NATHANIEL ROCHESTER HOUSE

NATHANIEL ROCHESTER HOUSE

225
,
Hillsborough
NC
Built in
1800
/ Modified in
1995
,
2010
Architectural style: 
Construction type: 
Local Historic District: 
Type: 
Use: 

Comments

No comments yet.

Add new comment

In tours

Last updated

  • Wed, 08/17/2016 - 10:07pm by gary

Comments

225
,
Hillsborough
NC
Built in
1800
/ Modified in
1995
,
2010
Architectural style: 
Construction type: 
Local Historic District: 
Type: 
Use: 

 

07.31.2016 (G. Kueber)

(Below in italics is from the National Register listing; not verified for accuracy by this author.)

Similar in detail to other early Hillsborough houses, such as the Ruffin-Roulhac House, this one-story, side-gabled house has been considerably altered with the construction of several large additions at the left (east) and rear (south). The house is four bays wide and single-pile with a series of rear additions. The house has plain weatherboards, nine-over-nine wood-sash windows and exterior brick chimneys in the gables. The off-center six-panel door is sheltered by an engaged shed roof supported by square posts. A two-story gabled ell extends from the rear with a one-story, shed-roofed section to its right (west). From the rear ell, a 1995 one-story, side- gabled wing projects to the left, extending beyond the east elevation of the front section of the house. There is a c. 2010 large, one-story, side-gabled section at the rear of the rear ell. An entrance at the intersection of the rear ell and side-gabled wing is sheltered by a shed-roofed porch on square posts on a weatherboard-covered knee wall. An early owner is said to have been Nathaniel Rochester, founder of Rochester, New York.

This house has an awesome, very modern and substantial rear addition on it that I think exemplifies the right way to substantially add onto a house like this - it in no way detracts from the character of the house as visible from the front facade, above (from which vantage point it is invisible) but it is distinctive and contemporary, rather than some faux attempt to blend in with the past. It's ridiculous that this house is non-contributing to the historic district per the national register because of such a well-executed addition.

Add new comment