Author: PHW

In February 1969, plans were afoot for PHW to lead the charge against the demolition of the Conrad House by the Winchester Parking Authority. The committee, led by Julian Glass, Jr., focused on circulating petitions and organizing letter-writing campaigns in favor of the “phone or personal contact” which had been previously utilized. The steering committee included J.T. Kremer, Sr., Leonard Sirbaugh, Mrs. J. Pinckney Arthur, Clyde “Chip” Johnson, Betsy Helm, Mrs. Wayne Hogbin, and Dr. Garland Quarles.(1)

Petition drives were held in the George Washington Hotel. At least two angles were used on the petitions. The first concerned the lease executed between the City of Winchester and the Winchester Parking Authority. The petition asked for the City to resume control of the Conrad property and/or to hold a public hearing on the fate of the Conrad property. Reports indicate over 2,000 signatures were gathered and filled several full-page advertisements in the Winchester Star in March of 1969.

The letter writing campaigns included a piece from Dr. Quarles, explaining why the house was historically relevant, invoking some of the activities and important people who had a connection to the house.(2) Others echoed these sentiments, including Lillian Majally, who may have influenced PHW’s slogan with her heartfelt plea to save the best of the area’s past for future generations to discover their visual heritage.(3)

PHW’s President Lucille Lozier spoke of the potential for tourists to appreciate Winchester’s buildings and their palpable connection to early American history and culture.(4) Others, like Anne Williams, suggested new community-minded uses for the Conrad House, like a daycare center.(5) More often, the building was suggested as being incorporated into new government offices, used as a residence for visiting dignitaries to the city, or operated as a museum. Alternative parking options were discussed, such as constructing a double or triple decker parking garage on another site.(6) In an idea which may seem scandalous to propose today, PHW members even pitched the idea to Council to level Rouss City Hall for the parking lot instead (remember that Rouss City Hall was deemed both too young for being constructed after 1860 and infeasible to rehabilitate at the time).

As the very public efforts to block the demolition of the Conrad House wore on, the timbre of the letters became more exasperated. Many letters cited how the Council had refused to listen to their constituents on this matter despite over 2,000 signatures on PHW petitions to retain the building, and how the Council seemed to be driven by the wishes of the merchants for parking over the wishes of the citizens for preservation.The existing lots were cited as rarely being at full capacity, so the issue to demolish the house was not the pressing need it was made out to be. Also cited was the “pass the buck” maneuver for the Council to turn the fate of the Conrad House over to the Winchester Parking Authority. Some letters even correctly cited the Kurtz Building would be bought and singled out for demolition for more parking on that site in the future.(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)

The letter writing and petitions were not the only efforts undertaken by PHW. Efforts had been made for multiple years for PHW to receive authorization from the City or WPA to perform studies on the Conrad House to determine possible future uses for the building.(12) Even though the City refused these offers for studies, PHW still reached out to representatives from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Virginia Landmarks Commission, and other architecture experts for their input on the value of the Conrad House. Offers were made for PHW to raise the funds to fix the house’s leaking roof and to hire engineers and architects for the project. Attempts were made to list the building on the National Register of Historic Places to block the use of Federal funds in the construction of the parking lot. Injunctions were sought for the illegal tree-cutting on the Conrad Hill property, and efforts were made to appeal the Board of Architectural Review being cut out of the process for the Conrad House. As a final attempt, shortly before the demolition PHW ran a series of large advertisements in the Winchester Star alerting taxpayers as to how their money had been used to purchase the Conrad House, and how their money was funding this parking lot against public wishes.

PHW minutes make mention several times of efforts by PHW to invite City representatives to join in meetings, and while politely received, all offers of cooperation were rebuffed. Minutes from February 17, 1970 make clear why: the WPA had called in an unnamed expert from Williamsburg who told them “there was nothing of value left in the house” and “it was not feasible to restore the place.” The minutes go on to record the PHW board’s “consternation over this information” since any expert that looked at the building and site holistically had expressed delight at the structure’s architectural and historical value and integrity. One of the last letters to the editor from R. Lee Taylor, PHW’s corresponding secretary, called for cooperation between the citizens and City Council, for preservation was good business for everyone.(13)

Although the City was not dissuaded from razing the Conrad House in March of 1970, the outpouring of support and frustration via the letter campaign bore some fruit in the end. On April 22, 1970, the City Council and a committee of PHW members met and began taking some of the first steps toward meaningful preservation efforts. The major concession was the acknowledgement that a Board of Architectural Review with purview over only 16 properties was ineffective and invalid, and Tom Scully was granted permission to overhaul the ordinance and present his ideas to Council. The meeting also proposed a strategy to foster cooperation and understanding between the City and PHW by installing PHW members on various boards and Council members partaking in the historical programming of PHW and the Historical Society. Although it took close to a decade, preservation was gaining acceptance in Winchester.

Next week, we will investigate the educational efforts as PHW moved into an era of preservation not focused on the retention of the Conrad House.

The origin of the group that would become PHW had two concurrent strains of activity: a group of private citizens concerned with the demolition of historic structures, and the advocacy efforts spearheaded by Carroll Henkel for Winchester City Council to enact ordinances designed to protect buildings considered worthy of preservation.

