The modern office building

Feb., i896. ]

T,Ilc 3fodcr~z Q ~ c c t~zdldiJzg,.

T~IE MODERN

OFFICE

I 15

BUILDING2

BY BARR FI~RREE.

A lecture delivered before the Franklin Institute, November 15, I895.

[Concluded from 7,o~ c.rli, p. 7z.] The utmost diversity exists in the structure and the detail of the supporting frame in the skeleton construction. This variety is dependent, in a measure, upon the special conditions arising in each building ; but it is largely due to t h e i n d i v i d u a l p r e f e r e n c e s of t h e d e s i g n i n g e n g i n e e r . No extended series of tests have ever been made as to the relative merits of the various columns, girders and beams employed in modern work, though special tests have been made in some particular instances. Nothing in the way of c o m p a r a t i v e t e s t s h a s , h o w e v e r , b e e n m a d e . 4'~ A s a m a t t e r of f a c t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e u s e o f c e r t a i n f o r m s d e p e n d s m o r e o n the preference of the engineer and the adaptability of special shapes, than upon an absolute knowledge of their intrinsic merits. Although the details of the construction frequently differ widely in buildings employing the same structural methods, certain gm:eral principles underlie the selection of the section of the columns. These principles have been well elu1 In undertaking to treat so large a subject as the modern office building in all its phases, economic, structural and msthetic, within the scope of a single article, i~ is obvious that only the most summary review can be attempted. In order that the reader, who may be desirous of pursuing the subject further, may at once place his hand upon the latest literature on the subject, references have been made, in the foot-notes, to recent articles and papers in the professional journals, in which fuller accounts of the points under discussion may be found. The foot-notes appended to this paper are not, therefore, offered as authorities for the statements contained in it, but as keys to more extended studies of the subjects. The references are not, in any case, to be taken in a bibliographic sense, nor is any pretence made to do more than cover the latest American literature in a most summary fashion. ~ An exhaustive series of tests, largely through the generosity of the Car. negie Steel Company and the Continental Iron Works, are about to be undertaken by a committee of engineers and architects.

I I(~

t ; e r r e e ."

[ J. F. L,

cidated by Mr. C. T. P u r d y , who has d e s i g n e d the steel frames of m a n y of the n o t a b l e b u i l d i n g s of Chicago. According tO this a u t h o r i t y , the a d v a n t a g e s , to be considered in a b u i l d i n g column are : (I) cost and a v a i l a b i l i t y ; (2) shop. work and w o r k m a n s h i p of c o l u m n ; (3) ability to transfer loads to center of c o l u m n ; eccentric l o a d i n g ; (4) convenient connections of floor s y s t e m s ; (5) relation of size of section to small c o l u m n s ; (6) fireproofing capabilities of the section. 4~ M a n y sorts of s t r u c t u r a l c o l u m n s are upon the market, each h a v i n g its supporters and its p a r t i c u l a r advantages. T h e conditions u n d e r w h i c h these c o l u m n s are used are so e x a c t i n g and so varied, t h a t of none of t h e m can it be said t h a t it is t h e column to use in all circumstances. Local con. ditions and cost and availability are more likely to determine the selection of a p a r t i c u l a r column, especially of a type t h a t has long been in use, r a t h e r t h a n some of the newer types, whose a d v a n t a g e s m a y be offset b y an increased cost, or, if it is a p a t e n t e d column, by the difficulty of securing it w h e n w a n t e d . In the following table the c o m m o n e r sorts of columns are n a m e d and classified by t h e n u m b e r of rows of rivets each requires. One row: L a r i m e r column. T w o rows : Z-bar c o l u m n w i t h o u t covers. F o u r rows: c h a n n e l c o l u m n with plates or latticed; 4-section Phoenix c o l u m n : Gray column ; K e y s t o n e octagonal column. Six rows: Z-bar c o l u m n w i t h single covers. E i g h t rows: box co!umn of plates and a n g l e s ; latticed angle c o l u m n ; 8-section P h o e n i x column. T e n rows: Z-bar c o l u m n w i t h double covers. In a d d i t i o n to these shapes, c o m p o u n d or complex col u m n s are used u n d e r special circumstances. Special forms of the s t a n d a r d types h a v e also been i n t r o d u c e d to meet special r e q u i r e m e n t s . All these columns are now m a d e in w r o u g h t steel. Prior ~'~C. T. Purdy: "The Steel Skeleton Type of High Building," Engineer. ing Ne;e,s, December 5, T89I, seq.

Feb., I896, ]

Tile A[oclern Office Buihting.

I 17

to the introduction of this material into b u i l d i n g operations, columns of cast iron were employed. T h e s e are still frequently used, b u t m o d e r n e n g i n e e r i n g practice does not encourage it. W h i l e this material has some advantages, it is very uncertain, and its liability to fracture renders it dangerous to use. 4~ A l t h o u g h the particular section of the column in high buildings is w i t h o u t influence u p o n the design, some representative b u i l d i n g s are g r o u p e d below as illustrative of recent methods. Gzst Columns.--Chicago : Manhattan, Leiter, Tacoma, Auditorium, the Rookery, Phenix, Owings, U n i t y - - a l l relatively early high office buildings. Z-Bar Columns.--Chicago: T h e Fair, Y. M. C. A., Isabella, Pontiac, Caxton, Venetian, n e w M o n a d n o e k (skeleton part), Champlain, Marquette, Stock Exchange, old Monadnock, Great N o r t h e r n Hotel, W o m a n ' s Temple, A s h l a n d Block, Marshall Field, Rand-McNally, Boyce, Hartford, C o l u m b u s Memorial, A t w o o d ; P i t t s b u r g : Carnegie. Z-Bar and PhcellLv Columns.--Chicago : Old Colony (special shapes), Schiller Theatre. l~o.r Columns o f Plates and Angles.--Chieago: N e w York Life. Chatlnels and Plates.--Chicago: F o r t D e a r b o r n (lower floors of plate and angles, then channels and plates; u p p e r stories of latticed channels). Plates and Angles.--Chicago: Masonic Temple, Teutonic. Gray Columns.--Chicago: Reliance, Fisher, S t e i n w a y Hall; Columbus, O.: W y a n d o t t e . Larimer Columns.--Chieago: N e w b e r r y L i b r a r y (not an office building). Cast Iron and Riveted Cohlmns.--New York: M a n h a t t a n (least columns to sixth floor). In buildings of g r e a t h e i g h t and relatively small area, the steel frame of columns and girders is not usually con~z,, Cast Iron Columns in High Buildings," Engineering ~reu,s, May 24, I894. An exhaustive study of east iron was contributed by J. B. Johnson to the Transadions of the American Nociety of Civil Engineers, 22, 91.

I

r-..... f)

~"-W~---

ii~~'' F~

I

i~

I°I

'~V l~

,. ,¢-

Vertical cross-section, l~Iasonic Temple, Chicago.

Feb., i896.]

