This report was written on September 5, 1988

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Mayfair Manor is located at 237 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, N.C.

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

Dunhill Associates Ltd. Partnership
PO Box 37321
Charlotte, N.C., 28237

Telephone: 704/377-0517

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

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

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 5580, Page 009. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is: 078-013-16.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Paula M. Stathakis.

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

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

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Mayfair Manor does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Mayfair Manor, erected in 1929, was designed by Louis H. Asbury, an architect of local and regional importance; 2) the initial owners of the Mayfair Manor, Drs. J. P. Matheson and C. N. Peeler, were prominent citizens of Charlotte; 3) the Mayfair Manor, because it was designed to accommodate some permanent residents, documents the multi-functional nature of Uptown Charlotte in the late 1920’s; and 4) the Mayfair Manor makes an important contribution to the historic streetscape of North Tryon Street, a major axial thoroughfare in Charlotte.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Nora Mae Black which is included in this report demonstrates that portions o the Mayfair Manor meet this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” The current appraised value of the improvement is $257,350. The current appraised value of the .80 acres of land is $104,940. The total appraised value of the property is $362,290. The most recent annual Ad Valorem tax bill on the property was $4,712.67. The property is zoned UMUD.

Date of Preparation of this Report: September 5, 1988

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

Telephone: 704/376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview  

Paula M. Stathakis
August 8, 1988

The Mayfair Manor was built on the corner of West Sixth Street and North Tryon Street in 1929 by Drs. J.P. Matheson and C.N. Peeler, who were perhaps better known as two of the founders of the Charlotte Eye, Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital. ¹ The ten story, 100 room hotel was intended for use by permanent and transient guests, with fifty rooms reserved for permanent residents. The earliest administration of the hotel included C.L. Lassiter, manager, J.W. Cole, assistant manager, C.B. Holmes, night manager, and W.R. Albea, dining room manager. ² The Mayfair’s location was well suited for either the resident or the guest because it was situated only two blocks north of the city square, in close proximity not only to the heart of the business district but also to the many amenities downtown Charlotte had to offer patrons. Various small shops were well within walking distance of the Mayfair Manor as were larger establishments such as Ivey’s and Belk’s department stores and Montaldo’s. The Carolina Theater and the Charlotte Public Library were across the street from the hotel. The Tryon Cafe, Karnezes Confectioners, Sanitary Bakery, George Washington Lunch, Carolina Cafe, and Ridgeway’s Bakery would surely satisfy any culinary need that might conceivably be found lacking in the Mayfair restaurant. Second Presbyterian Church, First Baptist Church, and St. Peter’s Episcopal Church were all situated within two blocks. ³

The hotel stands on the site formerly occupied by the Tryon Street Methodist Episcopal Church, which purchased the property in 1862 from Joel A. Huggins for $2300.00. ⁴ The Tryon Street Methodist Episcopal Church sold the property to Home Real Estate and Guaranty Company on May 5, 1926 for $250,000.00. ⁵ On July 31, 1926, the property was purchased by Dr. J.P. Matheson with the provision that the church had the right to remove detachable personal property in the church, and the right to retain the church and Sunday School buildings without rent for a period of 18 months, beginning May 5, 1926. ⁶ By 1928, Matheson had hired Charlotte architect Louis Asbury to design the hotel. This agreement is listed as job number 723 in Asbury’s log book dated September 28, 1928 and is described as an apartment/hotel. ⁷ The structure destined to become the Mayfair Manor was unveiled for public inspection on the evening of November 15, 1929, a little more than a year later. ⁸

The Mayfair Manor debuted as a bright spot in the pall cast by the dramatic crash of the stock market just a month earlier. The same newspaper that duly reported a sluggish stock market also presented an enthusiastic two page tribute to Charlotte’s newest hotel.⁹ Much of the spread was dominated by contractors who had taken part in various stages of the hotel’s construction, and who took advantage of the opportunity not only to advertise their wares, hut to also tantalize the public with their specific contribution to the hotel. For example, the tile and marble work in the mezzanine and the tenth floor were an exact replica of that found in Atlanta’s Biltmore Hotel, the tile floor of the dining room was made of a material described as tile-tex , which was guaranteed for “life time service, a low initial cost, and no maintenance cost.” The furnishings came from McCoy’s Furniture of South Tryon Street, and the “Iron Fireman”, a new automatic stoker furnace was installed by A.Z. Price Company, Inc. ¹⁰

The unidentified reporter who wrote the preview article about the Mayfair Manor for the Charlotte Observer was ecstatic. ¹¹ Adjectives such as “impressive”, “modern”, “luxurious”, and “massive” pepper the journalist’s narrative. This article is a valuable source of information about the original design and interior of the Mayfair Manor. The reporter began his tour of the building in the lobby which was summarily described as “impressive”; the floors were a terrazo with a tile base, the walls were covered with a material called craftex, the woodwork was crafted in walnut, and the fixtures were made of bronze. A “huge oven fireplace” was the focal point of the lobby. It was in this tastefully decorated lobby that one might also purchase cigars, cigarettes, and tasty Martha Washington Candy. The Mayfair Manor was the sole agent for Martha Washington Candy in Charlotte. Beneath the lobby on Sixth Street was the Mayfair Manor Barber Shop, managed by C.M. Brady, who supervised a five chair and one manicurist operation. The mezzanine had a lounge where guests could relax and meet their friends.

French doors marked the entrance to the dining room, the decor there followed the walnut and bronze motif of the lobby. Arched windows, craftex walls in soft colors, and a black and brown checked tile-tex floor all bestowed upon the dining room an “air of dignity”. The kitchen was described as spacious with the latest in cooking conveniences. A sampling of the original kitchen inventory of the Mayfair Manor included an electric dishwasher, a sterilizer with a 5000 dish capacity, steam tables, electric potato peelers, and mixing machines. A ventilating system capable of changing the kitchen air every three minutes was also on the list of notable extras. A skylight was built into the kitchen ceiling for the benefit of the workers. The dining room management planned to include a bakery in the future, and a special dessert and salad department was already incorporated into the kitchen organization.

“Every room has a bath” hailed the reporter as he continued his armchair tour. Tiled baths in various colors with tubs and showers were in each room. The rooms were furnished in “living room style” with double or twin Murphy beds, “luxurious” carpets and “fashionable” wallpapers. Each room had individual telephone service. The tenth floor was designed as a penthouse suite of “two skyscraper piazzas” which afforded what the reporter considered great views of Charlotte. Dr. Matheson planned to occupy the top floor along with Mr. Julian H. Little, president of the Independence Trust Company, Dr. Leinbach, and Mr. Little’s two nieces. ¹²

References were made in the article to a previously existing Mayfair Manor, and that the same high quality one had come to expect from the old establishment may be observed in the new one as well. Evidence of the “old” Mayfair Manor is scarce, but it was listed in the 1929 Charlotte City Directory under the management of C.L. Lassiter at 406 North Tryon Street, approximately two blocks north of the “new” Mayfair Manor. The new Mayfair Manor was the culmination of thirty years of effort by Mrs. Fannie L. Holmes, who began her career in Charlotte with a modest dining room and boarding house at 513 South Tryon Street. Mrs. Holmes, a Statesville native, ran this boarding house together with C.L. Lassiter. ¹³ By 1930, Mrs. Holmes had acquired two other businesses: The Hawthorne Dining Room and The Mayfair Manor. The 1930 Charlotte City Directory lists C.L. Lassiter as the president of the Mayfair Manor Inc., Mrs. Fannie L. Holmes was the vice-president, and Emmet S. Gray, as the secretary-treasurer. ¹⁴

Thus, the Mayfair Manor entered into Charlotte history. It was not the biggest, nor the grandest of our hotels, but it was considered quite fine in its day. In 1929, there were no less than fifteen hotels in Charlotte. The largest were the Charlotte Hotel at 239 West Trade and the Clayton Hotel at the corner of Church and Fifth streets. The Charlotte Hotel was undoubtedly the hallmark of the city, boasting a fireproof structure with 400 rooms, 400 bathrooms, a European Plan, and a dining room visited by such dignitaries as President and Mrs. Franklin and Roosevelt. The Mayfair Manor does not seem to have attracted such stellar guests, presumably because it was built for different purposes. The Mayfair Manor quietly thrived, however, on its corner long after the demolition of the Clayton Hotel, and it appears that it will outlive the Charlotte which was recently scheduled for demolition.

Dr. Matheson died in August 1937, and the property was acquired by the Mayfair Realty Corporation shortly afterward. ¹⁵ On September 1, 1959, the Mayfair Realty Corporation sold the property to Dwight L. Phillips. The new proprietor spent $225,000.00 in renovations and improvements on the hotel. ¹⁶ In December 1960, D.L. Phillips and his wife Louise sold the property to D.L. Phillips, Builders of North Carolina. ¹⁷ Following this transaction, the name of the hotel changed to the James Lee Motor Inn. ¹⁸ By October 1965, D.L. Phillips Investment Builders acquired additional property to the rear of the hotel. ¹⁹ These two tracts were sold in December 1980 to A.B. Wilkins Jr., owner of Delta Capital, for $300,000.00. ²⁰ This transaction began what was to result in an unproductive series of acquisitions of the property by various investors who hoped to upgrade the hotel, which had suffered as the result of the decline of downtown Charlotte, into fashionable condominiums. The previous hotel owner, Charles Kinnard, had intentions of doing this himself, but could not afford the staggering cost of conversion estimated at $225,000.00 per floor. In December 1980, A.B. Wilkins announced his intention to work with Kinnard toward this end. ²¹

By February 1981, Kinnard and Wilkins came to an impasse. Kinnard placed an advertisement in the Charlotte papers announcing that the property was for sale by the owner; the ad was quickly denied by Wilkins. Kinnard’s actions were based on his desire to buy the hotel back from Wilkins. Therefore, Wilkins gave Kinnard an option to buy the hotel back if he could raise the funds. Kinnard’s time on this option had expired when he placed the ad. At that point, Wilkins had no interest in helping Kinnard, and he had already made plans for a joint renovation with another investor. ²²

Wilkins posted signs around the hotel notifying the tenants that the hotel would close October 1, 1981, and that it would later re-open as a luxury hotel. ²³ Wilkins’s plans never came to fruition. He sold the James Lee Motor Inn on January 4, 1982 for $392,000.00 to an investment firm of the Netherlands-Antilles , Elko Corporation, N.V., which planned to convert the hotel into a $4 million office condominium project, with completion projected for the summer of that year. ²⁴ The renovation supervisor for Elko, Mr. Farley Gharagozlou, disclosed that the interior of the hotel had been completely stripped, and that future plans included the installment of a coffee shop in the basement and a restaurant in the penthouse. ²⁵ These plans suddenly changed when the Elko Corporation decided to convert the James Lee Motor Inn into an elegant hotel, the Uptown Nova Plaza, which delayed the completion until summer 1983. ²⁶

As the projected opening deadline drew near, the Charlotte News reported in May 1983 that an internal re-organization of the Elko Corporation would delay the project for an unspecified time.²⁷ The fate of the former Mayfair Manor was vague at best, and the structure stood useless for another three years. Burt Gellman, whose firm owns Jonathan’s, a fashionable downtown restaurant one block north of the hotel site, made an unsuccessful bid to acquire the property in 1984. The Elko Corporation allegedly reneged on an agreement to sell the vacant hotel to him, and he took the matter to court in 1985, but he never gained the property. ²⁸

Fallswood Investment Inc. purchased the hotel in May 1986, and then sold the property on December 18, 1986 to Omniswiss Properties Ltd. ³⁰ The present owners of the property, The Dunhill Hotel Associates, purchased the hotel from Omniswiss Properties on August 6, 1987. ³¹ After six years of uncertainty, the former Mayfair Manor has a new lease on life. The Dunhill Hotel Associates have returned to the idea of restoring the building to a luxury hotel. The revival of this structure will be an asset to the Charlotte community, not only as a new and viable business, but also as a tangible part of Charlotte’s past.

