College View Historic District 
A Case Study of Historic Preservation in Greenville, North Carolina 
by 
Deann Lyn Benedict 
July, 2012 
Director of Thesis:  Dr. John Tilley 
Major Department:  History 
During the period of urban renewal, especially during the 1970s and 1980s, 
Greenville, N.C. was losing much of its historic built environment.  Concerned citizens 
joined together to establish the Historic Properties Commission in 1979.  This began the 
preservation movement in Greenville, N.C.  
The city, by request of the Historic Properties Commission, hired Kate Ohno to 
complete a survey of the built environment and write a report based on the findings.  In 
her report she made recommendations as to which neighborhoods and individual 
properties should be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places and which 
should be considered for local historic district designation or landmark status.   
The Historic Properties Commission evolved into the Greenville Area 
Preservation Association.  Mrs. Ohno’s report continued to guide the preservation efforts 
in Greenville.  Individual properties remained the focus until the end of the 1980s when 
the College View neighborhood became the focal point.  During this same period the 
Historic Preservation Commission was established by the City Council. 
The Historic Preservation Commission followed the recommendations outlined in 
Mrs. Ohno’s report that had by this point been published by the Greenville Area 
 
Preservation Association in The Architectural Heritage of Greenville, North Carolina.  
College View was the first neighborhood chosen to be nominated to the National Register 
of Historic Places; it was listed on March 19, 1992.  College View was chosen because of 
the density of original structures, the deterioration of the neighborhood caused by the 
high student renter population, and the encroachment of the university. 
Issues arose among the city, the preservationists, and the university due to each 
party having its own agendas, uses, and future intentions for the neighborhoods.  In the 
end College View became both the first National Register District and in 2012 the only 
local historic district in Greenville, N.C.  The real legacy of the preservationists is not 
what they accomplished in College View but what followed it. 
In 2012 not all of the goals for the College View Historic District have come to 
fruition.  The biggest disappointment has been the renter/owner ratio.  The preservation 
efforts have continued to impact Greenville.  Four more neighborhoods were nominated 
to the National Register; these include the Greenville Tobacco Warehouse District, the 
Greenville Commercial Historic District, the Skinnerville/Greenville Heights Historic 
District, and the Dickinson Avenue Historic District.  Due to public support, historic 
preservation has become a part of the city’s plan for its future within the Horizons Plan, 
although it is not a fully integrated planning component. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
College View Historic District 
A Case Study of Historic Preservation in Greenville, North Carolina  
 
 
 
A Thesis 
Presented To the Faculty of the Department of History 
East Carolina University  
 
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree 
Master of Arts 
 
By 
Deann Lyn Benedict 
July, 2012 
  
 
© Deann Lyn Benedict, 2012  
 
 
A Case Study of Historic Preservation in Greenville, NC 
College View Historic District 
 
 
by 
Deann Lyn Benedict 
APPROVED BY:  
DIRECTOR OF THESIS:________________________________________________ _ __ _____  
                John Tilley, Ph.D. 
COMMITTEE MEMBER:_ ________________________________________________ _____ _ _  
                       Carl Swanson, Ph.D. 
COMMITTEE MEMBER:______________________________________________ _____ __ _ __   
     Christopher Oakley, Ph.D. 
COMMITTEE MEMBER:__________________________________ _____________ _ _ _____ __  
                Jerry Weitz, Ph.D. 
CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY:  
_________________________________________________________________ __ ___ _____ ___  
Gerald J. Prokopowicz. Ph.D. 
DEAN OF THE GRADUATE S CHOOL: 
_________________________ ________ ____________ __ ___________ _______ _________ _ ___  
      Paul J. Gemperline, Ph.D. 
 
 
DEDICATION 
 
 I would like to dedicate this work to my mother, Ida May Dodd and both my 
grandfathers, David McLaren Dodd and John Sylvester Benedict, Jr.  I dedicate this to my 
grandfathers because they passed on to me their love of history.  I dedicate this to my mother 
because she instilled in me the importance of an education.   
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  
Three groups played key roles in the research for this thesis:  individual preservationists, 
the City of Greenville, and East Carolina University.  Each group had its own perspective on this 
subject and opinions about the other two groups.  It was vital to my research and ultimately this 
thesis to have the cooperation from the people who represented each of these bodies.  I did my 
best to write a balanced unbiased account.  There were  several groups and individuals alike who 
helped me with this thesis.  I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to each and every one 
of them.  Everyone I encountered was very friendly and very helpful.   
I would like to thank the people at the Pitt County Tax Records Office , City Records, and 
the Community Development  Department, who all helped me find the research materials I 
needed.  In some cases, they sent me copies, or let me copy mass quantities of documentation  for 
free.  I was impressed that all I had to do was ask for something and it would inevitably be 
located for me. 
I would like to thank Scott Power and Reid Thomas at the Eastern Office of the North 
Carolina Historic Preservation Office.  Reid provided me the information on the tax credit 
projects included in my thesis.  He also was my mentor during an internship during the summer 
of 2003.  Scott gave me a wonderful interview which included great insight into my subject.   
Many thanks are extended to Gregor y Hassler and members of his staff.  As the legal 
counsel for ECU, interviewing Mr. Hassler was a littl e more complicated.  I thank him for his 
time, but what was most valuable to me was the access to the non- privileged materials he had in 
his archives.  A nything I asked for was copied and mailed to me.  There were several key pieces 
of ?ocumentation that he provi?e? that ? ?oul?n’t have ha? other?ise.  ?his information was key 
in getting the perspective from the side of the university. 
 
I also thank Dr. Ric hard Eakin and Inez Friedly.  Both of these individuals were 
important figures without which my research would have been lacking.   I enjoyed meeting with 
both of them and listening to your stories on this topic.  I thank Dr. Richard Eakin  for his 
interview.  It was vital to my research.  As the key figure from the u niversity, my thesis needed 
his direct insight.  I also thank Inez Friedly who was a key individual involved from the very 
beginning of the preservation movement in Greenville.  Her interview wa s equally invaluable to 
my research. 
I must thank Dr. John Tilley, my thesis director.  I know he had to be exasperated with 
me in how long it took me to complete this thesis.  This thesis reads as well as it does because he 
edited it.  After all the years  of research, interviewing and transcribing those interviews, I wanted 
to put everything in.  Every thing to me was important.  H e helped me discern what was 
important and needed to be inclu?e?.  ?’m ?la? ? ha? him to work with.  I hope this end product 
makes the time you sacrificed worth it.  
I had several friends who not only encouraged me but also helped me by proof reading, 
editing, and formatting.  ?hese people believe? in me ?hen ? ?i?n’t believe in myself.  ? than? 
Jeff and Jennifer Pruett.  Their  encouragement and time was more important to me than they 
know.  I thank Sandra Mulinax who would remind me from time to time how important it was 
for me to complete my ?e?ree an? that ? ?as capable of completin? ?the beast.?  ? than? ?racy 
Martin who I met while attending ECU.  You have been with me through the whole process, not 
only when you were expected to but also when you had no reason to.  Your friendship, love, 
encouragement, nagging, support, time, and help will never be forgotten.  
 
Lastly I thank my grandmothers, Creda Virginia Benedict and Verchie Olive Dodd.  
Their  love, emotional and financial support are what have brought me through this process.  I 
hope I make them proud. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
LIST OF TABL??????????????????????????.    vii 
CHAPTER1: ????O?????O???????????????????...    1 
CHAPTER 2: DEVELOPMENT OF GREENVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA .....   8 
 Neighborhoods   ?????????.???..?????????..  13  
CHAPTER 3: COLLEGE VIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ??????????. 18 
CHAPTER 4:  EARLY PRE SERVATION EFFORTS IN GREENVILLE ?..?. 28 
CHAPTER 5:  A SUMMARY OF THE TYPES OF HISTORIC  
DESIGNATION ??????????.??????????.?..  3 7 
CHAPTER 6:  CREATION OF THE FIRST NATIONAL REGISTER  
HISTORIC DISTRICT IN GREENVILLE ????..??????.....  4 5  
CHAPTER 7:  CREATION OF THE FIRST LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT  
IN GREENVILLE ??????????????????..??...  5 6  
CHAPTER 8. COLLEGE VIEW POST - DESIGNATION AND  
ADDITIONAL PRESERVATION EFFORTS ????????..?...  6 4  
CHAPTER 9. CONCLUSION ???????????????????.  75  
BIBLIOGRAPHY ????????????????????????.  78 
???????? ?? M?????...???????????????????...  84  
 
 
vii 
 
LIST OF TABLES 
 
Table 8.1 Representative Properties within College View Historic District??.. 6 7 
 
Table 8.2 Representative Properties within Greenville, N.C????????.. 6 8 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION  
 This  thesis is a case study of the historic preservation efforts in Greenville, North 
Carolina, highlighting the College View Neighborhood.  With this thesis I wanted to document 
the events surrounding the creation of the first National Register District  in Greenville.  I wanted 
to be able to determine whether or not the national and/or local level designation had any effect 
on the neighborhood.  I investigated, analyze d, and synthesize d research materials I obtained 
dealing with East Carolina University, the College View Neighborhood , the National  Register, 
nei?hborhoo? preservation ?roups? an? the city of ?reenville’s involvement in ?istoric 
Preservation.   
The creation of the College View Historic District is of particular inte rest because of 
where, when, and why it was created.  Although the goal of having historic designation stabilize 
the neighborhood has not been realized, its crucial success is that it has produced additional 
preservation efforts that have continued through 2012 with no end in sight.  
Greenville is a medium - sized city in eastern North Carolina with , as of 2010 , a 
population of 84,554 that has many older structures. 1  The renewal projects of the 1960s and 
1970s condemned many of the older structures.  The prese nce of East Carolina University (ECU) 
served both to create and to threaten to destroy the surrounding areas.  Due to the continuing 
threat of destruction of the remaining historic properties, the Greenville City Council passed an 
ordinance in 1988 to crea te the Greenville Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to provide 
for the preservation of the historical resources within its jurisdiction.  By state statute, the 
?ommission’s primary po?ers are?  
                                                          
1  ??ity of ?reenville ?ommunity ?evelopment? ??ata base online? ??reenville? ?ity of ?reenville? ?.?.?? 
available from www.greenvillenc.gov/depa rtments/Community_Development/informati on/default.aspx?id=1072 ; 
Internet; accessed 15 May 2012.   The population data was a result of the 2010 census.   
 
 
2  
 
1)  to recommend to City Council properties be designated as historic districts and 
landmarks, and 
2)  to review applications from owners of designated landmarks and structures in 
historic districts that plan to make changes to their properties. 2  
 In its first two years, the Historic Preser vation Commission worked to pr eserve twelve 
individual locally designated properties.  In 1992, after years of careful planning, the 
?ommission be?an the process of ?esi?natin? ?reenville’s first ?ational ?e?ister ?istrict? 
College Vie w.  In 1994, as soon as this was accomplished, the Commission began the process of 
?esi?natin? ?olle?e ?ie? ?reenville’s first local historic ?overlay? ?istrict.  An overlay district 
serves as a layer of protection through regulation.  Each designation has different consequences 
for the property owners.   
T he thesis begins, in Chapter Two ? ?ith a summary of ?reenville’s history? inclu?in? its 
original individual neighborhoods- both residential and business.  In 1760 Pitt County was 
created from part of Beaufort Country and in 1774 the courthouse and jail wer e relocated to 
Martinborou?h ??reenville’s ori?inal name?.  ?n an a?ricultural re?ion? ?reenville slo?ly ?re? 
up until the Civil War; post - Civil war Greenville became one of the prominent cities in the state.  
Tobacco replaced cotton as the premier crop br inging additional revenue and growth to the city.  
Having Greenville chosen for the location of the East Carolina Teachers Training School was a 
major achievement.  Although local industries failed and agriculture declined, the school 
flourished and education became the economic backbone of Greenville.  The original 
neighborhoods include Skinnerville, Higgs Neighborhood, the Central Business District, and 
College View.  
                                                          
2   ??orth ?arolina ?eneral ?tatute ? ????- ??.?. ?o?ers of the ?istoric ?reservation ?ommission.? ??ata 
base online] (Raleigh, North Carolina Legislature); available from http://www.ncga.st ate.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/  
Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_160 A.html ; Internet; accessed 20 February 2012.  
 
 
3  
 
In Chapter Three ? ?olle?e ?ie? nei?hborhoo?’s history is a??resse?.  ?t is the ol?est 
residential area in Greenville that still maintains a large number of its original structures.  
?olle?e ?ie? ?ei?hborhoo?’s problems inclu?e? a multitu?e of university- owned properties, 
along with the threat of continued expansion of the university across Fif th Street.  The 
neighborhood included a large percentage of rental properties, most of them owned by absentee 
landlords.  The city government contributed to problems in the neighborhood by failing to 
enforce building codes.  Along with the fear of gentrifi cation, established residents also feared 
vandalism from students.  Although this neighborhood was not developed as housing for the 
university, many of the single- family houses have been turned into rental properties for students.   
Chapter Four  documents the early preservation efforts in Greenville.  Inez Fridley 
became involved in the preservation movement in Greenville from its beginning in the late 1970s 
and continued to participate through the 1990s.    The Historic Properties Commission focused 
its efforts on individual properties.  In 1988 City Council created the Historic Preservation 
Commission.  Maurice (Maury) York, a librarian at ECU and preservationist, was an influential 
member of the Greenville Area Preservation Association (GAPA) and the Tar River 
Neighborhood Association (TRNA), which as a local body was prominent in preservation 
measures in Greenville.  GAPA published The Architectural Heritage of Greenville North 
Carolina? the result of the surveys of ?reenville’s historic properties.  ?hese separate events all 
led to the creation of the first N ational Register D istrict in Greenville . 
Chapter Five  gives an overview of how the National Register was established.  It explains  
the process of getting nominated and the criteria a property or district must meet to be eligible 
for listing on the register, along with what effect it has on the property once it has been listed.  It 
also explains what a local historic district is and w hat impact the zoning overlay has on the 
 
 
4  
 
property owners.  Further, it details why the city’s ?istoric ?reservation ?ommission has more 
authority over owners of properties within the local historic district because the commission has 
the authority to approve or disapprove a Certificate of Appropriateness for  both major and minor 
works. 
Chapter Six  details the events surrounding the nomination of College View to the 
National Register of Historic Places.  A major part of this process was the controversy betwe en 
the community supporters of the districts, and the Chancellor and Board of Trustees of East 
?arolina ?niversity.  ?ebate surroun?e? ?hether or not part of ?ast ?arolina’s campus shoul? 
be included in the historic district.  The buildings date back to 19 09, and many people involved 
in the movement believed that these building should be part of the district.  East Carolina 
?niversity’s ?hancellor an? ?rustees ?i? not a?ree.  ?hey ?i? not ?ant an e?tra layer of 
bureaucracy involved in the management of the buildings. 
Under the leadership of Chancellor Richard Eakin, and in accordance with the direction 
of the Board of Directors, ECU refused to have any of the structures south of Fifth Street, within 
the core campus, included in the National Register nominati on.  This became an area of 
contention; some members of the Historic Preservation Commission strongly believed these 
buildings should be part of the historic district.  In the end, the district lines were drawn to 
include only university structures north of Fifth Street.  
When listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992, The College  View 
Historic District included  343 contributing and fifty - one non- contributing properties.  The 
contributing properties consisted of all the standing structures in the district, including garages 
and outbuildings that have historic importance.  The fifty - one noncontributing structures 
represented a variety of building types, including new structures, that did not meet the fifty- year 
 
 
5  
 
age criterion as well as historic properties that had lost their architectural or historic integrity 
over the years. 
Chapter Seven  documents the continuing struggle between the Historic Preservation 
Commission and ECU.  Their  conflict continued when the HPC began efforts to establish a l ocal 
overlay historic district for the properties within the National Register District.  National Register 
designation and local historic designation have their own set of implications for the property 
owners.  Dr. Eakin and the Trustees did not want anot her layer of oversight added to the 
bureaucracy ?hen it came to the mana?ement of ???’s buil?in?s. 
The preservationists involved hoped that if they were successful in reestablishing College 
View as a vital downtown residential area, the results would benef it not only Colleg e View 
residents, but also the central business district and East Carolina University.  The inundation of 
stu?ents rentin? houses from absentee lan?lor?s ha? resulte? in the properties’ ne?lect? 
vandalism within the neighborhood, and general deterioration of College View.  
  Lastly, Chapter Eight  reveals ?olle?e ?ie? ?istoric ?istrict’s status as of ????.  ?n the 
years following the National Register Nomination and local historic district overlay zoning, the 
College View Neighborhood experi enced a decline in rental properties only to rise once again to 
the pre- designation percentage. 3   Property values increased, not just in College View but also 
throughout Greenville, in the 1990s and continued through much of the first decade of the 
twenty- first century.  The fears of gentrification were not realized.  The Tar River Neighborhood 
Association has evolved into the Tar River University Neighborhood Association (TRUNA).  Its 
                                                          
3  Greenville GIS analysis  of the T.R.U.N.A. area which included a statistical breakdown of the College 
View Historic District, 17 January 2012.  If apartment complexes were added to the data, owner occupancy drops to 
21 percent and rental rises to 79 percent.  
  
 
 
6  
 
very title reflects more of a partnership with the university than the adversarial relationship that 
existed in the past.  
The H istoric P reservation C ommission had to adjust  due to the lack of public support.  
This can be attributed to a lack of education on the part of the public as to exactly what the HPC 
is, what it does and does not have the authority to do, and ultimately this was the responsibility 
of the commission itself.  Under the direction of Thomas (Tom) Wisemiller, Historic 
Preservation and Redevelopment Planner for the city of Greenville (February 2006 - March 2009),  
the HPC intended to change its image through public awareness, and have a smaller turnover 
rate.  Once the commission seems less arbitrary to the public it will then be in a better position to 
enforce regulations. 4      
Possibly the most important impact o f the whole process was the spawning of further 
preservation efforts, including the creation of additional National Register Districts.  These 
included the Greenville Tobacco Warehouse District  ( 1997) , the Greenville Commercial Historic 
District (2003) , the Skinnerville/Greenville Heights Historic District  (2005) , and the Dickinson 
Avenue Historic District  (2007) .  These efforts were not just limited to the Greenville City limits; 
they spread throughout the county. 
 Pitt County has three additional National  Register Districts:   the Farmville Historic 
District, added in 1993; the Ayden Historic District, added in 1994; and the Renston Rural 
Historic District, added in 2003.  The county also has nineteen additional individually nominated 
properties. 5   The fir st nominations from North Carolina to the National Register of Historic 
Places were in 1969.  In 1991 there were an estimated 20,000  historic properties listed in North 
                                                          
4  Thomas Wisemiller , Historic Preservation and Redevelopment Planner, City of Greenville, interview by 
author, notes, Greenville, N.C.  13 April 2007.    
5    ??ational ?e?ister of ?istoric ?laces? ??ata base on line? ??ashin?ton? ?.?. ?ept. of ?nterior?? available 
from  http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/nc/pitt/state.html ; accessed  12 February 2012.  
 
 
7  
 
Carolina. 6   This number increased and as of 2012 there were over 2,780  listings on the National 
Register with 500  of those being historic districts.  The National Park Service  estimates that the 
2, 780  listings translate to 66,000  individual resources listed as individual listings or as 
contributing properties within districts in North Caroli na.  Of these properties eighty - five percent 
are privately owned with fifteen percent publicly owned; seventy percent of these properties are 
designated as significant at the local level, twenty- five percent at the state level, and only five 
percent at the national level. 7  
?hen the resi?ents of ?reenville be?an their fi?ht to preserve their city’s structural 
heritage, I doubt they had any idea of the continuing long- term impact.  If the last twenty years 
have been any indication of what is in store for Gree nville, then the original preservationists of 
the 1980s should be proud.  
                                                          
6  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.?  ? ?ecember 1980.)  
7  ??he ?ational ?e?ister Of ?istoric ?laces ?n ?orth ?arolina? ?acts an? ?i?ures? ??ata base online? 
( Raleigh: North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office); available from http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nrfacts.htm .  
Internet; accessed 12 February 2012.  
 
