Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission

Author: Mary Dominick

Elm & Oak Row, Davidson College Campus

Survey & Research Reports
Comments Off on Elm & Oak Row, Davidson College Campus

OAK ROW AND ELM ROW


Elm Row


Oak Row

This report was written on May 3, 1977

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as Oak Row and Elm Row is located on the campus of Davidson College in Davidson, NC.

2. Name. address, and telephone number of the present owner and occupant of the property:
The present owner of the property is:
Davidson College
Davidson, NC 28036

Telephone: 892-8021

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 depicting the location of the property.

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent reference to this property is found in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 2434 at page 339. The Parcel Number of the property is 00316201.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property:

Oak Row and Elm Row constitute part of the original Quadrangle of the Davidson College Campus. The structures initially served as dormitories and were constructed shortly before the college opened its doors to students in March 1837. Elm Row, the farther of the two from N. Main St., originally stood between two structures which no longer exist — Steward’s Hall (a dining commons and classroom building) to the right or south, and Tammany Hall (a two-story professor’s house) to the left or north. The structure was moved a few feet southward in the 1960’s. Oak Row is the only one of a series of one-story brick dormitories (probably three) which initially stood on the western side of the Quadrangle and stretched from Eumenean Hall to a point opposite the President’s House. Both Oak Row and Elm Row originally contained four rooms. The style and placement of the buildings suggest that the founders of the institution were hoping to duplicate the ambience of Thomas Jefferson’s famous “Lawn” at the University of Virginia. The exteriors of the buildings retain their original Jeffersonian Classical features, but the interiors of the structures have been massively altered and now house facilities of the Fine Arts Department of the college. Nevertheless, Oak Row and Elm Row possess historic significance because of their age. The Campus of Davidson College contains five antebellum structures (President’s House, Philanthropic Hall, Eumenean Hall, Elm Row and Oak Row) of which these two constitute forty percent.

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

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

 

a. Historical and cultural significance: The historical and cultural significance of the property known as Oak Row and Elm Row rests upon two factors. First, the buildings constitute part of the original campus of a regionally-important institution of higher education. Second, the structures are among the more architecturally significant antebellum edifices which survive in Mecklenburg County.

b. Suitability for preservation and restoration: As mentioned above, the buildings retain much of their exterior integrity. If the owner wishes, he could return the interior of the structures to an approximation of their original appearance.

c. Educational value: The educational value of Oak Row and Elm Row stems from their historic significance. Also worth noting is the fact that these are the only antebellum structures surviving in Mecklenburg County which once served as dormitories.

d. Cost of acquisition, restoration, maintenance or repair: At present the Commission has no intention of purchasing the fee simple or any lesser included interest in this property nor is it aware of any intention of the owners to sell. The Commission assumes that all costs associated with renovating and maintaining the property will be paid by the owner or subsequent owners of the property.

e. Possibilities for adaptive or alternative use of the property: The structures are currently being used for adaptive uses and are therefore clearly suited for that purpose. The Commission would welcome, however, the restoration of the interior of the structures to an approximation of their original appearance.

f. Appraised value: The current tax appraisal value of Elm Row is $2390.00. The current tax appraisal value of Oak Row is $15060.00. The Commission is aware that designation of the property would allow the owner to apply annually for an automatic deferral of 50% of the rate upon which Ad Valorem Taxes are calculated. This property, however, is exempt from Ad Valorem Taxes.

g. The administrative and financial responsibility of any person or organization willing to underwrite all or a portion of such costs: As stated earlier, the Commission at present has no intention of purchasing the fee simple or any lesser included interest in this property. Furthermore, the Commission assumes that all costs associated with the property will be met by whatever party now owns or will subsequently own the property. Clearly, the present owner has demonstrated the capacity to meet the expenses associated with maintaining the property.

9. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria established for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places: The Commission judges that the property known as Oak Row and Elm Row does meet the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. Basic to the Commission’s judgment is its knowledge that the National Register, established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, represents an expansion of the Federal Government’s listing of historic places to include places of local, regional and state significance. The Commission believes that the property known as Oak Raw and Elm Row is of local and regional significance and thereby meets the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places.

10. Documentation of why and in what ways the property is of historical importance to Charlotte and/or Mecklenburg County: As noted earlier, the property known as Oak Row and Elm Row is historically significant for two primary reasons. First, the buildings constitute part of the original campus of a regionally-important institution of higher education. Second, the structures are among the more architecturally significant antebellum edifices which survive in Mecklenburg County.

 

Bibliography

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

Chalmers Gaston Davidson, The Plantation World Around Davidson (Davidson Printing Co. for the Mecklenburg Historical Association, Davidson, NC, 1973 2nd ed., rev.) pp. 1-7.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Resister of Deeds Office.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Tax Office.

Date of Preparation of this report: May 3, 1977

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

Telephone: 332-2726

 

 

Architectural Description

 

During the eighteenth century, and especially in the post-revolutionary years, large numbers of Scotch-Irish Presbyterians came to Mecklenburg and its neighboring Piedmont Carolina counties. These disciplined people fostered education as well as piety. Having the distinction of being the site of the first college in North Carolina, Charlotte was the center where these pioneers established Queens College in 1771. Responding to urging from Mecklenburg Presbyterians, Governor Tryon successfully sponsored an act which established the college and financed it by a duty of six pence per gallon on all rum made or consumed in the county. Troubles with George III and later financial stringencies caused by the war forced the school to close in 1780. The Presbyterian determination to establish a college for Mecklenburg youth never flagged, however. In the early 1830’s, the local Presbytery appointed committees to find land for a seminary, to raise the needed money, and to build a college. Important to this charge were instruction from the Presbytery that the site “must be within fifteen miles of Cowan, Ford.” Obviously the name of the school was already on their minds, for at Cowan’s Ford the namesake, General William Lee Davidson, fell a hero during the Revolution. On high land said to drain eastward to the Yadkin and westward to the Catawba the site committee secured acreage for the college (traditionally said to have been donated by General Davidson’s descendant, William Lee Davidson, II.) Meanwhile supporters in Mecklenburg and its neighboring counties subscribed over $30,000, and the building committee contracted with Messrs. S. & J. Lemly and H. Owens to erect eight buildings for the college, described thusly:

 

“three blocks one story high, 18 x 66 feet; one, two stories, 40 x 50 feet; one, two stories, 20 x 66 feet; one two stories, 22 x 32 feet; one, one story, 18 x 18 feet, and one, one story, 12 x 12 feet. All structures to have rock foundations, to be covered with tin, painted and completely finished for a total sum of $10,250.00. Installment payments due March, 1836, March, 1837, and March, 1838.”

From this remarkable document emerged the Davidson College campus of 1838.

Listed first in the contract, “three blocks one story high, 18 x 66 feet were four room dormitories, later expanded to include two additional blocks and known collectively as “The Rows”. The campus plan was originally matching four sided courts or quadrangles anchored by a centered chapel, “two stories, 40 x 50 feet” in the contract, the President’s House, “two stories, 22 x 32 feet” in the contract, and Stewart’s Hall, “two stories, 20 x 66 feet.” Aligned with the long sides of the quadrangles, the dormitories came to be known as “Oak Row” on the west and “Elm Rows on the east. And now one block from each of these rows is preserved, Oak in its original location and Elm recently relocated a short distance southward. The recorded agreement with the contractors fails to mention brick. But an initial purchase by the building committee consisted of 250,000 brick “bought from Major John Caldwell at the kiln for $4.00 per thousand to be ready by November, 1835.” All eight first buildings were obviously to be solid brick construction, and the preserved “rows” illustrate this. With solid exterior brick walls over 12″ thick, the simple rectangular 18 x 66 foot structures rest on field stone foundation walls. Rising about ten feet to corbeled headers which form overhang cornices, exterior brick work is irregular American bond with one course of glazed headers for each four, five or six courses of stretchers.

Here and there in the face brick in order to maintain a proper bond masons placed small ‘closers’ which vary from one to three inches wide. The two buildings are basically similar, yet they vary in some details. After the cornerstone was laid in April of 1836, there must surely have been delays in construction, for the work appears to have been hastily done. There are waves and undulations in the horizontal coursing, not at all typical of the skilled craftsmanship usually found in early nineteenth century brickwork. In Oak Row the window heads have uneven, even carelessly laid small headers over openings which do not align with adjacent courses, another rare example of poorly done work. There is no record of the founders having hired anyone to design the structures other than the builders mentioned in the contract. Nevertheless the influence of more sophisticated Federal Style comes through in the general proportions of the structures as well as in the detailing of wood components. Records of the other six original buildings, which were later demolished, describe them as being ‘Jeffersonian’ and there are dormitories on Jefferson’s University of Virginia campus called ‘Ranges’, which are quite similar to the Davidson ‘Rows’. In plan the two dormitories are similar, each containing four rooms with an entrance opening from the axial quadrangle, and each with a fireplace. Adjacent to the entrance in each room is a six light over nine light window, while on the opposite wall in each room are two symmetrically placed windows, assuring the students generous ventilation during the warm fall and spring semesters.

