Surveying Interior Wood Casings to Distinguish Original from Alteration

There are several methods for distinguishing original construction inside your home from later alterations and additions. You can look for source documents, such as permits, photos, or drawings as evidence of your home in a previous condition. You can look at floor plans of typical homes of the time period and try to determine if your house's layout ever fit that arrangement or something similar, and interviewing former occupants may be the most helpful. Additionally, you can examine the existing physical details, such as interior wood trim. A stark, or even subtle, but noticable, divergence from the overall trim detail scheme in a house (or portions of a house) can hint of a detail or a wall that was constructed later than the original. Although distinctions can be discerned from any type of trim (such as baseboards, wainscoting, or crown moldings), this article will focus on looking at casings.

Why Casings and What Exactly Are They?

Interior casings are a type of wood trim that serve the primary purpose of finishing the gap between a wall's finish (i.e. drywall, plaster, or wood paneling) and a door or window's frame. Casings also are used to frame "cased openings"-- a wall opening with no door in it.

This image shows how the casing trim covers over the gap between the wall finish and the wood frame of the opening. Image via Fine Home Building.

The interior trim is an opportunity to inject character through either intricate or simple detail, and its use throughout history has served as a method of associating the interiors with an overall architectural style or movement. Casings can incorporate details to your heart's content, such as keystones, plinth blocks, corner blocks, entablatures, and are often formed with molding profiles of varying depth and detail.

Classical detailing in this cased opening. Photo credit: Mark Lohman, via This Old House.

Door casings with a fluted profile and rosette corner blocks. Photo credit: Shannon Malone via Houzz.

Now, why do I focus on casings? I contend that they simply are less likely to have been modified or added over the course of history in an older home than other types of interior trim. As opposed to baseboards and crown moldings, casings are generally at eye level and more easily in the field of vision, meaning it was near impossible for the builder of the original home to avoid giving significant thought to their appearance. Sure, they may have been painted over 10 times, but once in place there generally isn't much of a reason to change the casings out unless one goes out of their way to change the character of their home's interior. Baseboards, on the other hand, might hold more impetus for change if flooring is upgraded or changed. Crown moldings, wainscoting, and chair or picture rails generally are treatments provided on a per-room basis and could have been added at any time. The casings are elements most likely to have been given consistent thought upon original construction and to have stayed that way.

When examining the casing trim throughout a house, remember the word consistent, as this does not mean that all casings are treated equally by the builder. A higher level of detail and ornament may have been provided in more public rooms, with simple detailing in bedrooms or on the second level of the house. The same could be said for size-- larger rooms or openings might have consistently been given larger-scaled trim to remain in proportion. Again, we're looking for changes in consistency-- if you see a prominent room that has casings with a fancy frieze and entablature over top of most openings, but one wall has a door with corner blocks, someone may have added that wall at some point or punched a new door into an existing wall.

A Case In Point

Our 1920's bungalow has always been a modest home. It has never included incredibly rich architectural details, such as what you might find in a true craftsman home, but nonetheless it is not without its character. Most of the casings in my home are flat stock on the jambs (sides) but have a 6" tall entablature crowning the top of the opening. They look like this:

It is remarkably consistent, except where it isn't. Look at the picture below of what you see when you walk in through the front door of the house:

The opening to the right of the photo has just flat stock trim all the way around, with no additional detail whatsoever. It looks like this up-close:

Is this a less-important opening? No, not really-- it is a smaller opening, and it does lead into the "back-of-house" bedroom areas of the house, but most of the casings in those bedrooms have the more detailed entablature. The answer is that the opening with the flat trim was added several decades later, I believe in the 1950's or 60's. In the close-up view you can see two more openings beyond-- one with the more detailed trim (on the left) and one with the flat stock trim around the door (to the right). That opening with the detailed entablature was originally the entrance into the front bedroom from the hallway. Take a look from the bedroom side of these partitions:

Through the current bedroom door, you can see the casing of the original door opening just visible beyond. That entire bump-out in the entrance corner of the bedroom is a later addition, not original (you can see what I believe to be the original layout of the house here)-- the closet door to the right has our tell-tale entablature detail, but the current bedroom door opening has the flat stock. Again, look for breaks from the consistency in your house-- if the original builder had wished to make a distinction between less-important openings with the flat stock trim, that closet door would be more likely to lack the detail than the actual bedroom door.

Aside from the fact that I have documentation and other clues of previous alterations to the house, the flat wood casings are a dead giveaway throughout the house that they are not original. In truth, the casings with the added detail are so consistently similar to each other, and the flat trim is so consistently inconsistent with that overall theme, that I believe all of the flat trim was installed by the Cantlin family, who were the home's only owners from 1932 to 2001. I have full confidence that if it has flat trim, then either it's a wall that is not part of the house's original layout, or a new door or opening was made in an original wall. This is a theory that plays out when I compare the locations of various trim styles with the evolution of the floor plan of my house.

Here are some further examples throughout the house:

Casings in the original portion of the house all exhibit that entablature detail, unless the wall itself was later modified.

All of the casings within the 1940's addition are flat stock.

Even in the original bedrooms, we have entablatures at the window casings.

