1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the C. C. Coddington House is located at 1122 E. Morehead Street in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

The Morehead Ltd.
1122 E. Morehead St.
Charlotte, N.C., 28204

Telephone: 704/376-3357

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

4. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 4826, Page 446. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 123-102-08.

5. A map depicting the location of the property:

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

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

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

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the C. C. Coddington House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the C. C. Coddington House, completed in 1917-18, was designed by William H. Peeps (1868-1950), an architect of regional significance; 2) C. C. Coddington (1878-1928). the original owner, was a leading businessman in Charlotte, both as a distributor for Buick automobiles and owner of Radio Station WBT; and 3) the C. C. Coddington House is one of the few early twentieth-century homes to survive on E. Morehead St., one of the grand boulevards of Dilworth.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association: The Commission contends that the attached architectural description by Lisa A. Stamper demonstrates that the property known as the C. C. Coddington House meets this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” The current appraised value of the .889 acres of land is $154,840. The current appraised value of the improvements is $326,510. The total appraised value of the property is $481,350. The property is zoned O6.

Date of Preparation of this Report: March 6, 1985

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

Telephone: 704/376-9115

The Coddington House, one of the few stately homes remaining on the Dilworth section of Morehead Street, has more the appearance of a New England summer home than that of a formal residence one would expect to find on a major boulevard of a fashionable neighborhood. Nonetheless, the house, built by Charles Campbell and Marjorie Lyon Coddington in 1917 from the plans of Charlotte architect William Peeps, was well suited for a style of life that centered around frequent entertaining of guests.

Charles Campbell Coddington (1878-1928) was the epitome of an energetic, enterprising young man out to make his fortune in turn-of-the-century America. He had worked as a reporter for the New York Evening Journal in his early twenties, but the New Jersey native restlessly sought a commercial venture suitable for his energy and talents, and settled on the fledgling automobile industry as having the most potential. In 1907, the three-year-old Buick Motor Company granted him exclusive rights to be its distributor for the Carolinas, and the confident young man set out for Charlotte. While driving the first Buick south of the Mason- Dixon line, Coddington stopped in Greensboro at a drug store, where by chance he saw a young woman who had recently been voted the most beautiful in North Carolina. He was so taken with her that he decided on the spot to stay in Greensboro until he could meet this charming beauty, and plans to open his business were laid aside. It took a month for him to manage an introduction, and his persistent courtship resulted in marriage a year later to Marjorie Lyon. ¹

Although she was a native of Thomasville, N.C., Marjorie Lyon Coddington (1884-1925) had grown up in Greensboro in the home of her parents, Edward West and Minnie Rinehurt Lyon. Six months after her marriage to C.C. Coddington in 1908, the couple moved to Charlotte in January, 1909 ² and first took up residence on East Boulevard in Dilworth. By 1911, they had moved to a house at 603 South Tryon Street, just beyond Stonewall, and C.C. had set up a Buick distributorship, garage and automobile supply company at 209 S. Church Street. About 1913, they moved again, this time back out of town to the first block of West Morehead Street, and started their family. ³

C. C. Coddington’s business instincts had served him brilliantly; not only had he chosen to enter a business that experienced explosive growth in the teens and twenties, he did so in a city whose growth matched that of the automobile industry. As a banking and distribution center which served the Piedmont Carolinas, Charlotte experienced a sustained boom from the 1880s to the end of the 1920s in playing a key role in the New South industrialization centering around the proliferation of cotton mills in the region. The combination of his business skills and being in the right place at the right time proved to be fruitful indeed. Sometime about early 1917, the Coddingtons decided to build a new home on the extension of East Morehead Street in Dilworth, the city’s first streetcar suburb, at the corner of what was first known as Coddington Avenue (now Berkeley Avenue). To design the new suburban residence, they hired one of Charlotte’s most skilled architects, William Peeps. The basic H-pattern and general appearance were patterned after an old family home of Marjorie Coddington’s forebearers in Carlile, Pa., the Eliot Farm house. ⁴

William Peeps (1868-1950) was a native of London, England, who came to Charlotte in 1905 to begin a career in the Queen City which spanned forty-five years. During that time a number of the most impressive structures of the city were produced in his office. Among his admirable commercial designs were the Latta Arcade (1914, for Edward Dilworth Latta, the developer of Dilworth), the Court Arcade (1927-8), Ivey’s Department Store (1920s), and Ratcliffe Flowers (1929). For many of the leading citizens of Charlotte and surrounding communities he created Colonial Revival, English Tudor and other styles which provided the area with a rich architectural heritage. The latter include the Lethco house on Roswell, the Wilson house at Providence and Queens Roads, and the residences of John Bass Brown (East Boulevard), William Porcher (Queens Road West), J.B. Ivey, Osmond Barringer (Sherwood) and Lee A. Folger (Coddington’s business manager and next door neighbor on Morehead). ⁵

The suburb they chose for their new residence, Dilworth, was being developed by the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company (known as the 4C’s), which was formed by Edward Dilworth Latta in 1890. It was made possible by its lifeline to the center city, a new electric streetcar system that ran from the Square to Latta Park at the heart of the city’s first suburb. In its heyday, the park which surrounded a large lake, was the site of sporting events and traveling shows in its pavillion, and it also served as an outdoor social center. From the beginning, Dilworth had a wide range of houses, from the large homes of the well-to-do on the main boulevards (East and South Boulevards, and Morehead Street), to the modest homes on the side streets, and even some mill houses on the south side which belonged to the Atherton Cotton Mill off South Boulevard. Latta himself built his own mansion on East Boulevard where the Greek Orthodox Church now stands. ⁶

When the house was finished in late 1917 or early 1918, the Coddingtons moved in and began to turn it into one of the city’s best known centers of hospitality. ⁷ As the years progressed, C.C. Coddington’s business prospered to the point where he became one of the area’s wealthiest men. During World War I, he bought his own train of about 60 cars to ensure delivery of autos from Flint, Michigan, and was, as a consequence, the only distributor with a large stock of cars on hand to meet the demand at war’s end. ⁸ In 1925, C. C. Coddington experienced both tragedy and triumph. In February, Marjorie Coddington died suddenly of heart failure at the age of forty, leaving three young sons, C. C. Jr., 11, Dabney Minor, 9, and William, 7. The Observer described her as “a leader in social and civic activities, having had a reputation as being an exceptionally fine hostess.” ⁹

That same year he completed the Coddington Building on West Trade Street (now the site of the newly renovated State Office Building), and bought radio station WBT (the first to go on the air in the Carolinas, 1920). The station was moved from the Independence Building to Coddington’s, the power boosted to 500 watts from 100 and an advertising slogan was invented for the call letters: “Watch Buick Travel.” In addition to being one of the organizers of the Charlotte Motor Speedway, he also raised thoroughbred horses on his 5000-acre estate in Jacksonville, N.C. (where he hosted meetings of his Carolinas dealers), was a state boxing commissioner, and in 1928 was elected president of the National Association of Automobile Dealers. When C. C. Coddington died unexpectedly on his yacht in Pamlico Sound, the city and state lost one of its most colorful citizens. ¹⁰

Following the death of Marjorie Coddington in 1925, C. C. swapped the Morehead Street house for the Duke mansion in Myers Park the following year, and the Dukes sold it in turn to Nash dealer Armistead Burwell. ¹¹ After Burwell lost the house during the Depression, it had a series of owners who continued to use it as a well-designed place for entertaining. (Roy and Ethel Goode, 1939-1944; Jerry and Billie Huber, 1944-48; Lee and Loraine Kinney, 1948-76; ¹² (the Kinney’s annual April lawn party drew nearly 300 guests in its later years.) ¹³ The tradition of hospitality remains today, with the present owners, headed by Nancy Bergmann, who have turned it into a comfortable place which once again accommodates guests, but this time as a country inn, The Morehead.

NOTES

¹ Charlotte Observer, Dec. 4, 1928, p. 7.

² Ibid., Feb. 17, 1925, p. 5.

³ Charlotte City Directories, 1909-1913.

⁴ Charlotte Symphony Women’s Association Designer House brochure, 1976, p. 6.

⁵ Charlotte Observer, Sept. 11, 1950, p. 1B; Georae W. Hamilton, ed, William H. Peeps, AIA (Charlotte: News Publishing House, 1928).

⁶ “The New South Neighborhoods: Dilworth,” Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1981.

⁷ Inscriptions on walls in Coddington house; see note 2; Deed Book 391, p. 486, 1 Sept. 1917.

⁸ See note 1.

⁹ See note 2.

¹⁰ See note 1; LeGette Blythe and Charles Brockmann, Hornet’s Nest (Charlotte: Public Library, 1961), p. 386; information on file at Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission.

¹¹ Deed Book 628, p. 229, 13 July 1926.

¹² Deed Book 849, p. 404, 31 March 1934; Ibid., 995, p. 128; Ibid., 1129, p. 138, 21 July 1944; ibid., 1333, p. 1, 24 Aug. 1948; ibid., 3849, p. 687, 3 June 1976.

¹³ See note 4.

The extremely successful Charlotte entrepreneur Charles Campbell Coddington hired local architect William Peeps to design a home patterned after Mrs. Coddington’s family residence in Western Pennsylvania. The resulting two story clapboard home with green tiled roof has graced the northwest corner of East Morehead Street and Berkeley Avenue since 1917. Built with colonial revival detailing and a symmetrical H-shaped plan, the Coddington House still stands as an excellent example of early twentieth-century residential architecture. The house and its outbuildings have recently been renovated and are being used as a bed and breakfast establishment named “The Morehead Country Inn”.

