1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Mecklenburg County Courthouse is located at 700 East Trade Street in Charlotte, N.C.
2. Name and address of the present owner of the property:

The present owner of the property is:

Mecklenburg County

400 East 4^th Street

Charlotte, NC

1. Representative photographs of the property: This report contains representative photographs of the property.
2. A map depicting the location of the property: This report contains a map depicting the location of the property.
3. Current deed book reference to the property: The most recent deed book reference to this property is found in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 610, p. 62, 70, and 76 and Mecklenburg County Deed Book 605 at pages 321 and 356. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 125-03-201.
4. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Emily D. Ramsey
5. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Emily D. Ramsey.
6. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria for designation as set forth in N.C.G.S 160A-400.5:
7. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission judges that the Mecklenburg County Courthouse possesses special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:

• 1) The Mecklenburg County Courthouse is a representation of Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s economic growth, and the development of Charlotte as a regional textile hub and the largest city in North Carolina.
• 2) The Mecklenburg County Courthouse, erected in 1928 after a fierce battle between the city of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, is a tangible reminder of the separation between the urban community in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County’s surrounding rural farming communities during the early twentieth century.
• 3) The Mecklenburg County Courthouse was designed by noted Charlotte architect Louis H. Asbury.
• 4) The Neoclassical design of the Mecklenburg County Courthouse, a popular choice for public buildings during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, served as a fitting symbol of government authority, civic pride and cultural progress in center city Charlotte.
• 5) The Mecklenburg County Courthouse, along with its neighbor, C. C. Hook’s City Hall building, is among the last of center city Charlotte’s historic public buildings and retains almost all of its original exterior design features.

8. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Committee judges that the architectural description prepared by Emily D. Ramsey indicates that the Mecklenburg County Courthouse 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 estimated value of the building is $6,241,150.       The total estimated value of the 7.072 acres (which also houses two other government buildings, including the recently completed new courthouse and jail) is 9,241,690.

 

Date of Preparation of this Report:

May 22, 2001

Prepared By:

Emily D. Ramsey

745 Georgia Trail

Lincolnton, NC

 

Statement of Significance

The Mecklenburg County Courthouse

700 East Trade Street

Charlotte, NC

 Summary

         The Mecklenburg County Courthouse, erected in 1928, is a structure that possesses local historic significance as a reflection of Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s tremendous economic and physical growth during the New South era of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries while serving as a tangible reminder of the physical and ideological separations that existed between the urban community in Charlotte and the rural farming communities that surrounded the city.       By the 1920s, Charlotte had emerged as the center of a large and profitable textile region that stretched over a large portion of the South, while building “a diversified economic base” that included “banking, power generation and wholesaling.”1       The corresponding boom in population that followed gave Charlotte the edge over other Carolina cities, and in 1910 Charlotte overtook Wilmington to become the largest city in North Carolina.       By the early 1920s, Charlotte citizens began a campaign for a new courthouse and city hall to meet the growing demands of city and county government and to reflect Charlotte’s new status.

Although the city of Charlotte was developing economically, commercially and culturally into one of the most important urban centers in the Carolinas, the rest of Mecklenburg County remained largely rural, dotted by small farming communities that resisted the changes occurring in Charlotte – changes that heralded the county’s shift from an agrarian economy to a manufacturing and commercial economy. The controversy over a proposed new courthouse and city hall complex in the 1920s, which ultimately resulted in the construction of C.C. Hook’s City Hall Building and a separate Mecklenburg County Courthouse, brought the tensions between Charlotte’s urban population and the county’s rural communities to the surface in heated public debate, and highlighted the ideological and practical divisions that separated Charlotteans from area farmers.

Architecturally, the Mecklenburg County Courthouse is significant as a well-preserved example of the Neoclassical style of architecture, a popular choice for public buildings in the late-nineteenth and early twentieth century. The building was designed by regionally important architect Louis H. Asbury, whose works include the H. M. McAden House and the Myers Park United Methodist Church in Myers Park, the Rudolph Scott House in Dilworth, and the William L. Bruns House in Elizabeth, among many others.       Asbury’s design of the Mecklenburg County Courthouse, with its imposing rows of Corinthian columns and pilasters supporting a massive classical entablature, was a fitting illustration of Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s recent progress and a powerful symbol of governmental authority. The courthouse, along with its neighboring public edifice, C. C. Hook’s City Hall building, remains an integral part of Charlotte’s center city built environment and one of the few public buildings remaining from the city’s 1920s building boom.

 Historical Background Statement 

The late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century proved to be a time of tremendous growth and development for Charlotte-Mecklenburg.       Charlotte, a rising star among New South cities, had become, by the early 1920s, the center of a large textile region that stretched from Georgia through South Carolina and west through Tennessee. Unlike many textile centers, however, Charlotte had also fostered a diverse economic foundation that included banking, wholesaling, and power generation as well as textile manufacturing.       The city was attracting new businesses and residents at such as rapid rate that, by 1910, it had surpassed Wilmington in population to become the largest city in North Carolina.       This distinction served to highlight Charlotte’s progress during the New South era. Charlotteans responded to the economic success of the 1910s and 1920s by beginning a building boom that would last until the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression of the 1930s.       “Large portions of Charlotte,” writes historian Thomas Hanchett, “date from this period of prosperity” – Charlotte’s center city landscape in particular benefited from the economic boom and newly attracted businesses. A slew of new buildings rose along Tryon Street, including the ten–story Hotel Charlotte and the sixteen-story Johnson Building in 1924, topped by the twenty-story First National Bank tower in 1926.       The Wilder Building, also erected in 1926, was followed by the opening of a branch of the Federal Reserve in 1927.       The following year, Charlotte expanded its boundaries by almost twenty square miles.

In the midst of such frenzied construction and expansion, a local government building controversy raged.       The debate centered around a proposal, first suggested by The Charlotte Observer and taken up by the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce in 1922, to erect a single public building that would serve as Charlotte’s city hall and the county courthouse, thus taking the place of the former City Hall at 5^th and N. Tryon Streets and the existing Mecklenburg County Courthouse building at the corner of 3^rd Street and South Tryon. The concept of a City-County Municipal building appealed to many Charlotteans, who took the view of prominent local attorney D. E. Henderson, proclaiming, “ . . . we are acting for the city of Charlotte and . . . for the county of Mecklenburg. That which is good for one is good for both.”2       The county population, consisting largely of farmers and rural workers, felt very differently. Supported by the Charlotte Mayor and the City Council, who lead the minority of the city’s dissenting vote, they succeeded in defeating the proposition by a two-to-one margin.       Although supporters of the proposition were enraged that the vote was decided by those who would rather spend the day “picking cow ticks and boll weevils,” they were soon placated by the city’s rapid advancement of plans for a new City Hall.3       The building, designed by prominent local architect C. C. Hook, was completed in 1923. With the City Council now housed in a fine, spacious structure on East Trade Street, the Board of County Commissioner felt the pressure to upgrade their facilities intensify.

The 1925 debate over the county courthouse reflected, as the proposition of a City-County Municipal building had just two years before, the differences that existed between the rural citizens of Mecklenburg County and the city dwellers in Charlotte.       Proponents of a new courthouse building, led by prominent Charlotteans who saw the courthouse as a symbol of the city’s progress and development in the New South era, insisted that the new structure be placed next to the City Hall building on Trade Street, thus creating a single governmental complex. Opponents, largely represented by Mecklenburg’s small farming communities, insisted that the existing courthouse building on South Tryon Street could be adequately expanded, and that the logical place for the Mecklenburg County Courthouse was Tryon Street, the “all-time center of the City,” where all but one of the previous courthouses had stood.4       Supporters and opponents of the new courthouse building and its proposed East Trade Street location voiced their arguments at two separate public hearings. On November 30, 1925, the Board of County Commissioners listened to speeches decrying the proposed new courthouse. John P. Hunter, magistrate for the Mallard Creek Township, voiced the concerns of Mecklenburg’s “country people.”       The county’s rural population, Hunter argued, consisting of farmers who rarely ventured into the city and who relied on the familiar Tryon Street location, would never be able find the new courthouse if it were placed on East Trade Street, far from the center-city square.       If the Board insisted on pursuing the new location, Hunter declared, officials would have to “place a big sign at the square showing the rural people how to reach it.”5

Mecklenburg County’s farming communities found an unlikely ally in the lawyers of Charlotte.       A majority of the city’s lawyers also opposed the new courthouse – the proposed East Trade Street location would prove to be a major inconvenience for attorneys, most of whom worked out of the Lawyers Building (itself less than twenty years old) on South Tryon Street.       Several lawyers, including W. C. Dowd, Sr. and A. R. Justice, spoke out against the new courthouse during the hearing, insisting that the existing courthouse could “provide enough space for adequate facilities for one thousand years.”6

Five days later, on December 5, 1925, proponents of the new courthouse turned out in record numbers (thanks in large part to the efforts of the Charlotte Woman’s Club) to advance the position of many of Charlotte’s leading New South citizens, who saw the courthouse as a symbol of the city’s recent progress and a reflection of its new status as the largest city in the state.       Judge Wade W. Williams asserted that the County Commissioners had an obligation to follow “the urge and surge of present day progress and development” by building a new courthouse.       The Charlotte Woman’s Club argued that the new courthouse building would benefit both city and county citizens by providing space for local organization meetings, agricultural workshops, and a produce market. All at the hearing maintained that the courthouse was a long overdue addition to the city landscape, and would be “in keeping with the dignity of the County.”7

In the end, the new courthouse’s urban supporters proved more convincing than its rural opponents. On December 7, 1925, the Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to construct a new courthouse on East Trade Street.       As with the new City Hall, the courthouse project, once decided, moved forward quickly. Within a month of the final vote, the Board commissioned Charlotte-native architect Louis H. Asbury to design the building. Asbury’s plans for the building were approved by the Board in May of 1926, and Charlotte-based contractor J. J. McDevitt Company was awarded the general construction contract in June.       The $1,250,000 Neoclassical courthouse building was completed by January of 1928, and formally and extravagantly dedicated on March 10 of that year. County officials and members of the Board of County Commissioners greeted curious citizens, including many one-time opponents of the new building, as they toured the courthouses, offices, meeting rooms, and the rooftop jail, which The Charlotte Observer reported was “the most popular part of the courthouse,” which “every caller was anxious to visit.”8

Asbury’s Mecklenburg County Courthouse served as the main courthouse building until 1977, when a new courthouse building, designed by Charlotte architect Harry Wolf, was constructed at 800 East 4^th Street.9 During the 1970s and 1980s, the area bordered by 3^rd and East Trade Streets became a center for government and court buildings, including the 1989 14-story Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center, a civil courts building, a criminal courts building, and an underground intake center (now the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office) adjacent to the Mecklenburg County Jail at 801 East 4^th Street.       In the late 1980s the area was officially named the Mecklenburg County Courthouse Complex – the 1928 Mecklenburg County Courthouse Building, renamed the Mecklenburg County Courthouse Annex in 1977, once again became the official Mecklenburg County Courthouse building.10   The 1928 Mecklenburg County Courthouse continues to serve as offices for Mecklenburg County but not for the courts.