 

---

ENDNOTES

¹ Wade Harris, ed. The City of Charlotte and the County of Mecklenburg. Charlotte: Chamber of Commerce, 1924.

² The Charlotte Observer 15 November 1929, p.10.

³ Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps 1929, Sanborn Map Company, New York. Skeleton Maps 2 and 3, sections 2a and 3b; Charlotte City Directory, 1929.

⁴ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 4 pg. 791.

⁵ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 625 pg. 225.

⁶ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 628 pg. 511.

⁷ Southern Historical Collection, Louis Asbury Papers, No. 4237. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

⁸ The Charlotte Observer 15 November 1929, p. 11.

⁹ Ibid., p. 10, 11.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 10.

¹¹ Ibid., p. 11. All information concerning the original interior of the hotel was taken from this article.

¹² Ibid.; Charlotte City Directory, 1930.

¹³ Charlotte City Directory, 1926.

¹⁴ Ibid., 1930.

¹⁵ Records of the Mecklenburg Medical Society; Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 1120-254.

¹⁶ The Charlotte News 21 October 1981, p. 1.

¹⁷ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 2220 pg. 46

¹⁸ The Charlotte Observer 8 October 1985, p. 12a.

¹⁹ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 2689 pg. 308.

²⁰ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 4376 pg. 298. The Charlotte Observer 25 January 1981, p. 5b.

²¹ The Charlotte Observer 21 January 1981, p. 5b.

²² The Charlotte News 12 February 1981, p. 12a.

²³ Ibid., 17 September 1981, p. 13a.

²⁴ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 4500 pg. 395

²⁵ The Charlotte Observer 11 April 1982, p. 5b.

²⁶ The Charlotte Observer 25 October 1982, p. 1a.

²⁸ Ibid., 10 August 1985, p. 12a.

²⁹ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 5223 pg. 339, Deed Book 5403 pg. 647.

³⁰ Mecklenburg County Registry of Deeds. Deed Book 5580 pg. 9.

 

 

Architectural Description  

By Nora Mae Black

The former Mayfair Hotel, located on the northwest corner of the intersection of North Tryon Street and 6th Street, is an example of one of the small, privately-owned hotels that provided a resting place for travelers to Charlotte during the beginning of this century.

The design of the building was executed by Louis H. Asbury, a Charlotte architect. The building was originally known as the Mayfair Hotel. Later it became the James Lee Motor Hotel. A top to bottom renovation of the building is on the drawing board. Under this proposal, the building would become a luxury hotel known as The Dunhill Hotel.

The building consists of eleven floors. There is a basement with a small sub-basement. The first floor, or Tryon Street level, housed the lobby. At the northwest end of the building, the first floor gives way to two mezzanine levels. The protective railings are missing from the lobby level and the upper mezzanine; however, a metal stairway still connects the levels.

Above the lobby, or first floor, there are eight floors that formerly contained the guest rooms. The ninth floor contained a penthouse suite for the owner of the Mayfair Hotel as well as a few guest rooms.

Exterior

The Mayfair Hotel has a nine-story symmetrical facade facing North Tryon Street. The West 6th Street facade overlooks Discovery Place and from the upper floors, Fourth Ward. The entire structure is covered with a sand-colored brick (much darkened due to dirt) laid in running bond. Cast stone decorates the remains of the North Tryon Street entrance and the brick facade at the top of the second floor windows. The cast stone continues on the West 6th Street facade and becomes a surround for the tops of the last three windows on the second floor. A cast stone course wraps all four facades at the top of the eighth floor windows. All windows have cast stone sills. The original windows were removed during an earlier renovation and replaced with double-hung residential windows. Double windows are usually 6/6 while others are 8/8 and 2/2. On the North Tryon Street facade the three-ranked windows consist of a single window flanked by pairs of adjacent windows. On the 6th Street facade the seven-ranked windows consist of the following pattern a single window, a pair of adjacent windows, a single window, a single window, a single window, a pair of adjacent windows, and a single window. The south facade has an irregular pattern of windows of several different sizes. The west, or rear, facade has three windows of differing sizes on each floor above the second floor.

Most of the North Tryon Street level facade has been removed. However, it is still possible to see the remains of Corinthian capitals that once decorated the pilasters at the front entrance. The most impressive remaining part of the facade is at the penthouse level. There the owner’s living quarters overlooked North Tryon Street. The sitting room did not extend the full width of the facade, it became a square room flanked by two balconies. The brick of the facade formed the protective barrier on the Tryon Street elevation. Topping the protective barrier, each balcony had a cast stone urn and a cast stone circular medallion for decoration. On the north and south elevations, the small balconies have balustrades of cast stone with flower boxes. On the Tryon Street elevation a narrow center balcony, flanked by single windows, projects over the street. A half round pediment extends over the balcony. To each side of the pediment decorative cast stone ovals are laid into the brick over the windows. There is a circular stone medallion in the center of the pediment. A raking cornice of cast stone tops the pediment. A cornice of cast stone continues part way around the side (north and south) elevations.

Interior

Much of the interior of the building was destroyed during an earlier attempt at renovation. Masonry interior bearing walls that provided wind bracing were removed and replaced with steel structural members. The original elevators were removed and never replaced. Part of the roof is gone with the result that much water enters the building. At places, the concrete floors have holes in them. Ceilings have been taken down exposing the open web steel joists. Plaster and other wall coverings have been removed exposing the structural steel frame. The partitions that separated the ‘guess rooms have been torn down.

The most intact portion of the original building is the penthouse suite of the owner. The penthouse has a marble floor. A fireplace in the sitting room overlooking North Tryon Street has an ornate carved plaster mantel with a green marble fire surround. Plaster crown molding with carved dentils decorate the sitting area. In another room of the owner’s suite, original wood paneling covers the walls.

In Closing

The Mayfair Hotel building provides a solid architectural presence at the corner of North Tryon Street and 6th Street. Its proximity to Discovery Place, Spirit Square and the new market make it an ideal overnight location for visitors to Charlotte. Those having business in the central business district would also find that it is within walking distance of the many office towers. Since so much of the original exterior fabric is unchanged and in relatively good condition, it could be rehabilitated and become a landmark building in a revitalized North Tryon Street corridor.

SPECIAL NOTE: The Mayfair Manor has been substantially renovated since the above architectural description was written. This renovation, however, has not destroyed those portions of the property which possess historic significance.

This report was written on February 22, 1993

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the John and Idella Mayes House is located at 435 East Morehead Street, Charlotte, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

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

JFW Realty Incorporated
435 East Morehead Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Telephone: (704) 331-0767

Tax Parcel Number: 125-137-04

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

4. A map depicting the location of the property:

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to Tax Parcel Number 125-137-04 is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 7199 at page 755.

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

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

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

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the John and Idella Mayes House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:
1) the John and Idella Mayes House was built ca. 1902;
2) the John and Idella Mayes House is one of the last vestiges of the grand residential boulevard that formed the northern boundary of Dilworth;
3) the career of John H. Mayes was intertwined with that of Stuart W. Cramer, also a Morehead Street neighbor;
4) John H. Mayes, with Cramer and three other men, organized the Mayes Manufacturing Company in 1906 with Mayes as president;
5) the group built a cotton mill and the mill village of Mayesworth in 1907;
6) in 1922, Mayes Manufacturing was absorbed into Cramerton Mills, Incorporated, and the name of the mill village, Mayesworth, was changed to Cramerton;
7) the John and Idella Mayes House has survived through the years with most exterior appointments, such as the slate roof and leaded glass windows, intact and in very good condition;
8) the John and Idella Mayes House has survived with most interior appointments, such as wood paneling, embossed wallcoverings and wooden pocket doors, intact and in very good condition; and
9) the John and Idella Mayes House is architecturally significant as one of the finest examples of the Shingle Style house to be found in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Nora M. Black included in this report demonstrates that the John and Idella Mayes 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 $68,160. The current appraised value of Tax Parcel 125-137-04 (0.28 acres) is $245,680. The total appraised value of the property is $313,840. The property is zoned B1.

Date of Preparation of this Report: February 22, 1993

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill & Nora M. Black, Associate A.I.A.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
500 North Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina

Mailing Address: P. O. Box 35434
Charlotte, North Carolina 28235

Telephone: (704) 376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview  

Dr. William H. Huffman

The Mayes House is the only surviving turn of the century house remaining in Charlotte’s old Second Ward; one of the few remaining fine houses built on the once-fashionable Morehead Street; and a rare intact example of the Shingle Style in Charlotte. Built about 1902 by John Henry and Idella Green Mayes, the house features an asymmetrical form dominated by a cross-gambrel roof, shingle upper elevations, brick first story and raised basement. The interior is equally distinctive, highlighted by fashionable late Victorian elements which include a large living hall with a massive fireplace; a prominent staircase with steps cascading into the living hall; and a tripartite stained glass window lighting the landing. John H. Mayes ( 1856-1947) came to Charlotte around the turn of the century, and spent most of his career as a textile machinery agent and mill executive and designer, while his wife, Idella Green Mayes (c.1869-1939), raised their three children and participated in the social life of early twentieth-century Charlotte. They built their stately Shingle Style house, which they occupied for twenty-four years, in an upscale section of East Morehead Street at the edge of the city’s first suburb, Dilworth: their immediate neighbors included Stewart W. Cramer, a major New South textile entrepreneur, and William States Lee, who became the president of Duke Power Company and the Piedmont and Northern Railroad.

John H. Mayes was born in Luftborough, England, the son of John and Mary Ainsworth Mayes, and came to the United States at the age of fourteen. As a young man, he entered the textile industry, most likely in Massachusetts, where his oldest daughter was born. When he came to Charlotte around the turn of the century, Mayes was a traveling salesman for Stewart W. Cramer, a New South entrepreneur who is credited with designing and equipping about one-third of all the cotton mills in the South prior to World War II. For much of the first two decades of this century while Mayes occupied the East Morehead Street house, his career and that of Stewart Cramer were intertwined. Cramer (1868-1940) was a native of Thomasville, NC and a graduate of the U. S. Naval Academy and Columbia University School of Mines. After graduation in 1889, he came to Charlotte and was in charge of the United States Assay office until 1893, when he went to work for Daniel Augustus Tompkins, a pioneer New South industrialist who also designed and supplied equipment for hundreds of mills throughout the South. In 1895, Cramer went into business for himself as the Southern agent for three Massachusetts manufacturers of cotton mill equipment in competition with Tompkins, and eventually acquired sixty patents for the improvement of textile mill machinery and mill air-conditioning. Cramer designed and equipped hundreds of mills in the South, developed an international reputation, and served on many state and national boards. His four-volume work on the design and equipment for cotton mills, Useful Information for Cotton Manufacturers (2nd edition, 1909) became a standard reference work for many years, and he is also known for organizing the Cramerton Mills and the mill town of Cramerton in Gaston County, NC.^l

It is reasonable to assume that Mayes came to Charlotte around the turn of the century to work for Cramer through the Massachusetts textile machinery connection. Although few details of his career are available, it appears that the relationship with Cramer proved to be an initially prosperous one, for he purchased land for a new house on the same block as Cramer’s mansion in 1901, and built a grand house the following year. In 1906, Mayes, Cramer and three others organized the Mayes Manufacturing Company, with J. H. Mayes as president, and built a cotton mill and village, Mayesworth, designed by Cramer, in Gaston County in 1907.² The company maintained its offices in Charlotte, and Mayes continued to be a sales agent for Cramer. By 1910, however, Mayes no longer appeared as president of Mayes Manufacturing, and had apparently set himself up as an independent manufacturers agent for cotton mill machinery in Charlotte.³ In 1915, Stewart Cramer took over control of Mayes Manufacturing, changed the name to Mayes Mills, Inc. and began to greatly expand its capacity by adding a second plant.⁴ On December 9, 1922, Mayes Mills, Inc. was absorbed into the newly chartered Cramerton Mills, Inc., and the name of the mill village was changed to Cramerton. J. H. Mayes was one of the directors of the new company. In 1924, Cramerton Mills added a weave plant, which bore the name “Mayflower.”⁵

It appears that John Mayes followed Stewart Cramer’s lead of branching out from manufacturer’s agent to mill designer and executive. When Cramer took control of Mayes Manufacturing in 1915, Mayes was chosen to be the “architect-engineer” (a term used at the time for a mill designer and outfitter) of a mill for the newly-organized Rex Spinning Company in Ranlo, Gaston County, NC and became its first president.⁶ Exactly how long he remained president of this company is unclear.⁷ In 1920, the 63-year-old Mayes was also the architect-engineer for another mill in Ranlo, the Pricilla Spinning Company. He was one of the organizers of the company and its first president, but his interests were bought out in 1921.⁸

Sometime in the late 1800s, John Mayes and Cora Idella Green, of Margaretsville, Nova Scotia, were married; they subsequently had three daughters and one son.⁹ One of their daughters, Idella, was born in Massachusetts in 1894.¹⁰ Exactly when the family moved to Charlotte is not clear, but they appear in the Charlotte City Directory of 1899/1900 as residing on West Vance Street.