But no detail was added to the window and door casings in the 1940's addition.

Yet, one more trim style exists, and that is at both bathrooms. Here, we see standard-issue casing trim that you'll find at any big-box home improvement store. This was installed by the owners prior to me.

Entrance to the bathroom on the left, with a basic casing profile from the home improvement store.

This is not to downgrade its status-- on the contrary, the majority of the updates post-2001 work quite nicely for this modest home. It's what most people today would use. However, the difference from the other trim clearly marks its timeline in the house. On a side note, one question this leaves me with is whether the window in our second, more public, bathroom is in a window opening that was always there or whether the window opening was added (the window itself is a modern double-pane replacement).

If you'll notice, it has the same Home Depot window casing. Perhaps the original, more detailed (and entablatured) casing was ripped out, either when the original kitchen was converted to a bathroom in the 1950's or when new owners modernized within the last 15 years. The other possibility is that the casing trim never existed and that a new window was created during that bathroom conversion-- something to investigate further if I ever get to the point of replacing our exterior asbestos siding.

Hopefully now you are able to look for both the consistencies and differences in the trim of your house. Although the contrast between the two main trim styles in my house are more obvious, even a more thoughtful renovation job done in the past can show subtle inconsistencies that can clue you into non-original alterations. Put your mind into that of the original builder, and think about what he would have done...

Read More »

An Ink Sketch of the House From the Previous Owner

Hanging on the wall as we toured this house for the first time, in the front room, was this ink sketch of the house as it existed in 2001:

Honestly, this was one of the homey details we noticed as we walked through, placed there by the previous owners. There were a few more-- the enlarged ruler marking the growth of the sellers' children through the years; the old stone stove in the backyard with the heart-shaped rock on it. I certainly would not say that these little items "sold" the house for us-- we had already walked through the front door and realized that this was it, that we had experienced our "You'll know it when you see it" moment that comes for many in the home-buying process. These things certainly spoke to us, however. We replicated the growth chart idea by getting one ourselves after we moved in. Although I haven't done it yet, I plan on somehow finding a similar heart-shaped rock and presenting it to my wife and daughters at some point. 

And finally, the sketch. After all the negotiation was completed, after the inspection was over but before closing day, we still remembered the sketch, and I wanted it. I assumed that the drawing, as was the house, was important to the sellers and didn't dare asking for the original sketch (although did hold out brief hope that they would kindly offer it up to stay with the house). Instead, I asked our realtor if he could pass along a request to allow us to make a copy of it. The sellers were kind enough to oblige and that's exactly what we did.

Although I've not had all that much communication with this former owner, I did ask him through email about the sketch, among other questions after I began hunting down the history of this house. His reply to the query was that the drawing was completed by an artist friend of theirs shortly after they purchased the house in 2001. It was a Christmas present to his wife for their first holiday in their new home. Sure enough, the drawing is signed by the artist and dated 12/4/01. For the life of me I've never been able to make out this artist's name-- George something. The last name starts with a "J" I believe, but the letters after that could be almost anything. I have not re-asked the previous owner as of yet.

Anyway, this is the house frozen in a moment in time 15 years ago. It is not very different today from the way it appeared then, although the untold story is that those owners painted it from white to the current olive green. They also put decorative vinyl shutters on the porch windows, the attic window, and the front-most window on that left side. You don't see those add-on shutters in the sketch of course. The front planting bed is much less crowded nowadays, with less bushes than are depicted here. The downspout on the left-front stone porch pier has been moved to the left side instead of being on the front face. I've wondered about the driveway at the left-side of the house in this image. Here, it looks like it extends nearly all the way to the backyard. Was it really like this? Today, most of this side-yard is grass and a picket fence aligns with the projecting bay window, terminating the current driveway.

Other than those frankly minor details, this is a spitting image of the house we know and love today. It also is pretty much the same as the public record image I found, dated to the 1990s. These two images show the house that Catherine Cantlin finally needed to move out of in 2001, after having lived there for the previous 70 years.

Have you ever had a painting or a sketch of your home completed? If not, consider doing so, both for yourself and for future owners. It's really a special detail that can remain with the home for a long, long time.

Read More »

Zeroing in on the House's Construction Date, Part 2 (Andrew F. Gutekunst)

This is Part 2 of a short series focusing in on my house's assumed construction date between 1922 and 1924. For an overview given in Part 1, see here. 
This article will focus on the real estate transactions of local North Glenside flooring contractor Andrew F. Gutekunst, one candidate out of three possibilities who had my home built. The goal of this exercise is to provide additional and specific context around my home's origin in order to hopefully narrow that construction date even further.

What I knew before this focused exercise, based on some fairly basic chain of title research for my property, is that Andrew F. Gutekunst owned the property from November 1923 to October 1924. He bought the property for $650 and sold it at the end of that short span for $5,500. However, he simultaneously leveraged the property for a $3,800 mortgage upon purchasing it, suggesting that the increase in value within a year is not as dramatic as it seems at first glance.