The J[od~,rn O2fice t3utIditzg;,

l~ 9

sidereal sufficient to resist the force of wind pressure. ~s T h e frame is, therefore, often braced, t h o u g h in low buildings, and in h i g h ones of large lateral dimensions, it is f r e q u e n t l y omitted. T h e Masonic T e m p l e , Chicago, of twenty-one stories, 273 feet h i g h and I9,224 square feet area, is provided with a s y s t e m of rod-bracing i n s e r t e d at each side of the elevators. T h e Stock E x c h a n g e , of the same city, on the other hand, of t h i r t e e n stories, 173 feet h i g h and w i t h a floor area of 18,ooo square feet, has no wind b r a c i n g whatev.er. As in every d e p a r t m e n t of the m e c h a n i c s of h i g h building, e n g i n e e r i n g practice differs g r e a t l y on this point, and m u c h difference exists, not only as to the m e t h o d s of resisting the wind forces, b u t even as to their a m o u n t and application. F o u r general m e t h o d s are in o r d i n a r y use, t h o u g h the details of application f r e q u e n t l y differ. T h e s e are : (i) swayrods, or d i a g o n a l braces, c o n n e c t i n g the c o l u m n s d i a g o n a l l y b e t w e e n single floors; (2) the same, r u n n i n g t h r o u g h two stories, c u t t i n g the i n t e r m e d i a t e girder a t the center of the diagonals (both s y s t e m s are used in the Masonic Temple, Chicago, the sway-rods b e i n g connected w i t h I-beams b e t w e e n the c o l u m n s and below the floor system'%; (3) portal arches (Old Colony Building, ChicagC°); and (4) knee. braces, not an a d v a n t a g e o u s form (Isabella Building, Chicago; also, in a modified form, in the F o r t Dearborn Building). T h e steel f r a m e is s o m e t i m e s braced by m a k i n g the joints of the columns, u s u a l l y in two-story sections, break at a l t e r n a t e stories (new H a v e m e y e r Building, New York). T h e value of this m e t h o d is, however, problematical. T h e selection of the type of w i n d b r a c i n g will depend, to a very considerable extent, upon the openings of the building, the location of the doors, partitions, and the like. t~ w. H. Bixby: "Wind Pressure in Engineering Construction." Appendix C, of the Report of September 29, 2894, of the Special Army Engineer Board, as to the Maximum Span Practical for Suspension Bridges. Reprinted in Engineering News, March 14, i895. H.H. Quimby: " Wind Pressure in High Buildings," Trans~tctions of lhe American Sociely of Civil Engineers, 27, 221. G.B. Waite : " Wind Bracing in High Buildings," ibid., ~ , ~9o. o Engineering Record, January 2I, 1893. ~o Engineering News, December 2I, 1893.

120

l~'rrec "

I J. F. I.,

T h e skeleton frame is, b y its construction, a well-braced structure. It is not remarkable, therefore, t h a t only the slightest vibration and deviation from the p e r p e n d i c u l a r have been noted in the best-built of ice buildings, even the highest. S o m e v e r y careful o b s e r v a t i o n s m a d e in the Monadnock Block, Chicago, s h o w e d a v e r y slight v i b r a t i o n in h e a v y wind-storms. T h e construction of the floors of office buildings, including the size and dimensions of the girders, their connection with the columns, the filling-in of the spaces b e t w e e n t h e girders and beams, and the l a y i n g of the floors, require as m u c h care and f o r e t h o u g h t as the erection of the columns. In d e s i g n i n g floors, the engineer has to consider the dead loads, or p e r m a n e n t w e i g h t s of the building, and the live loads, or m o v a b l e w e i g h t s ? 1 T h e s e factors are t r e a t e d in the b u i l d i n g laws of our l e a d i n g cities, and the scientific phases of the loading of b e a m s have b e e n carefully s t u d i e d and the results t a b u l a t e d in m a n y e n g i n e e r i n g publications. T h e s t a b i l i t y of the frame, as well as of the floor itself, d e p e n d s largely upon the a d v a n t a g e s for good connections provided b y the section of the column ; and this, as before remarked, is one of the i m p o r t a n t considerations that m u s t be taken into account in d e t e r m i n i n g the class of column to be used. A l t h o u g h the u t m o s t d i v e r s i t y exists in the m a n n e r of filling-in the spaces b e t w e e n the b e a m s of the floor, a r c h e s of fire-clay are n o w almost u n i v e r s a l l y u s e d ? °- T h e y are fireproof, waterproof, have a flat u p p e r and lower surface, are lighter than the solid brick arch, are free from shrinkage, can be m a d e of any depth, and m a y be used for large and :'~Jenney and Mundie: " L i v e Loads a n d Supports in Office B u i l d i n g s " (New York Life, Chicago); American Architect, Feb. ~o, 1894; also March IO, 1894; C. H. Blackall: " L i v e Loads in Office Buildings," American Architect, August 26, 1893. :,2A s u m m a r y of the more notable tests made on fireproof flooring will be found in the series, " Fireproof F l o o r A r c h e s , " by George Hill, Brickbuilder, January, 1895. seq. G. H i l l : " T e s t s of Fire p r o o f F l o o r i n g Material," Transactions o f the American Society o f Civ/l Rng~ineers, 3 4 , 493. " Berieht des GewSlbe-Ausschusses." S o n d e r a b d r u e k aus der Zeitschrift des Oesterr.Ingenieur- und Architekten-Vereins, Wien, 1895.

i-

!

.._

T'...

'.~ i [o] 8 1

0

O

=

, ,

,| ,|rf

122

f f c r r c c ."

[ J. F. I.,

s h o r t spans. Soft tile or p o r o u s terra-cotta, a m i x t u r e of clay, s a w d u s t or o t h e r c o m b u s t i b l e m a t e r i a l , is m u c h used for floor arches. C o n c r e t e is also e m p l o y e d , b u t b r i c k is n ow s eld o m used. C o m b i n a t i o n floors, of iron t r o u g h s and c on cr ete, k n o w n as t he P e n e o y d c o r r u g a t e d flooring; or of iron or steel ar c he s and concrete, in t he s y s t e m i n v e n t e d by Mr. P o u l s o n ;5:~ or wire a nd concrete, in t h e R o e b l i n g ~ syst e m ; or wire and c o m p o s i t i o n , in t he M e t r o p o l i t a n system; 55 or c o r r u g a t e d iron and b e a m s ~6 are also used, as well as a S p a n i s h m e t h o d k n o w n in this c o u n t r y as t h e G u a s t a v i n o tile arch, in which t h e floor a r ches are m a d e of t h i n tile c e m e n t e d t o g e t h e r in a solid m a s s y In a l m o s t all these s y s tems , e x c e p t t he last, w h i c h are p a t e n t e d , a g r e a t v a r i e t y of f o r m s and devices in m a k i n g the ar c h h a v e b e e n introduced. W i t h o u t e n t e r i n g into a di s c us s i on of t he v a r i o u s sorts of floor ar ch es now us e d in t he office b u i l d i n g s , it is suffic i e n t to r e m a r k t h a t a t ypi cal floor consists of flat arches b e t w e e n t h e beams, c o v e r e d on top w i t h a l a y e r of concrete, u p o n wh ich w o o d e n sleepers are e m b e d d e d , which, in turn, are co v er ed b y a h a r d w o o d floor. In t he hol l ow space undern e a t h th e floor-boards t he gas a nd w a t e r pipes are placed. In d e s i g n i n g t h e steel frame, an essent i al p o i n t the e n g i n e e r m u s t k e e p in vi ew is its e n c l o s u r e w i t h i n a firep ro o f in g m a t e r i a l . P r o p e r l y braced, and o f t e n w i t h o u t a d d i t i o n a l bracing, t he steel f r a m e offers e v e r y r e q u i r e m e n t of s t a b i l i t y ; yet, unless it is e n c a s e d w i t h i n fireproofing, sufficiently t h i c k to p r e v e n t i n j u r y to t h e m e t a l by fire, or b y th e i n t r o d u c t i o n of water, it fails in the first e l e m e n t of availability. T hi s , indeed, is t h e crucial t est of t he stability of th e m o d e r n office bui l di ng. S t r u c t u r a l l y , t h o u g h the p r o b l e m s are f r e q u e n t l y c o m p l i c a t e d , t h e r e is n o t h i n g in 5:~N. Poulson: "A New Fireproof Construction," A m e r i c a n Architect, March 25, I893. 5, ~ n z i n e e r i n ~ News, July i8, I895. 55[bid., October 25, I894. ~H. B. Seely: "A New System of Fireproof Construction," American Architect, December i5, i894. 5~R. Guastavino: " Cohesive Construction," A m e r i c a n Architect, August 26, i893; Inland Architect, May, :t893.

