Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission

Survey & Research Reports

Hovis-Spratt House

SURVEY AND RESEARCH REPORT
  
on the

Hovis-Spratt House

This report was written on June 4, 1986.

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Hovis-Spratt House is located on Wilmount Road in the Steele Creek Community of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

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

Crow-Childress-Klein #9
c/o Trammell Crow Company
1400 Charlotte Plaza
Charlotte, N.C. 28244

Telephone: 704/376-5910

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

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

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 5110, Page 351. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is: 143-111-25.

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

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Dr. William H. Huffman and Dr. Dan L. Morrill.

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 Hovis-Spratt House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Hovis-Spratt House, built over a span of years in the mid-1800’s by Franklin Hovis (1827-1903), is one of the few remaining farmsteads which survives in this section of the Steele Creek Community of Mecklenburg County, near Douglas International Airport; 2) the Hovis-Spratt House and the extant outbuildings associated therewith are representative of a rural lifestyle which once predominated in this section of Mecklenburg County; and 3) the Hovis-Spratt House will be destroyed in the very near future unless a preservation strategy is developed.

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 exterior of the property known as the Hovis-Spratt House meet this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” The current appraised value of the improvements is $23,430. The current appraised value of the 36.94 acres of land is $646,450. The total appraised value of the property is $669,880. The property is zoned I1.

Date of Preparation of this Report: June 4, 1986.

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

Telephone: 704/376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview

 

Dr. William H. Huffman
May, 1986

The Hovis-Spratt House, located about two miles from the Steele Creek Presbyterian Church, is one of the last original buildings in the Steele Creek community dating from the Civil War era, and carries with it a country simplicity combined with a strong sense of rural heritage.

Begun prior to the Civil War by Franklin Hovis (1827- 1903), it was not completed until offer his return from service in the Confederate Army. 1 Records of the period are scant; but we know that Hovis, who was a native of Lincoln County, married Mary Ann McKnight (c.1821-1887) of Mecklenburg County on August 12, 1852, with Reverend A. L. Watts of the Steele Creek Presbyterian Church officiating, and built a log cabin behind the site of the present house, on what was then the Steele Creek Road. 2 There all five of their children were born: Zenas A. (c.1853); Robert McKnight (1855); Amanda (1857); Margaret (1862); Martha(c.1864).3

With such a growing family and pre-war prosperity permitting, Franklin Hovis laid out and started work on building a new house that would be more suitable. Family folklore has it that he was able to find tall virgin pines with no branches along the length he needed for the beams and clapboard, and that the brick for the chimney was made by hand on the site. It is also sold that Hovis resumed work on the house only after a period of recovery from the war. 4

After completion of the house and the struggles of Reconstruction, The Hovis family shared in the fortunes of the changing area. The children all married and moved from the farm, but at the division of the estate after Franklin Hovis’ death in 1903, ownership of the home tract with 94 acres passed to son-in-law William L. Shelby. 5 Eight years later, in 1910, ownership was transferred from the Hovis to the Spratt family, where it remained for seventy-five years, when C. A. Spratt bought the place for $4606.25.

Charles A. Spratt (1855-1917) was a well-known Mecklenburg County surveyor and engineer who did a great deal of the survey work of the city and county in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was under his ownership that the room addition was added to the back of the house. 7 After C. A. Spratt’s death, title passed down through several heirs to Frank S. Spratt, Jr. in 1949.8 From 1930 to 1949, the house was leased to various tenants, but during the latter years Frank Spratt, Jr. moved back until 1986.9 In 1985 he sold the property to a business partnership which plans to develop the site for on office park. 10

Once an integral part of the thriving rural community of Steele Creek, which was anchored by the Presbyterian Church, the Hovis-Spratt house, with its simple but powerful lines, is now encountering the pressure of assured destruction as is the case of much of Mecklenburg’s rural heritage, unless means are found to move it to another site. Retaining the means to know and understand our past is surely worth the effort.

 


Notes

1 Interview with Frank S. Spratt,Jr. 23 February 1986.

2 North Carolina Marriage Bond No. 81766; interview with Belk Hovis, 30 May 1986; The History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church, 3rd Ed. (Charlotte: Craftsman, 1978), p. 19; Elizabeth Rucker, The Genealogy of Petter Heyl and His Descendants (Shelby, N.C.: A. J. Thompson, 1938), p. 302 [Contains errors in dates – WWH]. The property may hove come through her family, although this is not confirmed in the records; Franklin Hovis is not recorded as having] bought any property prior to 1874.

3 History of Steele Creek Church. p. 288; Rucker, cited above.

4 Interview with Hovis Belk, cited above.

5 Mecklenburg County Deed Book 195, p. 155, 11 Feb. 190S; Z. A. Hovis eventually started a funeral home business which continues to the present.

6 Mecklenburg County Deed Book 264, p. 156, 28 April 1910.

7 Interview with Frank Spratt, Jr.; information on file with the Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission.

8 Mecklenburg County Record of Estates, Administration Book 36, p. 91.

9 Interview with Frank Spratt, Jr.

10 Mecklenburg County Deed Book 5110, p. 351, 21 October 1985.

 

 

Architectural Description

 

Dr. William H. Huffman
Dr. Dan L. Morrill
June 4, 1986

The Hovis-Spratt House on Wilmount Road in the Steele Creek community of Mecklenburg County is more or less typical of farmhouses erected by prosperous farmers in Mecklenburg County just after the Civil War. Construction began before the Civil War, but the house was completed over a period of several years after that conflict had ended. The strict symmetry of the house was compromised by the addition of two ells and an L-shaped porch at the rear of the house shortly before World War I.

The Hovis-Spratt House is part of a farmstead which contains six outbuildings, five of which probably date from the late nineteenth or early twentieth century and the other of more recent origin. Included in the outbuildings is a small barn with a decorative cupola, a rarity in Mecklenburg County. Rustic, wood-post fences with barbed wire separate the pastures and fields; and the farmstead appears to have experienced minimal ground disturbance, thereby suggesting the presence of historic artifacts.

The overall massing of the original house is balanced or symmetrical, but the decorative detail is far less refined than that found in the more substantial Mecklenburg County farmhouses of the ante-bellum era. Particularly indicative of the early post-bellum period of construction in Mecklenburg County are the oversized sidelights and transom, and the double doors at the front entrance, and the mantel in the living room.

The two-story, gable-roof house faces southwest, and the original portion is three bays wide by two bays deep. The sheathing is unadorned clapboard, except under the front porch, which is flushboard. A one-story, columned porch with half-hip roof extends nearly all the way across the front of the house. Six square-shaped, wooden columns rise to simple, boxed eaves. The flooring material for the porch is concrete of relatively recent origin. The original portion of the Hovis-Spratt House is flanked by identical single-shouldered, brick end chimneys, laid in American or Common bond and topped by simple corbeled caps. The corner boards of the house are unadorned and rise to boxed eaves. The roof is covered with black, composition shingle. Three lightning rods with delightful decorative detail are spaced evenly across the ridge of the gable roof. The house is painted white and rests upon a continuous brick foundation.