As described in Part 1, further searches of deed and mortgage indexes for Gutekunst related to properties in Abington Township yielded the following:

• Grantee on eight (8) deed between 1923 and 1928, plus two more in the 1940's
• Grantor on six (6) deeds in 1923 and 1924, plus three more from 1930-1947
• Mortgagor on eight (8) mortgages from 1921 to 1924

How This Information Was Analyzed

A more detailed breakdown and summary of these transactions is included in the following table:

This table organizes all of Gutekunst's recorded transactions by current address. The reason for this is simple-- the 22 recorded documents were the result of transactions involving only nine (9) current properties as they exist today. This allows me to examine when Andrew Gutekunst acquired each property, for how long he owned it, and whether or not he mortgaged each property.

Next, I ventured to specifically locate each property on three maps: a current Google Maps satellite image, a 1927 historical atlas map, and a 1937 historical atlas map. By using the legal description of each property as spelled out in the deeds, I can pinpoint the exact property as it exists today on Google Maps. Then, I can find the same property on the two atlas maps. Why did I choose these two years? If you'll notice in the table above, Gutekunst was most active in the specific years of 1923 and 1924. By locating the lots on maps in 1927 and 1937 (the two closest dates available), I can get a good sense of whether or not Gutekunst may have built houses on these properties or whether he was simply making a short-term investment as values increased in the neighborhood. Note that there is also a 1916 map for my area, but it depicts the neighborhood as it existed before it was largely subdivided around 1920, so none of these lots would have had houses on them in that year.

There are two properties on Cricket Avenue, adjacent properties no less, where Gutekunst came into ownership in the 1940's. Although I will describe them below since they do complete the picture of Gutekunst's local real estate dealings, these are less relevant to the task at hand due to the timeframe. One was actually his own residence, previously owned by his father, Frederick William Gutekunst. 

Some quick, general observations based on the table I've constructed. First, nearly all of these properties are within the block closest to the main arterial road of Jenkintown Road. The exception is very close to Limeklin Pike (at 257-263 Maple Ave), the arterial road at the south end of the neighborhood. Maps show that the earliest development occurred closest to these two roads, and Gutekunst's affinity was no exception. Second, Gutekunst appears to have purchased 3 lots directly from Reginald Ferguson, the originator of the Ferguson's North Glenside subdivision. With one exception (that same 257-263 Maple Ave), Gutekunst dealt entirely in land within this subdivision. It seems clear that this man was delving into something new to him, and perhaps he gained a greater comfort level by keeping his investments very close to home. He was age 25 in 1921 at the time of his first purchase. Now, onto the properties:

657 Jackson Avenue

This is Gutekunst's first investment, acquiring the lot directly from Ferguson in September 1921. Although the financial consideration of his purchase is not fully disclosed in the deed, Gutekunst did mortgage the property to a man named Sigurd Larsen in exchange for $2,500 within days of his land acquisition. Larsen may have been a long-time associate (it appears they may have worked at the same company as machinists as of 1917), as A.F. Gutekunst would later buy a different plot of land directly from Mr. Larsen in the 1940's. He further took out an additional $1,000 mortgage with a Building and Loan corporation a year later in 1922. There is a curious set of deed transactions on this property in June of 1923, with Gutekunst conveying the land to a Ms. Edith S. Mattson, a real estate stenographer of nearby Rockledge, then receiving it back from her one day later. Gutekunst ultimately sold the property to Frederick Locher for an undisclosed sum in July 1924.

Did Andrew Gutekunst build the home we see here today in the picture above? The amounts listed in each transaction are of little real help to us as they remain as murky as several other transactions involving $1 consideration amounts, plus with a few mortgages to boot. However, the house does exist on both the 1927 and 1937 maps. But, I was able to make a key discovery in the form of a newspaper advertisement in the Philadelphia Inquirer from May 7, 1922:

Bingo! This is absolutely a match for this property-- the house that exists on this land today fits well with the description given in the ad: an 8-room "semi-bungalow" (bigger than a typical bungalow, often two stories). The lot described in the property deeds is exactly 60x129, matching the ad. The use of the word "cheap" is interesting. This ad confirms to me that this house was completed by May 1922. The only reason I can't definitively peg this "new" home as having been built during Gutekunst's ownership is that he bought it only 8 months prior to taking out this ad. He easily could have bought it as a brand new house already and well within his rights continued to claim it as a new house in selling it. Given his $2,500 mortgage of the property upon his purchase, I'm guessing that's exactly what he did, taking it slow in the real estate game for his first property.

628 Maple Avenue

A.F. Gutekunst acquired this property in June 1923, right around the time when the mysterious transactions for the Jackson Ave house appear with Ms. Mattson. He acquired a separate double-wide lot on Maple Ave near Limekiln Pike this same month (see below). As for this lot at 628 Maple, Gutekunst again acquired it directly from Reginald Ferguson, and this time he had a partner. This partner was a Mr. William Brosz, a carpenter!!!

Did Gutekunst and Brosz work together to build this house in 1923? Well, they owned the lot less than 3 months. It doesn't seem like enough time even with a skilled carpenter on board. But maybe... maybe plans were in the works prior to buying from Ferguson and who knows, maybe they even had a deal worked out with Ferguson to start early (I think I'm reaching). Gutekunst obtained a mortgage on this property as well, for $2,500, and the partnership sold it in September of that year to a Nelson Mathis for an undisclosed amount. Mr. Mathis took out a $4,500 mortgage immediately, so a short-term bump in value of $2,000 may have been achieved here. The house does show up on both the 1927 and 1937 maps.

