613 HOLLOWAY / O'BRIANT STORE

One of my favorite buildings in Durham is the O'Briant store. Established ~1 block away on Railroad St. by RP O'Briant (who lived in the house directly across the railroad tracks from this building) prior to 1905, the grocery store moved to this location around 1915. The initial wood frame structure was replaced by this brick building soon afterwards.

This was the neighborhood grocery store for the immediate surround throughout the early 20th century. It was taken over by JR Beck in the 1920s and MD Fletcher somewhat later.


Looking west from the Holloway St. bridge (wooden bridge, I might add,) 1950s.
(Courtesy Herald-Sun)

The store appears to have gone out of business by the early 1960s. Supermarkets were not kind to these little stores.


Looking north, 1964.

But by the 1970s, it was rented by a tailor.


Looking northwest, 1970s.
(Courtesy State Archives)

Today it is owned by the people who live in 611 Holloway, just to the west. It hasn't been a retail store for a long time, and I don't know if it is simply empty or used for some purpose.


Looking northwest, Dec. 2006.


Looking northeast, Sept. 2007.

I can't exactly explain why I am so fond of this building. It's a great little commercial building, but I think the way one would enter from a cut-through on the bridge, and the way it hovers over the railroad tracks are part of it.


Looking up/west from the railroad tracks, Dec. 2006.

607, 609, AND 611 HOLLOWAY

Imagery is a bit limited for the remaining residential structures on the north side of the 600 block of Holloway - all early 20th century, two-story structures.


607 Holloway, 1964

I have no old image of 609 Holloway


611 Holloway, 1964.


The former site of 607 Holloway, 2007


609 Holloway, 2007


611 Holloway, 2007.

I'm worried for the future of the remaining structures here. Although they are in a local historic distict, that hasn't done much to stem the attrition here on Holloway, particularly the neglect. This block is so sandwiched between Elizabeth and the bridge over the railroad tracks that it feels a bit like a no-man's land.

Quick Update: Durham: A Self-Portrait

I received an email from one of the creators of the upcoming "Durham: A Self-Portrait" film, a documentary about Durham and Durham history, asking me to let readers know about it. I don't know much about the project personally, but I'm certainly happy to help out fellow Durham history fans.

The film premiere is Friday, Nov. 16th at the Carolina, and here is their website.

RSVP to schanning at videodialog dot com.

603 HOLLOWAY

603 Holloway certainly lost some of its neighborhood-y appeal in the above photo from 1964 after the demolition of 601 Holloway left it on the corner of a busy street. The loss of some additional detail around the porch (and the rather starkly fenced-off patch o' dirt in front) have diminished this house, but a good bit of detail remains.


Looking northwest, 2007.

601 HOLLOWAY

The view of 601 Holloway, above, shows a bit of the east side of Elizabeth St. behind it. Moving into the 600 block of Holloway, the houses become somewhat smaller or simpler in style - a reflection of the human distribution in the pre-car era; if you could, you paid to be closer to downtown.

In the early 1970s, this house and the houses behind it were demolished in order to widen Elizabeth St. into a 5-lane wide arterial.


Site of 601 Holloway, 2007.

While this narrows one block to the north of Holloway back to a 2 lane roadway, undoubtedly plans were once in place (and perhaps they are still lurking somewhere) to widen this to the north.

This is the kind of mistake we would hope to avoid with Alston Avenue. I hope that streets like Alston can remain human-scale, and streets like Elizabeth, Dillard, and Roxboro can be narrowed back to a manageable size someday. I've posted on this issue before, and Kevin was kind enough to mention the effect of Elizabeth on Cleveland-Holloway on his site yesterday.

Kudos, once again, to Mark Ahrendsen of the City Transportation Dept. for pushing forward to improve Elizabeth without much of a budget - by reducing the travel lanes to two and creating on-street parking/bike lanes to effectively 'narrow' the street between Holloway and E. Main. While it still feels like a wasteland when walking this street, re-painting these lines has improved the feel of the roadway considerably.

