Download History of the Monadnock Building

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 1880’s 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 blocks in the area. Other thin slab buildings include the Fisher and Old
Colony. All occupy shallow sites, are about the same height of sixteen stories, and
feature oriel windows so characteristic of the period. Viewed as a continuous urban
element, these buildings present a powerful street façade which is not found anywhere
else downtown.
Boston developer Peter Brooks, along with his agent Owen Aldis, first discussed plans
for the north half in 1884. Though a firm decision to build did not come until 1888,
working drawings were completed by the summer of 1889. Few Chicagoans had faith in
the proposal to locate a new building so far south of the existing commercial core of the
city.
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
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.
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 of 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 branching, this framing 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
force of wind loads. Because wind stresses are a principal factor affecting the stability of
highrise 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 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
2
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 would 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 work of its kind; a great work in its day, but its day
vanished almost over night, leaving it to stand as a symbol, as a solitary monument,
marking the high tide of masonry construction as applied to commercial structures.
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 sixteen-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 the 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.
3
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 facades 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 sout h, 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
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 Wright. 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- five 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 overwhelming
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 regrettably premature death in 1891.
4
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 earnest 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 and unprecedented
architectural aesthetic.
However, by the second decade of the twentieth century, their pioneering spirit shifted
toward the Beaux-Arts style that was 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.
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 1880’s and the early years of the twentieth 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 the 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 Monadnock’s integral role in early modern architecture.
5