Look at the photo above of the house as it exists today. It has clearly been modified to a great extent over its life-- a second story has been added, and the front porch has been enclosed. But if you take away those two things, I see ALOT of similarities to my own house on Central Avenue-- the hipped roof over the front porch, the width of the house, and the existence of a projecting bay on the first floor left side of the house. It's just something to keep in mind... another "maybe" here.

257-263 Maple Avenue

Gutekunst and Brosz had a busy summer in 1923, as they also together acquired this double-wide lot further to the southwest on Maple Ave, near Limekiln Pike and outside of Ferguson's subdivision. This time, they bought from a Samuel Thompson, and the consideration amount is actually provided in the deed this time, for $1,550. However, another deed shows up shortly thereafter granting Brosz's half-share entirely to Gutekunst for slightly more than half the original investment-- $800. It's hard to know what happened here that caused Andrew Gutekunst to buy out his partner's half-- maybe they had a falling out, or maybe Brosz only wanted to build and not take on the risk of ownership/investment. Coupled with the previous property above, we have a partnership between Gutekunst and a carpenter that lasted, on record at least, only 3 months.

As for the houses that sit on these two now-separate lots today, I'm somewhat baffled. At first, you might imagine my excitement upon seeing nearly identical houses which I knew were owned and possibly built by the same person(s) in Gutekunst/Brosz. However, the house you see on the left, #263, appears on both the 1927 and 1937 maps, whereas #257 on the right appears only in 1937. Andrew Gutekunst mortgaged these properties heavily, in total to the amount of $25,000 through four separate mortgages over the next year, before selling the property to a local business, Glenside Lumber and Coal Company, in November 1924, for a total of $5,400.

I can't quite fathom the possibility that these two houses were built very far apart chronologically as suggested by the 1927 map-- they just look too similar. The theory I am running with, for now, is that Glenside Lumber and Coal Co. erected the houses, starting with #263 and completing it in time for the first atlas map (likely by 1926), with the neighboring house following shortly thereafter, maybe within a year or so after the map publisher finished their survey. All told, I believe that Andrew Gutekunst did not play a part in building these houses, although the incredible amount he borrowed via mortgage of the property is a huge mystery here. He must have improved the property in some way.

502 Central Avenue

My house is within walking distance of all these other Gutekunst-held properties. Andrew Gutekunst came into ownership in November 1923, and it was a sole venture after absolving his ownership ties with carpenter William Brosz. He acquired the property from local real estate broker Harry Renninger for $650 and simultaneously mortgaged it for $3,800. Owning the property for approximately one year, he unloaded it in October 1924 to Anna Coogan for the amount of $5,500.

Did Andrew F. Gutekunst, or someone working for him, build this house during his ownership? If you've been reading this blog to any extent, you know that this is among the foremost unknowns I hope to solve. As I've described previously, the house appears on both the 1927 and 1937 atlas maps, and I feel very confident that it was constructed at the very latest by the end of Gutekunst's sale to Ms. Coogan in October 1924.

647 Jackson Avenue

This property, acquired in May 1924, is located directly adjacent to A.F. Gutekunst's first investment property, which he sold a few months after acquiring this one. Again a sole venture in terms of ownership, it is another which was conveyed directly from Reginald Ferguson, the subdivision's creator.

A bit curiously, a house is shown on the 1927 map but NOT the 1937 map-- I had to check multiple times to be sure I was looking at the same property on both maps. Was an existing house demolished sometime after 1927? Maybe. Perhaps it was a mistake by the atlas map surveyor.

No matter, for now. Mr. Gutekunst, it seems clear, did not erect the house which sits on the property today. Having obtained the property for an disclosed sum, he conveyed it to Glenside Coal and Lumber for $400 on the same day he sold the company his properties at 257-263 Maple. Was November 24, 1924 a day that Andrew Gutekunst, to a large extent, gave up his dabbling in the real estate game? This day, where he offloaded three properties to the same buyer, was his final transaction recorded for several more years.

626 Penn Avenue

In July 1928, Andrew Gutekunst re-entered the marketplace, having acquired an empty lot on Penn Avenue at the west end of the neighborhood. He owned it for less than two months. The true market value is not recorded on either end of his ownership, and it appears that no house existed on this property until the 1950's.

621-631 Cricket Avenue

The house at 621 Cricket Ave (on the right in the photo below) is another outlier to the 1923-24 transactions, as it served as Andrew Gutekunst's personal residence. His father, Frederick William Gutekunst, who like Andrew was listed as a flooring contractor/finisher in several records, was the owner until he conveyed it to Andrew and his wife Olga in 1941. The father did not pass away until 1953, but he was 71 years old at the time of this transaction. It appears that this home had remained in the Gutekunst family until very recently, just last year 2015. It was built prior to 1927.

The house to the left, #631, was likely built in the 1950's, and not by Andrew Gutekunst. He acquired the land in 1946 for the amount of $390 from Sigured Larsen and sold it less than a year later for $600. Both amounts are suggestive of a vacant lot, and no house is shown on the 1927 or 1937 maps. Perhaps Andrew, although having largely given up real estate, happened upon an opportunity to purchase the lot neighboring his and took it.

