Ultra Local Geography

Monopoly Houses in Evanston

2012-01-27T00:00:00.001-06:00

I don't usually write about the suburbs. Which is odd, since I find myself there so frequently. Anyway, this row of houses is near the two major institutions of our life as parents- Felix and Theo's pediatrician and the drive-through Starbucks at Central and Crawford. There are others, but sadly these two remain constant.

2200 block of Crawford, Evanston, IL

These houses always catch my eye. There are at least a dozen of them concentrated in this area, built in 1952 and 1953 according to the Cook County Assessor. The gable form is about the most traditional residential shape possible, but there are some subtle modernist touches. There's no concern with creating a symmetrical facade. Instead the architect has located small windows higher where privacy was desirable and opened up the front of the homes with floor to ceiling windows for the primary family spaces.

Interestingly, these homes have become more traditional-looking over time. Many of the original undivided windows have been replaced with multi-pane colonial-type windows. The one on the far right was renovated into a half-timbered Tudor Revival knockoff.

View of the back of the houses, looking West. Note the various rear additions.

Even though these homes are similar in regard to massing there are significant additions at the back. The shape of these buildings lend themselves to the traditional ways to add space, such as dormers, porches, and wing additions. The second house from the right even doubled in size, but it's difficult to see that from Crawford.

The arrangement of the homes is a standard technique of mid-century developers. Find a profitable design, then flip or rotate the plans until there's an impression of variety. It doesn't fool anybody, but it still often succeeds in creating a subdivision with an interesting use of space.

New York Kosher, 2900 W. Devon (originally posted 2/18/10)

2012-01-24T23:04:00.002-06:00

Just realized that this sign has been removed! Sad. According to Jewish News Online it was sold on Ebay and a documentary crew filmed the removal. The owner received a letter from the city requiring that he get a permit for it. It had only been hanging there for 40 years... Instead he chose to get rid of it.

The West Ridge neighborhood (also called West Rogers Park) has the unusual distinction of being the center of two types of Jewish communties at different times. Back in the 50s and 60s this was a heavily conservative/reform Jewish neighborhood. Now it's the center of an orthodox Jewish community. But there are a few remnants from the old neighborhood that have remained and seem to function just as they did. This kosher deli is one of them. On the opposite corner is Levinson's bakery, which falls into the same category.

It's hard to see with this scan, but there's a number 48 in the oval sign on top. I believe it refers to USDA Establishment 48, which is Best's Kosher inspection designation. Oddly, Best's Kosher is now owned by Sara Lee.

Backstage Spaces #3 (6954 N. Clark)

2012-01-20T07:59:00.040-06:00

Sometimes a vacant lot opens up a window into the interior of a block. In this case the empty parcel at the northwest corner of Morse and Clark reveals a rear brick building with a gable roof attached to the flat-roofed building fronting on Clark. This corner has been used as a parking lot for the bank across the street for at least 50 years, so the view is nothing new for Rogers Park residents.

When I first noticed this building I assumed that it must have pre-dated the commercial building at the front of the lot by at least 10 years. Its setback and design is consistent with early brick residences in the neighborhood. Unfortunately the Sanborn Maps didn't help me to figure out the exact gap in time between the two buildings. In 1894 there's nothing on the lot, and in 1905 you see both buildings attached as they are today. It's possible the rear building was built in 1895 and the front building in 1904. This would give a maximum time spread of 9 years.


It's not really blue. I added that.

But even if we can assume the maximum spread that's not very long before a major addition was built. It indicates a commercial district that was rapidly developing. But this isn't a surprise. After its annexation to Chicago in 1893 Rogers Park could utilize metropolitan utilities and infrastructure. The neighborhood began attracting more residents and new stores were needed to satisfy the demand. If you can keep the older building on the lot while catering to that increase why wouldn't you?

Today the little building remains residential, as far as I can tell. And judging by the attached satellite dishes there are at least 3 units in there.

Here's a tangent. In the drawing you can see the building has a solid new staircase at the rear. But in the earlier aerial photo it looks like the rear porch has been enclosed. Many buildings in Chicago have enclosed their rear porches to add a bit more usable space. Very few of them received permits to do so. When someone wants to reconstruct a porch they need to provide a recent survey. If that survey shows an unpermitted enclosed porch the owners either need to remove it or legalize it with an expanded permit. Since an addition of space may trigger zoning violations (or would result in a higher assessment) many people just remove the enclosure. It looks like that's happened here.

