Building Chicago: The Nation’s North Star for Architectural Design, Conception, and Preservation Debates

As an Art History Major with the Loyola Chicago Fine Arts Department, it has been a joy to write and research a topic ever so close to my heart. Here is a ‘bite size’ allowing a high-level overview of the project. Massive thanks to my mentors Dr. Olivia Wolf and Dr. Sarita Heer of Loyola University Chicago along with my peers in the program. Cheers! I hope you enjoy it.

Until Chicago flourished in its design discoveries, American architects proudly imitated eurocentric practices instead of paving a new path for the nation’s own structures. The beloved Midwestern hub has acted as a northern star for American architectural culture, metropolitan social movements, design, expectations, and preservation. Now instead of the United States imitating eurocentric practices, it was the Windy City that many look to for inspiration.

Shaping the Modern City: Key Historical Events

The political and social climate felt it was at an all-time high in Chicago’s nineteenth century: The Great Chicago Fire of 1871 demolished one-third of the city, the Haymarket Bombing of 1886 was the breaking point for mistreated workers, and the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893 catapulted the city to the forefront of the international lens for culture, art, and innovation. These three key moments contextualized Chicago’s extreme necessity for growth.

Chicago’s Architectural Legacy: Technological and Stylistic Innovations

Chicago’s breakthrough in being home to the first skyscraper established itself to act as the powerhouse for architects to ideate, define and revolutionize the United States’ approach to architecture. Chicago was home to the first skyscraper in the world known as The Home Insurance Building. It was designed by William Le Baron Jenney and completed in 1884.

Jenney, William Le Baron, 1832-1907. Chicago: Home Insurance Building Reference: poster. https://library-artstor-org.flagship.luc.edu/asset/ARTSTTOR_103_41822000052769.

On the corner of LaSalle and Adams Street and standing ten stories high, it embodied the United States’ International advancements for leading progress and a new world of societal change. The skyscraper was made possible due to technological advancements. Rather than using pure animal power for moving large items, the pulley system was implemented. In preparation for a steep set of stairs to climb, they incorporated a hydraulic elevator just as the Otis Elevator Company previously created in 1857 in New York City. Utilizing a French technique as a foundation, Jenney further innovated its practice in opening the walls to more windows to capture light, thus maximizing the light through large window openings. As a result, these windows filled rectangular spaces in the building’s façade. They looked locked into place as they were bordered with masonry and cast iron. As the building outwardly faced both streets at its corner, the windows were endless in wrapping around its frame. The windows were not only added for aesthetics, but for their functionality in making the structure an eligible work environment. As Edison’s lightbulb was only created six years prior to the construction’s completion, light and air ventilation would be required to practically utilize the building. The incorporation of countless windows decreased the weight tremendously as it traded masonry for glass. The steel frame construction which Jenney implemented was revolutionary compared to past practices of masonry construction. The new system is what allowed the building to grow to such a height. Thomas Leslie, a Chicago architectural expert, clarifies that “building in iron, masonry and brick were not invented in Chicago, but the way they were assembled was.” Leslie believes the art of bringing these materials together was mastered in the city. As the building was massive in comparison to what had been created at the time, the viewer’s eye could be guided across the exterior in a less overwhelming way due to the consistent repetition of windows and framing holds. The ornamentation of the building coupled with the window repetition as mentioned, created a sense of verticality for such a wide building. It is almost as if the eye cannot seemingly move across the building freely due to the uniform sections shifting the visual momentum. The first floor of the ten-story building was made of large stones and longer windows. The manipulation of proportions is akin to past eurocentric practices within Italian palazzos. The preliminary section of the building creates a divide between accessibility for the city people and the building itself. Above the ninth-floor windows, Jenney included Sullivan-inspired decorative lunette windows. The curvature of the glass acts as a visual divider between the middle section of the building and the remaining top floors. The pairing of Chicago Windows and lunettes created a harmonious balance of glass against the masonry. It is also acclaimed to be the first steel-framed office building in the country along with being one of the first examples of lightweight tall construction. Unfortunately, the United States had no established discourse of cultural heritage or appreciation of architecture at this time and The Home Insurance Building was demolished in 1931. What would have been a legendary historical landmark is no longer standing as preservation used to be an afterthought.