The fenestration of the original portion of the Hovis-Spratt House is symmetrically placed. On the first floor front, two windows with 9/9 lights flank the entrance; and on the second, three windows with 9/6 lights are evenly spaced across the facade. All have wooden shutters. The end chimneys are flanked by 9/9 windows on the first floor and 9/6 on the second. In keeping with the overall simplicity of the house, the window surrounds are devoid of substantial decorative detail.

A distinguishing element of the Hovis-Spratt House is the central front entranceway. Solid double doors are flanked by sidelights (5 lights each) and a transom (6 lights). The overall quality of the elements, while suggestive of Federal style houses, is heavy and expansive. The use of two doors and the employment of large lights in the sidelights and the transom tend to stretch the entranceway out, so to speak, giving it an overall massive quality. The entranceway also contains the anomaly of having decorative spindles on the screen doors which belong to the Victorian era.

The interior of the Hovis-Spratt House, especially on the first floor, has been substantially altered from the original. While the entry vestibule is largely intact (with flush board walls), the main stairway, which originally rose from the vestibule, has been replaced by a stairway which rises in a single run from the back of the house. None of the flooring on the first floor is original; a large entryway has been cut into the back wall of the house, creating a large den. The walls are covered with new paneling. A modern bathroom has been added.

Happily, the room on the left front does contain an original mantel. Again, as with the central entranceway, the overall feeling of the mantel is massive and heavy. Unadorned, wide pilasters rise to a broad apron beneath a deep, single shelf.

More of the second floor of the Hovis-Spratt House remains in its original form. The wide-planked floors, the doors, and the window surrounds are original. Neither of the mantels on the second floor survives, however; but the brick hearth in the left front room does remain. The second floor contains a modern bathroom, and a back bedroom has been completely modernized.



Hotel Charlotte

THE HOTEL CHARLOTTE

This report was written on August 4, 1982

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Old Hotel Charlotte is located at 231 W. Trade St. in Charlotte, N.C.

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

Justice Investors of Charlotte, Inc.
122 E. Stonewall St.
Charlotte, N.C. 28202

Telephone: c/o Faison Associates 374-1711

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

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

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is listed in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 4431 at page 997. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is: 073-012-01.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: The attached National Register of Historic Places Inventory — Nomination Form contains a brief historical sketch of the property.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: The attached National Register of Historic Places Inventory — Nomination Form contains a brief architectural description of the property.

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

 

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission judges that the property known as the Old Hotel Charlotte does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: (1) the property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, (2) such prominent Charlotteans as Robert Lassiter, Edward Dilworth Latta, Julian H. Little, and Word H. Wood, were instrumental in securing the construction of the property, (3) the property played a pivotal role in Charlotte’s growth as a major twentieth century southern economic center, and (4) the property served as a symbol of Charlotte’s growth as well as a show place for the city from 1924 until the late 1960’s.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the attached letter from Mr. Thomas W. Hanchett, architectural historian, demonstrates that the exterior of the Old Hotel Charlotte meets this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes “historic property.” The current appraised value of the 1.474 acres of land (entire tract) is $533,740. The current appraised value of the Old Hotel Charlotte is $202,610. The most recent Ad Valorem tax bill on the total tract and improvements was $13,600.39. The property is zoned B3.

Date of preparation of this report: August 4, 1982

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Director
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission
3500 Shamrock Dr.
Charlotte, N.C., 28215

Telephone: 704/563-2307

 

Architectural Description

 

The Hotel Charlotte, 327 West Trade Street, rises thirteen stories at the intersection of Trade and Poplar Streets in downtown Charlotte. Designed by architect William Stoddart, contracted by J. A. Jones Construction Company, and built as a luxury hostelry by citizen subscription, it opened in March, 1924, with 250 rooms and quickly became one of the city’s leading social centers. The hotel, which subsequently was named the Queen Charlotte Hotel and then the White House Inn, today remains as one of the few hallmarks that attest to Charlotte’s history and building growth in the first quarter of the twentieth century.

The hotel is supported by a steel frame which is sheathed with sections of gray granite and a buff colored brick. Ornamentation is restricted to the lower and attic sections of the building. The Trade Street facade (north) bears the major entrance and is articulated by a restrained and elegant use of classical detailing. Concrete brick facing has been applied over the original masonry of the ground floor. The doorway, located on the right side of the facade, has likewise been altered from its original state.

The piano nobile, extending two floors, is articulated by rusticated stone masonry pierced by five arched windows which open onto a large ballroom. Each window, of wood frame set into the granite, is divided by a vertical, inner arched section and a wooden spandrel. These divide the window into a central four mullioned section flanked on either side by single lights; the upper section is partitioned into a double portioned fan light. The windows are further delineated by bold voussoirs with scroll keystone. The rusticated granite between each window bay is decorated by rectangular plaques of fired terra-cotta. These ornamental polychrome plaques contain a tripod base (colored burnt gold) upon which rest a lion’s head (lead colored), urns (burnt gold), festoons (green), and fruit (purple, green, and earthenware). Above the panels are granite shields bearing a tree containing a hornet’s nest and the date “1775”–references to early Charlotte history–and framed by ribboned torches. The frieze contains running glyphs which are broken at intervals over the windows and shields by cow skulls and stylized floral swags respectively. The cornice, functioning as a belt course to divide the piano nobile from the first floor of guest rooms, is delineated by dainty acanthus leaves and above that by a dentil course.

The first story of bedrooms is characterized by a mixed use of building materials; thus, the shift from the use of stone to brick gives a more subtle transition. This floor contains singly grouped windows on each end; these frame three sets of paired windows. Each of these groups are bound by geometrically patterned brickwork set into the stone. Immediately above this story lies a second stone belt course, its lower section articulated by egg and dart design and the upper by a band of fine incised decoration.

This string course marks the transition of the facade from ornamentation to simple, unadorned surfaces and from the use of stone to a buff colored brick laid in Flemish bond. The sole decoration of this seven-story middle section are the large, highly ornamental cartouches, each of which also bears the tree with hornet’s nest and the year “1775”. The rest of the section is punctuated at regular intervals by single paneled, double hung windows with brick lintels; these are grouped into three bays of paired windows in the middle section. The outer-most section on either end of the facade is pierced by single windows. A rectilinear sign bearing the name “White House Inn” is attached to the north-east side of this facade.

The “penthouse” or upper-most section of the facade is marked by a blending of stone ornamentation and brick. A stone string-course divides this section from the lower one. This division contains two large windows on either end which are framed by projecting balustrades, decorative lintels, and segmental arches broken by cartouches and held by ornamental brackets. These windows frame three sets of paired windows which bear non-projecting balustrades and decorative lintels; these divide the windows into a larger, rectangular section and an upper, smaller section. Paneled brick work characterizes the areas in-between the fenestration. Above a stone belt course lie stone rosettes. The cornice contains courses of dentils, egg and dart.

The west facade of the building (Poplar Street side) contains an auxiliary entrance which enters directly to the lobby by means of an outer set of four stone steps and an interior flight of eleven marble steps. Although this facade is characterized by ornamentation and design similar to that found on the north side, the sloping grade of the lot to the south required some modification of the design. A concrete brick veneer has again been applied to the ground and basement floors of the facade. The corner of the two facades is emphasized by an indention of the brickwork; the cornices and belt courses continue from the West Trade Street side to the Poplar Street facade. The ballroom, which extends along the west side, has three tall, arched windows.