6757-6765 N. Sheridan - Apartments of the Better Class

2012-01-18T07:45:00.000-06:00

This marks the continuing documentation of the Rogers Park buildings featured in "Directory to Apartments of the Better Class along the North Side of Chicago." This is entry #6, for those keeping count.

This corner remains mostly unchanged from its 1917 entry. The more noticeable difference is that Sheridan Road was widened, resulting in a narrower parkway. And of course the car styles have changed. A little.

At first glance this appears to be a single building using the same dark red face brick, inset geometric stone ornaments and pressed-metal cornice. But there are some definite differences. For instance, the sun porches to the right are much more closely spaced than the ones on the left. And the first floor on the right is clad with stone, rather than brick. Even the window configurations on the porches are different. The floorplans confirm that these are two distinct buildings even though they share design similarities.

Click for larger version. Or just get really close to the screen.

Image from Bing's Bird's Eye Views

This is the first time the floor plans in "Better Apartments" actually give a false impression of a space. The building below is twice as big as the one above. I can only assume that they squeezed the plan so it would take up less space on the page. That would also explain why the room labels in the lower image are nearly illegible. The oblique aerial photo to the right gives a better impression of the relationship, showing how the rear courts work together to create an complex interior court. You can see that the two buildings (maybe three?) form a sort of "L" configuration, with a 1-story garage taking up the space along the alley.

These are basically two or three bedroom apartments with a few extras, such as reception halls. Maybe half of the units have a bedrooms labeled as a maid's room.

Click for larger version

According to the blurb they built enough garage space for 16 cars. Of course the cars were a bit smaller back then, but even in 1917 garage space would have been a big benefit as the density of the neighborhood increased.

The sun-porches overlook Sheridan rather than Pratt. In 1917 Sheridan was more of a pleasure road rather than the busy thoroughfare we now know and love. And like many of the apartments in this publication, mahogany and white enamel was used for the interior scheme. This must have suggested luxury and cleanliness all in one. The mahogany was probably stained birch, but let's not split hairs. For $77.50 a month I'm sold.

Haymarket Square Map Chronology

2012-01-13T07:55:00.000-06:00

Last year I put together a map chronology of Haymarket Square for AREA Chicago. Normally they publish a small-format newspaper on local issues related to arts and political activism. I'd contributed illustrations previously, and even an article a few years back. This edition was to commemorate the 125 year anniversary of the Haymarket Tragedy (otherwise known as the Haymarket Riot). The graphic was only intended to show how the area changed over the years, and it wasn't presented with any analysis. But there's no reason I can't remedy that here, right?

Des Plaines and Randolph looking North, 2011

In a nutshell, the Haymarket Tragedy refers to the events of May 4, 1886, where a crowd of workers were demonstrating at Des Plaines and Randolph for an 8-hour day. As the speeches were winding down 176 police officers marched to disperse the crowd. At that point someone threw a bomb, killing a police officer. The police then opened fire. Sixty officers were wounded and eight died. It's not clear how many in the crowd were killed or injured. The person responsible for the bombing was never found. The Haymarket organizers were arrested, and after one of the most unjust trials in American history four of the defendants were hanged. Another committed suicide in prison. You can read more about it here and here.

There hasn't been much in the way of commemoration of this area, although there is a plaque, a sculpture, and a Chicago Landmark designation for a portion of Des Plaines and part of the alley to the east. Nearly all of the buildings associated with that night have been demolished.

A lot has been written about the Haymarket Tragedy, but not much about the physical characteristics of the area where it occurred. There were five of these open-air markets in Chicago at the time, where workers went to buy food directly from farmers. You can see that Randolph St. widens to accommodate the market. The speaker's wagon was north of Randolph (1), in part to avoid interfering with the market and attracting a police presence. And the police weren't far away. Their station was just south on Des Plaines (4).

