modern in many ways

Archive of Affinities — Joseph Paxton, The Crystal Palace, The Interior,...

Taking a bit of a break from Chicago to read up on some early 19th century wrought and cast iron reading, and finally decided to plow through Peter Berlyn and Charles Fowler’s account of the design and construction of the Crystal Palace, an exhaustive (and exhausting) monograph put out just after the structure’s opening in 1851. I’d been curious about the trusses that spanned the relentless 24 foot planning module–they were cast iron, with connections to the columns made with pegs and shims (!). The longer spanning girders over the main nave, however, were wrought iron, which checks out–the 1840s saw that material come on line as a viable solution to spanning structures. (You can tell the difference in the engraving above if you look closely–the trussed girders to the left are clearly cast iron, bulky in proportion, while the high girder on the right, where the transept vault sits, is made up of thinner elements that could only be rolled, not cast).

Anyway, the Crystal Palace is sort of a running joke in Construction History as the “first everything,” at least if you’re British. First curtain wall? Crystal Palace. First fully industrialized building? Crystal Palace. First skyscraper? Crystal Palace. But it certainly earned its accolades–there are legitimate arguments to be made for all of those, even that last one. One way that I’d never thought of the structure being modern, though, is described brilliantly by Berlyn and Fowler early on in their design history. Joseph Paxton, after touting his idea for a mass-produced filigree of iron and glass in the London Illustrated News, joined forces with contractors Fox and Henderson just days before tenders were due for the project. While his basic scheme was as simple as it could be–just a handful of components repeated hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of times across the sixteen acre site–having confidence in the abilities of iron, glass, and timber manufactures to produce that much material in northern factories, deliver it to London in time to construct the building in just a few months, and to price it reliably, relied on technology of a far different sort:

“It was now Saturday, and only a few days more were allowed for receiving tenders. Yet before an approximate estimate of expense could be formed, the great glass-manufacturers and iron-masters of the north had to be consulted….But in a country of electric telegraphs, and of indomitable energy, time and difficulties are annihilated; and it is not the least of the marvels wrought in connexion with the great edifice that, by aid of railway-parcels and the electric telegraph, not only did all the gentlemen summoned out of Warwickshire and Staffordshire appear on Monday morning at Messrs. Fox and Henderson’s office in Spring Gardens, London, to contribute their several estimates to the tender for the whole, but within a week the contractors had prepared every working drawing, and had calculated the cost of every pound of iron, every inch of wood, and of every pane of glass.”

A first instance of Building Information Modeling? I’ll let a U.K. partisan make that argument, but it’s clear from that description that, without the telegraph and railways annihilating “time and difficulties” Paxton’s scheme could never have come together in the time it did. The railway required and inspired development in the iron industry, but easing the flow of information between manufacturer, designer, and contractor isn’t one I’d thought of before…

Construction Work at Hyde Park, East Side (Larger image) | Expositions,  where the modern technology of the times was exhibited.

one last tube structure–standard oil

It was a great thrill yesterday to take part in a Construction History Society of America webinar (credit-free learning!) with David Macaulay, one of my all-time heroes and the author/artist behind many great books that shaped my childhood. Many thanks to Peter Hilger, Melanie Feerst, and the staff at the University of Minnesota for hosting.

My contribution was a quick preview of one emerging theme in the new Chicago book–the “secret history” of SOM’s tube structures. The standard story is fairly well documented–Fazlur Khan is credited with naming the structural type, if not exactly inventing it, and there’s a very clear progression of the idea from the Brunswick and DeWitt-Chestnut buildings of 1961-65 through the world-beating Hancock and Sears Towers a few years later. The basic idea is to think of high rise structures as “super-columns,” pushing all of the structural material to the perimeter of the floor plate so that it gains maximum resisting leverage over wind forces. The analogy I use in class is a paper towel roll. It will take far more axial compressive load in when intact than if you slice it down the side and roll it up into a tighter cylinder, since shortening the resisting moment arm makes it far more vulnerable to buckling.