Over the entrance, five rectangular windows pierce the granite masonry: the central window is flanked on either side by two lions’ heads whose mouths once held rods to support a canopy over the entry. These windows are capped by remnants of voussoirs with keystone. Decorative medallions and garland panels define the area between these windows and five sets of unadorned double windows positioned directly above. Three rectangular, double partitioned windows pierce the south-most section of the facade. A frieze, which bears glyphs punctuated at intervals with cow skulls and on each end with a decorative floral panel, helps to unify the design of this section

The upper sections of this facade closely resemble that of West Trade Street with the exception that the Poplar Street facade has been extended to accommodate nine sets of paired windows flanked by single windows. The facade again contains a section marked y the blending of materials and ornamentation of geometric design and bounded by two horizontal stone belt courses bearing acanthus and egg and dart molding. The next section, containing seven stories, is of brick punctuated with sets of windows, similar in arrangement to the fenestration of the West Trade Street facade. A sign bearing the words “White House Inn” is attached to the northwest corner. The final upper-most section of this facade is a repetition and extension of the design of the north facade.

The southern-most sections of the side above the second stone belt course is a later addition. The original plan appears to have consisted of a basic block on which an “L” shaped section containing the guest rooms was superimposed. The southwest section was added in the late 1930s over the pre-existing base and therefore altered the “L” into a “U” shape. The 1924 plan contained approximately twenty-seven guest rooms on each of the floors devoted to bedrooms; the addition increased the number of rooms to about 400.

The south facade of the Hotel Charlotte, not a major or “showy” side, bears no ornamentation; its brick wall is punctuated by series of uniformly spaced fenestrations. The stone cornices and string courses do extend partially from the Poplar Street facade onto the south side, providing some continuity and blending of the two facades. This side bears a fire escape; the convention center with garage, built in 1966, also abuts onto this side.

The east side contains the “U” shaped court and is entirely of red brick. This area is primarily devoted to services and maintenance.

Ornamentation and fine workmanship within the building are largely confined to the lobby. The lobby is entered on the west side by a flight of marble stairs. Sections of the walls are also sheathed in a black veined white marble. The lobby ceiling has large exposed beams which are supported by massive pink marble columns. The guest rooms have little noteworthy architectural ornamentation with the exception of marble thresholds and unadorned molding running the course of the rooms.

 

 

Historical Overview

 

The Hotel Charlotte played a significant role during Charlotte’s growth as a major twentieth century southern economic center. The concept of the hotel was developed by leaders of the Chamber of Commerce–including such Charlotte business leaders as Robert Lassiter, Edward D. Latta, Julian H. Little, and Word H. Wood–who sought citizen support to erect the structure. The development of the hotel reflected and contributed to Charlotte’s energetic efforts to become a major regional banking and retail center. The project was important enough to employ the services of a nationally known hotel architect, William Stoddart. Debates over the location of the building led to the disgruntled departure from the project–and the city–of one of Charlotte’s leading citizens and developers, Edward Dilworth Latta. Despite the controversy the hotel was built and served as a symbol of Charlotte’s growth as well as a show place for the city from 1924 until the late 1960s.

 

Criteria Assessment:

A. Associated closely and contributing to the development of Charlotte as a major regional trade center in the early twentieth century, making the community the largest city in the state; the early twentieth century was an era of major change in the state, when urbanization began to have a dramatic impact on the long-rural state. The rapid growth of Charlotte as the state’s first big city, stimulated by energetic businessmen, was vital; the Hotel Charlotte was a key factor in this growth.

B. Associated with important Charlotte business leaders including E. D. Latta, Robert Lassiter, Julian H. Little, Word H. Wood, as well as the nationally prolific hotel architect William L. Stoddart. J. A. Jones, contractor, has been a major building firm.

C. Embodies characteristic features of urban hotel architecture of the period cat 1915-1930, reflecting the important national development of tall downtown hotels; Stoddart’s work, unified but varied in detail, seems to have set the standard for hotel architecture in this important period of downtown growth in which hotels were a pivotal element.

D. The hotel is not the first nor the grandest ever built in Charlotte, but with the loss of its predecessors and many of its contemporaries, it survives as perhaps Charlotte’s most important hotel landmark and a cornerstone of the history and townscape of the city’s downtown.

On St. Patrick’s Day in 1920 the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce announced a plan to raise one million dollars from the local business community. Robert Lassiter, president of the Chamber, noted that people were walking the streets at night or sleeping in lobbies because of the lack of hotel rooms. Other Charlotte businessmen indicated that they had to take visiting salesmen into their homes and that Charlotte’s poor hotel facilities were becoming a by-word across the state.1 It was obvious that Charlotte businessmen must address the problem if Charlotte was to prosper and grow as a business center.

The campaign to interest prominent businessmen limped along during the last weeks of March and into early April of 1920. Leaders who joined Robert Lassiter in the early campaign were Clarence O. Kuester, Edward Dilworth Latta, Julian H. Little (president of Independence Trust and builder of the Independence Building) and Word H. Wood (president of American Trust). In order to add stimulus to the campaign and widen their appeal, the leaders organized a banquet of seventy-five leading businessmen. These men resolved to plan and build a hotel costing not less than one million dollars. At this April 8th banquet, business leaders C. C. Coddington, A. J. Draper, and J. H. Cutter joined Latta and Lassiter subscribing $25,000 each. 2

During the week that followed the banquet, Charlotteans were continually reminded of the benefits to be derived from the completion of this hotel. Word H. Wood said:

“the hotel is the foremost public utility of any city. It is the organized host to the city’s visitors. A city without an up-to-date hotel is like a private house without a spare or extra room for company. . . With an up-to-date hotel, a city can think of inviting outside capital. Until then its efforts are usually wasted.” 3

It was obvious that this hotel was, in the minds of Charlotte’s economic leadership, the key to future growth and development. But the leadership realized the need for broad based support. T. T. Allison, vice-president and manager of the Chamber of Commerce, stated:

 

“It is now an established fact that the hotel will not be built by any special group or alignment of men or interests but that it will be a purely civic proposition with every loyal citizen doing his individual duty. The success of the proposition rests on the successful placing of the burden on the shoulders of a large number of people.” 4

Regular reports were issued informing the people of the amount subscribed–April 21, $542,700; April 23, $617,200; April 25, $780,000. A front page headline in the Charlotte Observer on April 25, 1920, announced “Million Dollar Hotel Assured For Charlotte.” While the final goal was one million dollars the backers had agreed they would go forward with plans if subscriptions reached $750,000. Speakers at a Saturday night mass meeting on April 24th chided a certain element of the city on its lack of city pride and questioned “What is the matter with Charlotte?” All speakers declared Charlotte to be the center of a trading territory unequaled in the South. 5

The campaign for the million dollar goal continued while organization and plans for the hotel moved forward. A charter creating the Citizens Hotel Company was issued on April 30, 1920. 6 The charter listed E. D. Latta as the largest shareholder with 500 shares worth $100 each.