Architectural Description and Contextual Statement

              The Mecklenburg County Courthouse is locally significant as an excellently preserved example of the Neoclassical style of architecture and as a representation of the changing styles of architecture in the early twentieth century “The 1900s and 1910s,” Thomas Hanchett states, “saw a revolution in architectural taste” in Charlotte and across the United States.       The Victorian aesthetic, with its “complex decoration, eclectic combinations, colors, shapes, and historical motifs,” was overshadowed by a resurgence in the clean lines and simple forms of the Colonial Revival, the Bungalow, and the Neoclassical styles.11       The Neoclassical style became particularly popular for government, commercial and institutional buildings.       It provided a clean break from the lighthearted Victorian style, while still conforming to the fundamentally conservative “political, social, and economic thinking of Charlotte’s business elite.”12

During the early 1900s, professional architects, attracted by the city’s wealth and its citizen’s eagerness to build in the new styles, began bringing their firms to Charlotte for the first time. Louis H. Asbury was one such architect. A Charlotte-native, Asbury received formal degrees from both Duke University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.       After graduation, he traveled abroad for over a year, studying European architectural masterpieces and deriving first-hand experience with classical architectural styles.       When he returned to Charlotte in the 1910s to set up his first practice, Asbury arrived with the distinction of being one of the first formally trained architects in North Carolina and the first North Carolina member of the American Institute of Architects – he quickly became a well-known name as a residential, commercial, and civic architect with a diverse array of influences and fluent in a variety of architectural styles.13 By the time the Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners began their search for an architect to design the new courthouse at East Trade Street, Louis Asbury had designed the several houses in Myers Park, Dilworth, and Elizabeth, as well as the Mt. Carmel Baptist Church and the Morgan School in the Cherry Neighborhood. In 1926, the Board of Commissioners awarded the contract for the new courthouse building to Asbury.

Louis Asbury designed the Mecklenburg County Courthouse in the Neoclassical Style – a uniquely American style using the classical elements from the baroque Beaux-Arts style distilled to their most basic essence. The clean lines, simple ornamentation, and timeless beauty of Neoclassical architecture made it a popular choice for public and civic buildings in the early decades of the twentieth century, and Asbury’s decision to build the Mecklenburg County Courthouse in the Neoclassical style was a logical one. Several of Charlotte’s most impressive public buildings, such as the Charlotte Post Office (now the Charles R. Jonas Federal Building) on West Trade Street, built in 1917 and expanded in 1934, and the Johnston Building, the Charlotte National Bank, the First National Bank, and Hotel Charlotte – all of which were built in the flurry of building activity that characterized the 1920s in center-city Charlotte – utilized the Neoclassical style.14

The Mecklenburg County Courthouse is an imposing three-story, rectangular limestone building, topped with a recessed structure that served as the county’s jailhouse until the 1960s and supported by a foundation fashioned from locally quarried granite. The building is set on a large, manicured plot of land, fronted by mature gingko and Southern magnolia trees. The façade of the building, facing East Trade Street, is dominated by a shallow recessed portico supported by ten massive fluted Corinthian columns and accessed by a broad granite stairway that spans the entire length of the portico. The façade features regularly punctuated fenestration – the third floor windows are original arched multi-paned windows, while the smaller, more modest openings on the first floor, second floor, and basement level seem to be modern replacements. An elaborate Corinthian entablature, featuring a delicate dentil mold, egg and dart detailing and modillion brackets, encircles the entire top perimeter of the building and is topped with a recessed balustrade designed to mask equipment and ductwork housed on the rooftop.       Three pairs of original paneled bronze doors, set in stone encased openings spaced evenly under the façade’s central portico, form the Courthouse’s impressive main entranceway.       Egg and dart molding along the edge of the doors mimics the detailing in the building’s entablature.       A transom window with original patterned cast iron grills and large stone pediment crown each of the main doorways.       The building’s side elevations feature secondary entrances sheltered by flat roof porches supported by Doric columns – the original glass and bronze doors and transom windows (which mimic the main entrance) remain on both elevations. The side elevations also feature original arched windows similar to those on the facade. The rear elevation, facing 4^th Street, was designed by Asbury to be nearly as monumental and impressive as the Courthouse’s façade. A slightly smaller portico, supported by four Corinthian columns, forms the center of the rear elevation. Large bays flanking the portico feature Corinthian pilasters alternating with vertical rows of windows. Simple, relatively unadorned wings project from each end of the rear elevation.

Louis Asbury

The interior of the building has been remodeled extensively over the past sixty years – the original courtrooms have been transformed into various offices, and the entire east wing on the first floor was given over in the early 1990s       to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Law and Government Library. Although the interior retains most of its original polished marble floors and high marble wainscoting, as well as the original wrought iron and marble staircases, the interior as it stands now bears little resemblance to Asbury’s plan. The courthouse’s once spacious courtrooms, which formed the heart of Asbury’s design, have been partitioned and extensively remodeled into small office spaces.       The original plaster ceilings have been covered with dropped ceilings, which are themselves partially concealed by masses of large ductwork, painted white. The first floor east wing and west wings are partitioned by clear glass walls and clear glass doors, and thus are still clearly visible from the middle of the hall. The second and third floors have been extensively altered to accommodate the Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s office. One of the most impressive spaces inside the Courthouse, the rooftop jail (considered at the time to be a masterful solution to the concerns of nearby residents), is now, according to Building Superintendent Roger Ellison, used mainly for storage.       The second story of the jail space is the only well-preserved area of the building.

Despite the fact that much of the decorative marble-work and details such as the wrought iron staircase balustrades remain, the interior of the Mecklenburg County Courthouse as a whole has lost much of its original integrity, and should not be considered for designation.

Within the past two decades, many of center city Charlotte’s most impressive historic structures have been demolished.       Little evidence remains of the building boom that transformed the city’s built environment in the 1920s. Such structures as the Johnson Building and Hotel Charlotte no longer grace the Charlotte skyline.       The Mecklenburg County Courthouse, along with its neighbor, C. C. Hook’s City Hall Building, remain as an integral part of the center city landscape and a tangible reminder of Charlotte’s progress and development as a leading New South city in the early 1920s.          

 

 

1. Thomas Hanchett, “The Growth of Charlotte: A History” (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission), p. 15.
2. “Report on the Mecklenburg County Courthouse” (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, 1977), p. 2.
3. The Charlotte Observer, July 29, 1923, p.1.
4. “Report on the Mecklenburg County Courthouse,” p. 4.
5. Minute Book 1916-1925 of the Board of County Commissioner of Mecklenburg County, p. 349-544.
6. Ibid.
7. “Report on the Mecklenburg County Courthouse,” p. 4.
8. The Charlotte Observer, March 11, 1928, p.1.
9. Lew Powell, “The Courthouse That Sis Built:           All Consuming Renovation Plans Strain Committee,”           The Charlotte Observer, March 24, 1988, p. 6C.             Gary Wright, “The Courthouse? You Can’t Miss Them,” The Charlotte Observer, May 24, 1988, p. 1C.
10. Ibid.
11. Thomas Hanchett, “Charlotte Architecture: Design Through Time,” (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission).
12. Dr. Dan L. Morrill, “Survey and Research Report for the Textile Mill Supply Company Building” (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, 1998), p.5.
13. Jack A. Boyte, “Architectural Description of the Mecklenburg County Courthouse” (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, 1977), p. 2.
14. Hanchett, “The Growth of Charlotte,” p. 15-16.

1. Name and location of the property:  The property known as the McQuay House is located at 3200 Tuckaseegee  Road, Charlotte, North Carolina.

2. Name and address of the present owner of the property is: 

Edgar McQuay

      1112 3rd Avenue NW

      Conover, N.C. 28613

      (828) 464-3279

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

 

4. Maps depicting the location of the property: This report contains a map depicting the location of the property.

 

5. UTM coordinate:  17 510556E  3900220N

 

6. Current deed book and tax parcel information for the property:

The most recent deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book

17354 on page 629. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 06504211.

 

7. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property.

 

8. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property.

 

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

 

1. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance:  The Commission judges that the property known as the McQuay House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg.  The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:

 

1. The McQuay House, originally the home of Robert E. McQuay, was built by his brother, John B. McQuay, in 1882.  The domicile served as a farmhouse on a 13 acre parcel of land, and exists as a physical reminder of the rural landscape of Mecklenburg County in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

 

2. The McQuay House features Folk Victorian architectural elements, which were inspired by the Queen Anne Style and popular during the 1880s.  The wraparound porch, added in the early 1920s, represents the free classical style, which was a common decorative detailing subtype among Queen Anne homes. The property’s existing outbuildings include a gabled, wood garage, and a dilapidated chicken house.

 

3. The McQuay House, located approximately two miles from the center of center city Charlotte, is now surrounded by residential development on all sides.  Despite the home’s altered surroundings, the McQuay House still retains the physical integrity of a rural domicile.

 

 

1. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association:  The Commission contends that the physical and architectural description which is included in this report demonstrates that the McQuay House meets this criterion.

 

10. 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 total appraised value of the McQuay House is $73,200.00.  The current total appraised value of the house is $58,700.00.  The current total appraised value of the lot is $8,100.00.  The current total value of the outbuildings is $6,400.00.
11. Portion of the property recommended for designation:  The exterior and interior of the McQuay House, and the property associated with the tax parcel are recommended for historic designation.

Date of preparation of this report: May 2005

 

Prepared by: Paul Archambault  and Dr. Dan L. Morrill  

  

Historical Overview

 

     The McQuay House, located on Tuckaseegee Road in Charlotte, N.C., was built in 1882 by John B. McQuay for his brother, Robert E. McQuay.  Members of the McQuay Family continuously occupied the house from 1882 until 2002.[1]  At the time of its construction, the dwelling sat on a thirteen-acre farm and was situated approximately two miles from the center of Charlotte.[2]  The home presently sits on a two-acre lot but serves as a reminder of the rural lifestyle and landscape that existed in Mecklenburg County in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  Developmental pressures have virtually destroyed much of Mecklenburg County’s rural built environment.  The growth and prosperity of Charlotte and its environs in the late 1800s and early 1900s, resulting largely from the rise of the railroad, textile mills, and banks, created an increase in urbanization and a decline of rural communities. The McQuay House, therefore, possesses special significance as an artifact of Mecklenburg County’s rural heritage.