Urban Planning Contributions: Daniel Burnham’s 1909 Plan of Chicago

Worldwide, Chicago is recognized as the architectural capital of the United States. It is all made possible due to The 1909 Plan of Chicago, also commonly known as the “Burnham Plan of 1909”. The plan was written by architect and city planners, Daniel Burnham and Edward Bennett, to improve the city’s Park system, transportation, refine systematic organization for streets within the city, Chicago’s hub metropolis quarters, along with ensuring the spirit of Chicago was captured in all its execution. As Rome was often cited as inspiration, The Burnham Plan mentions how Rodolfo Lanciani defined the parks, gardens, and public commons to be the true lungs of a city. Specifically, the City Beautiful Movement led by Burnham, acted as the philosophy supporting the progressive social reform movement. Improving conditions for those of the middle class was integral to the persuasiveness and inspiration behind the plan. The complex, cultural movement’s presence was successfully forged in Chicago and later trickled into other cities including Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, and Washington D.C. The improvement of quality of life is the largest theme as it has a deep focus on an urban environment’s impact on lifestyle. 

Paris on the Prairie

‘Paris on the Prairie’ or ‘Paris by the Lake’ is the vision behind Chicago to give a Parisian feel. Burnham and Bennett’s plan rewrote the blueprint for lifestyle and design to reflect Chicago as the epitome of a sister city to Paris. Burnham was an admirer of the Beaux-Arts movement which influenced Chicago greatly as he hired architects who studied directly from the École des Beaux-Arts to work on the massive project. Under Emperor Napoleon III, Baron Georges-Eugène Haussmann renovated Paris from a filthy and overworked center to the fantastical city of today. The success of Haussmann’s plan is represented in the return on investment in Parisian tourism. Paris holds monumental value in public buildings, parks, and methods of transportation. An exemplary structure is small; yet fascinating. The John B. Murphy Memorial Auditorium located at 50 East Erie Street is a mirror image of a Parisian chapel. When comparing the visual elements and the overall construction, the Chapelle-Notre Dame de Consolation of 1901 is nearly identical. The architects, Benjamin Marshall and Charles Fox, believed the heavy use of ornamentation and details is a draw from the grandeur Paris provides those who visually experience it. They wanted to evoke the same emotion as they saw Chicago to be just as grand as Burnham described.

Left: Photo of the John B. Murphy Memorial Building. November 18, 202. Photograph by Author | Right: Mossot, Jacques. Paris – Chapelle Notre-Dame-De-La-Consolation. Photograph. Paris, July 2005.

Stylistic Contributions: Sullivan’s Chicago School and Wright’s Prairie Style

Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright were the key architects that formed the Chicago architectural narrative. Sullivan’s famous apothegm “form follows function” within modern design became a global design philosophy while also establishing The Chicago School style. He also had notes of eurocentrism but created something entirely new. Wright was influenced by and evoked Japanese ideals while retaining simplicity in form. Beyond both the eurocentric and Japanese influences, they both brought key concepts into American architectural discipline as their legacy. 

Embarking on Preservation Issues and Debates

The turning point when Chicago’s architectural developments became destructive to the foundations placed in the late nineteenth century was urban regeneration. The City of Chicago decreed that thousands of structures on the South Side be demolished in the name of urban renewal in the 1950s and this ideology continued to spread across the city landscape through the 60s. Structures that should have had historical landmark status were being entirely neglected and most are forever gone because of this. Some of the senseless demolitions included The Cable Building, which even had landmark status, the Republic Building, the Chicago Stock Exchange, and the Schiller Theater Building. Advocates realized it was about time the government respected many of the architectural structures, once seen as new, as antiquities. The preservation efforts Chicago led allowed the United States to follow in implementation as it allowed the nation to build a “historic sense of place”. 

