much smaller and narrower windows having six-over-six and six-over-four sash at the first and second levels, respectively. Dominating each gable end is a large single shoulder Flemish bond brick chimney set off center between the central and east bays. To the west of the south chimney is the main entrance, an extremely unusual placement. The overall mass of the house, the direction of the roof ridge, the location of the main cornice, the size of the windows, and the placement of the chimneys all would normally indicate the east side as the main facade instead of the narrow south gable end. Apparently this was also the feeling of a twentieth-century occupant who converted the north window on the east side into a door.

The location of the main entrance reflects the unusual floor plan, which includes a wide hall along the west side of the house with two rooms to the east. The hall originally connected the front and rear entrances, but the rear doorway has been converted to a window and the north section of the hall partitioned to form and small bathroom. The main entrance remains intact with the four-light transom above a door flat-paneled on the outside and sheathed in a chevron pattern inside. The walls and ceiling of the hall, like the rest of the rooms of the house, are finished with wide horizontal sheathing. A delicate molded chair rail continues uninterrupted to form a sill beneath each window. The windows have unusually heavy crossetted architraves, as do all the interior doorways at the first level. The open-string stair which rises in a single flight from the west side of the hall is particularly well-executed, incorporating a Georgian style balustrade with a heavy molded handrail and a square newel cap, reeded balusters square in section, and an unusually large wave bracket on the end of each step. The entire balustrade is repeated in half section on the opposite wall. Beneath the stair is a large double cupboard with flat-paneled doors above and below the chair rail.

Dominating the large southeast parlor is the elaborate mantel on the south wall. It consists of a heavy architrave around the rectangle opening flanked by flat-paneled pilasters beneath the molded cornice self. The shelf breaks over the pilasters forming caps and over a narrow central tablet which contains a single flat panel. The overmantel is composed of three slender fluted pilasters separated by two rectangular flat panels. Above is a molded cornice ornamented with a guilloche band. The uppermost molding of the cornice continues around the room (a feature that recurs in all rooms having overmantels).

The mantel in the smaller north parlor is similar but has fluted pilasters supporting the mantel shelf and a lozenge motif across the cornice in place of the guilloche band. A curious feature of the southeast parlor is the apparent former location of a window in the west wall between the parlor and the main hall. The opening was filled quite early with flush boards, but the crossetted architrave remains. Among items listed in the 1840 estate sale of James Latta, the builder of the house, was a window sash, possibly the one for the parlor window.

The plan of the second floor is essentially the same as the first except that the south end of the hall is partitioned off to form a small unheated bedroom, and the enclosed attic stair rises from the northwest corner of the hall. The mantels in the main bedrooms, although not quite as elaborate as those downstairs, are equally sophisticated in design. In the north room the small fireplace opening is framed by a heavy surround flanked by fluted pilasters. The molded shelf breaks over the pilasters forming their caps. The overmantel features two tall fluted pilaster strips which extend to a Wall of Troy molded cornice, framing a large rectangular section of the sheathed wall. The metal in the opposite room is similar but lacks the overmantel.

The only remaining contemporary outbuilding is the smokehouse, located just north of the house. Covered with beaded weatherboards, it has a low pyramidal roof crowned by a small wooden pinnacle.

The Latta House was built about 1800 by James Latta on land he bought in 1799 from Moses Hays. Latta, then living in nearby Lincoln County, paid $600 for a 100-acre tract on the east side of the Catawba River, and it is believed that he had his plantation house constructed there shortly thereafter. James Latta was a traveling merchant and planter who came from Ireland to America in 1785. He had three daughters who were educated at Salem Academy (then a boarding school for girls, now a women’s college located in Old Salem in Winston-Salem, North Carolina), and who became the mistresses of some of the finest plantations in the area–Oak Lawn, Cedar Grove, and Mount Mourne. In 1800 he purchased for 135 silver dollars half of a fishery near his plantation; that property had been granted to Gideon Thompson by George III in 1772.

The dwelling house property was deeded by James Latta and his wife, Jane, to Benjamin W. Wilson and Robert Latta in 1819. The deed contained the provision that the Lattas would continue living there, as well as a special provision of trust for their son, Ezekiel. The son, however, died in 1820, long before the death of his father. Soon after James Latta died in 1837, his “River Lands” were advertised for sale in the Charlotte Journal (January 26, 1838). The tract “on which the deceased resided” was described as a “plantation [where there] is a good two story Dwelling House, with all necessary out-buildings, unusually well built, and arranged more conveniently than most places in this country.”

In 1841 two tracts of the plantation were finally sold to David Harry for $2,450 by Rufus Raid, executor of Latta’s estate. He died in 1849, and in 1853 the tract of land “formally owned by David Harry” was sold to William A. Sample. Sample, an elder in the Hopewell Presbyterian Church for forty-six years, had four sons who volunteered for service in the First North Carolina Regiment during the Civil War. In his will, probated August 4, 1877, William Sample left the part of the “Home Tract” including the house to his son, Hugh. The house remained in the Sample family for many years until 1922, when it was deeded to the Catawba Manufacturing Company. At that time the Catawba Manufacturing and Electric Power Company was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Power Company. When the latter merged with Duke Power Company in 1927, the Latta House property was deeded to Crescent Land and Timber Corporation, and at present the land, but not the use of the house, was leased to the United States government, a lease to be in effect until June 30, 1975.

The Latta House is an especially interesting early Federal house with a plan unique for its period in North Carolina. The fine stair with elements of Georgian design, the rather elaborate mantels, and the consistent use throughout the house of graceful, skillfully executed early Federal motifs make the Latta House one of the very best of its period in the upper Piedmont.