~

1 t ~v~ ~~~ ill

~

Feb.. t896.]

Tke 3[odern Office Building-.

I2 3

any p a r t of t h e w o r k t h a t m o d e r n e n g i n e e r i n g p r a c t i c e is not t h o r o u g h l y c o m p e t e n t to handl e. I t has not, h o w e v e r , y e t b e e n d e m o n s t r a t e d h o w l ong t h e s e b u i l d i n g s will endure. ~s It is t r u e t he s k e l e t o n s y s t e m has b e e n used too short a t i m e to e n a b l e a n y p r a c t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e to t h r o w a n y light on this p o i n t ; b u t it is s t r a n g e t h a t no a t t e m p t has been m a d e to e x a m i n e t he s t a t e of t he m e t a l in t he older b u i l d i n g s of th i s type. T h e q u e s t i o n is of m o r e m o m e n t since t h e m o d e r n office b u i l d i n g is a s t r u c t u r e w h o s e p e r i o d of e x i s t e n c e is i n t e n d e d to far o u t l a s t t h a t of t he b u i l d i n g s it replaces. T h e a m o u n t s now i n v e s t e d in t h e m are so l a r g e t h a t n o t h i n g s h o r t of an almost p e r m a n e n t d u r a t i o n can r e n d e r t h e m profitable. So far as p r e s e n t e x p e r i e n c e goes, t he m o d e r n office building has a m p l y satisfied all t he claims m a d e for it, w h e n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n has b e e n good and t h o r o u g h , and of t h e m o s t a p p r o v e d type. I t ha s b e e n d e m o n s t r a t e d several t i m e s (fires in T e m p l e Court, ~9 E d i s o n and W o r l d Buildings, N e w Y o r k ; A t h l e t i c Club, "° Schiller T h e a t r e , 6t Chicago,) t h a t fires o r i g i n a t i n g in one place can be confined to t h e r o o m in wh ich t h e y occur, or, at t he f u r t h e s t , to t he a d j a c e n t a p a r t m e n t s . It has b e e n shown, also, that, e v e n w h e r e t he fire has b e e n a s e ve r e one, as in t h e Chicago A t h l e t i c Club, the s t r u c t u r e of t h e b u i l d i n g can escape w i t h o u t serious damageY z On t h e o t h e r hand, e a r l y and i m p e r f e c t m e t h o d s of fireproofing, as in t he M a n h a t t a n S a v i n g s Bank, N e w York, are a l m o s t as u n s a t i s f a c t o r y and as useless as no fireproofing at a11. T h e m o s t zealous o p p o n e n t s to t he h i g h b u i l d i n g s are the fire d e p a r t m e n t s . I t is d o u b t l e s s t r u e t h a t t he fire d e p a r t m e n t s of all our g r e a t cities w o u l d be u n a b l e to cope 5~c. H. Blaekall: "The Endurance of Structural Metal Work;" Brickbuilder, November, I894. 5'~Engineering :Vews, April 6, 113, x893. 6°Ibid., November 24, December I, I892; January I2, t893; Inland Archilect, December, I892. ';lAmerican Archilecl, April 28, I894, ';z "A Practical Test of Fireproofing," (Lumber Exchange, Minneapolis),

Inland Archilect, August, x89i; C. H. Bebb: " Fire Losses in Fireproof Buildings," Engineering illagazine, February, I893.

I 24

];crrcc ."

[J. F. I.,

w i t h a d e s t r u c t i v e fire in a v e r y h i g h b u i l d i n g , o w i n g to t h e l a c k of w a t e r p r e s s u r e a n d t h e a b s e n c e of s p e c i a l a p p a r a t u s d e s i g n e d for u s e in s u c h e m e r g e n c i e s . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e n e c e s s i t y of p r o t e c t i n g t h e s e b u i l d i n g s a g a i n s t s u c h d a n g e r s has c e r t a i n l y r e s u l t e d in v e r y c o n s i d e r a b l e i m p r o v e m e n t s in t h e i r e r e c t i o n , w h i c h h a v e b e e n m a n i f e s t e d , n o t o n l y in h i g h b u i l d i n g s t h e m s e l v e s , b u t in less c o s t l y s t r u c t u r e s . T h e r e can b e n o q u e s t i o n at all b u t t h a t t h e avera g e of f i r e - r e s i s t i n g q u a l i t i e s in o u r m o d e r n cities h a s b e e n g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e d since t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e s k e l e t o n s y s t e m of c o n s t r u c t i o n , j u s t as it is e q u a l l y c e r t a i n t h a t t h e s e b u i l d i n g s are t h e s a f e s t s t r u c t u r e s w e h a v e , in a n y sense. T h i s f a c t is g e n e r a l l y o v e r l o o k e d b y t h e fire c h i e f s in t h e i r c r i t i c i s m s on t h e s e b u i l d i n g s , a n d b y p o p u l a r critics w h o are n o t a l w a y s d i s p o s e d to a c c e p t t h e m at t h e i r t r u e worth. T h e d a n g e r t h e office b u i l d i n g is m o s t s u b j e c t to is n o t f r o m w i t h i n , b u t f r o m w i t h o u t ; t h a t is to say, f r o m t h e o l d e r a n d s m a l l e r b u i l d i n g s i m m e d i a t e l y s u r r o u n d i n g it, or w h a t is c a l l e d t h e " e x p o s u r e risks." T h e r e c a n b e n o q u e s t i o n a t all b u t t h a t t h e s a f e t y of o u r c i t i e s is g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e d b y t h e c o n t i n u e d e r e c t i o n of m o d e r n office b u i l d i n g s . 6a PART III. T h e d e s i g n of t h e office b u i l d i n g falls n a t u r a l l y i n t o t w o great divisions: the structure and the architectural form. T h e f o r m e r b e l o n g s to t h e e n g i n e e r , t h e l a t t e r to t h e a r c h i tect. T h e e n g i n e e r h a s a n e c e s s a r y p a r t in t h e d e s i g n of t h e office b u i l d i n g , i n a s m u c h as his s e r v i c e s are e s s e n t i a l for t h e m a k i n g of t h e f o u n d a t i o n s a n d t h e e r e c t i o n of t h e s t e e l s k e l e t o n . T o h i m b e l o n g s , also, t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of t h e f r a m e for t h e c o a t i n g of s t o n e , or of b r i c k or t e r r a - c o t t a , ,~aEdward Atkinson : " Fire Risks on Tall Office Buildings," Engineering lglagazine, May, I892; J. M. Carfare: "Interior Fireproof Construction," ibid., October, 1892 ; T. M. Clark : " Skeleton Construction and the Fire Department," America~z Architect, October 20, I894 ; P. B. Wright : " Fireproof Construction and the Practice of American Architects," American Archih?cl, August 19, 1893 ; " The Reduction in Cost of Fireproof Construction," En~riJmeri,~ ~Vezvs, May Io, ~894.

