Hook Logo

Out of gas: Historic station sold and closed

by Lisa Provence
(434) 295-8700 x235
published 12:59pm Tuesday Feb 10, 2009
Bookmark and Share letter Write a letter to the editor

Kristy Houchens worked with her dad at Fry’s Spring Service Station for 20 years.
PHOTO BY LISA PROVENCE

The city’s only historically protected service station saw the end of a more than 70-year run taking care of autos and faces a future unlikely to include lube jobs and automotive grease. The 1931 building housing the Fry’s Spring Service Station, which harkens to the beginning of the auto age, has been sold, and on February 9 it closed its garage doors.

“I’ve been here since I was a baby,” says Kristy Houchens, 37, whose father, Jimmy Houchens, has run the station at 2115 Jefferson Park Avenue more than 40 years. “I’ve been here all my life.”

In 2007, the Virginia Landmarks Register approved the station, citing its Spanish/colonial-meets-Jefferson exterior and its Art Deco bathrooms, but its addition to state and national historic registers was held up by a family dispute when Jimmy Houchens’ brother refused to sign off on the historic designation and forced the sale of the station, Houchens had previously told the Hook.

The service station had been listed for $950,000, but real estate agent Deana Cropp did not return a phone call from the Hook seeking information about the new owner and plans for the building in time for this post.

Jimmy Houchens in 2007 felt the end of the station was near.
PHOTO BY WILL WALKER

Charlottesville officials, alarmed by the December 2007 razing of the historic Beta House on Maury Avenue, put Fry’s Spring Service Station on a list of individually protected properties, so any exterior work has to go through the Board of Architectural Review.

As for the historic bathrooms, “We can’t protect the interior finish,” says Mary Joy Scala, the city’s preservation and design planner, although preservation could earn tax credits, she adds.

She plans to ask the new owner(s) to sign off on the state and national historic designations. “Everybody loves that building,” she says.

The Houchens have to be out of the building by February 20, says Kristy Houchens. “It’s an icon,” she says. “It’s kind of the end of an era.”

closed

17 comments

  • A view from the county February 10th, 2009 | 8:23 pm

    Plaster and stucco and grease and oil HISTORIC Get Real

  • mjr chapin February 10th, 2009 | 10:19 pm

    What a loss! Great people, great place.
    And it’s just stuffed with antiques–those dozens of old model cars–what’s going to happen to them? They belong in a museum.

  • Betty February 10th, 2009 | 11:07 pm

    We’ve already lost one wonderful historic building the Beta House hope we will not lose another. Ms Scala is right. This is a much loved neighborhood landmark and one I’ll fight to save !

  • really? February 10th, 2009 | 11:42 pm

    It could really? use a paintjob.

  • Reality Bites February 11th, 2009 | 10:40 am

    “This is a much loved neighborhood landmak and one I’ll fight to save!”

    Maybe I’m a poor excuse for a citizen, but I fail to see where you have a personal right to determine what is done with someone else’s property. How about you buy it and save it rather than try to force the individual who bought it to do what you want done with the property?

  • Patsy February 11th, 2009 | 10:43 am

    A paint job? Grease? Look beyond that people. The neighborhood needs to preserve some of its beautiful buildings and landmarks. Thank God! We don’t need another ugly brick duplex or some fast food restaurant. IMO it is the only attractive building at that intersection. Shame on those who can’t see otherwise and shame on those who have methodically ripped down the beautiful architecture in this neighborhood!

  • SON OF LBERTY February 11th, 2009 | 12:28 pm

    So to YOU it’s Plaster and stucco and grease and oil. But to many it’s historic in a sense of being a landmark and it’s a symbol of a era.
    When cleaned up and painted maybe even YOU will understand !!!

  • Reality Check February 11th, 2009 | 12:43 pm

    Reality Bites– there’s a concept called stewardship. You might want to look into that.

    Our shared history involves all of us. History matters. Don’t want to own a beloved landmark or historic structure? Then don’t. But if you do, be prepared for people to use their right of free speech to criticize you if you want to demolish it to get a quick buck.

  • scubachipmunk February 12th, 2009 | 3:02 pm

    that place would always have cars parked in front of it, which was extremely dangerous for those wanting to turn onto JPA. traffic safety should be considered here.