Door frames and trim are original, but all of the original hand fabricated doors have been replaced. The windows all show mortise and tenoned connections joined with wooden pegs typical of the early nineteenth century. Muntins, casing, etc. have recognizable delicate molded shapes typical of the late Federal period. Several lights are still glazed with the original blown glass. In the face of the far right sill of the western building, the words “Oak Row” are legibly cut in the granite. Likely a later feature, the letters appear to be quite old. Window sills in both buildings are heavy Mecklenburg granite, as are door thresholds throughout. In the brick work of the window heads, however, there are surprising differences. All of the windows and doors in “Oak Row” have simple, even primitive, brick rowlock headers laid in a noticeably irregular manner over the openings. Whereas, in the twin building, “Elm Row”, the window and door openings are crowned with carefully rubbed wedge brick which form precise brick jack arches. Elsewhere the two remaining rows are similar, even to the irregularities which occur in the quality of the face coursing. When the first building committee wrote the specifications for the rows they said that the buildings were to be ‘covered with tin,’ an obvious reference to the first roofing material. Later changes included a wood shingle roof which appears in an 1893 daguerreotype of Oak Row, and still later this was changed to slate, which now covers both buildings. Rising at a moderate slope to a long uninterrupted ridge, the roof terminates at each end with simple gables.

From fireplaces at each end there are brick chimneys built integrally with the gable walls. At the very center of the buildings another chimney occurs which contains flues from the two adjoining fireplaces in the middle rooms. These three chimneys are laid in common bond and rise well above the ridge to corbeled courses which form typical expanded chimney crowns. The earliest photograph of the dormitory entrances shows no canopy or cover. Presently, however, there are simple shed roofed covers over all entrances. These were added soon after the turn of the century. Steps at each door rise directly from the ground and do not include a landing at the doors. Original brick fillers under the stairs create solid strings. These two extraordinary buildings are intriguing reminders of the original Davidson College architecture. Having been in constant use since first erected in 1836, the structures have a rich history, and contribute significantly to the architectural history of North Carolina as well as this region.

Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building

Survey & Research Reports
Comments Off on Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building

Survey and Research Report

on the

Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building

Name and location of the property. The property known as the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building is located at 421 Penman Street in Charlotte, North Carolina.

  1. Name, address, and telephone number of the present owner of the property.

The owner is:

McCoy Holdings LLC

C/o Edwin R. McCoy III

521 Clanton Road, Suite C

Charlotte, N.C. 28217-1360

Telephone Number: (704) 527-7603

 

  1. Representative Photographs of the property. This report contains interior and exterior photographs of the property.
  2. 4. Maps depicting the location of the property. This report contains a map depicting the location of the property.
  1. Current deed book references to the property. The most recent deed to the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 10032 at Page 920. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 073-265-04.
  2. 6. A brief historical description of the property. This report contains a historical sketch of the property prepared by Dr. Dan L. Morrill.
  3. A brief architectural description of the property. This report contains an architectural description of the property prepared by Dr. Dan L. Morrill.
  4. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S. 16OA-400.5.
  5. Special significance in terms of history, architecture, and cultural importance. The Commission judges that the property known as the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building, designed by Lockwood Green & Co. of Greenville, South Carolina, and erected by Charlotte contractor Blythe & Isenhour, illustrates the essentially conservative values which underlay Charlotte’s industrial and commercial architecture in the 1920’s; 2) the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building was an important component of the industrial and commercial infrastructure which allowed Charlotte to become a major industrial warehouse and distribution center of the two Carolinas in the early twentieth century; and 3) the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building is an important remnant of an industrial district which arose in the early 1900’s between the Wilmore streetcar line and the tracks of the Southern, now Norfolk Southern Railroad.
  6. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association. The Commission contends that the architectural description by Dr. Dan L. Morrill demonstrates that the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building meets this criterion.
  7. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal. The current Ad Valorem tax appraisal for the improvements is $657,930. The current Ad Vorem tax appraisal for the 0.388 acres of land is $50,700. The total Ad Valorem tax appraisal for the parcel is $708,630. The property is zoned I-2.

Date of Preparation of this Report.

March 12, 2001

Prepared by:

Dr. Dan L. Morrill

Charlotte – Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission

2100 Randolph Road

Charlotte, N.C. 28207

Section 6 – Historical Description

 

Statement of Historical Significance Of The

The Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building

421 Penman Street

Charlotte, N.C.

Summary Paragraph

The Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building, erected in 1925-26, is a structure that possesses local historic importance because it housed enterprises that made significant contributions to Charlotte’s emergence as a major industrial warehouse and distribution center in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Electric Supply and Equipment Company sold and distributed electrical supplies and components essential to the operations of industrial plants, especially textile mills, in the piedmont sections of the two Carolinas. The Charlotte Manufacturing Company, which occupied the building in 1957, also participated in Charlotte’s development as a textile center. It produced and shipped card clothing and loom reeds, which were indispensable supplies for the textile industry. Without the support of firms like the Electric Supply and Equipment Company and the Charlotte Manufacturing Company, cotton mills could not have proliferated in the piedmont sections of the two Carolinas in the early twentieth century.

Front in 1998 East Facade in 1998

Brief History Of The Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building.

The location of the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building is intimately bound up with the laying of an electric streetcar track along South Mint Street to connect the Wilmore neighborhood. with Charlotte’s central business district. The rapid increase of Charlotte’s population in the early 1900’s heightened the demand for housing. “With the booming economic growth came tremendous physical expansion,” says Thomas W. Hanchett.1  In 1914, real estate developer F. C. Abbott responded to the vigorous local housing market by laying out lots in a new streetcar suburb named Wilmore, and the trolley line was built down Mint Street from uptown Charlotte to serve the neighborhood. The Wilmore streetcar line paralleled and was only about a block and a half east of the Southern Railroad tracks that connected Charlotte and Gastonia.2

It was virtually inevitable that the area between Mint St. and the railroad would become a major industrial district. With excellent railroad and improving highway connections to communities in the piedmont sections of the two Carolinas, Charlotte became the logical place in the early 1900’s from which to ship supplies to the ever increasing number of textile mills and other industrial plants in the region. “Many new demands have come upon Charlotte Realtors during the past year for locations for building of warehouses, because Charlotte has come to be known in the sales organizations of national manufacturers throughout America as the best point in the Southeast for the distribution of products and for the location of branch plants,” proclaimed the Charlotte Observer. “Some realtors here have become specialists in finding such locations to suit varying requirements, and almost every available foot of railroad frontage has been analyzed and compared in price.” The newspaper noted that “proximity to street cars, freight stations, express offices and retail districts commands the higher prices.”3

Western Facade in 1998 Rear in 1998

Originally located at 220 West First Street in center city Charlotte, the Electric Supply and Equipment Company had its own building erected on Penman Street in 1925-26.4 Designed by the South Carolina architectural and engineering firm Lockwood, Green & Company and erected by Charlotte contractor Blythe and Isenhour, the building is situated just south of the center city and just north and west of Charlotte’s Wilmore neighborhood.5  With W. Harbert Martin as president, Rogers W. Davis as secretary, and Thomas G. Lane as treasurer, the Electric Supply and Equipment Company received electrical supplies and components by rail and distributed these items primarily by truck to industrial customers throughout the piedmont sections of the two Carolinas.6  The Charlotte City Directory of 1928 described the company as “jobbers, electrical supplies and apparatus.”7   A 1935 advertisement stated that the Electric Supply and Equipment Company sold “motors, transformers, fans, lamps, meters, wiring devices, copper wire, pole and line material.”8   “Among all of North Carolina’s cities, Charlotte enjoyed the most sustained growth and by 1910 had surpassed Wilmington as the largest in the state,” writes historian Brent D. Glass. “The significance of Charlotte’s development,” says Glass, “lay not only in the thirteen textile mills built between 1889 and 1908 but also in the creation of a true urban infrastructure that included engineering firms, financial institutions, and department stores.”9

By 1937, the General Electric Supply Company had moved into the building and continued in the same line of business as its predecessor.10  Tommy Bigham, who worked in the Textile Mill Supply Company Building next door, remembers that only three people worked in the building, including a man in the basement who handled shipping.11

In 1957, the Charlotte Manufacturing Company, makers of card clothing and loom reeds, moved into the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building and continued its operations there into the 1970s.12  Before its recent renovation into offices, the building served as a warehouse for a the Charlotte Hotel Supply Company.

Section 7 – Architectural Description.

Statement of Architectural Significance Of The

The Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building

421 Penman Street

Charlotte, N.C.

