Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission

Survey & Research Reports

Lawing House

 

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

Mont Olive Baptist Church

6101 Neck Road

Huntersville NC 28078

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description prepared by Stewart Gray demonstrates that the property known as the Caldwell Station School meets this criterion.
  2. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal:  The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes a “historic landmark.”  The current appraised value of the house is $80,600.  The current appraised value of the 1 acre of land is $40,600.  The property is zoned R.  The property is exempt from the payment of Ad Valorem Taxes.
  3. Portion of the Property Recommended for Designation.  The interior and exterior of the house  and the 1 acre of land associated with tax parcel number 02302229.

 

A Brief History of the Harry Campbell Lawing House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

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

[8] Ibid.

[9] Emily Ramsey and Laura Ramsey.

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

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Mecklenburg County Death Certificate # 1973000733

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

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

[16] Ibid.

[17] Mecklenburg County Death Certificate # 1973003298

[18] Mecklenburg County Death Certificate # 1971001827

[19] Mecklenburg County Death Certificate # 1957000559

[20] Mecklenburg County Death Certificate # 1954000314

[21] Sommerville, p. 153.

[22] Lawing Interview.

[23] Ibid.

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

[25] Lawing Interview.

[26] Ibid.

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

[28] Lawing Interview.

[29] Carr Interview.

[30] Mecklenburg County Death Certificate #2000002363

[31] Lawing Interview.

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

[33] Ibid.

[34] Henderson Interview.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

 

Architectural Description

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Latta Plantation

 

Click here to view Charlotte Observer Article on the Latta Place

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


Latta Arcade

 

Exterior


Interior

 

This report was written on 20 July 1994

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Latta Arcade is located at 316 South Tryon Street in the central business district of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

2. Name, address, and telephone number of the present owner of the property. The owner of the property is:
Crosland-Erwin and Associates/The Crosland Group, Inc.
125 Scaleybark Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28209

704-529-1166

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 maps which depict the location of the property.

5. Current deed book references to the property: The Latta Arcade is sited on Tax Parcel Number 073-021-26 and is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 5140 at page 461.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Mattson, Alexander and Associates.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Mattson, Alexander and Associates.

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 history, architecture, and cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Latta Arcade does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The Commission bases its judgement on the following considerations: 1) Latta Arcade was designed by important Charlotte architect, William H. Peeps, and built in 1914; 2) Latta Arcade was developed by Edward Dilworth Latta and his Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company, which was instrumental in the development of early twentieth century Charlotte; 3) the Latta Arcade was built as part of large scale commercial construction program undertaken by Latta during the boom years of the early twentieth century when Charlotte emerged as the largest city in North Carolina; and 4) the Latta Arcade has already been listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and the interior of the Latta Arcade has designated as a local historic landmark by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Mattson, Alexander and Associates included in this report demonstrates that the Latta Arcade property 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 to the Latta Arcade is $399,530.00. The current appraised value of Latta Arcade, Tax Parcel Number 073-021-26 is $1,772,100.00. The total appraised value of the Latta Arcade is $2,171,630.00. The tax deferral for the current historic designation totals $25,850.00. Tax Parcel Number 073-021-26 is zoned B-3.

Date of Preparation of this Report: 20 July 1994

Prepared by: Frances P. Alexander and Richard L. Mattson Mattson, Alexander and Associates for
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
P.O. Box 35434
Charlotte, North Carolina 28235

(704) 376-9115

 

 

Architectural Description
 

Introduction

The 1914 Latta Arcade is a two-story, brick commercial building with a first-floor pedestrian passageway, which serves as an inter-block artery linking South Tryon and South Church streets in uptown Charlotte. The Arcade constitutes part of a contiguous row of office and retail properties along the west side of the 300 block of South Tryon Street, the most densely developed commercial street in Charlotte. Brevard Court is joined to the rear (west elevation) of the building at ground level, and serves as an extension of the first-floor Arcade thoroughfare. The Court consists of two parallel rows of one-story brick offices and retail shops facing a brick open-air pedestrian walkway. Although built sporadically during the years following the completion of the Latta Arcade, these rows of facades share common materials and detailing, and form a harmonious unit with the Arcade. The interior of Latta Arcade was largely restored between 1969 and 1973, and the main facade was remodeled during a second renovation which followed a change of ownership in 1982. The proposed designation includes the portions of the Latta Arcade which were not designated in 1975, and the parcel on which the building is situated.

Architectural Description

The Arcade is divided into two blocks. The front (east) block is covered by a gable roof which rises into an asymmetrical parapet along both the north and south elevations. This gable-front roof extends the length of the Arcade and shelters the pedestrian walkway on the ground floor. The gable is covered with a slightly tinted glass installed ca. 1985. The glass skylight looks clear from the ground and floods the walkway with natural light. Muted green Spanish tiles sheath the eastern slope of the roof and produces a slight overhang which is underlined by a row of decorative modillions. The rear block is covered by a tripartite roof consisting of two pent roofs which flank and buttress the taller center gable roof. The front block is a trapezoid measuring 99 feet wide, and 84 feet deep on the north side and 76 feet deep on the south. Reflecting the 1980s facelift, the South Tryon Street (main) facade is composed of a plastered brick veneer, plate-glass display windows, and limestone detailing. The main entrance is recessed and framed by a limestone arch, with a keystone transom. The recessed entry leads to a double-leaf plate glass door with transom and unbroken sidelights framed by brushed aluminum. A separate storefront flanks each side of the entrance bay. Each includes limestone pilasters, a frieze with applied decorative wood molding which echoes the interior frieze motif, and marble-faced aprons below display windows. The storefronts lead into a restaurant (south side) and drugstore (north side), each with modern interiors.

The second-story windows across the facade are all replacements and have fixed sashes. The main doors of the Arcade open onto a center hall with a black-and-reddish terra cotta tile floor. The cornice of the foyer ceiling is embellished with acanthus rope molding, which is also inlaid along the lateral beam. The north wall has a row of three plaster pilasters leading to a pair of wide, marble-faced ones which mark the entrance into the Arcade proper. An early metal wall mailbox and a wooden shoeshine stand are situated on the northeast side of the foyer. Located on the south side is a marble-faced staircase which joins the two floors of the building. The elaborate stair design consists of a lower flight running east-to-west leading to a transverse landing. Staircases rising from the landing provide access to both the eastern office block and the principal western block on the second floor. The stair balustrade comprises slender cast-iron balusters with small horizontal tie-beams connecting each baluster at top and bottom, resulting in a lattice-like effect along the diagonal passages of each flight. Originally, the second story housed the offices of the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company (4C’s), the conglomerate presided over by Edward Dilworth Latta, financier and developer for whom the Arcade was built. Located in the southeastern corner is the entrance to the former Latta office, designated by a casement transom with ornate leaden tracery. The original door to this office–a large single leaf Philippine mahogany door with 15 raised panels–is now a closet door in the northeastern corner of the block.

The western block of the Arcade is also a trapezoid and measures 104 feet deep on the south side, 100 feet deep on the north, 87 feet wide on the east, and 88 feet deep on the west. It is this area which gives the building its remarkable character. Here, original structural and decorative elements are combined with contemporary refurbishing. The color scheme throughout is a combination of gray, black, and cream uniform white globe-shaped lights are located beside the doorways and define the shop and office front bays. Perpendicular, wooden signs identify the businesses. At the rear, a large double-leaf door with wood surrounds, sidelights, and an arched transom opens onto Brevard Court. Whereas the front of the Arcade has a plastered-brick veneer, the rear elevation has exposed red brick, and three original segmental-arched upper story windows with stone sills. The larger center window has a transom and sidelights ornamented with stained glass Art Nouveau designs. Each flanking window is capped by a rectangular Art Nouveau designed transom. The interior of the first floor west block is divided in half by the eight-bay-long walkway, the Arcade proper of the building. Retail shops and offices hue its perimeters. The easternmost bay, beside the foyer, is flanked by shop fronts recessed in an octagonal space. Sections of the original terra cotta tile floor have been replaced in this area by slightly larger tiles of similar pattern and colors. A modern planter/fountain in a circular marble-faced container is the centerpiece.

The shop front on the south side of this space has been modernized with a glass-curtain facade and double-leaf door opening into the rear of the restaurant (“Gus’ Sir Beef”) and public restrooms. The other bays of shop and office fronts lining the Arcade display original design elements. These fronts consist of plate-glass curtains divided into show windows atop marble-faced aprons, rectilinear doors with wood surrounds, and transoms. Engaged pillars define the bays and support a simple frieze ornamented with three rectangular wooden dentils above each pillar. Above this frieze is a wooden balustrade which rims the large rectangular wall of the upper level. The balustrade is composed of rectangular balusters, a rectangular handrail, and square-in-section posts of lateral bracing. The wall, is 92 feet long and 12 feet wide and emphasizes the dramatic open plan of the building while allowing the glazed roof to cast natural light onto the walkways.