Feb., I896.]

T]ze 3[odern Ojfffce Building.

12 5

and similar m e c h a n i c a l m a t t e r s . T h e s e problems are so complicated a n d v a r i e d as to: require the services of a specialist. But because the e n g i n e e r is r i g h t l y e m p l o y e d for the e n g i n e e r i n g of the h i g h building, it m u s t not be supposed t h a t the architect m a y be ignorant- of his duties or indep e n d e n t of his work. E v e r y s t r u c t u r a l detail m u s t be studied and u n d e r s t o o d by the architect. T h e relations of the two are co-ordinate, and each m u s t k n o w the other's province, and keep the other's purpose in view as well as his own. T h a t this is not always so, the h i s t o r y of m o d e r n office buildings often too clearly shows. It is not u n u s u a l for an architect to prepare his design on his drawing-board, and then send for an e n g i n e e r to a r r a n g e its c o n s t r u c t i o n for him. On the o t h e r hand, it w o u l d be easy to point out designs a p p a r e n t l y m a d e by an engineer, and certainly carried out w i t h o u t the supervision of an e d u c a t e d architect. T h a t there is more or less friction b e t w e e n the architect and the e n g i n e e r ; t h a t the architect looks upon t h e e n g i n e e r as too " p r a c t i c a l , " the e n g i n e e r upon the a r c h i t e c t as too visionary, is a fact not to be denied by those who h a v e w a t c h e d the d e v e l o p m e n t of the two professions. Only b y the w a r m e s t s y m p a t h y and c o n s t a n t co-operation can the design of an office b u i l d i n g be carried out in a proper spirit and with s a t i s f a c t o r y results. T h e exterior of a b u i l d i n g is g e n e r a l l y the criterion by which its success is measured. It is u n r e a s o n a b l e t h a t this should be so, for few s t r u c t u r e s - - a n d especially few m o d e r n s t r u c t u r e s - - a r e b u i l t for external show. But the office buildings have so little to offer within, in the w a y of ornam e n t or of art, t h a t the general public, a n d p e r h a p s the a r c h i t e c t u r a l public, h a v e fallen into the h a b i t of j u d g i n g t h e m by their facades. A not u n n a t u r a l consequence has been t h a t a finely d e s i g n e d office b u i l d i n g has now a g r e a t e r commercial value t h a n one t h a t is b a d l y designed ; a goodlooking b u i l d i n g is t h o u g h t more of t h a n an ill-looking s t r u c t u r e ; and so the facade has a m o n e t a r y value in these b u i l d i n g s w h i c h it does not always h a v e in o t h e r structures.

126

F e r r e t ."

[J. F. I.,

F r o m t h e c o m m e r c i a l side of t h e quest i on, it is q u i t e as n e c e s s a r y to d e v e l o p t he a r t i s t i c a s p e c t s of t he h i g h buildings as the s t r u c t u r a l . And, certainly, it is a m o n s t r o u s a r c h i t e c t u r a l sin to p u t up b u i l d i n g s w h o s e single m e r i t shall be t h e i r size, a nd whose c hi e f d i s t i n c t i o n shall be t h e i r h id eo u s n es s . It is t r u e we h a v e m a n y buildings, dist r i b u t e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e cities of o u r land, of w h i c h no m o r e can be s a i d ; but, w i t h a w i d e r a p p r e c i a t i o n of t he v a l u e of ~esthetics in c o m m e r c i a l bui l di ngs, t h e r e m u s t c o m e a c h a n g e for th e be t t e r . T h o s e t h a t h a v e b e e n b u i l t m u s t n e ed s r e m a i n w h e r e t h e y a r e ; b u t t hos e t h a t are to com e must, i n e v i t a b l y , s how a b e t t e r m e n t in design, as t h e y will, u n q u e s t i o n a b l y , show a b e t t e r m e n t in c o n s t r u c t i o n . 64 T h e s t r u c t u r e of a b u i l d i n g lies at t h e basis of its design. T h i s is a f u n d a m e n t a l fact in a r c h i t e c t u r a l ~esthetics. Now, in a sense, th e m o d e r n office b u i l d i n g does n o t show its s t r u c t u r e , e i t h e r w i t h i n or w i t h o u t ; t he steel c o l u m n s and g i r d e r s a n d b e a m s w h e r e o n it is car r i ed are c o v e r e d up b y t h e e x t e r i o r s u r f a c i n g or by t he fireproofing or c o a t i n g within. I t is i m p o s s i b l e to tell a solid wall f r o m one b u i l t on th e s k eleto n principle, a nd t he s t r u c t u r e of a h y b r i d o r c o m p l e x wall is e q u a l l y invisible. How, then, it m a y be asked, can we h a v e a successful h i g h design, if, at t h e outset, a f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e of d e s i g n is i g n o r e d ? T h i s q u e s t i o n has b e e n asked m a n y times, a n d a r c h i t e c t s h a v e l e a r n e d l y d is cu s s ed this p o i n t w i t h o u t , it m u s t be a d m i t t e d , t h r o w i n g m u c h l i g h t on it. ~ B u t t he q u e s t i o n n e e d n o t be asked in this way. T h e s t r u c t u r e is, indeed, t he basis of t he d e s i g n in th e h i g h b u i l d i n g , as in t h e low one ; b u t this does n o t call for the u n v e i l i n g of t he m e t a l skeleton, n o r for a f r a n k display of t he m a t e r i a l of t he s t r u c t u r e . T h e s t r u c t u r e m a y be shown, b u t t h e m a t e r i a l s are n e c e s s a r i l y hidden. 6~ Barr Ferree : " The High Building and Its Art," Scribner's 2FZagazine, March, I894. a5 T h o m a s Hastings: " High Buildings and Good A r c h i t e c t u r e , " American

Architecl, N o v e m b e r I7, I894. ~ B a r r Ferree : " Structure a n d Material in H i g h Design," t?rickbuilder, March, 2894.

Feb., 1896.]

7"/le lWodern Office ]~u17ding.