The post-war depression finally caught up with Charlotte causing a lull in the drive to build Charlotte’s new hotel. It was more than a year later when the directors of the Citizens Hotel Company announced that the yet to be built hotel would be leased by a group of Greensboro men. 7 Another six months passed before preliminary plans for the hotel were announced. The directors indicated that by delaying the start of construction, they had saved the subscribers money. They also indicated they were about to announce the appointment of an architect to draw plans for what promised to be the largest and tallest building in Charlotte. Subscribers were informed that a site had been purchased on the southeast corner of the intersection of West Trade and South Poplar. 8 There was no indication at this time that the site choice was to become the cause of a major split in the project’s leadership.

William L. Stoddart was chosen to design the new hotel. His selection has been based on his reputation as a noted hotel architect of New York City who was “recognized as one of the leading hotel architects in America” 9 and by the fact he had designed several of the hotels run by the lessees. 10

Newspaper reports concerning the shape and size of the structure were constantly changing. Starting with a fourteen story structure, it was later announced as twelve stories with 278 rooms. The room count was revised down to 250. Estimates of completion varied as much as the descriptions. 11

Construction finally began in the late summer of 1922. J. A. Jones was given the construction contract to build the hotel for $713,480. The land had cost $187,500. Another local company, Southern Engineering, was to handle the engineering. The building was described as a steel frame structure of twelve stories with twenty-seven rooms per floor. The base was to be of polished granite and the first two stories of terra cotta. The two street sides were to be faced with red tapestry brick. 12

As construction was well underway, a major legal controversy surfaced. The first hint of a problem was a news story in the Charlotte Observer, March 2, 1923, which indicated that Edward Dilworth Latta had placed his home on sale and invested money outside Charlotte for the first time. The March 4th issue of the Observer shed light on the controversy. Mr. Latta was being sued for $50,000 by the Citizens Hotel Company for failure to meet his subscription obligation. Evidently attempts had been made to settle the issue without litigation but Latta refused.13 The case occupied nine days of court time and was heard before a jury. Latta’s testimony clearly outlined the problem. He had refused to pay his subscription for two reasons. One, he had offered to sell to the company a site on South Tryon Street which he owned and the directors chose not to purchase it. Secondly, most of his recommendations for membership on the Board of Directors had been ignored. While these appear to be the real reasons, Latta’s legal arguments involved the timing of the lease and collection of the payment He contended that the stock offer was not binding until the lease had been signed to run the hotel. He also contended that he had not seen the lease previous to the purchase of the Trade Street land and that he had not refused to pay until he learned of the land transaction. Testimony against Latta indicated he was well aware of the lease prior to the purchase of the hotel site. The court ruled in favor of the Citizens Hotel Company and demanded Latta pay $5,000 plus interest.14 While the Citizens Hotel Company won the battle, they lost the war. E. D. Latta sold his Charlotte property and left town–thus, Charlotte lost one of its most important backers and developers. Perhaps Charlotte’s economy had reached a level at which the interests of one man could not dictate the direction any longer.

The hotel project was not slowed by Latta’s withdrawal. Construction continued and the Hotel Charlotte was used as a symbol of Charlotte’s growth in the 1920s. While the hotel was under construction there was a real boom in downtown construction. A new Ivey’s store was announced, Efird’s Department Store was constructing a large addition (now Belk’s), plans for the Johnston Building, designed by William Stoddart, were announced, and the Charlotte Women’s Club presented plans for an impressive edifice to be built on the edge of downtown. The hotel project was already attracting “outside capital” as Word H. Wood had promised.15 Another indicator of Charlotte’s economic growth and its relation to the hotel project was the offer which the original lessees received. They were offered a bonus of $75,000 for the lease of the new hotel from an unidentified man who considered it a good investment because “of the great possibilities of expansion and growth which Charlotte possesses. 16

The Robinson-Foor syndicate of Greensboro, who owned the lease, had started to unofficially use the name Hotel Charlotte on their stationery late in 1923. That became the name the hotel was identified by until December 23, 1961, when it became the Queen Charlotte Hotel and later on October 7, 1966, became the White House Inn.

The Hotel Charlotte originally was to open in May of 1923. The date was moved back to June, November, December, January of 1924, February and finally March 10, 1924. The opening was a gala occasion involving a banquet for the 600 stockholders followed by a dance and an open house. The Charlotte Observer summed it up. “Marking a new step of progress in Charlotte and giving the city the first shove across the threshold into the era of cooperative civic enterprises, the new Hotel Charlotte was formally Opened. 17

The Citizens Hotel Company under the leadership of Julian H. Little, J. H. Cutter, and John C. Meyers continued to own the hotel until 1961. During the late 1930s 150 rooms were added making it a 400 room hotel, the largest in the Carolinas. 18 Despite the addition of a much needed convention center adjoining the hotel, the 1960s brought a decline in business. Motels and a new civic center sealed the fate. On December 31, 1973, the Hotel Charlotte, known at the time as the White House Inn, closed its doors.

The hotel’s guest list: —Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard M. Nixon; sports figures, Jack Dempsey and Babe Ruth; politicians, Jim Parley, Huey Long, and John Nance Garner; musical stars, Guy Lombardo, Lily Pons, and Tommy Dorsey–support the claim that it was Charlotte’s finest.

H. P. Patterson, president of the Charlotte Merchant’s Association, summarized it best in April of 1920:

 

“The social, political and business life of any progressive community center around its finest hotel. In the ballroom are held the special functions; around the banquet table men meet and get to know each other better, smoothing out their differences; in the meeting rooms groups of all shades of opinions gather and crystallize their ideas into 1agction–all for the city’s improvement and advancement.” 19

The Hotel Charlotte was, indeed, an important factor in the city’s economic rise. It became a rallying point for businessmen of the 1920s, the same men who laid the foundation for Charlotte’s phenomenal growth of the last half of the century. The 600 or so citizens put their money on the line as insurance for Charlotte’s future in 1920. Their vision as well as their money paid good dividends. The city’s growing pains are symbolized in the struggle with Mr. Latta and his withdrawal from Charlotte. The building is a visual historic reminder of Charlotte’s emergence as a significant New South city, as well as a fine architectural example of the work of William Stoddart.

 


FOOTNOTES

1 The Charlotte Observer, March 27, 1920, p. 1.

2 Ibid., April 9, 1920, p. 14.

3 Ibid., April 16, 1920, p. 7.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid., April 25, 1920, p.1.

6 Records of the Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds Office, Corporate Charters, Book 6, p. 151.

7 Charlotte Observer, June 8, 1921, p. 5.

8 Ibid., January 6, 1922, p. 5.

9 Ibid., February 1, 1922, p. 4; and Henry F. Withey and Elsie R. Withey, Biographical Dictionary of American Architects (Deceased), p. 575.

10 The Charlotte Observer, February 1, 1922, p. 4.

11 Ibid., March 5, 1922, p. 1; April 27, 1922, p. 4; May 19, 1922, p. 4; and July 16, 1922, p. 1.

12 Ibid., July 16, 1922, p. 1

13 Ibid., March 6, 1923, p. 5.

14 Ibid., March 8, 1923, p. 5; March 9, p. 21; March 10, p. 1; March 13, pp.l,2; March 14, p. 1; March 17, pp. 1, 2; and March 18, p. 1.