Observations and Analysis

Below is a much simplified version of the table shown at the beginning of this post:

I did what I set out to do here, which was to get as full a picture as possible of Andrew F. Gutekunst's personal dealings in local real estate. Further, I would contend that I can at the very least draw a reasonable conclusion that he likely did NOT build or have my house built during his ownership of the property. Instead, I am continuing with the theory that at which I arrived after my initial mortgage document analysis-- that the house was probably already there in November 1923.

The simplified table here shows that five (5) houses had been built on properties he owned in time for the 1927 atlas map. His now-discovered business association with the carpenter William Brosz in 1923, within the midst of Gutekunst's whirlwind of the same year, leads me to believe that he did build at least one house with this partner. The apparent dissolution of that ownership partnership, coupled with the fact that I just don't see a huge jump in value over his investment on most of these properties, leads me to infer that A.F. Gutekunst intended to build more houses than he actually did. Until I see more evidence that could suggest the contrary, I believe that my house is a case of him acquiring a recently built home in the rapidly-developing neighborhood and flipping it after a short time for a profit.

Coming soon, I'll do a similar examination of properties in this neighborhood bought and sold by Philadelphia carpenter Jayson Stover in Part 3.

Read More »

The North Glenside Land Company - "500 Desirable Lots"

Early on in my home research, a familiar corporation name kept popping up-- that of the "North Glenside Land Company". It re-appeared in deed after deed, specifically in the legal description of my land, as I kept requesting the documents from the Recorder of Deeds office via mail as part of my chaining the title (at that time, I had no opportunity to physically search in-person). Every week or so I'd receive a new deed further back in time, and each one defined the property's southwestern boundary "thence along the land of North Glenside Land Company". This continued back to Reginald Ferguson's receipt of the overall land tract from Emma Spear in 1919.

Just a Neighboring Development, But Consider My Interest Piqued

My initial viewings of local atlas maps found my property within the boundaries of "North Glenside - Ferguson" in 1937, as part of Reginald Ferguson's subdivision. But although it was called Ferguson's North Glenside, the corporation called North Glenside Land Company always seemed to be clearly a separate entity. In fact, it appeared to be the owner of the majority of the vacant land directly to the southwest and even a few slivers to the north and east bordering Ferguson's. The name "North Glenside Land Co." does not appear specifically on any of the early atlas maps, although the area is labeled "North Glenside" in 1916. In earlier years, this neighborhood was instead occupied by the "William Penn Real Estate Co." in both 1891 and 1897 (it was further labeled as "Remlu Heights" in 1909", a name which re-appeared on the 1937 map. Upon first glance, NGLCo (as I'll refer to it for short) appears to have been a successor to Wm. Penn Real Estate Company in owning that land tract.

After Googling the North Glenside Land Company, I was excited to find the following photograph courtesy of Duke University:

This photo was taken less than 1/2 mile from my house in 1916, down at the Ardsley railroad stop, and captures three advertising billboards. On the far left billboard, one can just make out the words "North Glenside Land Co." In the foreground we see the rail tracks, with Jenkintown Road trailing away from the photographer to the east. This view is in the direction as if one were moving away from my house. Cutting across from left to right in front of the billboards (behind the closer sign reading "Get Off Here- Ardsley Burial Park") is Tyson Avenue, largely obscured by the sloping ground. This sign for the NGLCo alerts disembarking train passengers, as well as those remaining on the train, that great home lots are nearby. The sign reads "North Glenside Land Co.     [Hou]ses and Bungalows For Sale" and the bottom line likely reads "Build to Please" with further text not in view.

Before I knew more details about Ferguson's tract and before I pinpointed my house's construction date to about 7-8 years after this photo, I thought that this could possibly have been advertising a development which included my house's lot or even the house itself. Alas, it is the neighboring subdivision but is a fascinating find nonetheless which intrigued me further about the North Glenside Land Company.

North Glenside Land Co. in the Years 1914-1920

Documentation found to date of the NGLCo's existence and operations largely consists of newspaper advertisements and references to the company in property deeds. The corporation is included on several reports produced at the Pennsylvania State Treasurer's office for the years 1916 and 1918, and there appears to be some evidence that the company was formed in 1914. Newspaper advertisements taken out by the company, found in the Philadelphia Inquirer, are frequent in this same year, 1914, adding credibility to that assumption. The company again appears to have advertised somewhat heavily in both 1916 and 1919, with at least one ad found in 1920.

Add to this the photo of the billboard dated 1916 and we have a fair bit of evidence that the NGLCo was active primarily from 1914-1920. What occurred pre- and post- these dates I am not quite sure at this time. However, any documentation which also provides any sense of geography always refer to the general area of Ardsley station. Thus, at this time I feel reasonably certain that the area of their holdings corresponds with those of the Wm. Penn Realty Co. before it and which was labeled as North Glenside in 1916. This general area, to the southwest of Ferguson's North Glenside tract, also corresponds roughly with what is today known as the community of North Hills (between Jenkintown Rd and Mount Carmel Ave, and between North Hills Ave and Edge Hill Rd). I have to assume that NGLCo's holdings were further contracted within those boundaries (probably no further east than Hamel Ave), and subtracted from it certainly would have been any lots sold off before 1914 to individuals.