12 7

For it is a d m i t t e d on all h a n d s t h a t steel and iron are impossible m a t e r i a l s for h i g h s t r u c t u r e s unless t h e y be covered with a fireproof material. T h a t , indeed, is one condi. tion of t h e i r serviceableness. A n a k e d steel column w o u l d be a source of c o n s t a n t danger. It would suffer deterioration from d a m p n e s s and from c o n t a c t w i t h the atmosphere, and a fire w o u l d be fatal to its stability. A h i g h b u i l d i n g of any sort, in which the steel lines of the c o l u m n s and girders would form a f e a t u r e of the external design, would be too d a n g e r o u s to w a r r a n t erection. W e cannot, then, show the m a t e r i a l of our b u i l d i n g in the design, t h o u g h we m a y , in a sense, show its structure. Not only are there s t r u c t u r a l reasons p r o h i b i t i n g the direct e m p l o y m e n t of the m e t a l f r a m e as a basis in the design of h i g h buildings, b u t those s t r u c t u r e s in which the architectural f r a m e w o r k has been r e d u c e d to the smallest limit, so t h a t t h e b u i l d i n g is little more t h a n a skeleton of brick or terra-cotta, show how u n s a t i s f a c t o r y such a treatment is aesthetically. T h e R e l i a n c e Building, in Chicago, is, perhaps, the most n o t a b l e a t t e m p t y e t m a d e to reduee the a m o u n t of the enclosing m a t e r i a l to a m i n i m u m , and the design is scarcely more t h a n a h u g e house of glass divided by horizontal and vertical lines of w h i t e e n a m e l l e d brick. T h e F i s h e r Building, in the same city, and the Mabley Building, in Detroit, are o t h e r examples i l l u s t r a t i n g the same tendency, t h o u g h in not quite so p r o n o u n c e d a fashion as in the first instance. It is a good principle in architecture t h a t a b u i l d i n g should n o t only be firm and strong, b u t t h a t it should seem so. T h i s reasonable requirement is not fulfilled in these designs. A h i g h office building r e q u i r e s an appearance of b e i n g built solidly to produce the best effect, or, indeed, to produce an a r c h i t e c t u r a l effect. This, however, does not excuse the e x a g g e r a t e d effect of heaviness and s t a b i l i t y t h a t m a y be seen in some designs, and w h i c h is quite as bad as e x t r e m e t e n u i t y . Perfect n a t u r a l n e s s of expression, good t a s t e and an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the s t r u c t u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s of the problem are all the architect needs in d e s i g n i n g his fagades. A few years ago io or i2 stories were considered

128

Fcrree :

[J. F. I.,

formidable a t t i t u d e s for office b u i l d i n g s ; to-clay t 7 , I8, 2o and even more stories are talked of and b u i l t as a m a t t e r of fact and as scarcely out of the o r d i n a r y run. A n d not only are these b u i l d i n g s high, b u t t h e y are relatively narrow. T h i s is true more p a r t i c u l a r l y of N e w York t h a n of P h i l a d e l p h i a or Chicago, in both of w h i c h cities, and especially in Chicago, m a n y of the large office b u i l d i n g s are on sites of g e n e r o u s size, to the g r e a t d i g n i t y of the design, and to the v e r y considerable lessening of the difficulties of the architect. In New York the c u s t o m of selling land in lots of 2 5 feet by IOO has given m a n y of the office buildings an especially u n h a p p y d i m e n s i o n in width, w h i c h has rendered a p l e a s i n g design a m a t t e r of m u c h difficulty for the architect, a n d w h i c h has, in m a n y cases, caused m a n y disastrous results. New York has no suctl m o n u m e n t a l office b u i l d i n g s as the Masonic T e m p l e , the W o m a n ' s Temple, the A u d i t o r i u m , the Schiller T h e a t r e , the Monadnock Block, the M a r q u e t t e and Old Colony Buildings, and m a n y others in Chicago. T h e h e i g h t is, therefore, the l e a d i n g e l e m e n t in the s t r u c t u r e of the m o d e r n office building. E a c h additional floor adds to its value, and to its n a t u r a l u p w a r d tendency. T h e vertical e l e m e n t is t h u s the l e a d i n g factor in its design, and the a r c h i t e c t who m o s t successfully employs this f e a t u r e achieves a real success in the h a n d l i n g of this very difficult p r o b l e m ; for it is a difficult problem to solve. T h e historic styles, save the Gothic, are concerned with low or horizontal designs. H i s t o r y and p r e c e d e n t offer little to the designer of the h i g h building, w h i c h is at once the most m o d e r n of buildings, and an e n t i r e l y new t h i n g u n d e r the sun in architecture. A n d a l t h o u g h m o d e r n a r c h i t e c t u r e offers n o t h i n g in sequence with the older architecture, save in point of time, it is a task of no small m a g n i t u d e to break a w a y wholly from tradition and design in a new w a y for a new purpose. This, however, is j u s t w h a t the architect of the h i g h b u i l d i n g has to do, a n d the speedier this is a d m i t t e d , the b e t t e r it will be for the appearance of our streets and the progress of our architecture. T h e first problem the a r c h i t e c t has to s t u d y in his design

Feb., i896.~

oT]ce Hodcrlz [)j~cc ]321zlaTz~e,. '

"

I 29

is the plan. His site m u s t be a d v a n t a g e o u s l y used, and his interior disposed so as to secure the m o s t economical use of space, and t h u s the u t m o s t financial r e t u r n to his client. The economising of space led to the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the skeleton system, and the necessity of k e e p i n g this in m i n d follows the architect at every step of his work. T h e first r e q u i r e m e n t is t h a t every office shall be well liKhted; and as every office b u i l d i n g is of considerable depth; it'is necessary to a r r a n g e properly disposed courts. A n early m e t h o d was a central court, with offices o p e n i n g into i t . ~ h i s is not u n o b j e c t i o n a b l e where the site is large e n o u g h g'~ p e r m i t a court of good size, and the b u i l d i n g is not of too g r e a t height. T h e s e conditions are a d m i r a b l y fulfilled i n t h e Metropolitan B u i l d i n g in New York, where a spacious interior court, lined with w h i t e e n a m e l l e d brick, affords a s much l i g h t to the interior offices as the rooms on the street receive on the exterior of the building. T h e Masonic Temple in Chicago has also a central court, b u t here it is most u n s a t i s f a c t o r y ; the b u i l d i n g is e n o r m o u s l y high, 'and the court is roofed at the top, so t h a t artificial l i g h t m u s t be burned in the interior rooms t h r o u g h o u t the day: A more r a t i o n a l plan is an exterior court, which m a y be made part of the design of the faqade, or m a y open at the back, and be t h e r e connected with similar courts in b u i l d ings on the a d j o i n i n g lots. T h e U n i o n T r u s t Company's Building in St. Louis is a good example of the former, and the W a i n w r i g h t Building, i n t h e same city, and the Stock E x c h a n g e and the M a r q u e t t e Buildings in Chicago, of the second. It has, indeed, been a r g u e d t h a t the courts of a hign b u i l d i n g should always open to the s o u t h ; b u t experience will show t h a t t h e y should open on the largest space, no m a t t e r w h a t m a y be the direction of the sun. W h e n the court is b e h i n d the facade the design t h e n becomes the t r e a t m e n t of the enclosing wall, and the front does n o t differ from t h a t of a b u i l d i n g w i t h a central court. W h e n it is on the m a i n street it is the l e a d i n g f e a t u r e of the design. T h e disposition of the courts settled, the a r r a n g e m e n t of the offices, the location of the elevators, the size and position VOL. CXLI. No. 84-'. 9

E-"

~

.

i

~.=

!!i

E~ ~J {8

.,= m

{}

{} {}

£

Feb., 1896]

Tke Modern Ofhce guildin~.