You can see the vitality of the area in the number and configuration of the buildings. Most of these would have been two or three-stories with commercial uses on the first floor and residential above. Many of the lots have rear buildings with alley access. These were often coach houses or businesses. At that time alleys were much more important in the life of the neighborhood. And this was a real neighborhood. There was a complex mix of commercial, retail, industrial and public uses all swirled together.

By 1906 several of the smaller buildings have been demolished and replaced with larger structures taking up two or more lots. Many of the rear lot buildings have been removed. Construction is masonry, as required by Chicago building codes. The scale of the neighborhood begins to change.

By 1950 the consolidations have continued. Buildings have been demolished but not replaced. The Haymarket has fallen on hard times. There's a more homogenized feel in the area. Commerce has moved away from the street, and the residential quality of the area has declined. The map doesn't show it, but the expressway cuts through the Haymarket to the west, severely limiting it's ability to regenerate. The area is becoming part of Skid Row.

By 2011 surface parking has eaten up large swaths of land. The lots are empty from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m., giving the intersection the feel of a ghost-town during the after-work hours. But at the southwest corner is a new 40-story condo building, replacing the second wave of replacement buildings and dwarfing those that remain. Some of the nearby light industrial buildings have been converted into condos as well. A high-end restaurant has located on Randolph. There's a sense that the area's proximity to the downtown may finally be attracting some investment.

The shouts and gunshots of a cold May night in 1886 feel very far away.

Des Plaines and Randolph looking West, 2011

Backstage Spaces #2 (1429-1431 W. Lunt)

2011-12-30T07:49:00.000-06:00

I walk down a lot of alleys in Rogers Park. I have yet to be mugged and/or murdered. I suspect that even if you meet a mugger in an alley they might also assume that you're a mugger and leave you alone. Anyway, in keeping with my series on overlooked conditions at the rear of properties I offer this peculiar situation on the alley between Lunt and Morse, just west of Glenwood.

I spotted this year ago, when my girlfriend (now wife) lived in the 4-flat next door. Oddly, there was a 2-story single family home attached to the rear of a 3-story apartment building. There's no gap between the two. The front of the house actually abuts the larger building. You can see the remains of the old sun-porch at the juncture between the two. The front of the house was clad with a yellow face brick, which is visible on the side return. It retains it's half-timbered decorative treatment below the hip-on-gable roof, but a garage door opening was cut into the first floor facing the alley.

My first thought was that this building was probably on the front of the lot and was picked up and moved when the economics of the neighborhood made large apartments viable. I've seen this a lot in older areas of the city where a more expensive house or apartment displaced the earlier home. Surprisingly, it was fairly common to relocate buildings in Chicago.

So it's not hard to test this theory. As I've mentioned, the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps cover much of the neighborhood. The 1937 map and the 1951 map shows the current conditions. But the 1914 map shows that there was in fact a smaller building near the front of this lot. But it wasn't shaped anything like the house now at the rear of the property. So where did this building come from? It doesn't seem likely it would have been moved a great distance. I looked up the permit record (the apartment was built in 1927) but there were no notes relating to a relocated structure. A quick glance at the nearby blocks on the 1914 map doesn't show any footprints similar in size and shape. So this is a bit of a mystery that will have to remain for the time being.

The house itself appears to have been converted into a garage on the first floor while there's residential space on the second floor. This likely connects to the interior corridor of the apartment building. Perhaps this is where the building manager or custodian lives. Not a bad way to create a unique living space attached to an income-producing property.

In general, alleys have become less active spaces over the years. Much of this is due to zoning, which limits accessory uses and prohibits detached living units. This is unfortunate, since those odd spaces added a lot to the affordability and diversity of the neighborhood. But there are enough of these uses left that the alleys remain an interesting place to explore.

1311-1313 W. Pratt- Apartments of the Better Class

2011-12-23T07:54:00.000-06:00

When I started this project last spring to document the Rogers Park buildings listed in the "Directory to Apartments of the Better Class Along the North Side of Chicago" I had to use scans taken from pages I copied from a deteriorating booklet. But amazingly, the entire publication is now available for free through Google eBooks. Heres' a link. I may have to go back and recreate previous comparison graphics using the better images.