15 Ibid., August 12, 1923, Section 6, p. 1.

16 Ibid., November 8, 1923, p. 2.

17 Ibid., March 11, 1924, p. 4.

18 See Charlotte City Directories during the years 1935 to 1944.

19 The Charlotte Observer, April 16, 1920, p. 7.

 

 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

The Charlotte News and Observer Clipping File (Microfilm).

The Charlotte Observer, various editions in the 1920s, see footnotes.

Legette Blythe and Charles R. Brockman, Hornets’ Nest. The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County (McNally of Charlotte, 1961), p. 297.

Manuscript Folders in the Carolina Room of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library.

Records of the Building Inspection Department of the City of Charlotte (Microfilm, Roll #49).

Mecklenburg County Records–Deeds, Tax Records, Corporate Charters–Mecklenburg County Courthouse, Charlotte, North Carolina.


Hoskins Mill

HOSKINS MILL

 


The Hoskins Mill, 1988


The office building at the Hoskins Mill

This report was written on February 1, 1988

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Hoskins Mill is located at 201 S. Hoskins Road in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

Trenton Properties, Inc.
James A. Mezzanotte, President
6521 Trenton Place
Charlotte, NC 28226

Telephone: (704) 364-9608

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

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

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 5652, page 72. The Tax Parcel Number of the property is: 063-061-23.

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

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property prepared by Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Ph.D.

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 Hoskins Mill does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the Hoskins Mill is one of the best-preserved textile mill complexes which survive in Mecklenburg County, once a center of textile manufacturing; 2) the Hoskins Mill Office Building is a unique remnant of the textile mill architecture of Mecklenburg County; 3) the Hoskins Mill is the historic heart of the surrounding Hoskins Textile Mill Village. and 4) E. A. Smith (1862-1933), the principal organizer of the Hoskins Mill, became a leading textile executive in Mecklenburg County.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association: The Commission contends that the architectural description by Dr. Dan L. Morrill which is included in this report demonstrates that the Hoskins Mill does possess its essential integrity.

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 improvements is $424,340. The current appraised value of the 11 acres of land is $161,720. The total appraised value of the property is $586,060. The property is zoned I2.

Date of preparation of this report: February 1, 1988

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

Telephone: (704) 376-9115

 

 

Historical Overview

 

Dr. William H. Huffman

The Hoskins Mill was built in 1903-1904 as the second mill in the community that was known as Chadwick, now Hoskins, which is located about three and a half miles northwest of the Square. The first one in that previously rural area was the Chadwick, built two years earlier. Together they represented a thirty percent increase in Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s mill capacity, and should be seen in the context of the rapidly expanding mill production and supply based in the city and county in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The key figure in sparking Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s transition from being a cotton trading center to one of cotton manufacturing as part of New South industrialization was Daniel Augustus Tompkins (1852-1914). A South Carolina native who was educated and trained in manufacturing in the North, Tompkins first came to Charlotte in 1882 as a machinery sales representative for Westinghouse, but quickly saw the potential for growth in the still small community, and set up his own factory design, contracting and machine shop business in 1884, the D. A. Tompkins Co. In the following thirty-two years, Tompkins built over one hundred cotton mills, fertilizer works, electric light plants and ginneries, and changed the region’s cotton oil from a waste product to a major industry by building about two hundred processing plants.1

The first cotton mill in Charlotte was the Charlotte Cotton Mills, which started up in 1881. Tompkins built the city’s second, third, and fourth mills, the Alpha, Ada and Victor in 1889, and built and headed the sixth, the Atherton , in 1893. He also saw the need for a local company to supply machinery and equipment for the new mills, and so, with E. A. Smith and R. M. Miller, Jr., he organized the Charlotte Supply Company. In 1889. R. M. Miller, Jr. ( 1856-1925) was secretary-treasurer of the D. A. Tompkins company, and headed the city’s tenth mill, the Elizabeth, in 1901. E. A. Smith ( 1862-1933) was a Baltimore native who, like Tompkins, came to Charlotte as a representative of Thomas K. Carey and Son, an industrial supply firm in Baltimore. In 1901, Smith, Tompkins and Miller sold their interest in the Charlotte Supply Company, and Smith set about building and operating his own mills.2

His first mill was the Chadwick, located about three miles northwest of town on Rozelle’s Ferry Road and the Seaboard Air Line Railway tracks. Named after Col. H. S. Chadwick, who headed the Louise Mill (the city s seventh, started up in 1897), the new three-story plant was built by the J. A. Jones Construction Company, and a mill village of 40 houses was put in place just north of the factory. The Chadwick was built and started operations in 1901. In April, 1903, E. A. Smith, J. P. Wilson and Jeremiah Goff organized Hoskins Mills, Inc. with authorized stock of 5,000 shares with par value one hundred dollars, but they began with each of the three owning 125 shares, which gave them a working capital of $37,500.4 (Goff was the new vice-president of time Charlotte Supply Company, and its new president, H. C. Clark, was a principal in the Chadwick Mills with Smith; Goff and Clark were natives of Warren, Rhode Island, where they got their textile experience).5 The following month the corporation bought two tracts of land totaling about 140 acres adjacent to the Chadwick Mills and set about to build the mill and a typical mill village for the workers.6 Smith chose Hoskins for the mill because it was his mother’s family name. By November, 1903, the mill and most of its village, which was also built by J. A. Jones, were nearly complete, as reported in the Charlotte Daily Observer:

 

“The new Hoskins Mills, at Chadwick, a western suburb of the city, is nearing completion, and when completed will be one of the best and handsomest manufacturing plants in the South. The work of putting the roof on the building was finished Saturday and the carpenters will now be engaged in laying the floors. The floors mill have three layers of timber, with a total thickness of about five inches. The top layer of the floors will be of maple timber. The machinery for the new mill will begin coming in within a few weeks and will be placed as it arrives. The equipment of the plant will be of the best. It will begin operation about the first of March. Twenty of the 80 tenement houses for the operatives of the mill have been completed and work has begun on others. The houses are neat, comfortable structures of four and five rooms and make an attractive looking little town. When the new plant is in operation, the Chadwick settlement will have a population of about 1,600 people, including people who have other trades and do not work in the mills.”7

Since the city of Charlotte only had a population of 18,000 at the time, and the county’s industrial capacity was boosted by thirty percent from the Chadwick and Hoskins mills, this was a substantial undertaking that reflected the great confidence these entrepreneurs had in the future of the cotton mill business in Charlotte-Mecklenburg and the surrounding area.8