     The McQuay property has a compelling history.  Thomas Hale McQuay, great-great grandfather of the present owner, Edgar E. McQuay, purchased 110 acres of land in 1817 where the McQuay House currently stands. The builder of the house was Robert E. McQuay, son of James and Margaret McQuay, who was born in 1851 and grew up working on the McQuay farm.  In 1881, Robert married Virginia Rhyne of Gaston County and a year later constructed the present Folk Victorian home with the assistance of John McQuay, his brother.[3]  The cross-gabled dwelling, inspired by the Queen Anne style, was popular among farmsteads during the late nineteenth century and was feasible to construct because the railroad system in Mecklenburg County made embellished pre-cut lumber more available to builders of the traditional folk house forms.[4]

     Robert McQuay made his living by growing produce for sale in Charlotte.  The primary crops cultivated on the farm were corn, fruit, and a variety of vegetables.  Robert was also an apiculturist.  He constructed bee boxes to extract honey from the hives for profit at the market. The family also raised animals, including cows and chickens.  Robert and the family often traveled two miles to the market in Charlotte to sell the produce and vegetables which he grew on the farm.  The McQuays were able to maintain a self-sufficient lifestyle from the 1880s until the 1930s and make a modest living from the sale of their crops.[5] 

     Edgar H. McQuay, son of Robert and Virginia, was born in 1897 and began laboring on the farm at an early age.  In 1904, the death of Edgar’s father caused Edgar to leave school after only four years and help support his mother and sister, Nona.  To supplement his income,  Edgar worked at nearby Lakewood Park from 1910 until 1915.  The park, constructed by Edward Dilworth Latta  in 1910, was located behind the farm and served as a major amusement center for white Charlotteans.  It contained facilities for swimming, boating, a merry-go-round, various rides, a dance pavilion, and a zoo.  The streetcar extended its line to Lakewood Park to bring visitors from the city.[6] 

    By 1910, approximately one-half of the residents of  Mecklenburg County  lived within the Charlotte city limits.[7]   Farmers in Charlotte’s surrounding countryside understandably began to sell their land to developers, because it proved to be more profitable.  Also, the destruction of cotton crops by the boll weevil prompted many farmers to pursue more stable jobs in the factories.[8]   Edgar H. McQuay secured employment with the Ford Motor Company in 1915 to increase his income.[9]  In 1925, Edgar began working in Ford’s new assembly plant on Statesville Road where Model Ts and Model As were built.[10]  Edgar was able to maintain his job throughout the Great Depression of the 1930s because of his hard work ethic and good reputation with the company.

 Edgar H. and Maude McQuay reared two girls and two boys.  The McQuay children, in their spare time, performed routine farming and household duties in the early morning and evening.  Edgar E. McQuay, born in 1928, recalls helping his father construct bee boxes in the wood shop.[11]  The children attended grades one through six at the Glenwood Elementary School, which was located within the city limits.  Edgar remembers attending the city school free of charge, because of the proximity of the family’s homeplace to Charlotte. The McQuay House, according to the Charlotte City Directory, became part of Charlotte in 1939.  After leaving Glenwood School, Edgar E., and his siblings, James, Martha, and Juanita, attended grades seven through eleven at the Thomasboro High School, which was located on Bradford Drive.[12]

   The growth of the McQuay Family in the 1920s and 1930s caused Edgar, Sr. to make several changes to the house. In the 1910s, electricity was added; and outbuildings were constructed on the property, which included a barn, garage, and chicken houses.   The domicile originally featured a simple shed roof porch over the main entrance; but in the late 1910s and early 1920s, Edgar completed a wraparound porch with classical columns.  In addition, he added a kitchen, back porch (“sleeping porch”), and pump house at the rear of the dwelling.  A bathroom was built in the 1940s and subsequently converted into a kitchen, which was completed with a stove, sink, and cabinets in 1948.[13] 

   The Agricultural Adjustment Administration Act, part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, reduced crop acreage and livestock production, and as a result affected the economic viability of the McQuay Farm.[14]  The family began to disperse and eventually sold eleven acres in the 1940s to developers after the death of Edgar H. McQuay in 1938 and his mother in 1946.   Edgar, Sr.’s married sister, Nona Stone, built a home and resided directly west of the McQuay House where the Solo gas station and convenience store are presently located.  Juanita McQuay moved into a duplex west of her aunt’s house on the corner of Tuckaseegee Road and McQuay Road after she married Jack Treat.[15] Edgar, Jr. and younger brother, James, left home in the 1950s for military service and college at North Carolina State for engineering and horticulture, respectively.  Juanita moved to Steele Creek with her husband; but Maude and her daughter, Martha, remained in the house.  Maude died in 1981, and willed the home and property to her daughter. Martha worked for Southern Bell Telephone Company until her retirement and resided in the dwelling until 2002, when she moved to Park Road and conveyed the property to Edgar.[16] 

Edgar E. McQuay graduated from Thomasboro High School in 1945 and left home for college at North Carolina State.  He paid his way through school with the G.I. Bill, because work was limited with the returning World War II veterans. He received a degree in engineering at N.C. State, and moved to Sharon, PA from 1951 until 1956 to work at Westinghouse.[17]  Edgar returned to Charlotte and received a job at Douglas Aircraft Company where they assembled missiles.[18]  Douglas Aircraft was located in the same building where the Ford Motor Company had existed and where Edgar, Sr. had worked over thirty years earlier. 

Edgar lived at the McQuay House for a year and made several changes to the home’s front entrance, hallway, front bedroom, and sleeping porch. He married Barbara Jean Williams in February 1958, and later had a son and daughter. In 1959, they moved to Conover when he was hired at General Electric.  They continue to reside there today.  His brother, James, received a job in the horticulture department at Duke University and lives in Durham, N.C. [19]

  

Physical Description

 

Site Description

 

The McQuay House is located  in Mecklenburg County at 3200 Tuckaseegee Road, approximately two miles west of center city Charlotte.  The house sits on a two-acre lot and is situated approximately one hundred feet north of Tuckaseegee Road.  A gravel driveway, which extends to the rear of the dwelling, is located directly west of the house. Several trees, bushes, and shrubs adorn the front yard.  Outbuildings include a wood, gable-roofed garage, which sits approximately twenty feet northeast of the domicile, two dilapidated chicken houses behind the garage, and a gable-roofed pump house, which is attached to the rear of the home.  A patch of woods stands between the rear of the house and a  residential development, and a large lot owned by Edgar E. McQuay, bordered on the east by Opal Street, is located directly east of the abode.    The Solo gas station and convenient store, and McQuay Avenue sit directly west of the McQuay property.

 

Architectural Description

 

Exterior

 

The McQuay House is a one-and-a-half story, Folk Victorian, cross-gabled house with Queen Anne Style elements, and is three-bays wide and two-bays deep.  The dwelling is covered with wood siding, and rests on brick piers, which have been infilled with block. The facade’s moderately pitched roof features two patterned, wood-shingled gables with rectangular, wooden vents.  The larger gable is aligned with the west elevation, and a lower gable rests above and between the front entrance and one-over-one, sash window.  The front-end gable protrudes slightly from the facade, which features two, original one-over-one, sash windows, and a metal replacement door with a decorative, wood surround, and rectangular, transom windows on both sides, which were added by Edgar E. McQuay in 1957.  A wraparound porch, added in the late 1910s and early 1920s, stretches along most of the front facade, and extends to the center of the east elevation.  The porch roof is supported by full height, white, classical columns, with porch railings in between the columns.  A low-pitched, gable rises from the porch roof above the concrete steps, which are surrounded by an original, fieldstone foundation on both sides.  The original porch roof was a simple, shed roof above a wooden door with a deocrative glass border.

 

The east elevation features two, one-over-one, sash windows with an exterior chimney located in between them.  The wraparound porch extends to the end of the east elevation.  A shed roof addition, which features three replacement windows, extends from the rear of the east elevation, and wraps around to the back porch.  The addition was constructed by Edgar H. McQuay in the 1920s, and served as a screened porch, or more commonly known to the McQuay Family as the “sleeping porch.”   Edgar E. McQuay converted this addition into a room for his sister, Juanita, and her husband, Jack Treat, in 1945-1946, and into a bathroom in 1948.

 

The west elevation includes two, two-over-two sash windows, and several additions, which extend from its rear elevation.  A one-room gable-and-end addition, which served as the kitchen and bathroom, extends from the rear elevation.  It was constructed by Edgar H. McQuay in the late 1910s and early 1920s to accommodate the growing family.  The shed roof extension near the kitchen, which served as the bathroom, was later converted as additional kitchen space in 1948.  Maude McQuay had it refurbished, and it included a sink, oven, and cabinets.  Edgar E. McQuay moved the bathroom to the “sleeping porch” addition the same year. 

 

The rear elevation features a gabled pump house with three bracketed ends, and a shed roof porch supported by square, wood posts.  The porch has a stone foundation, and includes a replacement door, which originally was a window at the rear of the house.  The well used by Robert and Virginia McQuay in the late nineteenth century was located directly behind the house, and later was surrounded by the stone foundation and covered by the porch’s concrete surface.   Another well was dug in the early 1900s by Edgar H. McQuay, and later covered by the present wood, gable-roofed wellhouse.  The well was used by the family until the 1940s.  The remainder of the rear elevation of the house includes concrete steps, which extend from the shed porch, and the enclosed porch where the bathroom is located. 

 

Interior

 

The domicile, originally a hall-and-parlor with a master bedroom and a dining room/kitchen, experienced several changes from the 1910s until the late 1950s.  The pine floor in the master bedroom and the dining room, baseboards, door and window surrounds, and fireplace mantles are original. Edgar E. McQuay lowered the ceiling from eleven feet two inches to eight-and-half feet in the late 1940s.  Some of the architectural features in the home’s interior have been damaged because of vandalism during the abode’s vacancy during the past two years

 

The front entrance of the dwelling leads into a sitting room, which used to be the hallway.  In 1957, Edgar E. McQuay removed the west wall of the hallway, reducing the size of the master bedroom, and enlarging the hall space to accommodate guests in the sitting room.  Edgar, in addition, added a closet, which is west of the front entrance.  The room’s original pine floor was replaced with an oak floor.

 

The master bedroom, located west of the sitting room, includes two closets, two windows, and a fireplace, which is double-sided.  The chimney used for the fireplace was destroyed by a storm.  This room functioned as the family bedroom from 1882 until the 1940s, and Maude McQuay occupied the bedroom after her children moved from the home.  The fireplace, on the north wall of the room, has a ceramic tile surround, and once had an oak mantle with a large mirror above it.  However, during the past two years, the mirror was damaged and the mantle was stolen from the domicile.  Directly to the west of the fireplace is an original closet, which was a novelty feature of new homes in the 1880s.  An additional closet was added on the east wall in the 1950s.  A one-over-one, sash window, and a two-over-two, sash window are located on the south wall and west wall, respectively.  The bedroom door and closet door are original, and the walls are covered with wood paneling.

 

Located to the east of the sitting room is the entrance to the parlor.  It features two, one-over-one, sash windows on the east wall with a fireplace, and a one-over-one sash window on the south wall.  The fireplace includes an original, decorative, wood mantle.  The room, used for the family’s special events, served as the location for Juanita McQuay and Jack Treat’s wedding ceremony.  Edgar E. McQuay converted the parlor into a bedroom for his older sister, Martha, and added a closet on the room’s north wall in 1957.

 

The dining room and its entrance are located north of the sitting room and master bedroom.  This room once functioned as the kitchen and gathering place for family meals, and as the bedroom for Robert’s mother, Virginia.  When Edgar and Maude’s family grew in the 1920s and 1930s, a kitchen was added to the north wall of the room (rear of the house). The fireplace surrounded by a decorative, wood mantle, located on the south wall, served as the dwelling’s primary cooking area, and a coal burning stove was later added.  Edgar E. McQuay remembers the meals prepared in the room, as well as heating water on the stove for bathing. The dining room also features an original closet, located to the west of the fireplace, a two-over-two, sash window on the west wall, and the entrance to the bathroom and additional bedroom. 