 
 
CHAPTER 2. DEVELOPMENT OF GREENVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA  
 Greenville was  established as the result of expansion by English colonists.  At the time 
the English arrived, the Tuscarora Indians inhabited the region.  By 1706, settlers established the 
first colonial town, Bath, in what was to be North Carolina.   The original Bath C ounty included 
the areas that would later become Beaufort and Pitt Counties.  In 1714, the first English settlers 
in present- day Pitt County arrived from Bath and chartered the first town in the county, 
Martinborough.   
 In 1760 Pitt County, previously par t of Beaufort County, was created because it was hard 
for the citi?ens to ?atten? the ?ourts? ?eneral Musters? an? other ?ublic Meetin?s? because 
Beaufort County was so large . 1    In 1771, Richard Evans, a local farmer, proposed the use of a 
hundred acres of his property to create a town in the fertile coastal plain region on the banks of 
the Tar River.  Evans died without officially giving permission for the use of his property.  After 
?vans’ ?i?o? ?ave the county le?islators permission to use the lan? to establish a town, an 
amendment to the charter in 1774 allowed the relocation of the courthouse, jail, and stocks to 
Martinborough. 2   161 half - acre lots were created from the hundred acres of donated land.  Sixty -
 eight of those lots were sold by the 1770s an d the rest by the 1830s. 3  
  ?arly in ?reenville’s history? three important events occurre?.  ?he first ?as renamin? 
the town in honor of Nathanael Greene after the Revolutionary War in 1787; many towns, 
especially throughout the South, were named for this war hero.  The spelling of G reenesville, 
however, was soon changed to its current designation, Greenville.  The second major event was 
                                                          
1  Bill Sharpe, A New Geography of North Carolina (Raleigh:  Sharpe Publishing Co., 4 volumes, 1954 -
 1 9 6 5), II, 991.  
2  Walter Clark, ed., The State Records of North Carolina, 16 volumes numbered XI - XX VI, 189 5 - 1 90 6, 
XXIII, 968 - 9 6 9.   
3  Michael Cotter, ed., The Architectural Heritage of Greenville, North Carolina. (Greenville: Greenville 
Area Preservation Association, 1988 ) , 21.  
 
 
9  
 
the founding of an educational institution; in 1787 the Pitt Academy was founded.  The third 
ma?or event in ?reenville’s early history was the establishment of a free, tax - supported ferry 
across the Tar River in 1797.   The ferry connected the northern and southern halves of Pitt 
County, making Greenville a center of trade. 4  
?itt ?ounty’s economic ?ro?th ?as initially tie? ?irectly to ?reenville’s continue? 
development.  Small farmers mainly populated the county, with a dominant minority of 
plantation farmers.  Around half the farmers owned slaves at the turn of the eighteenth century 
and the practice grew in later years. 5   P itt ?ounty’s ma?or pro?ucts inclu?e? corn? por?? tar? 
cotton, sweet potatoes, and rice.  Flatboat and steamship routes on the Tar River, along with the 
Greenville and Raleigh Plank Road, built as far as Wilson, helped to stimulate agriculture. 6    
In 1789 a n annual property and poll tax was levied to collect funds for a new courthouse 
in Greenville.  In 1833, enough money was finally raised to begin construction. 7   The courthouse 
burned in 1858, allegedly due to arson; regardless of the cause, all of the cou nty’s ?ocuments 
except the land records burned. 8     
Other educational institutions followed with the Greenville Academy in 1814, the 
Greenville Male Academy in 1831, and the Greenville Female Seminary in 1840.  Education 
continued to be important throughout ?reenville’s ?evelopment.  ?n ???? the state of ?orth 
Carolina began to provide tuition - free public schools. 9   The Academy building also served as the 
                                                          
4  Mary Jo Jackson Bratton, Greenville:  Heart of the East (Windsor Publications, Inc., 1991 ), 22.  
5  Bratton, Greenville, 19.  
6  Cotter, Architectural Heritage, 21.   
7  J.H.H., Letters from Austin, Texas, to D.J. Whichard, and published in the Eastern Reflector, June, 1890 ; 
cited in Elizabeth H. Copeland (ed.), Chronicles of Pitt County, North Carolina ( Greenville: Pitt County Historical 
Society, 1982 ), 10 - 1 1.   
8  Bratton, Greenville, 27.  
9  Cotter, Architectural Heritage, 26.  
 
 
10  
 
Greenville Baptist Church.  The Greenville Baptist Church organized in 1827 and worshipped at 
the Acade my until 1833; then the congregation built its own sanctuary. 1 0    
In 1811, the Pitt County commissioners were authorized to raise money to build a bridge 
over the Tar River within the town limits, but  construction did not begin until 1823.  During 
1838 - 39, an ??ct for the ?etter ?e?ulation of the ?o?n of ?reeneville? prompte? a?vancement 
as it incorporated the electorate and gave them enhanced powers to govern.  In 1834, the Tar 
River saw its first two steamboats, the North Carolina and the Petersburg.  Flat boats, however, 
were cheaper, and not until 1849 did steamboats become practical.  Travelers utilized the landing 
in Greenville as a layover point in their journey.  They could take the plank road thirty miles to 
Wilson, chartered in 1850; then a railroad could take them farther.  By 1860, with approximately 
eighty white households, Greenville had outgrown its original boundaries and began to extend 
south and west along the plank road.  The town continued to grow slowly until the Civil War. 1 1  
 During the Civ il War, Pitt County did not fall under Union occupation, and no major 
battles were fought there, but a few isolated encounters did occur.  Union troops invaded 
Greenville on October 9, 1862 by way of steamboat.  The town surrendered and was swiftly 
plundered, before the soldiers left with hostages.  Union troops raided Pitt County and Greenville 
again on July 19, 1863, and attempted unsuccessfully to burn the Tar River bridge. 1 2    
The end of the Civil War presented Greenville, along with the rest of the coun try, the problem of 
an emancipated slave population.  In 1860, the population had included 825 whites, 15 free 
blacks, and 1,053 slaves.  Prior to the war, black worshipers could not preach or have their own 
exclusive churches.  During 1866 and 1867, the f irst black churches, the African Methodist 
                                                          
10  ?ohn ?eal ?olson? ??istory of Memorial ?aptist ?hurch? ?unpublishe? master’s thesis? ?ast ?arolina 
University, 1966 ), 11.  
11  Ibid., 23 - 2 4.  
12  Ibid., 30.  
 
 
11  
 
?piscopal ?hurch an? the ?ycamore ?ill ?aptist ?hurch? opene?.  ?lso? soon after the ?ar’s 
end, the Greenville African School was founded; it accepted both children and adults.  
Neighborhoods became segregated;  the black population lived on the northern side of town, near 
the river, and the white population in the southern section, below Fifth Street, and west along 
Dickinson and Fifth Streets. 1 3  
 F ire destroyed many buildings triggering the need for new construction.  A fire that 
destroyed a whole block on Evans Street in 1878 served as a catalyst for the brick - making 
industry, as brick was utilized in the rebuilding.  Work on a new county courthouse began in 
1861, but was not completed until 1878.  Yet another fire  struck the business district in 1896.  
Despite the installation of a cistern and the erection of a fire bell, another fire in 1899 wrought 
havoc on downtown Greenville.  14    
 By the late 1800s , Greenville was one of the most bustling cities in the state, e ven 
without the benefit of a large population. 1 5   The residential area spread from Washington, 
Greene, and Pitt Streets.  The business district developed from Water Street (it would became 
First Street) southward along Evans and Cotanche  Streets.  Artisans who set up businesses 
included carpenters, cabinetmakers, saddle makers, blacksmiths, wheelwrights, doctors, lawyers, 
tailors, painters, volunteer firefighters, mechanics, and barbers.  There were dress shops, brick 
makers and bricklayers, groceries, dry goods stores, a cotton gin, carriage factories, and 
newspapers.  Farmers, shippers, and merchan ts utilized warehouses.  In 1890  the first train 
arrived and created commerce and faster transportation. 1 6  
                                                          
13  Ibid. 
14  Ibid., 36 - 3 4 ; Cotter , Architectural Heritage, 9 - 1 0.  
15  ??orth ?arolina ?opulation of ?ounties by ?ecennial ?ensus? ??? to ????? ??ata base on line? 
( Washington: US Bureau of the Census); available from http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/  
cencounts/files/nc1900 9 0.txt ; Internet, accessed 11 July 2012.   The population for all of Pitt County in 1900 was 
30,889.  
16  Bratton, Greenville, 24 - 2 5, 365 - 3 6, 40.  
 
 
12  
 
 Local leaders recognized the railro a?’s ?orth an? ?ere ?uic? to try to capitali?e throu?h 
investments in businesses.  ?he ?iti?ens’ ?usiness an? ?n?ustrial ?ssociation? or?ani?e? in ???? 
and chaired by former governor Thomas Jarvis, appointed committees to attract businesses, as 
well as invest further in the tobacco industry. 1 7   Tobacco, an important cash crop, also had an 
effect on ?reenville’s ?evelopment. 
 As the price of cotton declined, the need for a new cash crop arose.  Tobacco filled that 
void.  Leon Evans grew the first commercial t obacco crop in Pitt County in 1886. 1 8   More 
farmers grew tobacco, and tobacco barns began to be built throughout Pitt County.  Even though 
cotton remained an important crop, tobacco brought in more money.  By 1891, R. J. Cobb 
opened the Greenville Tobacco W arehouse? savin? ?itt ?ounty’s farmers from havin? to haul 
their crops to distant markets. 1 9   Within the next four years, the Eastern Tobacco Warehouse, 
Planters Warehouse, and Star Warehouse opened, and a buyer for the American Tobacco 
Company relocated to  Greenville. 2 0    
 Greenville continued to progress economically.  Investors opened the first two banks:  the 
Bank of Greenville and the Greenville Bank. 2 1   In 1896 the first telephone exchange was 
established, and in 1900 it was bought by the Carolina and Vi rginia Telephone Company. 2 2   The 
tobacco industry continued to grow; in 1902 the Imperial Tobacco Company built a plant in 
Greenville. 2 3   ?ome local farmers also capitali?e? in ???? ?hen they or?ani?e? the ?armers’ 
Consolidated Tobacco Company, opened their own warehouse, and even expanded into other 
                                                          
17  Thomas A. Williams (ed.), A Greenville Album:  The Bicentennial Book (Greenville:  Era Press, 1974 ), 5.    
18  Cotter, Architectural Heritage, 11.  
19  Ibid., 12.  
20  Williams, A Greenville Album? ??.  ?annie Mae ?illey? ???itation ??ainst the ?merican ?obacco 
Company in North Carolina, 1890 - ?????? North Carolina Historical Review, XXIV (19 4 7 ), 207.  
21  Cotter, Architectural Heritage, 12.  
22  Williams, A Greenville Album? ??? ?ohn ?arth ?uncan? ??itt ?ounty ?otpourri?? Mimeo?raphe?? ????? 
1 6 2.  
23  ?. ?. ?en?ins ?comp.?? ??ie?in? ?reenville an? ?itt ?ounty ?ear the ?urn of the ?entury.?  
(Mimeographed, n. d.), 55.  
 
 
13  
 
cities.2 4   Municipal services were expanded; by 1907, Greenville had electrical service as well as 
waterworks, sewage, street improvements, and new public buildings. 2 5   Separate graded school 
systems were instituted for blacks and whites.  Sections of Evans Street and Dickinson Avenue 
received brick pavers. 2 6   The Norfolk Southern Railroad Company expanded its facilities by 
building separate passenger and freight stations. 2 7   A steel bridge replaced the wooden one ove r 
the Tar River. 2 8  
 The construction of East Carolina Teachers Training School had a major impact on the 
development and the population growth of Greenville.  Other towns were also considered for the 
school, but Greenville offered the most supplemental mone y.  The chosen site, which belonged 
to Walter H. Harrington, consisted of 47½ acres east of Greenville.  Ground was broken on July 
2, 1908.  The school started small, with only four buildings:  a combined administration and 
classroom building, a dining hall, and two dormitories. 2 9   Classes began in October 1909 and 
continue today, although the school is now known as East Carolina University.  While industries 
failed and agriculture declined, the school thrived.  It created jobs, and as the student population  
?re?? so ?i? the school’s impact.  T his impact continues to be felt today.   
Neighborhoods 
 Harry Skinner initiated the development of the first residential area in Greenville.  
Skinner, along with his business partner L. C. Latham, purchased fifteen acres of land west of the 
corporate limits from Tillman R. Cherry.  Residential construction bega n ?ith ??inner’s home 
on Fourth Street during the mid - 1800s.  In January 1882, H.T. Price surveyed the land and 
                                                          
24  Tilley, Bright Tobacco, 442 - 44 3.  
25  Cotter, Architectural Heritage, 13.  
26  Ibid.  
27  ?uncan? ??otpourri?? ???.  
28  Cotter, Architectural Heritage, 13.  
29  Ibid. 
 
 
14  
 
sectioned it off into individual lots.  Within three years, a number of other homes were built in 
the neighborhood.  Skinner auctioned off several lots in 1899, highlighting their proximity to 
downtown.  The neighborhood became known as Skinnerville, and is a mix of grand Queen 
Anne and colonial revival structures along with humble one - story cottages.  Skinnerville, also 
referred to as West Greenv ille, continued to grow through the 1910s and 1920s.  Many 
prominent businessmen and other professionals chose to build their homes in Skinnerville.  Third 
Street borders this neighborhood on the north, Fifth Street on the south, Pitt Street on the east, 
and Vance Street on the west. 3 0    
 By the end of the nineteenth century, Greenville was prospering as an important tobacco 
town, but failed to attract other industries due to lack of housing.  In March 1898, the Higgs 
brothers, Edward B., Jacob W., and Josep h S., purchased thirty acres of land next to the Atlantic 
Coast Line Railroad depot.  The brothers quickly surveyed the area and plotted it for the purpose 
of sale.  They also built their own homes in the Higgs neighborhood.  Other residential 
construction started after 1910.  The Higgses continued their endeavor by filing three more plots 
of land from 1910 through 1924.  The surviving early buildings in this neighborhood include 
large two- story homes, some built prior to 1910, along with quite a few one - story, wood frame 
cottages.  The most common house style in Higgs is the bungalow.  These homes range from 
large and elaborate to small and plain, reflecting the different income levels of the original 
owners.  Spruce Street borders this neighborhood on the north, Grand Street on the east, Broad 
on the south, and Watauga and Manhattan on the west. 3 1  
 The Central Business District grew as a mixed - use neighborhood; it contained residences, 
businesses, churches, and government buildings.  This neighborhood has go ne through many 
                                                          
30  Ibid., 39 - 4 0.  
31  Ibid., 63 - 6 4.  
 
 
15  
 
changes over the years with commercial development, the deterioration of buildings, 
government- supported redevelopment, and changes in stylistic preference.  Buildings were 
demolished and streets altered as the residential areas in this district gave way to commercial 
development.  Despite these changes, the Central Business District kept many significant 
structures intact.  Tobacco warehouses and processing facilities remained, along with many 
commercial structures.  A few remaining large - scale residences were adapted for other uses.  The 
town common on First Street borders this district on the north, Reade and Charles Streets on the 
east, Tenth Street on the south, and Albemarle and Pitt Streets on the west. 3 2       
College View was the last neighborhood built in close proximity to the downtown 
business district.  Prior to 1909, College View was farmland.  Although the neighborhood was 
adjacent to East Carolina Teachers Training School, people built their homes there to live close 
to the central business district, not the school.  The faculty and students of ECTTS lived in 
dormitories on campus.  Living within walking distance of the commercial and governmental 
center of the city ?as crucial? since every househol? ?i?n’t o?n an automobile. 
Cons truction began in 1910 on the north side of Fifth  Street and along the 400 block  of 
the intersecting streets.  The most striking homes in College View are located on Fifth Street.  
The majority were built between 1920 and 1930, although construction contin ued into the 1940s.  
The vast majority of homes are bungalows; there are also several colonial revival - style homes.  
The variety of house types, styles, and sizes reflect the different income levels of the residents.  
The first residents in 1926 included t he Cox family of 400 Student Street; Noah Cox farmed and 
his three children Marshal, Irma, and Wilma were students.  William Darden, an attorney and 
judge with the County Court House, lived with his wife Sarah at 402 Jarvis Street.  The widow 
Elizabeth Eva ns lived with her three children, Mattie, Nannie, and William, at 708 East Fourth 
                                                          
32  Ibid., 83 - 8 4.  
 
 
16  
 
Street; a student, Miss Ora Everett, resided with them.  Emanuel Gibson worked as a mechanic at 
122 West Fifth Street and lived with his wife Lucy within walking distance at 501 East Fifth 
Street.  Lannie Hall, of 502 East Fourth Street was an agent for the ACL Railway.  Sheriff Amos 
Jackson and wife Genevieve lived at 404 Student Street. 3 3   Third Street borders this 
neighborhood to the north, Lewis Street to the west, Fifth St reet to the south, and Holly and 
Summit Streets to the East.  
As of 2012 the College View Historic District is the only locally - designated historic 
district in Greenville.  Five neighborhoods are listed with the National Register of Historic 
Places.  These include, in order of nomination, the College View Historic District (1992), 
Greenville Tobacco Warehouse Historic District (1997), Greenville Commercial Historic District 
(2003), Skinnerville/Greenville Heights Historic District (2005), and Dickinson Avenu e Historic 
District (2007).  There are several non - contiguous National Register properties and local 
historical landmarks; few qualify as both.  Ten individual properties are currently listed on the 
National Register:   
1.  James L. Fleming House, built 1901 - 0 2  
2.  Pitt County Courthouse, built 1910 - 1911  
3.  Federal Building (Former U.S. Post Office), built 1913 - 14  
4.  J.R. Moye House, built 1903  
5.  Tobacco Warehouse District, built about 1900  
6.  Robert Lee Humber House and Grounds, built 1895  
7.  William H. Long House and Grounds, built 1917  
8.  Jones- Lee House and Grounds, built about 1890  
9.  E.B. Ficklen House and Grounds, built 1902  
10.  Oakmont House and Grounds, built about 1925  
 
There are currently twenty  local historic landmarks:  
1.  Robert Lee Humber House and Grounds, built 1895  
2.  Skinner Building and Grounds, built between 1845 and 1861  
3.  Skinner House and Grounds, built 1920s  
                                                          
33 Ernest H. Miller, compiler. Greenville City Directory Vol.II 1926-1927 (Ashville: Miller Press, 1926 ), 
127 - 1 2 9.  
 
 
17  
 
4.  Rotary Club Building and Grounds, built 1921  
5.  William H. Long House and Grounds, built 1917  
6.  Hassell - James (Owens) Building and Grounds, built around 1915  
7.  Third Street School and Grounds, built 1929  
8.  Jones- Lee House and Grounds, built early 1890s  
9.  E.B. Ficklen House and Grounds, built 1902  
10.  Patrick Arthur House, built about 1883  
11.  Glenn - Pender - Moore House and Grounds, built 1882  
12.  Jacob W. Higgs House and Grounds, built 1902 ?19 05  
13.  Sheppard Memorial Library, built 1930  
14.  Greenville Municipal Building, built 1939  
15.  Alfred M. Mosley House and Grounds, built 1915  
16.  Albion Dunn House and Grounds, built around 1915  
17.  King Simmons Lodge and Grounds, built 1925  
18.  Proctor Hotel and Grounds, built 1 912  
19.  Blount- Harvey Building, built 1923  
20.  ?harles O’?a?an? ?r. ?ouse an? ?roun?s? built ???? 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 3. COLLEGE VIEW NEIGHBORHOOD  
College View was the last residential neighborhood built within close proximity to the 
central downtown area, as well as the last built before the population grew after World War II.  
Today College View is the oldest residential area in Greenville that mai ntains most of its original 
structures.  Although not initially developed for the purpose of creating housing for East 
Carolina Teachers Training School  (ECTTS) , the area developed in conjunction with the 
evolution of the school into East Carolina Universi ty and now is home to faculty and students.  
College View has a mixed population of homeowners and renters, a large portion of the rental 
population being made up of students.  This area was in need of revitalization during the 1970s 
through the early 1980 s due to a lack of enforcement of building codes by the city, a multitude of 
university- owned properties in the neighborhood, the expectation of expansion of the university, 
an? ?absentee lan?lor?s?? o?ners ?ho ?i? not adequately maintain their property an d only show 
up at the first of the month to collect their rent checks.   
 Although not the norm, some of the early faculty and students lived off campus.  The 
college built a two- story home for its president on East Fifth Street across from the campus; the  
house was completed in 1914.  The president utilized it for domestic functions and entertaining 
other prominent citizens in the neighborhood.  As this home became the center for many 
community functions, a link formed between the school and the developing neighborhood. 1   In 
1923, the college contracted for  the construction of four duplexes , to house two families each, on 
the ??? bloc? of ?ast ?i?hth ?treet.  ?hese homes became ?no?n as ??aculty ?o??? an? ?ere 
demolished in 1970.  
                                                          
1  ??ational ?e?ister ?omination? ??reenville? ?.?.?  ?istoric ?reservation ?ommission? photocopie??? 
section 8, p. 6 - 7.  
 