The upper tier of office bays is set back from the well. The office fronts consist of plate glass windows resting on flat-paneled aprons which alternate with full-length plate glass doors. The bays are defined by pilasters topped with geometric caps projecting from an entablature which stretches the length of the Arcade. Atop the entablature is a broad frieze divided into eight bays and decorated by wooden molding strips. Each bay features a bold central diamond-shaped panel with a recessed plastered center. Flanking the center diamond are rectangles broken into chevrons along their inner sides to conform to the contours of the diamond. Above the frieze stretches a clerestory divided into three plate glass rectangular windows per bay. On the north wall at the eastern end of the well are a pair of double-hung etched windows with simple molded surrounds. At the next to the last bay of the western end is a partition which designates an office waiting room. The lower plate-glass section includes two entrance doors flanking the well. The upper half of the partition features, in bold relief, a broad trabeated design with splayed feet. A rounder medallion enclosing a clock surmounts the lintel.

The roof is supported by seven evenly spaced exposed metal fan trusses consisting of thin metal rafters and purling. Arched hind-braces reinforce the truss tie-beams. Modern circular fans extend down from the trusses.

Conclusion

The 1914 Latta Arcade ranks among the most significant early twentieth-century office buildings erected in Charlotte. Although the main facade has been substantially remodeled, the remarkable interior arcade survives largely intact, with parallel rows of shop fronts and office suites beneath the skylit roof. The design continues to reflect its original purpose, which was to accommodate a variety of small businesses as well as provide natural light for the grading of cotton, all within an architecturally sophisticated space. The interior clearly illustrates the use of innovative design and attention to detail to achieve both functional and aesthetic results.

 

 

Historical Overview
 

Designed by Charlotte architect, William H. Peeps, the Latta Arcade was built in 1914 on South Tryon Street, one of the principal commercial thoroughfares in the city, for the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company. The Four C’s, as this real estate company was known, had been started by prominent Charlotte developer and entrepreneur, Edward Dilworth Latta (1851-1925), and other local business leaders in 1890. A South Carolina native, Latta had moved to Charlotte in 1876 and established a retail clothing store under the name, E.D. Latta and Brothers. However, his legacy was real estate development, which was fostered in the post-Civil War years by urban growth and a rising manufacturing base in Charlotte. Latta, as one of the exemplars of the New South philosophy of progress through industrialization, was able to capitalize on the growth and wealth associated with the burgeoning textile industry. During the 1880s, when the first cotton mills were opened in the city, Latta established a trouser company, and quickly became one of the principal boosters of Charlotte as a New South city (Morrill 1985, 295). During the nascent period of industrialization in the city, Latta boldly established the 4C’s in 1890, and the company quickly acquired 442 acres south of the city. Here Latta and the company planned to establish Dilworth, the first suburban development in Charlotte, an area targeted at the new industrial workers.

One year later, in 1891, The Four C’s acquired the horse-drawn streetcar line, which had been started in 1887, converted it to electric trolley service, and extended one line from downtown to Dilworth with a second providing cross town service. The streetcar was operated by a Latta subsidiary, the Charlotte Railway Company. In order to attract the new urban middle class to Dilworth, The 4C’s built a power plant to supply the community with electricity, a sewage system, a waterworks, and a gasification plant, all constructed in the 1890s (Glass 1975).

Through his real estate venture at Dilworth and his control of early utilities, Latta was instrumental in establishing Charlotte as a major industrial center in North Carolina. Between 1890 and 1910, the population of the city tripled to 34,014, and eleven cotton mills was opened (Blythe 1961, 449). By the end of the 1890s, Mecklenburg County was one of the three largest textile manufacturing counties in North Carolina (Hanchett 1981). With the new industrial expansion, Charlotte also became a commercial and financial center with banks, cotton brokerages, and other service-related industries supporting the textile boom. As the city grew, the Charlotte Railway Company extended trolley service to the emerging ring of streetcar suburbs including Piedmont Park, Elizabeth, and Biddleville. By the early 1900s, however, Latta and the 4C’s began to lose the monopoly they had once held in public utilities. Competition from J.B. Duke’s Catawba Power Company (incorporated in 1905 as the Southern Power Company) as well as other developers and entrepreneurs undermined Latta’s exclusive hold on urban services.

In 1910, the Southern Power Company was awarded a franchise to provide streetcar service, and in the same year, the Charlotte Power Company began supplying gas. Shortly thereafter, The 4C’s sold its trolley line and gas subsidiary to J.B. Duke’s Southern Power Company (Morrill 1985, 312). With the end of its utilities activities in 1910 and the annexation of Dilworth into the city in 1907, Latta and the 4C’s were able to focus more intently on real estate ventures. In 1913, Latta, with officials of the Southern Power Company, established the Mercantile Development Company, which acquired a large tract on South Tryon Street, one of the primary commercial streets of downtown (Morrill 1985, 314). Most of these sites held older residential properties, and Latta planned an ambitious campaign of commercial office construction, which spurred a building boom in the center city. Reputedly E.D. Latta’s favorite achievement, the Latta Arcade was constructed on South Tryon Street in 1914 during this large scale building program. Located on the west side of South Tryon Street between Second and Third Streets, the Latta Arcade site was bought from Mary S. Brevard for $44,000 (Glass 1975).

Architect William H. Peeps (1868-1950) was commissioned to design the new office building, and T. L. Caton acted as the building contractor. A native of London, England, Peeps had first settled in Grand Rapids, Michigan where he began his American career as a furniture designer. In 1905, he moved to Charlotte where he spent the remainder of his life (Charlotte Observer 11 September 1950, 21). President of the North Carolina Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, Peeps designed a number of important local works including a second arcaded office building, the Court Arcade, on East Trade Street; the clubhouse at Myers Park Country Club; the J.B. Ivey Company Department Store (1924); and an orthopaedic hospital in Gastonia. Peeps also became a major residential architect, following his success with the Latta Arcade and the J.B. Ivey department store, and he received a number of residential commissions in the new streetcar suburbs of Myers Park and Dilworth. In Myers Park, he built a Colonial Revival house for John Bass Brown, one of the leading retailers in Charlotte, and Tudor Revival dwellings for local entrepreneur, Osmond Barringa, and F. D. Lethco. His Dilworth designs included a 1925 English country house for Ralston and Frances Pound (Boyle 1983, 7A). Opened in January 1915, the Latta Arcade was built with six stores fronting on South Tryon with an arcade extending to the rear through the city block. Sixteen small, specialty stores faced onto this arcade.

The design for the arcade was inspired by the Grand Central Palace Exposition, constructed in London in 1851, a building which was widely influential during the early twentieth century when a number of arcaded commercial buildings of similar design were built throughout the U.S. (White n.d., 26). The Charlotte Observer praised its appearance, particularly the interior. Marble stairs and railings and walls strike the eye as one enters from the front and a complete view of finely-worked wood and marble and decorative effects extend in panoramic fashion before the gaze of the visitor (Charlotte Observer, 16 January 1915). The building was an instant success. The Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company moved into offices on the south side of the second floor, while architect Peeps occupied another office. The skylights, supported by steel trusses, provided the correct lighting for grading cotton, and the cotton brokerage firm of Andason-Clayton also became early tenants. Other early occupants included an iron-making company; lawyers, John K. Kenyon, Julia Alexanda, and C. D. Moore; and insurance firms (White n.d., 26). With the popularity of Latta Arcade, several other business leaders soon approached Latta about extending the building. Instead of undertaking the new project himself, Latta purchased two adjoining tracts to the rear and sold them to the interested parties. Albert Brown, also a Charlotte real estate developer, was evidently responsible for this new project. Called Brevard Court, the newer building mimicked the arcade design, although the shops fronted onto an open courtyard. Brevard Court extended from the rear of Latta Arcade through to Church Street (Glass 1975).

Several years after construction of Latta Arcade, illness forced Latta from daily participation in the work of the Four C’s. The deed to the Latta Arcade was conveyed from the elder Latta to his son, E. D. Latta, Jr. in 1923, and E.D. Latta, Sr. moved to Asheville. In Asheville, Latta continued his development activities, but died two years later in 1925, as one of the wealthiest men in North Carolina. At his death, Latta owned 20 to 30 buildings in Charlotte in addition to considerable real estate holdings in Asheville (Glass 1975). The Latta Arcade was a prime office and commercial address throughout the interwar years, but fell into neglect during the 1950s and 1960s. After World War II, the property was bought by Jack Heath, who with fellow Charlottean Randolph Scott, had tried acting in California before coming home to begin his realty firm, F. J. Heath Realty Company. In 1969, Heath began renovations on Latta Arcade, the designs for which were undertaken by the architectural firm of Wolf Associates, Ltd. Wolf earned the 1973 Award of Merit from the North Carolina Chapter of the American Institute of Architects for this renovation (Glass 1975). In 1982, the John Crosland Realty Company bought the arcade from the estate of Jack Heath. Additional renovations were undertaken after this change in ownership with designs by Jack Boyte of Boyte-Williams Architects. During this second renovation, the exterior was remodeled, and a rear door of wood and glass, similar to the original, replaced a solid glass entrance of the 1970s. Interior modifications included restoring the plaster detailing and globe lights to their original appearance. In addition, clear glass replaced the plastic corrugated panels which had been added to the skylights (Maschal 1986, 6B).