Brunswick Building, SOM, 1961-65. Model by Jack Strait, based on drawings in the SOM-Chicago Archives

Brunswick was a cautious step in that direction, but it paired perimeter structure with a traditional shear-core (the green walls in the model above by ace undergrad research assistant Jack Strait). One key to its performance is that the perimeter columns in plane with the shear walls (red in the model) are deeper than their neighbors, reflecting the concentration of loads being transferred from the sail-like exterior walls to the upturned-beam like interior core. Dewitt-Chestnut, on the other hand, was a pure tube structure, with irregularly-placed columns in the center of its floor plate that handled gravity loads only, leaving the perimeter to carry the entire wind load:

Dewitt-Chestnut Apartments, SOM, 1961-65. Model, again, by Jack Strait

I’ve posted elsewhere about I.M.Pei’s proto-tube structures in New York and Chicago–the precursors to Brunswick, according to Bruce Graham. I made that point, and showed how construction improvements led to another set of tube structures that enclosed apartment and condominium buildings throughout Chicago, by the firm of Dubin, Dubin, Black, and Moutoussamy that deserve far more attention than they’ve typically received. But a friendly email from a regular Architecturefarm correspondent this morning points out that I didn’t get to one of Chicago’s biggest–and purest–tube structures, one with a legacy that stems directly from SOM’s work.

Standard Oil was designed by a pair of firms–Edward Durrell Stone from New York and Chicago’s own Perkins + Will. After the Hancock was completed, P+W hired away one of SOM’s lead engineering partners, Al Picardi. At the time of the Hancock, Fazlur Khan was still a relatively junior member of SOM’s office, having joined in 1955. Picardi was more senior and was in fact the lead engineer on Hancock–Khan reported to him. He switched firms, apparently, to lead the engineering of Standard Oil, which from its inception was intended to be colossal, at over two million square feet (far larger, incidentally, than the original masterplan for Illinois Center, which at first included Standard Oil’s site…)

from E. Alfred Picardi, “Structural System—Standard Oil of Indiana Building.”  Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE. Vol. 99, no. ST4.  Apr., 1973.  42-51.

Picardi’s structural system is a clear adaptation of the tube structure to Stone’s heavy-handed massing. The perimeter is composed of hollow, triangular steel columns tied into deep edge girders, while the interior structure is gravity-only columns concentrated in the core. The result is clear span office space and–a Stone trademark–narrow slit windows with starkly vertical proportions.

E. Alfred Picardi, “Structural System—Standard Oil of Indiana Building.”  Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE. Vol. 99, no. ST4.  Apr., 1973.  42-51.

In addition to the large, clear span floors, the structural advantage to this was a core unconstrained by large shear walls and a lightweight spanning structure. With the building’s stiffness taken up entirely by the exterior, the interior structure could be made of light, open-web steel joists:

E. Alfred Picardi, “Structural System—Standard Oil of Indiana Building.”  Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE. Vol. 99, no. ST4.  Apr., 1973.  42-51.

Standard Oil’s structure was a successful application of the tube to another tall building–Leslie Robertson engineered a similar pairing of stiff, tightly spaced exterior columns with long span open web joists for New York’s World Trade Center at around the same time, which was further proof-of concept. But the building was an architectural disaster–in addition to being wildly overscaled for the emerging Illinois Center district, Stone’s trademark vertical style struck many as alien to Chicago, where skyscraper facades were known more for their rich interplay of verticals and horizontals. Like many other tube structures, Standard Oil hit the ground with a thud–the need to bring so many tightly spaced columns all the way to the ground proved difficult for nearly every architect, but many got the sense that here, Stone didn’t even try, simply filling in the narrow interstices with glass revolving doors that proved treacherous during downdraft winds.

Stone himself gave the building a luke-warm reaction, remarking only that “it’s good looking” on seeing the project firsthand.  The Tribune’s Paul Gapp, on the other hand,was furious.  “The Standard Oil Building,” he wrote, “is perhaps the worst thing that has happened to Chicago’s skyline in the last 30 years.”  The Prudential’s “headstone by the Lake” was now matched, in Gapp’s view, by Stone’s scale-less, “unbroken verticality.”  Its blazing contrast between brilliant white marble and the narrow, dark recesses hid any sense of floor-to-floor rhythm or Picardi’s ingenious structural fabric behind facile elevational stripes.  “If you stare at the building from a short distance for more than 15 seconds,” Gapp complained, “it is almost disorienting.”[i]