The original front facade faced East Morehead Street and today looks very much as it probably did in the early twentieth-century. The design’s strongest feature is its symmetry, emphasized by the two gabled wings flanking a spacious terrace. The roof of each wing is contained within the second story, and a large chimney is centered within the end of each wing. Located between the first and second stories, and connecting the wings, is a short sloping roof which shelters the entrance door and the two large flanking windows, and with a slight extention, designates the doorway. The windows of this facade, as well as the original ones vary in size, but are characterized by many small rectangular panes, wooden frames, and delicate decorative shutters.

In 1980, a two story addition was built onto the back of the original house to create more office space for an insurance company. This addition extends the length of the house, and fills in the rear of the H-shape. The addition is also of the Colonial Revival style, and easily blends in with the original design without directly copying it. According to a plan drawing filed in “William Peeps Papers” in the Special Collections of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte’s library, the addition replaced a first story terrace similar to the one in front of the house, a second story balcony, and a two story porch on the western corner of the home.

Although symmetry is an overall theme in Peep’s design, the side facades are not identical. Both have gable within gable ends, and two first story windows in their front wings; however, the rest of the openings and architectural elements are varied to accomodate interior planning. The southeast facade, that faces Berkeley Avenue, has a side door flanked by two windows and covered by a sloping overhang supported by two simple, delicate round columns in the middle of its main section. Directly above this portico is a triple window. A small window is located higher and to the front of it. On the back wing of this facade, the first story contains two large casement windows. Above these windows is one typical window. All of these openings appear to be original. The last bay on this side is part of the addition. It contains a first story door and one second story window.

The main section of the northwest facade has a first story double window and two typical second story windows. The back wing has a simple, thin chimney near the main section plus a first and second story window near the rear. The last bay, which contains only one second story window, is part of the addition.

The original interior plan and architectural features reflect the exterior colonial revival design. However, while the first floor plan follows the concept of symmetry closely, the second floor deviates slightly from true symmetry. Many early architectural elements and finishes are still in good condition. Most of the original architectural elements appear to be intact, including the staircase and its ornamentation, flooring, woodwork, paneled doors, mantels, paneling, wainscoting, moldings, and stained glass windows now in bathrooms. Early chandeliers with very ornate collars hang in the living and dining rooms. The 1980 addition’s interior does not detract from the 1917 design. It presently houses various suites, a first floor conference room, and a second floor sitting room.

The living room is located on the first floor in the center of the house, and is presently similar to the original room, with no apparent structural alterations over the years. It has direct access to all the original first floor living spaces, both interior and exterior, except the pantry. The southeast side entrance was probably the main entrance, and still is used as such. The entrance hall gives an impressive view of the large living room as one enters the home. The grand U-shaped stair is located in this area, so that it may present an elegant view to those in the living room. As one enters the house, a half-bath was once located underneath the stairs to the left, and a closet to the right. Today, the half-bath is located to the right, with the left door closed and that area used as a private bath.

The library, which is located on the first floor of the east wing, also has been altered only slightly if at all. It is still being used as a library. The north wing contained the dining room, and still does, again without major alterations. According to Peeps’ plan, the chimney on this side of the house was fake, built only to complete symmetry in the exterior design. Also on the first floor the sun parlor, located in the south wing, is now being used as a bedroom suite. Only a few minor alterations have been made in this room.

The original kitchen was located in the west wing of the first floor. This area now contains a private bath and a laundry room. The servants stair, which is still in use, was located next to the kitchen. The original pantry, located between the dining room and the kitchen, has been converted into a small, modern kitchen. However, all openings seem to be original, and the original shelves seem to be intact.

The second floor, originally consisted of bedrooms, baths, and a single hallway. Only a few minor alterations allowing access to the back addition, placing a bath in a cedar closet in the south wing, and changing a few through closets and bath areas were required. At the end and to the right of the hallway an original cedar closet with sliding shelves is an interesting architectural detail still being used today.

Today, two outbuildings exist on the Morehead Country Inn property. A gazebo house was built near the back addition, away from Berkeley Avenue, in 1980. It is now being used for storage. Next to the gazebo house is a garage, built in 1920. It was converted and expanded into a private residence in 1976. Today, the upstairs is used as a bedroom suite for rent and the first floor is used as residential quarters by the proprietor of the inn, Nancy Bergmann.

It is difficult to discern how much of the surrounding site has been changed since 1917. Many trees and shrubs, however, seem to be quite mature and most probably existed early in the twentieth century. The early driveway was probably entered from Berkeley Avenue, then called Coddington Avenue. This drive has been expanded to create several small parking areas scattered throughout the back and Berkeley Avenue side of the home. The majority of the inn’s parking spaces, however, are located across Berkeley Avenue.

The Coddington House sits in the historic Dilworth area. Today, East Morehead’s early architecture is threatened by modern commercial buildings with little if any architectural or aesthetic value. Along with many other fine residences, the home built next to the Coddington House, which was built by one of Mr. Coddington’s friends and also designed by William H. Peeps, has already been destroyed. The Coddington House is an example of an older building being used successfully in our modern society without losing its historic ambience.

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Company Plant is located at 1401-09 West Morehead Street, Charlotte, North Carolina.

2. Name, address and telephone number of the present owner of the property:
The owner of the property is:
Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Company
P. O. Box 10186
Charlotte, N.C., 28201

Telephone: 704/551-4400

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 759, Page 307. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is: 067-012-04.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Deborah Swanson and Dan L. Morrill, Ph.D.

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

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria for designation as 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 Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Company Plant does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:

• 1) the Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Company Plant, erected in 1930, is an especially bold and striking example of commercial building Art Deco style architecture in pre-World War II Charlotte;
• 2) the Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Company Plant was designed by M. R. “Steve” Marsh (1901-1977), an architect of local and regional significance, and is an important example of Marsh’s work;
• 3) the Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Company Plant contains distinctive decorative detail fashioned by Ornamental Stone Company of Charlotte; and
• 4) J. Luther Snyder, the founder of the Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Company, was a leader in the civic and business life of Charlotte during the first half of the twentieth century.b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description included in this report demonstrates that the original portions of the property known as the Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Company Plant meet this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” The current appraised value of the improvement is $303,210. The current appraised value of the 1.807 acres of land is $129,890. The total appraised value of the property is $433,100. The property is zoned I2.

Date of Preparation of this report: February 2, 1987

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

Telephone: 704/376-9115

Deborah Swanson and Dr. Dan L. Morrill
February 2, 1987

In April, 1902, J. Luther Snyder, a Virginia native, moved from Atlanta, where he had worked for the Coca-Cola Company for two years, and established the first Coca-Cola bottling plant in the two Carolinas, at 7 South Church Street. ¹ “When I came to Charlotte, the city had 17,000 people, eighteen saloons, two breweries . . . and I had a terrible time selling soft drinks with that kind of competition,” Snyder remembered years later. ² But Snyder, an adroit businessman, must have known that several factors were working in his favor. The temperance movement was sweeping the South, and it would soon sound the death knell for the breweries and the saloons. Charlotte was becoming a major textile manufacturing center; and the industrial workers, forced to labor for long hours in the stifling atmosphere of the mills, would eagerly buy Snyder’s “soft” drink, especially when they could no longer quench their thirst with “hard” liquor. And there was always the blistering North Carolina summer sun, which could drive even the most steadfast to seek liquid refreshments. ³

At first, the bottling and distribution systems for Coca-Cola in Charlotte were primitive by today’s standards. The capping and bottling equipment were foot-powered, and a seasoned operator could fill and cap just four bottles a minute or ten cases per hour. Horse-drawn wagons, customarily carrying ten cases, meandered through the streets of Charlotte, hauling Coca-Cola to industrial establishments, neighborhood grocery stores, and other outlets. Long distance deliveries were shipped in metal packing crates by railroad. Indeed, it was probably the excellent railroad network radiating from Charlotte that persuaded Snyder to locate his fledgling bottling operation here. ⁴

Success dictated that Snyder find bigger facilities for his bottling plant. In 1907 it moved to 14-18 South Poplar St.; in 1913 to 522-24 West Fifth St.; and in 1918 to 213 N. Graham St. ⁵ But it was in 1930 that Snyder made his most substantial commitment to modernizing his operations. “The Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Company has purchased a site on West Morehead Street and will begin immediately the construction of a new plant to cost approximately $100,000,” the Southern Public Utilities Magazine proclaimed in January, 1930. ⁶ Designed by Marion Rossiter “Steve” Marsh, the building was completed in November, 1930, and continued to serve as headquarters for Coca-Cola Bottling operations in Charlotte until 1974. ⁷ The wonderfully playful ornamental detail work on the exterior of the building, which includes Coca-Cola bottles, was done by Ornamental Stone Company of Charlotte, owned by William F. McCandless. ⁸ The building, although abandoned, is still owned by the Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Company, but it is for sale.

M. R. Marsh (1901-1977), a native of Jacksonville, Fla., came to Charlotte in 1916 as chief draftsman for Charlotte architect J. M. McMichael, later worked as a designer for the chemical engineering firm headed by Peter Gilchrist, and in 1922 opened his own practice in Charlotte. Although his training was limited to correspondence courses from Columbia University and to on-the-job experience with his brother’s architectural firm, Marsh and Sexleby (sp?) in Jacksonville, Marsh oversaw the design of many edifices in Charlotte and its environs, including the Charlotte Armory (destroyed), Fairview Homes (Charlotte’s first public housing project), the Builders Building, the Oasis Temple, the Plaza Theater, Liggett Drug Company, the Frank Sherrill House in Dilworth, and the F. Siefart residence in Eastover. ⁹

J. Luther Snyder had “a well-deserved reputation as a civic leader and welfare worker,” wrote historian Hugh Lefler. ¹⁰ He was president of Merchants and Farmers National Bank from 1931 until 1933, headed the Chamber of Commerce during the Depression years, and was a member of the airport board. On balance, J. Luther Snyder, the founder of the Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Company, was a credit to his family, his city, and his region. ¹¹ And the Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Company Building, at 1401 W. Morehead St., is the most dramatic physical reminder of J. Luther Snyder’s business career.