Summary Paragraph

The Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building, designed by Lockwood Green & Company, possesses local historic importance because it is a representative example of a type of commercial and industrial structure constructed in Charlotte in the 1920’s. Like the Charlotte Supply Company Building and the Textile Mill Supply Company Building (1922), both fashioned by Lockwood Green & Company, the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building (1925-26) is essentially revivalistic. Such elements as the regularly punctuated fenestration, the stepped-parapet roofline with metal coping, corbeled lintels and concrete sills at the windows, and the symmetrical massing of the building’s front façade, hearken back, however obliquely, to Classical concepts of beauty. These revivalistic structures are reflective of the conservative philosophy that characterized the political, social and economic thinking of Charlotte’s business elite in the 1920’s.

A Brief Architectural Description of the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building.

Lockwood, Green & Company, headquartered in Greenville, S. C., was one of the principal contractors that specialized in the construction of textile mills and other industrial type buildings in the Charlotte area in the first half of the twentieth century, including the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building.13  Among the Charlotte structures the firm designed was the Charlotte Supply Company Building (1923) at 500 South Mint Street (torn down in the early 1990’s to make way for Ericsson Stadium), and the Textile Mill Supply Company (1922), which is located at 1300 South Mint Street or less than one block east of the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building.14

Architecturally, the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building, like the Charlotte Supply Company Building and the Textile Mill Supply Company Building, is essentially revivalistic. Such elements as the regularly punctuated fenestration, the stepped-parapet roofline with metal coping, concrete lintels and corbeled sills at the windows, and the symmetrical massing of the building’s front façade, hearken back, however obliquely, to Classical concepts of beauty. These revivalistic structures are reflective of the conservative philosophy that characterized the political, social and economic thinking of Charlotte’s business elite in the 1920’s. During this decade of unprecedented growth, when Charlotte’s population increased by 78 percent to 82,675, there was little interest in experimentation or boldness. This hesitancy to be daring stood in sharp contrast to the attitudes of Charlotte’s business community in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. “The generation of New South leaders, including D. A. Tompkins, Edward Dilworth Latta, and George Stephens, who had taken enormous risks to turn the Piedmont into a major industrial region, were passing their power to a new generation,” explains Hanchett. “The new leaders,” Hanchett continues, “seemed much less adventuresome, willing to follow in the directions set by their predecessors. Their homes and offices reflected this increased interest in tradition over innovation, in social correctness than risk-taking.”15

The Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building  is a two story, three bay wide by ten bay deep (the two rear bays were added at some date after the initial construction),   red brick structure with a full basement. Corbeled pilasters separate the bays.   The building is situated on a sloping, rectangular lot on the southeastern quadrant of the intersection of South Graham and Penman Streets, just   south of center city Charlotte and just north and west of the Wilmore neighborhood. The Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building borders the sidewalk on the northern edge of the property and faces Penman Street.   An abandoned railroad spur parallels the property on the south.   The western façade contains an original painted sign which reads: “POSITIVELY NO ADMITTANCE.   APPLY AT OFFICE.”

    As expected in a building designed by Lockwood, Green & Company, the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building exhibits characteristics typical of early twentieth century “mill construction.”     It has a slightly sloping, essentially flat roof of tar and gravel, red, rough-textured brick exterior walls laid in Common Bond; large rectangular windows (mostly original on the western façade of the building) with metal muntins, hopper inserts, and concrete sills; post-and-beam framing (both steel and wooden) throughout the interior; and wooden floors (original wooden floors have been replaced), except for a cement floor in the full basement. A splatter wall is at the base of the building, and the stepped parapet walls have metal coping.

Significant changes were made to the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building during its recent conversion to office use. The replacement front entrance was eliminated, and the entrance to the building was placed on the eastern façade. Original metal fixtures flank the original front entrance, which is suggested by the design of the window at that location, as well as by a slight indentation of the splatter wall and the retention of the granite doorway sill. Brick in-fill was removed from the front windows flanking the original entrance. The front facade does contain original connections for fire hoses.   The rear or southern façade of the building has new windows and a replacement door. The façade does contain a small door to a coal chute that served a heating plant that no longer exists. None of the other doors in the building is original.

The most significant change to the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building resulted from the construction of a new entrance lobby with steps, a brick colonnade, and vaulted ceiling   on the eastern façade. A portion of the original exterior wall was removed to allow the entrance lobby to penetrate the building.     The entrance lobby contains a new stairway, new bathrooms, and an elevator.

The post-and-beam construction of the interior of the Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building is largely intact. Round metal posts support trusses that allow the interior spaces to be mostly open.   The duct work is suspended from the original wooden ceilings, and the partition walls do not extend to the ceiling.   Part of the original concrete floor in the basement is exposed.

  1. Thomas W. Hanchett, “The Growth Of Charlotte:   A History.” (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1985), p. 27.
  2. For a map of Charlotte’s streetcar system, see Ibid.
  3. Charlotte Observer (June 29, 1925), p. 2.
  4. Charlotte City Directory (1923-24), p. 299. Charlotte City Directory (1925), p. 445.  Charlotte City Directory (1926), p. 1039.  Charlotte Building Permit No. 6204 (issued on June 30, 1925). Lockwood, Green & Company was extremely active in the Charlotte building industry in the 1920’s and had a local office.  Other  Charlotte projects included the Charlotte Central High School and the Poplar Apartments.
  5. Ibid.
  6. Charlotte City Directory (1926), p. 284.
  7. Charlotte City Directory (1928), p. 305.
  8. Charlotte City Directory (1935), p. 477.
  9. Brent D. Glass, The Textile Industry In North Carolina. A History (Division of Archives and History, North Carolina Department Of Cultural Resources, 1992), p. 44.
  10. Charlotte City Directory (1937), p. 244.
  11. Interview of Thomas Schroder Bigham by Dr. Dan L. Morrill (December 14, 1997).
  12. Charlotte City Directory (1957), p. 118. Charlotte City Directory (1976), p. 191.
  13. Catherine W. Bisher, Charlotte V. Brown, Carl R. Lounsbury, Ernest H. Wood III, Architects and Builders in North Carolina: A History of the Practice of Building (The University of North Carolina Press, 1990), p. 267. Charlotte Building Permit No. 6204.
  14. Dan L. Morrill, “Survey and Research Report On The Charlotte Supply Company Building”. Dan L. Morrill, “Survey and Research Report On The Textile Mill Supply Company Building.”
  15. Thomas W. Hanchett, “Charlotte Architecture.   Design Through Time.” (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1985), p. 34.

Edgewood Farmhouse

Survey & Research Reports
Comments Off on Edgewood Farmhouse

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This report was written on Oct. 3, 1984

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Edgewood Farmhouse is located at 11124 Eastfield Road in Mecklenburg County.

2. Name, address and telephone number of the present owner of the property:
Margaret Darden McLeod
Route 1, Box 580
Huntersville, N.C., 28078

Telephone: 704/875-2534

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

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

 

 

 

 

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 4555, page 746. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 027-171-21.

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

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

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 Edgewood Farmhouse does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the structure is one of the few, relatively intact ante-bellum plantation houses extant in Mecklenburg County; 2) the structure, built c. 1853, was the home of Robert Davidson Alexander (1796-1863) and his wife, Abigail Bain Caldwell Alexander (1808-1889), both being members of prominent pioneer families of Mecklenburg County; 3) the transitional Federal/Greek Revival plantation house is an imposing example of this motif in Mecklenburg County; and 4) the structure retains a mostly undisturbed rural setting.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the attached architectural description by Mr. Joseph Schuchman demonstrates that the property known as the Edgewood Farmhouse meets this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” The current appraised value of the .899 acres of land is $3600. The current appraised value of the improvements is $35,940. The total current appraised value is $39,540. The property is zoned RU.