529 HOLLOWAY

Above, 529 Holloway in 1964

529 Holloway is another of the early 20th century large Victorian houses built along the Holloway ridge line. Through the 1970s, the neighborhood had large shade trees, and neighborhood-scale streets (i.e., two-lanes, undivided)


529 Holloway and the remainder of the north side of the 500 block of Holloway St., 1970s.

During the 1970s, Elizabeth St. was widened to Ridiculous Size and connected with newly Ridiculous-Size Fayetteville St. Something also happened to most of the shade trees on Holloway - whether natural or human-induced, I don't know. (Despite our "Tree City USA" designation, I'll take the latter.)

The location on this newly-busy corner was not kind to 529 Holloway, and the house fell into disrepair. Back when I devoted many volunteer hours to Preservation Durham, we had an option to purchase this house for ~$85,000 - it was owned by a developer, and it had been gutted inside. We couldn't find a buyer. Eventually, the developer re-did the house himself, and sold it to someone who lives in Wake Forest, but leases it to Freedom House Recovery Center as "a ten-bed halfway house that provides up to six months of recovery services for alcohol/drug addicted men, and those who are dually diagnosed."

The neighborhood recently attempted to fight the Board of Adjustment rezoning of this house to accommodate 10 people rather than the existing 7-person designation. They did not succeed.


529 Holloway and the remainder of the north side of the 500 block of Holloway St., 2007.

Cool Map : The Plan for Durham, 1927

I uncovered a cool document this week - potentially Durham's first comprehensive plan, from 1927. I am in the process of scanning the plan, and when I do, I will make the whole thing available for download.

However, I found the map fascinating, and I am posting it for download. The 'greenbelt' parks around Durham are particularly fascinating. Click for a version that you can download and peruse in detail (1.4M)

527 HOLLOWAY

527 Holloway St. was likely built near the turn of the century by the Gilbert family and sold to RM Jones, who lived at 521 Holloway, after Mr. Gilbert's death in 1908. Later, JJ Whitley moved into this house from 525 Holloway, next door. Subsequent residents included Herbert Mason, a bookeeper for Thomas and Howard, who lived here around 1920, and M. Donald Bright, a partner in Pritchard and Bright Clothing store at 122 West Main. (Which has a big bright green wall on one side these days)

This house was divided into a duplex at some point - it's impossible to make much out of the front porch in the above picture from 1964, but the change is evident in the picture from the mid 1970s, below.



It appears fairly well maintained, although the original 2-over-2 windows appear to have been replaced with single light windows (with loss of most of the pedimented casings,) and the porch rail replacement is too high with too-skinny balusters. At least they didn't replace the windows with Home Depot specials - the 6 over 6 with the fake plastic muntins (pane dividers).


Looking northeast, 2007

523 HOLLOWAY

Credit goes to Heather's comments on my post yesterday for today's historical background:

She wrote that 523 Holloway, a cross-gabled Victorian with a front-facing bay and large corner brackets, was "likely constructed by Robert (and Susan) Gilbert who purchased the property in the mid-1880s." When Robert Gilbert died in 1908, RM Jones, the owner of 521 Holloway, profiled yesterday, purchased 5 properties on the north side of Holloway.

The above picture dates to 1964, at which point the house was not looking in the best of shape - and had already lost its original porch columns.

This post is an update - I posted on 523 in August of 2006, at which point I noted that the house had been vacant for several years, and was condemned.


Looking northeast from Holloway St. - August 2006.

Fortunately, in November of 2006, it was purchased by the owner-occupant of 510 Holloway, who has been in the process of renovating the house over the past several months.


523 Holloway, September 2007.

A burning question that I don't have the answer to - what happened to the all of the big shade trees on Holloway?

521 HOLLOWAY - ROBERT M. JONES HOUSE

Robert M. Jones, who was an owner of the Markham Jones Feed and Grocery on Orange St. built this house at the time of his marriage around the turn of the century. He also contructed one other house on this side of Holloway St., 517 Holloway.

After his death in 1923, his wife, Bernice Jones, converted the house to 3 apartments, and continued to live in one until her death in 1934. The interior of the house was renovated after a fire in one of the downstairs apartments in 1959.

At the time of the above picture, from 1964 it was still in the Jones family, and I believe that it still may be. I believe that it is no longer apartments, and is owner-occupied.