Notes

¹ Special staff of Writers, North Carolina – Rebuilding An Ancient Commonwealth, 1584-1925 (The American Historical Society, Inc., Chicago and New York, 1929), Vol. III., p. 75. Charlotte Observer, April 11, 1977, Advertising Supplement, p. 3. Hereafter cited as Supplement. Coca-Cola was invented in 1886 by John Pemberton, an Atlanta druggist; and Asa Candler became president of the Coca-Cola Company. Initially, Coca-Cola was available only in drugstores; but in the late 1800’s two lawyers in Chattanooga, Tenn., Benjamin F. Thomas and Joseph Whitehead, purchased the first franchise to bottle Coca-Cola and distribute it. Snyder spent one year with the Chattanooga Bottling Company before going to Atlanta.

² Hugh T. Lefler, History of North Carolina, Family and Personal History (Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc., New York, 1956), Vol. IV., p. 793. Hereafter cited as Lefler.

³ For a summary of the development of the textile industry in Charlotte, see Dan L. Morrill, “A Survey of Cotton Mills in Charlotte, North Carolina” (Charlotte: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1981). Also see Thomas W. Hanchett, “Charlotte And Its Neighborhoods: The Growth of a New South City” (Charlotte: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission). Hereafter cited as Hanchett.

⁴ Supplement, p. 3 and p. 6. For a discussion of the development of railroads in Charlotte, see Hanchett.

⁵ Charlotte, N.C., City Directory, 1907, p. 251; 1913, p. 126. Interview with George C. Snyder, Sr., by Deborah Swanson (October 3, 1986). Hereafter cited as Interview.

⁶ Southern Public Utilities Magazine (January, 1930), p. 34. For land acquisitions on West Morehead St. by the Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Company, see Mecklenburg County Deed Book 701, p. 246; Book 759, p. 307.

⁷ Southern Public Utilities Magazine (January, 1930), p. 34. Marsh also designed the Coca-Cola Bottling Company plant in Greenville, SC (Ibid., August, 1931, p. 15). Issues of this magazine are located in the archives of Duke Power Company in Charlotte, N.C. Mecklenburg County Building Standards Department, Building Permit # 10903, March 13, 1930. Supplement, p. 6. Interview.

⁸ Interview. Charlotte, N.C., City Directory, 1929, p. 641. ⁹ Charlotte Observer, September 5, 1977. Lefler, Vol. III., p. 86. Hanchett. Thomas W. Hanchett, “The Work of M. R. Marsh and Successor Architects” (an unpublished manuscript in the offices of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, November, 1983). In 1945 Marsh entered into partnership with Teebe Hawkins. Marsh retired in 1964. The firm remains in business as Hawkins – Kibler Associates and retains many of Marsh’s old job records.

¹⁰ Lefler, Vol. IV., p. 793.

¹¹ Ibid. The J. Luther Snyder House, located at 1901 Queens Rd., is also a significant local landmark. It was designed by Martin Boyer, a prominent Charlotte architect.

By Nora Mae Black

The Coca-Cola Building, located on the southwest corner of the intersection of West Morehead Street and South Summit Avenue, was probably the fourth building to be constructed on one of the tracts of land carved from the Wadsworth Farm. When construction was completed in 1930, the building joined the Carolina Transfer and Storage Building and the Crane Corporation Building as the basis for a new light industrial and commercial district that was forming on the outskirts of Charlotte. Within the year, the Grinnell Corporation completed their building west of the Coca-Cola Building. To the north of West Morehead Street, worker housing was built during this period along Summit Avenue and Walnut Avenue.

The architect who designed the building was M. R. (Steve) Marsh. He and J. Luther Snyder worked with the Coca-Cola Company in Atlanta to make the building an advertisement for Coca-Cola as well as a modern bottling plant. Construction on the building began in 1929, at the start of the Great Depression. George Snyder, Sr., son of J. Luther Snyder, was in charge of construction and hired many unemployed people locally, thus avoiding the use of a construction company. The building is of solid masonry construction with steel sash windows, steel steps and a concrete slab roof. Even the counter in the lobby was made of steel. When it opened in 1930, there was only one wooden stair railing making it one of the first fireproof Coca-Cola buildings.

The original building, 185 feet by 110 feet, consisted of three floors totaling approximately 45,000 square feet. The walls ranged in thickness from thirteen inches to seventeen inches. The basement was used as a storage area for large items like drums of syrup. It had a separate boiler room for the coal-fired furnace. The first, or street-level, floor consisted of office space, the bottling area, the garage and the shipping and loading areas. The second floor provided space for advertising and salesmen, a machinery room, and storage for the bottle crowns or caps. A room on the first floor, built as a safe, was connected to the second floor by a chute through which the salesmen could drop the money they collected from their customers.

Carved and molded artificial stone added contrast and shadow detail to the two story facade of russet face brick. Face brick on both the Morehead Street (front) and Summit Avenue (side) facades provided a look of elegance in the otherwise utilitarian neighborhood. William Frederick McCandless molded sand and cement together to make the artificial stone at his shop on South Boulevard. The stone was used on both the front and side facades in many ways. It formed the coping at the roofline and the lintels and ledges for the windows. Vertical bands of artificial stone separate the bays facing Morehead Street. Geometric patterns decorate the lintels while the vertical bands are carved in abstractions of leaves and plant forms. The parapet has the air of an overscaled battlement with its merlons of carved stone and crenels.

One of the most distinctive features of the building was the use of a Coca-Cola bottle on the corners of the building. Molded by McCandless, the large symbols project from the wall to create the image of one-half of a Coke bottle accurately detailed with the standard script logo, the gracefully curved bottle, and the crown. It was a distinctive touch added to many Coca-Cola buildings. In addition to the Coke bottle there is a Coca-Cola logo made of terra-cotta over the main entry.

The one-story center entrance on West Morehead Street is recessed six feet from the facade. One step up from the sidewalk, it is paved with mosaic tiles. The entrance still has the original brass-framed glass doors and windows. Copper light fixtures with pebble glass flank the recessed entry. When standing at the front door now, one can only a small vestibule, however, the original open floor plan allowed the general manager to see the entire first floor from his office as there were no ceiling-high partitions except for those of the safe/room.

On both the first and second story portion of the facade, there are 8/8 double-hung windows which could be opened for ventilation. Additionally, on the first floor, there are three large fixed glass windows. These three windows gave visual access to the bottling works which were located at the very front of the building. To keep the windows from steaming up from the hot moist air of the bottle washing press, vents washed the windows with air. The idea was much the same as that of a defroster in an automobile. Thus, people were able to pass by on West Morehead Street, recognize the Coke bottle symbols on the building, and catch a glimpse of the beverage being bottled.

Another interesting feature of the windows involves the sills. The Snyders strongly believed in recycling the empty glass bottles and did not like to ’empties’ sitting around the office or bottling area. The window sills are sloped so that empty bottles would slide off them. This encouraged the employ to return empty bottles to the bottle washing area.

Originally, the trucks were loaded for delivery through doors on the Summit Avenue side of the building. Over the years, the two doors and six windows were closed with brick for security and climate control reasons. The stone lintels and decoration still outline their former locations.

Utility brick, laid in common bond, was used for the rear wall. Combination windows, of awning and fixed glass, provided light and ventilation through the rear wall. A loading dock at the rear of the building was used for rail transportation. Since the railroad cars were not on the same level as the first floor, an elevator was installed to make the short trip of three or four feet. A coal chute on the rear southeast corner of the building has what appears to be the original black metal grate dated 1926. The rear of the building is surrounded by a high chain link fence.

The original interior was of open design with painted plaster walls and floors of either tile or concrete depending upon the location. The building has had partitions with wooden framing added to make the large open spaces into small offices. The ceilings have been dropped to allow the addition of ductwork for heating and air conditioning system. Tile floors have, in some areas, been replaced with carpet. As the company grew, additions were made to the west side and to the rear of the original structure. A few of the building’s original functions are still apparent. The cull room, where broken bottles were cleaned for recycling, remains complete with its floor drain. The walls of the paint room, where cases were repainted, still bear the paint of 44 years of use.

The Coca-Cola Building sits at West Morehead Street and South Summit Avenue in a streetscape, with several buildings of its era. The size and strength of its construction add stability and presence along a heavily traveled corridor. The unique facade lends visual interest to a somewhat undistinguished street.

This report was written on September 12, 2005.

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the City House is located at 500 East Kingston Avenue in Charlotte, NC.  The UTM coordinates for the property are: 17 513351E 3896327N (WGS84/NAD83); USGS Charlotte East Quad.
2. Name, address, and telephone number of the present owner and occupant of the property: The present owner of the property is: Ivan T. and Cherie Beach 500 E. Kingston Ave. Charlotte, N.C. 28203

Telephone: (704) 376-8364

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 current deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 12200, page 791. The original deed to this property on from the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 81, page 110. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 080-104-08.
6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a historic sketch prepared by Ryan L. Sumner
7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a description prepared by Ryan L. Sumner
8. . Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S. 160A-399.4:
9. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the City House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:

1) The City House was constructed in 1909, and is one of the oldest suburban residence in Charlotte which was initially designed as a duplex and is the oldest recognizable suburban example of this architectural form.

2) The City House represents a new building type that was associated in the early twentieth century with the growing urban character of the city.

3) The City House occupies a prominent position in the landscape of Dilworth, Charlotte’s first streetcar suburb.

1. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description included in this report demonstrates that the property known as the City House meets this criterion.
2. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” The current appraised value of the improvement is $450,300. The current appraised value of the of the land is $275,000. The total appraised value of the property is $725,300. The property is zoned R100.

Date of Preparation of this Report: September 12, 2005.