 
19  
 
 In 1920 ECTTS began confer ring four- year degrees, and was renamed East Carolina 
Teachers College. 2   The emergence of the college continued to be reflected in the growth of the 
College View neighborhood during the 1920s and 1930s.  As enrollment grew and the campus 
expanded, so did College View.  The majority of the houses in the neighborhood were built 
between 1920 and 1930.  Two significant examples were the Pitt Community Hospital and the 
Rotary Club.  The Pitt Community Hosp ital was the first building constructed in Greenville 
specifically to be used for a hospital.  It was demolished in the early 1980s.  The Rotary Club is 
still standing. 3  
 During the 1930s and 1940s, new construction continued in College View but at a slower 
pace.  The neighborhood was filled in to the Tar River  from Johnston Street.  Fifth Street was 
extended east, away from downtown, and new cross - streets were added along Fifth Street.  One 
si?nificant buil?in? a??e? in ???? ?as ?t. ?aul’s ?piscopal ?hurch on ?ourth ?treet.  Residential 
structures built between 1910 and 1940 included examples of Colonial Revival, Craftsmen 
Bungalow, Italian Renaissance Revival, and Spanish Colonial Revival styles. 4  
 A small number of lots left vacant, most in the areas of earliest construction in the 
neighborhood near Fifth Stre et, were finally developed.  The quality of construction of these later 
additions to the neighborhood was substandard in comparison to the older homes.  The demand 
for rental properties increased with the expansion of the campus and the increase in enrollm ent; 
the dorms could not handle the larger student population.  Quite a few single - family houses were 
                                                          
2  Mary Jo Jackson Bratton, East Carolina University:  The Formative Years, 1907 -1982  (Greenville, East 
Carolina University Alumni Association, 1986 ), 153.  
3  Cotter, Architectural Heritage, 129.  
4  Ibid.  
 
 
20  
 
subdivided into apartments.  A group of students could also rent a house together, thereby 
leaving the house with its original floor plan. 5   
 In 1950 East  Carolina Teachers College was renamed East Carolina College.  Before this 
time the college offered a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Education; now it would offer a Bachelor 
of Science Degree in Education and a Bachelor of Arts degree for liberal arts candidat es. 6    
During the 1960s, sororities and fraternities purchased several large single - family houses. 
Currently Delta Zeta Sorority owns 801 East Fifth Street (the John B. Kittrell House, built 1923) 
and Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity owns both 505 East Fifth S treet ?the ?ev. ?elan? ?. O’?rian 
House, built 1923) and 406 Summit Street (the Clement Washington House, built about 1921).  
Sigma Sigma Sigma Sorority owns 803 East Fifth Street.  All four of these properties are in the 
College View Historic District.  Seven other properties outside of the College View Historic 
District are owned by fraternities and sororities.  With the increase of short - term renters and the 
large number of active sorority and fraternity members, the older houses have deteriorated.  On 
the other hand, owner- occupied houses have, by and large, been well maintained.  Although the 
student population living in College View increased during this decade, single - family owner/ 
occupants continued to live in the neighborhood. 7  
In 1969 East Carolin a College won a two - year battle to receive independent university 
status, and changed its name to East Carolina University  (ECU) .  By 1965 the College was made 
up of six schools; the Arts and Sciences alone contained seventeen departments.  The 
administration was also ready to assume the role of a university, including offering Ph.D. 
programs. 8   
                                                          
5  Ibid. 
6  Bratton, East Carolina University , 273.  
7  Cotter, Architectural Heritage, 129.  
8  Bratton, East Carolina University , 372, 398 - 3 99.  
 
 
21  
 
 Although College View continued to maintain most of its character during the 1970s, 
outside the neighborhood other properties were not so lucky.  Under the policie s of the 
Greenville Redevelopment Commission (RC), Greenville lost some significant historic 
properties to the demands of progress.  Comprised of mill housing and an African - American 
cemetery, the black neighborhood that stood between the Tar River and dow ntown was 
eradicated so the city could have a park.  The RC also turned a section of Evans Street into a 
pedestrian mall, and changed the layout of the streets that made up the Five Points area while 
?emolishin? ?several substantial early t?entieth- century commercial structures there, including 
the four- story trian?ular ?tate ?an? ?uil?in?? built about ????.?9  
 T he scope of destruction of historic properties encompassed the whole country not just 
Greenville, North Carolina .  ?he ?urban rene?al? movement un?ertook public projects funded 
through local and state legislation intended to revitalize aging and sometimes decrepit inner 
cities. The mass demolition followed by new construction displaced residents of these areas.  
Many structures that could have been repurposed were demolished for the sake of progress. 1 0   
In the last two decades of the twentieth century, College View sustained its desirability as 
a place to live an? raise a family.  ?he nei?hborhoo?’s pro?imity to ?ast ?arolina ?niversity 
continued to be a selling point for faculty, staff, and students alike.  With the increase in student 
population came an increase in problems with noise during the spring and fall semesters.  The 
Tar River Neighborhood Association took a role in trying to solve some of t he nei?hborhoo?’s 
problems. 1 1    
                                                          
9  Cotter, Architectural Heritage, 36 - 3 7.  
10  ??rban ?ene?al? ??ata base on line? ??hica?o? ?hica?o ?istorical ?ociety?? available from http://encyc 
lopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1295.html ; Internet, accessed 12 February 2012.  
11  Cotter, Architectural Heritage, 129.  
 
 
22  
 
By the late 1980s most of the property on campus had been developed, leaving little room 
for growth there.  Parking was already a big problem within the neighborhood, for both students 
that lived there and those who commuted from elsewhere in town.  By this time, ECU owned a 
number of large houses along the north side of Fifth Street, along with several other smaller 
homes and other buildings within the neighborhood.  The ECU properties within the College 
View Historic Distric t include:  601 East Fifth Street (the Proctor - Yongue House, built 1917); 
??? ?ast ?ifth ?treet? ?the ?illiam ?ay?oo? ?ail? ?r. ?ouse? also ?no?n as ?the ?hancellor’s 
?ouse?? built ????- ?????? ??? ?ast ?ifth ?treet ?the ????? ?resi?ent’s ?ouse? built ?????;  and 
???? ?ast ?ourth ?treet ??octor’s Office? built about ?????.1 2    
?he university’s e?istence ha?, by most definitions, a positive effect on Greenville.  ECU 
is intertwined with College View through the residency of faculty, staff, and students, as wel l as 
through ownership and use of several buildings.  Many residents of College View did not, 
however, want to see the university expand north of Fifth Street or gain control of any more 
residential properties. 
Dr. Eakin and the Board of Trustees recognize ? that the university’s success resulte? in 
its physical growth; it was, however, surrounded on all sides.  Up until this point, it had acquired 
properties, sometimes residential, as they became available to be used for various purposes.  Dr. 
Eakin initiat e? the Master ?lan ?teerin? ?ommittee to create a viable strate?y for ???’s 
expansion.  This committee worked along with several other consultants on this first plan.  
?nfortunately the first ?raft steere? the university’s ?ro?th north an? ?est into the e?isting 
residential neighborhoods. 1 3      
                                                          
12 ??ational ?e?ister ?omination?? ?e?istration ?orm.  
13  Inez Fridley, original member of Historic Properties Commission, interviewed by author, notes, 
Greenville, N.C., 12 December 2006.  At the time of the interview, Ms. Fridley was retired.    
 
 
23  
 
The original master plan for East Carolina University, developed in the  1980s and 
unveiled at the stadium in one of the box suites, included the intended spreading of the university 
north along Fifth Street into Colle ge View.  Many of the residents protested this proposal by 
puttin? si?ns in their yar?s that rea?? ??ave My ?ei?hborhoo??? ??ei?hborhoo? ?e?eneration?? 
or ????? ?ithin a circle ?ith a slash.  ?his threat from ??? helpe? to unite the resi?ents of 
College Vi ew along with residents down Fifth Street to the east.  Representatives from the 
neighborhood, led by attorney Tim Barber, gave a remarkable presentation to the ECU Board of 
Trustees to explain why the proposed plan was a wretched idea.  After the presenta tion the board 
voted unanimously against the plan. 1 4   
 In 1979 thirty percent of the structures within what would become the College View 
historic district were single- family, owner- occupied homes, and seventy percent were rental 
properties.  There were als o seven condemned structures in the neighborhood.  In the late 1980s 
and early 1990s the owner/renter ratio was fifty- fifty.  The value of these properties escalated 
during this time.  In 2007 the single - family, owner- occupied/rental properties were back t o the 
pre- designation ratio of thirty- seventy. 1 5   Unfortunately in 2012 the percentage of owner -
 occupied residences dropped to 23 percent; this percentage excluded apartment complexes. 1 6     
 Factors that made the College View neighborhood attractive to inves tors included the 
proximity to East Carolina University for students seeking off - campus housing that came to be 
?no?n as ??i??ie con?os?? ??i??ie con?o? ta? la?s? an? the presume? ?ro?th of the university 
north?ar? into the nei?hborhoo?.  ?he nei?hborhoo?’s proximity to the university is an obvious 
                                                          
14  Ibid.  
15  Ibid.  
16  Greenville GIS analysis of the T.R.U.N.A. area which included a statistical breakdown of the College 
View Historic District, 17 January  2012.  If apartment complexes were added to the data, own er occupancy drops to 
21 percent and rental rises to 79 percent.  
 
 
24  
 
attraction to faculty, staff, and students.  There is no need to purchase an expensive parking 
permit when it is convenient to walk, rollerblade, skateboard or ride a bike to campus.   
?he ??i??ie con?o? home loans, with applicable tax benefits, make it possible for parents 
to turn a profit, in terms of the housing cost, while boarding their children at college.  Parents 
purchased a house for their child to live in while they attended school.  They rented out o ther 
bedrooms to students.  The rent collected paid for the mortgage (perhaps with a surplus, 
depending on the amount of the rent).  The parents then wr ote off the mortgage interest and 
property tax, and possibly deduct ed part of the utilities and maintenance costs. 1 7    
Besides the parents of university students there were the usual speculative buyers. 1 8   They 
counted on the impending encroachment of East Carolina University and hoped to make a large 
profit when ECU offered to buy their property.  
The first steps toward the preservation of College View began during the 1980s with the 
renovation and rehabilitation of many of the homes.  Because of the location, the continued 
occupation, and the renovation efforts, the properties in this neighborhood were venerated more 
than those in Skinnerville and Higgs.  The residents of College View continued to be troubled by 
the condition of some of the properties, safety, and noise.  The real threat during this time, 
however, came from the university and its continued expansion. 1 9  
                                                          
17  ??o ?ee Mort?a?e? ??ata base on line? ??harlotte? ?an? of ?merica?? available from 
http://nofeemortgagep lus.bankofamerica.com/mortgage_experienced.html ; Internet accessed 26 March 2008.   
??i??ie ?on?o ?ome ?urchases? ??ate base on line? ??reeley? ?O? ?ome ?eam ?en?in??? available from  
www.hometeam- lending.com;  Internet; accessed 26 March 2008.   Buying a home for this purpose is risky 
considering the housing market and the irresponsible nature of teenagers; parents can easily overestimate the 
possible savings compared to room and boarding costs, the potential appreciation of the rental property, and their 
chil?’s capability of actin? as a lan?lor? especially if the property is purchase? far from the location of the o?nin? 
parents.  As with any housing market venture, there is also the possibility of financial gai n.  The student is not 
paying rent for four to five years but building equity.  If all goes well, a tidy profit can be made when the parents sell 
after their chil?’s ?ra?uation. 
18  Ibid.  
19  Cotter, Architectural Heritage, 129.  
 
 
25  
 
Coupled with the lack of maintenance on the part of the rental property owners was the 
failure on the part of the city of Greenville to enforce the building codes.  This lack of 
enforcement allowed the property owners to let their property deteriorate.  Some student tenants 
feared that if the landlords were forced to make the improvements to the properties their rent 
would increase.  The absence of building code enforcement can be attributed to the fact that a 
small, under- funded staff is responsible for monitoring not only College View but the whole city 
of Greenville.  The staff relied on complaints made by residents of the neighborhood, and then 
followed up on them as deemed appropriate. 2 0  
 The planners of the ne ighborhood did not design it to be a rental area.  The infrastructure 
was not there to support it, especially in regard to parking. 2 1   The initial development of the 
neighborhood took place between 1920 and 1950, and it had been intended for single - family 
occupancy.  Therefore, today, the houses, garages, and street curbs can comfortably 
accommodate one to two cars per house.  To make renting the houses to students profitable while 
keeping the rent affordable, a rental property needed to house at least three occupants.  The 
stan?ar? ten?e? to be four? ho?ever? ?espite ?reenville’s la? that limits unrelate? occupancy to 
three. 2 2   But even if each rental property housed three occupants, each with his or her own car, 
three cars per house is more than the planners of the neighborhood intended.  Commuters also 
utilized the neighborhood for parking.  A non - solution was to put gravel on or pave part of front 
yards to add parking spaces. 2 3    
                                                          
20  Wisemiller interview.  
21  Maury York , Librarian, Joyner Library, interviewed by author, notes, Greenville, N.C., 16 August 2006.  
22  ??ity Mana?er’s Office? ??ata base on line? ??reenville? ?ity of ?reenville? ?.?.?? available from 
http://www.greenvillenc.gov/departments/city_manager/information/default.aspx?id=437 .  Internet; accessed 15 
August 2009.  
23  York interview . 
 
 
26  
 
 Other problems associated with a high number of student - occupied rental properties are 
noise, trash, and general dilapidation in appearance.  Each of these problems has been ongoing 
ever since students began to live in the neighborhood.  These issues, however, have been 
magnified by the high percentage of rental properties, when at its peak was seventy percent.  The 
students who lived in the neighborhood, typically between the ages of eighteen and twenty- five, 
tended to play loud music and have lots of parties.  The students or the landlords, whoever 
happened to be responsible, did not tend to keep up the appearance of the yards, in terms of 
mowing and hedge trimming.  Some renters left their garbage cans on the street curbs all week 
long, rather than bringing them back up to the houses.  Students in the neighborhood also tended 
to be neglectful in picking up after themselves.  Yards, sidewalks, and streets were typically 
strewn with beer cans, paper and other forms of rubbish.  These problems have greatly degraded 
the appearance of the neighborhood. 24  
 Students have also vandalized ho mes in the neighborhood.  Maury York, a resident of the 
College View neighborhood since 1979, had his mailbox vandalized several times; he now straps 
it to its post by a bungee cord so that he can detach it and bring it inside his house on the 
weekends. 2 5   Blanch Jones, an elderly resident of the neighborhood in the early 19 90s, had many 
items both vandalized and stolen from her yard over the years.  Her front porch swing, two 
trashcans, and light bulbs from her overhead porch lights among other items, were stolen.  
Vandals also tore flowers up out of her yard and destroyed her birdbath.  They even attempted to 
steal two antique chairs from her front porch; luckily they were chained to the house.  26   
 Residents of College View, including members of the Tar Riv er Neighborhood 
Association (TRNA), who feared for the uncertain future of their neighborhood, decided to 
                                                          
24  Ibid. ;  The Daily Reflector (Greenville), 3 September 1992, A - 1, A - 7.  
25  York interview.   
26  The Daily Reflector (Greenville), 3 September 1992, A - 1, A - 7.  
 
 
27  
 
utilize historic preservation to help stabilize their neighborhood. National Register designation 
had been used successfully in other parts of the state and country.  Although there was no 
guarantee, results in other areas included an increase in property values, which could be 
attributed in part to the pride of having a distinguished property and security to invest in their 
property through maintenance and improvements. 2 7    
 With an increase in property values comes the possibility of neighborhood gentrific ation. 
Property owners and investors begin to renovate buildings that were once considered inadequate.  
Residents with poor economic means find themse lves having to sell their homes because of an 
increase in property tax.  Rent is increased and lower - income residents have a harder time 
continuing to afford to live in the neighborhood and have to move.  This was not the case in the 
College View neighborh ood in Greenville. 2 8  
 
                                                          
27  Donald Coffin, "The Impact of Historic Districts on Residential Property Values," Eastern Economic 
Journal , 15, no. 3 (198 9 ) : 22 1 - 2 2 8 .  ?Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in Georgia, A Study of Three 
Communities: Athens, Rome, and Tifton? [data base on line] (Atlanta: Historic Preservation Division of the Georgia 
Department of Natural Resources); available from  athensclarkecounty.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=291 .  
Internet; accessed 08 July 2012.   
28   Lauren Lambie- Hanson, "Historic Preservation as a Catalyst for Gentrification," Policy Matters , 5, no. 1 
(20 07 ) : 43 - 4 7 ; available from www.policymatters.net/issue ; internet; accessed 8 July 2012.  
 
 
 
CHAPTER 4. EARLY PRESERVATION EFFORTS IN GREENVILLE  
Title One of the  U.S.  ?ousin? ?ct of ???? initiate? ?urban re?evelopment? as a 
reconstruction policy.  The Housing Act provided funding for cities to purchase blighted areas 
an? turn them over to private ?evelopers to construct ne? housin?.  ?he term ?urban rene?al? 
came into popular use after the Housing Act of 1954, which made these redevelopment projects 
more appealing to developers by providing FHA - backed mortgages to home- buyers.  The people 
in these urban areas ?ere relocate?? since their nei?hborhoo?s ?ere ?eclare? ?slums? an? their 
homes demolished.  Urban renewal impacted cities all across the country; Greenville was just 
one example.   There were several concerned citizen s that ?ante? to protect ?reenville’s 
remaining historic structures.  Their initiative began the pre servation efforts in Greenville.  
The first major step toward historic preservation in Greenville was the establishment of 
the Historic Properties Commission in 1979.  During th e 1970s many historic buildings and 
structures were torn down in Greenville and there was no city authority to protect or even catalog 
them.  Eventually, some concerned citizens realized the extent of the loss.  The focus of the 
Historic Properties Commission was to identify historically significant properties and selectively 
save such properties, after establishing what was required for the preservation of these 
properties. 1    
Historic Properties Commission members, including Dick McCain and Inez Fridley, 
came to the conclusion that to meet their goals they would first need to conduct a survey of the 
built environment.  The Commission approached the Greenville City Council with a request to 
fund a survey of the historic resources in Greenville.  The city council agreed to fund the project 
and contracted Mrs. Kate Ohno to do the survey and write a report based on her research. 2    
                                                          
1  Fri dley interview. 
2  Ibid. 
 
 
29  
 
Mrs. Ohno received a graduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978.  She 
moved to North Carolina to do survey work in Rocky Mount and later in Wilson County.  Before 
she began the survey, Maury Yor k shared data with her that he had collected.  Mrs. Ohno 
performed a six - month windshield survey, interviewed many long- time residents of Greenville, 
and identified the areas that were still intact, significant, and worthy of designation, along with 
the most significant individual properties. 3   She recommended that the Courthouse Square 
District, the Dickinson Avenue/Tobacco Warehousing and Processing District, and the College 
View Neighborhood be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. 4   She also 
recommended that the E.B. Ficklen House, G.W. Baker House, J.R. Moye House, Agnes 
Fullilove School, and the Third Street School be nominated as individual properties.  She 
suggested the Skinnerville, Higgs, and College View Neighborhoods, along with Dickinson 
Avenue and the Courthouse Square be considered for local historic district designation. 5   One of 
the first thin?s the ?ommission ?i? after receivin? Mrs. Ohno’s report ?as to be?in to name 
individual properties, rather than look at creating a historic district. 6    
 One of the reasons individual properties, rather than the creation of districts, became the 
focus of the Commission was the process as a whole.  The property owners needed to be 
educated about what it meant to have a property listed on the National Register or deemed a local 
landmark.  Property owners often do not know about their rights, the restrictions on them, and 
their access to tax credits. 7   This can be a cumbersome process and it takes a while to get the 
support of the community.   
                                                          
3  Kate Ohno, Associate Editor, Yale University, interviewed by author, notes via email, 10 August 2009.  
4  Cotter, Architectural Heritage, ix.  
5  Ibid., ix - x.  
6  Fridley  interview.  Prior to this research two prominent Greenville properties were added to the National 
Register:  the Humber house on July 9, 198 1 and the Flemming house on July 21, 198 3.  
7  Ibid. 
 