521 Holloway, 2007.

508 HOLLOWAY

508 Holloway, 1964

508 Holloway was built around the turn of the century - one of the early houses constructed on the Holloway ridgeline - along with 513 Holloway and 510 Holloway, it represented a larger style of structure than the houses built in the 1870s and 1880s - with details like elaborate masonry and a single dormer with 36 panes of glass.

508 Holloway burned during the late 1960s. Its steps and porch foundation are still present, although the property is now part of 510 Holloway.


The remaining steps/porch foundation - 2007.


Looking south from the street, 2007.

EJ in East Durham: Agenda item cancelled tonight, and Another Company

Please note: the agenda item for tonight for oil reprocessing in the Angier-Driver neighborhood of East Durham has been pulled due to inadequate notification requirements.

There is also a community meeting for East Durham about another company wanting to set up a reprocessing facility for trap grease in the Angier/Driver neighborhood on PLUM STREET. The details for that first public meeting is below:

What: Discussion with Onsite Environmental about their trap grease processing plant plans
Where: First Presbyterian Church, Watts-Hill Hall, 305 E. Main St.
When: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 at 7pm

Please come if you are concerned about industrial uses in the residential neighborhoods of East Durham.

513 HOLLOWAY / BLOOMING GARDEN INN

One of the earliest houses remaining in the Cleveland-Holloway district, the J.N. Umstead house was built during the late 19th century by a memeber of the Mangum family whose son, J.N. Umstead, was a longtime inhabitant of the house.

By the 1960s, as can be seen in the above picture from 1964, the house had become a rooming house - as had so many of the large houses on the east side of downtown. This house, along with the other remaining houses in the 500 and 600 block of Holloway were spared urban renewal demolition through a vigorous fight by the neighborhood.


513 Holloway, 1970s.

Frank and Dolly Pokrass purchased the house in 1987 and spent 3 years carefully restoring the house before opening it in the Fall of 1990 as the Blooming Garden Inn Bed and Breakfast which they continue to operate.



(From the Blooming Garden Inn website)

Below, looking north from Holloway St., 2007.

Environmental Justice in East Durham

The city council will consider Monday night whether to allow an oil processing facility (for the production of biofuels) to begin operations at 1404 Angier Ave., in the crucial Angier Ave. corridor between Alston and Driver. Residents are justifiably concerned about noxious odor from the facility.

While I am a strong supporter of reclaimed energy sources, my concern for the past environmental injustice perpetrated in East Durham (evidenced by the number of heavy industrial facilities located in incompatible locations, such as this) and its effect on the important revitalization of the Angier Ave. corridor outweighs my broader support for biofuel production.

While there is not a simple strategy to reduce the industrial presence in the residential area between Driver and Alston, the strategic revitalization of the community hinges upon making good decisions in individual cases such as this.

The city council will consider this as agenda item #34. More info here:

http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas/2007/cm_091707.cfm

Update: 9/17 1:57p - This agenda item has been cancelled for this evening because all notification requirements were not met.

Downtown by Greenfire: The SouthBank building Sells

If the name "Empire Properties" wasn't already a well-known Raleigh development company, I'd certainly suggest to the Lemanski brothers and Carl Webb that it was time for a name change.

The Herald-Sun this morning confirms that Greenfire has purchased the SouthBank building, which consumes 1.84 acres of towery, asphalty goodness at the critical junction between Five Points and West Village/Brightleaf.

It's hard to argue with the purchase, as I think it is the essential piece of the puzzle (along with changes to Great Jones St.) to make downtown whole again on the west side - particularly any aspiration to have Five Points be an area where people really want to spend any time.

A year ago, I likely would have been ecstatic at the purchase. However many buildings later, it's become increasingly harder to discern what Greenfire is doing, other than taking an essential first step in the development process - property control - to intense propotions. I remain amazed that the apparent patience (and deep pockets) of their investors. It is hard to believe that they have enough revenue coming in from their acquisitions to put much of a dent in their capital outlay.

So the 'towering' question is, what is their plan for the building? Because if Greenfire is just another landlord, then who cares? While I don't think it is essential that the SouthBank building be completely demolished (you could wrap the base with two-story structures that front the street) - it is essential that it changes. The worst offense of this building is the site plan, which is a hard thing to remedy effectively. As with the NC Mutual building, it's hard to discern whether they have a plan beyond property control, but this is one time that I would cheer the bulldozers.