I3I

of the windows, as well as the position of the columns of the frame, m u s t all be carefully t h o u g h t out and placed, before the final a r c h i t e c t u r a l expression is begun. T h e s i t u a t i o n of the elevators is u s u a l l y w i t h o u t a n y influence upon the architecture of the fronts, save as d e t e r m i n i n g the location of the e n t r a n c e s ; b u t all the other d e m e n t s h a v e a n a t u r a l and r i g h t part to take in the final task. Every a r c h i t e c t u r a l design m u s t h a v e a beginning, a middle and an end. It certainly m u s t begin, and the v e r y highest of h i g h b u i l d i n g s as certainly comes to an end ; the space b e t w e e n forms the center. T r a n s l a t i n g these obvious conditions into a r c h i t e c t u r a l l a n g u a g e , the front n a t u r a l l y falls into base, s u p e r s t r u c t u r e and frieze, in which each part has a logical and necessary function, the base as the beginning, the frieze as the ending, and the s u p e r s t r u c t u r e as the m a i n portion b e t w e e n the o t h e r s ; for the base and the frieze cannot, e i t h e r singly or together, form more t h a n a small portion of the whole. A w r i t e r who would c o n s u m e most of his space in b e g i n n i n g his essay, or in c o m p o s i n g his peroration, would seem to h a v e very little to say; so an architect who uses up his facade in g e t t i n g his b u i l d i n g started, or in b r i n g i n g it to a conclusion would, build he ever so high, have, at the end, produced a m i n i m u m of building. In speaking generally, it is, of course, impossible to lay. down rules to be followed in every case. W e c a n n o t say that a base should c o n s u m e so m a n y stories, the superstructure so m a n y and the frieze the balance. T h e h e i g h t s of our b u i l d i n g s are too varied, the n a t u r e of a r c h i t e c t u r a l work too free, to be l i m i t e d by such a r b i t r a r y regulations. But it should be r e m a r k e d t h a t the g e n e r a l practice in N e w York is t o w a r d s h i g h basements, and in Chicago and the W e s t towards relatively low ones. T h a t the l a t t e r are the more logical can scarce be a r g u e d ; for the base is only the b e g i n n i n g of a building, and its function is only t h a t of supporting the superstructure, which, as logically, m u s t be the main portion of the design. A n e x a g g e r a t e d b a s e m e n t is, therefore, s o m e t h i n g to be avoided as u n n e c e s s a r y and unwise. Nor does the frieze need to be s t r e t c h e d out over the

L_,,~

b~

r~

~J

o

m

Feb., I896.]

T,/le ~$fadcrlz Cfijicc [~'~Lz'/dz)tg.

133

upper part. If practice shows, as it does in m a n y buildings, that the u p p e r m o s t story is needed for m e c h a n i c a l purposes, and is filled with tanks, piping and a p p a r a t u s used in heating, l i g h t i n g and v e n t i l a t i n g , this difference of f u n c t i o n may be n a t u r a l l y shown in the frieze, whose difference in design not only expresses this fact, but serves, at the same time, as the crown and finish of the building. W e have, therefore, t h r e e great divisions in a h i g h design, each h a v i n g a f u n c t i o n of its own to express, and each having a logical m e a n i n g . But these three parts m u s t form a unit. An office b u i l d i n g is not a collection of various things put t o g e t h e r in a single s t r u c t u r e - - t h o u g h m a n y of them offer a most s i n g u l a r diversity of p a r t s - - b u t it is a unit. T h e b a s e m e n t m u s t be related to the s u p e r s t r u c t u r e , and the s u p e r s t r u c t u r e to the frieze, and each, in turn, to each other part. T h e high b u i l d i n g must, moreover, be stately and d i g n i f i e d - - m a j e s t i c if it can be, as all g r e a t objects are in nature. T h i s effect, w h i c h is surely the chief one to be s o u g h t in the design of these structures, c a n n o t be obtained t h r o u g h variety, or by c u t t i n g up the front into as many parts as possible, only to be a r r a n g e d and f a s t e n e d together by m e a n s of an i n t e r n a l skeleton of steel. But j u s t as every part of the frame hits a m e a n i n g , so m u s t every part of the fagade. T h e s t r u c t u r e of the office b u i l d i n g is an orderly creation, and its a r c h i t e c t u r a l 0r Ornamental features m u s t not violate this f u n d a m e n t a l law. Such is the basis on which all good h i g h design m u s t be constructed. Dignity, unity, sobriety, strength, t r u t h ; an expression of parts, an indication of function, a simple, straight forward use of materials e m p l o y e d in the telling of a simple story. ~vVecannot, in our facades, show the n u m b e r of offices h o u s e d within, any more t h a n we can show the diversified interests t h a t make the b u i l d i n g their h o m e ; but we can at least keep w i t h i n the b o u n d s of reason, and pro. ceed w i t h our a r c h i t e c t u r a l part as deliberately, as soberly, and as logically as we proceed w i t h the s t r u c t u r e of our frame. This, indeed, m u s t be a d m i t t e d and u n d e r s t o o d by the architect, or his design will be m a r r e d by those misund e r s t a n d i n g s t h a t have already fatally i n j u r e d the b e a u t y of m a n y h i g h office buildings.

134

Ferree :

[J. F. I.

T h e Schiller T h e a t r e in Chicago is a b u i l d i n g 80 feet wide and 17 stories h i g h ; the d e p t h of the lot is 18o feet. T h e t h e a t r e is on the first floor at the back, the front of the building, and all the upper part over the theatre, being given up to offices. It m i g h t as well be called an office b u i l d i n g in which the t h e a t r e uses p a r t of the space, as a t h e a t r e associated with offices. T h e union of the two b u i l d i n g s in a single s t r u c t u r e is an excellent a r r a n g e m e n t commercially, since the t h e a t r e can occupy a costly site in the h e a r t of the business center of the city, and the owners derive a h a n d s o m e income from the offices. T h e same idea lies at the basis of the design of the A u d i t o r i u m in Chicago, w h i c h is a vast opera house s u r r o u n d e d by a business block and hotel, the income from the latter portions b e i n g applied to m a k e up any deficiency in the expenses of the former. T h e site of the Schiller ~I'heatre being a l o n g rectangle, w i t h the shorter side facing the street, the architects solved the question of courts by n a r r o w i n g the b u i l d i n g at the sides in the center. T h e t h e a t r e fills all the space, except for a line of offices on the street front, up to the fifth floor. _At the sixth floor the side walls are dropped in the center, and windows inserted to l i g h t the offices on each side of the corridor in the middle of the building. A t the back the sc~ne r u n s up above the ceiling of the theatre, b u t w i t h the s e v e n t h floor the whole of the space is g i v e n up to offices, front, back and sides, the plan r e s e m b l i n g a g i g a n t i c I. At the n i n t h floor the front is stopped on each side, to permit free access of l i g h t to the side courts within, the m a i n portion b e i n g continued to the s e v e n t e e n t h floor, and given the a r c h i t e c t u r a l form of a tower. T h e t r e a t m e n t of the front is masterly, and has, perhaps, never been surpassed in h i g h design for simplicity and directness of expression, at once s t r u c t u r a l and beautiful. T h e tower in the center is divided into three g r e a t bays, finished with r o u n d arches at the top, and enclosing spacious and plain windows. A t the top is a frieze story of small, round, arched windows, in a rich f r a m e of foliated o r n a m e n t , t h a t is c o n t i n u e d on the broad, boldly projecting cornice which comt~letes the design. T h e t r e a t m e n t of the

11'9 " x 1g' O"

f • 12' 6 ~

24' 3I' x 12' 6"

16"3'%- 11'9"

)OZ'

t~/3 ' ' . 11' ~)"

I"19

T20 16/3" f f t2 / 1"

191'

16'3" x 12' I " 10#

m

m

- ;~G' m

m

717 16'~ plx 12' 1"

"rt5 |lS*8"x 1;2t2 I'

i

"

71B 16'3 # x 1211 #

~ 0

1111~g

t-I~

713

0

T16 1813"x 12/2"

107'

714

I § ' 3 " N 1~' t 't I~F

16'3"~ 12' t " 190"

7'11 16'3 #N I~' 1"

.