 
30  
 
The establishment of the Greenville Area Preservation Association (GAPA) signified the 
secon? ma?or step to?ar?s preservation of ?reenville’s built environment.  ?s ?ith any 
preservation effort, the public needed to be involved and committed to the cause.  GAPA began 
organizing and recruiting concerned, like - minded individuals as a community organization in 
May 1980. 8   The first acting officers were:  Robbie Tugwell, President; Robert Swinson, Vice -
 President; Lawrence Brewster, Vice - President; Maury York, Secretary; Lee Goetz, Treasurer; 
and Nancy Meyer, Elizabeth Ross, Helen Parks, and Walter Faulkner, board members. 9      
 The first meeting was held on May 26, 1980 at the home of Robert Swinson.  Four items 
of business steered the discussion.  First,  Mr. Tugwell recounted his appearance on the television 
pro?ram ??arolina ?o?ay?  ?hich helpe? to promote their cause an? resulte? in a favorable 
response from interested local citizens.  Secondly, Association members debated the geographic 
scope of the or?ani?ation’s interest.  ?he members a?ree? they ?i? not ?ant to limit themselves 
to the city of Greenville, but that the first efforts of the organization should focus on the city.  
?hey ?eci?e? that the i?iom ??reenville ?rea? best ?escribe? the boun?aries they proposed.  
?hey ?iscusse? a name for their or?ani?ation an? conclu?e? the term ?association? best ?efine? 
their image and should be included in the vocabulary of the bylaws.  Lastly, they discussed the 
establishment of bylaws and agreed to model them after the Historic Georgetown County 
Foundation  in South Carolina ; and adapted as well as reworded the bylaws to be consistent with 
????’s specific ?oals.  ?hey also ?eci?e? to obtain le?al a?vice before finali?in? the ?raft. 1 0  
                                                          
8  A list of attendees at a meeting held on May 8, 198 0 called to ?ether to ??iscuss the possibility of startin? 
a preservation movement  in ?reenville?? inclu?e??  Marvin ?. ?lount? ?a?rence ?. ?re?ster? ?rances ?urns? 
Joseph W. Congleton, Polly Dail, A. E. Dubber, Martha Elmore, Mickey Elmore, Walter Faulkner, Betty Go etz, Lee 
Goetz, Reese Helms, Catherine Lang, Marjorie M. Little, Paul G. Little, Nancy Meyer, Alan Mobley, Helen M. 
Parks, Patricia G. Rice, Elizabeth G. Ross, Grace L. Ross, Ralph Scott, Susan Smith, Anne Suggs, Bill Stephenson, 
Marilyn Stephanson, Bob Swinson, Robbie Tugwell, Edith Walker, Sylvia J. Wheless, and Maury York. (List was 
included with minutes from said meeting.)  
9  The Daily Reflector (Greenville), 7 September 1980, A - 2.  
10  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.?  26 May 1980.)  
 
 
31  
 
 The most notable goals and  objectives suggested at the next GAPA meeting, on July 8, 
1980, were:  
? to give the people of Greenville a sense of identity; to educate them to recognize the 
architecturally and historically significant structures and places in the area. 
? to adjust zoning o rdinances and fire codes in ways that support preservation. 
? to identify, catalog, and mark such buildings and landmarks. 
? to encourage similar efforts in other communities such as Falkland, Farmville, Ayden, 
Winterville, Bethel, and Fountain.  
? to obtain and utilize information compiled by the Mideast Commission.  
? to raise money through specific activities and a membership drive; to use the money 
to undertake a project such as the restoration of a structure.  
? to undertake an old homes tour, possibly as part of a projected Christmas festival.  
? to enlist the aid of area civic groups in projects undertaken by the association.  
? to involve the Tar River Association in preservation efforts; to [identify] friends and 
enemies of preservation. 
? to work with and encourage the work of the Greenville Area Chamber of Commerce 
in the fiel? of preservation? to encoura?e the ?hamber’s use of an ol? house or 
structure for its headquarters.  
? to organize a task force to approach local government in an effort to change 
destructive tendencies of the past. 1 1  
 
Acting President Robbie Tugwell  stated that attorney Nelson Crisp had reviewed the proposed 
bylaws and was moving forward with efforts to incorporate GAPA.  The participants discussed 
the need for residences in the downtown area, the importance of the Jones- Lee House  (805 S. 
Evans Stree t)  an? the threat it ?as un?er? the nee? for ?a?aptive reuse of structures such as the 
ol? county home an? the ol? hospital?? an? the possibility of incorporatin? ?ith the ?itt ?ounty 
Arts Council rather than becoming a separate entity. 1 2   
In May 1980, East  Carolina University purchased the house at 901 E. Fifth Street for use 
as an Alumni Center.  This purchase was viewed by members of GAPA as an encroachment on 
the College View neighborhood by the university.  The university, however, viewed it as a sound 
investment in a 3,600 - square - foot building, located near the main campus entrance, which would 
                                                          
11  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.?  ? ?uly ????.? 
12  Ibid. 
 
 
32  
 
house the offices of Alumni Relations, Resource Development, and the Vice Chancellor for 
Institutional Advancement and Planning, Donald Lemish, along with a loun ge and a conference 
room.1 3    
Also in May 1980, the family of Robert Lee Humber donated the family home to the city 
and Pitt County to be used as Eastern office of the North Carolina Division of Archives and 
History. 1 4   The 15,755 - square - foot lot at 117 West  Fifth Street (Robert L. Humber House built 
1895) needed restoration.  GAPA decided to make this one of its goals and offered to raise 
money for the project. 1 5  
Soon afterward, in August 1980, the Jones - Lee House (completed between 1890 and 
1898), on Evans S treet, was in danger of being demolished.  Concerned, preservation - minded 
residents decided that they needed to act to save the building, along with the few other historic 
structures left in the area.  Mrs. Louise Lee sold the property to the City of Green ville in October 
1979.  The city planned to raze the house and sell the land for commercial development.  At that 
time, the house had been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. 1 6   
New officers and directors were elected to replace the acting o fficials that had directed 
GAPA since its inception.  By January 1981, GAPA had fifty active members. 1 7   They adopted 
the image of the Jones- Lee house as their official logo, as they believed it stood as a symbol of 
what they hoped to accomplish.  The Jones - Lee House had been listed on the National Register 
of Historic Places, and the Greenville Redevelopment Commission sold the structure to Lilly 
Richardson, a local realtor, who planned to restore it for use as her office building. 1 8    
                                                          
13  The ECU Report  (Greenville), May 1980.  
14  The Daily Reflector (Greenville), 25 May 1980, A - 1, 3.  
15  The Daily Reflector ( Greenville ), 22 January 1981 .  
16  The Daily Reflector (Greenville), 7 September 1980, A - 2.  
17  The Daily Reflector (Greenville) 22 January 1981.  
18  Greenville Area Preservation Association newsletter 7 January 1981.  
 
 
33  
 
By February 1981, memb ership in GAPA had grown to sixty.  The successful efforts with 
the Jones- Lee house encouraged the organization to believe in its ability to have a positive 
impact on the community.  Members spent many hours researching the homes in the upcoming 
April home  tour that would be part of the fund- raiser for the restoration of the Humber House. 1 9     
?he ?tour stops? on the ?erita?e ?our? a ?al?in? tour of historic houses near ?o?nto?n 
planned for Saturday, April 4, 1981, included:  #1) 313 W. Second Street (Alders on- Forbes 
House), #2) 1112 Dickinson Avenue (Higgs House), #3) 901 E. Fifth Street (Taylor - Slaughter 
Alumni Center), #4) 605 E. Fifth Street (Dail House), #5) 508 W. Fifth Street (Ficklen House), 
#6) 409 Elizabeth Street (Ficklen House, Brick), #7) 200 E. Fouth Street (Long House), #8) 422 
W. Fifth Street (Baker House), #9) 802 S. Evans Street (Flannigan House), #10) Pitt County 
Court House (Old Section), #11) Cherry Hill Cemetery, Pitt Street, #12) 408 S. Pitt Street (Flynn 
House), #13) 805 S. Evans Street  (Jones - Lee House), #14) 609 E. Tenth Street (Blount House), 
#15) 302 S. Greene Street (Fleming - Winstead House), and #16) 117 W. Fifth Street (Humber 
House). 2 0   At a cost of five dollars per person, or three dollars per person for groups in ten or 
more, this activity raised funds for GAPA while raising awareness of the historic properties for 
those that participated in the tour. 
?lso in ????? ?reenville’s ?ity ?ouncil a?opte? its first comprehensive an? lon? - range 
plan for the city’s physical ?evelopment.  ?his plan served Greenville well, but was outdated by 
the end of the decade.  In June 1989 the Planning and Zoning Commission appointed a 
committee comprised of fifteen, then later increased to sixteen, local residents with varying 
backgrounds.  This commit tee divided into six issue - specific groups included additional citizens 
                                                          
19  Greenville Area Preservation Association newsletter 26 February 19 81.  
20  Greenville Area Preservation Association information packet for individuals involved with the Heritage 
Tour , Bob Swinson Heritage Tour Committee Chairman. Number Eight is now on Martin Luther King Blvd., as that 
part of Fifth Street had its name cha nged.  The Daily Reflector ( Greenville) 20  February  19 81 , 3 . 
 
 
 
34  
 
(non - Comprehensive Plan committee Members).  The first major project was to mail a survey to 
1300 residents, representing two percent of the population.  The responses on the 419 surve ys 
that came bac? in?icate? that in ?eneral? ?people li?e livin? in ?reenville. ?hey feel their 
community is fairly attractive, that it has good recreation facilities, and that its natural resources 
are of fairly good quality. They believe they enjoy a hig h quality of life and there is a general 
consensus of what makes up a quality life or a quality community ? good schools, job 
opportunities? an? a healthy environment.?2 1   
In the fall of 1990 the committee held three public meetings, at which residents were  
encoura?e? to ans?er the ?uestion?  ??hat are the most important issues the ?ity shoul? be 
a??ressin? as it plans for the physical ?evelopment of the community??  ?hile many items 
mirrored the responses from the mailed survey, they also found that residents had concerns 
regarding their neighborhoods.  Neighborhood preservation and affordable housing were topics 
frequently raised at the public meetings. The residents wanted to create more natural areas by 
planting and preserving trees, landscaping, and creating greenways. These recommendations 
were built into the 1992 Horizons Plan , which included the preservation of neighborhoods. 2 2  
In 1988 two key events for preservationists occurred in Greenville.   In 1988, the 
Greenville Area Preservation Association reo rganized.  Under the new leadership of President 
Maury York and Vice - President Michael Cotter, their highest priority was to publish the 
architectural inventory of Greenville written by Kate Ohno in the early 1980s.  Michael Cotter, 
with the help of other GAPA members, edited and updated the manuscript, chose appropriate 
photographs, and organized an index.  GAPA sought permission from the city to renew copyright 
                                                          
21  ??ori?ons? ?reenville’s ?ommunity ?lan?? ?- 7, [data base on line] (Greenville, City Of Greenville, N.C.) 
available from  http://www.greenvillenc.gov/uploadedFiles/Departments/Community_ Development/Information/  
Planning_Division/Horizons%20Comprehensive%20Plan.pdf ; Internet; accessed 22 February 2012.  
22  Ibid.  
 
 
35  
 
privileges, and undertook a fund- raising campaign to pay the costs of publishing the research. 23   
They achieved this by publishing The Architectural Heritage of Greenville, North Carolina in 
????.  Members inten?e? the boo? to ?serve as an e?ucational tool ?as it? shoul? have particular 
value to neighborhood groups who may be interested in revitaliz in? or protectin? their area.?2 4    
In the preface of The Architectural Heritage of Greenville North Carolina, Michael 
?otter reiterate? the recommen?ations from Mrs. Ohno’s survey. Mr. ?otter recommen?e? the 
creation of National Register Districts and/or lo cal districts, including the College View 
neighborhood, the Central Business district, the Tobacco Warehouse district, and the Higgs 
neighborhood. 2 5    
After the publication of The Architectural Heritage of Greenville, North Carolina, the 
local preservation community followed up on these recommendations and persuaded the city to 
undertake another, more comprehensive historic properties survey.  With this, the selected areas 
could be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places and later have a local district 
overlay applied. 2 6  
   The landmark event for Greenville preservationists was the creation of the Historic 
Preservation Commission (HPC).  The HPC was established by the City Council in December 
1988 to protect the remaining historic properties in G reenville.  This was a momentous event for 
local preservationists, since it validated their cause and showed that the city itself sanctioned and 
promote? efforts to preserve ?reenville’s remainin? historic structures.  ?he ??? ?aste? no 
time and followed the recommendation outlined in The Architectural Heritage of Greenville, 
North Carolina to establish a National Register District for the College View neighborhood.  
                                                          
23  Greenville Area Preservation Association information packet for individuals involved with the Heritage 
Tour , Bob Swinson Heritage Tour Committee Chairman.  
24  Newspaper clipping no name or date early March 1988? (prior to the 17 th )  
25  Cotter, Architectural Heritage, ix - x.  
26  York  interview.  
 
 
36  
 
?ithin a ?eca?e citi?ens of ?reenville? ?ho ?ere concerne? over the loss of the city’s 
historic buildings and structures, were able to organize and establish the Historic Properties 
Commission .  They completed their initial goal to survey the remaining historic resources and 
prioritize which properties to focus on.  The formation of the Greenvill e Area Preservation 
?ssociation helpe? to reach out an? inform the public of ?reenville’s historically si?nificant 
structures and to raise awareness about the threat to these resources.  ?reenville’s ?ity ?ouncil 
adopted its first comprehensive plan for the city’s ?evelopment.  ?erhaps most importantly? 
GAPA published The Architectural Heritage of Greenville, North Carolina which would become 
the plan for historic preservation in the next two decades.  
  
 
 
CHAPTER 5. A SUMMARY OF THE TYPES OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION  
The material in the next several  pages is based on information from the National Historic 
?reservation ?ct.  ?he ?ational ?e?ister of ?istoric ?laces is the nation’s official list of 
buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts worthy of preservation for their significance in 
Ame rican history, architecture, archaeology, or culture.  The National Register was established 
by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.  A property listing on the National Register 
places no obligation or restriction on a private owner using private resources to maintain or alter 
the property.  A private owner of a National Register property is obligated to follow federal 
preservation standards only when federal funding or licensing is used in work on the property or 
if the owner seeks and receives a special benefit that derives from a National Register 
designation, such as a grant or a tax credit.   
The National Register listing means the following:  First, consideration and protection of 
public planning of all properties or districts eligible or listed on the National Register in the 
planning of federal undertakings, such as highways or community development block grant 
projects.  These include anything public or private that is licensed by or even partially funded 
with federal monies.  This holds t rue for projects licensed by or funded by the state, when the 
undertaking state is in conflict with the preservation of the National Register property.  The 
North Carolina Historical Commission  along with added members forms the State Professional 
Review C ommittee which then reviews each case to make recommendations to the state agency 
responsible for the undertaking.  The recommendations are advisory. 1  
                                                          
1  ?National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, As  amen?e? throu?h ???? ??ith annotations?? ??ata base on 
line] (Washington: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation); Available from  http://www.achp.gov/docs/nhpa%20 
200 8 - final.pdf.  Internet; accessed 17 May 2012.  ?N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 - 1 2 North Carolina Historical 
Commission .?  ??ata base online? ??alei?h? ?orth ?arolina ?e?islature?? available from aw.onecle.com/north -
 carolina/121 - archives- and- history/121 - 1 2.html .  Internet; accessed 8 J uly 2012.  
  
 
 
38  
 
The federal government provides certain incentives for the preservation of National  
Register properties i ncluding tax benefits es tablished under the Tax Reform A ct of 1986.  
Eligible income - producing, depreciable properties can qualify for up to a twenty - percent federal 
income investment tax credit claimed against the cost of a qualified building rehabilitati on.  
Rehabilitation costs must exceed or at least equal the adjusted basis of the building.  Plans for 
rehabilitation seeking to use the tax credits must be done in accordance with federal 
rehabilitation standards and be reviewed by the National Park Servi ce and the State Preservation 
Office. 2    
Another less significant incentive is the Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980.  This 
provides federal tax deductions for charitable contributions of partial interest, essentially 
easements, in historically significant properties for conservation or preservation purposes.  Grant 
and loan programs have been considered benefits of National Register listing.  There are limited 
matching grants for the rehabilitation of National Register properties including privately owne d 
structures.  This grant program was authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 
????? but has not been fully fun?e? since the early ????s.  ?n ?orth ?arolina? it ?oesn’t e?ist? the 
state does not have any grant funding.  A loan program was au thorized by the Preservation Act 
of 1966, but was never funded by Congress.  There are similarly no North Carolina grant or loan 
programs at the present time for National Register properties.  
A nomination to the National Register of Historic Places has to come from the State 
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) of the state in which the property is located, the Federal 
Preservation Officer for properties under federal jurisdiction, or the Tribal Preservation Officer 
for properties on tribal land.  Anyone, h owever, can prepare the nomination.  The section within 
                                                          
2  Ibid. ??ational ?istoric ?reservation ?ct of ????? ?s amen?e? throu?h ???? ??ith annotations?? ??ata 
base on line] (Washington: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation); Available from 
http://www.achp.gov/docs/nhpa%20 200 8 - final.pdf.  Internet; accessed 17 May 2012.  
 
 
39  
 
that division that administers the register program is the Archaeology and Historic Preservation 
section, also called the State Historic Preservation Office.  Nominations are sent to a state review 
board consisting of professionals in American history, architectural history, prehistoric and 
historic archaeology along with other related fields. The review board then makes its 
recommendation to the SHPO.  In North Carolina, this review board is called th e North Carolina  
Historical Commission .  It meets quarterly in January, April, July, and October, to deliberate on 
the eligibility of properties applying for register nomination.  Nominations prepared under the 
supervision of the State His toric Preservation Office staff and approved by the review committee 
are forwarded to the keeper of the National Register within the National Parks Servic e in 
Washington, D.C., which  has the final authority for listing all properties.  The decision to list  the 
nominated property or district is made between fifteen and forty- five calendar days of the receipt 
of nomination.  Once the property is listed, the State Historic Preservation Office will notify the 
owner and provide a certificate. 3  
Property owners wa nting to have plaques for display can order them from private 
commercial suppliers; these are not provided by the state or federal government.  In some 
National Register Districts, the communities mark their districts with neighborhood district 
plaques, si gns, or differentiated street signs.   
Properties are nominated on the basis of their ?significance in American history, 
architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, 
structures, and objects that possess integ rity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 
feeling, and association and 
                                                          
3  ??o? ?istoric ?roperties ?re ?iste? ?n ?he ?ational ?e?ister Of ?istoric ?laces? ??ata base on line? 
( Raleigh: North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office); available from  http://www.hpo .ncdcr. gov/how.htm; 
Internet; accessed 21May 2012.  
 
 
40  
 
a)  That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 
patterns of our history; or  
b)  That are associated with the lives of persons signifi cant in our past; or  
c)  That embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or 
that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a 
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; 
or 
d)  That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or 
history.?4  
The level of significance must be substantiated in the nomination.  Approximately 
seventy percent of the National Regis ter properties in North Carolina are listed at th e local level 
of significance. 5    
Under federal law, privately owned structures may not be listed in the National Register 
over the objection of the owner, or, in the case of multiple owners, over the object ion of a 
majority of owners.  A district may not be listed in the National Register over the objection of a 
majority of owners of private properties within the proposed district.  Private owners supporting 
the nomination are not required to submit a statem ent of endorsement.  Any private owner or 
partial owner that objects to listing must submit a notarized statement certifying they are a sole 
or partial owner of the property and that object to the listing, to the State Historic Preservation 
Office.  When t his happens, the SHPO is required to submit the nomination to the National 
Register for the determination of eligibility with the National Register.  If the property or district 
                                                          
4  ??ational ?e?ister ?valuation ?riteria? ??ata base on line? ??ashin?ton?  ??visory council on ?istoric 
Preservation); available from www.achp.gov/nrcriteria.html ;  Internet; accessed 10 July 2012.  
5  ??acts an? ?i?ures.?  http://www. hpo.ncdcr.gov/nrfacts.htm. . 
 
 
41  
 
is determined eligible for listing but not formally listed, it will be treated as a listed property or 
district for the purposes of federal undertakings in the environmental review process. 6  
The National Register listing does not actually regulate properties; no restrictions are 
placed upon an owner of a National Register property o r one within a National Register district.  
If changes are made to the property and it loses its historic integrity or significance, it will also 
lose its place on the Register  if a subse?uent process referre? to as ??elistin?? is complete?.  
Clarification  of the distinction between a National Register Historic District and a local historic 
district must be addressed here.  Local historic designation is unrelated to the National Register; 
it can, however, be given in addition to a National Register designat ion or without it.  A Local 
Historic Preservation Commission does have legal authority to tell a person what they can and 
cannot do to a property that is designated a local landmark or is within a local historic district.  
 A North Carolina enabling statut e allows local governments to create local historic 
preservation commissions and designate both local historic districts and local landmarks.  The  
purpose of this is to protect the special character of the districts and the landmarks.  
 This regulation has limits; the preservation commission cannot keep a property owner 
from razing a building unless it has statewide significance.  The commission can only delay 
demolition for a year in order to work with the owner to save the structure.  T he commission 
cannot review the use of the building, only its appearance.  To guide the property owners and 
commission members in choosing appropriate changes and avoiding inappropriate ones, each 
preservation commission is responsible for creating a set of design principles and guidelines 
applicable to structures under their jurisdiction.  Historic preservation commissions must 
recognize that change is inevitable and important to the vitality and evolution of a district.  
                                                          
6  ?Procedure  ?or ?upportin? Or Ob?ectin? ?o ?ational ?e?ister ?istin?? ??ata base on line? ??alei?h? 
North Carolina State Histori c Preservation Office); available from http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov / object.htm; Internet; 
accessed 21 May 2012.  
 