Date of Preparation of this Report: October 3, 1984

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

Telephone: 704-376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview

The Edgewood Farm house on Eastfield Road north of Charlotte is one of the few relatively intact large antebellum houses left in the county. It is a legacy of Robert Davidson Alexander (1796-1863) and his wife, the former Abigail Bain Caldwell (1808-1889), who built it around 1840. Robert Davidson Alexander was the third child (of fourteen) of William Bain Alexander (1764-1844) and the former Violet Davidson (1771-1821), who was a daughter of Major John Davidson, both families being pioneers of what was known as the Hopewell section of the county around the Hopewell Presbyterian Church. William Bain Alexander owned a 6000 acre plantation in the area, upon which he grazed cattle, horses and sheep until they were changed over to the production of cotton, and he was also for many years the county recorder of deeds and postmaster, for more than fifty years at his homestead, “Alexandriana.” Abigail Bain Caldwell was the daughter of Rev. Samuel Craighead Caldwell, the pastor of Hopewell and Sugaw Creek Presbyterian Churches. 1

The two were married on February 12, 1829, and built a one-story log house (which is still extant behind the present one) about one mile east of Alexandriana on 400 acres given to them by William B. Alexander in 1830. 2 What is now Eastfield Road was at the time known as the Salisbury Road, and the log house was about a hundred yards back to the south from the road. About 1840, the Alexanders built their roomy, two-story frame plantation house in which they raised their five children, Rev. S. C., Dr. J. Brevard, William Davidson, Lottie and Agnes Alexander.3

Edgewood, as the plantation was known, was reportedly a well-run and prosperous farm which boasted a productive orchard, livestock and even honeybees in addition to the feed crops. The fine hospitality at Edgewood was legendary. “Squire” Robert Alexander, who served almost forty years as the local Justice of the Peace and was a member of the county court, was known for his love of reading and discussion rather than the traditional fox and deer hunts of the other planters. His interest in education was shown by his support of the Alexandriana Academy and being an early trustee of Davidson College, from which his three sons graduated, and he was a longtime elder of the Hopewell Church. Squire Alexander died in the midst of the raging War Between the States, and shortly thereafter there was a brief contemporary mention of the house by a refugee kinsman from Tennessee, Dr. J. G. M. Ramsey:

 

We stopped at night at Mrs. A. B. Alexander’s, the bereaved widow of another kinsman. Her sons were all in the Southern army – as Chaplin, surgeon and commissary…the house was large, some better supplied with provisions and servants than we had met with. Mrs. Alexander proposed to board us for my daughter Mrs. Breck’s services as governess of her daughter. I had to stay, of course, in Charlotte.

At the time, Dr. Ramsey had possession of the Tennessee funds of the Confederate treasury, which he was trying to keep from seizure by Federal troops. 4

When Robert D. Alexander died in 1863, Edgewood Farm was willed to son William D. Alexander.5 During the latter’s long ownership of Edgewood (sixty-three years), both the county and the city of Charlotte underwent tremendous changes. When W. D. Alexander inherited the plantation, it was a part of the slave-owning, cotton-growing South, and the Civil War was raging, the aftermath of which would have a profound impact on the old system. Following the Reconstruction era, when much farming was done by tenants on a sharecropping basis, the New South industrialization of the Piedmont Carolinas in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries forever changed the rural way of life. W. D. Alexander himself moved to Charlotte in 1911, where he bought a house in Fourth Ward on W. 5th Street.6 At his death in 1927, the home place was willed to his wife, Harriet Alexander, and upon her death in 1934, the farm house and 50 acres were sold by the heirs to a real estate concern, the Commonwealth Land Co. 7 The remainder of the Alexander estate was divided into five tracts, and sold individually, thus subdividing the century-old plantation.8

In recent times, the farmhouse has had several owners (Sarah W. Tate, 1936-42; Victor and Elizabeth Templeton, 1942-64; T. Bragg and Margaret D. McLeod, 1964-82).9 The present owner, Margaret Darden McLeod has taken great care to decorate every room in the house so as to continue its legacy of charm, comfort and hospitality. As one of Mecklenburg’s fine antebellum plantation houses in superb condition, the county is fortunate to be able to retain such a site of clear historic value.

 

NOTES

1 Charles W. Summerville, The History of Hopewell Presbyterian Church (Charlotte: Hopewell Presbyterian Church, 1939), pp. 97-98.

2 Ibid.; Old Deed Book 22, p. 17, 17 Sept. 1830.

3 Summerville, p. 98; interview with Margaret Darden McLeod, 20 Dec. 1983.

4 Chalmers G. Davidson, The Plantation World Around Davidson, 2nd ed. (Davidson, N.C.: Mecklenburg Historical Association, 1973), pp. 73-75.

5 Will Book J. p. 164, July 1863.

6 Deed Book 277, p. 231, 30 March 1911.

7 Will Book U. p. 18, probated 11 May 1927; Deed Book 854, p. 234, 1 August 1934.

8 Map Book 4, p. 581.

9 Deed Book 886, p. 142, 4 May 1936; Ibid., 1075, p. 497, 28 August 1942; Ibid., 2580, p. 270, 21 October 1964.

 

 

 

Architectural Description

Joseph Schuchman
June, 1984

Edgewood Farm is one of the more significant antebellum plantation houses in northern Mecklenburg County. This transitional Federal/Greek Revival house was constructed by Robert Davidson Alexander(1796-1863) and his wife Abigail Bain Caldwell Alexander(1808-1889). Local tradition maintains that the house was constructed about 1840. Author Chalmers Gaston Davidson, in The Plantation World Around Davidson, states that the house was built about 1853.1 Edgewood Farm presents a double pile arrangement, a two story center-hall plan two rooms deep on either side of the hall, and possesses paired interior chimneys. The existence of both of these elements is rare in surviving Mecklenburg County homes of this period. The exterior has witnessed some alteration including the replacement of the original windows and porch supports; the interior is largely intact.

The house is set back from Eastfield (formerly Salisbury) Road and sits at the head of a curved drive. The double pile main block is of mortise and tenon construction. As is typical with classically inspired homes, fenestration is symmetrically arranged. Front and rear elevations are three bays wide while side elevations are two bays wide. Exterior openings are framed by simple two-part surrounds. 8/8 sash, the primary glazing arrangement, date from the 1950’s and replaced the original window lights. The louvered window shutters were installed by the present owner, Margaret Darden McLeod; a turn of the century documentary photograph indicates the presence of louvered shutters. Corner boards rise to a boxed cornice on the front and rear elevations. Side elevations are nearly flush with the exterior wall. A cornice, narrower than the typical Greek Revival cornice, returns on the eaves. The central one-story porch is believed to be original; wrought iron supports, added by an earlier owner, replaced the wood columns. The entrance is flush sheathed and delineated by wood piers. The double leaf entrance door is flanked by symmetrically arranged ten pane side-lights, which are located above recessed molded panels. The entire composition is set in a molded splayed surround. The entrance door is noticeably narrow; according to local tradition, the narrow width was meant to discourage visits from strangers traveling on the Salisbury Road stagecoach, which ran past the house. The paired interior chimneys are of brick, arranged in a stretcher bond, and rise to a corbled top.

The one-story rear ell may have originally been a separate structure. It is believed that the gable roofed building was constructed as a kitchen, a function it continues to serve. A turn of the century photograph appears to indicate that this structure was unattached to the main house. A gable end chimney is of brick laid in stretcher bond and rises to a single step shoulder with a freestanding stack. The ell’s fenestration has been altered.

A shed roof porch, which runs across most of the rear elevation, was enclosed about 1974 by the present owner, The date of the shed is unknown. The chamfered post supports indicate a turn-of-the-century construction date. The wall surface is flush horizontal board.

In 1965, the house was underpinned with brick, arranged in a stretcher pattern. The main block originally rested on massive blocks of fieldstone, which were incorporated in the underpinning. The main block is roofed with asphalt shingles. The ell and shed porch roofs are of tin.

The well-maintained interior is largely unaltered. Rooms are symmetrically arranged off a handsome center hall. which is ten feet wide. A straight run open string stair rises from the hall. Identical rectangular banisters and a chamfered newel post support the shaped handrail of this simply detailed staircase. A molded baseboard and chair rail frame the stair wall. Each main block chamber is simply detailed and encircled by a molded baseboard and cornice. Pine flooring is used throughout the house; all the flooring, except that in the center hall and one first story room, is original. Walls, which were originally covered with horsehair plaster, have been replastered. Solid brass fixtures remain throughout the main block and appear contemporary with its construction. As on the exterior, interior openings are set within two-part surrounds. Corresponding storage closets, believed to be original, are located in the dining and breakfast rooms, to the right of the center hall. Mantles are located in each of the four first story rooms and second story bedrooms in the main block. Each mantle is of simple pier and lintel construction, characteristic of vernacular Greek Revival motifs. The mantles are nearly identical in execution. First story mantles feature recessed pier detailing while second story mantles display plain piers. The kitchen, located in the rear ell, has been modernized.

A log house, with half-dovetail corners, stands to the rear of the main house. According to local tradition, Robert Alexander constructed this gable roof structure in 1829 to serve as a temporary residence until the completion of the main house. The open spaces between the logs, originally chinked with clay or mud, have been filled with concrete. The house retains some original features, including exposed beams; an exterior gable end wall has been stuccoed. The fieldstone chimney and shed appear to be later additions.

A brick wall and octagonal brick gazebo, off the rear of the main house, was built by the McLeod’s and encloses a landscaped garden. Several frame outbuildings stand to the rear and house guest and storage facilities. Two of these outbuildings were moved to Edgewood Farm from nearby Mecklenburg County locations by the present owners.

Since their purchase of the house in 1964, the McLeod Family has undertaken a considerable maintenance effort. Edgewood Farm stands today as a reminder of the antebellum plantation economy. It recalls a lifestyle forever changed not only by the Civil War but also by the forces of technology and urbanization.