Conclusion

The Latta Arcade was built in 1914 as part of a large scale, building program, which transformed areas of downtown from residential to elegant commercial uses in the early twentieth century. This change in land use reflected the new status of Charlotte as the largest city in North Carolina and a major industrial and commercial center in the state. The Latta Arcade is one of the rare early twentieth century, commercial buildings remaining in the central business district. In addition, with the demolition of the Latta home on East Boulevard, the Latta Arcade is the only extant building in the city which the prominent Charlotte developer, Edward Dilworth Latta, actually occupied.

 


Bibliography

Bishir,Catherine. North Carolina Architecture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991.

Blythe, Legette and Charles Brockmann. Hornets’ Nest. Charlotte: McNally for the Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, 1961.

Boyte, Jack. “An English Architect’s Legacy Still Enriches the Older Parts of Charlotte,” Charlotte News, 14 March 1983, 7A.

Coley, Frank. “Steeped in History: Distinction Sought for Latta Arcade,” Charlotte Weekly Uptown, 31 January 1978.

“Crosland Realty Signs Contract for Latta Arcade,” Charlotte News, 26 May 1982.

Dilworth Historic District. Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. 1978, 1982- 1984.

“Firm to Rescue Court Arcade,” Charlotte Observer, 18 September 1975.

Glass, Brent. Latta Arcade. Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. August 1975.

“Latta Arcade,” Charlotte Observer, 20 January 1986, p. 6B.

“Latta Arcade Now Opened for Tenants,” Charlotte Observer, 16 January 1915.

“Latta Arcade’s Old Beauty to be Restored,” Charlotte Observer, 9 March 1985, p. 1A.

Maschal, Richard. “Renovations Draw Mixed Response,” Charlotte Observer, 20 January 1986, 6B.

Morrill, Dan L. “Edward Dilworth Latta and the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company (1890- 1925): Builders of a New South City,” North Carolina Historical Review LXII, no. 3 (July 1985): 293-316.

Hanchett, Thomas. Myers Park Historic District. Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. 1981-1982.

“Realty Film Buying Historic Arcade,” Charlotte Observer, 27 May 1982, p. l0B.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps. Charlotte, North Carolina. 1929.

Survey Research Report on Latta Arcade and Brevard Court. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, September 1977.

White, Andi. “Latta Arcade.” Records of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, n.d.

“William H. Peeps.” Vertical Files of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library.

“William Peeps is Dead at 82,” Charlotte Observer, 11 September 1950.


SURVEY AND RESEARCH REPORT ON

The Robert and Elizabeth Lassiter House

Name and location of the property: The property known as the Robert and Elizabeth Lassiter House is located at 726 Hempstead Place, Charlotte, North Carolina.

  1. Name and address of the present owner of the property: The present owner of the property is:

Elizabeth Lassiter

726 Hempstead Place

Charlotte, NC

  1. Representative photographs of the property: This report contains representative photographs of the property.
  2. Maps depicting the location of the property: This report contains a map depicting the location of the property.
  3. Current deed book and tax parcel information for the property: The tax parcel number of the property is 155-132-11
  4. UTM coordinate: 17 516588E 3894103N
  5. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property.
  6. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property.
  7. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets criteria for designation set forth in N. C. G. S. 160A-400.5:
  8. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Robert and Elizabeth Lassiter House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:

1)      The Lassiter House is significant as the oldest identified surviving Modernist Style home in Charlotte.

2)      The Lassiter House is one of the earliest examples of the work of A.G. Odell Jr., one of the most important and prolific North Carolina architects of the 20th century.

3)      The Lassiter House is extremely rare as a fully realized example of Modernist Style residential architecture.

4)      The Lassiter House is important as an early example of the movement after World War Two to apply technology to residential architecture.

  1. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association: The Commission contends that the physical and architectural description which is included in this report demonstrates that the Robert and Elizabeth Lassiter House meets this criterion.
  2. Ad Valorem tax appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes a designated “historic landmark.” The current total appraised value of the improvements is $144,600. The current appraised value of the lot is $780,000. The current total value is $924,600.

 

Date of preparation of this report: August 2003

Prepared by: Stewart Gray

The Lassiter House, located on Hempstead Place in the Eastover Neighborhood in Charlotte, is significant as the oldest identified fully realized Modernist Style houses in the city.  It is also one of the few surviving homes designed by architect A. G. Odell, who was among the most prominent North Carolina architects of the 20th century.  The Modernist Style in residential architecture was never fully embraced in Charlotte, and surviving examples continue to be threatened with demolition.

Historical Overview

The Lassiter House was built in 1951 during the nation’s great post-World War Two building boom.  The building boom was brought on by years of stagnant homebuilding due at first to the Great Depression and then to material and labor shortages during World War II.  After serving in the Navy, Charlotte native Robert Lassiter brought his bride Elizabeth to his hometown where they found a house in south Charlotte.  Elizabeth Lassiter, who was from the State of Washington, remembers that the housing market around Charlotte was extremely tight and that they felt very lucky to have found any house at all.   Elizabeth Lassiter contracted polio soon after her move to Charlotte and wanted a one-story house that would be completely accessible to a wheelchair.  Around 1949 the Lassiters asked A. G. Odell Jr. to design a new home that would suit their needs.[1]

A Cabarrus County native and a member of one of North Carolina’s most prominent textile families, A. G. Odell, Jr. opened an office in Charlotte 1940[2].   Odell graduated from architecture school at Cornell University and then attended the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris, one of the world’s premier arts and architecture schools.  Indeed, Odell was considered the best- trained architect in Charlotte.[3]  In the years following the World War II, Odell quickly established himself as the leading designer of commercial and institutional buildings in Charlotte.  By the mid-1950s, Odell’s work included the Main Branch of the Charlotte Public Library, Charlotte’s first enclosed shopping center, the Charlottetown Mall, and the groundbreaking Wachovia Tower, Charlotte’s first Modernist Style skyscraper.  Odell’s greatest achievement was arguably the design of the original Charlotte Coliseum.

The former Charlotte Coliseum (now known as Independence Arena) and Ovens Auditorium, Charlotte’s first municipal stadium and auditorium, were hailed as “architectural marvels” by architects, public officials, and Charlotteans when they first opened to a crowd of thousands in 1955.  North Carolina Governor Luther Hodges proclaimed the Coliseum “a perfect building,”[4]

Praise was not limited to the local press or state officials.  The Coliseum project secured Odell’s reputation as an architect of national significance.

From the moment that Odell & Associates unveiled the first model, the Coliseum was featured in professional architecture journals and trade publications. The buildings legendary claim to fame is that it was the largest free-span dome in the world at the time it was built…and it received international notice in an article in a Madrid journal. Look published a three-quarter page color photograph of the “world’s biggest dome.” [5]

Odell’s success continued and in 1966 Odell was honored as a recipient of the North Carolina Award for Fine Arts.  Awarded by the General Assembly, it is the highest honor the state of North Carolina can bestow.   Other recipients have included: Frank Porter Graham, John Morehead, Reynolds Price, Charlotteans Mary and Harry Dalton, and Modernist Architecture proponent Henry L. Kamphoefner, former Dean of the School of Design at NC State University.

Click here to read a brief biography of Odell from the commemorative program for the 1966 North Carolina Awards ceremony

Projects for Odell’s firm, Odell and Associates, included the Blue Cross Blue Shield Building near Chapel Hill, the Concordia Church, and the 1965 “Charlotte Central Area Plan.”  With the center city plan, Odell embraced the philosophy of the “Radiant City,” espoused by Swiss-born European architect Le Corbusier, where:

Urban cores should be hygienic, antiseptic, and ordered — not cluttered, begrimed, and haphazard. The tradition of mixing functions in a single structure or neighborhood was an anathema to Corbusier. The city of the future would be divided into discreet sections devoted to specific purposes – working, living, leisure – connected to one another by expressways.[6]

While the plan was never fully realized, it was utilized and the present landscape of the center city owes much to Odell’s design.  One important element of plan was the Charlotte Civic Center.  Designed by Odell, this massive and stark building acted as a catalyst for more Modernist or International Style buildings in the center city.

