The Monadnock Building By The Commission On Chicago Historical And Architectural Landmarks

THE MONADNOCK BUILDING Based on “The Monadnock Block” by the Commission on Chicago Historical and Architectural Landmarks The Monadnock Building, bounded by Dearborn, Jackson, Federal and Van Buren Streets, consists of two joined buildings constructed at different times by different architects. Structurally, the north and south components mark the end of one building tradition and the beginning of another. The north half, designed by architects Burnham and Root and completed in 1891, demonstrates a remarkably sophisticated treatment of age-old principles of masonry construction. Holabird and Roche’s south addition of 1893, on the other hand, is an early expression of the steel-frame technique. Standing back to back, the two present an unusually fine perspective for examining the development of a new, primarily commercial architecture which evolved in Chicago during the 1880s and later came to be called the Chicago school. Only two bays wide, the Monadnock Building is one of the South Dearborn thin-slab buildings. The thin form is a result of narrow building lots created by two streets which bisect city the blocks south of Jackson to Polk: Plymouth Court runs between State Street and Dearborn, Federal Street runs between Clark Street and Dearborn. Other thin slab buildings include the Fisher, Old Colony, Manhattan, Pontiac, Transportation and Terminals. All occupy shallow sites, are about the same height of sixteen stories, and feature the oriel windows so characteristic of the period. Viewed as a continuous urban element, these thin-slab structures present a powerful street façade which is not found anywhere else downtown. Boston developer Peter Brooks, along with his Chicago agent Owen Aldis, discussed plans for the north half in 1884. Though a firm decision to build did not come until 1888, working drawings were essentially completed by the summer of 1889. Few Chicagoans had faith in the Brooks-Aldis proposal to locate a new building so far south of the existing commercial core. Many, in fact, felt the idea was pure folly, as architect Edward Renwick noted: When Owen Aldis put up the Monadnock on Jackson Boulevard, there was nothing on the side of the streets between State street and the river but cheap one-story shacks, mere hovels. Everyone thought Mr. Aldis was insane to build way out there on the ragged edge of the city. Later when he carried the building on through to Van Buren street, they were sure he was.

Peter Brooks himself questioned the location and vacillated on whether to proceed with the project at all. His final decision to build was judged sound, however, when other skyscrapers were soon constructed on adjacent blocks. The firm of Burnham and Root was selected to design the new building. Burnham and Root had previously done two other commercial projects for Brooks and Aldis: the Montauk Building in 1882 and the Rookery Building in 1886. The Rookery ably 1

illustrated Root’s propensity for elaborate ornamentation as a principal feature of his building exteriors. In the case of the Monadnock, however, Brooks insisted on uncompromised simplicity. In a letter to Aldis dated April 1884, Brooks wrote that he “would request an avoidance of ornamentation…rely upon the effect of solidity and strength, or a design that will produce that effect, rather than ornament for a notable appearance.” Within a month he had softened his position somewhat, though he still believed that decoration should be kept to a minimum, as part of a letter to Aldis in May indicates: My notion is to have no projecting surfaces or indentations, but to have everything flush…So tall and narrow a building must have some ornament in so conspicuous a situation…[but] projections mean great nuisance [is] the lodgment of pigeons and sparrows.

During the early stages of design development, however, Root insisted on exploring alternatives which included exterior ornament as a major conceptual element, despite Brook’s preference for simplicity. Once he accepted that the building was to be without ornament, he also realized that he would have to rely on the building’s form alone for design strength. From the beginning he had considered an Egyptian theme, using a stylized lotus as his decorative motif. When ornamentation was eliminated, Root still looked to Egyptian architecture as the source for a monumental shaft configuration. As he worked, Root examined brick and granite as sheathing materials and the possibilities of introducing subtle color variations. He had for some time been interested in the value of color, and he thought this building was the perfect moment for experiment. Furthermore, the idea seemed consistent with the Egyptian style he was pursuing and would lend vitality to a severely simplified elevation. The initial schemes, though considerably different from the final study, did prefigure the ultimate design. Thus the north half of the Monadnock emerges as a definite departure from the mainstream of Root’s practice. Indeed, this totally unadorned structure was without precedent in the work of the Chicago school at the time. Nevertheless, its elegant, carefully conceived proportions bespeak Root’s artistic ability and his capacity to master any situation. The north half is decidedly sculptural in form. Rising from the massive granite blocks of the ground floor, the structure is strengthened yet relieved by the inward curve of the wall at the second story, the outward flare of the parapet, the gentle chamfering of the building’s corners, and the rhythm of uniform oriel windows which seem to grow from the wall surface. The exquisite contours of the brickwork are the result of the highest craftsmanship. In the internal skeleton of the north half, the architects employed, for perhaps the first time in America, a particularly effective type of reinforcement against wind. Known as portal bracing, this framing system had its origin in the portal frames of early nineteenthcentury truss bridges. The system can be executed in several ways: for example, the entire depth of a deep girder can be riveted to a column, or a triangular plate can be riveted along two of its sides to the edge of both a column and a girder. Regardless of the method used, the result secures the skeleton frame and provides increased rigidity against 2