509 HOLLOWAY / GREEN OAKS TOURIST HOME / UNITED HOUSE OF PRAYER CHURCH

509 Holloway St., built prior to 1913, changed from a single family home to the "Green Oaks Tourist Home" during the middle part of the 20th century, as seen in the above shot from 1964. Holloway St., as Highway 70, was the main road into town from the east as car travel grew. A 'tourist home' was somewhat similar to a bed and breakfast - i.e. an old house converted into a hotel.

Things had changed by the 1970s, when much of the neighborhood had been torn down, and east-west traffic would have come into town on the Durham Freeway.


509 Holloway, mid 1970s.

Per the next-door neighbors, the house had burned by the early 90s, and it was torn down to become a parking lot for the United House of Prayer church next door, which it remains today.


509 Holloway, 2007.

403 OAKWOOD

403 Oakwood, 1970s.

403 Oakwood was built around 1910, and for many years was the home of JF Rogers, a Southern Railway engineer. (The fact that the Southern Railway passenger depot was located at the intersection of Dillard St. and the railroad tracks may have made this part of a Durham a favorable location for employees of that railroad company.) The carved bargeboard in the picture is identical to the one on the one-story 401 Oakwood, next-door.

The house was torn down between 1994 and 1999, and is now part of an L-shaped yard for the house at 407 Carlton, around the block.


403 Oakwood, 2007 (yes, 2007 - accidentally set the camera on black and white. Not tryin' to get all ahtsy or anything.)

Quick Update: Preservation Durham Most Endangered Nominations

The folks at Preservation Durham are soliciting nominations for a Durham's Most Endangered list. From their press release:

The properties may be endangered because of development pressure, neglect, lack of awareness or any other reason.

The goals of this initiative are:
• To raise awareness about the need for preservation;
• To raise awareness about Durham’s Endangered Historic Properties;
• To prioritize preservation priorities of the Durham Citizenry, and
• To prioritize resources of Preservation Durham towards saving these endangered places.

Nominations began on September 5, 2007 and will close on October 19th after Preservation Durham's monthly Lunch and Learn program. The Wednesday October 17th program will address the historic events that occurred at a recently lost Durham landmark, the Royal Ice Cream Parlor.

The List will be announced on November 9, at Preservation Durham’s Annual Preservation Party at Morgan Imports.

Submit nominations to Carrie at Preservation Durham. Please include:

Name of property (if known):
Property Location:
Description or other helpful information:
Optional information:
Your Name:
Your Phone:

Your contact information is to clarify questions about the nomination and will not be shared without your permission.

402 OAKWOOD - THE ROACH HOUSE

(State Historic Preservation Office)

...as in J.N. Roach, a freight agent for the Southern Railway and early occupant of this house. Although the historic inventory notes that this house was typical of a "type built throughout Durham around the turn of the century" it appears quite unusual to me - incorporating both a simple Victorian farmhouse gable-front style in the two-story portion and an extended hall-and-parlor style in the wing. It appears from the early Sanborn maps that it was built this way, although it almost looks like one part was an addition.

This house was still around for the above photo in the mid-1970s (and this shows me that the scourge of too-small 6 pane over 6 pane replacement windows goes back at least 30 years) and made it to at least 1994, as verified by aerial photography. The property changed hands from the Cranford family (who've owned a lot of run-down historic property over the years, now mostly dispersed) to a new owner in 1995, which probably coincides with its tear-down. It was definitely gone by 1999.


402 Oakwood, looking northeast from Oakwood and Carlton, 2007.

Update: there is a new house being built on this lot as of October 2010


10.22.10

Quick Update: 501 Oakwood

Tim Mack of Twin County Realty has bought 501 Oakwood. We'll see what that portends - hopefully good things.

310-312 OAKWOOD

310 and 312 Oakwood were built prior to 1913, contemporaneous with the development of houses along Holloway St. 1/2 block away. While they were in the middle of a large neighborhood by the 1920s, they were placed at the edge of the neighborhood by urban renewal clearance to the southwest.


The view of the houses from Carlton and Oakwood, looking southeast, mid 1970s. Unfortunately by this time, 310 Oakwood, although not evident in the above picture, had burned.