Above are The Boulevard Apartments. Not sure why Pratt received a boulevard designation. Maybe it was intended to be boulevarded at some point and never was. Anyway, this six-flat uses a combination of red face brick and terra cotta trim. There are two large Sullivanesque ornaments on the front of the sun porches. They don't stand out very well in either of the photographs. Simplified (some might say mediocre) vesions of Louis Sullivans terra cotta designs pretty much point to Midland Terra Cotta as the supplier. This building looks like it's aged fairly well, although of course the windows have been changed.

To the right is the floorplan, which is typical for apartment buildings on long narrow lots. Which is to say, long narrow apartments. The circulation depends on a corridor, which is also typical. The building faces north but the sun porches at the front bring in some light, as do the shallow light courts on the sides. Probably the most pleasant place to be is on the back deck (which they refer to as the breakfast porch), with its southern exposure. Although maybe not in the winter, since it doesn't appear to be enclosed. Only the sun porches admit light from more than one direction.

Unlike most of the apartments published in this booklet they didn't label one of the bedrooms as the maid's room. The two secondary bedrooms share a bath, so perhaps one of those could serve. Or not, depending on the needs of the tenants. It's still amazing to me that the typical middle-class apartment dweller would have a live-in maid.

And no entry in the great book of Better Class Apartments is complete without the blurb. It's interesting that this building had it's own ballroom on the ground floor. Normally you would only see that in larger buildings. Not to mention wall safes (really?) and central vacuuming. And I'm still baffled by the appeal of a heated garage. The parcel receiver in the kitchen is a new one. I assume this is some sort of pass-through where the mailman or delivery boy could leave a box. All and all a solid, if compartmentalized, building. Maybe just a little short on natural light.

Click for full page

Backstage Spaces #1 (Estes, Clark, Touhy and the Metra Tracks)

2011-12-14T08:21:00.002-06:00

There's a lot to be said for alleys and the hidden spaces behind buildings. Many times this is where you see the true character of a street and clues about how it's changed over time. The west side of Clark Street in Rogers Park is especially interesting, maybe because of the trapezoidal blocks created by the viaduct for the Metra tracks and the angle of Clark Street. Nothing like a good diagonal (or two) to shake up the grid.

Above is a panoramic view of the interior of the block bounded by Touhy on the north, Clark on the east, Estes on the south, and the train tracks on the west. I first noticed this area because of the old residential frame building incorporated into the light industrial buildings behind it (center of image, with gable roof). The windows are all boarded up and it's been covered in tar paper, but there's a certain lingering aura of old Rogers Park.

Since it's difficult to place yourself in the frame for this kind of space I put together a handy "cone of vision" graphic to the left. The gigantic eye is where the viewer is standing. Hopefully the viewer will not actually look like a gigantic eye.

If you look carefully you can see that the paving angles up towards Clark Street. This makes sense, since Clark is located on one of the ancient shorelines of Lake Michigan. It's easy to overlook this just driving down Clark, but the buildings on either side gain bonus height in the rear due to the slope.

So why is this area so desolate and underutilized? And why is it paved with gravel? That's unusual for Rogers Park, which is fairly dense and developed.

Luckily Rogers Park is well-represented on the old Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, which I used for the graphic above. The subdividers created an unusually complex alley for this block, probably because the large lot at the top of the block already had a home there and wouldn't agree to allowing the alley right-of-way to cut through to Touhy. Eventually an alternate alley was inserted on the west edge of the lot. The home itself was replaced by a filling station some time after 1914. Up until at least 1905 the area developed residentially. Most of the single family homes were located away from Clark Street, with its horse-drawn streetcars and later trolleys.

Several of these early residential buildings located on the small lots off the alley but facing Clark Street (shown in red to the right). For a while this must have given these small homes a real feeling of spaciousness. But as Clark developed commercially they were locked away. As late as 2008 all four of these homes were still there. Suddenly they're demolished (apparently without a permit), leaving the one frame building which survived only through its earlier conversion into a machine shop.

So what's the next step for this area? Were these buildings cleared in anticipation of some new development, or is a new parking lot just cheaper than fixing up the homes? Maybe nothing is next. It seems like this area has been in an awkward transition for about 100 years...

Cottages on 21st Street and Kildare

2011-11-21T07:35:00.001-06:00

Back to K-Town! Here are some additional brick and stone 1-story houses with distinctly Craftsman detailing. The K-Town National Register Nomination identifies these as the design of architect J. Klucina and built by F. Karel.