 

Footnote

1 Chalmers Davidson’s claim to an 1853 construction date is based upon the fact that land was willed to Robert Davidson Alexander in 1853, the year of the death of his uncle “Robin” Davidson of Holly Bend Plantation. In a telephone interview with Joseph Schuchman on June 22, 1984, Chalmers Davidson stated that he based the construction date of the house both on the year Robert Davidson Alexander acquired the land and also on the presence of paired interior chimneys, which Davidson claims did not appear in rural Mecklenburg County structures until about 1850. In 1830, Robert Davidson Alexander was given four hundred acres of land, which is believed to have formed the basis of his plantation, by his father William B. Alexander. Chalmers Davidson makes a strong correlation between house construction and the land acquired from “Robin” Davidson in 1853 but appears to make no correlation for the 1830 change of title.

Eastover Elementary School

Survey & Research Reports
Comments Off on Eastover Elementary School

1.      Name and location of the property:  The property known as Eastover Elementary School is located at 500 Cherokee Road in Charlotte, N.C.

2.      Name, address, and telephone number of contact for the current owners of the property:

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools/Board of Education
Education Center
701 East 2nd Street
Charlotte, NC 28202

Telephone:  980-343-3000

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 depicting the location of the property.   The UTM coordinates of the property are  17 516263.0 E  17 3894857.1 N.

5.      Current Deed Book Reference to the property:  The most recent deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 1379 at Page 80. 

6.      A brief historical sketch of the property:  This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Dr. Dan L. Morrill. 

7.      A brief architectural and physical description of the property:  This report contains a brief architectural and physical description of the property prepared by Stewart Gray. 

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

a.   Special significance in terms of its history, architecture and/or cultural importance:  The Commission judges that Eastover Elementary School possesses special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg.  The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 

1)  Eastover Elementary School, erected in 1935, was designed by M. R. Marsh Architects, a design firm of local significance in the first half of the twentieth century.

2)  Eastover Elementary School is important in the history of Eastover, a neighborhood of special cultural significance in Charlotte.

3) Eastover Elementary School is a well-preserved local example of Colonial Revival style institutional architecture and demonstrates great sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood streetscape.

b.   Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural and physical description prepared by Stewart Gray demonstrates that Eastover Elementary School House meets this criterion.

9.      Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal:  The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owners 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 appraised value of the property is $8,888,300. The Tax Parcel Numbers of the property are 15510236 and 15509401. The property is exempted from the payment of property taxes.

10.  Amount of Property Proposed for historic landmark designation.  The exterior of the school building and the the entire land associated with the school, being tax parcel numbers 15510236 and 15509401. 

Date of Preparation of this Report:  January 18, 2011

A Brief History Of Eastover Elementary School

Dr. Dan L. Morrill

Eastover Elementary School opened in 1935 to serve the Eastover neighborhood and adjoining white residential districts in Charlotte, N.C., including Colonial Heights and nearby portions of Myers Park and Elizabeth.  The building of Eastover was part of a spate of school construction that occurred in the 1930s in Charlotte and across the United States  because of the influx of Federal money provided by work relief programs during the Great Depression.1  The Federal Emergency Relief Administration and the Civil Works Administration, both established in 1933, distributed money to local communities to construct a variety of public projects, including schools.  In January 1934, Charlotte Mayor Arthur E. Wearn announced that funds had been granted to Charlotte to enable the City to undertake several projects, including the construction of Eastover Elementary School.2 

Photo of Arthur Wearn

Mayor Arthur E. Wearn (1933-1935)

The architect of record of Eastover Elementary School was M. R. Marsh.     M. R. “Steve” Marsh (1901-1977), a native of  Jacksonville, Fla., came to Charlotte in 1916 as chief draftsman for the architectural firm headed by James Mackson McMichael (1870-1944). In 1922 Marsh opened his own architectural and engineering company in Charlotte and continued to head the firm until his retirement in 1964.3  The principal designer of the school was James A. Stenhouse, a native of St. Louis, Mo., resident of Charlotte from early childhood, and graduate of the School of Architecture at the Georgia Institute of Technology who joined Marsh’s firm upon graduation. 4  Stenhouse would have a long and distinguished career in Charlotte.  Remembered mostly for his design of churches, including Westminister Presbyterian Church in Eastover, Stenhouse would become a founding partner of J. N. Pease Associates in 1938, a design and engineering firm of regional significance which is still in business.5  A charter member of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, now Historic Landmarks Commission, Stenhouse was also a leader in the historic preservation movement in Mecklenburg County in the mid and later twentieth century and was instrumental in establishing the Mecklenburg Historical Association.

James A. Stenhouse with original teachers 11/10/82

Like most public schools erected in Charlotte in the 1920s and 1930s, Eastover Elementary School was traditional in design. Stenhouse fashioned the original section of Lawyers Road Elementary School, later named Midwood Elementary School, on Central Avenue to be almost identical to Eastover in design.6  One also sees revivalist architecture in such schools as the Morgan School, built for African Americans n the Cherry Neighborhood, and the Myers Park Elementary School on Ratcliffe Ave. in Myers Park.7  Dr. Thomas Hanchett, resident historian at the Levine Museum of the New South, contends that traditionalist architecture, especially Colonial Revivalism, reflected the conservation values increasingly espoused by Charlotte’s business elite in the 1920s and 1930s.  Hanchett writes:

Charlotte’s early New South leaders had experimented freely with the newest styles, Victorian variations in the 1890s, the Rectilinear, Bungaloid, Colonial Revival, and Tudor Revival styles of the 1900s through early 20s. By the late 20s, however, the Colonial Revival was adopted as the single acceptable architectural motif, with Tudor Revival variations being the only alternative. While this was part of a nationwide return to historical motifs in architecture, it seems to have been particularly rigid in Charlotte. Endless blocks of Myers Park, Eastover, and the new streets of Dilworth were developed in the 1920s with variations on the two-story brick Colonial box.8

Lawyers Road (Midwood) Elementary School (1935) M. R. Marsh Architect

Morgan Elementary School (1925) Louis Asbury Architect

Myers Park Elementary School (1928) C. C. Hook Architect

Eastover, the first totally automobile, bus, or truck-dependent affluent suburb in Charlotte, eschewed by legal means experimentation in architecture.  Developed by by the E. C. Griffith Company, its original section laid out by landscape architect Earle Sumner Draper, and opening in 1927, Eastover operated under deed restrictions that stipulated that “no residence of Spanish Architecture or design shall be erected upon said lots of land.”9   One can assume that Edward Colville Griffith did not appreciate the appearance of the Reynolds-Gourmajenko House just outside the neighborhood.10

Reynolds-Gourmajenko House (1926) William L. Bottomley Architect

 Eastover School has flourished over the years.  Not surprisingly, several additions have been made to the original building.   In 1941 major changes occurred, including the construction of an auditorium, a basement kitchen and cafeteria, and the addition of five classrooms on the north side of the property.  Five more classrooms were erected to the rear of the original building in 1949.  That same year the Charlotte Board of Education purchased property across Cherokee Road for use as a playground.  An 8-classroom building, no longer extant, was constructed in 1955 at the western edge of the school site. In 1972 a Media Center and Physical Education facility was erected on the south side of the auditorium.11   Finally, a major makeover of the building occurred in 2004-2005.  The 1955 classroom building was demolished and replaced with a larger structure, and the interior of the building was gutted and totally modernized.  Shook Kelley Architects demonstrated great sensitivity to retaining the ambience of Eastover Elementary School, however.12
The Eastover School is a one-story brick school building located at 500 Cherokee Road in Charlotte.  The building faces east and is setback approximately seventy-five feet from the road.  The school was built in a residential neighborhood and is surrounded by single-family homes.  The mass of the building runs parallel to the street, and presents a wide facade, approximately 350′.   The original portion of the school was built in 1935, and was greatly expanded in 1941.

Southern portion of the facade includes the auditorium added in 1941.

The original portion of the school features a hipped roof, and the facade can be divided into five sections.  The principal entrance to the building in centered in the original section of the school.   The entrance is located in a shallow projecting gabled three-bay-wide wing.  The doorway is recessed and contains replacement doors.  The doorway, once topped with a transom, is now topped with a panel.  The recessed opening features a beaded-board ceiling and a dentil entablature set above a simple convex frieze.  The frieze rests on simple eared trim with narrow raised panels that wrap the corners.  The doorway is in the center bay, and is bordered by two large twenty-five-over-fifteen replacement windows with simple brick sills.  All three bays are sheltered by a classical portico supported by four tall wooden posts.  The posts feature simple bases and simple moulded trim capitals.  The portico features a simple frieze topped with modillions.  The pediment features more Flemish stretcher bond, an octagonal window and Adamesque garlands.    The portico’s concrete floor is reached via full width concrete steps.  A concrete ramp with metal handrail centered on the portico has been added.