Odell’s fame was largely the result of his commercial and institutional work, but early in his career Odell designed several modernist homes for Charlotte clients including the Kenneth Shupp House, the first Modernist Style home built in Charlotte.  Odell continued to publicize his residential designs through the mid-1950s.   In 1954 as President of the North Carolina Chapter of the AIA, Odell began publishing the Southern Architect, which later became the Journal of North Carolina Architecture.  The primer issue, with the Charlotte Coliseum on the cover, featured five pages of Odell’s work with photographs of three residences.  In 1955 the Southern Architect again featured Odell’s residential work with photographs and a floor plan of the Spencer Bell House in Charlotte.  Odell found that he could provide good value for his homebuilding clients by utilizing the Modernist Style.  In an interview with the Charlotte Observer at the time of his retirement in 1982, Odell said “I was trying to sell contemporary more on the economics than aesthetics…(traditional design homes) didn’t give as much space for the dollar.”[7]

J. Spencer Bell House Kenneth Shupp House

Although never fully embraced by the home buying public, especially in any fully realized form, Modernist Style homes were the vanguard in post-World War II residential design.  In the California Book of Homes, a plan-book sold in bookstores and newsstands, Editor Leslie R. Griffin wrote in the introduction:

The basic concepts of architectural home designing have undergone revolutionary changes for the better.  The hallowed basic concepts have been pushed, prodded and shaped to keep pace with this great country and its people – who have themselves been involved in a revolution of spirit and mind in the last twenty years.  From the chaos of the past, architectural practice and thought has emerged shoulder to shoulder with the ideals of freedom that have kept our country great…[8]

The newness of the style and its utilization and integration of technology was seen as an answer to the troubled years of the Depression and the tumult of the war.  Victory and prosperity and the resulting consumer culture drove the demand for “new and improved” products, including homes.  Fully-realized Modernist Style homes were not simply an “improved” version of the traditional home form, but in many cases a completely different building type.  Considered a “machine for living,”[9] fully- realized Modernist Style home designs shared few structural components, building materials, or spatial planning with traditional designs.  Griffin goes on to list the tangible effects of the Modernist Style on residential architecture:

  1. Today’s planning is functional.  The want of the family are appraised and a step-saving floor plan is laid out: then, after the living functions have been provided for, the shell is put on the house.  Previously, the house was built after a traditional pattern, a “French Provincial”, “Colonial”, or something similar.
  2. Exterior design has changed.  Modern lines are simple lines – no gingerbread or other unnecessary ornamentation.

 

  1. Modern conveniences have taken over.  The modern kitchen and laundry are so well known to the housewife today that any description would be superfluous.

 

  1. The two-story house is out.  In the West, with rare exceptions such as building on a hillside location, owners want living on one floor.

 

  1. Open planning is in.  Present habits of informal living, plus the perfection of modern conveniences have made open planning possible.  The formal dining room has been replaced by the large Pullman kitchen.  Hallways and entry-ways are fewer…[10
  2. It was in this context of radical change that the Lassiter House was designed.  Odell and Robert Lassiter were friends, and Elizabeth Lassiter recalls that Charlotte was a much smaller town in the late 1940’s and that it was “only natural” that Odell would design their house.  Elizabeth Lassiter was familiar with Modernist Style architecture.  Being from the West Coast, she was an admirer of Portland architect Pietro Belluschi (1899-1994), a leading national spokesman for the Modernist Style and Dean of the M.I.T. School of Architecture[11].,  Belluschi had produced numerous successful home designs and was considered pragmatic when compared with other proponents of the style such as Phillip Johnson.[12]  With Belluschi’s style in mind, Elizabeth Lassiter  and Odell “put our heads together”[13] and developed the plan for the Lassiter Family’s home.

Odell assisted in every phase of planning and construction for the Lassiter House.  He accompanied the Lassiters when they picked out the lot on Hempstead Place, a brand new neighborhood street being developed by prominent developer E. C. Griffith, and Elizabeth Lassiter recalls that Griffith himself wrote the deed.   Odell urged them to choose lot number 726 because its rising topography would allow him to design a private site.

Elizabeth Lassiter wanted to make sure that her new home could accommodate someone with restricted mobility and found the Modernist Style design well suited to her special needs.  Modernist Style homes are generally low, and the one-story Lassiter House is set level with the grade, eliminating all need for steps.  Modernist Style designs utilized modern materials such as steel beams to allow for open floor plans without interruption by interior load-bearing walls.   The Lassiter House’s open floor plan along with wide hallways, and doorways, were designed to accommodate a wheelchair.  Wall-to-wall carpet was chosen because slick floors could be dangerous for someone using crutches.   A pool was planned for the backyard, so that Elizabeth Lassiter could exercise, but problems with getting materials and skilled labor delayed the pool for several years. [14]

Elizabeth Lassiter  had specific non-Modernist plans for her kitchen.  She recalls that Odell suggested an open-plan for the kitchen.   He suggested a kitchen/family room with a place for “Robert to sit there reading the paper in a big chair, smoking a pipe,”[15] while Elizabeth cooked supper.  She was not impressed, and directed Odell to design a small kitchen for a paid cook, with a butler pantry/serving area to further isolate the kitchen from the dining room and the rest of the house.  Even with this traditional kitchen/dinning room layout, Odell was able to utilize modern innovations such as a dinning table on a track that could be completely set in the serving area and pushed through an opening in the dinning room wall.  When the meal was over it would be retracted, dirty plates and all.

Elizabeth Lassiter’s other major disagreement with Odell involved storage space.  The Modernist Style emphasized clean lines, no clutter.  In these concrete-floored “machines for living” there were usually no attics or basements, and the open-floor plan eliminated many of the possible locations for closets.  Odell suggested to the Lassiters that they should not “have a lot of stuff,”[17] and that they did not need storage.  Embracing post-World War II consumerism, Odell suggested that if something was broken or if you did not need it, you could just throw it away.  Elizabeth Lassiter was not convinced and instructed Odell to design generous storage space.

While Elizabeth Lassiter was involved in every aspect of the interior design, the Lassiters gave Odell a free hand in designing the exterior of the house. Typically the design of a Modernist Style house concentrated more on the needs of the occupants than on impressing the public.  Whereas traditional home design often incorporated either an imposing or ornate façade, Modernist Style homes often presented their simplest elevation to the street and would sometimes, as is the case with the Lassiter House, lack a “front door.”  This concept of a very private or personal space is reflected in Odell’s landscaping plan for the Lassiter House.  From the road, the most prominent feature of the Lassiter Residence is a large, plain, masonry retaining wall.

Architect-designed homes, and Modernist Style homes in particular often conform to the landscape.  Odell embraced this concept with the Lassiter House.  It was his intention that the house look like it had risen out of the lot.[18]  While “outdoor living” was nothing new in the South with its history of porches, screened porches, and sleeping porches, the Modernist Style architects pushed the very floor plans of their homes into the outdoors with trellis-covered terraces and open patios.  The outdoors was brought into the houses by the extensive use of windows and glass doors, usually to the rear of the house.  In the Lassiter House the living room literally opens onto a covered patio via massive sliding glass wall panels that were designed by Odell.  The blurring of the interior and exterior spaces was reinforced by Odell with exterior wall materials such as brick and redwood siding being featured on interior walls.

Odell’s state-of-the-art design for the Lassiter House proved to be very practical over time.  With an addition in the 1970’s to accommodate guests, the house has served members of the Lassiter Family for over fifty years.

Odell characterized architecture as “90% business and 10% art.”  At the time of his retirement in 1982, Odell and Associates was the largest architectural-engineering firm in the Carolinas, with billings in 1981 of $6.6 million.  At the time of his retirement, Odell and his firm had been credited with designing an astounding 2,000 buildings.  However, it was his early commercial and institutional work from the 1950’s and 60’s in the Modernist and International Styles that was most admired by the public and his peers.  While not typical of the work that made him recognized as one of the most important 20th Century North Carolina architects, the Lassiter House is significant as one of Odell’s early works in the Modernist Style. The Lassiter House holds further significance locally as a rare example of the Modernist Style applied to residential architecture, and as among the oldest recorded surviving Modernist Style homes in Charlotte.[19]

Architectural Descriptionm

The Robert and Elizabeth Lassiter House is a low flat-roofed one-story frame house that originally consisted of three sections.  The principal section is relatively square and includes the kitchen, dinning room, and living room.  A distinct entrance and foyer connect the principal section to the bedroom wing, which extends to the west.  The house faces east on a neighborhood lot raised above the street and buttressed at the sidewalk-level by a tall masonry retaining wall, overgrown with ivy.  The house is generally hidden by trees and bushes and by the topography of the site, although it is partially visible when approached from the north.