[i] Paul Gapp, “Ambiguous Statement Snarls Center Debate.” Chicago Tribune, June 30, 1974. 1-e3.

plus ça change–sustainability vs. hubris and substitutions, Roman style

Image and original data provided by Bryn Mawr College, Orlandos, A. Ta hylika domes ton archaion Hellenon. v.2. (Athenai, 1958); Page 92, Figure 37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.12195054

The Chicago project is taking a breather while I get ready for the semester, and in the spirit of constant improvement, I’ve been rewriting the syllabus for Big and Tall: A History of Construction from the Pyramids to the Burj, which I’m teaching this Fall for the first time in a couple of years. The first couple of thematic lectures, on ancient timber and stone construction, have always relied on Vitruvius and the Yingzao Fashi, a 12th century Chinese treatise that was a combination of Sweet’s Catalogue, MasterSpec, and the International Building Code.

Inspired to dig a little deeper into Roman sources, though, I’ve discovered Pliny the Elder, whose Naturalis Historia is a thorough (and gloriously grumpy) chronicle of, well, the whole known world in 70 CE or so. Among his thoughts on building is a recognizable plea for a more sustainable approach to construction and an agonized accounting of the widespread pillaging caused by quarrying:

“Nature made mountains for herself as a type of bond for compressing the bowels of the earth and at the same time for holding in check the rushing strength of rivers and breaking the waves of the sea and to restrain with her hardest substance her least quiet parts.  We quarry these mountains and drag them away for no other reason than that our pleasure dictates it—mountains which it was once astonishing even to cross.  Our ancestors considered it almost a portent that the Alps were climbed by Hannibal and later by the Cimbri: now these very peaks are quarried into 1000 types of marble.  Promontories are laid open to the sea, and nature is made flat.  We carry away features, which were meant to serve as barriers for keeping nations apart.  Ships are built for the sake of transporting marble, and so here and there over the waves, the wildest portions of nature, are carried mountain peaks….Each of us who hears the price of these items and sees the massive quantities, which are being dragged around should meditate on how much better life would be without them.  Oh, that men should do these things—or rather, endure them—on account of no other purpose or pleasure than to recline surrounded by varicolored stones!”

–Pliny, Natural History, 31.1-3

The hubris that went into laying promontories open to the sea and the call for simplifying, downsizing, and thinking about whether the ability to topple mountains means that one should do so rings pretty true today.

But Pliny also found quotidian examples of the corruption inherent in Imperial construction. Not only were the mountains being pillaged, but client’s budgets were, as well. Here he is describing the process of fabricating marble slabs out of those Hannibal-trod blocks of stone:

“But whoever first discovered how to cut marble and split luxury into sheets showed harmful ingenuity.  This seems to be effected by iron but actually is done by sand, as the saw presses the sand on a very narrow line and brings about the cutting by its very passage back and forth.  Sand from Ethiopia is rated most highly….Later, a no less esteemed sand was found on a certain shoal in the Adriatic Sea, uncovered by low tide and not easy to spot.  But now, deceitful workmen have dared to cut marble with any sort of sand from any river, a source of waste, which very few notice.  For the coarser sand cuts less accurate slices, wears away more of the marble, and by its rough finish increases the work of polishing.  Consequently, the revetment slabs are thinner.  Again, Theban sand is suitable for polishing, and a compound made form limestone or pumice.”

–Pliny, Natural History, 36.51-53

Thinner slabs from cheaper sand…those ‘deceitful workmen’ were basically proposing an unapproved substitution, and I’m guessing that Roman practice and current AIA contract documents both took a dim view of those sorts of shenanigans. You can totally imagine the equivalent of the email to the client: “We have reviewed the proposed substitution of sand from the Tiber and find it unacceptable. The project specifications upon which the workmen’s bid was submitted clearly call for Theban sand, and…”

CHSA Webinar with David Macaulay (and me), Sept. 17 1200-1330 CST

Holy smokes, I’m David Macaulay’s opening act.

Architects of my generation have two things in common that drove us to our professional choices–Legos (of course) and David Macaulay’s books. Castle was my first, followed very quickly by Cathedral, City, and several others. His unbelievable drafting skill has always been matched by clear, often very wry texts, and the feeling of slowly understanding a really complicated building through his guidance and storytelling is a sense that I still find myself chasing whenever I’m doing research.