 
42  
 
Design review is not meant to prevent a property owner from making changes; the changes just 
have to be approved.   This process is meant to insure that  the property will still retain the 
characteristics of the district.  Benefits include community recognition, stabilization and inflation 
of property values? an? the protection of the property o?ner’s investment in his or her property 
from improper changes to neighboring properties that might impact the value of surrounding 
properties. 7  
?he commission’s revie? of propose? chan?es ensures that work on a property in the 
district is appropriate to the historic character of the area.  The Greenville Historic Preservation 
Commission (HPC) has adopted design guidelines 8  as its criteria to judge appropriate changes.  
These design guidelines are made available to all property owners of the district so they may use 
them to plan possible projects.   
 A local historic district is actually a zoning overlay, and property owners  have the 
opportunity to object  but do not have veto power.  The city council alone has the authority to 
establish a local historic district.  The intent of establishing the local historic district is to keep 
the integrity of the properties.  The HPC acts as a review board.  When a property owner wants 
to make a change to the property, he or she applies for a Certificate of Appropriateness.   
 Each owner in a designated district is required to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness 
from the HPC under any o f three circumstances:  
1)  before making significant exterior changes or additions to a property,  
2)  before beginning new construction, or 
                                                          
7   ?Local Historic Property Designations In North Carolina:  Historic Districts And Landmarks And The 
Hist oric ?reservation ?ommission? ?ata base on line? ??alei?h? ?orth ?arolina ?tate ?istoric ?reservation Office?? 
available from http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/localdes.htm ; Internet; accessed 21 May 2012 . 
8  Design Guidelines Handbook, prepared by the Greenville Historic Preservation Commission and the City 
of Greenville Department of Planning and the Community Development Strategic Planning Division, November 
????? ??ity of ?reenville ?istoric ?istrict an? ?ocal ?an?mar? ?esi?n ?ui?elines? ??ata base online? ??reenville? 
City of Greenville, NC); available from http://www.greenvillenc.gov/depa rtments/community_developmen t/inform  
ation/default.aspx?id=1575; Internet accessed 16 May 2012.  
 
 
43  
 
3)  before demolishing a structure.  
The procedure for obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness in North Carolina is as 
follows.9   The homeowner must submit the application for the certificate to the Planning and 
Community Development Department at least fifteen days before the next regular scheduled 
meeting.  The application must include sketches, drawings, specifications, photo graphs, and 
descriptions of the proposed project.  The commission has sixty days to respond to the 
application.  At the meeting, the chairperson swears in anyone who has a statement to make 
concerning the project.  The chairperson also gives a statement ab out the application and 
arguments are presented.  The chairperson summarizes the event and the commission deliberates 
and votes.  If the commission finds it necessary, it may hold a public hearing concerning the 
application.  If the proposed change is not consistent with the local guidelines and is deemed not 
to retain the character of the district, the application is denied.  The property owner must then 
come up with a plan that meets the guidelines, or abandon the project.  The property owner, 
however, has the right to appeal to the Board of Adjustment.  If the property owner does not find 
relief from the Board of Adjustment, the matter goes to the court system.  The inspections 
department enforces the regulations and issues the notice of violation to the property owner, and 
the neighborhood is unofficially monitored by the residents. 
 A distinction needs to be made between major works and minor works.  Plans for both 
have to be reviewed to have a Certificates of Appropriateness issued.   In some cities, such as 
Greenville, minor works are delegated to the local administrative staff.   Major works include 
additions, renovations, new construction, and demolitions.  The work can be on the building 
                                                          
9  ??an?boo? for ?istoric ?reservation ?ommissions in ?orth ?arolina? ??ata base on line] (Raleigh, 
Preservation North Carolina and State Historic Preservation Office Division of Archives a nd History North Carolina 
Department of Cultural Resources) available from http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/hand book.pdf ; Internet ; accessed 16 
May 2012.   Local procedures may deviate some from this source but they must be consistent with the state enabling 
statute. 
 
 
44  
 
itself or on other structures on the property, such as walls, fences, light fixtures, steps, pavement, 
signs, landscaping, and utility structures.  Minor works include almost all routine maintenance 
and repair work, along with the removal of storm doors and windows, diseased trees and 
noncontributing structures. 1 0    
 Wh y would a property owner want to live in an historic district?  There are several 
significant benefits:  
1)  Local designation is an honor, indicating that the community believes that the homes and 
other structures in the district deserve recognition and special protection.  
 
2)  Local historic districts have proven to be a very successful neighborhood revitalization 
tool in many neighborhoods across the state and nation. 
 
3)  Historic district zoning can help stabilize or improve property values by maintaining or 
reestablishin? a nei?hborhoo?’s ori?inal character. 
 
4)  It protects a property owner from inappropriate changes that might destroy the special 
qualities of the neighborhood.  
 
5)  Most importantly, especially for an area like College View, this protection often gives 
citizens the confidence they need to invest  or reinvest in a neighborhood. 
                                                          
10  Ibid. p.3,6.  
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 6. CREATION OF THE FIRST NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC 
DISTRICT IN GREENVILLE  
The Greenville Historic Preservation Commission took the first step toward the creation 
of its initial National Register District in Greenville, the College View Historic District, when the 
city funded a second, more detailed study of the historic properties in the College View area.  
The Division of Archives and History provided a grant to the city  to complete this survey and to 
prepare nominations.  The Division of Archives and History served as grant administrator.  The 
city contracte? ?cott ?o?er? at that time ?ssociate an? ?onsultant for ??istoric ?reservation 
?onsultin?? from ?reenville? ??? to research and prepare the survey for the city, it also initiated 
a schedule. 1   The city received guidelines from the Division of Archives and History; the 
Commission never had discretion to draw boundaries or to select specific buildings  but it could 
indeed make recommendations.2    
The problems that Mrs. Ohno had identified in her report still existed when Mr. Power 
conducted his survey and unfortunately continue to be experienced in 2012.  Mrs. Ohno had 
identified, for example, the problem of investors buy ing houses for the purpose of renting; she 
saw this as dire and warned that the neighborhood would have to face it in the future.  She had 
also predicted that East Carolina University would try to take over some sections of the 
neighborhood by purchasing homes to tear down and replace with its own structures. 3        
In March 1991, GAPA and the HPC organized public activities for Historic Preservation 
Week which included lectures and home tours.  Reid Thomas,  Preservation Specialist for the 
                                                          
1  Scott Power, R egional Supervisor/Preservation Specialist , North Carolina State Historic Preservation 
Office, interview by author, notes, Greenville, N.C., 9 August 2006.  
2   ?Greenville Area Preservation Association minutes ,? ??reenville? ?.?.?  ?? ?eptember ????.? 
3  Fridley  interview.  
 
 
46  
 
North Carolina St ate Historic Preservation  Office, presented a slide show.  A city exhibit 
displayed photographs with captions detailing locally designated properties. 4   
As the Historic Preservation Commission endeavored to move forward with the process 
of nominating a large portion of College View to the National Register of Historic Places, an 
obstacle arose.  ???’s ?hancellor ?ichar? ?a?in re?ueste? a postponement of the hearin? by the 
State Professional Review Committee, which decided whether applications for the Nation al 
?e?ister ?ere rea?y to be submitte?.  ?r. ?a?in appointe? members from ???’s faculty an? 
staff, including Dr. Mary Jo Bratton, University Historian and Chair, to the Advisory Committee 
on Historic Buildings.  The charge of this committee was to advise D r. Eakin on the proposed 
?ational ?e?ister ?omination? to revie? an? ma?e an evaluation of ???’s historic properties to 
be included in the nomination, and produce a report by November 1, 1991. 5    
Although a National Register Designation would not bind ECU to any regulatory 
compliance, a local historic district designation would.  A bureaucratic structure such as a public 
university might reasonably hesitate to allow another layer of oversight applied to its institution.  
At this time only the National Regis ter Designation was being considered, but Dr. Eakin  had the 
foresight to consider the consequences of a zoning overlay.  
E ??’s buil?in?s? li?e all ?orth ?arolina o?ne? buil?in?s? ?ere alrea?y sub?ect to a 
rigorous review process for any construction or renovation by the State Construction Office.  The 
state level review already established offered at the least as much protection to the buildings as a 
local historic district commission could offer.  How  they differed was that at the local level 
historic aesthetics were taken into consideration.  Dr. Eakin considered going through a local 
                                                          
4  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.?  ?? March ????.? 
5  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.? ?? ?u?ust ????.? 
 
 
47  
 
review process in addition to the state review all ready required to be redundant and 
unnecessarily time consumin?.  ?he ?tate ?onstruction Office ?carries out its responsibilities by:  
1)  processing cost estimates and contracts relating to construction or renovation of state 
buildings;  
 
2)  review and approval of all plans and specifications for the construction or renovation of 
state buildings;  
 
3)  supervision of the letting of all contracts for the design, construction or renovation of 
state buildings;  
 
4)  inspection and acceptance of all work done and materials used in the construction or 
renovation of state buildings;  
 
5)  conducting assessments of state facilities to identify deficiencies and  
 
6)  provi?in? a?ministrative an? technical support to the ?tate ?uil?in? ?ommission.?6  
 
?everal of ???’s campus buil?in?s ?ualifie? ?ithin the boun?ary of the propose? ?olle?e ?ie? 
Histo ric District.  These buildings included:  the Jarvis Dormitory, built 1908/1909; the Mamie 
E. Jenkins Building, built 1909; the (Old) North Cafeteria (also known as the Refectory), built 
1909; the Fleming Dormitory, built 1922/1923; Ragsdale Hall, built 19 23; the Whichard 
Building, built 1923; the Cotten Dormitory, built 1925; the Wright Building, built 1925; the 
Messick Theatre Arts Building, built 1927; the Graham Building, built 1929; the Spilman 
Building, built 1930; the Infirmary (Student Health Center ), built 1930; and the Flanagan 
Building, built 1939.   
Some members of the Historic Preservation Commission viewed this postponement as an 
attempt by the Chancellor to delay action of the HPC.  The motivation behind why the 
Chancellor decided to raise the se issues in August 1991 was questioned by some members of the 
                                                          
6  ??tate ?onstruction Office? ??ata base on line? ??alei?h?  ?orth ?arolina ?epartment of ??ministration?? 
available from http://www.nc - sco.com/default.aspx ; Internet; accessed 21 May 2012.  Dr. Richard Eakin, Chancellor, 
East Carolina University, interviewed by author, notes, Greenville, N.C., 29 November 2006.  
  
 
 
48  
 
HPC.  Dr. Eakin had previously received information provided by the Commission on the 
structures and had been asked in November 1990 about his stance on the nomination.  This 
potential setback made members question whether they would have to eliminate the ECU 
properties from the nomination, causing the need for a major revision to the nomination which 
would require additional revenue from the city.  Members decided to postpone the public 
meeting for the College View nomination until November 12, 1991. 7   
Between August 27 and September 24, 1991, several informal and unofficial meetings 
with GAPA members took place that included Richard A. (Dick) Edwards, Executive Assistant 
to the Chancellor.  Ano ther meeting included Greg Hassler, Assistant University Attorney.  The 
purpose of these ?as to ?et a clear un?erstan?in? ?of the ?niversity’s perspective an? e?press to 
them the ?ommission’s ?esire to ?eep the communication open an? to loo? for every opportunity 
to ?or? to?ether on the pro?ect.? 8     
During this period, the Advisory Committee on Historic Buildings met with the Master 
Plan Steering Committee, along with several other consultants, to develop a master plan, with 
consultants from O’?rien an? ?tkins.  This plan was the first developed by the university. 9   The 
Master ?lan is the blueprint for the university’s ?ro?th.  ??? ac?uire? properties? sometimes 
residential, for various purposes as they became available. 
The biggest area of contention betw een the Historic Preservation Commission and the 
representatives of the university was the inclusion of the thirteen properties south of Fifth Street.  
Dr. Bratton explained to the members of the Historic Preservation Commission that the Advisory 
Committee  on Historic Buildings intended to examine the thirteen historic buildings to determine 
which of them were of historic significance and required preservation.  Dr. Bratton assumed 
                                                          
7  I bid .  
8  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.?  ?? ?eptember ????.? 
9  I bid . 
 
 
49  
 
some of the buildings had structural problems.  In regards to the restoration of the buildings, she 
continued:  
Certain requirements cause some problems in terms of upkeep.  There are 
so many complex issues.  It seems simple on the map to say yes these are the 
historic buildings and we will draw a line around them and put them in the 
historic district.  You are really dealing with the entire university and all of its 
programs.  What starts out looking very simple could be complicated.  One of the 
problems we are dealing with is when the legislature will provide funds for 
restoration of the historic buildings.  The committee needs to study the buildings 
to see what type of restoration would be involved.  No other administration in 
recent history has put as much emphasis on the care and restoration of [the] 
campus to make it look good and historically valid.  Dr. Eakin has been sensitive 
to the appearance and to the restoration of the buildings. 1 0  
Commission members were concerned about the deadline for the project and how the 
a??itional research by the university’s staff ?oul? impact their schedule.  After the consultant 
incorporate? the state’s comments an? su??estions into the pro?ecte? ?ational ?e?ister 
nomination, the official involvement of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History 
would end.  The nomination was returned  to the community of Greenville for a sixty - day review 
period, during which HPC and the Division of Archives and History held public hearings.  The 
university’s comments nee?e? to be submitte? to the ?ivision of ?rchives an? ?istory by mi? -
 October, to be i ncorporated before the final copy of the application went before the Professional 
Review Committee. 1 1  
Under the administration of Dr. Eakin, ECU had taken measures to preserve its historic 
appearance.  ?hrou?h the ?ampus ?eautification ?ommittee? ?r. ?a?in’s vision to enhance the 
architectural and landscape characteristics of ECU was realized.  The removal of storm windows 
from the ?hancellor’s ?esi?ence? althou?h an easy chan?e? effectively chan?e? its appearance. 1 2   
                                                          
10  I bid.   
11  I bid.  
12  The windows were replaced with energy efficient replacements.  
 
 
50  
 
?arvis ?all’s tile roof ?as replace?? in keeping with the original construction.  In terms of new 
construction, Dr. Eakin wanted new buildings designed with the theme of the old buildings.  A 
couple of examples were the Joyner Library addition and the Todd Dining Hall.  Dr. Eakin also 
believed in the importance of the lan?scape an? ?oul?n’t allo? trees to be cut ?o?n ?ithout his 
permission.  An urban forester from North Carolina State University came to ECU periodically 
to evaluate trees that the groundskeepers thought needed to be removed, and gave 
recommendations to the Chancellor. 1 3      
Although Dr. Eakin was at odds with the HPC in terms of the inclusion of historic 
properties on the main campus in the National Register, one cannot deny he promoted 
preservation for ECU.  Preservation, however, c an mean different things to different people.  
?efore ?r. ?a?in’s arrival at ??? in ????? the ol? ?ustin ?uil?in? ?locate? rou?hly on the site 
of the Fine Arts Building) had been demolished.  Members of the staff and alumni felt that the 
cupola previously on top of the Austin Building was a symbol of ECU.  Dr. Eakin managed, with 
the help of donors, to have a replica of the old Austin cupola built out of concrete and erected in 
the quadrangle. 1 4   Also, in this vein of preservation, the free - standing columns located at Joyner 
Library were saved from the building that had been located on that site.  They were then 
reconstructed to serve as a free- standing entrance to the courtyard.  
The principal points of discussion during the Historic Preservation Commission meeting 
of October 22, 1991, were questions of ECU and how to finalize the draft for the proposed 
nomination.  The Commission considered different options for the nomination.  The best - case 
scenario included the contested thirteen ECU properties.  Another option, suggested by Dr. 
William Price, Jr. head of the Division of Archives and History, was to move forward with the 
                                                          
13  Eakin Interview.  
14  This recreation is approximately three times the size of the original cupola.  Detractors of the cupola see 
it as an eye- sore and not an act of preservation. 
 
 
51  
 
nomination ?ithout inclu?in? those thirteen properties.  ?ic? ???ar?s? the ?hancellor’s 
executive assistant, attended the meeting to fiel d any questions from the commission in regard to 
???’s stance on the nomination.1 5  
Mr. Edwards reminded the members that the university had continuously been in favor of 
including all of its properties north of Fifth Street (off campus).  Mr. Hassler, the A ssistant 
?niversity ?ttorney? spo?e on the point of ?bureaucratic entan?lements.?  ?e referre? to the 
??ministrative ?o?e of ?orth ?arolina an? ho? it spo?e to the ?or? ?effect? resultin? in 
?multiple? multiple levels of revie? ?hich ?e believe ?oul? entan?le us?.?o our entan?lement 
that we perceive would occur would be both in terms of management of the properties as well as 
the resources of the re?uirements? ?money? an? of? the time? involve?.  ???’s buil?in? ?ere 
already under strict guidelines for their management by the state which inherently kept them well 
maintained for the uses of the university.  An additional layer of bureaucratic review would 
lengthen a process that it already thorough.  The agenda and priorities of the neighborhood and 
the university were different. 1 6  
HPC moved forward with the nomination, excluding the properties south of Fifth Street, 
for fear of losin? momentum an? the public’s interest.  ?y the en? of the meetin?? the motion to 
instruct the consultant on finalizing the nominati on of the proposed district, including the 
properties north of Fifth Street, the Fifth Street right - of- way and the trees alongside the sidewalk 
on Fifth Street, carried by a vote of ten for and two against. 1 7  
?he ?istoric ?reservation ?ommission’s ?ublic ?nformation Meeting, on December 3, 
1991, drew a large crowd since it represented the culmination of the preservation efforts of the 
late 1970s.  The Public Information Meeting was held in two distinct segments.  The first portion 
                                                          
15  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.?  ?? October ????.? 
16  I bid.  
17  I bid.   
 
 
52  
 
included two presentations, one by Peter Sandbeck from the Division of Archives and History 
an? one by ?cott ?o?er.  Mr. ?an?bec?’s presentation inclu?e? ?eneral information about the 
nature of the nomination process ?hile Mr. ?o?er’s presentation ?as more specific to the 
College Vi ew nomination and summarized its contents.  The citizens in attendance had the 
opportunity to ask questions in an informal exchange.  The second part of the meeting included a 
hearing;  the public comments became a formal part of the record. 1 8  
Mr. Sandbeck, by law, made his presentation orally; he could not just distribute packets 
of information.  He explained the National Register process:  what it was, meant, and implied.  
He explained that the property or district must contain enough of its historic, physi cal character, 
and architectural features to represent its historic period and association adequately.  Mr. 
Sandbeck concluded his speech by addressing the procedure for supporting or objecting to 
National Register listing.  Owners who objected to the list ing were encouraged to submit their 
statements before the meeting on January 9, 1992, with the State Professional Review 
Committee when the nomination would be considered.  Statements of objection could be 
submitted and be counted up until the actual date of listing.  If the majority of private property 
owners objected, the property or district would not be listed.  19     
Melinda Wall, Preservation Planner with the State Historic Preservation Office, 
introduced Scott Power, who had worked on the nomination.  He began his presentation by going 
over the administrative aspects that Mr. Sandbeck had described.  Next he gave a brief overview 
                                                          
18  ?Greenville Area Preservation Association minutes? ??reenville, N.C.:  3 December 1991 .)  Commission 
members present included Dr. Dennis Chestnut, Ms.  Louise Duncan, Ms. Dawn King, Ms. Karen Vail - Smith, 
Melinda Wall, Ms. Mildred Williams, and Ms. Janis Wooten.  Mildred Council attended as Council R epresentative.  
Staff members present included Ronald Kimble, City Manager; Marvin Davis, Assistant City Manager; Andrew 
Harris, Director of Planning and Community Development; Donald Belk, Environmental Planner; and Sandy 
Sanderson, Secretary.  Also in at tendance were Mayor Nancy Jenkins, Councilmember Inez Fridley, Architectural 
Historian Scott Power, and Peter Sandbeck.  Citizens who spoke at the meeting included Mr. Martin Cooper, Ms. 
Catherine Darby, Mr. Gregory Hassler, and Ms. Rebecca Wartman.  
19  I bid .   
 