 

The entrance to the kitchen is located on the north wall of the dining room.  The kitchen, added in the late 1910s and early 1920s, included cabinets, a large table, and benches for meals.  In addition, it later served as a laundry room. The walls feature three- foot, wood baseboards, a multi-paned, wood door (originally a window) on the north wall leading to the back porch, and a multi-paned, wood door on the east wall.  A bathroom was added to the west of the kitchen, and was later refurbished to accommodate cabinets, a stove, and sink.  The bathroom was moved to the “sleeping porch” in 1948.

 

Edgar E. McQuay converted the “sleeping porch” to a bathroom and bedroom, which was built for his sister, Juanita, and her husband, Jack in the 1940s.  The bedroom features a closet, and two replacement windows on the east wall and north (rear) wall.  In between the bathroom and bedroom is a small hallway with cabinets, and features an original door, which leads to the sitting room.  Before the addition of the screened porch, this door served as the rear entrance of the house.

 

 

 

[1] Edgar E. McQuay, Interview, January 4, 2005.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] McAlester, Lee and Virginia. A Field Guide to American Houses.  New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 310.

 

[5] Edgar E. McQuay, Interview, January 4, 2005.

 

[6] Ibid.

[7] Blythe, LeGette and Brockmann, Charles R. Hornet’s Nest: The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg

                County, p. 262.

[8] Hanchett, Thomas, and Sumner, Ryan.  Images of America: Charlotte and the Carolina Piedmont.

Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2003, p. 36.

[9] Edgar E. McQuay, Interview, January 4, 2005.

 

 

[10] Hanchett, Thomas, and Sumner, Ryan.  Images of America: Charlotte and the Carolina Piedmont.

Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2003, p. 89.

[11] Edgar E. McQuay, Interview, January 4, 2005.

 

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] “Historic Rural Resources in Mecklenburg County, North, Carolina.” (Modern Era)

[15] Edgar E. McQuay, Interview, January 4, 2005.

 

 

[16] Mecklenburg County Deed Book 14265, Page 502.

[17] Edgar E. McQuay, Interview, January 4, 2005.

 

 

 

[18] Blythe, LeGette and Brockmann, Charles R. Hornet’s Nest: The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg

                County, p. 301.

 

[19] Edgar E. McQuay, Interview, January 4, 2005.

This report was written on 4 May 1990

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the McNinch House is located at 2727 Sharon Lane in Charlotte, NC.

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

William J., Jr., and Mary Ellen Wortman
2401 Sharon Lane
Charlotte, North Carolina

Telephone: (704) 365-3293

Tax Parcel Number: 183-012-04

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 most recent deed to this property is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 3759 at page 746. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 183-012-04.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Ms. Barbara M. Mull.

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

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

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the McNinch House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:
1) the McNinch House was constructed in 1925 for Frank Ramsay McNinch, one of North Carolina’s most prominent political figures;
2) while mayor of Charlotte, Mr. McNinch guided the city into the Commission form of government and curbed the bloody streetcar strike of 1918;
3) while serving two United States presidents in Washington, D.C., Mr. McNinch filled various high ranking positions including that of President Roosevelt’s representative to the World Power Conference at the Hague;
4) the McNinch House later served as a home for the family of C. P. Street of the prominent construction firm, McDevitt and Street;
5) the McNinch House is an excellent example of the Colonial Revival style of architecture that flourished following the restoration of Mount Vernon;
6) the McNinch House is an example of the early 20th century country estates that lured Fourth Ward residents from the downtown area;
7) the irregular chimney, with two windows in it, is a unique feature; and
8) the McNinch House serves as a focus on Sharon Lane and a reminder of an earlier era.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Ms. Barbara M. Mull which is included in this report demonstrates that the McNinch House meets this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes a designated “historic landmark.” The current appraised value of the improvements is $197,140. The current appraised value of the 3.1 acres is $167,400. The total appraised value of the property is $364,540. The property is zoned R15.

Date of Preparation of this Report: 4 May 1990

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

Telephone: (704) 376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview  

Barbara M. Mull

In the mid-1920s when Frank Ramsay McNinch (1873-1950) commissioned Thies-Smith Realty Company to construct the house at 2727 Sharon Lane, he envisioned practicing law in Charlotte and living in the quiet of the country, surrounded by great oaks and peach orchards he had cultivated since purchasing the 43.4 acre tract of land in 1913. At the time the house was built Frank McNinch had no way of knowing that he and his family would be able to enjoy living in their new home for only a few years, and that after 1930 he would spend the rest of his life in Washington, D. C., as a high ranking government official appointed by both Republican and Democratic Presidents.³ For thirteen years the McNinches kept the house, but their visits to Charlotte were confined to holidays and vacations.⁴

The Mount Vernon-styled house Frank McNinch built for his family was impressive with its stately columned veranda stretching across the full length of the front of the house. This feeling of spaciousness was continued inside the fourteen-room residence when the architect designed the entrance hall and adjacent living and dining rooms with only Corinthian columns defining the end of one area and the beginning of another. French doors on either side of the living room fireplace opened into the sunroom, while another door led into the study. The large dining room, complete with fireplace, easily seated sixteen to twenty people. Beyond the dining room was a breakfast room, kitchen, pantry, and two small rooms. A staircase near the service area led to the basement and laundry facilities.

Upstairs there are five bedrooms, a sewing room, and two baths. Both of the end bedrooms on the front of the house have fireplaces, and the bath in the master bedroom has a unique feature, a window which extended into a portion of the chimney. The attic, which was reached from a full-sized stairway from the second floor landing, was well-lighted and provided a large storage area. To reach the widow’s walk on the roof, it was necessary to stoop low and pass through a trap door, but the view from that vantage point was said to be magnificent.⁵

The grounds on the property were beautifully landscaped with an abundance of flowers, shrubs, and trees of many verities. Beyond the garden at the rear of the house are servants’ quarters and a two-car garage. A large red barn and a cottage were located further back on the McNinch land. Landscaping plans had originally called for formal gardens, a swimming pool, and a greenhouse, but before those things could be completed the family made the move to the nation’s capital.⁶

Political involvement had become a tradition in Frank McNinch’s family, beginning with his father, Franklin Alonzo McNinch (1841-1893), a South Carolina native who fought in the Civil War. Frank McNinch’s mother was Sarah Virginia Ramsay (1842-1898) from Rowan County, in North Carolina. Franklin Alonzo McNinch settled his family in Charlotte in 1866, and over a period of twenty-five years he held many public offices in the city. For three terms he served as Charlotte’s chief of police, and he was a highly respected trial justice for fifteen years. The old Pioneer Fire Company elected him as its first chief, and later he was elected chief of the Volunteer Fire Department.⁸ In 1883 a statue was placed in Elmwood Cemetery near the entrance gate as a memorial to Charlotte’s firefighters. It was made in Italy by craftsmen who worked from a photograph of Franklin Alonzo McNinch, who had been chosen by his fellows for this honor.⁹ His last post of public service was that of superintending the city quarry, where he expanded operations and increased productivity dramatically.¹⁰ Part of the legacy Franklin Alonzo McNinch left his children was the example he set in making decisions based on principles, regardless of the personal price involved.¹¹

In later years the McNinch family made their home on N. Poplar Street and the four McNinch children grew up there. Franklin Alonzo McNinch’s sons, Frank Ramsay and Samuel Sylvanus (1867-1929), followed their father into politics. During the period 1905 to 1907, S. S. McNinch was mayor of Charlotte. He served a number of terms as a member of Charlotte’s board of aldermen. Businesses he founded were the S. S. McNinch Real Estate Company and Charlotte Brick Company. Franklin Alonzo McNinch’s daughters married men who became pioneer builders in Charlotte. May McNinch (1879-1974) married Frank Brandon Smith and became prominent in civic, cultural, patriotic, and social organizations where she provided outstanding leadership for sixty years. When she was president of Charlotte’s Council of Parent-Teacher Associations, May McNinch Smith was one of the first women to speak to various groups in support of teaching the Bible as literature in the public schools, an issue which was not at all popular at the time. Her sister, Virginia Juanita “Nettle” McNinch (1868-1912), married Oscar J. Thies, a mining engineer who later founded Carolina Realty Company, Thies-Smith Realty Company, and Thies Realty Company. Nettie McNinch Thies was described as “high spirited,” with a sweet disposition, and as an accomplished pianist of concert quality. Her early death cut short a life already deeply involved in the betterment of Charlotte.

The McNinches, with their close-knit family ties and staunch Presbyterian background, produced in Frank Ramsay McNinch one of North Carolina’s most prominent political figures. Young Frank McNinch was educated in Charlotte schools and attended Barrier’s Military Institute. In 1900 he received his law degree from the University of North Carolina and returned to Charlotte to practice law. The year his brother became mayor of Charlotte, Frank McNinch was elected to the state House of Representatives. Twelve years later, in 1917, Frank McNinch was elected to the mayoral office and found himself faced with the difficult task of guiding the city through the years of the first World War and into the new Commission form of city government. When a bloody streetcar strike occurred in 1918, Mayor Frank McNinch authorized a group of citizens as special police officers and charged them with restoring order. A recall campaign was launched against him, but rather than destroying his political career, the vote added to McNinch’s reputation as an effective administrator.¹⁵ After his election to a second term as mayor, Frank McNinch resigned in 1921 to become the regional representative of the National Recreation Association. Charlotteans have ranked Frank McNinch as “one of the city’s ablest and best mayors of this century.” He was recognized as “a man of exceptionally keen intellect, diligent, energetic and virile, a fluent and forceful speaker, a gifted writer, a most attractive personality, and withal a man of high ideals.”

A Presbyterian elder, teacher of the Men’s Bible Class at Second Presbyterian Church–and a “dry”–Frank McNinch led the 1928 opposition to Al Smith, the Democratic Party’s nominee for president and a “wet” who promised repeal of Prohibition. McNinch stumped the State for Herbert Hoover, and the Republicans carried North Carolina for the first time since the Civil War. In 1930 President Hoover appointed the independent Democrat, Frank McNinch, to a seat on the Federal Power Commission as the Democratic party member, and he was confirmed by the Senate after heated opposition from North Carolina Democrats. Although McNinch rejected his party’s nominee in 1928 and actively campaigned for Hoover, he remained a Democrat and did not leave his party. When Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to the presidency, he named Frank McNinch as Chairman of the Federal Power Commission, where he served from 1933 to 1937. This placed McNinch in the middle of the controversy over the Tennessee Valley Authority. President Roosevelt had a great deal of trust in Frank McNinch’s judgment and leaned heavily on him for guidance in matters of public power policy. It was McNinch who was Roosevelt’s representative to the executive council of the World Power conference at the Hague.