Prepared by: Ryan L. Sumner

Historic Narrative

The City House, located at 500 East Kingston Avenue, is the oldest remaining residential structure that originally served as a duplex in Dilworth, Charlotte’s first suburban development.   The lot on which the former duplex sits was part of the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company’s initial phase of the new streetcar suburb and was first purchased in 1891¹.  The first owner of the lot, Colonel (ret) John E. Brown, and several subsequent owners left the lot undeveloped for a number of years, possible awaiting the annexation of Dilworth by the City of Charlotte, which took place in 1907².  Finally, in 1908, Mr. C. B. Bryant purchased the lot, and built what is now called the City House on it in 1909.  Although there are no extant building permits for Dilworth from before 1911, Mecklenburg County Deed records show C. B. Bryant mortgaging the property (originally numbered 600 Kingston Ave) to the Mecklenburg Building and Loan Association for $4000.00, consistent with financing the construction of a duplex on the site³.

In a 1904 letter to the editor of the Charlotte Daily Observer, eminent Queen City architect Charles C. Hook advocated the building of adjoined residences, which he referred to as “city houses,” and what we might today call duplexes or townhouses.  Hook links the building of this type of home with the growing urban character of the city, cites them as models of convenience, wise real-estate investments, and very “popular with the Northern people who are locating in Charlotte.”4

The City House is the oldest existing residence in Dilworth which was initially designed as a duplex. Although duplex homes would later become more common in Dilworth, of the three duplexes clearly indicated as such on the 1911 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map⁵, the City House is the only one still standing.  The other two residential duplexes shown on the Sanborn map were at 12/13 Eustace Avenue and 314/316 Worthington Avenue.   Eustace Avenue no longer exists; and the duplex is gone, while the Worthington Avenue lot is now the parking lot for an auto repair facility.  Only the duplex at 500 Kingston remains with its original design still clearly to be seen and dating from Dilworth’s earliest period of development.

From the time of its construction until the early 1960’s, the City House served as an investment property, owned by absentee landlords and rented to working-class residents. Research of Charlotte City Directories indicates that the first families to reside in the City House were the Spielmans and the Simpsons, both moving from Morehead Street in 1909⁶.  Mr. Spielman and Mr. Simpson were listed as traveling salesman.  An examination of the Charlotte City Directories shows a steady flow of teachers, salesmen, dressmakers, widows, bookkeepers, factory workers, bank cashiers and other working-class tenants, most of whom stayed in the house for only a year or two⁷.

The mid-1960s and 1970s were a difficult period for Dilworth and for the City House.  Many Dilworth residents began forsaking the center city for the outlying suburbs, and blight and decay crept into the neighborhood.  The City House sat vacant from 1963 to 1967, at which point it was divided into seven small apartments⁸, and three new exterior entrances were punched through, one near the center on the south-east side, and two on the north-west side fronting Lyndhurst Avenue⁹. City Directories from the late 1960’s through the early 1980’s indicate that the residents of the property were for the first time African American and were of lower social standing than previous tenants (many were unemployed).  Long-time residents of the neighborhood have told the current owners many stories about the property in which it is referred to as a “flop-house” and associated with prostitution and other clandestine activities¹⁰.

By the late 1970’s and early 80’s a revitalization movement was taking hold in Dilworth. Two newcomers to the area, Bryan E. Robinson and Cecil J. McCullers, purchased the greatly weathered City House in 1985¹¹.  Working with two architects and under the supervision of the Mecklenburg County Historic Districts Commission, the pair set about restoring the home to its original beauty and renovating the interior as a single family home.  Their efforts were successful, and the home was cited by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission in the spring of 1989 for best residential restoration in a historic district¹².

FOOTNOTES

1. Mecklenburg County Deed Book 81; page 110.
2. Hanchett, Sorting Out the New South City, University of Chapel Hill Press, p 215
3. Mecklenburg County Deed Book 239, p167 (Feb 9, 1909)
4. Charlotte Observer (May 20, 1904).
5. 5. Maps of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company, “Charlotte, NC,” (1911)
6. 6. 1910 City Directory.  The 1909 City Directory shows both these families resident on Morehead Street, indication that they were not new to the city and that they were new to the property as opposed to its simply not being listed.
7. 7. Charlotte City Directories (1908 – 1989).
8. 8. Charlotte City Directories, 1964-1968.
9. 9. Two of these entrances are visible in Architectural Analysis of Dilworth, historic district proposal, (1978) and all three are shown on a 1983 survey of the property by Leo Zoutewelle in the files of the Mecklenburg County Historic District Commission.
10. 10. Interview with Cherie Beach (August 10, 2005).
11. Mecklenburg County Deed Book 5007; page 216
12. Charlotte Observer (May 18, 1989).

Architectural Narrative

The wood frame and clapboard structure sits on a flat lot at the corner of East Kingston and Lyndhurst Avenues, with both units fronting East Kingston Ave to the northeast.  The City House was built as an upstairs/downstairs duplex, and, even after modifications over the years, the home clearly retains the architectural integrity of its original design.  From the exterior, the building appears to be a symmetrical two-story rectangle of typical late Victorian design, with two front doors with transoms and side lights set in decorative casings flanking either side of the central mass.   Inside, however, the two entrances, which have remained virtually unchanged throughout the various renovations to the structure, are not symmetrical at all.  The original first floor entrance door leads into a small foyer only 6’8” deep which in turn opens into the main living room area.  The second floor entrance door opens into a much deeper space which accommodates a stairway to the second floor and an entrance to a basement.  This is one of two separate basements, the other accessible from what was originally the first floor unit.  The second floor unit’s foyer is similar in width to that of the first floor, but originally ended in a blank wall, closing it off from the first floor living area.

Although extensive modifications over its lifetime have made it somewhat difficult to definitively discover the entire original floor plan of the City House once past the entrance foyers, certain elements of its original design do remain, including two rooms, one directly above the other, with identical bay windows and coal fireplaces (now used as the dining room (first floor) and as a bedroom (second floor), and two small original bathrooms, again identical in size, shape, and design, one above the other.

The Exterior

The front northeast elevation is strongly characterized by a large one-story front porch with plain railing that spans the full front façade. Doric columns support a flat porch roof and a frieze ornamented with alternating triglyphs and rondels. Twin sets of steps lead from each front corner of the porch down to concrete sidewalks that cross the front yard connecting to the street. A four-foot high black painted steel fence with two gates, added in 1989 encloses the front and northwest side yards.

The main block of the structure has a low-pitched hip roof.  Large brackets support the overhanging boxed eaves and dominate the cornice.  Arranged in pairs, and separated by modillions, these brackets are placed on a trim band elaborated with sawn-work.  A central dormer is perched on the roof and features three six-light windows.

The northwest elevation fronts Lyndhurst and is seven bays in width, with the bracketed eaves and trim motifs continued from the front.  The most defining element of this face is the two-story high bay window, itself four bays wide with its own hip roof.  As with most in the City House, the windows are double-hung one-over-one sash. A chimney rises from the roof, visible just behind the bay window.  An examination of the brick foundation along the northwest side makes apparent the division between the original portion of the house and the later 1930s addition, which includes a second story porch with simple railing.  A single shouldered chimney abuts the wall near the west corner.

A rear addition extends the footprint of the City House to the southwest and has seen extensive modifications over the years.  Nine bays wide, the addition was constructed around 1930-1931. The rear is asymmetrical, with a large mass extending from the second story from the southern (right) side of the building and spanning three-fourths of the elevation.  Seven large single-pane windows replaced the original two small six-over-six double hung windows in 1988.  A recessed sleeping porch, extends the remaining length. Popular additions in the 1930s, sleeping porches were especially favored in the South.

The rear porch has been rebuilt at least four times. The 1911 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map shows a fairly wide rear porch spanning three-fourths of the way across the rear elevation.  By the time of the Sanborn’s next addition in 1929, a new shorter porch was in place, as were a set of external stairs descending below grade to what may have been a newly dug cellar beneath the rear of the foundation.  The 1930-1931 rear addition necessitated the demolition of the second porch and the building of another, which stood until the late 1980s.  Documentary photographs show the southeast side of the City House accessed from the rear by a stoop and single door entrance with a pedimented front-gabled porch-roof; these were demolished in 1988, the door clapboarded over and the porch’s shed roof extended back to span three-fourths of the elevation. Ivan Beach, the current owner was required to replace the porch in 2002 because of decay, using vinyl planks atop a cinder-block foundation. The rear yard is shielded by a 7 ½-foot cypress privacy fence, constructed in 2002.  In the back yard is non-contributing storage building of corrugated pressed metal siding of recent origin.The rear yard is beautifully landscaped and is dominated by a red brick patio and walkways.

The southeast façade, visually obscured by the home on the adjoining lot is the least visually dramatic elevation, not really meant for viewing from the street.  Eight bays wide, the bracketed eaves and trim motifs from the other elevations are continued.  Thirteen windows pierce the elevation, all double hung one-over-one sash, with a single exception in the lower level of the rear elevation that is six-over-six.  Two windows that look out from the upper and lower level-bathrooms are about half the height of their counterparts. Five small rectangular windows with metal security grates ventilate the foundation

The Interior:

The interior of the City House has been much altered over the years.  The interior layout was somewhat altered by the 1930s rearward extension of the building. However, the most radical changes to the historic fabric most likely occurred during the 1967 conversion of the two-unit duplex into a seven-unit apartment building.  Renovations and restorations in the 1980s saw the undoing of many of the 1960s changes and the conversion of the building into a single-family home.  The first phase of 1980s remodeling, centered on the rear 1930s addition, was carried out in a contemporary style, and included the creation of a lofted space between the floors.  The second phase cut passages between the units, opened up spaces and modernized the downstairs kitchen and den.  Since this second phase was carried out using recycled architectural materials or materials that mimic the originals it is at times difficult to date the original fabric.