To the north of the entrance portico, the principal section of the building is pierced by three bays.  The center bay contains three windows ganged together.  The center window is a twenty-five-over-fifteen window bordered by two twenty-over-twelve’s.  The two remaining bays also contain twenty-over-twelve’s.  The northernmost section of the building features a  shallow hipped projecting wing, with the same three-bay configuration of twenty-over-twelve and twenty-five-over-fifteen windows.  The walls of the principal section of the building are laid in Flemish stretcher bond, with one row of alternating headers and stretchers separated by five rows of stretchers. In contrast the elements of the facade that projects from the facade (the gabled entrances, the shallow hipped wings) feature running bond brickwork.  The school building is built over a crawlspace, and the transition from foundation to wall is delineated by a soldier course.  The walls are topped by a wide band.  The shallow soffit is supported by deep moulded trim, now covered with metal.  Metal gutters wrap the building.

The facade to the south of the portico is a mirror of the northern part of the facade, with three bays in the principal section of the building and three bays in a shallow projecting hipped wing. All of the bays containing  twenty-five-over-fifteen and twenty-over-twelve replacement windows.  The 1941 addition meets the original building at the original south elevation.  The addition obscures nearly all of the south elevation of the 1935 building.  The original hipped roof was extended to meet the 1941 addition.  A masonry firewall was extended through the roof between the original building and the addition. A jog in the firewall, may reflect an original recessed entrance on the south elevation.

Unlike the symmetrical facade the north elevation is asymmetrical, with three bays set near the rear elevation.  Windows are set in the same configuration found on the facade.  The center bay contains three windows ganged together.  The center window is a twenty-five-over-fifteen window bordered by two twenty-over-twelve’s.  The two remaining bays also contain twenty-over-twelve’s.  The brickwork is running bond.

The rear of the 1935 building has been largely obscured with new construction.  A portion of the original rear elevation is extant adjacent to the north elevation.  A vent and new doorway may have been added.  Two shed-roof dormer vent are set above the rear elevation.  Various modern vents and pipes pierce the roof.

In 1941, the size of the school was roughly doubled with the addition of classrooms and an auditorium.  The classrooms were added as essentially and extension of the 1935 building projecting from the south elevation.  The original hipped-roof shallow wing afforded the architect a distinct delineation between the old and the new.  The original principal roof was extended to the south to cover the 1941 classrooms, but is interrupted by a  firewall that extends above the roofing and indicates the transition from the 1935 and 1941 construction.

The classroom addition is very wide, spanning fourteen bays.  From the north, the first seven bays contain alternating single and double twenty-over-twelve replacement windows.

To the south, the next six bays can be divided into two identical sets of three bays. The center bay in each set contains three windows ganged together.  The center window is a twenty-five-over-fifteen window bordered by two twenty-over-twelve’s.  The two remaining bays in each set contains single twenty-five-over-fifteen window.  Like the principal section of the 1935 building, the brickwork of the 1941 addition is laid in Flemish stretcher bond, and features a soldier course at the foundation level, and simple brick window sills.  The wide band found at the top of the wall on the 1935 building is absent on the addition.  The southernmost bay of the 1941 classroom addition is a recessed grade-level recessed entrance.  The recess is formed by a half-round brick arch with cast stone imposts.

The southern end of the 1941 classroom addition terminates at a tall gable-front auditorium.  While the classrooms can be seen as an extension of the form of the 1935 school building, the auditorium adds distinctive new qualities to the building in terms of mass and architectural elements.  The temple-form auditorium is three bays wide.  Nearly full-width masonry steps with brick cheek walls give access to three sets of replacement double doors set in half-round arched openings.  The arches are formed by curved  cast-stone blocks that rise from a full width cast-stone band. The three half-round openings contain three-light transoms, protected by a wrought-iron filigree screens.    Three recessed rectangular stone panels are set in the wall above the arched openings.  Two wall mounted floodlights are set between the panels.  The brick are laid in a  Flemish stretcher bond.  The pediment’s entablature features a simple frieze, now covered with metal, and original modillions.  The pediment features modillions and the letter “E” surrounded by circular trim.  The temple-form front of the auditorium is one bay deep and  is smaller in height and width than the principal section of the auditorium.  The south elevation of the front section of the auditorium is pierced by a single fifteen-over-nine window.  The cast-stone band and modillions on the facade are continued on the shallow side elevations.The front wall of the principal section of the auditorium features a stepped and gabled parapet capped with metal.  The brick are laid in a  Flemish stretcher bond.

The principal section of the auditorium is five bays deep.  Each bay features a round-arch opening with cast stone imposts and keystone.  Each opening contains a tall twenty-five-over-twenty-five window topped with thirteen-light fanlight sash.  The walls are topped with two rows of corbelled brick.  The soffit is minimal and incorporates a metal gutter.The auditorium becomes wider near the rear elevation to accommodate a backstage area. This rear section of the south elevation is largely black with the exception of a fire escape exit with metal stairs.  A single original window may have been bricked over.  The rear section of the north elevation of the auditorium is similar, except that the fire escape doorway has also been bricked over.  Just one bay of the north elevation is exposed (the rest is interior space).  The single bay contains a window like that found on the south elevation.

Flat-roofed additions obscure much of the auditorium’s rear elevation.  The rear wall features a parapet, and three window openings set high in the gable.

The rear elevation of the 1941 addition is largely intact.  The elevation features the same wall details found on the facade.  It is pierced by three sets of twenty-five-over-fifteen and twenty-over-twelve windows.
A ca. 1949 hipped-roof classroom building is located to the rear of the principal building.  The classroom building faces north , and is set back approximately 40′ from Middleton Drive.  The facade is blank with the exception of a pedimented recess doorway containing replacement doors.  The pediment is supported by pilasters topped with moulded trim.  The shallow recess is arched, and sheathed with panels.  The door is topped with an adamesque fanlight.  The brickwork is laid in Flemish stretcher bond. The wall is topped with a wide band covered in metal.  Moulded trim, also covered with metal, supports the shallow soffit, which is wrapped with a roof gutter.The east elevation is partially obscured by new construction, and a wheelchair ramp.  One set of classroom windows remains exposed. Five windows are set in three bays, with a twenty-five-over-fifteen window bordered by two twenty-over-twelve windows in the center bay, and twenty-five-over-fifteen windows in the other bays.  This same pattern of classroom windows is used on the west side of the building, where three sets of the windows pierce the elevation.  The south elevation is obscured by a classroom building erected in 2001.
A large two-story classroom building was added to the rear of the property in 2001.  While large, the building is not visible from Cherokee Road or Middleton Drive, and does not significantly detract from the historical significance of the property.
Attached to the auditorium by a hyphen is a ca. 1985 brick building.  The building does not significantly detract from the detract from the historical significance of the property.  Below is the hyphen.

Endnotes
1.  Dr. Thomas W. Hanchett, The Eastover Neighborhood, Charlotte’s Elite Automobile Suburb (http://www.cmhpf.org/kids/neighborhoods/Eastover.html).  Hereinafter cited as Eastover.2.  Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Survey and Research Report On The American Legion Memorial Stadium (1936), 2003.  (http://landmarkscommission.org/Surveys&rmemorialstadium.htm).

3.  Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Survey and Research Report on the Builders Building , 2004.  (http://landmarkscommission.org/surveys&rbuildersbuilding.htm).

4.  Mary Lynn Morrill, Eastover Elementary School, Charlotte, N.C., nd. (http://www.cmhpf.org/eastover%20elementary%20school%20history.htm).  Hereinafter cited as Eastover School History.  At a ceremony held on November 10, 1982, James Stenhouse, who was in attendance, told Mary Lynn Morrill that he was the principal designer of the building.  James Stenhouse died on November 28, 1996, at the age of 86 (Death Records of Mecklenburg County).  For notice of his death also see http://gtalumni.org/Publications/techtopics/sum97/obits.html.  The online manuscript Eastover School History presents many interesting facts about the school.  In 1935, the year the school opened, teachers included Miss Mary Moore, Miss Daphne Ranson (also the principal and secretary), Miss Crawford, Miss George, Miss Gregory and Miss Kennedy. Women teachers could not be married in 1935. By 1940 married teachers were employed. In 1940 Mrs. Willie Choate Hampton, Mrs. Gray, and Mrs. Pharr were on the teaching staff.  Teachers were never allowed to wear dress pants to work – only dresses and skirts were permitted. The first P.T.A. President was Mrs. F. O. Clarkson. Known P.T.A. presidents included Mrs. Edgar Gammon (1936), Mrs. Frank Thies (1937), Mrs. Raymond Thompson (1938, 1939), Mrs. G. F. Cooper (1940-42), Mrs. Kenneth Bridges (1942-43), Mrs. A.L. Roberts (1944-46), Mrs. Philo Caldwell (1946-48), Mrs. W. L. Buice, Jr. (1948-49), Mrs. Sutherland Brown (1956-1957), Mrs. J. A. Crowell (1959-1960), Mrs. Rennie Cuthbertson (1974-1975), Mrs. Dan Morrill (1975-1976). In November 1935 the P.T.A. decided to collect clothing for a rummage sale. Thus began the Outgrown Clothing Sale which was held for nearly 50 years. Beginning in 1936 the P.T.A. sponsored a Children’s Artist Series and a Shakespearean Story. The first project eventually became the Children’s Symphony Concerts and the latter, with the help of the A.A.U.W. and the Junior League, became the Children’s Little Theater. The school still holds a large “Fall Fun Day” which was first held by the P.T.A. in the fall of 1976 to raise money to buy classroom supplies.  On March 30, 1948, a “Living Memorial” was announced by P.T.A. President Mrs. Philo Caldwell: “In the event of a death of a teacher, pupil or parent associated with the school, a tree, a shrub, a book, a plaque or some such article will be purchased by the P.T.A. and presented to the school in his/her memory. The amount to be spent in each case is to be approximately ten dollars.”  In 1951 Peggy Tuttle, daughter of Jerry Tuttle, a beautiful, smart, six year old little girl with long golden hair (according to her teacher, Annie Sanders) left school one Friday and was dead with polio by Monday. A bronze plaque was placed by Peggy,s classmates outside on the ground under her first grade classroom window.

5. Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Charlotte Observer Building, 1972,” n.d.  (http://landmarkscommission.org/uptownsurveycharlotteobserverhistory.htm).

6. Dr. Thomas W. Hanchett, Plaza Midwood, 1984.

East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church (Former)

Survey & Research Reports
Comments Off on East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church (Former)

fromnorthwest

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. Name and location of the property:  The property known as the former East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church (now known as the Great Aunt Stella Center) is located at 927 East Trade Street in Charlotte, N. C.

 

  1. Name and address of the current owner of the property:

 

The current owner of the property is:

 

Charlotte Tabernacle LLC

926 Elizabeth Avenue

Charlotte, NC 28264

 

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

 

  1. Maps depicting the location of the property:  This report contains a map depicting the location of the property.  UTM:  17 515066E 3897183N

 

  1. Current deed book reference to the property: The most recent deed reference to the property is found in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 9147, page 893.  The tax parcel number to the property is 125-04-203.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission judges that the former East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church possesses special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg.  The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:

 

  1. The former East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church, completed in 1914, was designed by locally and regionally important architect James Mackson McMichael (1870-1940).

 

  1. The former East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church is the only remaining building associated with one of the first Associated Reformed Presbyterian congregations in Charlotte.

 

  1. The former East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church, an impressive Neoclassical structure at the intersection of Elizabeth Avenue and East Trade Street, occupies an important place within the built environment of Second Ward, and served as a religious and social center for a number of nearby Charlotte communities.

 

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

The Commission contends that the architectural description by Emily D. Ramsey demonstrates that the former East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church meets this criterion.

  1. Ad Volorem Tax Appraisal:  The Ad Valorem tax appraisal for the property’s .528 acres of land is $344,990.  The Ad Volorem tax appraisal for the property’s improvements is $801,490.

 

Date of Preparation of this Report:

 

August 1, 2001

 

Prepared By:

 

Emily D. Ramsey

745 Georgia Trail

Lincolnton, NC 28092

Summary

The former East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church, located on the intersection of Elizabeth Avenue and East Trade Street (East Avenue), is a property that possesses local historic significance as the only remaining structure associated with one of the earliest Associated Reformed Presbyterian Churches in Charlotte and as an important part of the built environment within the Second Ward neighborhood.  Begun officially in 1898 in the basement of a modest house in First Ward, the Tabernacle A. R. P. Baptist Church took its place as only the third Associated Reformed Presbyterian Church in Charlotte during a most advantageous period in the city’s history.  The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw Charlotte emerge as a regionally important textile manufacturing and cotton trading center, and the population boom, coupled with widespread economic prosperity, helped Tabernacle A. R. P. Church quickly gain members and accumulate funds for a formal sanctuary.  By the end of 1899, the church had begun the construction of a brick Victorian church building on a triangular lot at the intersection of Elizabeth Avenue and East Trade Street.  This edifice served the growing congregation until the early 1910s, when a fire destroyed the building.  Under the leadership of the Reverend W. W. Orr, former minister of the Huntersville A. R. P. Church and founder of Huntersville’s first community school, the congregation had continued to attract new members from First Ward, nearby Elizabeth, and other middle-class neighborhoods during their first decade.  Consequently, the Tabernacle A. R. P. Church members were able to replace the burned building with a church that would reflect their increasing importance within the urban fabric of center city Charlotte.  The resulting building, an imposing Neoclassical structure with a central dome, impressive portico supported by Corinthian columns, and large Italian stained glass windows, was completed in 1914 and has remained an integral part of Charlotte’s center city built environment.

The former East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church is also significant as the work of James Mackson McMichael, a nationally recognized architect who was known throughout the North Carolina piedmont for his church designs.  McMichael, a Pennsylvania native who came to Charlotte in 1901, constructed a number of Charlotte’s most extraordinary churches during the first half of the twentieth century, including the former First Baptist Church, the Little Rock A. M. E. Zion Church, Myers Park Presbyterian Church, and St. John’s Baptist Church.  The design for the East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church exhibits many elements which McMichael, who eschewed the typical Gothic style in favor of Neoclassical buildings, incorporated into many of his churches.  The Tabernacle A. R. P. Church  is particularly close to McMichael’s designs for the former First Baptist Church and the former Little Rock A. M. E. Zion Church.  These three church buildings, which once served as religious centers within Charlotte’s center city neighborhoods, are also connected in that they have all been adaptively reused as community centers: the former First Baptist Church now houses Spirit Square, an arts and cultural center; the former Little Rock A. M. E. Zion Church now serves as the home of the African American Cultural Center; and, in 1997, the former East Avenue Tabernacle Church became the Great Aunt Stella Center, home to the Community Charter School and a variety of non-profit, ethnic and cultural organizations.

Historical Background and Context Statement

 

The establishment of the East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church at the edge of the Second Ward neighborhood, just east of Charlotte’s central business district, is intimately tied to Charlotte’s emergence as a  New South cotton trading and textile manufacturing center in the late-nineteenth and early twentieth century.  After the Civil War, Charlotteans wholeheartedly embraced the urban, industrial philosophy of  New South leaders such as D. A. Tompkins and Edward Dilworth Latta.  Between 1880 and 1930, the textile industry effectively transformed Charlotte from a “dirt-street crossroads community with barely seven thousand inhabitants, where farmland was only a fifteen minute walk from the central Independence Square,” into “the center of a major new American industrial region.” and the largest city in North Carolina.1  As the city’s textile mills and related businesses boomed,  economic growth translated into physical growth, and Charlotte’s boundaries expanded to include new neighborhoods, industrial and commercial districts.

One such neighborhood was First Ward, one of four wards that defined the commercial, civic, religious and residential heart of Charlotte during the New South era.  First Ward attracted a wide array of residents, businesses and congregations, from affluent and fashionable families such as Hector T. McKinnon (a cotton merchant) and John Price Carr (who operated Charlotte’s leading delivery and moving entrepreneur), who built magnificent houses along the east side of Tryon Street, along East Trade Street, Brevard Street, and McDowell Street during the early decades of the twentieth century, to working class whites near the Advent Christian Church near N. McDowell and African Americans, who attended the Little Rock A. M. E. Zion Church.  Public, commercial, and civic buildings followed residents to the burgeoning community, and First Ward boasted some of Charlotte’s most impressive churches and commercial structures, including the Carolina Theater, the Southern Bell Building, Belk’s Department Store, William Peep’s Court Arcade, the Woolworth Store,  First United Presbyterian Church and First Baptist Church.2  Although the East Avenue A.R.P. Church was built at the edge of Second Ward, it drew many of its members from First Ward.