By 1907, Smith headed the Chadwick, Hoskins, Calvine (formerly Alpha), Dover (in Pineapple) and Louise mills, and later built mills in Rhodhiss and King’s Mountain.9 The following year, 1908, he began to consolidate his holdings under one corporate umbrella by forming the Chadwick-Hoskins Company, with principals William F. Draper, Arthur. J. Draper and E. C. Dwelle.10 William F. Draper lived in Hopedale, MA, was U. S. Congressman from that state 1892-7, and U. S. Ambassador to Italy, 1897-1900; his father George had invented the Draper power loom, which was found in most textile mills throughout the nation. His son, Arthur J. Draper, moved to Charlotte, served a term as president of Chadwick-Hoskins, and subsequently became an officer of the American Trust Company (merged into American Commercial Bank, 1958, and NCNB, 1960) and a principal in the Stephens Company, which developed Myers Park.11 Under this new structure, the Chadwick Hill became Chadwick-Hoskins Mill #1, the Hoskins, Mill #2, Calvine, Mill #3, Louise, Mill #4, and Dover, Mill #5, and the Chadwick-Hoskins Company was then the largest textile mill business in North Carolina.12 The Chadwick and Hoskins communities got a further boost in 1911, when the Piedmont and Northern Electric Commuter Railway from Charlotte to Gastonia was routed on the west side of the mill villages with a stop at “Hoskins Station.”13 In 1917, the Charlotte Evening Chronicle ran a picture of the interior of the spinning room of the Hoskins mill, which carried this caption:

 

“There is one of the nicest and cleanest mills in this section. Notice the excellent lighting and the cleanliness and order in which everything is kept. When a girl gets on a long apron, and “The Chronicle Protection Cap,” which many of them wear, she is well fixed for a job that is not bad by any means. If she keeps the machinery in good condition it does not require her to be right over the frames all the time; still the best spinners are always near at hand. All the floors in the mill, which are of maple, are kept white and clean and no one would ever dare expectorate upon the floor or sides of the walls. A mill that is kept in such condition will always get the better class of help because the best of spinners will not be satisfied in a mill where there are filthy floors and walls and bundles of lint and strings always under their feet. There is some one sweeping or scouring at the Hoskins mill all the time in order that everything may be kept in perfect condition.”14

The villages themselves, with streets named after the mill officers, were known to be a pleasant place to live, particularly after the development of an amusement park, Lakewood Park, nearby. The companies, of course, supplied land and buildings for churches, schools, and recreational facilities.15

In 1920 and 1921, a company owned by the Gossett family bought controlling interest in the Chadwick-Hoskins Company, and thereby became a subsidiary of Gossett Mills (known as the “Gossett chain”). By 1939 the chain was comprised of twelve mills in Virginia, North and South Carolina.16 Benjamin B. Garrett became president of Chadwick-Hoskins (his father, James P. Gossett, had built up a mill and banking business in Greenville, SC, starting in 1901).17 In 1946, local control and ownership of Chadwick-Hoskins ended by a merger with Textron-Southern, Inc. of Providence, RI; but two years later (1948) Textron-Southern sold the Hoskins plant to a local company, the Spatex Corporation (The Chadwick had been sold off a year earlier). Since that time the factory has gone through several owners, who used it for industrial purposes: P. B. Shikiarides, et al, 1958-60; Westbury Knitwear, 1960-63; Universal Automated Industries, 1963-69; Hydro Prints, 1969-86.18

In August, 1985, a fire caused damage to a small portion of the interior, and Hydro Prints ceased operations at the mill.19 The present owners, Trenton Properties, purchased the property in November, 1987, and intend to rehabilitate the mill.20 Since only portions of the Chadwick mill remain, the Hoskins mill building is a key part of the mill legacy of the Chadwick-Hoskins community, and must be preserved if there is to be any connection with the community’s, past, present and future.

 


Notes

1 George T. Winston, Builder of the New South: Being the Story of the Life Work of Daniel Augustus Tompkins (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1920), passim.

2 Dan L. Morrill, “A Survey of Cotton Mills in Charlotte,” Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1979; Winston, cited in note 1; William H. Huffman, “A Historical Sketch of the Charlotte Supply Company,” Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1983.

3 Charlotte Observer. May 1, 1933, p. 1; Morrill, cited above; Thomas W. Hanchett, “The Chadwick-Hoskins Mill Villages,” Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission. 1986.

4 Mecklenburg County Record of Corporations, Book 1, p. 352.

5 Huffman, cited above.

6 Mecklenburg County Deed Book 179, pp. 110 and 114, 16 May 1903.

7 Charlotte Daily Observer. November 30, 1903, p. 5.

8 Hanchett, cited above.

9 Huffman, cited above.

10 Mecklenburg County Record of Corporations, Book 2, p. 313.

11 Hanchett, cited above.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Charlotte Evening Chronicle, January 10,1914, p.8.

15 Hanchett, cited above.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Record of Corporations, Book 23, p.239,30 September 1946; Deed Books 1308, p.17; 1994, p.153; 2192, p.535; 2436, p.256; 3147, p.15; 3403, p. 481.

19 Charlotte News, August 12, 1985, p.1B; Deed Book 5434, p.516.

20 Deed Book 5652, p.72.

 

 

Architectural Description

 

Dr. Dan L. Morrill

Statement of Significance
Thomas W. Hanchett, Principal Investigator for the Charlotte Survey, believes that the Hoskins Mill Complex is among the most significant remnants of Charlotte’s textile mill architecture. He writes:

“With the Alpha (Orient Building 1901) and Mecklenburg (1903-1904) it is one of only three well-preserved mills in Charlotte, and an important reminder of the era when Mecklenburg was among the South’s most important textile-manufacturing counties.”1

Unlike the majority of Charlotte’s initial cotton mills, such as the Ada, Alpha, and Atherton, which were primarily patterned after the design philosophy of D. A. Tompkins, thereby containing no more than two floors, the Hoskins Mill exhibits the form and massing which one encounters in early New England textile factories and in mills constructed later in the South — a truth perhaps reflective of the fact that Northern money was involved in the founding of the Hoskins Mill or that standardized fire safety regulations were increasingly influencing textile mill architecture throughout the United States.

Finally, with the notable exception of Highland Park Manufacturing Company Mill No. 3, the Hoskins Mill is the only surviving Charlotte textile complex that contains a significant support building. Indeed, the Hoskins Mill Office Building is an invaluable and irreplaceable historic remnant of the industrial built environment of Charlotte.

Architectural Description
The Hoskins Mill, later Chadwick-Hoskins Mill No. 1, erected in 1903-04, is located to the immediate southeast of the intersection of Gossett Ave. and Hoskins Rd. in the northwestern quadrant of Charlotte, North Carolina, at the terminus of a now mostly destroyed railroad siding off the Seaboard Air Line tracks which run beside Rozzelle’s Ferry Rd.2 It is an American bond brick mill building with segmental arched windows with cement sills on the first floor, segmental foundation vents, a shallow gable roof, broad, flat eaves with heavy wooden brackets, and characteristic wooden post and beam construction and two stairways and an elevator shaft on the interior.

The main body of the structure, which faces northwestward toward Hoskins Rd., is twenty-eight bays wide and nine bays deep, three stories tall, with a bathroom tower on the eastern facade (away from Hoskins Rd.), and wooden double entrance doors near either end of the western facade (toward Hoskins Rd.). Extending northward from the main block is a one story, seven bay wide by nine bay deep extension identical in architectural detailing to that of the main block. Projecting from the southern end of the Hoskins Mill, where the machine shop and picker room were located, is a one-story and two-story section, severely damaged by fire in the early 1980s, which housed the engine room, storage, and loading and unloading docks. A small, one story wooden building, southeastward from the bathroom tower, was probably originally a pump house.3 Several metal standards, also associated with fire protection, are situated in the yard between the main block and Hoskins Rd.