While most of the neighboring homes have a front walkway, access to the Lassiter House is limited to the driveway, with the principal entrance to the house facing north.  Tall shrubs planted close to the house on the north elevation obscure the flat-roofed garage, which extends from the north elevation.  The bushes part only enough to reveal the entrance.  Opaque glass in two large sidelights and three fixed transoms surround an original louvered wooden screen door.   Behind the louvered door hangs a wide solid-core door with a Contemporary Style doorknob.  A generous eave protects the entrance.  This extended overhang continues around the house; however much of the overhanging eave on the north and east elevations is cut away, leaving a framework that maintains only the outline of the eave.  All exterior walls are covered with vertical redwood siding that runs uninterrupted from the eaves nearly to the grade.

The fenestration in the east elevation is limited to the northeast corner where a large pane of glass is glazed directly into the wall.  Directly beneath the large window are three metal-framed awning window units.  A window-unit air conditioner has replaced one of the lower sash.   This glazed wall illuminates the dinning room.  Abutting the windows to the south is another solid-core door, with a louvered screen door and topped with a transom.

On the south elevation the overhang is solid and forms a porch supported by redwood framing, which has been enclosed with glass.  A major gabled bedroom addition was added in the 1970’s.  The addition begins at the west end of the porch and extends to the beginning of the bedroom wing.  The addition, designed by A.G. Odell Jr. and Associates, is covered by the same vertical redwood siding found on the rest of the house.  While the north gabled wall of the addition is blank, the south wall features two large fixed triangular windows set in the gable.

The bedroom wing features windows oriented to the south and designed to take advantage of direct sunlight.  Three-part windows with short upper and lower fixed sash and a large operable center sash are set in the wall.  A recessed entrance borders a large directly glazed window illuminating the master bedroom.  The west wall of the bedroom wing is blank.

The interior of the Lassiter House has retained a high degree of integrity, with original features such as light and bath fixtures, wall finishes, and interior doors and hardware.  The interior floor plan is generally open, reflecting Modernist Style design and the need for wheelchair accessibility.  A bank of tall windows in the foyer look into a small, enclosed garden formed when the bedroom addition was added.  The living room features large sliding glazed wall panels that allow the room to be opened to a porch that has been turned into a sunroom.  Another original feature of the living room is large brick fireplace with minimal trim and a long simple brick hearth. A wood box integrated with the fireplace was converted into a television cabinet.

The dining room contained one of the most innovative elements of the interior design, a wooden slab table mounted on rollers that could be retracted into the butler’s pantry to be set with dishes or to be cleaned after a meal.  The wall opening for the table has been covered with paneling.  The butler’s pantry and the kitchen contain many original features such as cabinetry, counters, and sinks.  Built-ins include a telephone cabinet/desk and a small breakfast table.

The bedroom wing is comprised of two bedrooms single-loaded off of a long hall lined with storage closets.  The master bedroom contains a small brick fireplace with a tall shallow trapezoid-shaped brick hearth.  The bathrooms are largely original, and feature Carrara glass tile from Italy.

[1] Interview with Elizabeth Lassiter, July 2003.

[2] Lew Powell, “A Designing Man, Looking Back on the Career A.G. Odell Built” Charlotte Observer, August 15, 1982.

[3] Interview with Harold Cooler, AIA, July 2003.  Cooler practiced in Charlotte at the same time as Odell.

[4] Lara Ramsey “Addendum To Survey And Research Report On Ovens Auditorium And The Charlotte Coliseum(Former)” Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, 2001.

[5] Dr. Paula Stathakis, “Survey And Research Report On Ovens Auditorium And The Charlotte Coliseum” Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, 1990.

[6] “Center City Survey Of Historic Places, Charlotte Civic Center”, Dr. Dan Morrill, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks  Commission, 2003.

7] Lew Powell.

[8] Leslie R. Griffin, Ed., California Book of Homes, Home Publications, Inc., Los Altos, 1954, p.4.

[9] Report on “Post World War Two Survey of Charlotte-Mecklenburg,” Sherry Joines Wyatt & Sarah Woodard for David E. Gall Architects.

[10] Ibid

[11] TechTalk, MIT News Office, Cambridge, Mass March 2, 1994.

[12] Merideth Clausen, Pietro Belluschi: Modern American Architect, Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 1994, p. 9.

[13] Interview with Elizabeth Lassiter.

[14] Ibid.

[15]Ibid.

[16] Drawings featured in “U.S. Steel’s: Kitchen Planning Book”, 1956..

[17] Interview with Elizabeth Lassiter.Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Based on the “Post World War Two Survey of Charlotte-Mecklenburg,” by Sherry Joines Wyatt & Sarah Woodard, it appears that the Lassiter House is the oldest surviving home designed by Odell in Charlotte.  The Bell and Spencer Houses have been destroyed and the Shupp House can not be located.

Click here for photos


Lambeth-Gossett House

THE LAMBETH-GOSSETT HOUSE

 

This report was written on May 4, 1987

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Lambeth-Gossett House is located at 923 Granville Road, Charlotte, North Carolina.

2. Name, address, and telephone number of the present owner of the property:
The owner of the property is:
W. Barnes and Camilla W. Hauptfuhrer
923 Granville Road
Charlotte, NC 28207

Telephone: (704) 372-4217

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

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

 

 

Click on the map to browse

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 5396, page 564. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is 155-051-08.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Thomas W. Hanchett.

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

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 Lambeth-Gossett House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Lambeth-Gossett House, erected in 1916, is one of Charlotte’s finest examples of Bungalow-influenced architecture; 2) the Lambeth-Gossett House is one of the older homes in the most imposing section of Myers Park, Charlotte’s elegant streetcar suburb that was developed by the Stephens Company and designed by John Nolen and Earle Sumner Draper; 3) owners of the Lambeth-Gossett House, most especially Charles E. Lambeth, Laura Cannon Lambeth, and Benjamin B. Gossett, have played prominent roles in the civic and business life of Charlotte and its environs.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description included in this report demonstrates that the property known as the Lambeth-Gossett 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 $309,200. The current appraised value of the .545 acres of land is $90,000. The total appraised value of the property is $399,200. The property is zoned R12.

Date of Preparation of this Report: May 4, 1987

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

Telephone: 704/376-9115

 

 

 

Historical Overview

 

Thomas W. Hanchett

The Lambeth-Gossett house, emoted in 1916 in Charlotte’s posh suburb of Myers Park, has been associated with two distinguished Charlotte families. The first residents were Charles Lambeth, a real estate and insurance man who was later elected Mayor of the city, and his wife Laura Cannon Lambeth, who was a daughter of Cannon Mills founder James William Cannon. In 1921 the Lambeths sold the rambling Bungalow style dwelling to Benjamin B. Gossett. Gossett was a regionally prominent textile leader who controlled a chain of mills stretching across several states, and he resided at Granville Road throughout much of his professional career, until his death in 1951.

Charlotte and Myers Park in the 1910’s and 1920’s The first years of the twentieth century were perhaps Charlotte’s greatest boom period. Population doubled and redoubled as Charlotte become the banking and trading center of the vast new Piedmont textile manufacturing region. As early as 1906 over half the looms and spindles in the South were within a hundred mile radius of Charlotte, and by 1927 Charlotte was the hub for some 770 mills, which led the world in production of cotton thread and yarn.1 Between 1890 and 1930 Charlotte moved from being the Carolinas fifth-largest city, to a ranking as the number one urban center in North and South Carolina, the position it holds to this day.2 Beginning with trolley magnate E.D. Latta’s Dilworth in 1891, the fast-growing city sprouted a ring of streetcar suburbs.3 The grandest was Myers Park, a 1200 acre project begun in 1911 under the leadership of banker and real estate developer George Stephens.4 Stephens sent to Boston to hire one of the nation’s best young planners to lay out his suburb. Harvard-trained landscape architect John Nolen was then at the dawn of a career which would eventually number more than four hundred projects coast-to-coast.5 In his 1927 book New Towns for Old, Nolen devoted an entire chapter to Myers Park’s creation, calling it a neighborhood “Designed right from the first end influenced only by the best practice in modern town planning.”6 Nolen’s design for Myers Park introduced Charlotte to the concept of curving streets, shaped to follow natural topography. He created parks, moved in hundreds of trees to shade the avenues, and even provided landscape advice to early lot buyers. The attention to detail paid off, for Stephens quickly began selling lots to many of the city’s economic leaders, who formerly had clustered close to downtown. First to come were banking and real estate men, including Stephens himself. Next came the engineer-entrepreneurs of James Buchanan Duke’s Southern (now Duke) Power Company, pioneer supplier of hydroelectricity to the textile region. The third major group to arrive in Myers Park were the textile mill owners themselves not usually the mill tenders, who stayed in the small towns near their enterprises, but rather their sons and daughters.