From left to right are 4254, 4250 and 4248 W. 21st Street. The Assessor claims that all three were built in 1917, and have 852 sq.ft. I'm guessing (hoping) this doesn't include the basement. These lots are 33' wide, which is slightly wider than the standard 25' lot. They're only 75' deep because of the elevated tracks (Pink Line) directly behind them, which basically cuts them in half. Given the area limitations these cottages do pretty well utilizing the space available. But I was surprised not to see any roof decks. That would seem like an easy way to add some outdoor space.

I think it's fascinating how the designs vary on blocks that contain speculative housing. These are often built as a part of a larger project, and the buildings tend to share basic characteristics such as height, width, and square footage. But how many shades of brick were used? How often do the designs repeat themselves? How many varieties can there be of a crenellated facade? It's the architectural version of variations on a theme.

1-Story Cottages at Foster and Claremont

2011-11-04T08:45:00.005-05:00

It's good to know this type of 1-story cottage isn't limited entirely to the south side. Below are three brick homes on Foster, east of Western. Special thanks to a blog comment that pointed these out. I can't find these all by myself, and I know there must be alot of them out in the neighborhoods.

These are a bit older than the ones in K-Town, built in 1896. The two on the left are listed at 748 sq.ft., while the one to the right is listed at 1,346 sq.ft., which may mean that the basement is a separate legal living unit. All of them appear to have below grade access to the basement from the front of the house. Which would be great if you have a teenager you'd rather not see frequently.

2317, 2319, and 2321 W. Foster

All three would have had the decorative triangular pediments with dentils, although the one to the right just has a remnant.

Interestingly, if the pediment actually defined the shape of the roof these would look alot like bungalows. I've been reading Joseph Bigott's book, "From Cottage to Bungalow," which illustrates the transition between the two forms. When Bigott looks at cottages he's generally referring to wood-frame structures with a gable roof that originally evolved as a form of rural housing. I probably use the word "cottage" more indiscriminately. But what if these homes represent another transitional form in Chicago? Worth investigating.

S & C Gatehouse, Pratt and Ravenswood

2011-10-31T07:59:00.000-05:00

S&C Electric Gatehouse at Pratt and Ravenswood

Here's something you don't see every day in Rogers Park-- a high-style modernist structure in the Miesian tradition. Sure, it's a tiny gatehouse for S&C Electric, but it hits almost every note, from 360 degree visibility, to the use of a module to define proportions, to the deeply cantilevered roof that appears to float above the building. It makes use of traditional materials (brick) mainly to emphasize planar qualities.

But there's one nod to reality that I really like. See those two shapes on the front edge of the roof? Those are water spouts. A truly doctrinaire modernist would have come up with a way to move the water down from the flat roof without allowing it to interrupt the design. Maybe by concealing a water a spout in a corner column? But in this case the architect decided that this is a roof, and it needs to shed water. Of course they could have shifted them to the rear of the structure, but let's assume there are spouts on that side as well.

S & C Electric located in this area in 1947. By 1971 they owned 50 acres east of Ridge. I wish I could say that this gatehouse dates from 1947, but it's more likely to be a later addition as the company expanded into the area. Historic aerial photos make me want to date it between 1974 and 1988. But note the interesting profile of the stainless steel edge of the roof. This detail is used on many of the buildings (old and new) and provides a cohesive element for an industrial campus with a variety of structures.

More Cullerton Cottages!

2011-10-20T08:37:00.002-05:00

Here are some more of these great 1-story homes in K-Town. And I haven't yet touched the ones built in the Craftsman style on 21st Street.

According to the assessor, all of these were built in 1911 and range from 896 sq.ft. to 1,048 sq.ft. The one on the left has a limestone facade, while the two to the right are brick with stone details. The central house has the original canopy roof, but the columns have been replaced with a single steel support.

So I finally tracked down the K-Town National Register Nomination, and was suprised to find an advertisement for the homes in the area created circa 1910. And in Czech, of course. I can't quite figure out the source of the ad, but that doesn't stop me from posting it here.

And take a look at the home third from the left. It's a tiny greystone! And at $3,200 the price is right... Unfortunately my Czech is non-existent, otherwise it would be interesting to see how these were presented to potential buyers.