The Lower Level:

The front door in the north corner opens into a stair hall.  A handsome stair winds up to the second story. It has a simple balustrade and square newel with paneled sides.  At the base of the stair is a built in “hall tree” or “throne” and a small door leads beneath the stair to a subterranean basement.  From the stair hall, a new doorway opens into the lower unit’s living room and central hall.

The living room at the front of the house has a wide molded baseboard and a small molded cornice, motifs that are carried throughout the house.  A brick running bond fireplace with mantle of white wooden molding and adjoining built-in bookcase dominates the northwest wall.  A side door to the southeast connects the living room to the entrance foyer and exterior door of the lower unit, while a door at the rear of the room (southwest) provides access to the home’s central hallway.

Continuing down the central hallway, the dining room occurs to the right (northwest), behind the stair hall, and is defined by the light from the bay window and the coal fireplace; the original wall separating this room from the hallway was knocked out in favor of a more open colonnaded partition.  Across the hall from the dining room are two bedrooms separated by a full bath.  The bathroom features an original built-in medicine cabinet with a recycled tub and toilet removed from the Hotel Charlotte prior to its demolition.

Behind the dining room is a finely appointed and extensively renovated modern kitchen. The kitchen is separated from the den by two-tier countertop.  The den occupies most of the 1930s addition area, is characterized by recent built-in bookcases and an entertainment unit, as well as the newly added fireplace with pink marble surround.  The den area is additionally characterized by a feeling of openness created by light spilling in from the new large windows and lofted plan which opens the space to the second story.  A contemporary staircase with steel railing rises from the south corner of the den to the second story.

Across from the den (southeast) a door access the second cellar and a hallway leads to a half-bath and a third downstairs bed-room, which is utilized by the current owners as an office.

The Upper Level:

Ascending the stairs from the front stair hall in the one comes to a central hallway that runs the length of the structure.

Behind the front façade of the City House two are two large rooms that would have originally functioned as the public areas of the upper unit.  The larger of these, in the east corner is utilized by the current owners as an office space and is characterized by service style wainscot and chair rails.  Nested in the far corner of this room is a small half-bath, which has contemporary fixtures, but retains the original ceiling moldings with decorative rosettes and door surrounds with bull’s-eye corners.  A double door connects the office to the other front room.

Closely mirroring the layout of the lower unit, two bedrooms flank the southeast side of the central hall, both of which have been carpeted and painted with texturized paint. The two bedrooms are separated by a short hallway accessing a full bathroom—featuring a built-in medicine cabinet and an antique claw foot tub—and a linen closet with contemporary mirrored doors.

A small hall behind the front room in the north corner provides access to the attic via a large rolling door and connects to a room the current owners use as a master bedroom.  The blue floral wall paper in this space is quite old and should probably be preserved if possible.

The room now utilized as the master bedroom sits directly above the downstairs dining room and is most characterized by the light from the bay window and the coal-burning fireplace.  This is the only room in the house that contains picture molding in addition to the moldings used throughout the rest of the house.

Behind the master bedroom and accessed from the central hall by a screen door is a room utilized as a kitchen.  The conversion of this room to kitchen use appears to be from the dwelling’s days as an apartment building.  The appliances and cabinets are in poor repair and are probably noncontributing elements.  Interestingly, this room may have originally been open to the elements before the 1930s addition, as indicated by the screen door and the severe weathering of the floorboards.  A rear door from this room opens onto the sleeping porch.

The central hall terminates at a set of double doors that open into the renovated lofted area at the rear of the house.  A carpeted walkway with contemporary steel railing and balustrade looks over into the downstairs den and connects to an open office area and the descending stairway.

The northwest elevation

Rear Elevation, 1988

Click here to view Charlotte Observer Article on the Charlotte Woman’s Club

This report was written on April 1, 1978

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Clubhouse of the Charlotte Woman’s Club is located at 1001 E. Morehead St. in Charlotte, N.C.

2. Name, address and telephone number of the present owner and occupant of the property:
The present owner and occupant of the property is:
The Charlotte Woman’s Club
1001 E. Morehead St.
Charlotte, N.C. 28204

Telephone, 333-1980

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 Charlotte Woman’s Club acquired its property on E. Morehead St. in two stages. The deed for the initial portion is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 509 at Page 586. The deed for the remainder of the tract is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 541 at Page 468. The Tax Parcel Number for the property is 12520105.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property:
The contract for erecting the Clubhouse of the Charlotte Woman’s Club on E. Morehead St. was awarded on August 21, 1923, to Blythe & Isenhour Construction Co. ¹ Designed by an architect of local and regional prominence, Mr. Charles C. Hook, ² the structure was officially opened for public inspection on May 22, 1924. ³ The officers of the Woman’s Club, led by Mrs. V. T. Shore, President, ⁴ greeted “hundreds of guests not only from Charlotte but from many cities and towns in this section of the state” who attended a formal reception which lasted from 3 PM until 10 PM. ⁵ Adding to the festiveness of this occasion was the fact that the Presidents of several Woman’s Clubs were present. Included therein were the clubs of Kings Mountain, Waxhaw, Hickory, Belmont, Lenoir, Winston-Salem, Lexington, Concord, Salisbury, Rockingham and Gaston County. ⁹

“During the evening hours,” The Charlotte Observer reported, “the husbands of the club members and members of the Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions, and Civitan clubs called.” ⁷ No doubt they were impressed with the new facility. The room were beautifully decorated with roses and other garden flowers,” and “delicious frozen punch” was served in the dining room. ⁸ The building was “the subject of the most favorable comment.” ⁹ Indeed, The Charlotte Observer insisted that it was “one of the most striking buildings of its kind in the South.” The newspaper went on to describe the clubhouse in detail.

Two stories in height, it will have a basement entirely above ground in which will be located a dining hall, private dining room, kitchen and storage room. On the front of the upper floor there will be a large entrance hall back of which will be an auditorium capable of seating 400 people. To the left of the hall there will be a large reception room, and to the right, the library and the office. Three large arches will form the front of the building, and the exterior work will be in Italian style with ivory stucco. Floors will be of polished oak and the interior will be finished in ivory enamel. ¹⁰

The structure on E. Morehead St. was not the first clubhouse of the Charlotte Woman’s Club. The organization initially met in the homes of its members. The series of developments which led to the establishment of the Charlotte Woman’s Club began in the home of Mrs. Brevard Springs on South Blvd. In April 1899, six women gathered there to create the Charlotte Mother’s Club. Mrs. Agnes Wilkes Rankin, having moved from Charlotte to Hartford, Conn., had recently joined such a club and had advised her friends in Charlotte to organize such a body. Mrs. Walter S, Liddell, the first President of the club, later explained that she had agreed to serve only because “they told me I would not have anything to do.” ¹¹

The Charlotte Mother’s Club continued to meet until 1901, when it changed its name to the Charlotte Woman’s Club and invited twenty-five additional women to join. This event also occurring at the home of Mrs. Brevard Springs, was of momentous importance in the social history of Charlotte, N.C. Throughout most of the nineteenth century, social mores and customs had dictated that wealthier more educated females should restrict their activities to the home. To participate in public affairs had been viewed as unfeminine. The emergence of the woman’s club movement on the national scene in the late 1800’s signaled the beginning of the end for that way of thinking. While retaining the refinement and grace associated with womanhood, the members of such organizations committed themselves to a posture of public advocacy. These sentiments were forcefully expressed by Mrs. F. C. Abbot, the initial President of the Charlotte Woman’s Club and the individual who had inspired its creation. “You should broaden your club,” she had written, “to include civic activities for the sake of your children. There are health laws, school matters and social influences which you should investigate and discuss.” ¹²

The Charlotte Woman’s Club more than fulfilled the expectations of its founders. By 1905 it had eighty-six members and was holding its twice-monthly meetings at the Carnegie Library on N. Tryon St. ¹³ Its membership had expanded to more than 500 by the early 1920’s, a situation which prompted the club to secure its first clubhouse. ¹⁴ Mrs. I. W. Faison was appointed to the chairmanship of a Clubhouse Committee. In December 1920 the Woman’s Club purchased the residence of A. J. Draper on Elizabeth Ave., northwestward from its intersection with Hawthorne Lane. ¹⁶ In October 1922 and March 1923 the Club sold its property on Elizabeth Ave., ¹⁷ using the money derived therefrom to build the new clubhouse on E. Morehead St. During the interim, the Woman’s Club held its general meetings in the ballroom of the Selwyn Hotel on W. Trade St. ¹⁸

The Charlotte Woman’s Club possesses a record of substantial accomplishment. The contributions which it has made to the betterment of Charlotte are lengthy and impressive. The YWCA, the PTA, the Traveler’s Aid Society and the North Carolina Federation of Music Clubs were organized by the Charlotte Woman’s Club. It established the first kindergarten in Charlotte, participated in the creation of the Domestic Relations Court and brought the first public health nurses to Charlotte. It provided vital support for the public library. The Charlotte Woman’s Club was instrumental in the creation of the Mint Museum of Art. The League of Women Voters was its creation, as was the home economics program in the public schools, Since 1944 the club has placed the control of cancer at the head of its list of projects. ¹⁹ This is not a complete summary. But it proves that that Charlotte Woman’s Club achieved its purpose.

The business leaders of Charlotte were forthright in their support of the Charlotte Woman’s Club. D. A. Tompkins, Southern industrialist and publisher of The Charlotte Observer, made several monetary donations to the organization. James B. Duke followed in the same practice. ²⁰ Edward Dilworth Latta donated the land on which the clubhouse was erected in 1923-24. ²¹ The existence of this support is not surprising, especially if one is familiar with the view of the future held by the members of the Charlotte Woman’s Club. They shared in the general optimistic belief of that era. They endorsed the notions consistently proclaimed by the business leadership of the community, that science and technology would create a better life for the citizens of Charlotte. The Charlotte Observer of April 22, 1928, described the underlying philosophy of the organization. “Always it is and been the principle of the Woman’s club,” the newspaper asserted, “to pull with the current for Charlotte’s progress and development and to be a good yoke fellow for all those who do like service.” ²²

Notes

¹ The Charlotte Observer (August 22, 1923) p. 2.