An especially striking feature of the Hoskins Mill complex, and one which is unique to Charlotte, is an extant, one and one-half story, five bay wide by nine bay deep, brick office building in running bond, facing Hoskins Rd. and situated near the northwestern corner of the property. The slate truncated tripped roof, with broad eaves and brackets, is penetrated by six jerkinhead dormers. The main windows are 1/1 sash with granite sills and segmental arches. A gable-roofed stoop protects a side entrance near the rear of the southern facade. An unprotected arched entryway exists on the rear or eastern side of the office building; and a front entrance porch, with a steeply-pitched gable roof supported by two brick pillars, is situated at the center of the western facade.

The interior of the office building contains several original features. The woodwork (window surrounds, dado rails, base and crown mouldings) is largely intact. An early or original light fixture hangs from the center of the room on the right front of the building. A stairway leads to a large, attic, which has been used for storage. But particularly noteworthy are a safe, still containing the inscription, “Chadwick-Hoskins Co.,” and a magnificent oak and frosted glass counter just inside the pair of single-lighted front entrance doors, no doubt where millworkers and others came to do business with the Hoskins Mill management.

Important historic elements of the Hoskins Mill Complex no longer exist. They include: 1) a 3,000,000 gallon capacity reservoir, 2) two cotton warehouses, and 3) a transformer station.4 Moreover, significant changes have occurred to the Hoskins Mill, including the placement of a loading platform and office entrance on the northern end of the eastern facade of the main block, no doubt to accommodate trucks. Also, the bathroom fixtures in the bathroom tower are of relatively recent origin. On balance, however, the Hoskins Mill complex, including the office building, retains its essential historic integrity.

 


NOTES

1 Thomas W. Hanchett, “Charlotte And Its Neighborhoods: The Growth of a New South City” (An unpublished manuscript in the files of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, 1985), Chapter 14.

2 Insurance Maps of Charlotte, North Carolina (Sanborn Map Company, New York, 1929), Vol. 3, p. 348.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.


Hopewell Presbyterian Church

HOPEWELL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

This report was written on January 5, 1977

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as Hopewell Presbyterian Church is located on Beatties Ford Rd. in the northern section of Mecklenburg County.

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

Hopewell Presbyterian Church
RFD 3
Box 441
Huntersville, NC

Telephone: 875-2291

3. Representative photographs of the property: Representative photographs of the property are included in this report.

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

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The computerized records of the Mecklenburg County Tax Office do not contain the most recent deed book reference to this property. However, the original indenture which provided property for purposes of religious activities on this site dates from March 31, 1777. Current information can be acquired by reference to the parcel number of the property (01517109).

6. A brief historical sketch of the property:

Hopewell Presbyterian Church is one of the oldest Christian congregations in Mecklenburg County. Indeed, religious services began as early as the 1750s, when itinerate ministers from the Presbyterian Synods of Philadelphia and New York, as well as an occasional evangelist from the back country, preached to the Scotch-Irish settlers. Attracted to the region by the fertile bottom land along the Catawba River, the farmers of Hopewell developed a cotton economy of considerable size and vigor. Coming to Hopewell to worship in its first century were such leaders of the local gentry as John McKnitt Alexander, Major John Davidson and Alexander Caldwell. The burial ground at Hopewell contains the graves of four signers of what according to local tradition was the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence.

Sometime before 1760 the Hopewell congregation erected its first meeting house a simple log structure. During the Revolutionary War (c. 1777) the log structure gave way to a frame building, which served as the meeting house until the 1830’s. In 1833 or shortly thereafter Rev. John Thomson (the first pastor installed at Hopewell had been Samuel Craighead Caldwell in 1792) guided the church through the rigors of build a brick meeting house which according to one estimate was to cost $3000. That the congregation selected the Federal Style for its new house of worship is not surprising. After all, this was the style which the plantation owners of Hopewell had selected for their homes.

In the late 1850’s the brick meeting house was altered. The brick floor was removed; a vestibule and gallery were constructed. The people of Hopewell Presbyterian Church added a pulpit. Additional modifications to the structure have occurred since the Civil War. Nonetheless, enough of the original fabric remains to convey the sense of history and love of heritage which is associated with the congregation today.

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

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

 

a. Historical and cultural significance: Hopewell Presbyterian Church is historically and culturally significant for two reasons. First, the meeting house has architectural significance as one of the oldest and finest Federal Style churches in Mecklenburg County. Second, the church is one of the oldest and most respected Presbyterian congregations in Mecklenburg County.

b. Suitability for preservation and restoration: The architecture is in good repair and certainly can he preserved in its current configuration. Restoration of the structure would also be possible.

e. Educational value: The property has educational value because of its association with events and personalities important in the history of Mecklenburg County. Its architectural importance adds to its educational value.

d. Cost of acquisition, restoration, maintenance or repair: At present the Commission has no intention of purchasing this property. Indeed, it is unaware of any intention on the part of the present owners to sell. It assumes that all costs associated with renovating and maintaining the structure will be paid by the owner or subsequent owner of the property.

e. Possibilities for adaptive or alternative use of the property: The Commission believes that the structure and property should continue as a place of religious worship.

f. Appraised value: The current tax appraisal value of all implements on the property is $335,180. The current tax appraisal value of the 19.16 acres is $38,320. The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the rate upon which Ad Valorem taxes on the property are calculated.

9. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria established for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places: The Commission judges that the property known as Hopewell Presbyterian Church does meet the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. Basic to the Commission’s judgment is its knowledge that the National Register of Historic Places expanded the federal government’s recognition of historic properties to include properties of local and state historic significance. Because of its association with events and personalities important in the history of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, Hopewell Presbyterian has local and regional historic significance and is therefore eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

10. Documentation of why and in what ways the property is of historical importance to Charlotte and/or Mecklenburg County: Hopewell Presbyterian Church is historically significant to Charlotte and Mecklenburg County for two reasons. First, it is one of the oldest and finest Federal Style churches in Mecklenburg County. Second, it is associated with people and events important in the history of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County.

 


Bibliography

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

Chalmers Gaston Davidson, The Plantation World Around Davidson (1973), pp. 50-56.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Tax Office.

Date of Preparation of this report: January 5, 1977

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

Telephones 332-2726

 

 

Architectural Description

 

by Jack O. Boyte

Encouraged by Gabriel Johnson, Governor of the North Carolina colony during the second quarter of the eighteenth century, Scotch emigrants spread rapidly through the North Carolina wilderness west of the Yadkin. Into the Piedmont plateau came hundreds of these freedom loving Presbyterians to settle. Nourished by the fertile and relatively secure Mecklenburg forests and savannas, these people established organized churches even before there were Presbyterian congregations in the earlier frontier towns of Salisbury and Fayetteville. At Hopewell the growing Scotch-Irish community established one of the most important Presbyterian churches in the North Carolina Synod. Joining its sister eighteenth century congregations at Centre and Poplar Tent in north Mecklenburg, Sugaw Creek nearer the village of Charlottetown, Providence to the south near the Waxhaw Indian lands, Rocky River to the east and Steele Creek beside the Catawba River to the west, Hopewell provided social and educational occasions for its members as well as spiritual sustenance.