Anyway. CHSA has landed him for a conversation with our eminent President Emeritus, Brian Bowen (who himself has a new book out later this month on the history of American contracting…) and they’ve invited me to present some new research on the evolution of Fazlur Khan’s tube structures as a sort of opening act. To say that I’m honored by this is an understatement, and I promise to keep things short but to have a couple of surprises, like a guest appearance in the slides by August Komendant and I.M. Pei.

Registration is free but required–sign up here if you’re interested (and consider becoming a member of CHSA if you aren’t already!)

mies’ advice to young architects–solid

I’ve been immersed in a pandemic-delayed trawl through the Mies van der Rohe papers in the Library of Congress this week. A few finds that merit publication (forthcoming), but also no small amount of joy. I get the sense that his taciturn, grumpy reputation was mostly fictional; he comes across as incredibly warm and (occasionally) funny. But terse, definitely terse.

Sometime in the late 1950s he delivered a “lecture” to the Architectural League of New York City, but–never confident in his English ability, he asked that it be all questions and answers. The conversation mostly focused on the Seagram’s building, but the crowd got in plenty of larger issues as well. The typescript in the archives hasn’t, I think, ever been published, and given Mies’ reluctance to speak or write very much it’s an important collection of his thought.

It ends with an anonymous questioner tossing up a classic softball…and Mies hitting it out of the park:

QUESTION:  Now there are a lot of young people here tonight and I wonder, Mr. van der Rohe, if you would like to give them some advice.  Some of us probably are well along and saying we are not going to contribute much to architecture, but these youngsters might like to hear some advice about how they should approach their first commission, or what they should think about—certain clarities that you’ve mentioned.  Perhaps you’d like to repeat them or….

VAN DER ROHE:  I think there is one thing what I would do—I would work very hard.


Typescript titled “Architectural League,” in folder “Interviews with Mies, Box 62, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe Papers, Library of Congress Manuscript Reading Roo

champlain towers collapse–best summary yet…

Architect and engineer Twitter has been busy this week speculating about the cause(s) of the building collapse north of Miami. The best summary I’ve seen yet is in this morning’s Washington Post and deserves a full read by anyone curious/concerned, including reasons why a foundation failure or sinkhole seems increasingly unlikely.

Elsewhere, the truly chilling document from the president of the building’s HOA and associated engineer’s report emphasize just how pervasive the building’s deterioration had become. Deferred maintenance and short-term financial decisions are their own post/book idea, but this is a prime example of how primed we are to ignore risks of long-term catastrophe when faced with difficult short-term decisions.

339 barry, an underrated Chicago ‘first’

Display Ad, 339 Barry. Chicago Tribune, Nov. 14, 1964.

The burst of apartment building in the early 1960s that rebuilt much of Lake Shore Drive was matched by a new high-rise type that revolutionized residential financing in Chicago and, eventually, throughout the country.  While rental apartments found a consistent, nearly-insatiable market among young professionals and couples, Chicago—like many American cities—found itself losing young families to the suburbs as rentals for multi-bedroom units soared.  The attractiveness of new developments in the 1950s, along with the promise of new connecting expressways made for a natural migration out of the city for white families with children.  Mortgage assistance for new, single-family homes from the FHA encouraged this, as did the inherent wealth-building potential that stemmed from home ownership, which transformed funds previously expended on monthly rent into equity.  While this out-migration was a windfall for homebuilders and developers outside of Chicago, it sapped tax dollars and much of the city’s skilled workforce; because of the restrictive covenants and the intransigent, often violent racism that continued to mark the city’s white middle class neighborhoods, this trend further cemented segregationist tendencies throughout the city. 

It was clear to many stakeholders—city builders, financiers, and the Daley administration—that encouraging home ownership within the city limits was a necessary step to combatting this endemic white flight.  But the city was largely built-out by this point, with little room to annex new territory and limited land on which to build developments that could compete with the sylvan lawns and sprawling ranch houses offered by new expressway suburbs like Oak Lawn or Arlington Heights.  Urban renewal had offered limited possibilities and, to this point, had necessarily been aimed at lower middle class and Black families with apartment projects that could not provide the benefits of equity that suburban home ownership promised.  And the city’s most desirable sites and neighborhoods came with land costs that demanded dense occupation and, thus, multi-story development.