Portion of a 1916 local atlas map. The location of my house, prior to its erection, is circled in purple. "North Glenside" is directly to the southwest. Original map via Franklin Maps.

"Your Bungalow in North Glenside"

The company's 1914 advertisements in particular provide some richness to this story. Nearly all of them stood out within a dense newspaper page of text ads by including an image of a bungalow. Most are also peppered with flowery language, as many real estate ads are. NGLCo was selling much the same type of haven that many developers were at this time, offering modern amenities such as reliably clean plumbing water and electric street lights, as well as an escape from city life with attractive landscapes ("high healthful surroundings"!) while at the same time allowing easy access to Philadelphia by way of the railroads. They implore potential customers to "enjoy your summer in a bungalow". Indeed, many of the bungalows built in this era served as summer cottage retreats for city dwellers. All of the ads in this first group are from April through July of 1914, indicating a heavy advertising blitz to try to lock in customers during the first spring and summer seasons after the company's establishment:

We see here an indication of the possible number of sales during these several months, as NGLCo continually amends its total availability from "500 desirable lots" down to 450 and eventually to "over 400". We also learn that the company had built dozens of bungalows itself (at least 40), in order to offer turn-key homes to buyers seeking such. In addition, vacant lots were available (certainly!), and the company appears also to have offered ready-to-build floor plans as well as customization. But wait, there's more! Easy financing and a free automobile ride to the tract from the train station. Everything to everyone, of course! It clearly was successful to some extent, as the earlier ads indicate pricing for a bungalow home ranging from $3,000 to $3,500-- that is later amended to $3,500 to $4,000 and later further to "$3,500 and up". A buyer could grab hold of a vacant lot for $250 to $500.

The ads also indicate management of the company by a Mr. William G. Glenn, on-site customer service by a Mr. Walter Lewis, and that the NGLCo maintained three offices in Philadelphia. One of these offices was at the Land Title Building on South Broad Street, an early skyscraper designed by famed architect Daniel Burnham. Given the existence of not one, but three offices, all of which were off-site in the city, I'd wager that Mr. Glenn was part of a larger operation and that the North Glenside Land Company solely existed as a corporation to serve this new development.

By October 1914, either business had slowed or the company had completed more bungalows on the lower end of its scale. This simple ad offers a "white plastered bungalow, hardwood finish ideal for young couple, $3000" as well as 5-room (2-bedroom) homes for $3,500 and 6-room (3-bedroom) homes for $4,000. No picture in this one either:

A few advertisements return to the Inquirer newspaper in 1916, one found with a picture:

In the plainer advertisement, we also see an additional listing below it bearing the name "Renninger & Renninger" (if you've read my chain of title summaries, this name should be familiar!). It's a sign of things to come for the North Glenside Land Company, as by 1919 they no longer rely solely on their "agent on the grounds" here and instead have farmed agency representation to the prominent local realty company headed by Harry Renninger:

The NGLCo still claimed "500 desirable lots" and perhaps used this figure loosely to describe their entire development at large. The company seems to still clearly be building in the neighborhood in 1919 in order to "supply the urgent need of more houses". Also, the sizes of the homes being built have increased in size. This ad below from 1920 is difficult to read, but lists three bungalows, ranging from 7-8 rooms in size with price tags from $6,400 to $9,500:

The trail of the North Glenside Land Company dries up after that, at least without more extensive research. I'll just need to keep digging, figuratively speaking, of course.

Read More »

Braindump: What Items Are on My Research To-Do List?

So, research on the bungalow has slowed a bit lately. It's not for a lack of leads or places to search for more information, however. With a full-time job and a limit to what can be found online, I've not recently had the chance to get back to the Montgomery County Courthouse to make more substantial progress. With that said, there are several items which I have discovered but not yet shared here and will do so in the near future.

Still, I figure this time to be appropriate to do a sort of "brain dump" exercise to lay out on virtual paper some of the main tasks I have ahead of me. If I take a holistic view of my research so far, I would say that I have a relatively thorough understanding of both the transactions involving the house and of its major physical alterations over time. On the other hand, I have not definitively pin-pointed the construction date or builder, and there is much more to learn of the land's history before the house was built. Putting all of my identified to-do items in one spot allows me to take general stock of what items will help fill certain gaps, and it will allow me to more easily identify tasks which might be started with writing a letter or making a phone call (i.e. things I can do now without visiting a records repository).