In 1937 a controversy began to brew over at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and President Roosevelt sent one of his best trouble-shooters, Frank McNinch, over as chairman. Time magazine’s cover story of May, 1938, on Chairman NcNinch of the FCC, called McNinch “a small but fearless Presbyterian Elder,” a man who had “lots of political nerve.” When Roosevelt sent McNinch over to the FCC to untangle the problems in its administration, Time says that McNinch took immediate and decisive action: “Within the first few months of his FCC Chairmanship, Mr. McNinch served notice on lobbyists that their visits and pleadings to Commissioners would receive the fullest publicity. He brought the Commission up to date on its hearings, eliminated departmental divisions, which caused the dismissal of a friend of Jim Farley, a relative of Justice Black and the nephew of Sam Rayburn.”¹⁹ Being one of Roosevelt’s “troubleshooters” and working under constant pressure took its toll on McNinch’s health. In 1939 he resigned the chairmanship to accept less taxing duties as Special Assistant to the Attorney General, a position he held until his retirement in 1946.²⁰

Frank McNinch and his wife, Huldah (1894-1969), chose to remain in Washington after his retirement. They were married in 1917 when she was a young school teacher and he was mayor of Charlotte, a widower with three small children. Frank McNinch’s first marriage, in 1905, was to Mary Groome (1880-1915), a writer whose poetry was well known in North Carolina. Huldah Groome McNinch and Mary Groome McNinch were sisters, daughters of Dr. P. L. Groome, a prominent clergyman in the Methodist Episcopal Church South. Frank and Huldah McNinch’s two children, Robert and Huldah, were living in Washington. Frank, Jr., Mary, and Ariel, children of Frank and Mary Groome McNinch, were located much nearer to Washington, D. C. than to North Carolina. By 1943, already in declining health and nearing retirement, Frank McNinch had to come to grips with the fact that he and his family had located permanently in and around the nation’s capital, and it was no longer feasible to keep the house in Charlotte.

During their years in Washington, the McNinches had rented the Sharon Lane house from time to time and in between tenants, his sister and her family–the Frank Brandon Smith ‘s–moved out of their house and into her brother’s place to take care of it and decide what should be done by way of repairs. The house was large, and the grounds, buildings, and peach orchards required a great deal of upkeep. May McNinch Smith’s daughter, Virginia Smith Johnston, still lives in the Charlotte area and enjoys talking about the many pleasant memories she has of those days. Frank McNinch corresponded frequently with his sister May over the years, and the two families spent Christmases together, with the McNinches returning to Charlotte or the Smiths making the trip to Washington. Any time Frank McNinch was in Charlotte on Sunday, the Men’s Bible Class at the Second Presbyterian Church expected him to teach the class. He found it quite difficult to sever his ties with Charlotte, and on the occasion of the house’s sale, he wrote to May, saying, “We hated to part with the house–many happy days were spent there. Many happy recollections cling to the lovely place, but we could never hope to live there again.”

Howard M. Wade, a manufacturer of bank and office furnishings, purchased the house in 1943 as a gift for his daughter, Isabelle Reynolds, and her family. The Reynolds adapted the house to their needs, replacing the Corinthian columns with squared doorways, making the sewing room into a bathroom, and building the bedroom fireplaces in flush with the walls and plastering over them. The Reynolds family settled into the house, but the marriage ended in a divorce, and the house was placed in a trust. Isabelle Reynolds later married Charles F. Bacon and the couple moved to New York, but the house was not closed. Mrs. Bacon kept it furnished and operating so Rosalie Reynolds, her daughter, could stay there when she visited Charlotte. In a recent interview, Mrs. Bacon talked about her years in “the house with the most beautiful view in Charlotte.” It was, she said, a lovely place and quite comfortable, but she finally decided to sell it because she had no plans for returning to Charlotte to live.

When C. P. and Ruth Street bought the house in 1959,²⁸ they had already reared a large family and had only one son at home, but they still needed a place with plenty of room to complement their lifestyle. One of the first things they did in making changes in the house was to create closet space at the rear of the front entrance hall and install a bath on the first floor. The middle bedroom on the second floor was turned into a customized dressing room. French doors in the living room were replaced by bookcases; the sunroom was greatly expanded, with entry rerouted through the study. The house, Mrs. Street said, was just right for them, and they spent sixteen of the happiest years of their lives there. Family gatherings were held in the sunroom; the dining room was so large it easily took care of the Street clan when they got together; and there was plenty of bedroom space when children and grandchildren came to visit. C. P. Street, of McDevitt and Street, especially enjoyed the gardens, and there was a wealth of vegetables and flowers grown on the place. The time came when the Streets felt that it would be better for them to move into an apartment, so they parted with the house with mixed emotions. Mrs. Street now lives within a few blocks of the house and passes by often. She says she hardly ever goes by 2727 Sharon Lane without thinking about how much she loved the place when she lived there. ²⁹

As a boy, Dr. William J. Wortman, Jr. used to ride his bicycle past the Mount Vernon-styled house and think about how much he would really love to live in a house like that. His boyhood daydreams about the place became a reality when the Charlotte obstetrician-gynecologist and his wife, Mary Ellen, purchased it in 1975.³⁰ During the eleven years the Wortmans have lived there, working on the house has been a way of life. Between the two of them, they have had the patience, talent, and mechanical expertise to do most of the repairs, remodeling, and refurbishing themselves. Although they have completed major projects, such as expanding the basement, installing a temperature-controlled wine cellar, and engaging a contractor to help incorporate the four small rooms and back porch into a well-equipped, contemporary kitchen, they continue to be involved in the process of adapting the house to fit the way they live.

Because they enjoy the back garden and yard, the Wortmans built a deck across the full length of the back of the house, complete with a Jacuzzi, which gives them a more informal and relaxed setting for entertaining in the summer months. In the dining room, the Wortmans comfortably seat as many as sixteen for formal dinners, but they also like to do casual entertaining in the newly completed kitchen. For these occasions, Dr. and Mrs. Wortman do their own gourmet cooking and bring carefully selected bottles of wine up from the racks in what they call “Bill’s special hideaway.” He keeps a wine diary, making careful notes about every bottle he opens. Actually, according to Mary Ellen Wortman, the diary has chronicled the history of their family life.³¹

When Bill Wortman walks through the house, he experiences a certain sense of satisfaction with the things he and Mary Ellen have accomplished, but he is also keenly aware of new projects he would like to begin. One of those is finishing off the attic and turning it into a third floor retreat or recreation area, maybe something for Richard, a son who is a third-year engineering student at Duke University. When Bill Wortman steps outside and looks across the lawn towards the winding drive leading up to the house with its ancient oaks, he wonders about the future of the place. He has a well-developed sense of the past and its importance to on-coming generations. In the house there is a subtle blend of the old and the new, but Bill Wortman sees that there is nothing subtle about the changes in South Charlotte and along Sharon Road and Sharon Lane. The house is located on three acres of choice real estate, and Bill Wortman thinks it ought to be allowed to remain there, safe from bulldozers and apartment complexes, a protected historic property.³²

 

---

NOTES

¹ Frank R. Thies, Sr., President of Thies Realty and Mortgage Company, letter to Barbara M. Mull, September 25, 1985 affixes the date the house was built as “the mid-1920s;” City of Charlotte Water Department records, May, 1925 show a tap was installed on the property; Earl S. Draper, Sr., Landscaping Plans, signed November, 1924.

² Deed Book 302, pages 552-553, February 21, 1913.

³ The Charlotte Observer, Editorial, October 13, 1984.

⁴ Virginia Smith Johnston, personal interview by Barbara M. Mull, February 8, 1986.

⁵ Dr. and Mrs. William Wortman, personal interview by Barbara M. Mull, January 30, 1986 Virginia Smith Johnston, personal interview by Barbara M. Mull, February 8, 1986.

⁶ Earl S. Draper, original landscaping plans, November, 1924, per Miss Huldah McNinch, Silver Spring, Maryland; Virginia Smith Johnston, telephone interview by Barbara M. Mull, February 14, 1986.

⁷ Obituary of Franklin Alonzo McNinch, The Charlotte Daily Observer, April 11, 1893, on file in the Carolina Room at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library, main branch at Tryon and Sixth streets. Virginia Smith Johnston, personal interview by Barbara M. Mull, February 8, 1986.

⁸ Obituary of Franklin Alonzo McNinch, The Charlotte Daily Observer, April 11, 1893.

⁹ The Charlotte Observer, July 26, 1980, article furnished by Virginia Smith Johnston with original photographs from which the statue of Franklin Alonzo McNinch was made.

¹⁰ Obituary of Franklin Alonzo McNinch, The Charlotte Daily Observer, April 11, 1893.

¹¹ Virginia Smith Johnston, personal interview, February 8, 1986.

¹² Obituary of Samuel S. McNinch, The Charlotte Observer, March 1, 1929.

¹³ The Charlotte Observer, “Women Builders of Charlotte,” undated article. The Charlotte News, “At 89, Mrs. Smith Is Belle of the Convention (DAR),” February 28, 1968.

¹⁴ Obituary of “Nettle” McNinch Thies, The Charlotte Observer, July 22, 1912.

¹⁵ TIME, The Weekly Newsmagazine, “FCC’s McNinch,” May 16, 1938, pp. 25-28. In this issue Frank Ramsay McNinch is the subject of Time’s cover story.

¹⁶ Obituary of Frank Ramsay McNinch, The Charlotte Observer, April 11, 1950.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ TIME, May 16, 1938.

²⁰ Commissioner Walker, Resolution offered to the Federal Communication Commission, April 21, 1950, in recognition of the service Frank R. McNinch gave to the FCC as its chairman during a crisis period, 1937-1939. A copy of the resolution was sent to his family.

²¹ Obituary of Mary Groome McNinch, The Charlotte Daily Observer, February 22, 1915; Obituary of Mary Groome McNinch, The Charlotte News, February 22, 1915; Virginia Smith Johnston, personal interview by Barbara M. Mull, February 8, 1986.

²² Charlotte City Directories, 1930-1943; Virginia Smith Johnston, interview February 8, 1986.

²³ Frank R. McNinch, letter to May McNinch Smith, at the time of the house’s sale (from May McNinch Smith’s private papers).

²⁴ Deed Book 1114, page 3, December 30, 1943; Isabelle Wade Bacon, telephone interview, February 3, 1986. Mrs. Bacon says positively the house was not empty between the time she moved to New York and the time it was sold–it remained furnished and was used from time to time by her family when they returned to Charlotte to visit. Another error connected with the house while Mrs. Bacon owned it is that she operated a dancing school there. The fact, Mrs. Bacon says, is that she lectured at schools, clubs, etc., across the South on folkdancing, and that she never taught dancing per se, certainly not in the house.

²⁵ Deed Book 1519, pages 263-265, September 10, 1951.

²⁶ Isabelle Bacon, telephone interview by Barbara M. Mull, February 3, 1986.

²⁷ Deed Book 2037, pages 397-398, January 5, 1959.

²⁸ Deed Book 2037, pages 587-589, January 9, 1959.

²⁹ Mrs. C. P. Street, personal interview by Barbara M. Mull, January 30, 1986.

³⁰ Deed Book 3759, pages 746-749, May 28, 1975.

³¹ Dr. and Mrs. William J. Wortman, Jr., personal interview by Barbara M. Mull, January 30, 1986.