310 Oakwood from the south side, looking north, mid-1970s.

312 Oakwood persisted into the 1990s.


Looking southeast, mid 1990s.

In 2000, my friends Tom Transue and his wife Janice attempted to negotiate a purchase of this abandoned house. To give you a sense of just how long some of us in this city have been trying to deal with this problem (as Tom and I got involved in city-wide preservation at about the same time,) Tom and Janice had to deal with both a difficult owner and a city process that pushed directly towards demolition.

In numerous communications with Housing and Community Development officials (the organization which hatched NIS) Tom and Janice met unresponsiveness or doubt when they weren't being misled. They were told that there would not be a chance to appeal a demolition order placed on the house, when there was an upcoming Housing Appeals Board meeting to decide the fate of the house. There were unreturned phone calls to city council when they tried to communicate that they could save this house. A letter to the editor of the Herald Sun from them, along with the neighborhood association president, failed to stymie the inexorable push for demolition. That the Historic Preservation Society of Durham (now Preservation Durham) had acquired an option on the property in an attempt to save it made no difference.

In the end, with demolition imminent, Chester Jenkins - who is still the owner of this property, tore down the house himself rather than let the city do it. Tom and Janice went on to buy an old home turned rooming house on North Mangum St. that had fallen on hard times (as evidenced by the people that later knocked on their door looking for a prostitute.) It's hard to believe now that Old North Durham was in that kind of condition just 7 years ago, but it was.

Meanwhile, back in Cleveland-Holloway, this still-vacant lot is a reminder of how much this neighborhood could have used their pioneering spirit, strong will, and hard work.


Looking southeast from Carlton and Oakwood, 2007.

And so we fight again one block away, at 501 Oakwood. Has anything changed? When a neighbor called to speak with the housing inspector about how much the neighborhood wanted to see the house saved, the housing inspector told her that it was "long overdue to be demolished" and told her she "should be talking to the owner."

For those who might cluck disapprovingly at my tone from time-to-time, you'll have to pardon my chronic exasperation. It's been a long time coming.

311 OAKWOOD - THE PROCTOR HOUSE

311 Oakwood was built by William and Melissa Proctor around the turn of the 20th century. Wm. Proctor was the 'cashier' (probably equivalent to the corporate accountant) for the Ellis Stone department store company, which predated Woolworth's as the ground floor retail tenant of the Geer Building.

After Mr. Proctor's death in 1910, Ms. Proctor continued to live in the house for many years.

As with many of these large houses, it had become a 'tourist home' (sort of a B&B before that term was popularized) and multi-family housing in the 1960s.


Looking southwest from Carlton and Oakwood, 1963.

It received some renovation in the 1970s, which involved aluminum (probably - I didn't check) siding and a metal porch railing, but, fortunately, preserved windows, doors and other essential details.


Looking west-northwest from Oakwood, 1970s.

It did lose its first floor Corinthian columns after this picture, unfortunately, but the house has been owner-occupied for many years, and, well, I'm just glad it's still here.


Looking west-northwest from Oakwood, 2007.

Quick Update : Mayor of Charleston to Durham Officials: You must save your historic buildings

I was glad that Bob Ashley wrote his column today about long-time Charleston Mayor Joseph Riley's visit to Durham last week, as the Preservation Durham-sponsored event - evidently attended by a veritable Who's Who of Durham politicians and presidents - had received no press coverage. This was a mid-day event, much like Preservation Durham's Lunch and Learn events - which cover some interesting topics. These mid-day things would be great if 1) You can get away from work for a long lunch and 2) You are willing to pay $45 for lunch/event (this time, usually $12-16 - see comments.)

Unfortunately, I can't/won't do either - although if I could have gotten away from work, I might have taken the hit on the cash for this one.

I've gotten some reports from the event. The most salient aspect to me was that Riley praised the architecture of Durham and the renaissance of our downtown buildings, while advising people that we need to do everything that we can to preserve our architecture from demolition. Ashley quotes.

"[Riley] recalled stand-offs with officials who wanted to tear down deteriorated or damaged older buildings.....'We worked hard to keep the bulldozers out,' he said. 'Cities need memories.'"

A question was asked about what to do about property owners that refuse to fix up or sell their deteriorating buildings. Riley noted that Charleston aggressively pursued these people via their demolition-by-neglect ordinance in order to preserve their historic buildings.