Trailblazer of the movement and renowned photographer, Richard Nickel, was a leader in the mission to spark attention in holding the government accountable to implement a new obligation in protecting the city’s physical fabric of structures. Through the lens of his camera, he found Sullivan's works as his muse and had a mission to document as much as possible. On June 8, 1960, he picketed the front of Sullivan’s Schiller Theater Building, most commonly known as The Garrick Theater, among other peers and for four days to follow. As the Garrick Theater’s push for rescue was the first of his kind, he stationed himself outside the doors with a wooden stick attached to a sign that read, “Do we dare squander Chicago’s great architectural heritage”?

“Do we dare squander Chicago’s great architectural heritage?” June Skinner Sawyers, “Chicago Portraits: New Edition” (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2012) pg. 237

The passionate group rallied over three thousand signatures and placed immense pressure on Chicago’s Mayor Daley. “Nickel’s appeals…sparked a veritable media event that included an elite roster of scholars, architects, and curators from around the world” allowing the campaign to have the utmost exposure with the influential. Unfortunately, Daley concluded that it would be far too expensive to restore the theater in comparison to demolishing and starting fresh. As the Garrick Theater became a martyr for modern preservation, it also catapulted Nickel as its leader by example. The advocacy group went to all lengths possible to inhibit the demolition of the Garrick Theater. Retrospectively ironic, the now dedicated Richard J. Daley Center is positioned directly across the street from where the Garrick would have proudly reigned. If Daley had halted the demolition, his legacy represented in the center’s physical space would neighbor one of the most enriching attributions Chicago architecture ever had. The protests that attempted to save the Garrick Theater from its demise kickstarted the dialogue for architectural patrimony, the value within it, and why the discussion should be at the forefront of Chicagoans’ dialogue. Acclaimed architectural historian, Daniel Bluestone, emphasized how activists, including Richard Nickel, transformed the definition into what constitutes constructive urban renewal versus destructive. Nickel guided the public to seek value in the character of the architectural attributes provided by the city along with the importance of the groundbreaking history they made. 

Conclusion

Chicago set the stage for American architectural design to emerge with individuality and a refreshed approach to curating metropolitan epicenters. The creative freedom allowed architects such as Jenney to concoct an idea of a tower that seems as if it could have touched the clouds. Sullivan and Wright’s visionary ideals allowed Chicago to be a city that was to be copied rather than an imitator itself. Yet without the implementation of a discourse of architectural preservation, advanced by figures like Nichols, the historical context of the city would be erased and there would never have been an appreciation for past practices. There would be a constant turnover rate due to more value in commercialism than remembrance. If the lessons of architectural preservation had been advocated for sooner, there would be countless more structures that would revitalize the skyline and allow current residents to inherit the beautiful history it had to offer, if only the walls could talk. 

Works Cited:

Achilles, Rolf. The Chicago School of Architecture: Building the Modern City, 1880-1910. New York: Shire Publications, 2013.

“The Art Institute of Chicago.” Richard Nickel and the Garrick Theater Building | The Art Institute of Chicago. Accessed March 24, 2022. https://archive.artic.edu/louissullivan/garricktheater/.

Bluestone, Daniel. “Louis H. Sullivan’s Chicago: From ‘Shirt Front,’ to Alley, to ‘All Around Structures.’” Winterthur Portfolio: A Journal of American Material Culture 47, no. 1 (2013): 65–98. https://doi.org/10.1086/670324.

Bluestone, Daniel. “Preservation and Renewal in Post-World War II Chicago.” Journal of Architectural Education (1984-) 47, no. 4 (1994): 210-23. https://doi.org/10.2307/1425339.

Bonshek, Jane. “The Skyscraper: A Catalyst of Change in the Chicago Construction Industries, 1882-1892.” Construction History 4 (1988): 53-74 http://www.jstor.org/stable/41613651.

Buitenhuis, Peter. “Aesthetics of the Skyscraper: The views of Sullivan, James and Wright.” American Quarterly 9, no. 3 (1957): 316-24. https://doi.org/10.2307/2710531.