³² Ibid.

 

 

Architectural Description  

Mr. Joseph Schuchman

The Samuel McNinch House is the notable seat of an early twentieth century landed estate. This Colonial Revival structure was constructed about 1925 ¹ by Samuel McNinch, a former mayor of the City of Charlotte. Situated at the apex of a graded drive, the house is significantly recessed from Sharon Lane. Although now surrounded by handsome suburban-style dwellings of more recent construction, the McNinch House recalls an earlier time when farmland dominated the immediate environs and the City of Charlotte was a distant car ride away. As the Queen City has grown, particularly in the past two decades, the surrounding land has become a prime commercial and residential area. The McNinch House and its immediate surroundings still retain the charm and character established by its original occupants.

The McNinch House clearly owes its Colonial Revival design to two strongly related historical movements, the restoration of George Washington’s beloved Mount Vernon and the reawakened interest in Colonial American art and artifacts brought about by the celebration of the United States Centennial in 1876. Mount Vernon was rescued from oblivion by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association in 1853. The house of the nation’s first president was so revered that the movement for its restoration attracted nationwide support despite growing sectional differences which ultimately led to Civil War. Following the rediscovery of colonial crafts and designs, Mount Vernon and other sites associated with the young American republic became the inspiration for numerous builders in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Across America, Mount Vernon has served as a model for numerous structures, from academic style mansions to humorously conceived “Colonial-inspired” roadside restaurants. Perhaps influenced by the historic romanticism associated with the man Washington and the era in which he lived, Mount Vernon became the leading prototype for Colonial Revival residential architecture. Stylistically, details were, for the most part, classically derived. A freestanding portico across the main facade was a typical element applied to larger residential structures.

 

---

¹The date of construction is strongly based upon the date of the issuance of a permit for sewer service. A permit for sewer service was issued on May 5, 1925, Permit Number 2402, Service Number 7880, Service Book 7001-9000, approximating the construction date, the overall appearance of the house and the year in which the land was acquired by Samuel McNinch were also taken into consideration.

---

This substantial house is of frame construction. Exterior elevations are weatherboarded. A gable roof covers the two and a story main block. Typical of the strong classical influence in the building’s design, the main facade is symmetrically arranged and presents a dignified street appearance. Side and rear elevations are less strictly arranged, the fenestration pattern being determined more by interior needs rather than the desire to create a balanced exterior appearance. Twelve/twelve and eight/eight sash are prominently used. Window openings are set in two part surrounds and are framed by wooden louvered shutters. The upper panel of each shutter displays a five pointed star and a quarter moon.

A two story porch shelters the front elevation. The first story of the main facade is five bays wide; six window openings punctuate the second floor. Red-colored bricks, laid perpendicular to each other, form a continuous V-pattern and serve as the porch floor. A series of six wooden piers support the flat-roofed porch. Each pier rests upon a molded baseboard and rises to a molded capital. The porch entablature is composed of a molded architrave, plain frieze and modillioned cornice. A Chippendale-style balustrade sits atop the porch roof. The underside of the porch roof is sheathed in tongue and groove ceiling.

The main entrance is centered on the front elevation and is set within an oversized Georgian surround. A handsome brass door knocker highlights the six panel entrance door. Five light sidelights, placed above a recessed molded panel, adorn either side of the entrance. Wood piers frame both sides of each sidelight composition. The piers feature recessed panels, rest upon molded bases and rise to a molded capital, the two center piers project beyond the line of the entrance wall. An entablature, composed of a three part architrave, plain frieze and a molded cornice, runs across the entrance bay; a simple angular pediment is set above the entrance door. Antique coach lamps, which were installed by the present owner, replaced existing brass lamps; these lights frame either side of the main entrance.

An irregularly-shaped chimney dominates the east elevation. The chimney is constructed of stretcher bond brick and rises to a corbelled cap; its south side presents a narrow paved shoulder while two wide paved shoulders highlight the north side. In its design, the chimney recalls the romantic motifs present in both the English Tudor and Colonial Revival styles. A 12/12 sash and 4/4 sash are each set into the chimney on the first and second stories respectively. Multi-paned transoms flank the chimney in the attic story.

On the west elevation, a one-story sun porch projects from the main block. The porch is original but was doubled in size by a sympathetically designed extension in 1956. A series of casement windows and entrance doors, on the front and rear elevations, punctuate the structure’s walls. Simple piers frame the openings. Windows are placed above recessed wood panels. A simple frieze and cornice, surmounted by a crown molding, encircles the porch. A Chippendale-style balustrade atop the roofline is similar to the entrance porch balustrade.

The porch largely covers the randomly arranged west side. An irregularly massed chimney with a north (left) shoulder is centered on the elevation and rises to a corbelled cap. As on the east elevation, multi-paned transoms in the attic story flank the chimney.

The rear elevation is asymmetrically massed, largely as a result of subsequent additions to the original exterior wall. The elevation, as originally constructed, may have presented a more balanced appearance. At the rear’s east end, a one story projection, which may have been original, was altered by the present owner; the entrance door was removed and the fenestration pattern was changed. A one story sun porch, which contains the sliding glass door rear entrance, was built by the present owner. The wood deck, which was constructed at the same time, features a Chippendale-inspired balustrade, an attempt to incorporate a decorative motif of the 1920’s structure.

Typical of the Colonial Revival residence, the interior detailing is elegant yet restrained. The interior has received some modifications, all in a manner in keeping with the houses original design. The first floor follows a center hall plan. The wide hall leads from the main entrance and terminates at the entrance to the kitchen. A handsome half-turn stair rises to the second story. Plain balusters, three per stair tread, support the molded rail. At the foot of the staircase, identical balusters, set in a circle, form the newel post; a lead crystal ornament sits atop the newel.

Two reception rooms, containing the dining room and parlor, open off the east (left) and west (right) sides of the hall respectively. Oversized oval arches originally defined the openings between the hall and the adjacent reception rooms. The arches were enclosed and replaced with the present rectangular openings in 1935. The center hall is ornamented by a molded two-part baseboard, plastered wainscot and a wide molded cornice.

The main rooms on the first floor carefully respect the Georgian ideal of symmetry. The focus of the dining room is the handsomely ornamented mantle. Centrally placed along the east wall, the mantle displays a plain frieze with circular insets at each end; the denticulated cornice is set beneath a molded shelf. Stately fluted piers, which rest upon molded bases, flank the mantle. Floral ornamented capitals support a wide molded cornice, which carries across the ceiling cornice. A paneled wainscot, which encircles the room, is set between a molded baseboard and a narrow molded chair rail.

Directly across the hall, the mantle in the spacious parlor is similarly detailed. Round arched openings, each with a central keystone, flank the living room mantle. These openings originally served as entrances into the adjacent sun porch and now contain similarly detailed bookshelves. These rounded openings originally echoed the oval opening between the center hall and the living room. At the rear (south) of the living room, a single door entrance provides access to the informal sitting room. A paneled wainscot, set between a molded baseboard and chair rail, highlights this simply executed-chamber.

The sitting room provides the only interior access to the sun porch. Vertical casement windows, which may have replaced screened openings, dominate the porch’s wall surface. A molded edge highlights the simple surrounds. A molded baseboard and cornice encircles the porch. Double door entrances, on the front and rear elevations respectively, are set on a direct access; paneled wood transoms are placed above each entrance.

The kitchen occupies its original location in the house’s southeast quadrant. The present owner has greatly expanded and modernized the kitchen; food storage and preparation facilities and a dining area are housed in a single room.

As is to be expected, the second floor is more simply executed. The main hall runs widthwise and is set perpendicular to the stair hall. Rooms are placed off the second floor hall. The second floor has undergone a variety of alterations resulting in changes in room size and configuration.

The attic is partially finished and is used primarily for storage. The unfinished basement contains service facilities; a small enclosed space houses the owner’s notable wine cellar. At the rear of the house stands a one story frame building which is believed to date from the mid-1920s; the structure contains a garage and a small servant’s residence. The present garage door was installed in 1985 and replaced a series of moveable wooden doors. An attractively landscaped yard surrounds the main house.

---

Erratum: page 13, paragraph 1- Mr. Schuchman reports that the McNinch House was built for Samuel McNinch; however, the Chain of Title (page 12) shows that the only McNinch to own the property was Frank Ramsay McNinch.

 

This report was written on June 8, 1989

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the McNeil Paper Company Warehouse is located at 305-07 E. 8th Street, Charlotte, NC.
2. Name, address and telephone number of the present owner of the property: The owners of the property are:

Claes C. Honig Rudy & Jacqueline Heer 311 E. 8th St. Charlotte, NC 28202

Telephone: (704) 376-0107

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: This is in the Mecklenburg County Deed Book 5871, page 837. The most recent deed to his property is #5871. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 080-043-15.
6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Mary Beth Gatza.
7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Mary Beth Gatza.
8. How property meets the criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S. 160A-399.4:

 

1. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the McNeil Paper Company Warehouse does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the McNeil Paper Company Warehouse is a good, primarily intact example of its genre; 2) the warehouse and its site reflect the importance of the railroad in the growth and development of Charlotte during the late-Nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries; 3) it is an integral component of a small enclave of industrial and warehouse buildings close to the center of Charlotte.
2. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Mary Beth Gatza, which is included in this report, demonstrates that the McNeil Paper Company Warehouse meets this criterion.
3. 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 total appraised value of the improvements is $29,370. The current appraised value of the .197 acres of land is $10,320. The total appraised value of the property is $39,690.

Date of preparation of this report: June 8, 1989

Prepared by: Mary Beth Gatza 2228-E East Seventh Street Charlotte, NC 28204

Telephone: (704) 342-2268

 

 

Historical Overview

 

The McNeil Paper Company Warehouse building is located in the First Ward section of Charlotte. During the later years of the nineteenth century, First Ward was a quiet residential neighborhood which bordered on the center of Charlotte. Over the years, as Charlotte has grown larger and larger, the area has changed in response to urban pressures. In the 1880s Southern Railway built a spur line along what was then called “A” Street, which fed into their main track, and to the freight depot nearby. After the track was laid, warehouse buildings eventually sprang up alongside it, as railroad frontage made the moving of large quantities of merchandise more feasible and economical. The McNeil Paper Warehouse building stands within a small enclave of warehouse buildings of this period, and serves as a reminder of the importance of light industry to the growth and development of Charlotte.