² The Charlotte Observer (August 21, 1923) p. 4.

³ The Charlotte Observer (May 23, 1924) p. 16.

⁴ Charlotte Sunday Observer (May 18, 1924) sec. 2. p. 2.

⁵ The Charlotte Observer (May 23, 1924) p. 16.

⁶ The Charlotte Observer (May 22, 1924)

⁷ The Charlotte Observer (May 23, 1924) p. 16.

⁸ Charlotte Sunday Observer (May 18, 1924) sec. 2. p. 2.

⁹ The Charlotte Observer (May 23, 1924) p. 16.

¹⁰ The Charlotte Observer (August 21, 1923) p. 4.

¹¹ “Charlotte – Associations: Woman’s Club,” a folder in the files of the Carolina Room of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library.

¹² Ibid.

¹³ The Woman’s Club of Charlotte North Carolina, 1905-06.

¹⁴ The Woman’s Club of Charlotte North Carolina, 1921-1922.

¹⁵ The Charlotte Observer (October 30, 1920) p. 8.

¹⁶ Mecklenburg County Deed Book 436, Page 148.

¹⁷ Mecklenburg County Deed Book 481, Page 520. Mecklenburg County Deed Book 497, Page 23.

¹⁸ The Charlotte Observer (April 7. 1923) p. 8.

¹⁹ Annual Program of Charlotte Woman’s Club, 1966-1967. pp. 1-3.

²⁰ “Charlotte – Associations: Woman’s Club,” a folder in the files of the Carolina Room of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library.

²¹ Mecklenburg County Deed Book 509, Page 586. Mecklenburg County Deed Book 541, Page 468.

²² “Charlotte – Associations: ‘Woman’s Club,” a folder in the files of the Carolina Room of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains an architectural description prepared by Ms. Ruth Little-Stokes, architectural historian.

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

a. Historical and cultural significance: The historical and cultural significance of the property known as the Clubhouse of the Charlotte Woman’s Club rests upon three factors. First, the building possesses architectural significance as one of the finer examples of the design capabilities of Mr. Charles C. Hook, an architect of local and regional prominence. Second, the building is the only structure which was erected for the purpose of serving as the clubhouse of the Charlotte Woman’s Club, an organization of great importance in the civic affairs of this community for over seventy-five years. Third, the structure documents the determination of women to participate more actively in public affairs. Consequently, the building occupies an important place in the social history of this community.

b. Suitability for preservation and restoration: The structure retains its fundamental character inside and out. Moreover, the Charlotte Woman’s Club is currently repairing the structure and hopes to restore it to its original appearance in the near future. The building is highly suited for preservation and restoration.

c. Educational value: The Clubhouse of the Charlotte Woman’s Club has educational value because of the historical and cultural significance of the property.

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. The Commission presently assumes that all costs associated with renovating and maintaining the structure will be paid by the owner or subsequent owner of the property.

e. Possibilities for adaptive or alternative use of the property: The structure would lend itself to a variety of adaptive uses, including commercialenterprises. Indeed, the property is zoned Bl. However, the Commission supports the intention of the Charlotte Woman’s Club to restore and refurbish the structure.

f. Appraised value: The current tax appraisal of the improvements on the property is $40,310. The current tax appraisal of the 0.689 acres of land is $90,000. The Commission in aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for a deferral of 50% of the rate upon which Ad Valorem taxes are calculated. The Commission is also aware that the property is currently exempted from the payment of 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 presently has no intention of purchasing the fee simple or any lesser included interest in this property. Furthermore, the Commission presently assumes that all costs associated with the property will be paid by the present or subsequent owners of the property. Finally, the Commission believes that the Charlotte Woman’s Club will secure the resources which will be required to restore and refurbish the structure.

9. Documentation of why and in what wave the property meets the criteria established for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places: The Commission judges that the property known as the Clubhouse of the Charlotte Woman’s Club does meet the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. Basic to the Commission’s judgment is its knowledge that the National Register of Historic Places, established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, represents the decision of the Federal Government to expand its recognition of historic properties to include those of local, regional and State significance. The Commission believes that its investigation of the property known as the Clubhouse of the Charlotte Woman’s Club demonstrates that the property is of local importance. Consequently, the Commission judges that the property known as the Clubhouse of the Charlotte Woman’s Club does meet 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: The property known as the Clubhouse of the Charlotte Woman’s Club is historically important to Charlotte, N.C., for three reasons. The building possesses architectural significance as one of the finer examples of the design capabilities of Mr. Charles C. Hook. The building is the only structure which was erected for the purpose of serving as the clubhouse of the Charlotte Woman’s Club. The structure documents the determination of women to participate more actively in public affairs.

Chain of Title

1. Deed Book 5419 Page 468 (May 26, 1924).
Grantor: The Charlotte Consolidated Construction Co.
Grantee: The Charlotte Woman’s Club, Inc.

2. Deed Book 509, Page 586 (August 27, 1923).
Grantor: The Charlotte Consolidated Construction Co.
Grantee: The Charlotte Woman’s Club, Inc.

Bibliography

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

Annual Program of the Charlotte Woman’s Club, 1966-67.

“Charlotte – Associations: Woman’s Club,” a folder in the files of the Carolina Room of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library.

Charlotte Sunday Observer.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Tax Office.

Records of the Mecklenburg Register of Deeds Office.

The Charlotte Observer.

The Woman’s Club of Charlotte, North Carolina, 1905-06.

The Woman’s Club of Charlotte, North Carolina, 1921-22.

Date of Preparation of this report: April 1, 1978

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

Telephone: (704) 332-2726

Ruth Little-Stokes
April 5, 1978

The Charlotte Woman’s Club, 1001 East Morehead Street, is a stuccoed building of Regency Revival design built for the club in 1923-24 after a design by Charles C. Hook, a local architect. The severe classical structure has been altered only slightly in the intervening years and still serves its original purpose. The one story, flat-roofed building, five bays wide and six bays deep, faces East Morehead Street, one of Charlotte’s few avenues which retain an early twentieth century elegance, and has a narrows symmetrically landscaped front yard. The Regency Revival style is a twentieth century revival of the simplified classical style popular in the early nineteenth century in England under the Regency of the Prince of Wales, later George IV. The most prominent architects of this movement, in which classical forms were reduced to basic geometrics were Sir John Nash and Sir John Soane. Their work is a simplification of the Renaissance villas of such architects as Palladio and Sansovino, who in turn were influenced by the simplified arched construction of ancient Roman buildings. The elegant purity of this style had great appeal to early twentieth century European and American architects, who repudiated the picturesque confusion of forms, colors and textures characteristic of Victorian architecture. In Charlotte this restrained, rational style seems to have been reserved for residential and institutional buildings, for Charlotte commercial buildings of the era favored more opulent decorative trim. Myers Park, an exclusive early twentieth century suburb, contains several examples of the Regency Revival style.

The smooth wall surfaces of the main (south) elevation, enlivened by the contrasting open and closed round arches and the delicate iron accents of balconies and parapet railing, create a facade of harmonious balance and strength. The center three bays project forward as an entrance arcade, with three round-arched openings. A double French door with a fanlight, set within a round-arched opening, corresponds to each of the arcade arches. The center door is a recent louvered replacement. The ends of the arcade form semi-circular niches, formerly filled with statuary. Low, wide steps ascend to the entrance arcade, which is floored with terra cotta tile. The side bays of the main facade have identical arched openings with French doors like those of the entrances and cast-iron balconies, consisting of slender vertical balusters with upper and lower borders of small circular motifs. Curvilinear cast-iron brackets support the shallow balconies. The wall stucco has a rough finish, while the wide plain arch surrounds have a smooth finish. On the west side of the west arcade arch is a brass plaque with the inscription: “Charlotte Woman’s Club.” The eave is ornamented with a molded cornice above and below a plain frieze and a roof parapet consisting of thick, raised-paneled piers with a cast-iron balustrade of identical design to the balconies. A molded railing crowns the parapet.

The side elevations have equally formal treatment. The center two bays project as a pavilion, with two large six-over-six wooden sash windows in each outer face. The face toward the front of the east elevation has a single door of the same small pane design as the French doors, surmounted by a fanlight and a stuccoed, crossetted surround. A flight of concrete steps with a cast-iron railing like the balcony railings leads to this side entrance. The west elevation has a corresponding window in this location. Above each opening in the pavilion is a rectangular, raised panel of stucco. The two bays in front of the pavilion have balconied French doors identical to the main facade. The bays behind the pavilion have pairs of six-over-six wooden sash windows with a single large fanlight over each pair. One of these sash on the east elevation has been replaced by a fire door. Because the site slopes steeply to the rear, the rear half of the basement is completely above ground. It is finished with rough stucco like the upper walls, and demarcated by a smooth stuccoed string course. Sash identical to the first story surmounted by transoms illuminate the basement story. The roof parapet carries around both side elevations to the rear face of the pavilions.

The rear elevation continues only the most nominal features of the Regency Revival design: the stuccoed wall surface and window treatment. The center of the three rear bays has a double French door with a high transom, and the flanking bays have sash windows with matching transoms. Between each bay is a stuccoed pilaster which terminates above the molded eave in a short smokestack. A larger chimney with a stuccoed stack projects from the center of the roof.

The interior floor plan is almost unaltered. On the first floor a reception room or parlor stretches across the entire front of the structure. Classical screens divide the area at each end into smaller rooms, the east called the “tea room,” the west called the “teak room” after the suite of antique Chinese furniture which furnishes it. These screens, each consisting of flat-paneled Doric posts supporting a paneled and molded lintel with circular motifs echoing the exterior iron work, are the most striking interior architectural feature. The windows and doors have simple molded surrounds.