 
53  
 
of some of the note?orthy historical characteristics of the community’s ?evelopment? ?hich set 
College View apart from the ot her neighborhoods in Greenville.  He then described the 
architectural character of the district. 2 0    
Mr. Power asked everyone to look at a neighborhood map.  Copies were included in the 
informational packets as well as hung on a wall, so everyone would be clear on the boundaries of 
the district.  The College View district was recognized for its significan ce at the local level, and 
for its planne? ?evelopment an? architectural character. ?t containe? ?reenville’s lar?est 
concentration of early- twentieth- century resi?ential architecture an? represente? the ?ity’s 
growth and development as an educational hub for central eastern North Carolina. College View 
was significant because it represented a well- preserved assortment of mostly residential 
structures built between 1910 and 1941, including examples of Colonial Revival, Craftsmen 
Bungalow, Italian Renaissanc e Revival, and Spanish Colonial Revival structures.  He showed 
slides of houses in the neighborhood to illustrate his point of architectural characteristics.  Mr. 
Power also pointed out other notable characteristics of the neighborhood, including granite s treet 
curbs, concrete sidewalks, and mature trees. 21  
Lastly, Mr. Power discussed the architects who had contributed directly to the 
nei?hborhoo?.  ?lthou?h most of the houses ??ere built by local contractin? firms? there ?ere 
several local and area architects ?ho ?ere active in the ?esi?n of the nei?hborhoo?.?  ?. ?. 
Johnson designed the Dr. Paul Fitzgerald House (1203 East Fifth Street).  G. Murray and 
?homas ?. ?ooper of ?alei?h ?esi?ne? ?t. ?aul’s ?piscopal ?hurch ?hile ?. ?. ?est of 
Greenville designed Rotary Club building. 2 2    
                                                          
20  I bid.   
21  Chapter Two of this thesis discusses the development of College View.  
22  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville, N.C.:  3 December 1991 .)  
 
 
54  
 
At this point the public information segment of the meeting concluded.  Mr. Belk swore 
in those who planned to make public statements.  The first of these was Mr. Martin Cooper, who, 
although elated that the nomination process had finally reached this point, was disappointed that 
his property was not included in the nomination and hoped that at some point it could be 
included.2 3    
Ms. ?artman? of ??? ?tu?ent ?treet? ?as very please? ?ith the ?ommission’s ?or? an? 
proud that they had reached this stage in the nomination process.  She, however, also shared her 
disappointment in ECU for not allowing the inclusion of the buildings on the main campus, and 
hope? ?that as soon as the lon? ran?e plannin? is ?one ?the university? ?ill inclu?e those 
buil?in?s in the nomination as an a??en?um or a separate ?istrict.?2 4  
?r. ?a?in’s main concern about puttin? ???’s structures on the ?ational ?e?ister ?as 
?hether or not bein? on the re?ister ?oul? ?inhibit our ability to ma?e chan?es to the buil?in?s 
as ?e thou?ht mi?ht be necessary to a?vance the e?ucational aims of the institution.?2 5   Mr. 
Hassler, the Assistant University Attorney, introduced himself, announcing:  
 I appear before you this evening on behalf of Chancellor Dr. Richard 
Eakin in support  of the proposed nomination of the College View neighborhood 
and the listing in the National Register of Historic Places.  The University 
commends the Commission for its vision and for its efforts to realize vision to 
brin? reco?nition to the ?ity’s historic resources?.Your  vision as evident by this 
nomination process involves your efforts to preserve, restore, and maintain the 
historical environment of our city.  The university shares this vision and proudly 
supports the inclusion of five of its properties in the nomination:  the William Dail 
?ouse? ?he ????? ?resi?ent’s ?ouse? the ?aylor- Slaughter House, the Howard 
?ouse? an? the ?octor’s Office on ?ast ?ourth ?treet.??s most of you are a?are? 
the ?niversity is currently bein? assiste? by O’?rien ?t?ins in the preparation of 
a master plan for the campus, the first in its history.  The consultant, which has 
demonstrated a sensitivity to preservation issues, has recognized the number of 
older buildings on the campus of aesthetic and historic significance and should be 
preserved, maintained, and cherished by the University.  In the spring the 
                                                          
23  I bid.  
24  I bid.   
25  Eakin interview.  
 
 
55  
 
consultants will provide the Chancellor with recommendations regarding the 
significant and historic buildings that should be preserved and protected on the 
campus.??he ?niversity looks forward to its continuing role as a partner, a 
cooperative partner in your efforts to bring your vision of historic preservation for 
the College View neighborhood into the clearest possible focus. 2 6  
The last person to comment was Catherine Dar by, who was not only resident of the 
neighborhood (406 Student Street) but also President of the Tar River Neighborhood 
Association.  She commended the members of the Historic Preservation Commission for their 
diligent efforts.  Ms. Darby wanted to go on record on behalf of other residents of the 
neighborhood as well as the members of the TRNA.  She continued:  
 I am very sorry that cooperation did not go all the way down the line on 
some buildings that were excluded from this nomination.  I hope eventually they 
?ill be inclu?e??.? feel li?e ?ast ?arolina ?niversity has abro?ate? part of their 
responsibilities to the greater community at large in not being more cooperative.  I 
do hope in their long range planning they will so see fit to include the properties.2 7   
  At this point the public hearing was declared closed.  Ms. Wall made a motion that, the 
HPC having examined and discussed the nomination of the College View Historic District and 
concluded the properties met the criteria for listing in the National R egister of Historic Places.  It 
recommended that the nomination be submitted for listing.  The Commission approved the 
motion unanimously.   
College View Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on 
March 19, 1992.  At the ti me of its nomination, the College View Historic District included 343 
contributing and fifty- one non- contributing properties. 
                                                          
26  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville, N.C.:  3 December 1991.)  
27  I bid.   
 
 
 
CHAPTER 7. CREATION OF THE FIRST LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT IN 
GREENVILLE  
After the unanimous vote to nominate for the College View to the National Register of 
Historic Places, the next step was having College View zoned as a local historic district.  
Everyone involved, from the City Council to the individual residents, would have to be notified 
by the Commission.  This project was viewed as the real challenge, since it would directly affect 
the private property owners. 1   The biggest obstacle was decidi ng whether or not to include the 
?niversity’s properties north of ?ifth ?treet that ?ere inclu?e? in the ?ational ?e?ister 
nomination. 
The HPC needed to rewrite the information from the National Register nomination into a 
narrative form; it had to submit i ts report to the Division of Archives and History, which then, it 
was hoped, would approve it.  The Commission did have to go before the Planning and Zoning 
Commission.  The local district would be an overlay zone, but an ordinance would need to be 
drafted that followed the new statutes.  An historic district definition would be added and would 
plainly reference the ordinance and amend the official zoning map. 2   After the HPC reviewed 
and approved the ordinance, it would be given to the City Council for app roval.  No public 
meeting would be needed; the public would get a chance to speak at the City Council meeting.  
Because the Commission planned to use the same boundaries as the National Register District, 
there was already documentation to support each contributing structure.  The Commission was 
required to inform the property owners to what they could expect from having their properties in 
a local historic district; meetings would be set up to explain the benefits of the designation, and 
HPC members would speak to neighborhood associations.  The Commission printed a brochure 
                                                          
1  Ibid.  
2  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? (Greenville, N.C.:  25 February 1992.)  
 
 
57  
 
that explained what local historic designation meant.  It was also recommended that the 
Commission establish advanced political support from City Council. 3  
The Historic Preservation Com mission nee?e? to create a ?Design Guidelines 
?an?boo??? since that would be the document that the public would scrutinize.  It was expected 
that some property owners would be strongly opposed to local designation, so the Commission 
should begin to educate the residents to combat opposition.  If there had been controversy over 
the local designation, it could have dragged on for years. 4   This  was not the case in Greenville . 
By May the College View Local District Committee, a subgroup within the Historic 
Pres ervation Commission, had met once and come up with a couple of tentative ideas for the 
district.  The Committee recommended inclusion of some additional blocks in the local district 
and exclusion of all state - owned structures. 
The HPC suggested categorical ly exempting the ECU buildings, drawing boundaries that 
excluded them.  The HPC thought exclusion would be the best move for political reasons.  The 
opposition ECU had raised over the inclusion of the campus buildings south of Fifth Street 
during the Natio nal Register nomination process had made an impact on the College View Local 
District Committee.  It believed additional confrontation should be avoided.  Members thought 
the University would find the inclusion of its off campus properties north of Fifth S treet in a 
local district threatening.  If those properties were excluded, the Committee members thought, 
the local district would have a better chance of moving forward without opposition.  But this 
would mean not following the original National Register boundaries, and Mr. Don Belk warned 
                                                          
3  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.?  ?? ?anuary ????.? 
4  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.?  ?? ?ebruary ????.? 
 
 
58  
 
the HPC that it would be opening the door to challenges from private property owners if 
??ou?hnut hole type boun?aries? ?ere allo?e?.5  
By June, the College View Local District Committee had a better idea of its options i n 
regard to the question of ECU and the local historic district.  Mr. Belk received a reply from the 
NC Institute of Government pertaining to zoning issues.  The Institute of Government wrote that 
the HPC could not leave out properties from the local histo ric district based on ownership.  It 
recommen? that the ?niversity’s properties be inclu?e? in the ?istrict.  ?he ?ommission mi?ht 
have a reason to exclude the brick office building on Fourth Street, since it was not historically 
or architecturally significant? but the ?hancellor’s home ?as one of the most si?nificant 
structures in the district.  The HPC had no good reason to exclude it.  The enabling legislation 
also said that the HPC could regulate state - owned properties.  There was no exemption from 
local review of a property in a local zoning district. 6   ???’s properties must be inclu?e? in the 
district.  
By July the City decided to follow the Horizons Comprehensive Plan and move forward 
?ith the ?esi?nation of the ?olle?e ?ie? ?ocal ?istrict.  ???’s master plan had encouraged the 
preservation of the core campus buildings.  The impact the local overlay district would have on 
East Carolina University revolved around the possibility that it would be denied a Certificate of 
Appropriateness.  Should that happ en, it could appeal to the State Historic Commission. 7   This 
was precisely the type of additional bureaucratic layers that Dr. Eakin adamantly said he wanted 
to avoid during the National Register nomination process.    
?he topic of the ?niversity’s properties in the local district rose again at the September 
HPC meeting.  Mr. Kimble, the City Manager, supported local designation and that goal was part 
                                                          
5  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.?  ?? May ????.? 
6  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.?  ?? ?une ????.?  
7  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.?  ?? ?uly ????.? 
 
 
59  
 
of the ?ity’s comprehensive plan.  ?r. ?a?in ?i? not ?ant university buil?in?s sub?ect to local 
review.  Th e bottom line, however, was there was no reasonable way to leave out the 
?niversity’s properties? ?oin? so ?oul? leave the ?ity open to le?al action from anyone else ?ho 
?i?n’t ?ant their property inclu?e?.  Mr. ?imble hope? to chan?e the ?hancellor’s min?.8  
 The University stood firmly against inclusion of its buildings in the local district.  Dr. 
Eakin made his attitude clear in letters dated August 19 and September 21, 1992 both sent to Mr. 
Kimble, and carbon copied to Dr. Mary Jo Bratton, Gregory Hassle r, and Richard Edwards.   
 An excerpt from the letter of August 19 reads:  
 As to the proposed local historic district, the University must undergo 
complex and burdensome processes when contemplating any construction and 
renovation projects upon its existin g properties.  Inclusion in a local historic 
district involves additional reporting and reviewing requirements even if the 
University wanted to do minor work upon a property located in an historic 
district.  For example, it is my understanding that should uncertainty exist as to 
whether a certificate of appropriateness should issue for the installation of an 
exterior lighting fixture on a University property included in the district, the 
Commission could if it chooses, give advice concerning the impact of t he 
proposed fixture on the historical and visual characteristics of the property.  
Moreover, if the Commission deemed it necessary, it may even conduct a public 
hearin? of the ?niversity’s ?ualification for the certificate to install the fi?ture. 
 In view of the additional burdens that would be imposed onto the 
University, it is our position that every appropriate measure will be taken to 
ensure that University properties are completely excluded from the proposed local 
historic district.  If University prop erties are not proposed as part of the district, 
then we will remain mute on the issue.   
 I feel it necessary to add that of far greater concern to those of us who are 
eager to see the College View Neighborhood District enhanced is the continuing 
rate of deterioration of so many properties within the District.  We do not see the 
proposed historic zoning district as a panacea for the problems of the district but 
rather as an aspect of the total picture.  Again, we want to work with the City and 
with the Com mission in helping to bring the reversal of current trends. 9  
                                                          
8  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.?  ?? ?eptember ????.? 
9  Letter from Richard Eakin Greenville, N.C. to Ron Kimble 19 August 1992.  
 
 
60  
 
 Mr. Belk sent a memorandum, dated September 3, 1992, in response to the Historic 
Preservation Commission and carbon copied it to Marvin Davis, Assistant City Manager; 
Andrew Harris, Director of  Planning and Community Development; and Libby Anderson, Senior 
Planner.  An excerpt reads:  
 Please be advised that the city will continue discussions and pertinent 
information- sharing between the three aforementioned agencies, and shall strive 
for a successful effort to designate College View as a local historic district.  We 
are taking the following steps:  
o continue to meet with University officials to discuss the minimal 
impact of minor works;  
o clarify the review process undertaken for renovation and construction 
of state- owned properties with and without local district designation;  
o seek advice from the NC Institute of Government and others 
concerning the exclusion of state - owned properties in a historic 
district;  
o gather information from other commissions, city staff persons, and 
universities about the administration of local historic districts that 
include university  properties; and  
o assess the impact of local district designation on municipal and 
university operations an? ?to?n- ?o?n? relations.?1 0  
   
Dr. Eakin stood firm citing the University had been consistent and clear in its position 
towards the National Register and local zoning districts. 1 1   ECU and i ts properties continued to 
be a concern throughout the next year.  The HPC knew that if a local distri ct were to come to 
fruition? ???’s properties ha? to be inclu?e?? so the commission move? for?ar?. 
 By October 1993, Dr. Carl Swanson, Francine Rees, Dr. Dennis Chestnut, Frank 
Wartman, John Anema, and Council member Inez Fridley had formed the College Vie w Strategy 
                                                          
10  Memorandum from Donald Belk, Environmental Planner, Greenville, NC 3 September 1992.  
11  The letter dated Septe mber 21, 199 2 cites:  a letter from Dr. Eakin dated June 3, 199 1 from which Dr. 
?ichar? ?a?in accuses the ?ommission of ta?in? out of conte?t ?in a historic ?istrict? to synonymously mean 
??olle?e ?ie? ?ocal ?onin? ?istrict? ?hen it ?as only inten?e? to mean the ??ational ?e?ister ?istoric ?istrict?? 
a letter he wrote dated August 5, 199 1; he also sites Historic Preservation Minutes dated October 21, 199 1, August 
??? ????? ?une ??? ????? an? ?u?ust ??? ???? for ?a more accurate rea?in? of the ?niversity’s position on the whole 
notion of a ?historic ?onin? ?istrict’?.  
 
 
61  
 
Committee.  The purpose of the committee was to determine the best way to approach the 
Planning and Zoning Commission and how to rally support for the local district among residents 
of the neighborhood. 1 2   
  Two years after the 1991 meeting when they voted to approve the National Register 
Nomination, the HPC was ready to vote to nominate the local district.  At its meeting of 
December, 1993, the HP C announced that all questions and concerns about the zoning district 
would be addressed.  Mr. Frank Wartman, President of the Tar River Neighborhood Association 
described why the designation would be important to the College View Neighborhood.  He 
pointed out that the percentage of owner- occupied residences was on the decline, and the rental 
owners were more interested in profits than keeping their property in good condition.  He 
believed that the zoning would help maintain the neighborhood by raising property values and 
creating pride among the homeowners. 1 3  
 College View had been listed on the National R egister; local designation was the next 
step.  The purpose of the zoning was to protect the special character of the districts and the 
landmarks.  To guide the property owners and commission members in making appropriate 
changes and avoiding inappropriate ones, the preservation commission created a set of design 
principles and guidelines.  The HPC approved the district and decided to move forward on its 
local designation. 
 All the hard work of the members of the HPC, TRNA, GAPA, and other individual 
likeminded preservationists who wanted the College View Neighborhood to get local historic 
district status culminated on January 18, 1994.  On this date the HPC brought before the 
Greenville Planning and Zoning Commission the request to establish a historic distr ict overlay 
                                                          
12  ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.?  ?? October ?????.  
13   ??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.? ?? ?ecember ????.? 
 
 
62  
 
zone for the College View Historic District.  If the Zoning Commission approved this proposal it 
would be taken before the Mayor to be signed into law, if disapproved, it could still be 
considered by City Council .  The City Council viewed the e stablishment of this district as a 
priority, since it had been made a part of the Horizons Plan. 1 4  
 Those who spoke in favor of the zoning believed: 1 5   
 It would help protect the area from dilapidated homes and give absentee 
owners an incentive to maintain their homes?.?t is a ?ay to protect the 
neighborhood from becoming a slum with dilapidated homes, and it would 
re?enerate interest in the nei?hborhoo??.?t ?oul? be ?oo? for ?o?nto?n 
revitali?ation?.?he area has charm an? shoul? be preserve?. 1 6  
 Those who spoke against the zoning expressed the following opinions.  17   Mr. Mark 
?o?ar? believe? that ?there are city or?inances to re?ulate some of the concerns ?such as? 
?ilapi?ate? homes? ?an?? par?in? on property??an? he ?i? not li?e the i?ea of? havin? to obtain 
permission to ?o repairs to his home.?  ?e supporte? a historic ?istrict but not the current one.  
Mr. Michael ?aa? state? that ??he ???? is a select boisterous ?roup an? that they ?on’t 
necessarily represent the entire community.? ?e also ha? mis?ivin?s about getting a Certificate 
of Appropriateness, and believed it would delay a project by two or three months.  Dr. James 
?mith? representin? the ?niversity’s interests? reporte? that ???’s ?oar? of ?rustees ha? vote? 
against the proposal to include the six properties in the proposed district.  He asked that the 
properties be excluded from the historic district and, if the City should decide to include the 
properties? it ?oul? initiate a ?ritten a?reement ?ith ???.  ?his ?oul? e?empt ?the ?niversity 
                                                          
14  ??reenville ?lannin? an? ?onin? ?ommission minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.? ?? ?anuary ????.? 
15  Mr. Donald Belk spoke as the Environmental Planner; Ms. Karen Vale - Smith represented the HPC; Mr. 
Frank Wartman represented TRN A; Mr. Don Edwards spoke as a downtown small businessman; Mr. Bill Baker 
(103 Rotary Drive), Mr. Bill Grubb (405 S. Eastern Street), Mr. John Anema (802 River drive) spoke as a residents 
within and just outside of  the district; Mr. Lyman Ormond represented Jarvis Memorial Crurch; and Ms. Catherine 
Darby spoke as a member of TRNA.  
16   Ibid.   ??reenville ?lannin? an? ?onin? ?ommission minutes? ??reenville? ?.?.? ?? ?anuary ????.? 
17  Mr. Mark Howard (100 S. Harding Street) and Mr. Michael Saad (301 S. Eastern Street) spoke as 
residents of the district and Dr. James Leroy Smith, who was the Executive assistant to Chancellor Richard Eakin, 
represented ECU.  
 
 
63  
 
from all applicable municipal regulations with respect to erection, alteration, restoration, 
movement or ?emolition of e?terior portions of such buil?in?s.?1 8   
 In the end, the motion to approve the historic district overlay zone carried with only one 
vote against.1 9   All of the structures that were in the original National Register District, including 
???’s buil?in?s? ?ere inclu?e? in the local historic ?istrict.  On ?ebruary ??? ???? Mayor 
?ancy ?en?ins si?ne? ?Or?inance ?umber ??- 22 -  Amending Zoning Ordinance to  include 
provisions for the ?? historic ?istrict overlay ?one?? an? ?Or?inance ?umber ??- 23 -  
establishin? a historic ?istrict overlay ?one for the ?olle?e ?ie? ?istoric ?istrict.?2 0   ECU has to 
follow city law and get a certificate of appropriateness if it needs to make changes to the 
properties that are in the local historic district. 
 
                                                          
18  Ibid.  
19  Dr. Marlene Springer, ECU Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, voted against the motion.  
20  ?Or?inance ?o. ??- 2 2 An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Greenville, North 
?arolina?? an? ?Or?inance ?o. ??- 2 3 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Greenville Zoning Territory 
Located within the Planning and Zoning Jurisdi ction of the ?ity of ?reenville? ?orth ?arolina.? 
 