The House’s First Years, 1916-1921

In Myers Park’s initial decade, the most desirable building sites clustered close to the greensward of J.S. Myers Park. The park was the former front yard of the farmhouse of John Springs Myers. Myers had planted trees, shrubs and flowers around the homeplace for years before finally deeding his huge cotton farm to son-in-law, George Stephens. Under the old trees, facing the new streets of Hermitage Road, Ardsley Road, Harvard Place, and Granville Road, now rose the homes of such men as Southern Power executives E.C. Marshall, Norman Cocke, Z.Y. Taylor, and J.B. Duke; financial and real estate leaders George Stephens, John Bass Brown, and H.M. Wade; furniture manufacturer H.M. Wade; and department store man David Ovens. The lot that holds 923 Granville Road was part of this elite enclave. It was located one house away from J.S. Myers Park on a quiet, winding sidestreet shown as “Avenue F” on Nolen’s early drawings. Before long the street was given the name “Granville Road”, in honor of the British Earl Granville, one of the owners of the Carolina colony in its earliest decades.7 The Granville Road parcel, known officially as Lot 3 of Block 7 of Myers Park, was sold by the Stephens Company in 1912 to a Edwin Howard. Real estate man T.C. Guthrie acquired it in 1913, then transferred the still-vacant parcel to A.D. Glascock on April 10, 1916.8

A.D. Glascock was one of several entrepreneurs who played an active role in early house construction in Myers Park. His practice was to buy a building lot, erect a house, then sell it to an owner-occupant. Glascock built a number of the neighborhood’s most substantial early residences in this manner, including dwellings that stand at 221 Hermitage Road and 1626 Queens Road. At 923 Granville Road, Glascock took out a permit to begin water service on May 5, 1916.9 This action typically signaled the beginning of construction for a building. Barely six weeks later, likely with construction just underway, A.D. Glascock sold the property to Laura Cannon Lambeth: June 21, 1916. 10

Laura Cannon Lambeth ( -1952) was daughter of James William Cannon (1852-1921 ), one of the most influential men in the rise of the Carolina textile industry. In 1887, he built his first mill in the Cabarrus County village of Concord. Prior to Cannon, most Piedmont mills had produced yarn or semi-finished “greige goods.” James Cannon was able to produce finished goods; his lines of bed linens and towels made Cannon a nationally-known brand name. By the 1910’s, he controlled a chain of enterprises, most of them centered in the company-owned town of Kannapolis, thirty miles northeast of Charlotte. Some of his ten sons and daughters made their homes near the family business, but several, including Martin L. Cannon and Laura Cannon Lambeth, took up residence in Charlotte’s Myers Park. Laura came to Charlotte to marry young Charles E. Lambeth (1894?- 1948). Lambeth was born in Fayetteville, NC, about 1894 and came to Charlotte after schooling at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In 1916 he was working for brother, Walter Lambeth, who ran the insurance department of Charlotte’s American Trust Company (predecessor to today’s mammoth NCNB, the South’s largest banking corporation).13 It was no surprise that Charles and Laura Lambeth looked to Myers Park for their first home. Developer George Stephens was also a founder and officer of American Trust and thus Lambeth’s boss!

The Granville Road house was quite a residence for a pair of newlyweds in their early twenties more than five thousand square feet on two floors. But the Lambeths lived for only a short time in the spacious new house. In 1918, the United States entered World War I, Charles Lambeth quit the insurance department at the bank and joined the U.S. Navy.14 He volunteered for training in the new air corps, a daring move in that pioneering era of cloth-winged aircraft. He went to a special Navy flight school at Harvard University, then was stationed at Rockaway Beach, Long Island, where his wife joined him. When the Lambeths left Charlotte, they are said to have rented their house to the James B. Duke family. Durham-born Duke had amassed a fortune in the cigarette business and ranked among the world’s richest men. Toward the end of the 1910’s he got the idea of owning a Southern home to supplement his mansions in New York, New Jersey and elsewhere. Duke had a new wife and a new young daughter, whom he wanted to introduce to the Southern lifestyle he fondly remembered from his youth. Besides, he needed a residence where he could oversee his burgeoning hydroelectric investments. In March of 1919, Duke purchased the recently-constructed house of employee Z.Y. Taylor, which overlooked picturesque Edgehill Greenway in Myers Park.15

He hired architect C.C. Hook to remodel end expand the dwelling into a forty-five room mansion (500 Hermitage Reed, listed in the National Register of Historic Places). The story is told that Mrs. Duke and daughter Doris took up residence for most of a year at 923 Granville Road, in order to oversee the renovation of the mansion. 16 When the Lambeths returned to Charlotte, Charles went into the automobile business, opening an agency to sell Dodge cars and trucks. Perhaps in order to raise capital for this venture, the couple sold the rambling house on Granville Road in 1921 and moved into a more modest Myers Park dwelling at 6 Hermitage Court.17 The auto business seems to have been short-lived, for Charles Lambeth was soon back in insurance, at the helm of his own successful firm, the Charles E. Lambeth Insurance Agency. About 1927 the couple commissioned nationally-prominent Philadelphia architect Charles Barton Keen to design a grand new house at 435 Hermitage Road.18 This eclectic Revivalist design, right on J.S. Myers Park, remains a Charlotte landmark. After leaving Granville Road, Charles Lambeth emerged as a major Charlotte leader. He served as Mayor of Charlotte 1931-1933, City Councilman and Mayor Pro-Tem 1947-1948, and member of the School Board for several years.19 “Charlie Lambeth hiss one of Charlotte s leading citizens,” said Mayor Herbert Baxter when Lambeth died in 1948.20 “Mr. Lambeth had long been recognized as one of the most public-spirited men in Charlotte, and he made important contributions to the progressive development of the community,” noted the Charlotte Observer. “Possessor of en exceptionally attractive personality, he was held in high esteem not only in Charlotte but in other communities.21

Home of Benjamin and Katherine Gossett, 1921-1961

On December 6, 1921, Benjamin B. Gossett (1884-1951) purchased 923 Granville Road from the Lambeths.22 The Gossett family name is today less well-known then the Cannons, but the Gossett clan wielded considerable power in the Carolina textile economy of the first half of the twentieth century. Benjamin’s father, James Pleasant Gossett (1860-1939), was a successful merchant in Williamston, South Carolina, when he took over the presidency of the town’s ailing cotton mill in 1901. J.P. Gossett built the one mill into a chain of for factories, and became an important figure in a variety of trade associations, serving as President of the American Cotton Manufacturers Association in 1927.23 Benjamin B. Gossett entered the family textile business in 1907 after education at Clemson University and the U.S. Naval Academy.24 With his father and brother he worked to add more plants to the Gossett chain, and by the late 1910’s the funnily owned the Williamston, Brogan, Calhoun, Riverside and Toxaway mills in South Carolina. In 1921 the Gossetts purchased control of the Chadwick-Hoskins mill group in Charlotte. Organized in 1908 as one of the region’s pioneer chains, it included the city’s Chadwick, Hoskins, Alpha, and Louise mills, plus the Dover Mill in nearby Pineville. Benjamin Gossett became president of the new acquisition, and took up residence in Myers Park. B. B. Gossett lived at 923 Granville Road for the remainder of his long and busy career. He was president not only of the Chadwick-Hoskins group, but also of the Cohanett Mills in Fingerville, South Carolina, and the Martinsville Cotton Mill in Martinsville, Virginia. He continued to serve as vice president and/or treasurer of several of the family’s South Carolina mills, including the Williamston, Toxeway, and Brogon plants. In 1939, upon his father’s death, Benjamin B. Gossett took over leadership of the entire Gossett chain. He sold the enterprise in 1946 to Textron, Inc., for an estimated $13 million dollars. During the 1920’s, 1930’s, and 1940’s, as he helped guide the growing Gossett holdings from his downtown offices in Charlotte’s Johnston Building, Benjamin B. Gossett also undertook a broad range of related professional activities. He served on the boards of directors of several other textile concerns, plus a number of banks, railroads, and insurance companies, among them the Seaboard Railway, the Piedmont & Northern Railway, the Central Railroad of Georgia, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and the Turner, Halsey company of New York. B.B. Gossett followed in his father’s footsteps as an active member of regional and national trade associations.