Rogers Park Courtyard Views in Perspective

2011-10-18T21:20:00.002-05:00

These are a few additional images I developed for the courtyard apartments project. The intent is to better represent the courtyard in space, since so many of the other illustrations appear quite flat. I thought I would post them here before they get lost in a directory somewhere. I still have more to say about courtyard buildings, but I think I can let is rest for a while.

7414-7425 N. Damen, 1929

This is one of the largest courtyards I found in Rogers Park. The image doesn't quite do it justice. Unfortunately there wasn't much in there except for grass and a few scrubby bushes. It has huge wall with two entrances which somehow wasn't included in the courtyard entrances post.

1700-1706 W. Albion, 1925

This building has a combination of classical and craftsman detailing. I always like it when an architect uses brick to replicate stone detailing (in this case, rustication of the ground floor). Note the dish antennas to the right. On some of these buildings the antennas and cables could be a design element in their own right.

1029-1049 W. North Shore, 1927

This is a good example of a brick and terra cotta design. And it retains the original fountain at the back of the court, although it's been converted into a planter. The entrances to the building have a blue-glazed coat of arms representing productivity (beehive, plow, sheaf of wheat, etc). That will have to wait for a color treatment at some point.

Cullerton Cottages

2011-10-07T15:16:00.002-05:00

A portion of North Lawndale came to be known as K-Town, based on the number of streets that start with the letter "K." This resulted from a 1913 street naming proposal (later abandoned) in which letters of the alphabet indicate the distance from the Indiana border. Streets that start with a K are within the eleventh mile. I suppose there have been weirder naming conventions.

To my surprise K-Town has the best examples of 1-story masonry cottages that I've found. There are blocks of them on Cullerton and 21st Street. Many use Indiana limestone veneers with romanesque details and look like tiny truncated greystones. Others use face brick and classical or craftsman ornamentation. Most have projecting bays on the front facade, which adds variety and captures additional light and air.

All three of the buildings above were constructed in 1909 and have just over 900 square feet of living space. Only the building at 4147 W. Cullerton has retained the original porch, with wood columns and a triangular pediment.

I'm impressed at what a enjoyable streetscape these small homes create, especially when they line up on both sides of Cullerton. At first glance they might seem toy-like, but their attention to detail and careful proportions really create a unique character for the area.

Lawndale Cottages

2011-10-03T15:26:00.001-05:00

3149 S. Komensky, 1922, 841 sq.ft.

While looking up a few images in Google I found an unusual building type. Well, it was unusual to me. Blocks of 1-story masonry cottages with flat roofs, mostly built in the 1910s and early 1920s. They look like 2-flats with the top floor cut off. These are single family homes complete with yards and garages, ranging in size from 800 to 1000 sq.ft. This is about the size of a modest two-bedroom apartment, although these also have full basements.

They tend to group together, alternating designs in an A-B-A-B pattern. Just another reminder of how much of Chicago was created by builders trying to minimize design fees and maximize profit. And provide solid neighborhood buildings, of course.

3147 S. Komensky, 1922, 841 sq.ft.

So the other weekend we found ourselves driving through a light rain with a couple of snoozing kids in back, and Angela suggested that we take a drive to check out these cottages. So we did. It's a good thing my wife is game for this sort of thing. In addition to getting some decent photos through the drizzle we discovered the original Home Run Pizzeria on 31st street. Good reason for a return visit.

Not all of these houses are cut from a few basic designs. There are some that have more elaborate parapets and details, and were probably individually designed for a particular client. The building below has a carefully proportioned

3145 S. Keeler, 1919, 847 sq.ft.

parapet (Mission-style? Craftsman?) and brick columns with chamfered corners to create a more elegant appearance. And you can't overlook the generous full-width front porch.

I'm struck by how unlikely it would be for anyone to build something comparable today. It's really a function of the economy more than anything else. First, you would have to buy the land. Second, you would have to excavate the foundation and use all new materials. Third, you would end up with something that utilizes a fraction of the possible floor area but with triple the costs. This alone gives a good snapshot of this neighborhood when it first developed- inexpensive land and affordable materials and labor.