  • Sick Of The Local Rambos February 12th, 2009 | 4:39 pm

    ScubaChipmunk, I drove through that intersection on a daily basis for over two decades. I never saw a car parked in any manner whatsoever that created a traffic hazard. I think you might possibly be confusing an eyesore (in your mind) with a traffic hazard. For God’s sake, don’t kick these honest decent hard working people around with some fabrication of a traffic hazard.

  • Yikes February 14th, 2009 | 5:33 am

    Let’s hope the new owner isn’t UVa - they might erect a 10 - story parking garage around and above it.

  • Fred February 14th, 2009 | 9:10 am

    Having driven through this intersection for the last three decades, I heartily agree with ScubaChipmunk that the cars parked parallel to JPA at the garage certainly blocked visibility for drivers on Maury Avenue attempting to turn right on red onto Fontaine. As much as I love the garage, my first though upon hearing it was going to close was that finally the visibility might improve at this intersection. Of course, this visibility problem is due to the fact that JPA is coming up a hill and turning a corner as it approaches this intersection.

  • Sick Of The Local Rambos February 14th, 2009 | 2:29 pm

    So, now the truth shines though. Vehicles parked there are a mere inconvenience for those who are in a rush to get through that darn nuisance traffic light and intersection. The right turn on red law says you can do so when it’s safe to do so, it doesn’t say it is a God given right that people exercising their own rights should not interfere in. I’m sorry their parking customer’s cars on their property caused you a delay of 10 to 20 seconds getting through the traffic light if you had to wait for the green to turn safely.

    The right turn on red is one of the worst traffic laws ever passed in the State of Virginia. To the majority of drivers, it simply means slow down a little bit, look to the left quickly, and go for it if approaching traffic is at least 30 to 40 feet away.

    Furthermore, if the parking did legitmately created a hazard to motorists turning right onto Fontaine Avenue, the city traffic department had an obligation to put up “No Turn On Red” signs. Instead of blaming the service center, why not blame the City of Charlottesville?

  • Dave February 15th, 2009 | 1:48 pm

    This would be a great brothel. I envision a positive place where girl’s from Mr. Jefferson’s academical village could sunbathe and study on the roof by day, resting and eating local food. At night, they work to help pay for tuition in these tough economic times. Gentlemen scorned by Charlottesville’s liberal prudish women could drive up to the valet. Durty Nellys could serve as a Gentleman’s lounge and sell tickets to the brothel.

  • Never Been to a Game February 16th, 2009 | 10:52 am

    To get to the heart of the property rights issue, just ask this hypothetical: What if the owners decided to raze the building and place a bank branch or sandwich shop or car wash there? How would the city react? This “Charlottesville officials” and “Board of Arch. Review” deal is a crock. Where was the Board of Architectural Review when the downtown circus tent was built? And “stewardship?” Come on, this is someone’s property…stewardship is a liberal catch-all word for government’s excuse to dictate what one is to do with one’s property. Bogus, bogus, bogus.

    If you “stewards of other people’s property” want lovely architecture, then buy the old lot down the street (next to the beautiful gas station) where the Chinee restaurant was, and build your lovely art-deco blah-blah-blah there. I like Dave’s brothel idea much better.

    Now, I am off to Flirt on 14th Street to buy me some bloomers!

  • Reality Check February 16th, 2009 | 6:55 pm

    Sure, everyone has rights. But we all also have responsibilities. In civilized societies, individual rights and collective responsibilities co-exist. Unless, of course, you’re one of those knee-jerk Libertarians in which case you don’t give a darn about anyone but yourself. If so, you should just going on doing whatever it is your sort does.

    Either you “get” the concept of preservation, or you don’t. You don’t. But I’ll bet you enjoy Monticello, the Grand Canyon, the Blackfriar’s Theatre, the Smithsonian, Natural Bridge, ad infinitum. All examples of things that have been or are still owned by SOMEBODY, but have been preserved for the benefit of all because it’s part of our shared heritage, history, community and so forth.

    Without the BAR and city preservationists, this would be a vastly different town, and NOT one you’d care to live in. You reap the benefits of their hard work every day, but are just to ignorant to know what you’re looking at.

  • [...] me of any future comments by email. possibly related content:Out of gas: Historic station sold and closedNo spikes: NYC rail service clears last hurdleAnyone hungry? New delivery service deals dinnersSnap [...]

login | Contents ©2009 The HooK