 
CHAPTER 8. COLLEGE VIEW POST - DESIGNATION AND ADDITIONAL 
PRESERVATION EFFORTS  
 From the beginning of the preservation process in 1979 to 2012, College View went 
through many changes, but ended up about where it began.  The most significant cyclical 
outcome is that the percentage of rental properties is now back to what it was in the late 1970s.  
It would have been unrealistic to expect that College View would ever be 100 percent owner -
 occupied, but as it stands at 23 percent, the quality of life for those occupants is greatly 
influenced by the high percentage of student renters. 1   Noise, pollution, and parking continue to 
be blights on the neighborhood.   
 One of the chief benefits of o wning a building within a National Register District is the 
tax credits for making improvements to the property.  The federal tax credits, established in 
1976, provide for up to a twenty percent credit for the qualifying rehabilitation of income 
properties.  Since 1998, North Carolina has provided an additional tax credit of up to twenty 
percent for the rehabilitation of income- producing properties, and up to a thirty percent tax credit 
for non- income- producing properties.  The property owners in College Vi ew, however, have 
rarely taken advantage of this benefit.  As of 2012, only six properties have been improved under 
these policies. 
The first property, and so far the only income - producing one, to claim the credits was 409 
South Harding Street (the Judge F ordyce Cunningham - Harding House).  In 1993 the owners 
converted it from a boarding house to a rental property and claimed $70,000 in tax credits.  Non -
 income- producing structures can qualify for a state tax credit of up to thirty percent.  The Futrell -
 Blow- Smith House (1105 Johnston Street), qualified for $59,000 in 1998 - 99. The house at 408 
                                                          
1  Greenville GIS analysis of the T.R.U.N.A. area which included a statistical breakdown of the College 
View Historic District, 17 January 2012.  If apartment complexes were added to the data, owner occupancy drops to 
21 percent and rental rises to 79 percent.   
 
 
65  
 
South Harding Street was rehabilitated and qualified for $59,000.  The Lyman - Ormand House 
(408 Rotary Avenue), underwent repairs from 2001 through 2003 and qualified fo r $43,474.  402 
South Harding Street qualified for $100,000 in 2006. The most recent and most expensive 
qualifying rehabilitation project was 903 East Fifth Street, which was completed in January 2012 
and qualified for $280,000 in credits.  2  
 The other eff ects of the National Register of Historic Places district designation is harder 
to quantify.  Property values have risen city - wide.  Investors wanting to cash in with rental 
properties aimed at ECU students have driven up prices.  Speculative investors, ho ping that ECU 
will expand north and want to purchase their properties, have had an impact on the property 
values in the neighborhood.   
 In recent years considerable apartment construction has been aimed at students of East 
Carolina University. 3   These apa rtments have all the amenities students want.  Besides being new 
and clean, many offer free wireless internet service, timely maintenance, manicured lawns, 
swimming pools, gyms, and lower rent per tenant.  One such complex, North Campus Crossing, 
has a 98 percent rental rate to ECU students.  North Campus Crossing is located at 3800 Bostic 
Drive and is about four and a half miles from ECU, located north - east of the campus; it is an 
estimated eight minute drive.  The amenities include three swimming pools, t wo hot tubs, five 
tanning beds, indoor basketball courts (including full, half, and quarter courts), one indoor 
volleyball court, sand volleyball courts, and a clubhouse with pool table, theater room, computer 
room, conference/study room, aerobics room, an d Nautilus - style weight and cardio room. 4   The 
                                                          
2  Tax Credit F iles, Eastern Branch of the State Historic Preservation Office, Greenville, NC.  
3  East Carolina U niversity is the largest institution of higher learning in Eastern North Carolina; it is the 
third largest university in North Carolina. With a Fall 2010 enrollment of 27,816  students, it is the fastest growing 
campus in the University of North Carolina  system from 2004 - 2 0 1 0.   
4  ??esi?ent ?esources? ??ata base on line? ??reenville? ?orth ?ampus ?rossin??? available from 
www.northcampuscrossing.com; Internet; accessed 12 February 2007.  
 
 
66  
 
tenants rent their individual bedrooms, so they do not have to locate roommates to occupy the 
space.  All of the units have sprinkler systems.  Rent includes water, sewer, internet, cable, and 
electricity. 5   T his facility along with many of the others is convenient to downtown Greenville, 
and is on an ECU bus route.  Other complexes like North Campus Crossing are in development.  
Residents of College View hope these new apartment complexes will attract students  away from 
renting within the College View neighborhood. 6   
 When College View was being considered for nomination to the National Register of 
Historic Places, student renters feared the cost of rent would rise and push them out of the 
neighborhood.  This f ear of gentrification has not been realized.  The staff of the Inspections 
Division of the Public Works Department monitors and enforces the building codes for all of 
Greenville, not just the College View District.  It is understaffed with limited resource s and 
investigates neglect as it is reported. 7   Although some people have taken advantage of tax credits 
to improve their property while others have just made improvements without that benefit, there 
have been no major district - wide renovations.  Rental pr operties greatly outnumber owner-
 occupied ones, and it stands to reason that the owner of a rental property would not put that kind 
of monetary investment into a rental property.   
Although it takes rental property owners a little longer than it did in the  past to find 
groups of students to rent the properties, they do manage to find renters. 8     If rent has increased 
faster than the cost of living, the increase probably has more to do with the inflated property 
values an? the investors’ ?etermination to make their purchase profitable than it does with the 
house being a National Register property.  
                                                          
5  Ibid. 
6  Fridley interview. 
7  Wisemiller interview.  
8  York interview.  
 
 
67  
 
?urin? ?resi?ent ?linton’s eight years in office (1993 - 2001), one of his initiatives was to 
raise the percentage of homeownership in the United States.  Affordabl e loans were needed to 
facilitate home ownership within groups who had been either renters or living in government 
subsidized housing.  The influx of new potential homeowners increased the demand for homes 
which in turn was a catalyst for property values to increase. 9   Table 8.1 examines the property 
values of six random properties within the College View Historic District.  The valueh of each 
property increased at each assessment.  This does not appear to be strictly the result of being a 
part of a Nationa l Register District as property value steadily rose outside of the district, as 
illustrated in table 8.2.  
Table 8. 1  Rep resen tativ e Prop er ties w ithi n College View Historic Distri ct 1 0  
 
Address  
 
1988 Value  
 
1996 Value  
 
2007 Value  
  
2012 Value  
 
 
311 S Eastern 
Street (built 1931)  
 
$52,590  
 
$64,200  
 
$96,610  
 
$119,223  
 
 
605 E Fifth Street 
(built 1911)  
 
$141,720  
 
$203,990  
 
$301,570  
 
$463,135  
 
 
310 S Harding 
Street (built 1939)  
 
$86,160  
 
$107,980  
 
$173,530  
 
$206,738  
 
 
400 S Holly Street 
(built 1925)  
 
$55,020  
 
$77,940  
 
$101,670  
 
$129,408  
 
 
302 S Library 
Street (built 1935)  
 
$46,770  
 
$60,320  
 
$101,980  
 
$135,579  
 
                                                          
9   Christopher Herbert, Donald Haurin, Stuart Rosenthal, and Mark Duda, "Homeownership Gaps Among 
Low- Income and Minority Borrowers and Neighborhoods," US Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Of fice of Policy Development and Research (July 2005 ): 3 6 - 3 9; available from http://www.huduser.org/portal/ pub 
lications/HOMEOWN/HGapsAmongLInMBnN.html ; Internet; Accessed 8 July  2012 .  Allen Goodman, and Thomas  
Thibodeau, "Where are the speculative bubbles in US housing markets?," Journal of Housing Economics , 17 (20 08 ) : 
12 1 - 1 2 2,  available from www.econ.wayne.edu/agoodman/research/pubs/gt bubble.pdf .  Internet; A ccessed 8 July 
2012.  
10   ?O???? Online ?arcel ?nformation ?ystem? ??ata base on line? ??itt ?ounty Mana?ement ?nformation 
Systems); available from http://gis2.pittcountync.gov/opis/#A ; internet; accessed 21 May 2012.  Tax Records, Pitt 
County Government, Greenville, NC.  
 
 
68  
 
 
807 E Third Street 
(built 1930)  
 
$67,020  
 
$79,860  
 
$135,890  
 
$160,917  
 
 
1208 E Third Street 
(built 1939)  
 
$79,040  
 
$77,040  
 
$86,480  
 
$90,980  
 
 
Table 8.2 Rep resen tativ e Prop er ties w ith i n  Gre en ville, N . C. 1 1  
 
Address  
 
1988 Value  
 
1996 Value  
 
2007 Value  
  
2012 Value  
 
 
1103 Courtland 
Road (built 1980)  
 
$57,910  
 
$65,800  
 
$81,330  
 
$94,109  
 
 
3000 S Elm Street 
(built 1965)  
 
$81,370  
 
$113,580  
 
$148,820  
 
$178,934  
 
 
1307 E First Street 
(built 1961)  
 
$53,360  
 
$67,030  
 
$83,150  
 
$102,222  
 
 
1712 Forest Hill 
Drive (built 1955)  
 
 
$135,840  
 
 
$183,440  
 
 
$248,840  
 
 
$301,824  
 
 
1913 E Ninth  
Street (built 1960)  
 
$76,000  
 
$95,840  
 
$189,000  
 
$191,951  
 
 
605 Oak Street 
(built 1955)  
 
$60,780  
 
$76,150  
 
$121,770  
 
$139,190  
 
 
402 Pine Street 
(built 1967)  
 
$47,660  
 
$62,880  
 
$77,210  
 
$89,595  
 
 
One of the reasons the ratio of single - family owner- occupied to rental properties went 
back to 3:7 from the 5:5 it had reached during the late 1980s and early 1990s is that preservation -
 minded homeowners who sold their homes were not replaced by other, like- minded 
preservationists.  Over time? the public’s tastes chan?e? for e?ample? ?ants an? nee?s chan?e.  
Although the College View Historic District is the most intact early - twentieth- century 
                                                          
11  Ibid.  Tax Records, Pitt County Government, Greenville, NC.  
 
 
69  
 
neighborhood in the city and contains great examples of Craftsma n- Bungalow- style houses, 
residents believed the neighborhood was not being marketed to the public. 1 2   The typical house 
in this neighborhood was built with one bathroom.  Many people today cannot imagine living, 
especially with children, in a home that has fewer than two bathrooms.  Many people also have 
come to expect air conditioning, home offices, and large kitchens with dishwashers.  None of 
these are found in the typical College View house that has not been renovated.  Many of these 
houses have been updated, but are still modest in size.  Some people think these properties, with 
their single stories and small yards, would be perfect for retirees.  But again, it is a matter of 
perception and marketing.   
There has been tension between some of the resident s of College View Historic District 
and the Historic Preservation Commission.  Some property owners believe that the HPC wants to 
preserve history for history’s sa?e? or that the purpose of the nomination ?as to stabili?e property 
values.  Individual property owners want to be able to do what they want with their property, but 
also want the security of having their neighbors regulated.  Another perceived problem with the 
HPC has been a lot of turnover among its members.  Like any government agency, it does not 
always do the right thing.  Sometimes trouble arises between members based on personality or 
ideology.  The homeowners resent the process of acquiring certificates of appropriateness; 
sometimes they carry out work on their properties without them. 1 3    
 Thomas Wisemiller, Historic Preservation Officer for the city of Greenville, suggested 
that the Historic Preservation Commission make an effort to spread awareness that the College 
View Historic District is a local district and the city has authority to re strict what the property 
owners can do with their structures.  The HPC is in the process of cleaning up its image in regard 
                                                          
12  Fridley interview.  
13  Wisemiller interview.  
 
 
70  
 
to its turnover rate? tryin? to be ?public frien?ly? ?ithout bein? too informal? an? to raise the 
public’s level of a?areness so the commission will seem less arbitrary.  Once these things have 
been accomplished, Mr. Wisemiller believes, the commission will be in a better position to 
enforce the regulations. 1 4  
 The Planning and Zoning Commission continued to request residents and neighb orhood 
associations ?ive fee?bac? about ?hat they ?ant for the city’s future.  ?n ???? the ?ity Council  
approved an addendum to the Horizons Plan.  In two public meetings meant to inform the public 
about the addendum and to discuss land- use implications, the dialogue identified these concerns:   
? Protect watershed areas  
? Protect areas with multiple physical limitations for development  
? Preserve open space and sensitive natural areas  
? Protect highway corridors  
? Avoid strip commercialization  
? Protect greenways  
? Preserve floodways and regulate floodplain development  
? Eliminate conflicting land uses  
? Preserve historic properties/districts  
? Preserve neighborhoods  
? Interconnect developing subdivisions 
? Interconnect commercial areas 
? Encourage infill development  
? Encourage m ixing of land uses. 1 5  
 
 The pr ocess for making updates to the Horizons Plan began in 2001.  As in the past, 
public input continue? to play a vital role in the plan’s up?ate.  ?he cate?ories? i?eas? an? 
concerns inclu?e?? ?aesthetics an? appearance? communication and cooperation; community 
facilities and programs; economy; education; environment; historic; housing; land - use and 
                                                          
14  Ibid. 
15  ??ori?ons ?ommunity ?lan?  ?. 
 
 
71  
 
controls? par?s?recreation an? open space? services? an? transportation.?  ?hese i?eas helpe? 
shape the 2004 Horizons Plan Update. 1 6    
?n each of the research efforts to mo?erni?e the plan for ?reenville’s ?ro?th? the historic 
built environment continued to be a valued resource that the citizens wanted to maintain for its 
future.  Preservation became policy.  Housing objectives that prom ote preservation are:  
? H1.  To encourage a variety of housing choices through preservation, rehabilitation, 
code enforcement, and new development. 
? H4. To encourage the restoration and preservation of historic residential properties.  
? H5 . To improve and revita lize existing neighborhoods.  
? H8. To improve, preserve, and develop residential areas for persons of low -  and 
moderate- income. 1 7  
 
Community Character objectives that promote preservation are:  
? C C1. To protect and preserve canopy trees.  
? C C2. To foster cooperation between public agencies involved in development 
activities (the City, GUC, NCDOT, etc.) so that tree planting and preservation is 
made a high priority.  
? C C3. To restore the historic character of downtown.  
? C C7. To encourage preservatio n of historic buildings and areas. 
? C C8. To discourage demolition and incompatible use of historic and cultural 
resources. 
? C C9. To increase neighborhood livability and property values by preserving and 
enhancing historic areas. 
? C C10. To encourage participation in historic preservation efforts. 
? C C11. To ensure that new development in historic areas is compatible in style, scale, 
and character with existing development. 1 8  
 
Growth and Development Implementation Strategies that uphold preservation goals  include:  
? 2(c). Develop a Historic Preservation Plan which sets out a comprehensive strategy 
for protectin? the ?ity’s historic resources. 
? 2(d). Develop and implement an education program publicizing the economic and 
environmental advantages of planting and preserving trees. 
? 2(e). Continue to nominate historic properties and districts to the National Register of 
Historic Places and continue to designate local historic properties and districts.  
? 2(f). Promote and participate in National Historic Preservation Week.  
                                                          
16  Ibid., 10 - 1 1  
17  Ibid., 29.  
18  Ibid., 41.  
 
 
72  
 
? 2(i). Conduct a study for the preservation and revitalization of the downtown fringe 
including adaptive reuse of structures. 
? 2(k). Encourage replacement planting and preservation of trees.  
? 2(l). Maintain an inventory of buildings having historical and architectural 
significance in the City.  
? 2(m). Build a museum in an old building that highlights local history (e.g., past 
tobacco and cotton share cropping activities).  
? 2(t). Preserve historic warehouses and older buildings through renovation and 
adaptive reuse. 
? 2(x). Maintain neighborhood character and identity. 
? 3(c). Revitalize major corridors especially from Downtown along Dickinson Avenue 
to Memorial Drive and Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive to Memorial Drive to include 
rehabilitation of structures, acquisition, and demolition of dilapidated structures, 
relocation assistance, and new development through land assembly. 
 
Economic Development Implementation Strategies that promote preservation goals are:  
? 2(b). Encourage rehabilitation and reuse of commerci al/industrial buildings.  
? 2(c). Mar?et an? promote historic areas as a part of ?reenville’s economic strate?y. 1 9  
 
Since the nomination of the College View Historic District to the National Register in 
1992, Greenville has nominated the Greenville Tobacco Warehouse Historic District in 1997, the 
Greenville Commercial Historic District in 2003, the Skinnerville/Greenvil le Heights Historic 
District in 2005, and Dickinson Avenue Historic District in 2007.  The City of Greenville was 
selected to receive a brownfields assessment grant to focus on assessment activities in the West 
Greenville Certified Redevelopment Area, whic h includes a 45 - Block area that includes the 
neighborhoods of Cherry View, Perkins Town, Biltmore, Lincoln Park, and part of the Tobacco 
Warehouse District.  The area greatly declined after the disintegration of the local tobacco 
in?ustry.  ??ro?nfiel?? is defined as a piece of industrial or commercial property abandoned or 
underused and, in many cases environmentally contaminated.  Brownfield research takes place 
when a property is considered a potential site for redevelopment.  The purpose behind the 
                                                          
19  Ibid., 58.  
 
 
73  
 
undergoing brownfield research is to clear the properties for adaptive reuse. 2 0  The city initiated a 
strate?y for the re?evelopment of ?businesses an? ?obs? affor?able housin?? community facilities? 
an? a system of par?s an? ?reen spaces? in ?est ?reenville.2 1  
T he focus in the Skinnerville/Greenville Heights Historic District is the African 
American resources, and there is a project in the works to create a database of the properties to 
put online.2 2   The members of the Tar River University Neighborhood Associatio n would also 
like to have the College View District extended along Fifth Street down to Tenth Street, or have 
that area nominated as a separate district.  The city of Greenville also intends to do streetscape 
enhancement, and to enact design guidelines for both the downtown and the uptown. 2 3   A loss of 
historic structures ?ill come ?ith the re?evelopment of the ??enth ?treet ?onnection?? ?hich 
will be the new gateway to East Carolina University and Uptown from Interstate Bypass 285. 2 4  
One major effort to revi talize the downtown commercial district was the implementation 
of the Façade Improvement Grant Program.  This was a $1 matching grant program for each $2 
expended by the property owner.  It was funded by the city and was awarded on a reimbursement 
basis up to a $5000 maximum.  Both commercial and non - profit bodies are eligible to receive the 
?rants.  ?esi?n ?ui?elines must follo? the ?ecretary of the ?nterior’s ?tan?ar?s for 
Rehabilitation. 2 5  
East Carolina University has redirected its expansion west along T enth Street.  The 
university has purchased several tobacco warehouses; one is on the National Register of Historic 
                                                          
20  Power interview.  
21  ???? ?ro?nfiel?s ?ro?ram? ??ata base on line? ??reenville? ?ity of ?reenville? ?.?.?? available from  
http://www.ctcbrownfields.com/greenville_nc/about.php ; Internet accessed 14 November 2011.   
22  Power interview.  
23   Ibid.  ??pto?n? is a bran? name ?esi?nation for the area bet?een ?irst ?treet an? the horseshoe.   
24   Wisemiller interview.  
25   ??ity of ?reenville ?a?a?e ?mprovement ?rant ?ro?ram? ??ata base on line? ??reenville? ?ity of 
Greenville, N.C.); available from  http://www.greenvillenc.gov/uploadedFiles/Departments/ Community_Dev 
elopment/Information/Planning_Division/FIG%20Program.pdf; Internet; accessed 1 December  2011.  
 