Early shelter has been described as “a crude log structure,” likely a brush tent similar to that said to have been used at Providence. Within a few years the congregation likely built a substantial building resembling the typical skillfully crafted log plantation houses still in evidence in north Mecklenburg. In the issue of Monday, November 22, 1830, the Miners and Farmers Journal carried this advertisement:

 

“Proposals will be received on Thursday, the 6th day of January next at Hopewell church “Mecklenburg County) for building and finishing of a church at said place. The walls to be of brick on stone foundation 43 by 65 feet 20 feet high. The roof to be covered with tin. Arched ceiling. It is contemplated at present to have four doors, 12 windows, 14 by 16 glass and 18 lights each. Door and window sills to be rock, etc.”

From this extraordinary document came a late federal building which forms the core section of the present Hopewell Church sanctuary building. Much of this original structure remains, though the church has been slightly modified from time to time. In the 1860’s the prospering congregation embarked on a major expansion and renovation program. One change which was made is recorded in the session minutes as a matter of great controversy — sloping the nave floor. Whatever the debate, the ayes won the argument, for to this day the auditorium floor exhibits a gently sloping surface — one which is quite unusual for churches erected in those years. Though now remodeled with modern narrow oak strips, tradition has it that the original floor was square brick with chamfered edges.

Today’s Hopewell edifice exhibits characteristics typical of the mid-nineteenth century meeting house architecture and favored by other Mecklenburg Presbyterian congregations of the time. It is likely that the original building of 1830 lacked many of these features and they were added during the expansion of the 1860s.

To the original church, which was one tall rectangular room, a wide narthex was added. Around the sides of the twenty foot high nave a balcony was installed. On the east side high granite steps lead to an exterior door set in a panelled recessed alcove. From here one enters a narrow stairway which rises steeply to one side of the balcony. Benches were here for slaves to attend services. On the opposite side, and probably separated by a simple wood rail, were seats for the congregational overflow. This part of the balcony was reached by way of a second set of stairs rising at the west side of the narthex. Details in both stairways are severely simple. Treads and risers, as well as some wall surfaces, are hand planed boards with no elaboration. Hand rails are simple rounded members. There is no molded trim here and very little in the balcony. Outside brick walls are covered with plaster, applied irregularly.

The outside walls of the original structure are locally made brick laid in precise Flemish bond with glazed headers. These walls begin on a low random ashlar stone foundation, then rise twenty or more feet to a broad smooth stucco frieze. Above this is an overhang more than two feet wide hand planed from one piece of material and resting on a heavy cyma bed mold. This overhang soffit and bed mold are continuous through the entire length of each side and show no joints, as would likely have occurred had the original building included these architectural features. This wide overhang continues up the gable rake at the front.

Toward the front on each side one can see straight joints in the brick courses where the original corners were. Rising five or six feet above the ground, these joints even show queen closers typical of nineteenth century brick work. Of course the later walls erected in 1860 match this early work closely, including queen closers at the corners.

On each side of the building are four windows which start at granite sills some three feet above the nave floor and rise sixteen or more feet to simple brick heads. Laid in plain Flemish bond on cast iron lintels, these heads show no jack arch or other decorative treatment, a detail which again emphasizes the obvious severity of the earliest building. The windows have triple sash. Top and lower sash have twelve lights each, and the center is glazed with twenty lights. These windows are likely from the 1860 construction period. Details of construction, muntin thickness, and quality of remaining old glass indicate this date is the more accurate. Suspended on cast iron pintels at each window are louvered wood blinds whose mortise and tenon construction and iron hardware are typical of the mid-nineteenth century.

The 1860 front facade departs strikingly from the primitive simplicity of the original sides. There are three arched openings. Centered in the front, a wide opening contains eight foot high four panelled double doors. Above this entrance are twin windows much like tall transoms, each glazed with six lights. Over this is a fan light arched head, and above are brick soldiers laid on a circle to follow the arch. Surprisingly, these brick are straight units laid in tapered mortar joints to form the circle. At each side, starting on granite sills, are tall narrow two sash windows with curved circular glazing above. Over these windows brick arches are formed with straight headers laid, again, in tapered mortar joints. Recognizing the rough finish appearance of this work and the lack of uniformity in the brick sizes, the builder in 1860 scored each joint with a narrow tool and painted this grapevine joint with white paint to give the allusion of narrow and straight mortar joints. There are vestiges of this original paint still remaining.

While the original instructions to the builder specified a tin roof, the present cover is steep pithed slate tile. Rising from a molded cave, with no original gutter, there are two broad uninterrupted surfaces terminating in a high ridge connecting gable ends.

From the arched main entrance one enters a simple narthex where smooth plaster covers all walls. At the left is the balcony stair of hand finished wood. There is no chair rail. Window and door casing is simple and are edged painted wood. A simple molded cove occurs at the ceiling. The interior partition at the nave is the original thick exterior brick wall which has been plastered to match other interior surfaces. In this wall there are two door openings centered at the side aisles in the nave. These single leaf doors are set in recessed panelled alcoves and still retain the original wood surfaces with bead and quirk panel edges. Doors and cast iron butts are from the 1860 construction, though the original knobs and latches have been replaced.

In the narthex there is one of the original high back pews. Hand fabricated from wide pine planks which still retain characteristic plane marks. This bench is a graphic example of the skill of the craftsman who labored on the church in 1830.

In the meeting room there are many details remaining from the mid-nineteenth century construction and several from the earlier work. Supporting the balcony at each side are three equally spaced tapered round wood columns, obviously hand fabricated, and with simple rounded capitals. The face of the balcony is finished with hand planed wide planks and simple molded edges. The balcony railing consist of repeated thin slats with urn shaped fret work sawn in a regular pattern. Window sills are heavy wooden boards with ovolo edges. Casing is square edged similar to that in the narthex. Wall surfaces and the soffit of the balcony show smooth painted plaster from original construction.

Ceiling and floor surfaces have been refinished, though it is likely that the original ceiling was smooth wood planks which are probably still in place. There have been changes made in the chancel end of the nave which include a new choir alcove, so this portion of the room reflects little of the original conformation. There are doors at the ends of the side aisles which are likely where the original openings occurred. The first plan had four doors, so this appears to conform such a beginning. The early statement that “12 windows are contemplated” indicates that there were likely tall windows overreach of the four outside doors in the original building.

Not part of the church building itself but an important historic architectural element is the delicate hand wrought iron gate still implanted in granite posts a short distance south of the church front. Obviously part of the original loose laid stone wall which at one time enclosed the eighteenth century cemetery, this iron work exhibits extraordinary craftsmanship, and should be carefully preserved. The gate is strikingly similar to hand made gates known to be still in place at the old entrances to the Centre and Providence Cemeteries.

In the history of Mecklenburg County architecture the work of the early Scotch-Irish Presbyterians must be considered among the most influential. At Hopewell is a rare and significant building built by these pioneers. This surviving structure illustrates a number of important architectural features from the second quarter of the nineteenth century and a delightful example of meeting house design.