608 Fayetteville

35.986789, -78.897257

Year built
early 1930s
Year demolished
Construction type
Building Type
Can you help?
You don't need to know everything, but do you know the architect?
Log in or register and you can edit this.

608 Fayetteville, 1962.
(Courtesy Durham County Library / North Carolina Collection)

610 Fayetteville, 1962.
(Courtesy Durham County Library / North Carolina Collection)

608-610 Fayetteville was built in the early 1930s. The Bull City Drug Store was a long-time tenant of 610 Fayetteville. 608 Fayetteville was the first home of the Service Printing Company before it moved to East Pettigrew St. and a series of pool halls, most notably the Dixie Sport Shop and Central Community Club Billiards.

I'm not clear as to whether the Bull City Drug Store and the Bull City Drug Company were one and the same. The latter was organized in 1908 and originally located on West Parrish St., I believe at 116 West Parrish. Operated by S. James of Virginia, Dr. Charles Shepard (brother of James Shepard and son of Augustus Shepard) was president of the company, Charles C. Spaulding was secretary, and William G. Pearson treasurer.

The Service Printing Company moved from 608 Fayetteville in 1948, eventually to the former Durham Hosiery Mill No. 2. 608 Fayetteville remained a billiards parlor (the "Yar-Bro-Dee") and Spears' watch repair.

A small piece of 610 Fayetteville, mid-1960s.
(Courtesy Durham County Library / North Carolina Collection)

It appears that 610 was demolished by 1968, and 608 by 1972. The land remains vacant.

Site of 608-610 Fayetteville, 10.05.08

Find this spot on a Google Map.

35.986789 -78.897257


As always, this is great stuff. This blog is a fabulous resource to those of interested in the history of Durham.

One mild critique: I do not believe it is accurate to describe these old parcels along what is now "Old Fayetteville" as vacant.

This entire stretch is as built up as it can be given the yards requirements, sight triangles, and rights-of-way of the street and freeway. Yes, it is no longer an urban setting of structures joined by party walls, but thanks to recombination and zoning regulations, these lands all appear to in current use.

Thanks Tar Heelz. I think it's a debatable point - yes, the parcels are owned, and there are structures on the parcels. The one story medical office building in the center of the large parcel is not the most intensive use of the site - and that is my point; we've gone from a dense and fine-grained maximization of the site to a suburban style medical office complex that underuses the available land, particularly given the prominent location. I agree that the use of the word 'vacant' doesn't convey all of that; my point is simply that the building could still exist on this spot - nothing has displaced it physically, and thus there was no urban redevelopment reason for its destruction.


Add new comment

Log in or register to post comments.