Photo: Pixabay (CC)

So, here's the brain dump, grouped into loose categories:

Contacting Living Individuals / Primary Source Interviews

• Follow up with John/Catherine Cantlin's daughter-in-law regarding my last letter sent in November
• Get in touch with the other surviving daughter-in-law (possibly through the first one) to see if an interview can be arranged
• Contact 2001-2014 owner to share my findings thus far; discuss the renovation to a single-family he performed and ask if he is able to share any documentation or photographs.
• Locate Gutekunst descendant identified in obituary research; establish preliminary contact and try to arrange interview
• Contact owners of Spear house (possibly former home of Emma Spear) and try to arrange an interview
• Ask immediate neighbors further questions about the house and Cantlins

Courthouse Records

• Perform chain of title on neighbor's property, which was reportedly once a part of mine before being sold off
• Any record of writ of fieri facias (believed to be foreclosure on the Coogans) still in tact at County Archives? First inquiry came up needing more info to locate correct records group
• Search nearby counties for other land transactions involving former owners (especially important in establishing Stover/Brandes connection)
• Go further back in pre-house land deed history
• Ensure that I have located all available probate files available online via FamilySearch/Ancestry; once complete, begin identifying those which are not available online, in order to locate in-person

Library / Historical Societies / Township and Other Repositories

• Inquire at county/township regarding other available tax records
• More extensive search of local directories for former owners at historical society
• Visit library and/or historical society for more background and information on Harry Renninger; Including the various companies he ran (Remlu Building & Loan) and organizations in which he was involved
• Inquire again at Township offices regarding additional records, try Public Works Dept for dates of sewer/water service starts in relation to Building Dept records
• Locate a copy/image of 1925 Sanborn map
• Further research on North Glenside Land Co-- inquire library/historical society
• Make a general inquiry at County Historical Society to determine available resources

Miscellaneous

• Re-examine my home inspection report to glean any further physical clues
• Draft biographical sketches of other previous owners (Brandes complete); this will fuel further research inquiries for each individual
• Contact civil engineering firm that did Ferguson's original survey- can they provide further insight/analysis?
• Continue searching kit house plans and pattern books for a design which may have been used for my house (I have a current front-runner, but it is not an exact match)

As you can see, even though I'm maybe a year into sporadic research and even though I've found quite a bit, there is still alot of homework to do in order to be more thorough and to get the type and depth of information I seek for my house history. You might have noticed I slipped in some additional online research in there-- this exercise has proven useful in that it has identified additional tasks I can perform from home and still make progress. I intentionally left off continued searching and prying the details of my house-- sometimes I wish I could do more invasive investigation, but I don't think my wife would be too happy about that!

If any other seasoned house researchers have followed along with the journey and have additional tips, please let me know in the Comments section!

Read More »

Saturday Spotlight- Circa 1915 Craftsman in Souderton

This week's Saturday Spotlight house is a Craftsman bungalow just outside of the borough of Souderton, PA.

Image courtesy of real estate listing by Re/Max Reliance

We have here a fairly modest Craftsman of nearly 1,900 square feet which exhibits several of the typically common features of this Arts-and-Crafts-inspired home style. The most distinctive of these are the low-pitched roof of the front porch, anchored by tapered stone piers which touch the ground. Stonework is continued with a prominent external fireplace of wide and tall proportion. The short and long 8-pane window is a window shape typical of the style. Knee braces mounted just underneath the roof eaves are one of the hallmarks of Craftsman design. The diamond-shaped siding shingles are an interesting decorative feature for the gable facades, although these are likely not original to the house. A fresh paint job with historic colors could do wonders for this home. On the interior, we see more Craftsman details: coffered ceilings, built-in cabinetry, and stained wood trim throughout.

Image courtesy of real estate listing by Re/Max Reliance

Image courtesy of real estate listing by Re/Max Reliance

Origins

This Craftsman house is believed to be the earliest remaining home of about a dozen homes, on a stretch of road at the edge of town which is now peppered with a few small commercial buildings and a few sizable light-industrial properties. Yet, it was not always so of course. Although not constructed until the 1910's, the house sits on what was previously the 45-acre farm of Henry B. Sell. Sell owned and ran this farm at the edge of Souderton at least as early as 1877, living there with his wife Emeline. They raised at six children on the farm over the years, and eldest Harvey stayed on the farm through the early part of his marriage. Once patriarch Henry passed away in 1909 of a stomach ulcer, however, it appears that the Sell family moved off of the farm and into the borough itself.
Meanwhile, the bungalow featured here was built sometime within the next decade. A few other modest homes where built up along Hatfield Pike during the pre-war era as well. No major farm structures survive on the property, although their time of demolition is not known.

Location of the Henry B. Sell farm, along what is present-day Souderton-Hatfield Pike.

1950s to Present

Post World War II, the immediate area surrounding the Craftsman gained new neighbors in a few ranch-style homes, but the commercial/industrial nature of the Pike appears to have begun around this time as well. In 1966, Joseph Hoffmann, along with his wife Gertrude, purchased the neighboring ranch home, and in the 1970's built a small machine shop for his "J. Hoffmann Tool and Die Company" behind the house. In 1986, the Hoffmanns also bought our subject Craftsman house as well. As the larger of the two houses on their adjacent properties, it's reasonable to assume that they took up residency in the Craftsman at that time. Mr. Hoffmann has passed away within the past decade or so, and the house was sold to another couple. Apparently in a half-finished state of repair in a few of the rooms on the interior (namely the upstairs), it is currently on the market.

The commercial and light industrial properties has continued to be built up sporadically, and the house is now more or less surrounded by such properties. But the Craftsman sits, waiting for a new caretaker, to finish off some of the incomplete renovations and carry it into its next several decades.

