1895 – Troy, NC

Added to OHD on 7/27/19   -   Last OHD Update: 4/12/20   -   21 Comments
SOLD / Archived Post
Are you the new owner? Comment below, we'd love to say hi!

222 W Chestnut St, Troy, NC 27371

Map: Street

  • $69,000
  • 4 Bed
  • 1 Bath
  • 2242 Sq Ft
  • 1.19 Ac.
Spacious home in need of some updating. Double lot featuring old "home place" in the back.
Contact Information
Toni Fish, Toni Fish & Associates Realty
(910) 572-5500
Links, Photos & Additional Info

State: | Region:
Period & Associated Styles:
Features: , | Misc: ,

21 Comments on 1895 – Troy, NC

OHD does not represent this home. Comments are not monitored by the agent. Status, price and other details may not be current, verify using the listing links up top. Contact the agent if you are interested in this home.
  1. Kelly, OHDKelly, OHD says: 11873 comments
    Admin

    1901 Folk Victorian
    Chestatee, GA

    I was about to throw this in a sampler but looked at the street view and thought how pretty this home was with the dogwood out front. Also there are two homes here! The second sits at the back.

    15
  2. TGrantTGrant says: 879 comments
    OHD Supporter

    New Orleans, LA

    The big house is wonderful, but I might just prefer the old home place,?

    25
    • Architectural ObserverArchitectural Observer says: 1012 comments
      OHD Supporter

      While both houses are nice, the big house is actually older! The second house appears 1890’s-ish while the main house appears to date to at least 1850 or so. Surviving period details which reveal its true age include the numerous doors featuring two narrow vertical panels, the profiles of staircase newels and balusters, the center-hall plan itself and the 6-over-6 windows used throughout (not just on the back or sides as was sometimes seen in the 1890’s).

      To me, the window centered on the second story front appears a tad smaller than the others. It’s possible that it replaces a former door with sidelights like the entry below it. The whole house has the feeling of a late Greek Revival.

      7
      • AJ DavisAJ Davis says: 379 comments
        OHD Supporter

        1850 Italianate, classical
        New Haven, CT

        I initially had the same reaction that you did, AO. Not to mention the pedimented hoods on the exterior window frames and the wood-boarded room (which may be a later addition, however; or as I will tentatively suggest, perhaps an earlier build than the rest of the house) and the one heating stove opening in the wall that appears remotely relevant to mid-19th C heating (although all other evidence of chimneys could have been removed at some point). On the other hand, however, the newel post and balusters appear too massive and unsophisticated to be mid-19th C, and the 6 over 6 windows would have been very economical for an 1895 house otherwise as devoid of unnecessary ornamentation as this one appears to be. The house is so plain that I actually feel a house this large in the mid-19th C should have had a bit more fine detailing than this one actually has. So, I wonder if the 3 identifiable Greek Revival doors notwithstanding (and which could be recycled), this house might really be from c 1895. Similarly, the very slight interior sill at the bottom of each window is not, IMO, consistent with the plainness of the house and an 1850-1860 building date (my 1852 Italianate has molding all the way around the windows, but no such sill, whereas the 1880 addition does have sills in addition to all the trim). Perhaps most significantly for me, the front door (not antebellum from what I can see, though possibly a replacement) opens into the central hall, but there is no wall to separate it from the room to its left (as you face the house from the front), a virtually unheard of architectural configuration in antebellum America of any formal style. Admittedly, the wall may have been taken down, but that’s a bit of a problem in that such a decision would counter the heating benefits of all rooms being confined from a usually unheated central hall. I’m not totally convinced that an antebellum building date is a more accurate building date than 1895, or vice versa, I just feel less certain since about committing to either one since I see a lot of contradicting information for either date and wonder if other viewers see additional evidence to support one date over the other. A final, albeit very far-fetched and only very tentative thought: I notice the stairwell is in the back hall, not in the front near the present front door, where you might most expect it to be. I wonder if this house was originally built as either (1) a one room deep, two rooms over two rooms with a central hall on each floor, which was later doubled in size by the addition of a matching front or rear addition, or; (2) a two-room deep, side hall house to which two rooms on the other side of the hall were subsequently added to make it completely symmetrical once the family had the resources to do so. Maintaining consistency in all the external trim may have been a way of seamlessly tying together the whole house to make it appear as though it was all of a single build, but explain some of the temporal inconsistencies seemingly found on the inside.

        2
        • Architectural ObserverArchitectural Observer says: 1012 comments
          OHD Supporter

          Like most old houses, this one has seen some changes over the years. There are more photos on realtor.com which show numerous Greek Revival-style doors upstairs in addition to the ones previously seen downstairs.
          https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/222-W-Chestnut-St_Troy_NC_27371_M55145-28487#photo0
          While unsophisticated and far from petite, the newels are not too massive to be mid-19th century. Rather, they are too primitive for 1895 when inexpensive stock stair parts were readily available.