But Illinois’ laws through the 1950s made integration between home ownership and skyscraper construction difficult and risky.  Like most states, real estate law in Illinois had always been based on English common law, which assumed physical ownership of land itself as the basis for all property rights; title to a particular plot of land also came with rights to the ground below and the air above.[i]  Defining a single unit in a high-rise in legal terms was, if not impossible, at least such a byzantine process that developers had come up with the co-operative system to get around it.  Since the 1920s, this method gave owners a share in the corporate ownership of an entire building and the right to rent a single, specified unit within.  This came with quirks and risks—among them, residents of a development were legally and fiscally responsible for the defaults of their fellow, corporately-bound neighbors.  If one resident fell behind on their monthly payments, the remaining residents had to make up the difference for the corporation’s property taxes, mortgage payments, and maintenance costs.  Co-ops gave residents inordinate power over sales and purchases; boards had the right to approve or deny new buyers, which was often a de facto segregationist power, and they could in extreme situations force residents out for cause—though this could be arbitrary and brought with it an uncertainty that home ownership typically avoided.  The system continued to be popular through the 1950s—Herbert Greenwald’s developments in particular often championed the co-op arrangement—but it was clearly an outdated and potentially discriminatory structure that was, by 1963, not providing a robust enough alternative to suburban home ownership.

A consortium of Chicago real estate lawyers approached the State legislature in 1963 with proposed legislation, inspired by new laws passed in Puerto Rico and Hawaii in 1958, that would allow ‘fee-simple’ ownership of individual units in a high-rise by specifically designating a process for dividing a project’s volume into legally defined parcels.[ii]  They argued that this idea was, in fact, well-proven—“the idea dates from ancient Rome” was a common refrain—and that it had encouraged construction and found eager markets among both young families and older couples in the states that had passed similar laws.[iii]  Shared ownership—or, from the Latin, “con dominium” offered a way to cut through the legal mess that came with defining air rights in a land-based system.  Herbert Rosenthal, president of Dunbar Builders, which had managed to construct low-rise shared-ownership developments under the old laws in 1962, explained the benefits to the Tribune, noting that a condominium arrangement offered exactly the elusive “best of both apartment living and home ownership”:

 “Condominium buyers have the security of ownership, along with its financial and tax advantages, as well as the convenience and freedom of an apartment dweller, he said.

“In a condominium project, buyers own their own apartment, while hallways, roof and other structural portions of the building, are owned in common with the other residents.  Owners have individual title to their units and are responsible only for their own mortgages and taxes, and a small fee to maintain the grounds and common areas.

“The condominium plan differs from the cooperative in that individual dwelling units can be sold, exchanged, or rented by the owners independently of their neighbors.  Co-operatives are owned by stockholder tenants, and permission is required from a governing body to sell or buy an apartment.”[iv]

But the new arrangement also offered developers an important benefit, in that it allowed them to walk away from a project once all of its units had been sold, leaving management to entities that could be formed by the owners themselves and eliminating the difficulties that came with collecting rent or running projects as corporations—a new class of developer emerged that focused on quicker turnarounds, rapid sales, and speed of construction as priorities. 

Passage of Illinois’ condominium law, in June, 1963, did not on its own spawn the next decade’s extraordinary burst of condominium construction.[v]  Rather, it took acceptance from the orbit of financial institutions and a healthy dose of marketing to establish condominiums as rivals to both co-ops and rental apartments.  The FHA provided much of the groundwork for this, though, extending its mortgage insurance programs to condominium projects nationwide in 1961, and with that security the city saw its first high-rise condominium announced three weeks before the law was even passed.  339 W. Barry, between Sheridan Road and Lake Shore Drive in Lakeview East, was an immediate ratification of the concept.  Developed and built by F&S Construction, one of the suburbs’ largest homeowners, 339 Barry reflected a hunch by the company’s owner, Jack Hoffman, that there was a “move back to urban living.”[vi]  Hoffman, namesake of one suburb where the firm had built nearly 2000 houses, had seen homebuilding slow and recognized that the new laws opened up an entirely new market, laying out the advantages to the press and pointing out that here, finally, was that elusive combination of ownership with “the benefits of living in a luxury apartment on Lake Shore Drive.”[vii] 