Through three pairs of French doors with transoms which correspond to the triple entrances is a large auditorium occupying the rear two-thirds of the structure. Against the rear wall is a stage which bows out into the room, its vertical face sheathed with beaded paneling. The proscenium is decorated with a wide plain surround flanked by a pair of flat-paneled pilasters with playful latticework “capitals.” Small dressing rooms flank the stage. The steel ceiling joists are boxed and paneled, and corresponding wall pilasters are treated identically to the proscenium pilasters. The east pavilion contains a small kitchen and office; the west pavilion contains the stair to the basement and a powder room. The stair rail, of classical design, consists of closely set square balusters with heavy, square newel posts with molded caps and a molded handrail. The suspended light fixtures throughout the first floor are believed to be original. They are of simple classical design.

The basement contains a furnace and storage rooms in the area beneath the parlor, a kitchen and pantry with dumbwaiter in the area beneath the east pavilion, a board room beneath the west pavilion, and a dining room beneath the auditorium. A stair rises to the dressing room in the northeast corner of the dining room. This stair rail is slightly more ornate than the front stair, with a paneled closed string and paneled newel posts.

CHARLOTTE WATER WORKS – VEST STATION

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Charlotte Water Works/Vest Station is located at corner of Beatties Ford Road and Patton Avenue in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

City of Charlotte
CMGC, 600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Telephone: (704) 336-2241

Tax Parcel Number: 078-41-501

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

4. A map depicting, the location of the property: This report contains maps which depict the location of the property.

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The City of Charlotte has owned the Property for many years; neither the Mecklenburg County Tax Office nor the City of Charlotte Real Estate Office lists a deed book reference. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 078-41-501.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property submitted by Mr. Joe Stowe, Jr. Director, C-MUD; it was researched and written by Ms. Lorraine Loken.

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

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

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Charlotte Water Works/Vest Station does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:
1) The Charlotte Water Works was designed in 1922 Wm. M. Piatt, a well-known Durham engineer;
2) when completed in 1924, it was the largest and best equipped treatment plant in the state;
3) an addition designed in 1937 B. Atwood Skinner and T. S. Simpson, Jr. (architects) and George S. Rawlins (engineer) doubled the capacity of the plant and made it a “state of the art” water treatment plant;
4) the building was named Vest Station in honor of W. E. Vest, General Superintendent of the Charlotte Water Department for more than 30 years;
5) in 1949, Charlotte became the first city in the Southeast United States to use flouridation in the water at Vest Station;
6) the Moderne style of the building is an excellent example of the civic and commercial architecture of 1920-1940; and
7) Charlotte Water Works/ Vest Station provides a stable element in the changing Beatties Ford Road corridor.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contents that the architectural description by Ms. Nora M. Black which is included in this report demonstrates that the Charlotte Water Works/Vest Station meets this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes a designated “historic landmark.” The current appraised value of the improvements is $12,549,600. The current appraised value of the 9.3 acres is $546,900. The total appraised value of the property is $13,096,500. The property is zoned I-2.

Date of Presentation of This Report: 25 September 1990

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

Telephone: 704/376-9115

Researched and Written by:
Lorraine V. Loken
September 21, 1990

Why Vest Water Treatment Plant Should Be Considered for “Historic Landmark” Status

Entering the inner city from the northwestern gate, one cannot help but notice the Vest Station Water Treatment Plant and its two towering water tanks. The classic government design gives a sense of balance and power, while the obvious purpose of the plant leaves you with confidence that Charlotte’s water needs are being met. In fact, it was this city’s ability to provide a pure and plentiful water supply that enabled it to become the largest city in the region. The impact of its existence on the development of Charlotte, its technological leadership in the industry and in the state, its neoclassical Art Deco style architecture, are all reasons why the Vest Station Building should be considered an Historic Landmark. In order to understand Vest Water Treatment Plant’s historic significance, one must first look at the impetus that led this once small town to take such a major step in its water producing capabilities.

During the water famine of 1911, Charlotte lived through a desperate situation. Big Sugaw Creek, now called Irwin Creek, was Charlotte’s only water supply. The worst drought in 50 years reached its peak in July of that year when the reservoir, then located 3/4 mile east of the future Vest plant site, dried up. Conditions became so severe that authorities were forced to have water shipped in by train from the Catawba River and surrounding cities. ¹ So little water was available that it was shut off except at intervals when the flushing of sewers was required. W. E. Vest, Superintendent of the Charlotte Water Works at that time, remembered the nightmare:

Streams of people carrying containers of all kinds constantly visited the three artesian wells in the city at that time. Many citizens will recall the commotion in Charlotte households at certain hours as the inmates hastened to fill up the receptacles of all kinds, bath tubs and etc., at the words, “Hurry up, its almost time to cut the water off.” (“Interesting Carolina People,” The Charlotte Observer, 1935)

Police literally removed water sprinkling systems from citizen’s yards. Pipe organs with water furnished motor power could not play on Sundays. Factories and shops were forced to close, causing economic hardship. All of this was minor compared to the basic inconvenience of not being able to bathe when needed and the potential health hazards the city faced. Charlotte citizens had now internalized the true value of water as reported in the following newspaper article:

It has had the effect of bringing to a realization of the public generally the prime necessity of this, the commonest of articles. People have regarded water just about as they do the sunshine and only appreciate it after it has been taken away. (“Water Crisis Nearing Highest State of Intensity by Service Suspension,” Charlotte Daily Observer, July 29, 1911 p. 3)

If all of this was not enough, city government became concerned about how reports of the disaster would affect their ability to attract business in the future. Negative reports of Charlotte conditions in northern cities began to worry them:

For instance, in Tuesday’s New York Herald and Tuesday’s Baltimore Sun there appeared stories which were nothing short of harmful to the municipality, particularly in view of the fact that the city is going to have to float an $815,000 bond issue at an early date and then, too, for the reason that with Charlotte just now on the threshold of a great development, the city must necessarily look to the larger financial centers for assistance. (“Improvement Is Marked,” Charlotte Daily Observer, August 3, 1911, p. 7)

Regretting they had not heeded the warning and vision of former Superintendent C. H. Campbell to hook up to the Catawba River, City Alderman now moved swiftly ². Needless to say, there was little trouble getting Charlotte’s citizens to support and fund a piping and pumping system from a pure and plentiful source, the great Catawba River. Survey, estimates and signing of contracts were done quickly and construction went forward rapidly. By April 1912, supply was no longer a threat and Charlotte had made the first step in a two step process that would allow it the lifeline to become the most progressive industrial city in the South. Vest Water Treatment Plant was the second.

By 1918, only six years after the Hoskins Reservoir and Catawba Pump Station were built, the city had already begun to feel its growing pains. The old filtration plant on Big Sugar Creek, put into operation in 1905, was located inconveniently to the Catawba River. It was equipped with wooden tubs which showed definite signs of decay. In addition, Camp Greene, a military base then located in Charlotte, had experienced sanitation problems and was threatening to move if its water needs were not met ³. In a study of Charlotte’s water supply, consultants Anderson and Christie, Inc., talked about continuing the next steps for ensuring a plentiful supply:

… the City has already taken proper steps towards a supply which should be adequate for the needs of the City for the next generation. The steps which have been taken, however, were only the beginning . . . within the period of six years the City has reached the necessity of carrying out the second stage of development of a complete and up-to-date water supply system. (“Report Upon Existing Water Supply Conditions of the City of Charlotte with Recommendations,” 1918, p. 1)

The city’s population was now 50,000, the largest in the state. For public spirit and business progressiveness, it was excelled by no other city of its size in the South. Step two, a sophisticated, water purification plant, was imminent if Charlotte was to continue the pattern of growth it had developed since its last water crisis.

Construction began in 1922 and was completed in 1924 on a larger, more modern filtration plant fully equipped with up-to-date devices for purifying and handling water. The main structures of this plant included a chemical house with well-equipped laboratory, coagulation basins, filters with a rated capacity of 8,300,000 gallons per day, pumping room, 3,000,000 gallons clear water storage and an elevated 1,000,000 gallon storage tank at the head of the distribution system ⁴. Designed by William N. Piatt, Engineer, it was the largest and best equipped treatment plant in the state. It was located in the western part of the county, just outside the city limits, on Beatties Ford Road at the Seaboard Railway – the last stop of the old Charlotte Trolley.

By 1936 the city was having extreme difficulty in meeting the demand, both in supply and purification facilities. A program of expansion was begun to increase facilities in all phases of the water supply, treatment and distribution systems. Additions completed in 1939 doubled the capacity of settling basins and rapid sand filters, added 1.75 million gallons to the finished water ground level storage capacity and 4.75 million gallons finished-water storage. A new 10 million gallons per day, electrically driven pumping unit was installed to provide additional pumping facilities for the distribution system service. All electric units were sized to provide an economical pumping cycle utilizing various combinations of pumping units, adding to the notable efficiency of the plant. Total treated water capacity was now 16.7 million gallons per day. The $1,340,000 expansion program represented a major advancement in Charlotte’s development and was recognized by industry leaders as a milestone in the progress of waterworks.” B. Atwood Skinner and T. S. Simpson, Jr., were glowingly complimented for their architectural design and George S. Rawlins for his engineering design and construction. A banquet of 400 industry and construction leaders gathered to tour the plant, celebrate and hear the acceptance by Warren Booker of the State Board of Health:

“I feel that you and I have been privileged to look over and to examine into one of the newest and one of the most unique and worthwhile pieces of engineering work yet devised for the use and convenience of man in the state of North Carolina.” (“Waterworks System Accepted By City,” The Charlotte Observer, February 22, 1939)

A special section was printed in The Charlotte Observer explaining the addition, renovations and features of the plant, as well as the operation of water purification. ⁵ Industry comments printed in the section included such compliments as “an example of pioneering leadership” and “this puts Charlotte in the big city class.” And rightly so – there was much to be proud of in this truly state-of-the-art water treatment plant. The Building was named the Vest Station in honor of W.E. Vest, who was General Superintendent of the Charlotte Water Department for more than 30 years.