Image view Google Street View

Read More »

Re-Examining the Previous Layouts of the House

As far as I have been able to discern thus far, the floor plan layout of my house has gone through at least four significantly different iterations. I took my first shot at one of these previous layouts several months ago, after discovering evidence of a now-abandoned kitchen at the back of the house. In hindsight, those conjectures were incorrect after further investigation. Now, given the benefit of a lengthy conversation recently with long-time owner Catherine Cantlin's daughter-in-law, I take pause to examine what I know in terms of the layout history. The evidence gathered has been documentary, anecdotal, and physical. The first floor has always been the only real occupied space, with the unfinished basement below and the attic above. What follows is my present understanding of how the layout has changed throughout ithe house's roughly 93-year history.

Original Layout (c. 1923 to 1940s)

During its first 15-20 years, this house was one of the only ones in existence on the block, and it was a very modest home at roughly 750 square feet. Although I do not believe it was a mail-order kit house, the design may have been found in a pattern book I have yet to locate. This kit model sold by Montgomery Ward in 1930 is very close to what I believe to be the original layout of the house. Here is my own sketch:

Throughout its existence, the left half of the plan has generally contained living spaces, while the right half has contained bedrooms. Originally, one entered from the front porch into a modest-sized living room. This room has always held a view through a large cased opening into what is now the kitchen but was originally the dining room. Beyond the dining room was an enclosed kitchen at the rear of the house, off of which was an exit to the backyard. These functions in these locations were confirmed by the Cantlin daughter-in-law. Just to the left of the back steps was an exit staircase from the basement (a set of steps which still exists today but is entombed beneath my living room). I consider it a pretty safe assumption that the stacked staircases to the basement and attic remain today in their original locations. On the right side of the house, the main bedroom was off of the living room, with a second bedroom at the back, and the house's only bathroom was sandwiched in between the two.

New Rear Addition; Duplex Phase 1 (1940s to early 1960s)

Perhaps ironically, I am a bit less sure about this iteration of the layout than I am of the original layout. The lack of clarity rests primarily in whether or not the rear addition was completed in one or two phases, and when. What I do know, positively, is that a rear porch, which constitutes the upper-left corner of the floor plan, was enclosed in 1946 to create more interior space (due to receipt of a copy of that 1946 building permit). The construction and design of the addition lead me to believe that the entire addition inclusive of the un-enclosed porch was built at one time, prior to 1946, with that porch enclosure occurring later. To date I have not been able to locate backup documentation. Here is what the plan may have looked like both before and after the porch was enclosed:

I believe that the gabled, primary portion of the addition may have included a third bedroom to the left and a second kitchen to the right. Off of the new bedroom would have been the porch-- and once enclosed, it expanded the size of the bedroom. During this time period, John and Catherine Cantlin's children were reaching adulthood and the parents portioned off half of their newly expanded house, creating a duplex for their family members. The second unit was not fully closed off from the main unit at this point, as it was family living there. According to their daughter-in-law, all three of the adult children lived in the apartment at some point. The left-side (main) unit contained the connected living/dining room, the original kitchen, and the near rear bedroom. The right-side apartment contained entry from the rear into a new door at the new kitchen. Then, progressing towards the front past the attic steps was the apartment living room, which could also double as a bedroom if required. The original bathroom may have been shared across both units during this time period-- the door opening accessing the hallway from the dining room may or may not have existed. Lastly, the original primary bedroom was now the main bedroom for the apartment.

Kitchen Relocated; Duplex Phase 2 (1960s to 2001)

Also according to the Cantlins' daughter-in-law, Catherine made some further changes after husband John's death in 1961. Most significantly, the house's original kitchen was converted into a new second bathroom. Permit records confirm this change and provide a date of November 1963. If there was indeed access to the original bathroom from the dining room at this time, it was closed off at this time. Kitchen cabinetry and plumbing was installed along the left-side wall of the dining room, turning it into an eat-in-kitchen.

The remainder of the duplex is as described in the previous iteration. The sketch above shows the Cantlins' newer rear bedroom expanded into the area of the porch enclosure.

Re-Birth as a Single-Family House (2001 to Present)

After Catherine Cantlin sold and vacated the house towards her later years, a young couple took ownership and set to work re-establishing functionality of the house as a single-family home.

The function of living room was relocated to the larger back room of the house, into what was previously Ms. Cantlin's bedroom. The second rear door off of the apartment kitchen was filled in. When exactly this kitchen was converted into a bedroom is unclear at this time, but the daughter-in-law reports that the house was still presented as a duplex when she helped sell the house in 2001, so it likely was not abandoned until that time. Both bathrooms were updated, and I believe it was during this ownership that the window at the original bathroom was filled in. An exterior deck was built at the back of the house, covering over both sets of concrete steps.


What exists now is a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom single-family home of approximately 1,100 square feet. For now, this layout works pretty well for us. We'd like it to be perhaps a bit larger, and I have some designs in my head, but we'll get to those in due time. This house is over 90 years old and has seen significantly more change than I realized when I set out on my research. Yet, the journey and the in-progress results are fascinating, as the house has shifted and morphed along with all of its occupants.

Read More »