Hoffman’s efforts to replicate the perceived comforts and conveniences of the suburbs along Lake Shore Drive led to a building designed by Fridstein and Fitch, a firm opened by Loebl, Schlossman, and Bennett partner Marvin Fitch in 1951.  Their site on a suburban-sounding “quiet, shaded street” offered unrestricted views to Lincoln Park and the lake, and Fridstein and Fitch arranged the building’s massing accordingly, with an exposed core on the building’s west side that allowed every apartment eastward-looking views and balconies.  Each unit was larger than standard north side apartments, at between 1000 and 2000 square feet, with large living rooms and separate dining rooms; each floor of the 26-story structure had just two or three units, which sold for between $25,000 and $58,000.   Taking cues from Mies’ Commonwealth Apartments, just to the southwest, they developed the building’s curtain wall with grey-tinted glass to mitigate bright morning sunshine, set into aluminum mullions that replicated the now-established Miesian idiom. 

But Fitch, interviewed on the building’s announcement, argued that the building’s sleek exterior was less important than its robust construction and its amenities.  “The renter,” he thought, was more concerned with these “exterior or visible details.”  Purchasers, on the other hand, were more concerned with the longer-term durability of “details of construction…plumbing, heating, wiring” and other equipment.[viii]  Hoffman pointed out the building’s ‘double climate control system,’ which adopted the zoned system of commercial towers, but without ducted air.  One baseboard circuit provided heat during winter to eliminate condensation from the apartments’ floor-to-ceiling windows, while fan coil units provided “individual heating and air conditioning” for each room.[ix]  Other amenities that, according to Fitch and Hoffman, distinguished the condominiums from rental apartments included dine-in kitchens, more sophisticated appliances including garbage disposers and ovens with ranges, optional dishwashers, and improved finishes, in particular parquet flooring in entrance halls.[x]  Unit plans also included three times the amount of closet space recommended by the FHA—an acknowledgement that the stability that came with ownership rather than renting would inevitably lead to greater accumulation.[xi]  These upgrades were combined with marble tubs, rosewood-paneled public areas, and “elegant details everywhere.”  Perhaps most tellingly, Fridstein and Fitch specified improved acoustic construction for walls between units, with laminated sheets of 5/8” drywall on one side, single layers of drywall resilient furring channels on the other to absorb transmitting vibrations, and 3-5/8” thick blankets of fiberglass insulation between.  Combined, these improvements, developed by U.S. Gypsum, gave walls a 51dB rating, more than 10% greater than FHA apartment standards and a crucial selling point to buyers used to the relative isolation of suburban homes.  “You can play your hi-fi or television, have an argument…sneeze, and snore to your heart’s content and the people in the next apartment home won’t hear you,’ claimed F&S’ vice president, William Griffin, on the building’s opening.[xii]  These innovations, the units’ larger floor sizes, and Hoffman’s gamble on drawing suburbanites back to the city were dependent on financing, of course, but the project received enthusiastic support from St. Paul Savings and Loan, while Chicago Title and Trust signed on to guarantee mortgages, supported by the FHA, to individual buyers.[xiii] 

Display Ad, 339 Barry. Chicago Tribune, April 11, 1964.

After the first condominium sale in the city was celebrated in August, 1964—to Mr. and Mrs. Richard Eastline, both of whom worked at sales and marketing in the Loop—buyers were initially wary.[xiv]  Five units remained unsold by January, 1966, a year and a half after its opening[xv]—but as the first year’s operating costs proved to be within Hoffman’s estimates the building filled with owners, predominantly professionals between 35 and 45 years old, about a quarter of whom were families with children, and were split between those who had tired of renting and those who had returned from suburbs, citing maintenance and yard work as major reasons they had given up on home ownership.[xvi]  F&S launched an ad campaign based largely on snob appeal and economic logic—pointing out, in a 1964 ad, the art collection of one resident and describing his tenth floor unit as “appropriate to his social and economic position” while being a financially advantageous investment.”[xvii]  But they also instituted a buy-back program, offering to purchase would-be condominium buyers’ homes at market rates, creating a “simple and foolproof way to trade in a house on a condominium unit.”[xviii]  Through state legislation and aggressive marketing, Chicago’s battle with its suburbs for population and tax base was engaged.


