|
|
| July 6, 2001 Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Consulting Director Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission 2100 Randolph RoadCharlotte, NC 28207
Re: Landmark designation report for the (former) Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building, 421 Dear Dr. Morrill: Thank you for the report for local landmark designation of the (former) Electric Supply and Equipment Company Building. We have reviewed the information in the report and offer the following comments in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 160A-400.5. The report describes the building as having special significance because of its design when constructed in the 1920s, because it is an example of the commercial and industrial buildings representative of Charlotte's emergence as a major industrial and distribution center in North Carolina and South Carolina in the early twentieth century, and because it is a remnant of a once vibrant industrial area that arose between the Wilmore streetcar line and the tracks of the Southern Railroad. The report also describes the substantial changes made to the building during the rehabilitation and conversion to office use that took place after 1998.Our comments focus on two aspects of the designation proposal. First, the report does not address how the building, as it stands today, can still be said to possess the requisite special historic significance and integrity for landmark status. The recent redesign has greatly altered the original design and character of the building. It no longer seems to us to present itself as a substantially intact example of early twentieth century industrial architecture. The current survey of this building type and period in Charlotte will provide the context for comparing this particular building with others that remain standing, so that its relative importance and level of integrity can be more fully evaluated. We encourage the Commission to wait for the results of the survey before completing an evaluation of this building as a potential landmark. The second aspect of the proposal we wish to comment on concerns the Commission's recommendation that only three of the four elevations be designated as a landmark, omitting from designation the greatly altered east facade. We do not think that designating only the less altered portion of a building is advisable as a way of dealing with an integrity problem. It is the building as a whole that is under consideration, and it is the building as a whole that should be found to have, or not to have, special historic and architectural significance and integrity (intactness). If the building as a whole is found to have substantially lost integrity and to no longer clearly convey the original design and appearance for which it was significant, then it seems reasonable to conclude that the building lacks the requisite integrity for landmark designation. Consideration of any of the less altered exterior walls as objects worthy of landmark designation, separate and apart from the building, would, we think, be an entirely new proposition requiring a new designation report that discusses these walls as having special significance and integrity in their own right. Even if such special significance could be attributed to them, there would still be the problem of loss of integrity due to the changes they have undergone. In such matters as these concerning the kind of property that may be designated, we encourage the Commission to seek the guidance of the city and county attorneys.Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on this report. Our comments are advisory only and are not binding. Once the necessary public hearing or hearings have been held, the City Council may proceed with the designation decision. Should you have any questions about our comments, please feel free to contact me at 919-7336545. Melinda Coleman Preservation Commission Services Coordinator cc: Jeff Bradsher, Chairman, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
|