The East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church was began in 1898, as a Sunday School mission – members met for Bible Study and devotion in the basement of a house in the First Ward community.3  The mission benefited from it strategic location near First Ward, which allowed the congregation to quickly attract affluent new members.  By 1899, the bible study had officially become an Associated Reformed Presbyterian Church, and by the end of the church’s first year, the congregation had secured enough funds to begin construction of a substantial brick Victorian building on a prominent plot at the convergence of East Trade Street (known as East Avenue within Second Ward) and Elizabeth Avenue, an easy walk for members from First Ward and the emerging Elizabeth neighborhood.  The turn of the century not only brought the East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church their first building, it also saw the beginning of Dr. W. W. Orr’s influential tenure as minister of the fledgling church.4  Dr. Orr was an established figure within the Mecklenburg County Associated Reformed Presbyterian community by the beginning of his time at East Avenue, and he was well-known throughout the county for his religious and educational work in Huntersville.  In addition to serving as minister to the Huntersville A. R. P. Church (established in 1875 as the third A. R. P. congregation in the county), Orr established the first school in the small town, a parochial school operated by the church, which attracted students from across the county.5

The East Avenue A. R. P. Church, the fourth Associated Reformed Presbyterian Church in the county and only the second within Charlotte’s city limits, thrived under Orr’s leadership during the prosperous early years of the twentieth century.  However, the church suffered a major setback in the early 1910s, when their sanctuary caught fire and burned to the ground.  Orr and his congregation made plans to rebuild immediately, and to rebuild ambitiously, with a building that would reflect the church’s increasing importance in center city Charlotte.  East Avenue Tabernacle members turned to architect J. M. McMichael, who had recently designed Neoclassical church buildings for First Ward’s First Baptist Church (1908) and Little Rock A. M. E. Zion Church (1911).6  McMichael’s design for the East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church, with its dramatic “Celtic cross” sanctuary topped with an octagonal dome and fronted by an imposing pedimented portico, was completed in 1914.  The church building, rising out of the small rectangular lot facing East Trade Street and Elizabeth Avenue, immediately became a centerpiece of the community.  The members of the East Avenue Tabernacle congregation were so impressed with McMichael’s work, they commissioned him in 1925 to design a rear addition to the church, which housed the church’s educational center, kitchen, and offices.

Although the East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church was adequately supported through donations of it many affluent members, the financial burden of these substantial building projects weighed heavily on the congregation after the stock market crash of 1929.  Fortunately, the neighborhood church remained united, in large part because of the continuous leadership of the Orr family.  Although W. W. Orr had died in 1928 after twenty-eight years as minister of East Avenue Tabernacle, his son, the Reverend Ernest Neal Orr, himself a long-time member of the congregation, immediately assumed the responsibility of his father’s position.7  Ernest Orr served as minister until 1950, and was succeeded by Henry E. Pressley, who stayed at East Avenue Tabernacle until 1980.

Despite the stability and long term commitment of the church’s ministers, East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church began losing members in the post-World War II period, when residents of First Ward and other nearby residential neighborhoods followed the rest of Charlotte (and the rest of the country) to the suburbs.  As government buildings, including a new courthouse and jail, replaced stately homes along East Trade Street, parking spaces disappeared, crime increased, and members stopped coming to East Avenue Tabernacle– by 1950, the congregation had dropped from a pre-war high of 1,200 members to 900 members, and by the 1980s, the number of active members had dropped to just under 400.8  Once considered a neighborhood church, by the early 1990s, East Avenue Tabernacle  A. R. P. Church (under the Reverend John Hill) faced a dilemma – follow the congregation to the suburbs or stay downtown and risk extinction.  In 1992, the church’s remaining members voted to abandon Second Ward and build a new sanctuary in the suburbs.9  This new sanctuary never materialized, and the East Avenue Tabernacle eventually merged with Craig Avenue A. R. P. Church to form Craig Tabernacle A. R. P. Church

The church and educational building at 927 East Trade Street, a neighborhood landmark and one of J. M. McMichael’s signature designs, was purchased in July of 1997 by local businessman and philanthropist Bruce Parker and converted into a multi-use community center.  Parker renamed the building the “Great Aunt Stella Center,” as a tribute to his Great Aunt Stella Sparrow, a mountain missionary.  Thus, the former East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church joined the former First Baptist Church (now Spirit Square), the former Little Rock A. M. E. Zion Church (now the African American Cultural Center) and the former First A. R. P. Church as the fourth center city church designed by McMichael to be adapted for use as a cultural center.  The Great Aunt Stella Center is currently home to a wide variety of organizations, including the Community Charter School, the Sierra Club, the Afro-American Children’s Theater, the Catawba River Foundation, Right Moves for Youth, United Family Services, and the Nigerian Community of Charlotte.  The Uptown Christ Covenant Church meets in the sanctuary for Sunday services.  Although the East Avenue Tabernacle Presbyterian Congregation no longer resides in the center city, their Neoclassical church building continues to operate as a religious, educational, and social center for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg community.

 

Architectural Description and Context Statement

Architecturally, the former East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church is significant as one of several center city churches designed by nationally recognized architect James Mackson McMichael.  A native of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, McMichael first came to Charlotte in 1901, when the city was on the verge of a building boom that would last until the beginning of the Great Depression.  Sensing that opportunities were opening up dramatically for architects in Charlotte, McMichael set up his practice in the city.  During the next four decades (until his death in 1944), McMichael designed over two hundred buildings in Mecklenburg County, including fifty-two churches.  At a time when the majority of architects were designing conservative Gothic-inspired church buildings with pointed-arch windows and tall steeples, McMichael’s preference for the clean lines of the Neoclassical style proved to be a revolutionary force.  One of his first commissions in Charlotte (and perhaps his most famous design), the former First Baptist Church on North Tryon Street, exhibited a “boldness, innovation and . . . flamboyance” as yet unseen in Charlotte’s religious community.10 With this building, McMichael set the tone for most of his center city churches – large Neoclassical brick structures with a central dome and imposing columned frontal entrance.  First Baptist was completed in 1908; three years later, in 1911, McMichael completed the Little Rock A. M. E. Zion Church nearby.  By the early 1910s, when the first East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church  burned, McMichael had ample experience with religious buildings in center city Charlotte, and he was an obvious choice for a congregation looking, as East Avenue Tabernacle was, for a building that would make a bold statement within center city Charlotte.

The East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church is a two story brick Neoclassical structure on a Celtic Cross plan, topped with an octagonal-based dome and situated on the triangular lot at the eastern face of the intersection of East Trade Street and Elizabeth Avenue. A large, four-story brick addition, designed by McMichael and completed in 1925, stretches east from the rear of the main building.  The façade of the main building, facing East Trade Street, features an imposing pedimented portico decorated with dental molding and visually supported by Corinthian columns and pilasters.  The sanctuary appears almost circular from inside the building, and the entire interior is lighted by intricate stained glass windows.  Church legend holds that the stained glass for the windows was custom made for the church in Italy, and was about to be shipped when World War I broke out.  The stained glass stayed in Italy, unharmed, until the war was over, and then was shipped safely across the Atlantic. The most impressive of these windows depict simple farming scenes on the north and south sides of the sanctuary – farmers scattering seed and reaping the fruits of their labor.  Abstract designs decorate the glass covering the opening at the base of the central dome. The four-story addition is, in contrast, a plain rectangular structure with regularly punctuated six-over-six windows and a simple stringcourse along the top perimeter of the structure.  The exterior of both the sanctuary and the educational building remain much as they were in 1914, with original massing, brickwork, windows, doors, and detailing.  The only recent alteration to the exterior is an elaborately carved wooden handicap ramp on the south side of the sanctuary, completed in 2000 by the Executive Woodmen.

As impressive as the exterior of the building is, the interior is an even more spectacular space.  From the double-doored central entrance, one enters a small nave, with staircases on each side leading up to the sanctuary’s balcony level.  A large stained glass window greets visitors, flanked by doors leading to the main interior space.  A large pipe organ dominates the stage space, with exposed golden pipes forming an arched focal point within the space.  Simple, dark wooden bench pews and individual seating (most likely added during the adaptive reuse in the late 1990s) fill the sanctuary floor, a hardwood floor covered in large part by dark wine carpeting.  Doors on each side of the stage area (on both the lower and upper levels) lead to staircases and give access to the large educational building.

Although the educational building is now occupied by a large variety of charitable organizations, foundations, and operations, the interior has remained largely unchanged.  Each floor is accessed by end staircases connected by a wide central hall.  Large rooms, once school  rooms, open off of each side of the central hall, and feature wide window expanses, high ceilings, and polished light-colored pine flooring.

The East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church, one of J. M. McMichael’s signature Neoclassical church designs, formed an integral part of the early twentieth century built environment of the Second Ward neighborhood, and, as the Great Aunt Stella Center, remains an important part of Charlotte’s center city community.

1 Thomas W. Hanchett, “Overview: Charlotte and Its Neighborhoods: The Growth of a New South City, 1850-1930” (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission,), 1.

2 Ibid, Significant Properties: Center City: First Ward.

3 “Members Ponder ‘Where’ of Church’s Future,” The Charlotte Observer,  July 14, 1986, 14-E.

4 Documents (pictures, tablets) located in the former East Avenue Tabernacle A. R. P. Church building, now the Great Aunt Stella Center

5 LeGette Blythe and Charles R. Brockmann, Hornet’s Nest: The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County (Charlotte, 1961), 421-422.

6 Hanchett, “Charlotte and Its Neighborhoods.”

7 “Congregation Pays Tribute to Orr Couple,” The Charlotte Observer, January 23, 1950.

8 Charlotte Observer, July 14, 1986, 14-E.

9 “What next for a Historic House of Worship?”  The Charlotte Observer, July 25, 1992, 9-C.

10 Dr. Dan L. Morrill and Dr. William Huffman, “Survey and Research Report on the First Associated Reformed Presbyterian Church” (Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, 1987), 4