force of wind loads. Because wind stresses are a principal factor affecting the stability of high rise buildings, portal bracing became extremely important in the development of increasingly tall structures. Equally significant was the determination of feasible height limits for bearing-wall construction. The Monadnock’s sixteen stories proved to be the greatest height economically possible for a masonry structural system, requiring walls six feet thick at the base and eighteen inches thick at the top. To have built higher would have required that a disproportionate amount of basement mechanical space be devoted to foundations, and increasingly thick walls would noticeably reduce the amount of rentable ground floor area. The north half of the Monadnock clearly indicated the pressing need to consider the possibilities of steel-frame construction. Throughout the planning of the building, Brooks fluctuated on an appropriate height for the structure. Early drawings show the building rising just twelve stories. Aldis greatly influenced Brooks’ decision here as well, and for good reason. The city of Chicago was then contemplating an ordinance which would confine the height of commercial buildings to the width of the facing street. Restricted height would have disastrous results on income potential, Aldis argued, and a permit for at least sixteen stories should be sought before it was too late. Though the building commissioner was, in Aldis’ words, “staggered by the sixteen story plan,” a permit was obtained on June 3, 1889. Despite the massive and solid character of the building, it achieves a surprisingly open appearance, due in large part to the extensive glass areas of the oriel windows. Root’s original design, in response to Brooks’ plea for no projections, did not incorporate any bay windows. But Aldis changed Brooks’ mind on this point when he argued that additional income-producing space could be gained by including projecting windows. While Aldis was motivated primarily by financial considerations, the building design benefits immensely from the gentle and poetic undulation of the windows. The Monadnock’s north half is one of the foremost examples of the Chicago school’s persistent urge toward refinement and purity of form. As a wall bearing skyscraper, the north half represented the culmination of a long evolution of masonry structures. Its simple, unornamented exterior placed it in the vanguard of a new architectural aesthetic. Many historians believe that the north half has no equal in the annals of the high office building. Architect Louis Sullivan, friend and contemporary of John Root, wrote of the Monadnock with admiration and accuracy in his own autobiography: …the “Monadnock” went ahead; an amazing cliff of brickwork, rising sheer and stark, with a subtlety of line and surface, a direct singleness of purpose, that gave one the thrill of romance. It was the first and last word of its kind; a great word in its day, but its day vanished almost over night, leaving it to stand symbol, as a solitary monument, marking the high tide of masonry construction as applied to commercial structures.