In 1946, immediately after the close of World War II, the rapid growth of the city, combined with the lack of expansion during the war years, created a sudden overload on the existing facilities. An expansion program was completed in 1949. The ground level finished-water storage was increased by 5.75 million gallons, thus providing a total storage at this location of approximately 11.75 million gallons. Additional chemical feeder and chlorination capacity was added to treat properly the full capacity of the plant. Vest Station now had the capacity to settle and filter approximately 25 million gallons per day. ⁶ Having reached its physical limits, this was and will be the Vest Station’s last expansion effort.

It should also be noted, in tribute to the Vest Station, that in 1949 Charlotte was the first city to use fluoridation in the Southeastern United States. Vest Station executed a closely controlled program of feeding and checking quantities of fluoride going into and remaining in the system. As a result, Charlotte was awarded a “Certificate of Recognition” in 1989 by the National Institute of Dental Research for its vanguard role in what has proven to be the “single greatest advancement in dental health history.” Although Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s water needs have long since surpassed the Vest plant’s limited capacity, its high efficiency and economical operation continue to make it a valuable asset to the community’s overall water system. The compactness of the original design, together with covered filters (no longer affordable by modern water plants) is unequaled for ease of plant maintenance. Water from the plant continues to meet high standards. All future plans by the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department include operation of the Vest Water Treatment Plant. Its longevity is a tribute to the state-of-the-art in 1924 and 1939. The Vest Station building offers the Charlotte Mecklenburg community more than water purification. It is a picture of the past in classic 1920’s government style architecture. The building was designed to express strength and order in a facility expected to meet the city’s most basic need – water. Vest Station’s solid structure has long stood as a pillar of stability in the Beatties Ford Road community. Its physical placement, perched on a hill, makes it a natural landmark. Inside the building, history reigns with grand arched ceilings, marble control tables, heavy black iron instrumentation, and red clay tiles, all well preserved. The wooden rail elevator, with siding tracks leading from the road remind us of the days when supplies and deliveries came from the railroad.

In 66 years of operation, Vest Water Treatment Plant has contributed significantly to the history and the development of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The conditions and history which led to it being built, the level of technology invested in it, and the style of architecture reflect a government willing to lay the foundation for becoming a major city. Preservation of this building as an historic landmark would be an opportunity to save and teach a very important part of Charlotte’s history in its development as the largest city of the region. It is also an opportunity to further protect the integrity of the Beatties Ford Road neighborhood and the nearby buildings holding the “Historical Landmark” status.

NOTES

¹ Copies of bills from the Seaboard Railway for water shipment, 1911.

² Campbell, C. H., Charlotte Water Works 5th Annual Report, 1904.

³ Anderson and Christie, Inc., “Report Upon Existing Water Supply Conditions of the City of Charlotte with Recommendations,” 1918.

⁴ Vest, W. E., “Development of the Charlotte Water Works,” N.C. Section AWWA Journal, 1924.

⁵ “Water Works Section,” The Charlotte Observer, February, 1939.

⁶ Franklin, Walter M., “Growth of a Water System,” N.C. Section. AWWA Journal, 1958.

The Charlotte Water Works/Vest Station is located in northwest Charlotte on Beatties Ford Road between Patton Avenue and Oaklawn Avenue. Although the entry facade faces Beatties Ford Road, it is impossible to enter the building from that side. Entry is achieved through a door located on the east facade from a driveway connected to Patton Avenue. The building and the tax parcel on which it is sited are owned by the City of Charlotte according to Mecklenburg County Tax Office records; the water treatment facility is operated by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department. Despite the age of the structure, the entire facility is in pristine condition. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that there are few workers stationed in the plant. Since the product – water – moves through the plant with the assistance of pumps and gravity, there is little need for human intervention.

1924 section of the Charlotte Water Works/Vest Station The building can be divided into two sections for purposes of description. One portion is the building constructed to house the Charlotte Water Works. Drawings, dated May 1922 with revisions in May 1923, were supplied to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department. The drawings show a design by the firm of Wm. M. Piatt of Durham, North Carolina, an engineering firm still renowned in the Southeast for work in the field of pumping stations.

The Piatt drawings show a concrete building with flat concrete roofs supported by open-web steel joists. The use of the open-web joists provided the ample span needed to cover the gallery of filters and the large pump room. Additionally, the Piatt drawings show the elevations to have tapestry brick to break the monotony of the long industrial facade. When construction was completed in 1924, the main entry facade was on the east elevation. At first glance, this elevation appears to be strictly symmetrical; however closer inspection reveals that there are five bays to the south and six bays to the north of the center bay containing the main entry. The bays are separated by two-story concrete pilasters. A coping of precast concrete in four-foot lengths surrounded the top of the building. Tapestry brick was used as infill material between the windows of the first and second floor and between the cornice molding and the coping. Early photographs of the building show the contrast between the tapestry brick and the concrete used in the structure. Copper downspouts used to drain the flat roofs provide vertical interest on the concrete pilasters.

Windows are of industrial design with metal frames. Each 6/6 sash consists of an upper section with projecting sash and a lower section of fixed sash. The original lights of Prismatic glass diffuse the sunlight entering the large windows. Replacement lights of clear glass stand out in sharp contrast to the original Prismatic glass.

The original main entry consists of a set of double doors of two panels each with glass in the upper panels. Granite steps lead to the doors. The light above the doors is covered with an open metal grate. Although the grate is formed in the Croix Inscrite pattern, the detail is finished in a simple ‘Saint Andrew’s Cross and Squares” pattern. The door surround was flanked by electric lights shaped like torches topped with glass globes. These two lights are now missing; however, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department might consider replacing them. Above the cornice molding over the door, a limestone plaque with depressed letters announces the name of the building, the “Charlotte Water Works.” Although no longer the formal entry to the building, most visitors enter through this portal.

The 1924 section of the building was typical of early 20th Century industrial design. The use of concrete as a structural material was well-established by the 1920’s; additionally, the use of brick or stone as a facing material was also quite common. In the case of the Charlotte Water Works, the brick facing between the windows and above the cornice molding would have been typical of utilitarian buildings of the era.

1939 section of the Charlotte Water Works/Vest Station

In 1937, a design for an addition was prepared by B. Atwood Skinner and T. S. Simpson, Jr., architects, and George S. Rawlins, engineer. When completed in 1939, industry comments quoted in The Charlotte Observer called the newly expanded plant “an example of pioneering leadership” (see Historical survey, page 6). From the point of view of architectural style, the extensive renovations that accompanied the addition changed the style of the building from a good example of early 20th Century industrial design to an excellent example of Moderne civic architecture. Additionally, the building was named Vest Station to honor W. E. Vest, a longtime general superintendent of the Charlotte Water Department.

Drawings (from 1937) provided to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department help explain how such a complete change in style was accomplished. The biggest change involved the tapestry brick of the 1924 section. The drawings specify, “All brick areas to be stuccoed. Where brick and concrete faces are flush, extend stucco over concrete to near corner.” Those few words directed the change of the 1924 section from a building with the contrast of dark brick to light concrete. The finish of the 1924 section was changed to match the 1939 section – that of a smooth surface with minimal joints and little change in surface texture.

A new entry was constructed facing Beatties Ford Road (west elevation). The two story height of the entry is in sharp contrast to the long, low proportions of the rest of the building. The use of chevrons and both raised and indented surface ornament suggests Art Deco references; the date of the design combined with the sparseness and simplicity of the surface decoration puts the building in the Moderne era.

The new entry has an almost stage-like appearance enhanced by the fact that it is fenced against intrusion; no entry to the porch of the building is possible. Each of the double doors has a single glass panel. A light aluminum grate with a chevron design decorates each door. The transom light above the door has a similar grate with chevron design. The name plaque announces this is “Vest Station, Charlotte Water Works, Water Purification Plant” in raised bronze letters. The indented date panel is an octagon with raised bronze letters forming “1938” centered high above the double door. Originally, two fish pools flanked the sidewalk leading to the steps of the west elevation entry. The pool area is now covered with grass.

The 1939 section has six bays in its long, low portion and three bays in its two-story entry portion. The bays are separated by pilasters with vertical interest added by line carving and side pieces with quarter-round tops. The windows are similar to those previously described for the 1924 section. Separated by the pilasters, each group of windows contains three separate sash. Each group consists of a 15-light fixed sash on either side of a 25-light sash with a projecting sash of 6 lights. The cornice molding on the 1939 section is in two narrow bands adding to the streamlined horizontally.

The walls of the foyer of the 1939 section have a three-band molding near the ceiling; light fixtures are glass and aluminum suspended cones in the Moderne style. The gracefully curved arches of the enclosed filter gallery exhibit some of the same patterns and carved line details of the exterior of the 1939 section. Terrazzo floors shine in the diffused light. In the laboratory, original cabinets with bronze moldings at the base are still in use.

When viewed from Beatties Ford Road, the entire building (both the 1924 and 1939 sections) appears to be sitting high above ground level on a podium. In actuality, what appears to be the podium is the set of walls that surround the sedimentation basins through which the water passes before entering the filters within the galleries of the actual building. The covered filters galleries are unique; most operators of water treatment plants consider them too expensive.

More important, Charlotte Water Works/Vest Station is unique in that it still performs the exact function for which it was designed; it performs that function so well that no search for an adaptive reuse is ever anticipated. Its enduring presence serves as a landmark in the changing Beatties Ford Road corridor.