He helped found the Cotton-Textile Institute and served as president of the American Cotton Manufacturers Association 1932- 1933. Though he seems never to have held elective office, Gossett filled important supportive positions in state and federal government which gave him a measure of influence over the entire textile manufacturing economy. From 1927 to 1930 he was chair of the commerce and industry division of North Carolina’s Board of Conservation and Development. Under the National Recovery Act during the Great Depression, he was “a member of the code authority of the cotton textile industry.”25 During World War II, Gossett served as industry member for the regional organization of the National War Labor board Chairman of the industrial salvage division of the War Production board for North Carolina.26 During his years in the Myers Park house Benjamin Gossett and his wife Katherine Clayton Gossett (1886?-1965) raised three children. James P. Gossett II became a judge in Idaho. Katherine Gossett married Charlottean S. Frank Jones, a textile executive. Phillip C. Gossett built a chain of motion picture theaters in the South.27 Benjamin Gossett was also active in the educational and cultural affairs of his region, endowing the Gossett Lecture Series at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and working for the “reactivation of the Stonewall chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Charlotte.”28 When Benjamin Gossett died of a heart attack at his office in 1951 at the age of 67, widow Katherine inherited the Granville Road house. She continued to live there until moving to smaller quarters nearby on Hempsteed Place near the end of her life. She died in 1965.29

The Tull, Warren, and Hauptfuhrer Families, 1961-1987

On September 19, 1961, Catharine Gossett sold her long-time residence to Charles W. Tull and his wife Phyllis.30 Mr. Tull operated the Tull Development company, which built and leased small office buildings throughout Charlotte. The couple had four children, and made good use of the big house. In September of 1967, the Tulls moved to a newer section of southeast Charlotte. C. Carl Warren, Jr., physician at nearby Presbyterian Hospital, bought the dwelling.31 He and wife Josephine lived there for almost twenty years. In December of 1986 the Warren family sold to W. Barnes Haupfuhrer and his wife. Barnes Hauptfuhrer is an investment banker with Kidder-Peabody. Wife Camilla Robinson Hauptfuhrer is a grandniece of Benjamin B. Gossett.32 They are having the house remodeled as residence for themselves and their young child.

 


NOTES:

1 Thomas W. Hanchett, “Charlotte Suburban Development in the Textile and Trade Center of the Carolinas, in Catherine Bishir and Lawrence Earley, eds., Early Twentieth Century Suburbs in North Carolina (Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Division of Archives and History, l 985), p.70. Thomas W. Hanchett, “Charlotte and Its Neighborhoods The Growth of a New South City,1850-1930,- 1986,” chapter 1 (unpublished manuscript in the files of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission).

2 United States Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census: 1940, volume 1, pp.772, 976. These pages conveniently recap population figures for major Carolina cities, beginning with 1790.

3 For a map of Charlotte’s streetcar suburbs see Hanchett, “Charlotte. Suburban Development,”. p.71. For background on the streetcar suburb phenomenon read Sam Bass Werner, Jr., Streetcar Suburbs: The Process of Suburban Growth in Boston.1870- 1900 (Cambridge, Massachusetts Harvard University and the M.I.T. Press, 1962).

4 For additional background on Myers Park, see Mary Norton Kratt and Thomas W. Hanchett, Legacy: The Myers Park Story ( Charlotte: The Myers Park Foundation, 1986).

5 John L. Hancock, “John Nolen and the American City Planning Movement: A History of Cultural Change and Community Response,1900-1940 (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1964), pp.1 -20. See also John L. Hancock, John Nolen: Bibliographical Record of Achievement (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, Program in Urban and Regional Studies, 1976).

6 John Nolen, New Towns For Old: Achievements in Civic Improvement for Some American Small Towns and Neighborhoods ( Boston: Marshall Jones, 1927), p. 1 00. A copy of this book is in the collection of the Carolina Room of the Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County.

7 Hugh Talmage Lefler and Albert Ray Newsome, North Carolina: The History of a Southern State, 3rd edition (Chapel Hill, North Carolina University of North Carolina Press, 1973), p. 156.

8 Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office: map book 230, p.128; deed book 289, p. 606; deed book 302, p.592; deed book 349, p.456.

9 Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department: water permit 6596.

10 Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office: deed book 358, p.612.

11 W.M. McLaurine, James William Cannon (1852-1921): His Plants, His People, His Philosophy ( New York: The Newcomen Society in North Carolina, 1951). For Laura’s obituary, see the Concord Tribune July 1,1952. She and Lambeth divorced in 1933, and both later remarried.

12 Charlotte Observer, September 13, 1948. Lambeth’s passing was important enough to warrant an article at the top of page one of the newspaper.

13 City directory collection in the Carolina Room of the Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County.

14 Unattributed newspaper clipping dated June 25,1918, in Lambeth’s vertical file in the Carolina Room of the Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. See also Charlotte Observer, September 13,1948.

15 Dan L. Morrill, “White Oaks, the J.B. Duke Mansion: Survey and Research Report, unpublished report prepared for the Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1977.

16 Phyllis Tull, past owner, telephone interview with Thomas W. Hanchett, March 27, 1987. Camilla Hauptfuher, present owner and grandniece of past owner B.B. Gossett, interview with Thomas W. Hanchett, February 20, 1987. Camilla Hauptfuhrer heard the story from previous owner Carl Warren.

17 City directory collection.

18 Hanchett and Kratt, Legacy: the Myers Park Story, pp.182-84.

19 LeGette Blythe and Charles Brockmann, Hornets’ Nest: The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County (Charlotte: McNally of Charlotte, l961), pp.450, 452. Charlotte Observer, September 13, 1948.

20 Charlotte Observer, September 13,1948.

21 Ibid.

22 Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office: deed book 454, page 176.

23 Marjorie W. Young, ed. Textile Leaders of the South (Columbia, South Carolina: R.L. Bryon Company, 1963), pp.76-77,751.

24 Unless otherwise noted, biographical information on B.C. Gossett in this historical sketch is down from: ibid.; Charlotte Observer, November 14, 1951; and Who’s Who in the South and Southwest, volume I (Chicago: Larkin, Roosevelt & Larkin, Ltd., 1947), p.564.

25 Charlotte Observer, November 14,1951. Gossett was such on important figure that his obituary and a large photo were featured now the top of the front page of the paper.

26 Ibid.

27 S. Frank Jones, telephone interview with Thomas W. Hanchett, March 30,1987.

28 Charlotte Observer, November 14,1951.

29 For death certificates see the Mecklenburg County Bond of Health vital statistics files for November 13,1951 (#1482) and January 25,1965 (#177). For Mrs.Gossett’s obituary see the Charlotte Observer, January 26, 1965.

30 Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office: deed book 223g, p. 194. Phyllis Tull, telephone interview with Thomas W. Hanchett, March 27, 1987.

31 Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office. deed book 2893, p.584. Warren added a sliver of land along one side of the lot in 1975. See deed book 3796, p.916.

32 Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office: Wed book 5396, p.564. Camille Hauptfuhrer, telephone interview with Thomas W. Hanchett, March 30,1986.

 

 

Architectural Description

 

Thomas W. Hanchett

Built in 1916, the Lambeth-Gossett house is one of Charlotte’s finest examples of Bungalow-influenced architecture. It is located on a quiet, curving sidestreet near the heart of Myers Park, Charlotte’s, premier “streetcar suburb.” The rambling two-story exterior, with bracketed gables, wood-shingle siding, and stone chimneys, is in very good original condition. The interior appears to have been remodeled in the Colonial Revival style sometime in the mid-20th century, but it retains a handsome progression of spaces, and a richly panelled library.1

The Exterior

The outside of the Lambeth-Gossett house has the woodsy look of a hunting lodge. This was characteristic of the Bungalow style inspired by the rustic trail-side shelters of British India, and brought to America at the end of the 1890’s.2 During the 1900’s and 1910’s many thousands of houses across the United States were decorated in “hand-hewn” chic — asymmetrical massing, exposed rafters in the eaves, wood shingles, prominent porches, chunky window and door woodwork, and hearty chimneys built up of rounded boulders. When Myers Park opened in 1911, this rough-and-ready style was adopted by many of the suburb’s wealthiest new residents. Its imagery was perfect for a neighborhood whose developers advertised, “Out of the dust, out of the heat — a country home on a city street.”3 In massing, the Lambeth-Gossett house is strongly asymmetrical. It consists of a two-story main block enlivened by numerous gabled bays and porches, and a pair of two-story rear wings. One wing, which held service spaces and a sleeping porch, juts off at a picturesque angle. The other wing, which holds the library and a bedroom, is said to have been added by the Gossett family when they bought the house in 1921.4 It extends straight back from the main block. The main block is a welter of slate-covered gable roofs. A large asymmetrical gable dominates the front facade. Its wide eaves are decorated with rafter-like brackets, and a carved pendant hangs down from the peak. On the south side of this main gable, there is a secondary gable, a tall chimney of angular stones, and also gabled sunporch.

To the north of the main gable, there extends a roof ridge terminating in a jerkin-head side gable. A massive front chimney promises a cheery hearth within. Walls of the main block are finished in dark brown wood-shingles. Windows come in a variety of rectangular shapes and sizes, double-hung and hinged sashes. Most have small square or rectangular multiple panes. Here and there bracketed window hoods and flower boxes project. In front of the chimney runs the broad main porch, covering half of the first-story facade. It consists of a flat-roofed pergola-like section with scalloped rafter ends and massive Doric columns, and a smaller entry bay whose gabled roof is carried on stone arches. The rear of the house is finished in much the same manner as the facades visible from the street. All walls are wood-shingled. The 1921 library/bedroom wing is skill fully blended with the 1916 house. The wing has a slate-sheathed hip roof with exposed rafters in the eaves, and an exterior stone chimney at the rear. The wing’s second story windows are four-over-four-pane double-hung sash units, but the downstairs openings have hinged sash with tiny diamond-shaped panes, giving an Elizabethan architectural flavor. The service/sleeping porch wing also has a hip roof and a stone chimney. A shed-roofed one-story projection extends from the end of this wing. Between the two wings, a bit of the main block of the house is visible. Its second story features a bank of windows, decorated with flower boxes. The first story is a row of doors, opening from the grand hall inside onto a rear terrace.