 
74  
 
Places. 2 6   ECU also purchased properties on Evans Street; 2 7  this area seems like an obvious 
choice.  These are commercial buildings that owners  want to sell, not part of a neighborhood full 
of homeowners that want to continue to occupy their own residences.  Another item to consider 
is that even though enrollment in East Carolina has grown significantly, much of that growth is 
due to online students ?ho never set foot onto ???’s campus.2 8  
 Following the goals of the Horizons Plan, the city received a Certified Local Government 
Grant for additional neighborhood surveys to identify additional historic resources as part of the 
?ity’s ?ommunity ?reservation Plan.  The HPC wants to do a windshield survey of additional 
areas that were not historic at the time of past surveys, along with a more in- depth survey of the 
area east of ?olle?e ?ie?? as far as ?t. ?eter’s ?hurch.  ?t is e?pecte? that the ne?t ?ational 
Register District will be in that neighborhood. 2 9  
 ?ince the creation of ?reenville’s first ?ational ?e?ister ?istrict? preservation has 
evolve? into ?reenville’s overall plan.  ?our a??itional ?ational ?e?ister ?istricts have been 
listed, while Colle ge View still remains the only local historic district.  The Historic and 
?e?evelopment ?lanners of ?reenville continue to loo? for ?ays to ma?e ?reenville’s historic 
past an important part of its future as it is a formal objective.  Perhaps they will one day adopt a 
formal historic preservation element to the Horizons Comprehensive Plan.   
                                                          
26  Power interview.  
27  Ibid.  
28  Eakin interview.  
29  Wisemiller interview.   
 
 
 
CHAPTER 9. CONCLUSION  
 Preservation efforts in Greenville, North Carolina started with the documentation of 
historic properties that had survived time, development, and urban renewal.  Members of the 
Historic Properties Commission  then selected those structures to be designated local landmarks 
and made efforts to preserve them.   
 The Greenville Area Preservation Association perpetuated the determination to preserve 
?reenville’s historic structures throu?h the publication of The Architectural Heritage of 
Greenville North Carolina in 1988.  At the same time City Council created the Historic 
Preservation Commission.  Member s of the H istoric P reservation C ommission followed the 
suggestions outlined in the book and designated the first National Register His toric District in 
Greenville, the College View neighborhood.  This neighborhood also became the first and, as of 
2012, the only local historic district through the adoption of ordinances that created the zoning 
overlay district. 
 It is doubtful that the members who began the Historic Properties Commission in 1979 to 
save ?reenville’s historic built environment ima?ine? ho? impactful their preservation efforts 
would become.  Unfortunately the results, as of 2012, for the College View Historic District are 
bitter sweet.  The encroachment into the neighborhood by East Carolina University stopped.  The 
structures are no longer in danger of becoming offices or parking lots.  They have instead 
become privatized dormitories.  
At this time (2012) the goal of the H istoric P reservation C ommission and the residents of 
College View to stabilize the neighborhood by reducing the number of rental properties has not 
been realized.  This does not qualify as a failure.  No one realistically expects the College View 
Neighborhood  to become one hundred percent owner- occupied, but there remains hope that the 
 
 
76  
 
number of rental properties can eventually be reduced.  Unfortunately owners of rental properties 
continue to break the law that limits unrelated occupancy to three which directly contributes to 
the impact of the students on the neighborhood; in 2012 this remains a major issue.  With ECU at 
such close proximity, this area will continue to be attractive to student renters.  The real 
successes resulting from the College View Distri ct ?ere the haltin? of ???’s e?pansion into the 
residential neighborhood and the continuing preservation initiatives taken on by neighborhood 
associations, the Historic Preservation Committee, and the Planning and Zoning Commission.  
One goal that seems to have come to fruition is keeping East Carolina University from 
continuing to encroach north of Fifth Street into the neighborhood.  By the 1980s ECU had no 
open space to expand its campus.  When homes became available for purchase within College 
View, ECU sometimes purchased them- if the house, or even just the lot, could be used to 
a?vance the ?niversity’s interests.  ?esi?ents ?i? not ?ant continue? encroachment of the 
University into their residential neighborhood.  The local overlay in effect made the 
neighborhood less attractive to the University in terms of what it could do to the structures once 
it acquired them.  ECU does not want to add any extra layers of bureaucracy.  The Chancellor 
and Trustees want to be able to do what they want, when they want with the properties to serve 
the needs of ECU.   
One of the biggest disappointments from the perspective of the members of the HPC was 
that ???’s buil?in?s ?ithin the core campus ?ere never inclu?e? in the ?olle?e ?ie? ?istoric 
District, nor listed within their own separate district.  The HPC, the residents of College View, 
and ECU had different agendas.  A university is a bureaucratic machine that does things at its 
own pace.  It wants to have flexibility with its buildings.  ECU apparently has no plans to  include 
its core campus buildings on the National Register.  
 
 
77  
 
Other major impacts have been realized, such as the nomination of four additional 
National Register Districts.  Although the Greenville Tobacco Warehouse District, the 
Greenville Commercial Distr ict, the Skinnerville/Greenville Heights District, and the Dickinson 
Avenue District were recognized as relevant historic resources in the original survey written by 
Kate Ohno, no one expected them to be listed on the National Register (given the path that  the 
city was on in the 1970s and 1980s).  The fact that they have been listed, and that Greenville 
continues to survey to find additional historic resources, shows that Greenville plans to recognize 
and save as much of its historic fabric as possible.  Al though Greenville includes historic 
preservation as one of the formal objectives of the Horizons Plan, adopting a formal  fully 
integrated historic preservation element to the plan would show a true commitment. 
The preservation movement that started in the late 1970s has continued to gain 
momentum, with no signs of ending.  Citizens of Greenville recognized they were in danger of 
losin? their city’s historic structures? an? they too? action to prevent it.  ?s lon? as the citi?ens of 
Greenville c ontinue to care about this goal, they will find ways to achieve it.   
7 8  
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY  
 
Bratton, Mary Jo J.  East Carolina University:  The Formative Years, 1907 - 1982 .  Greenvil le,  
 N.C.:  East Carolina University Alumni Association, 1986 . 
 
---- ---- --- - .  Greenville:  Heart of the East .  Chatsworth, CA:  Windsor Publications,  
 1991 . 
 
Clark, Walter , ed.  The State Records of North Carolina .  Raleigh, N.C.:  Trustees of Public  
 Libraries, 1886.    
   
??ity of ?reenville ?ommunity ?evelopment.?  Data base online.  Green ville: City of  
Greenville, N.C.  A vailable from www.greenvillenc.gov/departments/Community_ 
Development/ information/default.aspx?id=1072 .  Internet.  A ccessed 15 May 2012.  
 
??ity Mana?er’s Office.?  Data base on line.  Greenvi lle: City of Greenville, N.C.   A vailable  
from http://www.greenvillenc.gov/departments/city_manager/information/default.aspx ?  
id=437.  Internet .  A ccessed 15 Augu st 2009.  
 
??ity of ?reenville ?a?a?e ?mprovement ?rant ?ro?ram.?  Data base on line.  Greenville: City  
of Gree nville, N.C.); available from  http://www.greenvillenc.gov/uploadedFiles/Depart  
ments/ Community_Development/Information/Planning_Division/FIG%2 0Program.pdf .  
Internet.  A ccessed 1 December 2011.  
 
??ity of ?reenville ?istoric ?istrict an? ?ocal ?an?mar? ?esi?n ?ui?elines.?  Data base online. 
Greenville, City of Greenville, NC .  A vailable from http://www.greenvillenc.gov/depa rt 
ments/community_development/information/default.aspx?id=1575 .  Internet.  A ccessed 
16 May 2012.  
 
??ity of ?reenville? ?istoric ?reservation.?  Data base on line.  Greenville: City of Greenvil le  
Community Develop ment.  A vailable from http://www.greenvillenc.gov/departments/  
community _ development/information/defa ult. aspx?id=1089#CVHD .  Internet.  
A ccessed 30 May 2012.  
 
??ity of ?reenville Maps.? ??ata base on line] (Greenville: City of Greenville, N.C. Community  
Development); available from http://www.greenvillenc.gov/departments/community _dev 
elopment/information/defa ult.aspx?id=1051 .  Internet.  A ccessed 30 May 2012.  
 
Coffin, Donald. "The Impact of Historic Districts on Residential Property Values." Eastern  
 Economic Journal . 15. no. 3 (1989): 221 - 228.  
 
Copeland , Elizabeth H. (ed.), Chronicles of Pitt County, North Carolina .  Greenvil le, N.C. : Pitt  
 County Historical Society, 1982 .   
 
Cotter, Michael, ed. The Architectural Heritage of Greenville, North Carolina.  Greenville:  
 Greenville Area Preservation Association, 1988 . 
7 9  
 
 
Daily Reflector, The .  ??estoration ?un? ?rive ?lanne?.?  ?? ?anuary ????. 
 
Daily Reflector, The .  ??erita?e ?our ?ic?ets On ?ale.?  ?? ?ebruary ????. 
 
Daily Reflector, The .  ??oals ?et ?or ?he ?reenville ?reservation ?ssociation.?  n.?. 
 
Duncan, John G.  ??itt ?ounty Potpourri .? Mimeo?raphe?? ????. 
 
Eakin,  Richard,  Chancellor, East Carolina University .  Interviewed by author.  29 November  
 2006.   N otes.  Greenville, N.C.,  
 
ECU Report .  ??lumni ?enter ?urchase?.?  ?reenville? ?.?.? May ????. 
 
???? ?ro?nfiel?s ?ro?ram.?  Data base on line.  Greenville: City of Greenville, N.C.   A vailable  
 from http://www.ctcbrownfields.com/greenville_nc/about.php .  Internet.  A ccessed 14 
 November 2011.  
 
Fridley,  Inez,  original member of Historic Properties Commission, Greenville.  I nterviewed by 
author, 12 December 2006.   Notes.  Greenville, N.C.  
 
Goodman, Allen, and Thomas Thibodeau. "Where are the speculative bubbles in US housing  
markets?." Journal of Housing Economics . 17. (2008): 121 - 122. Available from www.ec 
on.wayne.edu/agoodman/research/pubs/gt bubble.pdf . Internet. A ccessed 8 July 2012.  
 
??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes.?  ?reenville? ?.?. 26 May 1980.  
 
??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes.?  ?reenville? ?.?. 8 July 1980.  
 
??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes.?  Greenville, N.C.  3 December 1980.  
 
??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes.?  ?reenville? ?.?.  7 January 1981.  
 
??reenville Area Pre servation ?ssociation minutes.?  Gr eenville, N.C.  26 March 1991.  
 
??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes.?  Gr eenville, N.C.  27 August 1991.  
 
??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes.? Greenv ille, N.C.  24 September 1991.  
 
??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes.?  ?reenville? ?.?. 22 October 1991.  
 
??reenville ?rea ?reservation Association minutes .?  Greenville, N.C.:  3 December 1991.  
 
??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes.?  Gree nville, N.C.  28 January 1992.  
 
??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes.?  ?reenville? ?.?.  ?? ?ebruary ????. 
8 0  
 
??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes.?  Greenville, N.C.  26 May 1992.  
 
??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes.?  Greenville, N.C.  23 June 1992.  
 
??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes.?  ?reenville? ?.?.  ?? ?uly ????. 
 
??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes.?  Greenville, N.C.   22 September 1992.  
 
??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes.?  Greenville, N.C.   26 October 1993.  
 
??reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation minutes.?  ?reenville? ?.?. 12 December 1993.  
 
??reenville ?lannin? an? ?onin? ?ommission minutes.?  Greenville, N.C.: 18 January 1994.  
 
Greenville Historic Preservatio n Commission and the City of Greenville Department of Planning  
and the Community Development Strategic Planning Division . Design Guidelines 
Handbook .  Greenville: City of Greenville, N.C.,  November 1993 . 
 
??an?boo? for ?istoric ?reservation ?ommissions in North Carolina .?  Data base on line.  
Raleigh, Preservation North Carolina and State Historic Preservation Office Division of 
Archives and History North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources .  Available from  
http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/hand book.pdf .  Internet.  A ccessed 16 May 2012.  
 
Herbert, Christopher, Donald Haurin, Stuart Rosenthal, and Mark Duda. "Homeownership Gaps  
Among Low - Income and Minority Borrowers and Neighborhoods." US Department of 
Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research  (July 
2005): 36 - 39; Available from  http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/HOMEOWN 
/HGapsAmongLInMBnN.html .  Internet.  A ccessed 8 July  2012.  
 
??ori?ons? ?reenville’s ?ommunity ?lan.? Data base on line.  Greenville :  City Of Greenville,  
N.C.   A vailable from http://www.greenvillenc.gov/uploadedFiles/Departments/Communi  
ty_  Development/Information/Planning_Division/Horizons%20Comprehensive %20Plan. 
pdf.  Internet.  A ccessed 22 February 2012.  
 
??o? ?istoric ?roperties ?re ?iste? ?n ?he ?ational ?e?ister Of ?istoric Places .?  Data base on 
line.  Raleigh: North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office .  A vailable from  http://  
www.hpo.ncdcr. gov/how.htm .  Internet.  A ccessed 21May 2012.  
 
Jenkins, J. S. ?comp.?? ??ie?in? ?reenville an? ?itt ?ounty ?ear the ?urn of the ?entury.?   
 Mimeographed, n. d. 
 
??i??ie ?on?o ?ome ?urchases.?  Date base on line.  Greeley, CO: Home Team Lending .   
 A vailable from  www.hometeam- lending.com.  Internet.  A ccessed 26 March 2008.   
 
Lambie- Hanson, Lauren. "Historic Preservation  as a Catalyst for Gentrification." Policy Matters .  
8 1  
 
5. no. 1 (2007): 43 - 47. Available from www.policymatters.net/issue/PolicyMatters_  
Autumn_2007.pdf  .  Internet.  A ccessed 8  July 2012.  
 
Letter From Richard Eakin Greenville, N.C. to Ron Kimble 19 August 1992.  
 
??ocal ?istoric ?roperty ?esi?nations ?n ?orth ?arolina?  ?istoric ?istricts ?n? ?an?mar?s  
A nd The Historic Preservation Commission .?  Data base on line.  Raleigh: North 
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office .  A vailable from http://www.hpo.ncdcr . 
gov/localdes.htm.  Internet.  A ccessed 21 May 2012 . 
 
?Memorandum.?  Donald Belk, Environmental Planner, Greenville, NC 3 September  1992.  
 
Morris? ?om. ??ome ?ay ??ac? to ?chool’ Means Theft, Vandalism .?  The Daily Reflector ,  
 Greenville, N.C. 3 September 1992.  
??ational ?istoric ?reservation ?ct of ????? ?s amen?e? through 2006 (With annotations). ? 
Data base on line.  Washington: Ad visory Council on Historic Preservation .  Available 
from http://www.achp.gov/docs/nhpa%20 2008 - final.pdf.  Internet.  A ccessed 17 May 
2012.  
 
??ational ?e?ister ?valuation ?riteria.?  ?ata base on line.  ?ashin?ton? ??visory ?ouncil on 
Historic Preservation .  Available from www.achp.gov/nrcriteria.html .  Internet.  
Accessed 10 July 2012.  
 
??ational ?e?ister ?omination for College View Neighborhood. ?  Greenville, N.C.:  Historic  
 Preservation Commi ssion. 
 
??ational ?e?ister Of Historic Places .?  Data base on line.  Washington: U.S. Dept. of Interior .   
A vailable from  http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/nc/pitt/state.html .  
Internet.  A ccessed 12 February 2012.  
 
 ??ational ?e?ister Of ?istoric ?laces ?n ?orth ?arolina? ?acts an? ?i?ures.?  Data base online. 
Raleigh: North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office .  A vailable from http://www . 
hpo.ncdcr.gov/nrfacts.htm.  Internet.  A ccessed 12 February 2012.  
 
??e?sletter.?  ?reenville ?rea ?reservation ?ssociation.  ?reenville? ?.?.? ? ?anuary ????. 
 
??e?sletter.?  ?reenville Area Preservation Association.  Greenville, N.C., 26 February 1981.  
 
??o ?ee Mort?a?e.? Data base on line.  Charlotte: Bank of America .  A vailable from http://nofee   
mortgageplus.bankofamerica.com/mortgage_experienced.htm l.  Internet.  A ccessed 26 
March 2008.   
 
??orth ?arolina ?eneral ?tatutes ? ???- ??. ?orth ?arolina ?istorical ?ommission.?  ?ata base 
online.  Raleigh: North Carolina Legislature.  Available from l aw.onecle.com/north -
 carolina/121 - archives- and- history/121 - 12.html .  Internet.  Accessed 8 July 2012.  
 
8 2  
 
??orth ?arolina ?eneral ?tatute ? ????- 400.8. Powers of the Hist oric Preservation  
?ommission.?  ?ata base online.  Raleigh :  North Carolina Legislature .  A vailable from  
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_160
 A.html .  Internet.  Accessed 20 February 2012.  
 
??orth Carolina Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990 .? Data base on line.  
Washington: US Bureau of the Census .  A vailable from http://www.census.gov/populati 
on/www/censusdata/ cencounts/fi les/nc190090.txt .  Internet.  A ccessed 11 July 2012.  
 
Ohno,  Kate.  Associate Editor, Yale Univer sity.  Interviewed by author, 10 August 2009.   Email.  
 
?Online Parcel Information System  (OPIS). ?  Data base on line.  Pitt County Management  
Information Systems: Greenville, N.C.  A vailable from http://gis2.pittcountync.gov/ opis/  
#A .  Internet.  A ccessed 21 May 2012.   
?Or?inance ?o. ??- 22 An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Greenville,  
 ?orth ?arolina??  Greenville, N.C. 10 February 1994.  
 
?Or?inance ?o. ??- 23 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Greenville Zoning  
Territory Located within the Planning and Zoning Jurisdiction of the City of Greenville, 
?orth ?arolina.?  Greenvi lle, N.C. 10 February 1994.  
 
Power, Scott, Regional Supervisor/Preservation Specialist, North Carolina Historic Preservation  
Office.  Interview by author, 9 August 2006.  Notes.  Greenville, N.C.   
 
??roce?ure ?or Supporting Or Objecting To National Register Listing .?  Data base on line.   
 Raleigh: North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office .  A vailable from http://www.h   
 po.ncdcr.gov/ object.htm .  Internet.  A ccessed 21 May 2012.  
 
??roperty ?a? ?ecor?s.?  ?itt ?ounty ?overnment? ?reenville? ??. 
 
??esi?ent ?esources.?  Data base on line.  Greenville: North Campus Crossing .  A vailable from  
 www.northcampuscrossing.com.  Internet.  A ccessed 12 February 2007.  
 
?ava?e? ?tuart.  ??.?. ?umber ?roperty ?iven to ?ity? ?ounty.?  The Daily Reflector ,  
 Greenville, N.C., 25 May 1980.  
 
Sharpe, Bill.  A New Geography of North Carolina .  Raleigh  N.C. :  Sharpe Publishing Co. , 1954 . 
 
??tate Construction Office .?  Data base on line.  Raleigh:  North Carolina Department of  
 Administration .  A vailable from http://www.nc - sco.com/default.aspx .  Internet.   
 A ccessed 21 May 2012.  
 
?Tax Credit Files .? Eastern Branch of the State Historic Preservati on Office, Greenville, NC.  
 
Tilley, Nannie M. ???itation ??ainst the ?merican ?obacco ?ompany in ?orth ?arolina? ????-  
 1911 .? North Carolina Historical Review , XXIV (1947) . 
8 3  
 
Tolson, John N.  ??istory of Memorial ?aptist ?hurch.? U npublishe? master’s thesis :  East  
 Carolina University, 1966 . 
 
?yer? ?arol.  ??nterest in ?reservin? ?ouse May ?ea? ?o ?avin? Others.?  The Daily Reflector ,  
 Greenville, N.C., 7 September 1980.  
 
??rban ?ene?al.?  Data base on line.  Chicago: Chicago Historical Society .  Available  from http 
://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1295.html.Internet.   Accessed 12 February  
2012.  
 
??est ?reenville ? ?.?.?.?.?.??ental vs. O?ner ?nalysis.?  ?reenville? ?.?.? ?ity ?lannin?  
 Department, 17 January 2012.  
 
Williams , Thomas A.  (ed.), A Greenville Album:  The Bicentennial Book .  Greenville , N.C. :  Era  
 Press, 1974.   
 
Wisemiller,  Thomas,  Historic Preservation and Redevelopment Planner,  City of Greenville.   
 Interview by author, 13 April 2007.   Notes.  Greenville, N.C.     
 
York,  Maury, Librarian, Joyner Library.  Interviewed by author, 16 August 2006.  N otes.   
 G reenville, N.C.  
 
 
 
 
84  
 
APPENDIX A: MAPS  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
85  
 
1
                                                           
1 ??ity of ?reenville Maps? ??ata base on line? ??reenville? ?ity of ?reenville? ?.?. ?ommunity 
Development); available from http://www.greenvillenc.gov/departments/community_development/information/defa 
ult.aspx?id=1051 ;  Internet; accessed 30 May 2012.  
 
86  
 
2
                                                           
2 ??ity of ?reenville? ?istoric ?reservation? ??ata base on line? ??reenville? ?ity of ?reenville ?ommunity 
Development); available from http://www.greenvillenc.gov/departments/community_development/information/ defa 
ult. aspx?id=1089#CVHD ; Internet; accessed 30 May 2012.  
 
87 
 
3  
                                                          
3  Ibid. 
 
88 
 
4  
                                                          
4  Ibid.  
 
89 
 
5  
                                                          
5  Ibid.  
 
90 
 
6  
                                                          
6  Ibid. 
 
91 
 
7  
                                                          
7   ??ity of ?reenville Maps? ??ata base on line? ??reenville? ?ity of ?reenville? ?.?. Community 
Development); available from http://www.greenvillenc.gov/departments/community_development/information/defa 
ult.aspx?id=1051;  Internet; accessed 30 May 2012.  
 
92 
 
 
8  
                                                          
8 Ibid. 
 
93  
 
9  
                                                          
9 Greenville GIS analysis of the T.R.U.N.A. area which included a statistical b reakdown of the College 
View Historic District, 17 January 2012.