          The staircase IS near the front door… you are confusing the back door with the front door). Obviously a bit of wall has been removed by the back door (which itself is a 20th century replacement) — it wasn’t built this way. I agree that the house may have possibly been added onto early on.
          It’s a mid-19th century house which has seen lots of changes.

          4
          • AJ DavisAJ Davis says: 379 comments
            OHD Supporter

            1850 Italianate, classical
            New Haven, CT

            Thanks for reminding me that more pictures are often available than are shown here on the OHD site. I keep forgetting that that is commonly the case. I end up shortchanging myself when I don’t fully avail myself of the amount of information that is actually available with which to formulate better informed opinions.
            I looked at those additional photos and agree that the overwhelming number of doors throughout the interior of the house are of c 1850 vintage. In the additional photos, I also see many more holes for the original heating stoves pipes to emit smoke through, whereas a house built in 1895 would have been more likely to have been built with central heating. I also agree that you’re absolutely right about the newel post–one from 1895 would likely have been more finely detailed due to the advances in mass producing millwork.
            The only thing I don’t agree with you on is the location of the stairs. The way I see it, the stairs are in the back hall, not in the front hall near the front door. The front door is painted blue on the outside, white on the inside and is about half-filled with glass. In one photo of the front door taken from inside the house, some of the bushes in front of the house and the house across the street are clearly visible through the glass in this door, meaning that this door must be the front door since the backyard is filled with completely different scenery. The presumably removed wall is to the right of this door as you face the front of the house from the inside. The front entry way is wall-papered.
            The photos of the stairs clearly show them to be in the maroon painted back hall and thus facing the back door. In one photo, you can see past the stairs to the front hallway, some of the wallpaper in the entry way, the light coming through the glass of the front door and its sidelights, the missing section of wall and the rugs on the floor of the front hallway or entry way and the adjoining room on the right.
            Can you follow what I’m saying or do you still think the stairs are in the front hallway facing the front door?
            Regarding your observation that the second floor central window appears smaller than the others and that possibly a door with sidelights once existed in its place to afford access to walking onto the roof of the porch: My initial impression was that this window was not smaller, but rather, that it was raised up slightly higher than the other windows on the second floor, although it might in fact be smaller. However, the roof of the porch joins the exterior wall within just a matter of inches of these windows. Even if one greatly reduced the pitch of the porch roof, I don’t think there would have been nearly enough room to place a door in the available space–the first floor ceiling is just too low to permit this. In fact, I suspect that, in light of the fact that the front porch ceiling actually encroaches on the trim above the windows and doors on the first floor that the porch itself was possibly a later addition to the house and that there may have been none when the house was first built, or at least not like what we see on the house today.
            I’m still intrigued by the one bedroom that is flushboarded (walls and ceiling both, from what I can tell) rather than plastered like all the other rooms in the house. Possibly the whole house was like this when it was first built and this room alone never got upgraded with plaster for some reason. Any observations or thoughts about this would be greatly appreciated.
            Finally, I’ve fairly frequently seen structures like the one in the backyard with the significant projection coming from its roof and that is IMO currently being used as a garage. I assume someone, from the part of the country where these structures seem to be fairly common, knows what purpose these buildings served originally. I’d appreciate being clued in since I’ve seen too many photos of them by now not to know what they were intended for. Thanks to anyone who can tell me!

            1
            • Architectural ObserverArchitectural Observer says: 1012 comments
              OHD Supporter

              You are absolutely correct about the location of the stairs… I’m the one that was confused! ? And it is confusing; we normally think that the stairs in a central hall plan will start near the front door. But here, obviously, they don’t. Why? Is it a quirk of vernacular building traditions? Was the house moved and reoriented? Does the house pre-date the street grid? Or was the staircase reconfigured during an early remodeling? So many questions!

              The current porch was definitely a later addition, but that does not preclude the possibility of a previous door above the entry. Compare the photo of the window at the other end of the hall with flanking bedroom doors (photo 17). Then take a look at this recently posted house (from 1842) which still retains a second story door above the main entry after the original porch was removed:
              https://www.oldhousedreams.com/2019/07/23/1842-gothic-revival-pittsfield-ny/
              There is definitely room for a door in that location.

              Sorry I don’t know what the garage used to be, but agree that it looks like something that was repurposed.