[i] “Begin More Condominium Apartments.”  Chicago Tribune, June 29, 1963.  N_B10.

[ii] “Condominium Co-Op Bill is Introduced.”  Chicago Tribune, Mar. 14, 1963.  F9.

[iii] “Condominiums Take a Firm Foothold in the Chicago Area.”  Chicago Tribune, Sept. 3, 1967.  D1.

[iv] “Condo Idea Catches on Across U.S.”  Chicago Tribune, Oct. 17, 1964.  N11.

[v] “Illinois Sets Up New Form of Condominium.”  Chicago Tribune, June 21, 1963.  4.

[vi] James M. Gavin, “Construction Site is 339 Barry.”  Chicago Tribune, June 8, 1963.  C5.

[vii] “Lake Front Homes: Open First City Skyscraper Condo.”  Chicago Tribune, Apr. 4, 1964.  W_A5.

[viii] “Find Condominium Buyer Considers Important Factors.”  Chicago Tribune, Aug. 10, 1963.  N_B5.

[ix] “Lake Front Homes: Open First City Skyscraper Condo.”  Chicago Tribune, Apr. 4, 1964.  W_A5.

[x] “Lake Front Homes: Open First City Skyscraper Condo.”  Chicago Tribune, Apr. 4, 1964.  W_A5; and “Find Condominium Buyer Considers Important Factors.”  Chicago Tribune, Aug. 10, 1963.  N_B5.

[xi] “House Hunter Cautioned: Be Sure Closets are Adequate.” Chicago Tribune, Jul. 11, 1964, pp. 1-s_b5.

[xii] “New Soundproof Technique Applied in Skyscraper Condo. [339 Barry]”  Chicago Tribune, May 23, 1964.  N15.

[xiii] James M. Gavin, “Construction Site is 339 Barry.”  Chicago Tribune, June 8, 1963.  C5.

[xiv] “Family Acquires Condo Home; First in Lakefront Skyscraper.” Chicago Tribune, Aug 29, 1964. 1-n12.

[xv] “Year of Operation Verifies Estimate of Condo Expenses.” Chicago Tribune, Jan 8, 1966. 1-n_a3.

[xvi] “Sell 30 of 67 Condo Homes in Skyscraper on the Lake.” Chicago Tribune, Nov 14, 1964. 1-w5.  See, too, “Condo Attracts Prospects from the North Shore.” Chicago Tribune (1963-1996), May 16, 1964, pp. 1-n_a12.

[xvii] Display ad, “339 Barry Condominium.” Chicago Tribune, Apr. 25, 1964. 1-w8.

[xviii] “Purchase-Offer Plan Announced for Condo Units.” Chicago Tribune, Jan 16, 1965. 1-w_a10.

Stadio Franchi—international competition and cautious optimism

News this week that the city of Florence will, in fact, hold an international competition to restore Nervi’s Stadio Franchi and develop the surrounding Campo di Marte. As reported by La Nazione, the initial round will begin this month—a very quick turnaround that suggests work would being during the remaining term of the city’s Mayor, Dario Nardella.

While the stadium is still at some risk—terms of the competition would preserve the stadium’s fabric but would allow a broad range of interventions that could alter it—in the grand scheme of things this is a promising decision and a win for the preservation community. Not only is the stadium now being recognized as an iconic work in a city that is, frankly, full of them, but the entire neighborhood—a jumble of sports facilities, warehouses, parking lots, and the city’s second railway station—will be considered holistically. Our suggestion to the city (for what it’s worth, if any design teams have come across this in their Google research) is to consider a new stadium, new links to the rail infrastructure, and an entertainment and hotel complex that would rejuvenate the Campo di Marte, with Nervi’s stadium as an historic, cultural exclamation point…

So, not out of the woods yet, but cause for some cautious celebration. And, of course, a huge thank you to everyone who took the time to sign our Change.org petition (3700+!). That did, in fact, attract enough attention to help gain coverage in local outlets and the international press. All of that helped make the point that Nervi’s built work has huge support from the architectural, engineering, and preservation communities.