In August, 1901, John and Idella Mayes bought a house lot on Morehead Street for $2,000 from W. B. Ryder; Ryder had originally purchased a larger tract that included the lot from the City of Charlotte in May, 1897.¹² The best available records suggest that the house was built in 1902 and that the Mayes family occupied it in the latter part of the year.¹³ S. W. Cramer built his own large house at the west end of the same block about 1896.¹⁴

The Mayes family lived in the Morehead Street house from 1902 until 1926, while John H. Mayes pursued his career as a mill machinery manufacturer’s agent, mill designer and textile executive and Idella Green Mayes raised their children and participated in Charlotte’s social life. It appears that in 1926, at the age of 70, John Mayes decided to retire and no longer needed or desired to live in such a large house. Thus in 1926, the Mayes family sold the house to J. W Barber, a vice-president of the Cathey Lumber Company.¹⁵ John and Idella Mayes moved to 307 E. Kingston in Dilworth, and in the Thirties went to live with their daughter and son-in-law, Idella Mayes and Frank Hunter at 1815 S. Boulevard, where they lived out the rest of their days.¹⁶

In 1939, the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation took over the house from the Barbers, and sold it to A. J. and Nannie Willoughby that same year.¹⁷ By 1942, the HOLC had again taken back the house, and the following year sold it to J. H. and Ada E. Bennett. John Bennett, who died in 1962, was a real estate agent. The house was conveyed by the Bennett heirs to Robert M. and Trudi N. Glenn in 1979, who also acquired the adjoining .126 acre tract in 1986.¹⁹ In 1989, the property was sold twice: first to Euram, Inc. a North Carolina Corporation, then to Walter H. Fox.²⁰ The property is now owned by attorney James F. Wyatt III, who intends to rehabilitate the house as a law office.²¹

 

---

NOTES

¹ Robert Allison Ragan, Leading Textile Mills in Gaston County. N. C.. 1904 to the Present (Charlotte: Privately Published, 1975) unpaginated typescript, Carolina Room, Charlotte Mecklenburg Public Library]; Biographical History of North Carolina (Greensboro, N.C.: Van Noppen, 1908), VII, 82-87.

² Ragan, note 1.

³ Charlotte City Directories. 1908-1910.

⁴ Ragan, note 1.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ The Charlotte city directories do not mention this or subsequent mill activities in Gaston County related to John Mayes and no other sources of information hare been uncovered to date.

⁸ Ragan, note 1.

⁹ Charlotte Observer. December 18, 1947, Section Two, p. 1.

¹⁰ Mecklenburg County Certificate of Death, Record #893.

¹¹ Charlotte City Directories 1899/1900 ff.

¹² Mecklenburg County Deed Books 139, p.139, 15 May 1897; 161, p.258, 22 August 1901.

¹³ Ibid., Book 154, p. 354, 10 December 1901; Book 175, p.82, 28 August 1902 (Deeds of Trust); Charlotte City Directory. 1902 and 1903.

¹⁴ Charlotte City Directory.1902; Sanborn Insurance Map, 1905.

¹⁵ Mecklenburg County Deed Book 618, p.660, 17 September 1926. Barber assumed the balance of the $15,000 mortgage Mayes had taken out on the house the year before (Book 591, p. 31). Mayes in turn bought a house from Barber on Greenway in the Elizabeth neighborhood (Book 618, p.670), but did not live there.

¹⁶ Charlotte Observer. July 7, 1939, p.8; ibid., December 18, 1947, Section Two, p. 1; Charlotte City Directories.1926-1950.

¹⁷ Mecklenburg County Deed Book 976, p.529, 1 June 1939; ibid., 986, p.266, 15 September 1939.

¹⁸ Ibid., 1078, p.505, 1 August 1942; ibid., 1084, p. 436, 16 January 1943.

¹⁹ Ibid., 4216, p. 828, 1 August 1979; ibid., 5181, p. 411, 26 February 1986.

²⁰ Ibid., 6061, p. 493, 29 June 1989; ibid., 6061, p.488, 29 June 1989.

²¹ Ibid., 16 February 1993 [JFW Realty, Inc.].

 

 

Architectural Description  

Ms. Nora M. Black

The John and Idella Mayes House is an excellent example of a late Shingle Style house. Few intact Shingle Style houses have been identified in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, making this a unique and remarkable house both in quality of construction and preservation of character of the Shingle Style. The Shingle Style house is considered by many architectural authorities to be the first truly American style of house. Vincent Scully, who has written extensively on the Shingle Style, dates the era of Shingle Style houses from 1874 to the end of the First World War.¹ The plan and massing of the Shingle Style house remove it from the realm of vernacular housing. In fact, Old-House Journal reports, “Although some view it as a wooden version of the masonry Romanesque Revival, the Shingle style actually helped to move American architecture several light-years away from traditional European forms….”² It has long been considered an architect’s style of building with an intricate floor plan, irregular roofline, and classical details. Unlike the Stick Style (which emphasized the skeleton or structure of the building), the Shingle Style presented a unified exterior surface with no evidence of the framing beneath.

The Shingle Style actually had its beginnings in the seaside resorts of New England. Early examples range from the Low House at Bristol, Rhode Island (1886-87) to the C. J. Morrill House at Mount Desert, Maine (1879). In fact, Henry-Russell Hitchcock calls the C. J. Morrill House, designed by William Ralph Emerson “one of the first mature examples of the Shingle Style…[where] rooms of varied shape and size are loosely grouped about the hall and open freely into one another.”³ Emerson also designed the Church of St. Sylvia in Mount Desert, Maine, showing that the Shingle Style could be used for structures other than houses. Both Newport, Rhode Island and Southampton, Long Island, have many early examples of luxurious Shingle Style houses. Scully remarks that the Shingle Style houses “…were a product of American culture’s first long, warm summertime after the Civil War.”⁴

Virginia and Lee McAlester say of the Shingle Style: “The Shingle style, like the Stick and spindlework Queen Anne, was a uniquely American adaptation of other traditions. Its roots are threefold: (1) From the Queen Anne it borrowed wide porches, shingled surfaces, and asymmetrical forms. (2) From the Colonial Revival it adapted gambrel roofs, rambling lean-to additions, classical columns, and Palladian windows. (3) From the contemporaneous Richardsonian Romanesque it borrowed an emphasis on irregular, sculpted shapes, Romanesque arches, and in some examples, stone lower stories…”⁵

Among the most obvious attributes of the Shingle Style, the John and Idella Mayes House has shingled upper story surfaces, a masonry lower story, asymmetrical forms, recessed openings with curved shingles, and a roof with gambreled cross gables and dormers. The use of the gambrel roof is seen in about 25 percent of Shingle Style houses.⁶

The John and Idella Mayes House is located on the northeast side of East Morehead Street at the intersection of South Caldwell Street. The front or southwest facade of the house faces East Morehead Street; the rear or northeast facade overlooks the skyline of Charlotte’s modern center city. The house is located on a triangular-shaped tract of 0.28 acres. A brick retaining wall with a brownstone coping runs along the southeast side of the tract. Purchased in February, 1993, by JFW Realty Incorporated, the former residence will be adapted for use as offices.

The ground plan of the John and Idella Mayes House is a compound plan with irregular room-sized projections from the principal mass. The house presents an asymmetrical elevation to East Morehead Street. The front-view is dominated by the arched windows that enclose half of the front porch. A brick half-wall encloses the balance of the front porch. The shingled surface of the second and third story gambrel roof end recedes behind the balustrade at the edge of the porch roof.

Exterior

The John and Idella Mayes Houses has four types of siding: brick, wood shingles, horizontal board siding, and asbestos shingles. The first floor of the front (southwest) facade has brick laid in common bond with sixth course headers.⁷ The second and third floor gambrel roof end has shingles laid in a coursed pattern. Like the front, the northwest facade has a first floor of brick laid in common bond with sixth course headers; however, the shingles in the gambrel roof end are asbestos shingles that appear to be of 1950s or 1960s vintage. This is logical since the original shingles on the northwest end of the house would receive much weather damage. Plans for adaptation include replacing the asbestos shingles with a product that will resemble the other original wooden sidewall shingles. The rear or northeast facade has a basement wall of brick, a first floor clad in horizontal board siding, and shingles in the gambrel roof end and the dormer end. The southeast facade (facing South Caldwell Street) has a first floor of brick laid in common bond with sixth course headers with the exception of the portion of the wall near the rear of the house. That portion is clad in horizontal board siding similar to the first floor of the rear of the house. Most of the siding appears to be original; the only exception appears to be the asbestos shingles mentioned above. The entire house had been painted light gray; the gray paint was peeling in many places. The paint obscured the masonry base and first floor of the house. The color visible where the paint has flaked off the house and on the brick retaining wall is a rich red brown.

Work, begun in March 1993, includes hand-scraping the gray paint from the shingled surfaces. Other plans include wirebrushing all masonry surfaces by hand, repainting the mortar joints with compatible mortar, and repainting the masonry surfaces a color as near to the original as possible. Trim is to be painted compatible, although contrasting, colors. The gambrel roof is deceptive; it is high enough to hold a full second story and three large attic rooms used for servants’ quarters. The original slate roof is laid in a simple, coursed pattern. The gables have a narrow overhang; the narrow, ledge-like eave is boxed.

Many of the windows in the John and Idella Mayes House contain the original leaded glass; most are double hung wooden sash. The wooden sash has an upper portion with three vertical mullions and triangular panes at the top and bottom; the lower portion of the sash is a single large pane of glass. Some broken windows have been replaced with new glass; a glaring example is a 12/1 second floor replacement on the northwest side. Original windows found in the basement may be reused if it is feasible to rebuild them (March 1993). The second floor window surrounds are wide boards and not elaborate. The first floor, with its brick walls, has brick jack arches over the windows; the window sills are stone. The half-moon basement windows have Roman arches with two header courses of brick and stone sills. Stained glass windows will be discussed in the section, “Interior.”

The front elevation is divided into four asymmetrical bays. Two windows and a double door face the front porch. To the southeast of the double door, a single door opens to a glass-enclosed area of the porch that wraps around part of the southeast facade. The front-facing gambrel roof end has two windows with triangular panes as described above. In the peak of the gambrel roof end, there is a vent with shingles curving into the recessed opening.