712 | 6 ' 3 " x 12' 1#

19~

m

I

e96'

m

m

70g" 16"3~ x 12' 1"

m

710 16'3 'fx 12' I "

-

"1 .~.4~,o,.7 . 7 ' 9 " . ~a'o"

I~

I ~

1

~

iv

~IV.[OOZ~'~:~O:~"

-,. |t'g"~l"~~ 88~'

0

.

S~..I

T '~,,:o''i T 0

13'4" l '~ " M< 20' 2~# I .

"roy

-

TO

~3'4" ~ 20' ~"

18~4"x 20' 2,. # ,,.,~o. .

223

.

706 g " x ~7'4" 307'

Plan of seventh floor, Schiller Theatre, Chicago.

136

Ferrce ."

[J. F. I.,

wings is equally fine; a simple bow w i n d o w stopped below the u p p e r m o s t story an(t a richly decorated frieze and cornice to correspond w i t h the t r e a t m e n t Of the center. Now, the t h e a t r e is an essential part of this b u i l d i n g ; it is n a t u r a l and fitting, therefore, t h a t it be expressed in the design. T h i s has been done in an exceedingly h a p p y manner, by carl y i n g a richly-carved balcony across the front of the b u i l d i n g at the second floor, and by s u r m o u n t i n g the tower with an open belvedere, which is not, it is true, viMble from the street directly in face, b u t is nevertheless an i n t e g r a l part of the design. T h e balcony would be an a n o m a l y in a strictly commercial design, b u t here it has a n a t u r a l function in s e t t i n g the b u i l d i n g apart, as it were, from strictly commercial buildings. W e have, therefore, a very g r e a t artistic success. T h e b u i l d i n g has a b e g i n n i n g , a middle and an end ; its design, is structural, for the great vertical lines correspond to the columns of the frame which are contained w i t h i n the facing piers ; the window space is ample and sufficient; the plan is e m p l o y e d in a n a t u r a l m a n n e r as an i m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t of the design ; the festal n a t u r e of the s t r u c t u r e is sufficiently i n d i c a t e d in the ornam e n t a l balcony and belvedere; finally, the whole has been carried out with a c o n s u m m a t e artistic feeling and appreciation of the problem, which is not only rare to find in works so u t i l i t a r i a n as this, b u t w h i c h we often look for in vain in s t r u c t u r e s of a purely artistic and o r n a m e n t a l nature. A m o n g the m a n y notable commercial buildings illustrating the same principles of design by the same architects, I shall only have space to refer, in the briefest manner, to the G u a r a n t y Building, at Buffalo. T h i s is a i4-story , rectangtllar building, on an ample site. T h e b a s e m e n t is of 3 stories, the s u p e r s t r u c t u r e of IO, the frieze of I. I'he l e a d i n g c l e m e n t of the s u p e r s t r u c t u r e is the vertical lines of the piers between the windows, which, at the thirt e e n t h floor, are connected by small, r o u n d arches, and, in design, are joined with the circular windows of the frieze. T h e whole of the surface of this b u i l d i n g is covered w i t h o r n a m e n t ; not s t r u c t u r a l o r n a m e n t , as columns and pedi-

Joltr. Frank. In.~l., Vol. CXI.I, February, I896.

(Ferree.)

-< i :ilili~i,~i,&iii<(~i!~ '¸¸¸¸~'¸¸¸¸~¸ ¸: i ~

AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY'S BUILDING) NEW YORK.

four. Frank. Inst., Uol. CXL[, Feb., i896.

THE SCHILLER THEATRE~ ~HICAGO,

(Ferree.)

Feb., t896.]

Tile eg[oder,e ()j:fice l~Tdlding.

~37

ments, and o t h e r artificial additions, b u t a finely designed, carefully modelled surface o r n a m e n t , very rich in detail, yet kept well w i t h i n the s t r u c t u r a l lines of the architecture. T h o u g h possibly the most richly decorated commercial building i n America, the skill of the artist has produced a design of s t r u c t u r a l sobriety with g r e a t richness of effect. In both t h e s e designs, their success has depended, apart from the artistic feeling displayed in them, upon their unity. A n d this effect has been obtained, not only by the co-relation of the various parts of the facades to each other, b u t particularly by the long vertical lines of the s u p e r s t r u c t u r e , which n a t u r a l l y express the columns of the frame. T h a t u n i t y can only be obtained in a high design by u n b r o k e n vertical lines, is a p p a r e n t in c o m p a r i n g either of Mr. Sullivan's b u i l d i n g s w i t h one in which the horizontal lines predominate. T h e b u i l d i n g of the A m e r i c a n T r a c t Society, in NeW York, is a fair example of such a structure. It is true, the design of the T r a c t Society's b u i l d i n g is not devoid of some eccentricity; b u t as it is one of the h i g h e s t and latest offiee buildings in N e w York, and reflects, moreover, the average principles o f office design in th.at city, it m a y not u n f a i r l y be taken as a type of New York commercial design. T h e b u i l d i n g is a rectangle, with a small open court on the i n n e r side a d j o i n i n g the entrance front. Unlike m a n y New York office buildings, the site is spacious, t h o u g h its t r e m e n d o u s h e i g h t of e 3 stories has added to its a p p a r e n t altitude. T h e most s t r i k i n g t h i n g in this design is not its unity, but its d i v e r s i t y . W e know it is a steel skeleton building, because no s t r u c t u r e of this h e i g h t would have been built on a site of this size in a n y other way; and, while there are no voids over solids, or solids over voids, there are no c o n t i n u o u s vertical lines for a g r e a t e r h e i g h t t h a n 3 stories in any part of the fagades. T h e design, in fact, is not a single, h o m o g e n e o u s one, in which one part n a t u r a l l y develops into the other and each is related to the Other, b u t instead, we have six g r e a t divisions piled one on top of each other, of i n d e p e n d e n t design and w i t h o u t any relationship to a n y other part.

138

Ferret

.'

