City... wide Architectural Survey & · Historic Preservation Plan Columbia, SouthCarolina John M. Bryan& Associates PatriciaRojas and DanielBilderback, SurveyCoordinators, RecannaissanceIntensive and S uroeys, PhasesI andII StephenSkelton, RecannaissanceIntensive and Surveys, Phase I Jenny Dilworth, JenniferVaughan, Michael Fenton, IntensiveS urveys, PhaseII Thomas Downey,Research Inventory and KatherineRichardson, HeritagePreservation As.5ociates, HistoricalOverview and Neighborhood Histories •••• Funded bytrie State Historic PreservationOffice SouthCarotina Department of Arch� and HistDfyand the Oty 1993of Cok.Imbta, The�11w1 is the ll.ti;,ai:-i rJta�I'm &wv:ied in l)l!rt with f".eds8IIlle._,... furafrom Park SeMa,. � 11the ir.u. Indlll(ffilMl&ed bylhe SolihDl!pnnent Qwalirwi Hiloy. rJ�111d �- theainmre Ind opnoraoot do _,.,, raleO lhe..,... or policiesIlle rJ rJ � lhelnllnlr. rcr dolll 'hs ITl!!l1lion rJ nderwn111 or IJll"mll:l't:il produ:1a alllliUll obe,e, a or A1Xffl111111 idalioi• 11)' lhe � rJlhll .-..mr. Dedicatedto KirkmanFinlay whosevision as a memberof City C-ouncil, 1974-1978 andMayor of the City ofColumbia, 1978- 1986 hasdone much to shapethe cityscape •••• City-wide Architectural Survey & HistoricPreservation Plan Columbia, SouthCarolina SurveyArea: 423 scµae miles bounded by the cityJackson) limits(exducmgE.Im.wod�GranbyendFort Recoonais:sanceSuvey- c. 33.000 strucn.res lntMsilleSurvey- C. 3,000 structures PatriciaRojas and Daniel Bilderback, Suroey Coordinators, Reconnaissanceand lntensitie S urveys, Phases I andII StephenSkelton, Reconnaissanceand Imen.swe S unieys, PhaseI JennyDilworth, Jennifer Vaughan, Michael Fenton, IntensiveS uroeys, Phase11 ThomasDo wney, ResearchInventory and KatherineRichard.son, Heritage Preservation Associates, Historical0tm,;euJ and Neighborhood Hiscaries JohnM. Bryan,Project Drre.ctor September25, 1991 , March15, 1993 CJTYWIDE ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NUMBER PREF ACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INfRODUCTION 2 1. NAME 5 2. SURVEYBOUNDARIES 5 3. NUMBER OF PROPERTIES SURVEYED 5 4. SQUARE MILES SURVEYED 5 5. SURVEYORS 5 6. DATES OF SURVEY 5 7. SURVEY OBJECTIVES 6 8. SURVEY METHODOLOGY 6 9. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 26 10. FOOTNOTES & BIBLIOGRAPHY 63 11. PROPERTIES CURRENTLY LISTED fN THE 10 & NATIONAL REGISTER APPENDIX B 12. NATIONAL REGISTER RECOMMENDATIONS 11 & APPENDIX A 13. DATA GAPS 12 14. COMPILED INVENTORY LISTS 10 & APPENDIX C 15. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 APPENDICES A. NATIONAL REGISTER RECOMMENDATIONS: LIST AND MAP B. PROPERTIES CURRENTLY ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER C. COMPILED INVENTORY LIST OF INTENSIVE SURVEYED PROPERTIES D. LARGE MAPS 1. BOUNDARIES OF SURVEY AREAS 2. EXISTING NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICTS 3. EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS E. SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATIONAL REGISTER AND LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION F. CRITERIA FOR NATIONAL REGISTER EVALUATION MAPS KELSEY GUILD MAP (1905) PAGE 3 RECONNAISANCE MAP EXAMPLE PAGE 8 EXAMPLE OF -.:OLOR CODED RECONNAISANCE MAP PAGE 9 PROPOSED NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS PAGE 11 RECOMMENDED LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS PAGE 17 EXISTING NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICTS APPENDIX D EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS APPENDIX D BOUNDARIES OF SUR VEY AREAS APPENDIX D Note \J the Reader This final version of the report incorporates changes made by the City of Columbia and SCDAH. It is based on the May 1993 report submitted by Dr. John Bryan. The final report will be on file at the City Planning Offices. SCDAH, and major public libraries in Richland County. Large maps, appendices, slides, and survey cards will be on file at City & SCDAH offices. 1 PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In September, 1991, the City of Columbia initiated a two year project to extend the benefits of architectural conservation to eligible buildings and neighborhoods throughout the City. Administered by the Columbia Planning Department, this city-wide historic preservation plan is funded in part by a grant from the South Carolina Department of Archives and History (SCDAH) and consists of three parts: (1) a survey and inventory of historic properties throughout the City, (2) new historical research focused primarily upon areas identified by the survey as having potential for conservation, and (3) an analysis of Landmark Commission activities in Columbia and elsewhere as a basis for specific recommendations. The Columbia city-wide preservation plan has been a large and collaborative undertaking. The northern half of the City was surveyed 1991-1992; the area South of Taylor Street was surveyed 1992-1993. During the first year the reconnaissance and intensive