Burnham, Daniel H, and Edward H Bennett. “Plan of Chicago.” Edited by Charles Moore. Commercial Club of Chicago 1, no. 1650 (1908): 1–286.

“Chicago’s Architecture.” The Wilson Quarterly (1976-) 12, no. 2 (1988): 34–34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45266764.

Churchill, Robert R. “Urban Cartography and the Mapping of Chicago.” Geographical Review 94, no. 1 (2004): 1–22. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30033950.

Condit, Carl W. “The New Architecture of Chicago.” Chicago Review 17, no. 2/3 (1964): 107–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/25293900.

District, Chicago Park. “Paris Metro Entryway: Artwork.” Chicago Park District. https://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/parks-facilities/paris-metro-entryway-artwork.

Draper, Joan E, Robert Bruegman, Sally Chapell, Meredith L Clausen, Roula M Geraniotis, Elaine Harrington, Neil Harris, et al. “Paris by the Lake: Sources of Burnham's Plan of Chicago.” Essay. In Chicago Architecture 1872-1922, edited by John Sukowsky, 15–474. Prestel-Verlag, n.d.

Foglesong, Richard E. “Planning the City Beautiful.” In Planning the Capitalist City: The Colonial Era to the 1920s, 124–66. Princeton University Press, 1986. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7zv0sd.8.

Gottmann, Jean. “Why the Skyscraper?” Geographical Review 56, no. 2 (1966): 190–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/212878.

Leslie, Thomas. Chicago Skyscrapers 1871-1934. Urbana, Chicago, and Springfield: University of Illinois Press, 2013.

Lewis, Michael J. “Louis Sullivan after Functionalism.” New Criterion 20 (4): 50–57. (2001) https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=aft&AN=504965368&scope=site.

Nute, Kevin. “Frank Lloyd Wright and Japanese Architecture: A Study in Inspiration.” Journal of Design History 7, no. 3 (1994): 169–85. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1316114.

Phipps, Linda S. “The 1893 Art Institute Building and the ‘Paris of America’: Aspirations of Patrons and Architects in Late Nineteenth-Century Chicago.” Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies 14, no. 1 (1988): 28–102. https://doi.org/10.2307/4108771.

Rodkin, Dennis.“Mrs. O’Leary’s Son Built This Garfield Boulevard Mansion: Now for Sale by a Longtime Owner, the 33-Room Mansion Was Originally the Home of ‘Big Jim’ O’Leary, a Gambling King Whose Family Cow Was Once Blamed for Starting the Great Chicago Fire.” Crain’s Chicago Business 43 (46): 23. 2020. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=bwh&AN=1               47098912&scope=site.

Samuelson, Tim. “Virtual Tour: Exploring the Lost Works of Louis Sullivan with Tim Samuelson.” Wrightwood 659, October 28, 2021. https://wrightwood659.org/programs/virtual-tour-exploring-the-lost-works-of-louis-sullivan-with-tim-samuelson/. 

Sawyers, June Sawyers Skinner. Chicago Portraits: New Portraits. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2012.

Schechter, Harold. “Our Long-Standing Obsession with True Crime.” Creative Nonfiction, no. 45 (2012): 6–8. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44364921.

Spinney, Robert G. “The Fire, the Bomb, and the Fair, 1871–1893.” In City of Big Shoulders: A History of Chicago, 2nd ed., 89–110. Cornell University Press, 2020.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctvq2vz1m.11.

“The City Beautiful.” Scientific American 103, no. 14 (1910): 250–250.     http://www.jstor.org/stable/26020311.

van Zanten, David. “Chicago in Architectural History.” Studies in the History of Art 35 (1990): 91–99. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42620500.

Wright, Frank Lloyd (American architect, 1867-1959). Frederick C. Robie House. n.d. Digital Images. https://jstor.org/stable/community.28027237.

Zhang, Yue. “Chicago: Aldermanic Fiefdoms and Mosaic Preservation.” In The Fragmented Politics of Urban Preservation: Beijing, Chicago, and Paris, 65–102. University of

Minnesota Press, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt4cgg6f.7.