The lot (# 58 in Beers’ and Butler’s maps of Charlotte) was used for residential purposes during the late nineteenth century. Two large frame dwellings formerly stood just behind the warehouse (fronting Brevard Street) well into this century. One was torn down within the past fifteen years, and the other about twenty five years ago.¹ A one story frame house stood on the warehouse lot as late as 1911. It was replaced by this and the adjacent warehouse building sometime during the 1910s or early 1920s. The warehouse lot passed through various owners until it was purchased by the McNeil Paper Company in 1934.²

The McNeil Paper Company was a wholesale supplier of paper products, which included wrapping paper, paper bags, twine, and school supplies. Thomas C. McNeil served as president and treasurer, and Felix G. McNeil functioned as vice-president and general manager.³ No manufacturing of products took place here, since the business was a wholesale distributor. Merchandise was shipped in by rail, unloaded onto the platform at the front of the building, and then moved inside for storage. As orders were filled, the goods were packed inside the warehouse and loaded out the back door. Local deliveries were made by mule-drawn wagon in the early days; other orders were shipped by railway express throughout the state.⁴

As the business grew, more and more space was needed. An addition was built onto the rear of the warehouse during the early 1940s.⁵ Around this time, also, and opening was cut into the west wall which permitted access to the adjacent building. It appears that McNeil Paper Company was using space in that warehouse as well. The McNeil Paper Company carried on business in this building until 1949 when financial changes within the company necessitated a restructuring of the business. The property was transferred in bankruptcy proceedings in that year. Thomas C. McNeil, however, continued to operate a wholesale paper distributor out of the building, changing the name of the operation to the Industrial Paper Company. The Industrial Paper Company did not ever have legal title to the land or building.⁶

The Industrial Paper Company was both a large and a renowned operation until its demise in the 1960s. Since that time, various owners have used the building for general storage. The current owners are in the process of restoring the building and converting it for use as artists’ studio space.

 

Notes

¹ Interview with Stephen Davis, Charlotte, NC, June 1989.

² Sanborn Insurance Company Map, 1911. Mecklenburg County Deed Book 844, p. 148.

³ Charlotte City Directories, 1937.

⁴ Interview with Thomas C. McNeil, Charlotte, NC, June 1989.

⁵ Interview with Stephen Davis, Charlotte, NC, June 1989.

⁶ Interview with Thomas C. McNeil, Charlotte, NC, June 1989.

⁷ Mecklenburg County Deed Book 473, p. 49; Interview with Stephen Davis, Charlotte, NC, June 1989; Charlotte City Directories, 1950, 1960.

 

 

Architectural Description

 

Built during the 1910s or early 1920s, this building has always served as a warehouse. Of solid masonry construction, it is laid up in six-course common bond brick, with brick segmental arches over each door and window opening. It stands two stories tall, but is banked into its site, so that it gives the appearance of a one-story building from the front. The upper story opens out to a platform which is just above ground level. The platform, a concrete deck supported by brick piers, faces the railroad spur line which runs through the middle of the block. It was here that cartons of goods were loaded and unloaded. The facade features a centrally-placed double-wide doorway and two arched windows on either side of it. The doorway is now fitted with a modern garage door, and the four windows have been replaced with glass block (as a security measure). The facade of the building is topped by a simple brick parapet. The roof is not visible.

The east elevation faces an eleven foot alley. Full-sized windows overlook the alley on the second story, and smaller windows pierce the lower story. All of the windows have been rebuilt, using new glass but retaining as much of the original sash and frames as possible. All of the windows are fitted with iron bars. One bay of the east elevation has been altered; it was originally a window which was enlarged at some point, and then later bricked in. The west elevation of the building abuts another warehouse and is not exposed. At one time an opening was cut into this wall, giving access to the adjacent warehouse. It has since been bricked up.

The rear of the building has received an addition, probably in the early 1940s. It is laid up in five-course common bond brick, two stories tall and three bays deep. Industrial steel sash windows were used in the addition, both on the side and rear elevations. There are two windows and three doorways on the first story of the rear elevation. All of the doorways have been retrofitted with modern doors. The upper story windows in the addition (two on the side and one on the rear elevation) are small, half-sized windows topped by segmental arches.

The interior of the building is largely intact, although altered. It was originally a single open space on each floor, but interior partitions have been added on the second story of the original portion and on the first story of the addition. This breaks up the interior into three spaces on each floor. A stairwell has been cut through the floor of the older portion, beneath the original skylight. Previously, the only access to the upper floor was by a steep ladder or stair which led to a trap door in the ceiling. The skylighted space on the second floor retains the beaded board ceiling and wall surfaces. The floors throughout the building are constructed of three-inch thick splinted floorboards. The floors of the upper story are supported by 17 1/2″ beams which are braced and in turn supported by 7 1/2″ square posts. There is a poured concrete floor on the lower level. The interior walls are exposed brick, though traces of plaster remain in sections. A steel vault encased in brick sits tucked into the southeast corner of the older portion of the building. It may be original, but could have been added sometime after the initial date of construction.

Since the building was always a warehouse and not a manufacturing facility, no equipment is ever known to have been used there. There is a pit, however, in the rear addition, which was where the scale for weighing the paper products was located. There was a wooden chute which led down to it, and the paper was slid down from the second floor (where it would have been stored), weighed, loaded, and carted out the back door.

 

Note made July 22, 2014:  The McNeil Paper Company Warehouse building was demolished in 2010 to make way for the University of North Carolina at Charlotte’s Center City building (located at 320 East Ninth Street).  The Center City building opened for classes at the beginning of the Fall 2011 semester.  Designed by KieranTimberlake, the new structure features exterior glass walls individually tailored to the amount of sunlight, and cantilevered multi-story blocks which provide shade and give the building a distinctive look resembling a stack of books.

This report was written on June 1, 1977

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the McManaway House originally stood at 406 W. Trade St., the third dwelling on the north side of Trade St. east from Graham St. in Charlotte, NC. It now stands at 1700 Queens Rd. in the Myers Park section of Charlotte, NC.

2. Name, address, and telephone of the present owner and occupant of the property: The present owners of the property are:

David M. LaFave & Associates, Inc.
1900 Brunswick Ave.
Charlotte, NC

Telephone: (704) 375-9377

Robert Downie & Sally Cannon Saussy
2601 Roswell Ave.
Charlotte, NC

Telephone: 377-6154

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

4. A map depicting the location of the property:

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent reference to this property is found in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 3939 at page 288. The Parcel Number of the property is 153-063-05.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property:

Construction of the house began on the morning of Thursday, August 20, 1874, on a lot on W. Trade St. which Samuel Wittkowsky and Jacob Rintels, two prominent merchants, had purchased from Jacob Duls on December 30, 1873. In many ways this pretentious dwelling reflected the value systems and priorities which had shaped the careers of its initial owners. Both Wittkowsky and Rintels came to Charlotte in the mid-1850’s as young adults who had immigrated from Prussia. They met as co-workers for Levi Drucker, a leader of the local Jewish community and owner of a mercantile establishment. In 1857 the two men formed a partnership for purposes of opening a general store in Ellendale, a small community in Alexander Co., North Carolina. Their total operating capital was less than $500. The firm was dissolved in 1859. Jacob Rintels then moved to Statesville, NC., where he met Bettie Wallace, sister of one of his partners in a newly-established mercantile house with which he became associated in 1860. They were married the same year.

In 1862 Jacob Rintels returned to Charlotte and joined forces once again with Samuel Wittkowsky. The firm of Wittkowsky & Rintels, located on S. Mint St., prospered and soon became one of the major wholesale mercantile establishments in North Carolina. That the proprietors functioned effectively in this era of laissez faire capitalism is certain. Indeed, by the early 1870’s they belonged to the wealthiest elements in the community. Indicative of their economic prowess was their decision to expand into the retail market in 1874. They leased a building on W. Trade St. near the square and erected what many believed was the “most attractive sign in town.” The issues of the Daily Charlotte Observer began to feature a large advertisement on the front page which described the “new and desirable goods” that the firm received by railroad from New York.

Jacob Rintels was the more flamboyant and colorful of the two entrepreneurs. He obviously enjoyed the making and spending of money. Although he and Wittkowsky jointly owned the house and lot on W. Trade St., Mr. Rintels and his family lived in the structure. No doubt its imposing and stately appearance pleased the ego of a man who had come to the community as an almost penniless immigrant. Now in his late 30’s, Jacob Rintels had every reason to anticipate a bright and prosperous future. In early 1876 a daughter, Bessie, became the sixth child of Jacob and Bettie Rintels. The pattern of daily living at 406 W. Trade St., however, was decisively disrupted on the morning of June 13, 1876, when Jacob suffered a stroke and became completely paralyzed. He never recovered, dying on June 20, 1876, at the age of 40.

The Daily Charlotte Observer of June 21, 1876, announced that the funeral would take place at 9: 00AM the following day in “his late residence on Trade St.” It was an impressive ceremony. The local Masonic lodge, of which Jacob Rintels had been a member, formed a procession at the Masonic Temple Building and marched to the house, where Mr. Mendelssohn, Jewish Rabbi of Wilmington, N.C., conducted the service. After the ceremonies at the house a funeral cortege was formed, consisting of a line of carriages “nearly a mile long,” as well as a large number of mourners on foot. Internment was in “the Jewish Cemetery, about a mile and a half north of the city.” Business establishments throughout the community were closed on the morning of June 22, 1876, to honor the memory of Mr. Rintels. The Daily Charlotte Observer lamented his passing. Indeed, when first reporting his malady, the newspaper had stated: “Mr. Rintels is a valuable citizen, and Charlotte Cannot afford to lose him. It is hoped that he will soon be entirely well.”

Even more illustrative of his accomplishments was the fact that the Statesville American commented at length upon his career. (As reported in the Daily Charlotte Observer: “Mr. Rintels was noted for his business energy, having in that line no superior, and in connection with his partner, Mr. S. Wittkowsky, had founded one of the largest and most successful mercantile houses in the South, which has done more for the prestige of Charlotte than can well be estimated. In habits of business he was strict, in expenditures and deeds of kindness, liberal. In the community in which he resided, his place will be hard to fill, and can hardly be expected.”

Bettie Rintels lived in the house at 406 W. Trade St. until 1901, when she sold the property to B. D. Heath and Nettle M. Heath. Samuel Wittkowsky, who sold his interest in the property to Mrs. Rintels on January 22, 1878, moved into a house next door soon after Mr. Rintels’s death, probably so he could assist the widow and children of his deceased partner. Mr. Wittkowsky continued to be prominent in local business affairs until his sudden death by heart attack on the afternoon of February 13, 1911. In the mid-1890’s Mrs. Rintels hired Mrs. Lucy Nethers, and later Mr. William B. Gooding, to manage the structure as a boarding house, even though she and two of her daughters (Eugenia and Bessie) continued to reside there. It is reasonable to assume that this transformation resulted from the fact that Mrs. Rintels no longer needed the amount of space which she had required when all of the children had been young. In late 1900 or early 1901 Mrs. Rintels moved to New York City, probably to live with one of her sons.

On February 26, 1901, Dr. Charles G. McManaway purchased the house and lot at 406 W. Trade St. from B. D. Heath and Nettle M. Heath, the letter couple having acquired it from Mrs. Rintels on February 11, 1901. The structure continued to serve as a boarding house until 1911, when Dr. McManaway, having sold his previous home on E. 6th St., moved into the house.

Dr. McManaway was born in Bedford Co., VA, September 2, 1857, and received his medical training at Baltimore College and at the Medical College of Louisville, KY, graduating from the latter institution in 1883. He first practiced his profession in Franklin Co., near Louisburg, NC. On September 13, 1883, he married Miss Virginia Rella Harris of Wake County, who died in 1894. She bore him five children, three sons and two daughters. On May 9, 1900, Dr. McManaway married his second wife, Miss Josephine Pharr, daughter of Hugh Smith Pharr and Martha Means Pharr of Charlotte, NC. Born January 1, 1876, Miss Pharr graduated from Converse College in 1894. She had one child, Hugh McManaway, born in 1912.