surveys, including mapping and photography, were done by Stephen Skelton and Patricia Rojas; they were assisted by Dan Bilderback, who surveyed, mapped and photographed the Columbia College and Colonial Drive neighborhoods. Mr. Skelton joined the staffof the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in 1992, and Mr. Bilderback and Mrs. Rojas managed the survey during the second year; they were assisted by Jenny Dilworth, Jennifer Vaughan and Michael Fenton. Research and writing for the historical overview of the City and the essays concerning the individual neighborhoods were done by Katherine Richardson of Heritage Preservation Associates. Lee Miller prepared the maps. John M. Bryan, Professor, U.S.C., as a consultant to the City, directed and is responsible for the work and for recommendations contained in the action plan. The city-wide architectural survey and preservation plan have been refined and molded by discussions with people who have participated in preservation since mid-century, and those who may hear echoes of our conversations in the text include Constance Beaumont, Chief Council, National Trust for Historic Preservation, James Brennan, Chainnan, Landmarks Commission, Phelps Bultman and William Fulmer, Architects, John Graham, Architect, General Services Administration, Nathaniel Griffin, Director of Planning, City of Columbia, John Charles Herin, who has restored seven houses, Nathaniel Land, Planning Department, William T. Marsh, fonner Urban Rehabilitation officer, City of Columbia, Robert McCJarn, Director, Columbia Development Corporation, Jeanne Patterson, Zoning Department, City of Columbia, Mabel Payne, fonner Code Enforcement, City of Columbia, Raymond Sigmon, Director, Historic Columbia Foundation, and members of the Columbia Landmarks Commission and Columbia City Council. In assembling and presenting the survey data we have benefited from consultations with the SHPO staffincluding Mary Parramore, Nancy Meriwether, Thomas Shaw, Stephen Skelton, Andrew Chandler and Thomas Sims. 2 Introduction Engraved on the facade of the National Archives is the motto: "The Past is Prologue - Study the Past". Records in the Archives help each generation re-define history from its unique perspective - an ever­ changing vantage point in time - and as each generation looks back upon a different past, it faces its future with a different prologue or perspective. We know our own perspective affects what we see and Wlderstand. Put another way, our view of history influences our vision of the future. Although we know that the past plays a formative influence in our lives, we rarely examine the past for guidance. Instead, at the nation.al, communal and personal level we usually allow our futures to bumble on-stage, more or Jess disheveled and pushed along by happenstance and assumption. Despite this habitual disregard forthe potential lessons of the past, it is clear that many of the things around us that we admire most resulted from historically conscious and careful planning. The legislators who stipulated (1786) that Colwnbia would have wide tree-lined streets and an orderly grid pattern in its historic core referred to Roman city planning. Four years later, George Washington and the Commissioners planning the new District of Columbia turnedto L'Enfant, a Frenchman schooled in European 17th and 18th century traditions of urban planning. Both capitals have been well served by their planned cityscapes, but in both cases growth and change beyond anything envisioned by their founders has required renewed planning from time to time. For a century Columbia's historic core accommodated all significant growth. Not witil the 1890s did an increasing population, cheap land, trolley cars and then automobiles combine to promote suburban developments. At the tum of the century new neighborhoods began to spring up in a concentrated burst like mushrooms after a summer rain: Elmwood (c. 1891), Eau Claire (c. 1908), Earlewood (c. 1910) and North Marion Street {which should be called Bellevue, c. 1902) - all northof the historic core, taking advantage of the extension of trolley service ( 1895) on Elmwood Avenue and out North Main Street; to the south and eastappeared Waverly (c. 1890), Read Street (1891), Hollywood (c. 1924), Rose Hill (c. 1919), Wales Garden (c. 1914) and Old Shandon (c. 1890). Each older neighborhood has its own history, but they share the fact that each was planned. Unlike the historic core, the new subdivisions were laid out by private companies and individuals. The things which detennine the character of these neighborhoods - the street patterns, the shape and price of the lots, the placement of the houses - these were all consciously planned, but because these areas were privately developed, their outer margins were (and are) irregular, following historic boundaries of preexisting parcels of land. Columbia's early asymmetrical subdivisionssplayed out around the