              1
              • AJ DavisAJ Davis says: 379 comments
                OHD Supporter

                1850 Italianate, classical
                New Haven, CT

                Yes, I agree that the placement and orientation of that staircase is confusing. That’s what led to my speculating that maybe the front of the house was an essentially an identical addition to the rear of the house (minus the stairs), or, in other words, a one pile house had been doubled into a two pile house at some point, tho I no longer am particularly inclined to think so. But it certainly raised a lot of questions for me, as it now seems to have done for you! Which is why this house is more interesting than it might seem at first and why I did not assume a build date of 1895 to necessarily be accurate and looked for more evidence to clarify when it was really built.
                I will add that I have seen houses where, for whatever reason, the stairs to the second floor start at the back and go forwards to the front of the house. Likewise, I have also seen houses where in fact there is a separate stair hall from the entry hall and that it is normally located behind the entry hall, rather than in front of it. In large houses, this was clearly a form of a status symbol–the luxurious display of nonfunctional space, but I think that intention hardly applies in this house. Likewise, the stairs being in a rear hall, and particularly if they ascend from the farthest possible distance from the front door, may simply be a way of drawing a strict boundary between the public and the private spaces in a house, an indicator of where guests were welcome and where they were not. But again, this hardly seems likely in a house of such modest means, though who knows, if the owner only had daughters or a large number of them?
                So, I understand you are not necessarily suggesting the current porch was original, but may have been a later addition and that it is possible that at one time, there was a door over the front door like the one on the first floor. I wanted to point out that the window in photo 17 is actually the window over the central part of the front porch. Again, the way the stairs arrive at the front of the house on the second floor (after starting at the rear of the first floor and ascending to the front of the house) should provide the correct orientation for looking at the photo of the window and determining where it is.
                I agree that a second floor porch and door may have been there at one time. I’m simply inclined to doubt it given that I just don’t think this house is now or ever was quite grand enough for anyone to have made such an investment in it. I do think that the low pitch that any such porch might have had, regardless of its size, would have mitigated against anyone trying to build one here.
                I was also struck by the fact that there had been a porch in the AJ Downing house that you cited above. When I first saw the photos of that house, I was struck by how low the ceilings were for a house so relatively big in terms of its number of rooms (spread over 3 partial stories) and having some actually fairly fine detailing (like the Greek Revival window and/or door trim), but I knew the house had been built to a much smaller scale than AJ Downing would have intended for it to have been. I even wondered if the porch might have been taken off just because it was too closely placed to the French doors and if there was an insufficient pitch to the roof of the porch to prevent water from being blown in severe storms into the house through the bottom of the French doors.
                And finally, I wondered if someone had added a 2nd floor door to the North Carolina house, why is it now gone? So, although I understand you’re only raising this as a possibility, I can certainly accept it as a possibility, but I just don’t think it is particularly probable. However, the mere fact that this house is in North Carolina as opposed to a northern state, makes the possibility of a second floor door over the porch to access it much more likely for the symbolism and status such would have conferred there as compared to other parts of the country!
                Now, if only someone can tell me what that out building is. I wonder if it was a carriage house and if that is why it was so conveniently converted into a garage…

                1
  3. bradg13txbradg13tx says: 7 comments
    OHD Supporter

    Fort Worth, TX

    It also looks like there is a really cool old church next to the old home at the back (at the end of Elm St… insert creepy slasher film joke here).

    6
  4. DeniseLynn says: 202 comments

    The exterior reminds me of the house from The Waltons. I always wonder when I see pics like these whether they haven’t finished moving or are they leaving the random furniture behind. There’s some nice old pieces I wouldn’t mind having.

    8
  5. Karen says: 1142 comments

    I wish they’d included photos of the homestead, and its history. That house looks as if its got a story to tell. It looks quite substantial on its own. If the “big house” is ok on electrical, foundation, plumbing, etc, it looks as if it needs only cosmetic work. I wonder what is under those carpets…

    12
  6. montana channing says: 231 comments

    I couldn’t figure out the “needs updating ” at first and then it came to me. these poor people. how did they stand it. there’s no island in the kitchen.
    I love the home place but I wonder how those roofs come together . looks like a recipe for major problems there . are there no pix of that place?

    3
  7. montana channing says: 231 comments

    and I want the church too. looks like it has all the stained glass windows and looks like it could use a little love too.

    3
  8. Calvin says: 9 comments

    If anyone owns a Capel rug this is the town they are are made in.

    5
  9. Danelle says: 6 comments

    Is that a linoleum rug in the 11th pic? Usually they’re either torn up or just a shadow.

    5
  10. Kelly, OHDKelly, OHD says: 11873 comments
    Admin

    1901 Folk Victorian
    Chestatee, GA

    Posted last year. Had a decent price drop so moved to the front page. The agent added a better view of that second home as well.

    6
  11. BettyAnnBettyAnn says: 141 comments
    OHD Supporter

    I can’t decide which I want, the old home place or the old church. Love them both and the fact that they’re in NC is a bonus!

    1
  12. peeweebcpeeweebc says: 1064 comments
    OHD Supporter

    1885 Italianate.
    MI

    I’m intrigued by the old house out back, but I’ll take that collie portrait. ?

    1

Comment Here


To keep comments a friendly place for each other, owners and agents, comments that do not add value to the conversation in a positive manner will not be approved. Keep topics to the home, history, local attractions or general history/house talk.

Commenting means you've read and will abide by the comment rules.
Click here to read the comment rules, updated 1/12/20.

OHD does not represent this home. Price, status and other details must be independently verified. Do not contact the agent unless you are interested in the property.