The entry porch on the front facade is a one-story flat-roofed porch partially enclosed with double hung wooden sash with 6/6 panes. Above the 6/6 windows are elliptical arches with multi-pane fixed sash. The roof of the porch is supported by rectangular brick columns with rounded corners. A wooden balustrade surrounds the porch roof; wide wooden half-columns (over porch columns and at corners) give definition and substance. The porch is floored with quarry tiles. It has a ceiling of beaded board. Seven brownstone steps lead to the porch. The enclosed portion of the porch on the southeast corner has 10/10 movable wooden sash and elliptical arches above with multi-pane fixed sash. Additionally, there are two radiators, two hanging light fixtures, and carpet. This portion of the porch does not have a door that gives direct access to the interior of the John and Idella Mayes House.

The main or front entry, as seen from the front porch is unassuming. Two screen doors, their frames decorated with scrollwork, are painted dark gray. There are two white, two-panel wooden doors behind the screen doors. A jack arch tops the stained glass transom light.

A molded, semi-circular roof provides an elegant cover for the side entry. The flat roofed porch on the southeast facade opens to a side passage of the main stair hall. Because of the lay of the lot, the porch is one-story above South Caldwell Street and is approached by a U-shaped set of stairs running parallel to the side of the house. Walls of the staircase are made of the same brick used for the first floor. Arched openings at the top of the stairs admit light to the porch and stairs. A balustrade like the one described in a previous paragraph decorates the flat-roof of the porch.

A porch on the back or northeast facade is approached by a single flight of steps running parallel to the back of the house. The southeast half of the porch has a flat roof; the balance of the porch is engaged beneath a rear-facing gambrel roof end. The porch has a sense of enclosure caused by the wide supports covered by horizontal wooden siding pierced by large flattened arches. The back porch has wooden flooring that has been painted dark gray. It also has a balustrade at the edge of the roof as previously described. Two doors open onto the back porch. One door opens directly into the kitchen; the other door gives access to the back part of the main hall. Plans include the installation of compatible windows to turn this porch into an enclosed break area for tenants.

The back or northeast facade is the only one that has a gambrel roofed dormer incorporated into the roof. This dormer is large enough to have a full-sized window in its back wall. It might be more appropriately termed a small gambrel roofed room.

Interior

To understand the interior of a Shingle Style house, one should study the plan. In Victorian houses and I-houses seen frequently in Mecklenburg County, the front door opens into a wide, long hallway. Rooms opened to each side of the hallway, but the hallways themselves did not provide living space for the family. The Shingle Style house sought to develop the spatial characteristics of a “living hall” integral to the life of the house. Additionally, the object was to have the rooms flow into each other rather than to remain separate entities.

Fortunately, the interior has not been changed or modernized to any great degree. Aside from some carpet laid over the wood floors and some repair of the kitchen floor, most of the historic fabric is not only intact but visible. The rooms have original moldings. Original hardware for the six panel wooden interior doors and the windows is still in place throughout much of the house. Walls are plaster; finishes include embossed wallcoverings, wallpaper, wood paneling, and paint.

A person entering the house at the two simple white panel doors on the front porch would step into a small vestibule. Immediately, the idea of simplicity is thrown to the wind. The upper walls and ceiling of the vestibule are covered with an embossed cardboard wallcovering. ⁸ The wallcovering is embossed to represent square, “raised wooden panels set in a checkerboard pattern between a lattice work of vegetation. Below the chair rail, the wainscot is wooden paneling. All of the embossed wallcovering, the wainscot, the woodwork, and the doors are stained a very dark brown. A single unshielded bulb lights the vestibule; the protective globe or fixture is missing. Above the double door, the transom light of stained glass which appears dull from the outside) takes on brilliance as the sunlight filters through. The border of opalescent glass is streaked with copper and white; the interior squares are lavender. The central design is that of laurel branches tied with blue ribbon surrounding yellow stained glass with a central white star motif. (Laurel is used as a symbol for triumph, eternity, and chastity). The floor of the vestibule is a design of mosaic tile. The tile border is a stylized rendering of the anthemion and palmetto motif that is common in Greek and Roman architectures. The center of the floor is composed of a shell and palmetto motif. The wooden door between the vestibule and the hall is finished in the same dark brown stain as the walls and ceiling. There are two rectangular panels above a middle panel of beveled glass. Below the lock rail, which appears to have the original doorknob and other hardware, there are two rows of bottom panels. The top row has three square panels while the bottom row has three rectangular panels. Above the door, there is a large movable transom light with working hardware.

The door of the vestibule opens to a large hall with the open staircase to the second floor straight ahead. The staircase literally cascades into the hall from a landing at waist height. From that landing, each step up becomes a smaller square with rounded corners reaching into the hall. The square newel resembles a short column. It has a molded capital with dentils, a shaft with wood panels surrounded by a bead motif, a rope motif on the corners, and a sturdy square base. Topping the newel is a tall brass candlestick lamp; the wiring for the lamp is concealed inside the newel.

To the left when standing in the door to the vestibule is the “living hall” that is an attribute of the Shingle Style house. It is approximately 23’6″ by 14′ with a ceiling height of eleven feet. The dado of embossed wallcovering has a motif of circles of vegetation with a many-petaled flower in the center of each circle. The circles are connected to one another by flowing vegetation and flowers. The ceiling is coffered with beams and trim stained a very dark brown. Two windows overlook East Morehead Street. Over each window, there is a fixed stained glass transom light with a laurel wreath motif. A radiator under each window provides heat. The focal point of the living hall is the massive fireplace. The fire surround is constructed entirely of pressed bricks and glazed bricks with the exception of the two wood shelves. Fluted pilasters on each side of the fireplace support a high wooden shelf. The cornice motif beneath the shelf is a single row of pressed brick in egg-and-dart design. Another wooden shelf is set in a wide recess. It is supported by three rows of egg-and-dart design corbeled out from the face of the fire surround. The fireplace opening has a massive jack arch. From the living hall, one could follow the hallway to the back of the house, climb the stairs to the second floor, or enter the dining room.

To enter the dining room, a person passed through a massive pocket door from the living hall. The dining room is approximately 14’6″ by 18′ not counting the three window bay. The windows are 1/1 double hung wooden sash with beveled glass. A heavy crown molding, stained very dark brown, encircles the room. The dining room dado is a repeating rising sun motif. The fireplace occupies the southeast corner of the room to share a chimney with the living hall fireplace. The tall fire surround is flanked by Ionic columns. Three carved panels decorate the fire surround. Variegated beige tiles surround the fireplace opening. The cast iron covering for the fireplace opening is typical of a sort mass-produced; however, the torch motif is used in some of the stained glass in the house.

The dining room has a doorway leading to a butler’s pantry. The built-in cabinet with shelves and drawers is still in place. The butler’s pantry has one window, a 1/1 double hung wooden sash, on the northwest wall. A smaller storage pantry is located to the rear of the butler’s pantry. Also to the rear of the butler’s pantry is the kitchen. The kitchen was renovated many years ago. In March 1993, the 1950s fixtures were removed to allow the kitchen to be adapted to serve the offices. The kitchen does have an original door with movable transom light leading to the back porch. The floors in the butler’s pantry, the storage pantry, and the kitchen have been covered with vinyl flooring of recent vintage. All three rooms have a molded chair rail and beaded board wainscot.

From the front door, a person could continue down the hallway past the staircase to a large room on the right hand or southeast side of the house. This room could have served as a parlor or a music room. The room is approximately 16′ by 14′ and has an additional alcove of 8′ by 9′ in the northeast corner. The alcove has a stained glass window with a motif consisting of two torches crossed over a laurel wreath. Three colored spun glass “roundels” or “bull’s-eyes” are set in the bottom border of the window. The fire surround is an elegant white mantelpiece with a light, classical feel. Ivory tiles surrounding the fireplace opening have decorations of torches, laurel wreaths, and swags. Rectangular white tiles, set flush with the floor, form the hearth. A cast iron fireplace insert has a torch motif. This room has a parquet floor with hand set nails and a border pattern.

The last room to the right of the hallway is a bathroom. Located at the rear of the house, it has a 1/1 double hung wood sash with figured glass. The figured glass provides privacy from the adjacent back porch while providing light. The high sided sink is typical of the era. It has a single leg pedestal. The pedestal is much narrower at the base than at the connection to the sink. This bathroom has a radiator and a chair rail with beaded board wainscot. The floor has been covered with vinyl flooring of recent vintage.

The first floor hall is T-shaped with the top of the T running from the front door to the back door. There is a narrow, winding stair near the rear of the hall. Although this stair was meant to be used by family and servants, it has some of the same touches as the grand front staircase. The back stair is narrow and steep, but it has curved nosing and risers on the lower treads similar to that of the front staircase. The simple turned balusters support a winding handrail. The square newel post has an urn on top for decoration. Tucked beside the back stair is the door to an even narrower, steeper stair to the basement. The back portion of this hallway has a door that separates it from the grander front hallway.

The upright of the T-shaped, first floor hallway forms a side hall running parallel to the main staircase to give access to the door to South Caldwell Street. The dado that surrounds the living hall is continued in the side hall as well as the coffered ceiling with dark brown-stained beams. The side of the stair above the dado is covered with dark wood paneling.

The grand front staircase climbs to a landing floored with oak boards. The landing is open to both the first and second floors. Light from the tall stained glass window fills the staircase. The stained glass window has three fixed lower panels with the torch and laurel wreath motif. The three movable transom lights have a top border with a stylized flower motif. The balustrade has balusters turned in a rope motif. The newels at each landing are similar to the newel at the first floor although they are smaller and lighter in character without the built-in candlestick lamp. All of the woodwork of the staircase and the landing is stained a very dark brown.

To the left of the main staircase is the largest bedroom overlooking East Morehead Street. This was the room occupied by the most important people in the household, a fact made obvious by the annunciator panel. The eight pearl-covered buttons of the panel (the most of any room in the house) could summon a servant from any quarter of the house. Unlike the elaborate fireplaces of the more public first floor, the bedroom fireplace has a simple, classical wooden fire surround with a mirrored overmantel. The white paint is in sharp contrast to the dark fire tiles and cast iron fireplace insert. The bathroom adjacent to this bedroom has a roll-top tub set on a pedestal base. A high-sided sink is tucked into the corner between the door to the bedroom and the door to the closet (which opens into the bathroom). The walls are covered to shoulder height in rectangular white tiles while the floor is covered with six-sided white mosaic tiles.

A second bedroom has a crown molding with a design based on vegetation. The fire surround is identical to that of the first bedroom except that the tiles are variegated white and tan in color. A large dressing room with a window to provide natural light is located on the southwest side of this room. The wood flooring of the dressing room is pocked with the marks left by a lady’s high heels. A closet tucked under the gambrel roof is adjacent to the dressing room.

The third bedroom is just to the right of the main staircase. It has two windows that overlook South Caldwell Street; however, the most interesting view is from the window located in the alcove of the gambrel roofed dormer – the view of the Charlotte skyline. The room has a fire surround similar to that of the other two bedrooms. There is a closet on each side of the alcove. One of the closets opens into the fourth bedroom.

The fourth bedroom has two windows that overlook the Charlotte skyline. It is smaller than the other bedrooms and has a closet running along the northwest wall. A bathtub in the closet appears to have come from the upstairs hall bath. If possible, that bathtub will be moved back to its original location.

The upstairs hall bath is a large room located on the northwest corner of the second floor. It is approached by passing the back staircase to the third floor/attic. A modern tub and shower arrangement is to the left inside the bathroom door. The original sink and toilet are still in place. The high-backed sink, unlike the pedestal sinks of the other bathrooms, has two legs. The embossed pedestal of the toilet has a classically inspired design. The floor has been covered with vinyl flooring of recent vintage.