The exact date of the private citizens coming together to form a grassroots organization is lost in the mists of time, but evidence reveals that the first open meeting of this sort was held in November 1963 at the Handley Library. The oldest recorded minutes in PHW’s possession date from January 20, 1964 and set forth the first leaders: Carroll Henkel, President (elected in absentia); Nancy Pennypacker, Vice President; Miss Robert “Bobbie” Y. Conrad, Secretary; and Emily Kuykendall, Treasurer. Others in attendance include Eve Kennedy, Eleanor Rodman, Mary Henkel, T.G. Scully, and absentee dues submitted by Dorothy Allen and Ben Belchic. Enough dues were raised at the meeting to allow the group to join the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The first item of business undertaken was to prepare for a public meeting on February 19, 1964, hosting Helen Duprey Bullock of the National Trust to speak about preservation and its potential to make residences useful in a business district, as well as discussing the Alexandria Ordinance and the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission and how those could be adapted for Winchester. (1)(2)(3)

The minutes make mention of the similar citizen committee on historic preservation appointed by Mayor Charles B. Smalts, consisting of “Mr. Henkel, Mr. Scully, Mr. Stratton, Irvin O’Connell, and Lewis Barton.” In February 1963, Winchester City Council appointed this committee to make a report on what criteria should be used to determine whether a building was worthy of retention. The group returned to City Council in March with the recommendation to retain all structures that were built prior to 1860 within the original town as laid out by James Wood.*

Minutes from March 3, 1964 indicate the grassroots group, 37 members strong, changed its name to Historic Winchester, Incorporated and began the process of incorporation and seeking non-profit status with the mission being “to preserve the aspect of Winchester as a beautiful city by encouraging the conservation and restoration of such buildings as are historically or architecturally significant.”

Little PHW activity was recorded after March 1964. Although the organization remained in existence, no minutes and few files remain in PHW’s possession to document the group’s activities from late 1964 until 1967. Some work, however, must have occurred. An ordinance similar to those explained by Helen Bullock was considered the top priority for the group to present to the City. Bobbie Conrad volunteered to survey the buildings predating 1860 in conjunction with the committee’s recommendation that all such buildings be preserved.(4)

The Winchester Board of Architectural Review (BAR) was established in February 1966, shortly before the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in October 1966.(5) Once again, Carroll Henkel was elected to lead the first Board of Architectural Review.(6) The function of the board seems to be much the same as the BAR of today, with the BAR providing an extra layer of oversight and protection to a select number of historic properties. Mention is made in 1969 of a “voluntary list” of houses under BAR purview, along with an “inventory . . . of historic or architecturally interesting buildings” which was different from the voluntary list.(7) PHW minutes from February 26, 1970 clarified that the BAR had submitted a roster of 110 buildings deemed worthy of preservation, likely compiled from PHW members’ work, but that the City had pared the list down to only 16 buildings which had opted-in through the historic marker program. The Conrad House, of course, had been noted in the first list but had not received a marker through the voluntary list and was thus deemed ineligible for BAR oversight in 1969.

In 1967, the name was changed to the now-familiar Preservation of Historic Winchester, Inc. in an effort to avoid confusion with the Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society. The first historic plaque designating a building for protection was erected that same year. PHW was incorporated in 1968, though 501(c)3 non-profit status was not achieved until 1975. The change in name also marked a change in strategy: mobilizing the town in peaceful protest of the impending destruction of the Conrad House.

* Refer to Winchester Evening Star on February 20, 1963 “Name Committee to Preserve Historical Sites” and March 13, 1963 “Save All Pre-1860 Houses, Special Group Asks Council.” The 2011 architectural inventory indicates 274 structures were constructed between 1750-1860 in the current Winchester Historic District.

By 1962, the pressure to raze the Conrad House was mounting, with the Winchester Retail Merchants Association urging City Council to clear and level the lot. The Association even offered to pay half of the expected costs of demolition and construction – a hefty $45,000.00 (approximately $345,000.00 in today’s inflation) if the City would match the amount. The plan to raze the house for parking was officially endorsed by Winchester-Frederick County Chamber of Commerce in October of 1962.

On the other side, proponents of history, both individuals and organizations including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, were offering alternative sites for a parking lot and other potential uses for the historic building.(1) Petitions and letter campaigns to save the house were circulating, council members were polled in the newspaper on their sentiments, garden clubs and individuals were speaking at public hearings or writing in to City Council against the rising tide of demolitions. The unrest culminated with the Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society asking City Council for the Conrad House to be put to the voters in a referendum.

The issue reached a spirited climax in the January 1963 City Council meeting with two important items on the agenda. The vote to match the Winchester Retail Merchants Association funds to raze the house was tied at 6-6, with the 13th tie-breaking member of Council out of town and unavailable to cast a vote. It seemed that with the passing of the second important item, a 90 day grace period for preservationists to submit alternative plans for the Conrad House, that the prospects to retain the building were improving. City Council eventually voted the Conrad House off its agenda in September of 1963, seemingly dropping the issue without public fanfare.

The reprieve was to be short-lived. In 1964, City Council created the Winchester Parking Authority (WPA) with the directive to increase off-street parking facilities downtown. One of the City-owned properties leased to the WPA was the Conrad House. The WPA continued to operate the Conrad House as apartments until announcing plans in January 1969 to demolish the Conrad House and create two parking lots on the site.

“The Hill” was not left friendless in this second fight against impending demolition. The same group of determined citizens who stood against the plan in 1963 had continued their association under the name Winchester Committee for Historic Preservation. They were ready to rally the public outcry once again for Winchester’s second oldest building.

Synopsis of the timeline of the issue found in May 2, 1969 Winchester Evening Star story “A House, a Hill, and a Controversy” by Pat Robinson, C-8.