More news to follow, hopefully further positive developments. In the meantime, if you did sign and feel like celebrating with a Negroni or two, the staff at ArchitectureFarm would heartily endorse that…and possibly even join you…

allerton hotel–unlikely modern prototype

Allerton Hotel Chicago Illinois

The Allerton is a fairly typical 1920s hotel. Designed and built in 1923-24 by Murgatroyd and Ogden, it’s an ersatz combination of pyramidal massing, scooped out ventilation courts, and a vaguely Moorish theme, a landmark on Michigan Avenue mostly for its signage, which announces not only the hotel but also the fetchingly named Tip-Top-Tap, its rooftop bar.

Eminently forgettable as a piece of architecture, except…

PACE Architects’ principal, Charlie Genther, recalled that on the early Herbert Greenwald/Metropolitan Structures projects, Mies was constantly pushing to have floor-to-ceiling windows, newly enabled by the 1950 building code (about which, much more here…) Legal though that may have been, Greenwald had trouble convincing lenders that tenants wouldn’t find the vertiginous lack of solid walls at the edges of their floor plates terrifying.

There was one convenient prototype, just blocks from 860-880 Lake Shore Drive, though. The Tip-Top-Tap, which relied on its panoramic views to draw customers for “after-theater rendezvous” and “midnight chats.” The romance of the city, seen from above, was enhanced by the largest possible windows, which–sure enough–are floor-to-ceiling:

Tip Top Tap - Allerton Hotel Chicago, IL

Greenwald apparently used the bar first as a test case, and then–at least according to oft-repeated anecdotes–as proof that the lack of a spandrel wall wouldn’t disturb potential tenants. Judging from the Eames chairs, that view is probably contemporary with Greenwald’s excursions there–the DCW came out in 1946. The planters and radiator cabinets suggest that this wasn’t quite as easy a sell as the story makes it seem, but here’s a slightly later view, not too much later since the Prudential isn’t peeking out over the Trib’s shoulder:

It’s another story that’s impossible to confirm but too perfect to not be true, and it does suggest a research trip to the Tip-Top-Tap once it’s possible again…

tribune observation deck, late 1927

Photographer unknown

Scrounging around for unconventional illustrations allows me to call eBay shopping “research” instead of just “procrastination,” but every so often it pays off. This week’s haul includes a set of Brownie photographs that were taken from the roof of the Tribune Tower (judging from the position of the Wrigley Building, lower left). You’re looking at the Marina City site in the foreground and the still-new Wacker Drive across the River–the only tall building on it is Graham, Anderson, Probst, and White’s Builders Building, which was just finished in 1927. The warehouses and factories that lined the riverfront are still mostly intact…not exactly the high-rent district it would become.

Photographer unknown

Our photographer has just turned to the left…Herbert Hugh Riddle’s Mather Tower–a building so slender it needed tension foundations to hold it down in a windstorm–is being finished on the right and if you look closely you can see that GAPW’s Pittsfield Building is up and nearly all clad, but missing interior walls. That was Al Shaw’s first major project and you can see that he brought a distinct style to the firm that had just done the solidly classical Builders the year before. Those two being under construction puts a pretty firm date on these–the Pittsfield opened in February, 1928, so these must have been taken sometime in Fall, 1927. Note the Peristyle at the head of Grant Park.

Photographer unknown.

And finally, swinging around to look almost due west. The Merchandise Mart hasn’t been started and you can see the “twin tower” Butler Warehouses and the Cold Storage building on the opposite side of the North and South Branches of the River–now all converted into residential uses. Over to the right is the 1892 Criminal Courts Building by Otto Matz, and the tower of George Nimmons Reid Murdoch Building (1913) is just peaking up on the main branch’s north bank. Other than those, there’s not a whole lot along Hubbard and Kinzie that’s still there.

Useful? Well, as a baseline for the development along the Main Branch, for sure, but mostly just a rare find of some comprehensive views of the city at the peak of its 1920s boom. Thirty years later in 1957 the view wouldn’t have changed much–but another thirty years from that and our anonymous photographer wouldn’t have recognized much…