The staircase to the third floor/attic climbs steeply to a door opening to a landing in the attic. The three rooms of the attic reflect the shape of the gambrel roof. Each room has one opening on an outside wall. The openings are now covered with louvers to form vents, but the diamond-paned windows that once filled the openings are nearby. The windows could be installed again to provide light in the attic. Several doors are also stored in the attic. The three rooms have plaster in the gambrel roof area. The waist high walls and the gambrel roof ends have horizontal, flush painted boards. Small waist-high doors at floor level give access to storage space under the steep portion of the gambrel roof. Five panel doors afforded privacy for those living in the attic rooms. The bells, activated by the buttons of the annunciator panels, are still in place in the attic rooms.

The basement of the John and Idella Mayes House was obviously a working support area for the household. A steep winding staircase, beginning in the back hall, lands in the laundry area of the basement. It is difficult to imagine carrying a laundry basket down this very narrow passage. The three laundry sinks, set on pedestals, and the round washing machine still await the family’s dirty laundry. Closets for storage of foodstuffs and canned goods are located in the southeast corner of the basement. Brick columns support the floor above and the massive base of the chimney for the central core fireplaces covers a large area at the center of the basement. A separate room houses an oil-fired boiler to serve the radiators. Early electrical wires are strung from the floor joists. The basement is somewhat dark now since most of the openings have been covered to prevent break-ins. In the early part of the 20th century, the half-moon windows and the windowed doors would have provided much light. Plans to install a security system over the windows will allow the plywood to be removed so that light may enter again. Even today, the basement is remarkably dry.

Conclusion

The John and Idella Mayes House is the most intact Shingle Style house yet identified from the first part of the 20th century in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The Shingle Style is considered uncommon except in coastal New England. That fact alone increases the architectural significance of the house and, when combined with the superior details found In the original historic fabric, makes it one of the most important early 20th century houses left standing in Charlotte. It can provide insight into the ways that early Charlotte residents used the hard earned wealth accumulated from textiles during the rise of the New South. The house cries out for an adaptive use that will respect its uniqueness and style while allowing the house to return to a place of importance near the center of Charlotte. To paraphrase the Vincent Scully quote, the John and Idella Mayes House could become the useful product of Charlotte’s first long, warm summertime after surviving the ravages of the bulldozers during urban redevelopment.

 

Notes

¹ Vincent Scully, The Architecture of the American Summer: The Flowering of the Shingle Style (New York, 1989), 5, 10.

² James C. Massey and Shirley Maxwell, “The Shingle Style,” Old-House Journal, Vol. XVII, No.5 (September/October 1989),41-46.

³ Henry-Russell Hitchcock, Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (New York, 1987), 365.

⁴ Scully, 1.

⁵ Virginia & Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York, 1986), 290.

⁶ Ibid., 289.

⁷ A header is a brick laid such that the small end only appears on the face of the wall. A stretcher is a brick laid such that the long, narrow side only appears on the face of the wall. Brick laid in “common bond with sixth course headers” would have five rows of stretchers, one row of headers, five rows of stretchers, one row of headers, etc.

⁸ Telephone interview with Mr. Larkin Mayo, co-owner of Victorian Interiors, San Francisco, California, 27 September 1991. Embossed wallcoverings occur in several rooms of the John and Idella Mayes House. Two things lead Mr. Mayo to conclude that the wallcoverings are embossed cardboard: 1) the thickness of the material as seen in a damaged section in the dining room; and 2) the tan color of the base or backing material seen in the damaged section.

⁹ A wainscot, or wainscoting, usually refers to a wooden lining of the lower three or four feet of an interior wall when finished differently from the rest of the wall.

¹⁰ John Fleming, Hugh Honour, and Nikolaus Pevsner, The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture (New York, 1982), 15, 236. Anthemion is ornament based on the honeysuckle flower and leaves. Palmette is a fan-shaped ornament composed of narrow divisions like a palm leaf. The two types of ornament frequently alternate in border designs with Greek or Roman origins.

¹¹ A dado, in modern terms, is the decorative finishing of the lower part of an interior wall; it ranges from floor to waist height. The term dado is not confined to wood but embraces many decorative wall coverings.

Click here to view Charlotte Observer Article on the Mayer House

This report was written on May 2 1988

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Mayer House is located at 311 East Boulevard, Charlotte, N.C.

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

Jack F. Apple
307 East Boulevard
Charlotte, N.C., 28203

Telephone: 704/377-1357

The occupant of the property is:

Eli’s Restaurant
311 East Boulevard
Charlotte, N.C., 28203

Telephone: 704/375-0756

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

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

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 3948, Page 225. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is: 123-075-03.

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

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

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

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Mayer House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Mayer House, erected c. 1907-08, is one of the older houses in Dilworth, Charlotte’s initial streetcar suburb; 2) the Mayer House makes an important contribution to the integrity of the East Boulevard streetscape, Dilworth’s principal trolley thoroughfare at the turn of the century; 3) Carson McCullers (1917-1967), noted author, wrote part of her famous work, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, while living in the house; and 4) the Mayer House is an outstanding local example of adaptive re-use of an historic structure.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Mr. Joseph Schuchman which is included in this report demonstrates that the Mayer House meets this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” The current appraised value of the improvement is $142,100. The current appraised value of the .209 acres of land is $38,680. The total appraised value of the property is $180,780. The property is zoned B1.

Date of Preparation of this Report: May 2, 1988

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

Telephone: 704/376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview  

Dr. William H. Huffman
January, 1984

The handsome bungalow at 311 East Boulevard in Dilworth that presently houses Eli’s restaurant was originally built about 1907-8 by Robert Andrew Mayer (1875-1969) and his wife, Mina Caldwell Brem Mayer (1874-1943).

Mrs. Mayer was born in Morganton, N.C. to Walter and Hannie Caldwell Brem, and came to Charlotte with her parents when still an infant. Her father was actually a Charlotte native who, for most of his life, was in the insurance business, and her mother was a daughter of Gov. Todd R. Caldwell of Morganton. Educated at the former Charlotte Female Institute (a forerunner of Queens College), Miss Carey’s School in Baltimore and Pratt’s School in Brooklyn, N.Y., she and R. A. Mayer were married in 1903 at the old Trinity Methodist Church on Tryon Street. ¹ Mrs.Mayer’s father, Walter Brem, had built a fine, large residence in the first block of East Boulevard in 1902-3, ² and, after their marriage, it appears that the Mayers took up residence in the house on the northeast corner of East Boulevard and Cleveland Avenue, just four doors from the Brems. ³

Robert A. Mayer was also a Charlotte native, and was educated in the Charlotte schools, Major Baird’s School for Boys and Duke University (then Trinity College), which he attended from 1892-96. (He was Duke’s longest-serving trustee, from 1897 to 1964). From the time of his graduation from Trinity to 1912, he worked in his father’s wholesale grocery business in various capacities, but left to become an agent for the Travelers Insurance Co. and joined the firm of his father-in-law, Walter Brem, who represented the same company. For the next fifty-seven years, R. A. Mayer was active in the insurance business in Charlotte, and continued to drive his auto to the office every day until his death at the age of ninety-four. His boyhood recollections of Charlotte pictured a small town that had not yet experienced the rapid growth brought on by the growing New South industrialization based on textile manufacturing in the late 1880s and beyond: the business district essentially ran only one block in each direction of the Square, and

 

You walked over stepping stones to get down Trade and Tryon. If you missed the stones, you sank to your shoe tops.

As youngsters, he and his friends used to ‘skinny dip’ in Sugar Creek at the culvert under the Seaboard Railway and Siegle Avenue. ⁴

About 1907, four years after their marriage; the Mayers decided to build a bungalow-style home two doors to the east of the corner house they were in on East Boulevard, next to the Crutchfield house. The owner of the property was the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company (known locally as the 4C’s), which undertook the construction of the house for the prospective buyers. The 4C’s was Edward Dilworth Latta’s company he set up for the development of Dilworth, the city’s first streetcar suburb, in 1890. A big attraction of the new residential area was Latta Park, which contained a large lake, pavilion and walks, and to which the new electric trolley ran from the Square. It was located at the edge of a grid pattern of the first part of Dilworth to be developed (1891-1911) bounded on three sides by East and South Boulevards, and Morehead Street. Dilworth was developed to include a wide variety of types of homes, ranging from mansions on the grand boulevards to solid middle class dwellings, to small ones and even mill houses (for the Atherton Mill, built by New South industrialist D. A. Tompkins). ⁵

When construction of their new home was completed in May, 1908, the Mayers took possession of the property upon payment of $3801.49 to the 4C’s . ⁶ They lived in the house until 1916, when Latta’s great rival, George Stephens, convinced them to build a house on Harvard Place in his own subdivision, Myers Park, and even eased the way by having his own firm, the Stephens Company, buy the Mayer’s East Boulevard property. Stephens had also convinced Walter Brem, Sr. to give up his large house and move to Myers Park as well, also on Harvard Place. The Stephens Company also bought the Brem’s house, but after two year the Brems decided Myers Park was too far out in the country, and moved back to East Boulevard, this time into the Crutchfield house, next door to the one their daughter and son-in-law had built. ⁷ (Stephens was a close friend of the Brem family: he started in business in Charlotte with Walter Brem Sr. and his college roommate, Walter Brem Jr. in 1896.)

The Stephens company finally sold the Mayer house to E. B. and Nettle Gresham in 1919, but they in turn sold it five years later and built a new place in Myers Park, on Edgehill Road. ⁸ The 1924 owners, John B. and Janie Myers lost the house in a foreclosure sale in August, 1932, during the depths of the Great Depression, and it was bought by Eli Springs II, who was a stock broker in New York, as an investment. ⁹ Springs (1894- ? ) was the son of Brevard Davidson Springs and the nephew of namesake Eli Springs (1852-1933), the former mayor of Charlotte (1897-99) and a member of the Springs textile family. The house stood vacant a couple of years after Springs bought it, but in 1934 it was rented by Walter T. and Janie M. Branson, and was used both for their home and the office of his heating contractor business. ¹¹

In April, 1937, the Bransons bought the property, and, in order to make ends meet during the economically difficult times, rented furnished rooms in the spacious dwelling. ¹² The following month, a young man named J. Reeves McCullers arrived in town, and, while staying with an uncle, John T. Winn, Jr., found a hard-to-come-by job with the Retail Credit Corporation. By September, even though his finances were tenuous at best, he and his fiancee, Carson Smith of Columbus, Ga., decided they would wait no longer to get married, which they did on the 20th. The newlyweds arrived back in Charlotte not long afterward and settled into a commodious two-room apartment at the Branson’s home on East Boulevard that Reeves had secured a few days before going to Georgia. ¹³

Carson McCullers (1917-1967), who had given up the idea of a career in music to pursue her writing, had studied at Columbia and New York Universities, but had returned to Georgia to recover from an illness in 1936. While there, she began to conceive and shape the major ideas for her first novel, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, which centers around a deaf mute in a small Southern town. When she and Reeves moved to Charlotte, work on the book began in earnest in the apartment at 311 East Boulevard. After about two months, the McCullers moved to another apartment in a house at 806 Central Avenue (no longer extant), where at the end of another six months Carson had completed the first six chapters and an outline in detail of the work. When she submitted it for, and won, a Houghton Mifflin Fellowship Award (2nd place) and a publishing contract, her very successful writing career was launched. On the coldest days of her stay in Charlotte, she worked in the public library and kept warm by continual reference to the sherry in her thermos. In March, 1938, the McCullers moved from Charlotte, where they had been very happy, to Fayetteville (he was transferred there), where they never were. ¹⁴

Since she wrote the first six chapters of her book in Charlotte, which sets the stage in describing the town where the story takes place, and was in the habit of taking long walks in the afternoon, it is not surprising to find descriptions of the fictional town, including mills and mill workers, that are reminiscent of how much of Charlotte must have been at the time. Old Sardis Road is specifically mentioned as the location of the farm (Billingsville?) belonging to the grandfather of Portia, the black woman who worked in the Kelly household. ¹⁵ In any case, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, an American literary classic, and Charlotte, including the house at 311 East Boulevard, are closely intertwined.