Based on this, I partly disagree with Bill Kalkhof's letter to the editor a few days ago, in which he noted that Riley's message was a reinforcement of Durham's policy and action in downtown. While the private sector in downtown Durham has, to date, taken historic preservation seriously, the public sector continues to misunderstand its importance - as evidenced by the public sector push to demolish 120 East Main St. (which Kalkhof supported), the county's ongoing intent to demolish the entire 500 block of East Main St., including the old George's Grill at 526 East Main - documented in the Library of Congress and the 1930s era H. Lee Waters films of Durham, and the general lack of any adequate policy to preserve Durham's historic architecture.

I hope these officials heard the message that I've read and heard - and avoid the self-congratulatory posture. Becuase we are a long way from a point where anyone in the city or county fights off the bulldozers.

Quick Update: 218 Dillard AND Roxboro Parcels Today

A night-before communication by the city real estate office to a resident of Cleveland-Holloway confirms that BOTH 218 Dillard St. and the Roxboro Parcels open to bidding today. My understanding of the process is this:

1) If you are not a slumlord, call the Real Estate office at 560-4197. If you are a slumlord, call 683-9696. (Trying to be funny here. The first number is the one to call.)

2) Submit a bid. No clarification as to how to actually do this, but maybe they can tell you on the phone. It does not appear that there is a minimum bid, but your bid must exceed the previous bid by a certain percentage.

3) In ten days, the 'leading' bid will be publicized through some arcane process. There will be 10 days to submit an 'upset' bid, which must exceed the existing bid by a certain percentage.

4) Continue until bidding stops. City council then decides whether to accept or reject bids.

This may not be completely accurate, FYI - but it's what I can decipher.

Update: I received the following forms from the real estate office. Click to download.

HS Ad
Offer to Purchase Dillard
Roxboro Plat
Public Brochure
Offer to Purchase Roxboro
Map Dillard
Map Roxboro
Public Brochure

605 HOLLOWAY and Illegal Demolition

605 Holloway in 1964

605 Holloway was likely built sometime between the 1880s and 1910 - although the Sanborn maps do not cover this area until 1913, the first date I can confirm its existence. As with most of Holloway St., it was one of the nicer houses along the trolley line, and remained so long after the demise of the trolley, as the 1964 picture shows.

Holloway St. began to struggle in the 1960s and 1970s after urban renewal, and the widening of Elizabeth St. separated this block from the western remainder of the neighborhood.

By 1990s, though, the house was still in reasonable shape.


605 Holloway, 1990s.

Longtime readers may recognize that I did this house as one of my very first posts last year. At that time, I noted that Durham County owned the property, which they acquired through foreclosure, and that it was deteriorating.


605 Holloway, summer 2006.

The county had "For Sale" sign for quite awhile (a progressive step.) It was sold to Howard Goldsmith of Baldwin Estates, LLC - with an address in New York - in May, for $20,000.

Last weekend, I was making my rounds taking pictures, when I noticed something was missing.


The site of 605 Holloway, 2007.

It appears that this occurred within the last 7-10 days.

What a waste. This is in a local historic district, so I'm not sure if someone received approval to tear this down or not. I'm not sure who tore it down. What I do know is that the county missed an opportunity to improve this neighborhood. At a minimum, they could have sold the property with covenants through Preservation Durham to ensure the property was renovated/maintained. But this strikes me as a perfect property for a homesteading-type program. It is is in a local historic district - offer it for the cost of administrative fees to a homeowner who demonstrates ability to restore and contractually agrees to do so.

Or something - anything - positive for this community. Both the county and the city throw up their hands and say "there is nothing we can do" about neglectful property owners like Fireball White. But when the city and county have property control, they are squandering the opportunities to genuinely improve neighborhoods. Rather, they take generic approaches that ignore the neighborhood context - over and over again.

Update 9/7: 9am: I've just heard back from the planning department that the owner demolished the property without required Historic Preservation Commission approval. While the original materials and craftsmanship of the property cannot be replaced, I hope that the planning department finds the will to go after this property owner full bore. They should be required to construct an exact reproduction of the house. Anything less would be an affront to the time and effort people have invested in creating a historic district.