Dr. McManaway lived at 406 W. Trade St. in 1911-13, sharing the house with several of his children, including his son, Charles R. McManaway, and his wife, Eloise Libro McManaway. By 1914 Dr. McManaway had moved to a house on Hawthorne Ln., an act probably prompted by the birth of his son, Hugh. His son and daughter-in-law continued to reside at 406 W. Trade St., where misfortune struck on April 14, 1914, when one of two infants (twins) was dead at birth. In 1916 Dr. McManaway moved the house to a lot on Queens Rd., which his wife had acquired on January 14, 1916, from the Stephens Co., initial developers of Myers Park. He, his wife, Josephine, a daughter by his first marriage, Moselle, and Hugh moved into the house in late 1916 or early 1917.

Like Jacob Rintels before him, Dr. Charles Gustavus McManaway died soon after moving into the house. In April 1917 he became ill. Since coming to Charlotte in 1890, Dr. McManaway had risen to the top of the medical profession of this community. Consequently, he received the best of medical care. His colleagues urged him to bring a specialist from New York City to diagnose his malady. An operation in September confirmed Dr. McManaway’s suspicions. He had cancer of the liver, a condition for which there was no cure. The Charlotte Observer described what followed: “Brave man and able physician that he was, he faced the inevitable with heroic courage, knowing only too well the physical agony that must be his before the end would come. Days and nights of excruciating suffering followed. His fellow physicians ministered unto him with heart and skill. Two weeks ago his condition became desperate, and from that time he literally died daily.”

Dr. McManaway died at home on February 15, 1918, with the members of his family at his side. Almost the entire membership of the Mecklenburg Medical Society attended the funeral at the house on February 16, 1918. Interment was in Elmwood Cemetery.

Mrs. McManaway and her son, Hugh, continued to live in the house at 1700 Queens Rd., until her death at 87 on February 11, 1963. She was the organizer of the Liberty Hall Chapter of the D.A.R. and a charter member of Myers Park Presbyterian Church. She is also buried in Elmwood Cemetery. Hugh McManaway lived in the house until early 1977, when he moved to the Green Acres Rest Homes at 9300 N. Tryon St.

On April 28, 1977, David M. LaFave & Associates, Inc., Robert Downie Saussy and wife, Sally Cannon Saussy, purchased the house. At this writing it is being refurbished.

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

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

 

a. Historical and cultural significance: The McManaway House is historically and culturally significant for two reasons. First, the structure has architectural worth because of the quality of the interior appointments. Second, and more importantly, it is historically important because of its association with the early history of the Jewish community in Charlotte, NC.

b. Suitability for preservation and restoration: As mentioned above, the house is currently being refurbished. Moreover, the present owner intends to restore much of the original exterior, including the upper portion of the front portico.

c. Cost of acquisition, restoration, maintenance or repair: At present the Commission has no intention of purchasing this property. It assumes that all costs associated with renovating and maintaining the structure will be paid by the owner or subsequent owners of the property.

d. Educational value: The property has educational value because of its historic and cultural significance.

e. Possibilities for adaptive or alternative use of the property: Although the property could serve as an effective house museum, the Commission believes that it is best suited to continue to function as a residence.

f. Appraised value: The current tax appraisal of the structure itself is $640. The Commission is aware that designation of the property as a historic property would allow the owner to apply annually for an automatic deferral of 50% of the rate upon which the Ad Valorem taxes are calculated.

g. The administrative and financial responsibility of any person or organization willing to underwrite all or a portion of such costs: As indicated earlier, at present the Commission has no intention of purchasing this property. Furthermore, the Commission assumes that all costs associated with the structure will be met by whatever party now owns or will own the property.

9. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria established for listing in the National Register of Historic Places: The Commission believes that the property known as the McManaway House in Charlotte, NC, does meet the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. Basic to the Commission’s position is its understanding of the purpose of the National Register. Established in 1966, the National Register represents the decision of the Federal Government to expand its listing of historic properties to include properties of local, regional, and state significance. The Commission believes that the McManaway House is of local historic significance and therefore meets the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

10. Documentation of why and in what ways the property is of historic significance to Charlotte and/or Mecklenburg County: The McManaway House is historically important to Charlotte for two reasons. First, the structure has architectural worth because of the quality of the interior appointments. Second, it is important because of its association with the early history of the Jewish community in Charlotte, NC.

 

---

Bibliography

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

Beers Map of Charlotte, 1877.

Charlotte City Directory (1875-76, p.72, p.89);(1879-80, p.86, p.101); (1893-94, p.116, p.119); (1896-97, p.155); (1897-98, p.114, p.231); 1899-1900, p.136, p.287); (1902, p.173 ; (1903, p.281, p. 488); (1910, p. 158, p.285, p.459); (1911, p.291); (1912, p.302) ; (1913, p. 291); (1914, p. 342); (1915, p.332, p.485); (1916, p. 317, p.620); (1917, p.360).

Daily Charlotte Observer (January 13, 1874, p. l,; (April 28, 1874, p. 1); (June 4, 1874, p. 1); (August 21, 1874, p. 1); (June 14, 1876, p. 1); (June 15, 1876, p. 4); (June 17, 1876, p. 4); (June 20, 1876, p. 4); (June 21, 1876, p. 1, p. 4); (June 22, 1876, p.47).

Estate Records of Mecklenburg County (Will Book K, p. 220).

Records of the Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office (Deed Book 4, p. 119); (Deed Book 9, p. 418); (Deed Book 156, p.81); (Deed Book 156, p.155); (Deed Book 276, p.38); (Deed Book 351, p.508); (Deed Book 3939, p. 2885).

Records of the Mecklenburg County Tax Office, Parcel Number 153-063-05.

Sanborn Insurance Maps of Charlotte (1885, p.2); (1896, p.2); (1900, p.9); (1905, p.12); (1911, p.3); (1929, p.412).

The Charlotte Observer (February 15, 1911, p.6); (February 17, 1918, p.12); (February 12, 1963, p. 9-B); (February 13, 1963, p. 11-A); (February 16, 1918, p. 8).

Vital Statistics of Mecklenburg County (Birth Book 1, p.4); (Death Book 1, p.939); (Death Book 3, p. 287).

Date of Preparation of this Report: June 1, 1977

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

Telephone: 332-2726

 

 

Architectural Description
Jack O. Boyte, A.I.A

When first built the house rested on a high foundation wall which enclosed a full, inhabited, cellar seen today the large square building rests on a low foundation and has an excavated, partial service cellar below ground. Originally there was a broad piazza across the front, supported by delicate posts. Centered in the front was a wide stair rising eleven steps from grade and flanked by solid stuccoed wing walls. Massive square pedestals anchored these wing walls at the ground and supported planters filled with lush greenery. The stair was abandoned when the house was moved, and now the piazza rests on grade one step above the yard. Surrounding the building the projecting roof is supported by a wide bracketed overhang. Here and there the frieze is dotted with cast iron medallions formed in stylized floral patterns.

An extraordinary balustrade enclosed the original piazza at the main floor with closely spaced, sturdy, turned balusters. Under a molded cap, this railing connected columns of typical Victorian elegance and set off the elaborate facade, which included paired windows in three panels on each of three floors. The projecting center panel provided a base for an elaborate mansard tower which rose high above a low, tin covered roof. With empire dormer windows centered at each side, this tower crowned the symmetrical front with extroverted elegance.

Windows on all floors are tall double units with single center muntins in upper and lower sash emphasizing vertical lines. Heads are all arched with plain stucco surrounds. On the second floor front, the center pair of windows has an extra dimension in height which creates access from the center tower to the piazza roof. Above these tower windows are arched molded bonnet heads with center garland cresting. At each side paired second floor windows have straight sided arches with molded architraves bent around curved heads, again with styled garland crests.

When the house was moved, the delicate balustrade was lost, as was the spectacular tower. In the new location Dr. McManaway replaced piazza roof supports with thick wooden Doric columns. In addition he had a narrow porte cochere at the left which connects to a side entrance. This roof is also supported by Doric columns which deny the Victorian-Tuscan origins of the first design. At the rear there is a substantial enclosed two-story wing added during the latter remodeling. On the right there is another small added wing which provides a bright, many-windowed sitting area adjacent to the original dining room. All of these additions are carefully stuccoed to match the original exterior wall finish window and door openings, however, are not arched in concert with the original openings, and the later windows have divided lights quite unlike the original center muntin vertical units typical of all Victorian modes.

The plan of this house is classically symmetrical. Center halls run front to rear on both floors. Opening to each side there are two huge rooms. At the left front downstairs is a lofty music room featuring a carved, brown and black marble mantel. There is no overmantel. Small white ceramic tile surrounds the fireplace opening, where a cast iron coal grate is installed. A narrow hearth consists also of small white ceramic tile. The entrance to this room and to a matching parlor at the right is through sliding paneled doors which roll into wall pockets. These doors tower ten or more feet above the floor, reaching nearly to the thirteen foot ceiling.

On the left a large bed chamber appears behind the music room. Here a simple oak framed mantel and overmantel encase a fireplace. The overmantel contains a wide beveled mirror. Typical of fireplaces in all rooms, there is a cast iron coal grate and an elaborate figured cast iron removable closer.

Across the hall and adjoining the front parlor is an even larger dining room where wall treatment is noteworthy. Surrounding the room are repeated panels of pressed leather, divided and cased with molded natural pine trim, all rising to a wide plate shelf six feet above the floor. This room also contains an oak framed fireplace with white ceramic tile trim.

In the wide center hall an imposing stairway rises in one run of twenty-four treads to the upper hall. From a massive carved mahogany first floor newel, turned balusters and a molded rail rise with the stair. At the second floor the stairwell is surrounded by a solid rail which is finished in repeated panels of wood trim and patterned wallpaper sections. The rail above this is unusually wide and of dark oak with the dating of age and wear clearly evident.

On the second floor there are four large bed chambers, each with a small coal burning fireplace trimmed with oak and small white ceramic tile. At each side these rooms connect through bath compartments where tub and lavatories were placed. There is one water closet for the floor located in a small hall closet at the rear of the center hall.

Important and delightful appreciation of the quality of work in the original house comes from the fine millwork throughout the interior. In each room door and window openings are trimmed with extraordinarily wide molded casing which forms fluted and reeded frames around each aperture. Windows in all rooms have wide extended lambrequin enclosures designed to receive full length, adjustable louvered blinds. At the floors the molded wall baseboards are wide and scaled correctly for the unusually high ceilings.

Throughout the interior on both floors the well preserved plaster wall surfaces are covered with varying patterns of early wallpaper. Reputed to be unique, these decorative papers are in fine condition and present a rare glimpse of Victorian decorative art.

This house has been preserved with obvious care and concern by the McManaway family reflecting much of the warmth and charm of Victorian architecture, the structure is an important segment in Charlotte’s architectural heritage.