In recent years, ownership of the Mayer house passed, in 1959, to William R. and Ethel M. Jamison (a Branson daughter), and in 1977 to the present owner, Jack F. Apple. ¹⁶ As with some of the other older houses on the street, it has been used for commercial purposes, including restaurants, for the last several years. Presently, (since August, 1981) Eli’s on East Restaurant occupies the former Mayer home, but much of the original architecture has been retained, both interior and exterior. With it’s rich heritage of association with early Dilworth, the Mayer and Brem families, and Carson McCullers and her famous novel, the Mayer house amply deserves to be considered historically significant.

 

---

NOTES

¹ Charlotte Observer, Feb. 24, 1943, p. 6.

² William H. Huffman, “A Historical Sketch of the Brem House,” Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, August, 1981.

³ Charlotte City Directories, 1904-1907.

⁴ Charlotte Observer, August 1, 1969, p. 1.

⁵ Thomas Hanchett, “Charlotte Neighborhood Survey,” Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, Sept., 1983; II, 1-6.

⁶ Deed Book 237, p. 74, 25 May 1908.

⁷ See note 2; William H. Huffman, “A Historical Sketch of the Crutchfield House,” Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, August, 1981; Deed Book 349, p. 474, 15 Feb. 1916.

⁸ Deed Book 417, p. 97, 20 Oct. 1919; Ibid., Book 533, p. 568, 14 May 1924.

⁹ Ibid., Book 818, p, 346, 31 Aug. 1932.

¹⁰ Katherine Wooten Springs, The Squires of Springfield (Charlotte: Wm. Loftin, 1965).

¹¹ Charlotte City Directories, 1932-37.

¹² Deed Book 919, p. 253, 22 April 1937.

¹³ Virginia Spencer Carr, The Lonely Hunter (Garden City, N,Y.: Doubleday, 1975), pp 67-75.

¹⁴ Ibid., pp. 65-81.

¹⁵ Ibid., p. 79; Carson McCullers, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter (New York: Bantam, 1953), p. 40.

¹⁶ Deed Book 2098, p. 145, 25 August 1959; Ibid., Book 3948, p. 225, 26 May 1977.

 

Architectural Description  

by Joseph Schuchman
September 25, 1985

The Robert Andrew Mayer House is one of Charlotte’s most intimate and charming turn of the century structures. Completed in 1907-08, the house was originally occupied by Robert Andrew Mayer (1875-1969), an insurance agent, and his wife Mina Caldwell Brem Mayer (1874-1943), a granddaughter of North Carolina Governor Todd Caldwell. In present times, the house is known to Charlotteans as Eli’s, a popular restaurant. In addition to its being an excellent example of adaptive reuse, the Mayer House recalls an earlier time when Dilworth was the Queen City’s newest and most fashionable neighborhood and East Boulevard was a prized residential address. One can almost visualize the clanging of the trolley car which traveled passed the house and which provided quick and easy access to the central business district.

The house is recessed from the street; the path leading to the main entrance is framed by two towering trees. The diminutive one and a half story cottage stands in contrast to the more substantial early twentieth century houses along East Boulevard, most of which are two or two and a half stories in height. The Mayer House is of frame construction and is weatherboarded. While Neoclassical inspired detailing predominates, the asymmetrical massing is an element commonly associated with the Queen Anne style. One/one sash is the primary glazing material and appears in a variety of lengths and widths. Exterior openings are framed by plain surrounds. Plain cornerboards rise to a roofline entablature composed of a simple architrave and frieze and a molded cornice; the architrave forms the lintel of most of the first story openings. The house rests upon a raised foundation composed of stretcher bond brick. A series of symmetrically composed ells project from the rear of the double pile main block. On each side elevation, a gabled dormer rises from the tripped roofline. Slate, arranged in monochrome rectangular blocks, is the dominant roofing medium.

The main facade handsomely responds to the street. An engaged porch, with grouped Ionic columns, shelters the main entrance and continues across the east side of the elevation. The Ionic columns rest upon weatherboarded rectangular bases and rise to a gable roof; a simple balustrade runs between the bases. Egg and dart molding ornaments each column’s capital. The porch gable is sheathed in rectangular cut wood shingles and is framed by a boxed pediment. A tripartite arrangement of vertical casement windows is centrally placed within the gable. Elongated panels of beveled glass highlight the double leaf entrance doors. In order to provide additional dining space for the present occupant, Eli’s on East restaurant, a major portion of the porch was enclosed in 1981. The decorative lattice screen, which covers glass panels, evokes the charm and flavor of turn of the century ornamentation and provides a perfect complement to the existing structure. Main facade window openings are set beneath an oversized transom. A diminutive eyebrow window, a feature commonly associated with the contemporary Colonial Revival style, rises from the main block’s roofline.

A bay window is centrally placed on the west elevation; its center opening displays an oversized transom. A gabled dormer is placed above the bay; plain cornerboards rise to an entablature. The molded gable ends return upon the eaves. An oversized one/one sash is centrally placed within the gable. A similarly detailed dormer projects from the roofline of the linear east side. Louvered window shutters cover two of the elevation’s openings. A handicapped ramp, which rises from the rear of the elevation, is a recent addition. The ramp is set behind a concrete-faced cinder block wall; decorative latticework cleverly screens the handicapped entrance, which is placed on the porch’s east side.

On the rear elevation, the main block terminates in a jerkinhead on gable roofline. Paired two light casements are set within the gable. A series of symmetrically arranged one-story ells rise to hip roofs and run across the rear. Two centrally placed projecting ells are flanked by recessed appendages. A porch, in the projecting ells, was sympathetically enclosed about 1977. A weatherboarded shed, which rests upon a cinder block base, projects from the westernmost ell; the shed, a later addition, had been constructed by 1977. The adjacent meat locker is a more recent installation. Although the rear elevation has been modified to service the needs of restaurant operations, its original character has been respected.

The house contains two chimneys and two flues, all of brick construction. An exterior end chimney is placed between the first and second bays of the east elevation. Built of brick arranged in stretcher bond, the chimney displays a single step shoulder on its north side and ascends sharply above the roofline. An interior chimney rises from the west half of the main block to a rebuilt cap. The flues are placed on the rear elevation and at the rear of the west side respectively.

The interior is largely unaltered and conveys a sense of turn of the century middle class respectability. In keeping with the Neoclassical influence, detailing is handsome yet notably restrained. The house follows a center hall plan. The main block’s first story contains four main chambers, identified as front right, front left, rear right and rear left, as the original use of each is uncertain and all presently house dining facilities. The kitchen is located within the rear appendages. The second story originally contained two bedrooms, each of which has been subdivided to serve as office and storage space. Walls and ceilings are plastered. Floors are covered with pine. Rooms are encircled by a two-part baseboard and a molded cornice. A molded edge delineates the plain surrounds which frame interior openings. Mantles are strongly Neoclassical in spirit and incorporate Tuscan columns.

The main entrance leads into a narrow vestibule. Paired doors, similar to those in the main entrance, separate the vestibule from the house proper. An Ionic columned screen divides the entrance(front) and stair(rear) halls. The Ionic columns rest upon a paneled base and rise to a molded entablature. The entrance hall has been faced with mirrors. A molded chair rail encircles the rear hall. A handsome four tread stair is nicely detailed. Plain rectangular banisters and posts support a shaped handrail. The newel post displays molded rectangular panels and rises to a crown molding. Rectangular panels ornament the rises while drop pendants are placed beneath the posts.

A molded chair rail encircles the front left chamber, which may have originally served as a drawing room or parlor. The mantle is placed on a forty-five degree angle. Tuscan columns support molded mantle and overmantle shelves. A rectangular beveled mirror highlights the overmantle. Paired six panel sliding doors are set within the rooms’ two interior openings, from the hall to its right and to what may have originally served as the dining room, at its rear.

The dining room (rear left) is notable for its octagonal shape. The mantle, which is also placed on a forty-five degree angle, contains a squat overmantle. More simply detailed is the mantle located in the space to the right of the entrance hall. The Tuscan columns rise from a rectangular base and support a molded shelf. Passage to the enclosed porch is through a pair of French Doors, which may have replaced a window. The porch retains its weatherboarded facing and a tongue and groove ceiling.

On the second floor, a simple rectangular balustrade separates the main stairs and the narrow center hall. Although the floor plan of the upper floor has been altered, some original detailing survives including two-part baseboards and molded ceiling cornices. A molded chair rail encircles the hall. One former bedroom, although now subdivided, retains its original mantle. In detailing, the mantle is similar to a first-story mantle. Tuscan columns rest upon a rectangular base and rise to a molded shelf.

The front yard is nicely landscaped; a brick walkway connects the Mayer House with the adjacent Crutchfield-Brem House, another of East Boulevard’s notable historic structures. The east side and rear yards of the Mayer House now contain parking facilities.

The Mayer House is notable not only for its historical associations but also for its distinctive architectural characteristics. It is an excellent example of the preservation of an architectural and historical resource while simultaneously breathing new life into an older structure and neighborhood.

This report was written on November 7, 1984

1. Name and location of the property:November 7, 1984 The property known as the Old Matthews School is located on South Trade St. in Matthews, NC.

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

Town of Matthews
Box 398
Matthews, NC, 28106

Telephone: (704) 847-4411

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

4. A map depicting the location of the property:

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 4734, page 802. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 227-211-34.

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

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains an architectural description of the property prepared by Mr. Joseph Schuchman, edited and revised by Dr. Dan L. Morrill.

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

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Old Matthews School does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Old Matthews School served as the educational centerpiece of the Matthews community from 1907 until the early 1980’s, and 2) the complex exhibits an evolution of architectural styles and motifs associated with public building architecture in Charlotte-Mecklenburg during the first half of the 20th century.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association: The Commission contends that the attached architectural description by Mr. Joseph Schuchman, edited and revised by Dr. Dan L. Morrill, demonstrates that the Old Matthews School meets this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” The current appraised value of the 1.01 acres of land is $3000. The improvements show no appraised value, but one must assume that the records of the tax office have not been amended to reflect the transfer of the property to the Town of Matthews. The total current appraised value of the property is $3000. The property is zoned R9.

Date of Preparation of this Report: November 7, 1984

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

Telephone: (704) 376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview  

Dr. William H. Huffman

Few institutions, from the late nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth, were so intimately a part of a community as the local school. A place where children of different religious faiths and economic background were brought together, its development and growth were a direct reflection of the society it served. So it was for the old Matthews School.