3

The south half of the Monadnock, developed by Peter Brooks’ brother, Shepard, continues the general proportions of the original structure and, like the north half, its elevations are broken with projecting bays which offer increased sunlight and floor area to the offices inside. The pattern established through the alternation of two adjacent sets of bay windows with a strip of windows slightly recessed in the flat wall plane differs only marginally from the single bay arrangement of the north half. For fifteen stories the surface of the addition sustains the rhythm described by the older building; the most obvious deviation is found in the Holabird and Roche treatment of the two topmost floors. In the south half, the sixteenth-story windows are separated by columns and capped with round arches resembling an arcade. The windows of the north half, by comparison, are severe rectangles cut boldly into the façade. The south building is then topped with a huge cornice, classical in detail. The brackets of this cornice divide the seventeenth-floor windows and are equal in height to them. This conspicuous break between building and cornice is totally unlike the simple parapet finishing the first section of the Monadnock, where a restrained outward-curving surface smoothly terminates that structure. Although the south addition is one office-story higher, the seventeenth floor corresponds directly with the attic and parapet next door. So with the exception of this final story, floor levels are continuous along the façades of both buildings. The most notable difference in Holabird and Roche’s addition is the presence of a skeletal steel frame, which replaces the more traditional masonry construction of the older building. The south half, while faced with brick and trimmed in terra cotta, reveals its underlying structure through relatively narrow piers and broad window openings. This is in contrast to the broad piers and narrower openings necessitated by the masonry system of the north half. It is a credit to both architectural firms that the building surfaces are handled in a manner at once similar yet consistent with the varying structural techniques. Although no one has yet documented the reasons for the change in structural technique, it is possible to surmise what might have prompted that decision. First, a skeleton frame opened the façade to larger glass areas. Second, skeletal construction afforded more rentable shop and office space. Third, a building employing a steel frame could be erected much more quickly, therefore reducing construction costs. In 1938 the entire complex, north and south, was thoroughly remodeled. This work was designed by the architectural firm of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill in one of the first and largest renovation projects undertaken in the office building field.

The Architects The firm of Burnham and Root was one of Chicago’s leading architectural offices during the days of the Chicago school. Their practice influenced architects in this city and

4

elsewhere, not only by virtue of the quality of their buildings, but also through the extensive professional writing in which both were engaged. John Wellborn Root met Daniel Hudson Burnham in 1872 while both were draftsmen in the Chicago office of Carter, Drake and Wight. They became friends immediately, and Root started working with Burnham at night on outside commissions. By the spring of 1873, the two formed their own partnership. Theirs was an extremely successful relationship with each man contributing fully his individual skills. Root, born in Georgia in 1850, was a talented and prolific architect as well as an inventive engineer. He designed forty-four major buildings in the Chicago area alone, twenty-five in other cities across the United States. Throughout his career, he sought to advance an original and organic architecture, which could be expressed without duplicating the designs of the classical orders. John Root contributed to the philosophy of modern architecture and helped shape the aesthetic development of an overwhelmingly technical discipline. Burnham, born in New York state in 1846, was a businessman, a capable executive, and an almost irresistible salesman. He actively secured clients and was largely responsible for the rapid growth of the firm until Root’s regrettable premature death in 1891. Burnham and Root produced some of the city’s most renowned buildings: commercial structures like the Montauk and Rookery, hotels, churches, apartment buildings, schools railway stations and private residences. Though the firm existed only eighteen years, it was always a well-respected professional leader. Holabird and Roche were important though less flamboyant contributors to Chicago building design. William Holabird, born in 1854 in New York state, and Martin Roche, born in Cleveland in 1855, began their earliest architectural training in the Chicago office of William LeBaron Jenney. In 1881, they formed a partnership with O. C. Simmonds, but changed the name to include only Holabird and Roche after Simmonds left to establish his own firm in 1883. William Holabird was the more outgoing and served as engineer and business partner. Martin Roche served as chief designer, although design responsibilities were often shared between the two until the number of their commissions required the formation of a larger staff. With such buildings as the Tacoma (1889), the Marquette (1895), the Cable (1899), the McClurg (1900) and the Republic (1905), Holabird and Roche introduced a wide range of structural and utilitarian innovations while continually clarifying an unprecedented architectural aesthetic. By the second decade of the twentieth century, however, their pioneering spirit shifted toward the Beaux-Arts style so popular throughout the nation following the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893. While the buildings executed during this period lacked the firm’s initial innovative style, they were competent variations of the classical mode.

5

To date, little has been written about Holabird and Roche. Of those early reviews that were published, most deal with the eclectic designs rather than the extremely original work produced between the late 1880s and the early years of this century. It is unfortunate that the firm has been critically neglected; in the length and excellence of their practice, Holabird and Roche effectively represented the mainstream of the Chicago school. Indeed, the full dimension of the Chicago school is succinctly contained within the Monadnock Block. The building clearly reflects the movement’s adaptability to rapidly changing technology. It also illustrates the high quality of design prevalent at this time. Here, in a span of 400 feet, the unassuming expertise of Holabird and Roche sensitively combines with a distinctly atypical scheme from Burnham and Root. The work of both firms has much to do with the Monadnock’s integral role in early modern architecture.

6