[J. F. I.,

A t the beginning; we have a b a s e m e n t of 2 stories, and, as every b u i l d i n g m u s t have a base, tlais e n t i r e l y fulfils the r e q u i r e m e n t s of good design. But above this comes a three-story section w h i c h is not a basement, because it is cut off from the part below by a cornice, and is, moreover, 2 stories above the level of the street; nor can it be a superstructure, for the m a j o r part of the b u i l d i n g is above it. It is impossible to give it a proper a r c h i t e c t u r a l name, t h o u g h as it is of stone, like the two stories below, and the u p p e r part of the b u i l d i n g is of terra-cotta, it may, in the m i n d of its designer, have formed part of the basement. Over the cornice of this section is a n o t h e r s e c t i o n - - a single story t h a t appears to be an i n t r o d u c t i o n to w h a t is above it; then 3 stories with the windows enclosed within r e c t a n g u l a r bays. A n a r r o w s t r i n g course runs below and above this part, and over it the same f e a t u r e s are r e p e a t e d ; t h a t is, the i n t r o d u c t o r y story and the 3 stories in bays. A n d over this again t h e y are r e p e a t e d once more, cut off, as below, with horizontal lines, and f o r m i n g sections complete in themselves. Over this is the h e a v y m a i n cornice, supported on large brackets which e n t i r e l y fill the space b e t w e e n the windows of a n o t h e r story. H e r e the b u i l d i n g logically ends, for the cornice is n a t u r a l l y the finish of a building. But we have not yet r e a c h e d the end, for above are more stories, with a great, porch.like erection in front, of applied c o l u m n s c a r r y i n g r o u n d arches, which are open and form a sort of belvedere ; w i t h i n these rises the hipped roof, which has a s i n g u l a r effect of g r o w i n g out of the space b e h i n d the arches. T h e error t h a t led the d e s i g n e r of this b u i l d i n g a s t r a y is v e r y obvious ; he did not u n d e r s t a n d the value of u n i t y in a h i g h building, and certainly did not know how to obtain it. I n s t e a d of unity, sobriety and s t r e n g t h , we have v a r i e t y a n d change. T h e design is varied at every possible point, and cut up by horizontal lines and divided into shallow sections, in the false hope of m a k i n g the b u i ! d i n g seem lower t h a n it is. Yet it is part of its merits in the eyes of its owners t h a t it is big; why, then, disguise this fact ? A n d why, if it is a single building, and therefore a unit, m a r its u n i t y by c u t t i n g it into parts, and v a r y i n g its design for

Feb., 1896.]

The Modern O~ce Building.

I39

sheer sake of v a r i e t y ? T h e porch on the top is m o s t unh a p p y in its effect: it completes the building, b u t only b e c a u s e t h e r e is n o t h i n g above it; it certainly is w i t h o u t relationship to w h a t is below, nor are a n y of the lower sections related to any other part. T h e r e is a m p l e material here for a good d e s i g n ; the architect has b r o u g h t to his work a broad a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h his art, and a fine m a s t e r y of detail, b u t he did not u n d e r s t a n d his problem. T h e r e is no s t r u c t u r a l significance in the d e s i g n - - s i m p l y a u s i n g up of space, and an e v i d e n t fear of long, u n i n t e r r u p t e d lines. It w o u l d be easy to m u l t i p l y examples of b a d l y conceived designs for office buildings, or to n a m e b u i l d i n g s that violate the rules of art more flagrantly than the one we h a v e j u s t studied, b u t this m u s t suffice. It is folly to d e n y that the a v e r a g e artistic s t a n d a r d of design in the modern office b u i l d i n g is not good. T h e " sky-scraper" has b e c o m e a s y n o n y m for things of horror, and a blot u p o n the artistic aspects of our modern cities. T h a t t h e y are so is f r e q u e n t l y true, b u t the error lies in the t r e a t m e n t , not in the dimensions of the buildings. G r e a t office b u i l d i n g s like the Schiller T h e a t r e , the Stock Exchange, the A u d i t o r i u m , the Old Colony Building, the Monadlloek Block and others, in Chicago; the W a i n w r i g h t and the U n i o n Trust, in St. L o u i s ; the Mills Building, in San Francisco; the G u a r a n t y Building, in Buffalo; the U n i o n T r u s t Building, in N e w Y o r k ; the A m e s Building, in Boston, and some few others in these and o t h e r cities, show that, logically and artistically treated, the modern office b u i l d i n g s m a y b e o r n a m e n t s to our cities, and, b y virtue of their art alone, take that supremacy to which, in the p o p u l a r mind, t h e y are entitled b y reason of their size and their cost. T h e la,~t few years h a v e w i t n e s s e d a prodigious g r o w t h in the n u m b e r of office b u i l d i n g s in the large cities of the U n i t e d States. T h e architects h a v e been e a g e r to b u i l d them, for such costly w o r k gives t h e m more profitable emp l o y m e n t than m u c h of the lesser w o r k t h e y are u s u a l l y e n g a g e d upon. T h e y have b e c o m e popular with investors ; they h a v e been used as an a d v e r t i s e m e n t in displaying the wealth of their owners ; t h e y h a v e b e c o m e an integral part of our m o d e r n commercial life. But their artistic progress

14°

Ferree.

[ J. F. I.,

has not kept pace with their s t r u c t u r a l development. T h e solution of the fagade is not, indeed, yet to be found, for the vertical designs of m a n y of the W e s t e r n office buildings show the system to be followed in all h i g h buildings~ but the fagade calls for a more rational t r e a t m e n t t h a n has yet been given it in the larger n u m b e r of instances. T h e d u t y of the architect, so far as artistic effect is concerned, is chiefly limited to the fagade. T h e interior of the office b u i l d i n g offers little to the visitor or the t e n a n t in the way of artistic e n j o y m e n t . Well-lighted offices, a m p l e elevator service, l i g h t corridors, c o n v e n i e n t toilets, and a b u n d a n c e of sunlight, the best of ventilation, and a s a t i s f a c t o r y system of h e a t i n g and p l u m b i n g , are w h a t the t e n a n t requires more t h a n d e c o r a t e d a p a r t m e n t s . In b u i l d i n g s devoted, in part, to g r e a t corporations, the rooms of the company, as in the M a n h a t t a n and the Metropolitan Bull(tings, in New York, will be fitted up in a s u m p t u o u s fashion, regardless of expense. But these are p r i v a t e a p a r t m e n t s , and form no part of the public f e a t u r e s of the buildings. T h e e n t r a n c e halls and elevator enclosures thus r e m a i n as almost the sole parts of the interior susceptible to artistic t r e a t m e n t . T h e value of a rich decoration for these parts has long been a d m i t t e d bv the architects and owners, and m a n y s p l e n d i d l y decorated halls have been b u i l t in the l a r g e r office buildings. T h e most notable of these is, w i t h o u t doubt, the interior court of the Metropolitan B u i l d i n g in New York, a superb a p a r t m e n t , lined with decorated marble, w i t h delicate carving, with onyx and with bronze, w i t h a disregard of cost and a s u m p t u o u s n e s s of effect t h a t is comparable only to the palatial a r c h i t e c t u r e of Europe. T h a t large e x p e n d i t u r e s are made for such decorative work as this speaks m u c h for the general appreciation of art in the modern office building, and certainly the h i s t o r y of a r c h i t e c t u r e offers few more -striking contrasts t h a n t h a t b e t w e e n a palatial s t r u c t u r e like the Metropolitan B u i l d i n g and the little 4-or 5-story t)uildings in which the m e r c h a n t s of a g e n e r a t i o n or less since transacted their business, and laid the f o u n d a t i o n s of the f o r t u n e s that, to-day, render our vast office b u i l d i n g s possible and profitable.