The town of Matthews itself was incorporated in 1879. Prior to the Civil War, it had been little more than the location of a stagecoach inn with a post office on the run between Charlotte and Monroe. With the end of the war, it became a village known as “Stumptown” because of all the pine stumps left in the fields after the new saw mill had turned the trees into lumber for houses and a general store. The town’s history took a decisive turn in 1874 when the Carolina Central Railway routed its track through the village to link up Tennessee, through Charlotte, to Wilmington. It was the railroad officials who named the village “Matthews,” which is presumed to be after Watson Matthews, who was a director of the railway.¹

In 1880, Matthews had only 191 residents, and for the next fifteen years, as it was for the rest of the country, education in the town remained a private, most often church-related affair. The first public school was built in 1895 in what was known as the Carpenter Grove on Trade Street. The three-room schoolhouse was under the direction of principal Prof. Judge E. Little, who, with an assistant, appeared to constitute the teaching staff. For eleven years, the wood-frame school served its purpose, but by the end of that period, growth in the community taxed its capacity such that larger quarters were clearly needed. Consequently, in January, 1907, two acres of land for the present school site were acquired from Mrs. S. E. Griffin.²

That same year, the General Assembly passed a bill to help establish state-supported rural high schools throughout the state, and Matthews and Huntersville were designated as the Mecklenburg locations. Although the state only provided part of the funds needed for a school, previously they were financed completely by the local residents. Plans proceeded for the construction of a “modern brick building,” which was to be built for the total sum of $14,000. The actual building of the schoolhouse was truly a community enterprise, whereby the townspeople provided the building materials, teams and wagons for hauling them, and doing the grading work.³

When it was completed later in 1907, the Chairman of the Mecklenburg County Board of Education, William Anderson, characterized it as a “model of beauty and perfection.” The impressive two-story building had three classrooms on the first floor and an auditorium on the second, and the entryway was topped by a decorative cupola (whether or not it contained a schoolbell is not known). In the first term, 1907-8, there was a dedication ceremony in which Dr. W. E. Abernathy gave the school a Bible and a flag from the Junior Order. At the time, the school was supervised by a five-member board, and the principal was Rev. I. O. Hinson. The teaching staff consisted of Annie Lyle Jennings, Intermediate Department; Kate Neal, Primary Department; and Willie Kilpatrick, Music Department.

J. M Matthews, a Princeton graduate who became principal by 1909, set high standards for the school and it began to attract boarding students from adjacent communities, who were put up in the homes of local residents. By the time of the first graduating class in 1911, the school was already overcrowded, and the following year, 1912, the school board, headed by Capt. T. J. Renfrow, sold bonds on the New York market to finance major improvements and expansion of the school. The twelve thousand dollars raised by the bonds paid for the renovation of the 1907 building and expanding the school by adding the present auditorium and more classrooms at the rear third of the structure.⁵

Under the principalship of Boyce S. Plaxco, 1921 to 1924, three classrooms were fitted up in the basement area of the rear addition, which were used for the primary grades and the science department. (These are presently used for special education programs, and at one time also housed the cafeteria). During this time the school also acquired a library, and by 1924, Matthews High School was given full accreditation as a secondary school, and topped it off by winning the county basketball championship that year.⁶

Sometime during the tenure of the next principal, George Neal, 1924-28, another major addition, the last, was made to the school building: the front entryway was enclosed in a two-story addition of six classrooms, and the classical revival porch with columns became the new building front. About the same time, a two-story building was built for a teacherage nearby. Despite this expansion, however, the continually growing community needed more schoolroom space by the next decade, and during the Depression years of the Thirties, a junior high school building was put up as part of the Matthews school facilities. It contained an office, gymnasium and six classrooms. The Agriculture building was another Depression-era project that was built by labor provided by the Works Progress Administration.

Through the years 1907 to 1950, the Matthews school delivered exclusively all the primary and secondary education for the community. Bringing joys and sorrows, triumphs and trials, the halls and classrooms of the school hold special memories for many residents of Matthews and beyond. Many of the principals went on to become school superintendents, and one became a college president.

The inevitable changes and growth of the county as a whole, however, brought about some permanent alterations to the familiar pattern. Starting with the 1950-51 school year, the tenth, eleventh and twelfth grades went to East Mecklenburg High School, and the old Matthews school became a junior high. Primary students were sent to Idlewild and Lansdowne elementary schools.⁸

Because of the construction of newer facilities and the expense of repair and renovation required by the old building, the school authorities were, in recent days, considering demolishing the building. Fortunately for the old school, the Matthews principal let it be known that the building was being abandoned, and the mayor and the Matthews Community Club were able to successfully negotiate its sale to the Town of Matthews in August, 1983. The Community Club had been sponsoring the Stumptown Festival for the previous eight years to raise money for a community center. When the school building came up for sale, it presented the opportunity to both preserve a building which has so much meaning to the community as well as provide the needed space for the center. With extensive renovation and repair, which will restore the old school to a sound and nearly original condition, it will once again serve the citizens of Matthews, now including youth groups, senior citizens, and college-extension classes, and will remain both a memorable and useful part of the town.

 

---

NOTES

¹ The Southeast News, Nov. 10, 1975, pp. 1-5.

² Ibid., p. 2; Deed Book 268, p. 346, 12 Jan. 1907.

³ News, cited above, p. 2.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Ibid., p. 3.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Interview with Suzanne Gulley, Editor, The Southeast News, 24 May 1984; interview with Clay Lefler, Mayor, Town of Matthews, 24 May 1984; interview with Ted Kiker, Chairman, Matthews Community Club, 24 May 1984.

 

 

Architectural Description  

Joseph Schuchman

In a period when the frame schoolhouse was commonplace and the one-room school was still utilized, the construction of a substantial two-story brick schoolhouse in Matthews in 1907 was indicative of the importance placed upon education in the community at that time. By 1912, the already crowded building was expanded and enlarged with the erection of a rear ell, housing the auditorium and classrooms. Between 1924 and 1928, the Old Matthews School assumed its present size. Built onto the front of the structure was a two-story block with a columned portico and six classrooms. Moreover, the original front entrance and belfry were enclosed and incorporated into the expanded facility. The walls of the belfry are still intact.

The original block reflects the influence of the Italianate style, particularly in the appearance of decorative brick courses. The Italianate style was more commonly used for commercial and residential edifices in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Consequently, its use in the Old Matthews School is a distinctive architectural element. The front block and, to a lesser extent, the rear ell allude to the Neoclassical style, which was extremely popular as a motif for public buildings at the turn of the century.

The building is roofed with rectangular slate blocks. Elevations are symmetrically arranged, and openings are framed by molded surrounds. The 1907 T-shaped block is highlighted with decorative handmade brickwork arranged in common bond. The corbled courses run across the eight-bay side elevations, but the front and rear elevations were covered by later additions to the building. The water table consists of handmade corbled brick and is composed of a single row of headers above a double row of stretchers and beneath a single row of stretchers. Remaining courses, including the roofline cornice, are of manufactured yellow brick.

Double brick headers comprise the first-story window heads, and a belt course, between the first and second stories, forms the cornice of the first-story window heads. The roof line cornice forms the lintel of the second story windows. 9/6 sash, the primary light, are placed above limestone sills. The roof is low tripped in shape.

The gable-roofed rear ell houses the auditorium on the raised first story and classrooms in the full basement. The structure is of handmade red brick laid in a 1:6 common bond pattern. Second story windows are 6/1 sash; first story lights are primarily 6/6 sash. A soldier course serves as the lintel; each sill is composed of flush vertical headers. A corbled belt course separates the basement and first story. Side elevation windows are paired; second story lights are set within a recessed bay and placed above a blind brick panel. A closed string metal stairway leads to the two rear entrances.

The hip roof front block is Neoclassical in spirit. Stone steps recede in width as they rise to the raised entrance. An entry portico dominates the front elevation. Hollow fluted Doric columns rise to a full entablature and pediment. The words, “Matthews School” in wooden block letters run across the frieze. Columns rest on rectangular bases and rise to plain rectangular capitals. 9/9 sash are set in single, paired, and triple groupings and are the dominant light. A soldier course serves as the lintel, and the sills are composed of brick headers. The exterior is of common bond brick laid in a 1:5 pattern. A cast concrete water table runs across the elevations. The main entrance is set within a round arch, ornamented with a header course and a central keystone.

As one would expect in a structure used for educational purposes, the interior is functional in appearance and largely intact. There is a great deal of similarity in the interiors of the three separately-constructed blocks. Halls and classrooms have vertical tongue and groove wainscoting, set between a baseboard and a chair rail. The chair rail is composed of a wide frieze set between a molded architrave and cornice. Transoms are set above the entry doors to the classroom. Tripartite movable transoms are located in the front (1924-28) block, while the remaining transoms are stationary single-pane lights. Classrooms are located off center and side halls. Openings are framed by simple surrounds. Closed string stairways rise from stair halls located at the front and rear of the original block. The walls are sheathed in plaster.

The auditorium, in the rear ell, occupies most of the first story and is the most notable interior space of the Old Matthews School. The auditorium is encircled by a wainscot, similar to that found in the rest of the building. The exposed wooden truss system contours to the trapezoid-shaped roof, which is sheathed in horizontal tongue and groove ceiling.

An Agricultural Building, which dates from the 1930s, stands near the north side of the Old Matthews School. The rectangular-shaped building is frame construction with a stretcher bond brick veneer. Elevations are symmetrically arranged. 6/6 sash are the dominant glazing light. A single-bay porch, with wooden pier supports, shelters the centrally-placed front entrance. The site slopes, providing a full basement on the sides and the rear. The tripped roof is covered with asphalt shingles.

Three fieldstone posts serve as an entrance gate to the school complex. The center post contains a stone tablet, which reads, “In memory of T. L. Renfrow, Superintendent of Schools.” Flanking posts, to the right and the left, have inset tablets which state respectively, “Class of 1936,” and “Class of 1937.”

1.  Name and location of the property: The property known as the Former United States Post Office Building in Matthews is located at 195 North Trade Street in Matthews, North Carolina.

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

Aana Lisa Johnson, Trustee of the Aana Lisa Johnson Trust

504 South Main Street

Matthews, N.C., 28105

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.   UTM Coordinate: 17525352E 3886040N

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

 

The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 0193-262-09. The most recent deed reference to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 9189, Page 280.

 

6.  A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property by Matthew S. Thomas and Dr. Dan L. Morrill.

7.  A brief architectural and physical description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property by Matthew S. Thomas.

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

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Former United States Post Office Building in Matthews, N.C. does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg.  The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:

1) The Former United States Post Office Building was the initial building in Matthews to serve exclusively as a post office and functioned as a post office from 1939 until 1962.

2)  Leading citizens of Matthews, especially nine-term Mayor W. Alexis Hood, who designed the building, and prominent businessman Lester Hunter Yandle, Sr., who provided private  financing, were instrumental in bringing this imposing post office building to Matthews.

3.  Architecturally , the Former Matthews Post Office Building is significant as a refined example of the Neo-Classical Revival style, particularly for one of the outlying railroad towns of Mecklenburg County.

b. 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 Former United Post Office Building in Matthews, N.C. 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 designated as “historic landmark.”

 

Date of preparation of this report: December, 2004

Prepared by: Matthew S. Thomas and Dr. Dan L. Morrill

Historic Context Statement

The Former United States Post Office Building in Matthews, N. C. is located at the northwestern corner of the town’s historic central business district. The casual observer might take the freestanding brick structure for granted; yet it played a crucial role in the daily lives of Matthews’s citizens during its years of operation (1939-1962). Indeed, the town’s post office, along with the Seaboard Airline railroad tracks to the immediate north of the building and the Charlotte-Monroe highway that bisected the town one block south of the post office, were the essential components of the built environment that connected Matthews to the outside world.1

Not unlike many of Mecklenburg County’s small towns, Matthews owes its origins to the railroad. Historian Richard Mattson explains that during the years following the Civil War:

“… new and rebuilt railways not only stimulated Charlotte’s continued expansion but also spawned smaller shipping and trading points along their routes. In 1872 the Carolina Central Railway completed its line from Wilmington, North Carolina to Charlotte, locating one of its depots southeast of Charlotte, beside a stagecoach stop known as Fullwood’s Store. In 1879 the Town of Matthews was born on this site, named, in fact, for a member of the Carolina Central’s Board of Directors.”2

Created as one of Mecklenburg’s outlying “railroad-oriented” towns, Matthews provided provincial farmers access to both Southern seaports and Northern markets and prospered as the principal cotton processing center in eastern Mecklenburg County. Farmers also came to Matthews to purchase essential supplies. In the late nineteenth century an increasing number of businessmen established themselves along the ordered streets of the expanding downtown business district.3 It is not surprising, therefore, that Matthews acquired a United States Post Office.