This terrace, with a Neoclassical balustrade of carved stone, is being rebuilt by the present owners The Lambeth-Gossett House, like most Myers Park houses, is sited on a fairly compact lot — slightly more than half an acre. Trees and shrubs are arranged naturalistically, in keeping with the dwelling’s rustic character. The driveway runs along the north side of the residence, from the street back to the detached garage. The garage is located at the back corner of the lot, but nonetheless almost touches the house. The architecture of the outbuilding echoes that of the main dwelling. It is one-and-a-half stories tall with a jerkin-head roof, and wood-shingle siding. Eave trim end window treatment are borrowed from the residence. Downstairs the garage has space for two cars. Above, reached by a delightfully winding rear stairway with tongue-and-groove walls, is a former servant’s quarter, now greatly remodeled. An interesting feature of the garage area is actually part of the adjoining John Bass Brown House. The Brown garage, a brick Colonial style structure, sits right next to the Lambeth-Gossett driveway. William Peeps, architect of the John Bass Brown House circa 1924, thoughtfully finished the back of the brick garage in wood-shingle siding, stained dark brown to match the Lambeth-Gossett decor.

The Interior

In the late 1920’s and 1930’s, the Bungalow style passed out of favor in America. Rediscovered “historical” styles became the vogue, propelled in part by the widely publicized restoration of Colonial Williamsburg. By the middle of the century in Myers Park, as elsewhere across the nation, stylish housewives who could afford the expense hired workmen to rip out robust Bungalow, Tudor and Craftsman style interior detailing and substitute the delicate molding and mantels of the Colonial Revival. Among the Myers Park houses known to have been treated in the manner are the E.C. Marshall House, 500 Hermitage Road, and the Earle Sumner Draper House, 1621 Queens Road. The Lambeth-Gossett house evidently met the same fate.5 There is no evidence that any walls were moved or eliminated, but most of the interior trim was apparently replaced, except for the handsomely panelled library, a number of doors, and possibly one bedroom mantel. Today most of the mantels and woodwork are in the Colonial style with elegant molding. The renovation was skillfully and tastefully done, leaving few clues for even the practiced eye. The strongest hint is in the dining room at the front of the first story.

The exterior here has a prominent exterior stone chimney, but its promise of a fireplace inside is not kept. The dining room almost certainly did have a fireplace originally, but there is now no trace of it. Another strong hint is found in the south front bedroom, where a small window visible on the exterior is nowhere to be seen inside. A less obvious clue is embodied in the interior doors throughout the house. They are four-panel units which lack any decorative molding around the panels, an omission which characterizes the rough-hewn aesthetic of the Bungalow, and contrasts with the dainty Colonial Revival embellishment seen in nearby mantels and other trim. One enters the Lambeth-Gossett House through a massive Bungalow- style doorway framed with sidelights and a high arched transom. Immediately inside is a foyer/hallway with a heavy modillion cornice. To the right through an archway is the living room, and beyond it the sunporch and the library To the left through another archway is the dining room, and beyond it the kitchen and pantry areas. Straight ahead through a pair of massive pocket doors ( still operable) is the grand stairhall, with its French doors opening onto the rear terrace. The focus of the living room is an Adamesque mantel. It features fluted pilasters, Grecian dentils, carved swag, molding, and a carved oval center panel depicting a bowl of flowers. Inside the mantel is a fireplace surround of white marble with bold black figuring.

Flanking the mantel are the French doors to the sunporch, which has a quarry-tile floor and abundant windows. At the back of the living room is the door to the library (a small bathroom with mostly new fixtures is tucked between the living room and the library). The library is among the finest of its kind in Charlotte. It is panelled floor to ceiling in warm-toned wood, and a modillion cornice runs around the ceiling. Diamond-pane windows filter the afternoon sunlight. A fireplace with a wood-panel led breast and a heavy Doric-columned mantel provides the room’s focus. The room’s detailing includes a black-grained marble fireplace surround, built-in bookcases, and electric sconces of hammered brass. The dining room is plainly though handsomely finished, with no fireplace. Until the 1960’s, it had French doors which opened onto the front porch, but these were replaced with windows in a remodeling directed by owner Phyllis Tull. Behind the dining room, through a small swinging door, is the kitchen-pantry area. This area has been greatly remodeled over the years, retaining only its exterior walls and a servants’ stair to the second floor. All kitchen cabinets and a number of walls were removed at Phyllis Tull’s direction in 1961 to create a large “country-kitchen.”6

Today owner Camilla Hauptfuhrer is removing virtually all of the surviving interior partitions, and plans to add a new exterior window. Two early windows remaining have interesting hardware — interior cranks operate exterior-louvered shutters. The grand stairwell is literally and figuratively the heart of the Lambeth-Gossett House. It is a delightful two-story open space which rivals the living room in floor area. At its first floor rear is the bank of glass doors opening onto the back yard. At its first floor right winds the wide stair, which now has slender turned balusters which may not be original. The stair rises to a balcony-like landing, and then to the second floor. Around three sides of the second floor level is a balcony, onto which all the upstairs rooms open. The result is a masterful piece of architectural design, which visually connects upstairs and downstairs, interior and garden, and which provides an elegant promenade for partygoers or casual guests. There are four bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a spacious sleeping porch upstairs. Throughout there are wide baseboards and simple cornices. The north front bedroom boasts an elegant mantel with slender paired columns, and a safe hidden behind wood paneling. The south front bedroom contains the “hidden window” apparently covered during mid-century remodeling. The rear bedroom above the library appears to retain its original 1921 mantel, ornamented with chunky pilasters rather than dainty columns.

This room also has a big closet with a built-in chest of drawers and a light that goes on automatically when the door opens. Few of the original bathroom fixtures survive, though the south bathroom still has its high-tiled wainscoting and an extra-long tub. The north bathroom has been completely gutted by the Hauptfuhrer’s work crew, revealing a pencilled notation “J.H. Erwin, June 27, 1917” left on the wooden framing by an early workman. Next to the bathroom is the sleeping porch. These rooms were popular in the 1910’s, when sleeping with plenty of fresh air was though to be healthful especially in the prevention of tuberculosis. The Lambeth-Gossett sleeping porch resembles a moderate sized bedroom completely lined with windows. Opening off the second floor balcony is the stair to the attic. Inside the attic door is an ancient fuse box. At the top of the stair are several rooms with walls and ceilings sheathed in tongue-and-groove woodwork. The attic over the main block of the house is completely finished in this manner, though the spaces over the rear wings are left unfinished. One room has a skylight, which appears to be original. Another is a walk-in cedar closet, built to store out-of-season clothes and draperies.

 


NOTES

1 It has not been possible to determine the house’s architect. No pre-1954 building permits for 923 Granville Road survive in the files of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Building Standards Office. Extant permits date from 1954 (installation of a gas range), 1961 (remodeling of the kitchen and minor repairs to the rest of the house), 1970 (electrical upgrading), and 1975 (electrical upgrading).

2 Clay Lancaster, “The American Bungalow, in Dell Upton end John Michael Vlach, eds., Common Places. Readings in American Vernacular Architecture (Athens, Georgia University of Georgia Press, 1986).

3 Thomas W. Hanchett, “Charlotte: Suburban Development in the Textile and Trade Center of the Carolinas,” in Catherine Bishir and Lawrence Earley, ads, Early Twentieth Century Suburbs in North Carolina (Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Division of Archives and History, 1985), p. 74.

4 S. Frank Jones, telephone interview with Thomas W. Hanchett, March 30, 1987.

5 The Draper and Marshall renovations were done in the 1940s and 1950s. However, Charlotteon S. Frank Jones, who married Gossett daughter Katherine in 1931, remembers no major renovations to 923 Granville Road during his long association with the family. It is possible that Laura Cannon Lambeth was responsible for the Colonial woodwork. She may have directed a redesign of the Bungalow’s interior while it was under construction in 1916. There is no question that she was a partisan of delicate Colonial architecture by 1927, for her Charles Barton Keen-designed residence at 435 Hermitage Road is strongly influenced by that style.

6 Building permits, and Phyllis Toll, telephone interview with Thomas W. Hanchett, March 27, 1987. Hanchett: Lambeth-Gossett House, April 2, 1987.