Historic Overview

It became evident by the 1930s that the small, yet growing community of Matthews was ill-served by the meager quarters and frequent relocations of its post offices. Lester Hunter Yandle Sr., owner of the Matthews Drug Store, therefore stepped forward and personally financed the town’s first structure built exclusively to serve as a post office. “Doc” Yandle, as he was nicknamed by locals, decided to locate the new post office on two contiguous vacant lots he had purchased in 1919 and 1924, respectively. The two properties were situated in an ideal location, lying approximately 400 feet from the Seaboard Airline Railroad Depot and abutting the westerly intersection of Trade and Charles Streets.4 Yandle commissioned W. Alexis Hood, an engineer with the Southern Engineering Company (later to become a nine-term mayor of Matthews serving from 1945-1963), to design an appropriate structure, and solicited Congressman A. L. Bullwinkle of the Tenth Congressional District to lobby the United States Postal Department to authorize the project. Congressman Bullwinkle’s lobbying efforts proved successful, and the Postal Department approved the new building under the department’s Commercial Leasing Program. A 10-year lease agreement, with an option of renewal following the expiration of the term, was negotiated and accepted by both parties.5

Front of Program of Official Dedication Ceremony

The Federal Government granted a modest amount of leeway in the exterior design of most buildings intended for Federal use, but by 1939 it had established standardized interior plans for post offices. Hood almost certainly would have consulted the publication detailing post office stipulations entitled “Instructions to Private Architects Engaged on Public Building Work Under the Jurisdictions of the Treasury Department.” The most common architectural styles employed in the exterior design of most Depression-era post offices were either the Colonial Revival style or, as Hood chose, the Neo-Classical Revival style in which Hood blended modern and classical elements. Locals claimed that Hood had been inspired by a similar building then situated on Tryon Street in Charlotte.6

By April 1939 the much-needed and long-awaited post office was almost ready, and a grand dedication was planned. Oscar L. Phillips, appointed Postmaster of Matthews by the Roosevelt Administration in 1933, served as Chairman of the Arrangements Committee. Fifteen of the town’s most prosperous and well-known citizens were members of the committee, including Lester “Doc” Yandle and Edward Funderburk, president of the Bank of Matthews.7 The impressive new post office was a significant contribution to the civic development of the community. It sent a powerful signal to Matthews’s citizenry that theirs was a motivated, forward-looking community.

Congressman A. L. Bullwinkle addresses the audience on May 3, 1939.

The official dedication of the Matthews Post Office began on May 3, 1939, at 5 o’clock p.m., when the U.S. Army 105^th Engineer Band assembled beside the specially constructed stage that spanned the post office steps and began to play “America” in front of a crowd of approximately 3,500 people. Postmaster Phillips then delivered a stirring introduction, followed by congratulatory remarks from Professor C. L. Pearce, principal of the Matthews High School. Paul R. Younts, Postmaster of Charlotte, next addressed the cheering crowd and introduced Congressman A.  L Bullwinkle. Fourth Assistant Postmaster General of the United States. Smith W. Purdam, who had traveled from the nation’s capitol to serve as the representative of the United States Post Office, delivered the principal address. At the closing of the ceremony, the Reverend S. J. Hood, Pastor of the Philadelphia Presbyterian Church, gave the benediction. The 105^th Engineer Band ended the ceremony with the “Star Spangled Banner,” and the dignitaries retired to the Matthews Baptist Church to enjoy a specially prepared dinner.8

The Former Matthews Post Office Building was a vital part of the local community for more than two decades. Sisters Margaret and Mary Louise Phillips, long-time Matthews residents and daughters of  Postmaster Oscar L. Phillips, described a typical day at the post office:

“Mr Pete” Phillips, as the postmaster was affectionately known, would arrive at the post office at six o’clock a.m. Either he or Green Lee Stewart, the post office’s African-American custodian, would then walk to the depot and pick up the locked mail bags which had been delivered by rail at 5:00 a.m. They would spend the next two hours readying the office for the day and opened the doors to the public at eight. Numerous residents kept post office boxes and the many more who received their mail in general delivery were almost always waiting at the doors. As mornings such as these were repeated, the post office quickly became indispensable to the daily lives of Matthews’ residents. People would continue to flow in and out of the office all day, and ‘Mr. Pete’ would finally close the doors at 5 o’clock p.m. Again, either he or Stewart would then take the outgoing mail to the depot to be picked-up by the train that evening. Thus, the office was routinely in operation eleven to twelve hours a day.” 9

Mary Louise Phillips explained that residents came to rely on the post office not only as a place where they could pick-up and/or post their mail, but also as a place to visit with friends, catch-up on the comings and goings in town and exchange gossip and pleasantries. The post office, she said “was essential in tying the community together.” Her sister Margaret echoed this observation: “people would often say that ‘I saw so and so today at the post office.’ Now, people say ‘I went to the post office and I didn’t see anybody I know.’”10

Farmers and others who lived in the surrounding countryside were served by three mail carriers who often packed scales and stamps in case rural residents wanted to post mail. According to the sisters, “Mr. Pete” made a habit of going the extra mile for the post office’s rural customers. If, for instance, a shipment of biddies, or young chickens was delivered by the train on a Saturday, “Mr. Pete,” they said, would often take it upon himself to deliver them. The Phillips sisters told a touching story.  The death notice of a young serviceman arrived at the post office during World War II. “Mr. Pete” did not want the notice just simply to be “delivered” to the young man’s family who lived well outside Matthews. He took it upon himself to take the letter personally to the family so they might receive the devastating news from a friend who cared. Actions such as these soon earned Postmaster Phillips a well-deserved place in the hearts of Matthews’s citizens. In February 1957, four years after his retirement, “Mr. Pete” was selected Matthews’s “Man of the Year.”11

By 1960 the Matthews Post Office had outgrown the Depression-era building, so the Postal Department began soliciting bids for the construction of a replacement office.12 On September 23, 1962, after twenty three years of service, the “Old Matthews Post Office” received, sorted and delivered its last batch of mail; and its days as a post office were no more.13 However, it has been occupied by numerous businesses of various sorts over the ensuing years.

The former United States Post Office building stands as a significant, integral component of the historic development of Matthews. The building resulted from private funds invested for the public good by the “kindest man in town,” Lester “Doc” Yandle.14 It was designed by one of the most popular figures in Matthews’s political history, nine-term mayor, W. Alexis “Lex” Hood. Finally, it was operated by Matthews “Man of the Year,” Oscar “Mr. Pete” Phillips.

Architectural Description

Special Note:  The information contained in the architectural description is largely taken from Richard L. Mattson, Nomination: Matthews Commercial Historical District. United States Department of the Interior, 1996.

The Matthews Post Office is a single story, flat roofed, dark red brick building of Neo-Classical Revival styling. It is a rectangular, five-bay-wide and five-bay-deep structure and is set-back with front and side lawns. The front and side elevations are characterized by formality, featuring symmetrical fenestration, continuous stone cornice and a stepped parapet topped with metal flashing that conceals the flat roof. As one faces the main facade, one is met by five stone risers, enclosed within two brick cheek walls which are capped with thick, flat stone. Situated on the portico are two stone Tuscan columns in antis. The front elevation boasts two pairs of tall, narrow twelve-pane windows with prominent stone sills which flank the central double-door entrance which is topped by a lunette transom. The double doors and lunette transom are enclosed by a brick, stacked-header arch. Wider metal framed, multi-paned casement windows, also with stone sills, but with the added addition of metal security bars, grace the side elevations. The rear three-bay facade is characterized by the central double-door entrance which is sheltered by a shed roof. The interior of the structure is unobstructed, and birch hardwood floors run the length of the building. Crown molding wraps the tops of the walls, and the ceiling is set at 11 feet. Every detail described above is original to the structure except replacement leaded glass which is a recent addition to the front double door entrance.

The building derives its structural integrity by its 8-inch thick brick walls, and the interior flooring of the structure is supported by numerous brick piers situated at regular intervals in the crawl space. The exterior veneer is comprised of a 4-inch scratch-faced brick laid in a running bond. Soldier courses line the tops of all window lintels. At floor level, a single out-set header course comprises a belt that runs the entire perimeter of the building. Two striking brick patterns distinguish the parapet. The first is a rectangle composed of two stacked, opposing header courses connected at the top and bottom by two rowlock courses (the front elevation’s rectangular pattern is highlighted by a half-arch at the center of its upper rowlock course). Running bonds fill the square. The second is a square, similarly constructed. A single brick chimney, once used to vent the coal- fired furnace, rises from the roof on the northwestern side of the building. Immediately behind the post office sits a small outbuilding originally used for coal storage. It is constructed with a shed roof, and its brick walls are laid in a running bond.

1. Paula H. Lester, Discover Matthews: From Cotton to Corporate (Matthews, North Carolina: the Town of Matthews Tourism Council, 2000), p. 56.2 Richard L. Mattson, Historic Landscapes of Mecklenburg County: The Small Towns. July 1991.

2. Richard L. Mattson, Historic Landscapes of Mecklenburg County: The Small Towns (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission).

3. Ibid; Claudia Brown and Richard L. Mattson, Nomination: Matthews Commercial Historical District. United States Department of the Interior, 1996. Sec. 7., p. 1; One of the most intriguing features of Matthews’s historical development is that it did not developed a robust cotton milling industry during its formative years of 1880-1920 as did its sister railroad towns of Pineville, Huntersville and Cornelius. Matthews, therefore, escaped the paternalistic and exploitive nature so often associated with textile manufacturing in North Carolina’s Piedmont during the early twentieth century. As a result, Matthews’s remained unencumbered by “mill village” development.

4 John Long, ed., “Matthews, Post Office History Intertwined,” The Southeast News, 30 August, 1978; Deed Book 418, p. 63. 15 November, 1919; Deed Book 533, p. 168. 27 February, 1924; According to sisters Margaret and Mary Louise Phillips, long-time Matthews residents and daughters of Oscar L. Phillips, Matthews’s Post Master from 1933-53, the two lots sat vacant for fifteen years while “Doc” Yandle concentrated on establishing his drug store. During that period, the Phillips sisters recalled, the lots were frequented by a “snake oil salesman” who would pitch several large tents and sell his elixirs in a “carnival” like atmosphere. Mary Elizabeth laughingly remembered sitting on the front porch of her father’s home adjacent to the lots watching the “Medicine Man,” as he was known by locals, and the crowds he attracted “hoop and holler.” Both sisters believed that the lots were also the site of the towns watering trough.

5. Interview with Lester H. Yandle Jr., Matthews, North Carolina. 13 October, 2004.

6. Beth M. Boland, “How To Apply The National Register Criteria To Post Offices,” National Register Bulletin 13 (1994); p. 4; Interview with Margaret and Mary Louise Phillips, Matthews, North Carolina. 14 October, 2004.

7. Program of Dedication: Matthews Post Office, 3 May, 1939.

8. Program Dedication; Interview with Margaret and Mary Louise Phillips.

9. Interview with Margaret and Mary Louise Phillips.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid; “Matthews Man of the Year,” The Charlotte Observer, 14 February, 1957.

12. “Matthews to Get New Post Office,” The Mecklenburg Times, 1 September, 1960.

13. “A Dedication – And a Rally,” The Charlotte Observer, 23 September, 1962.

14. Lester, Discover Matthews. p. 19.