Angela's theory is that this neighborhood developed because of its proximity to the Crawford Power Plant, which began generating in 1924. But even before then it was a very industrial area, and there would have been a steady demand for single family houses.

So I think I'll start a collection of these types of cottages, and maybe a typology will start to emerge. There are some really interesting single-story greystones a bit further north, in the area known as K-Town.

Land of the Courtyard Apartments

2011-09-21T19:38:00.002-05:00

I came across a number of areas in Rogers Park with high concentrations of courtyard apartments, but take a walk on Estes between Sheridan and Glenwood to see the clear winner. Most of the buildings below were constructed between 1923 and 1924, creating an instant neighborhood and bringing hundreds of new residents to the block.

Now and again I like to resort to oblique angle aerial photos as reference imagery to better convey massing and context. These photos used to be found only in city planning departments but now you can find them online for free. Maybe they're not the most up-to-date, but good enough for my needs. The drawing below is adapted from a bird's-eye photo found on the Bing search engine.

Estes between Sheridan and Glenwood. To the left is the Red Line Elevator. Click for larger version.

I like how the courtyards themselves read from above as geometric English gardens. I was going to try and show the rooftop structures (HVAC, skylights, elevator overrides, etc.) but it made the drawing too complex and difficult to read. The white lines on some rooftops represent the bearing walls between units.

As much as I like courtyard apartments I have to think that maybe this is too much. This block has lost some of the interest and variety you find in most of Rogers Park. It doesn't help that nearly every one of these buildings is securely fenced. The building at 1345-1359 W. Estes actually has curved and spiked fencing, which gives it a feeling of being under siege. And it's likely that they're fenced in for good reason. This is unfortunate, and it wasn't always the case. Below is a Tribune blurb about this building when it was under construction as luxury rentals.

Chicago Daily Tribune: Feb. 18, 1923, pg. A13.

It's easy to forget that these buildings had so many amenities. They attracted residents with higher-than-average incomes, those that might have opted to find a single family home further towards the edge of the city.

I would be surprised if any of these buildings retained their entertaining rooms and playrooms. For the most part they're now laundry and storage rooms. If there are any courtyard apartment buildings in Rogers Park that still have elaborate communal facilities I would love to pay them a visit.

Multi-Court Apartments in Rogers Park

2011-09-16T09:20:00.001-05:00

Special thanks to the Rogers Park/West Ridge Historical Society which gave me an opportunity to talk about courtyard apartments last Saturday morning at their museum at Morse and Greenview.

"Tendencies in Apartment House Design: Part IV - Open Court Types,"
Frank Choteau Brown, The Architectural Record, Vol. L, 1921, p.489. Accessed through Google eBooks.

Once again, Frank Brown gets there before I do. The footprint to the far-right best represents what I refer to as muli-court buildings. E-Plan works too. I'm reminded of Steven Holl's Pamphlet Architecture #5, "The Alphebetical City," which I once passed up at a used bookstore and have regretted ever since. Anyway, I had some difficulty defining what should be considered a multi-court building. Are two idenitical U-Courts side-by-side a multi-court? What if they're on separately owned lots? So I came up with a few multi-court buildings that appear to create a coherent whole, even if they are technically individual buildings.

This buildings at 1800-1818 W. Farwell are a good example this. However, the setbacks of the individual wings are not identical. The one on the far right comes closest to the front property line. The center wings are set back somewhat and align with each other. The left extension is set back even further. It doesn't seem like there's a regulation which would require this, but the wing on the left better aligns with the single family homes to the west. If that's what the designer intended I congratulate them on their nod to neighborhood context. Of course it's still a massive building next to tiny buildings, but at least their neighbor still has their front yard.

This complex is located at 7016-7034 N. Sheridan (Sheridan and Greenleaf) sits on three separate parcels. It's really a combination of two L-Courts and one S-Court. But they were intended to form a coherent composition (classical revival, down to the red brick, corner quoins and triangular pediments). In this case I can explain the various setbacks. On the lots to the right a 30' subdivision setback was recorded, which is absent on the lot to the far left. Odd, but interesting.

This building at 1708-1720 W. Albion was a surprise to discover. Not only has it never been enclosed with wrought iron fencing, but it still has all the original windows and doors. They're not in great condition, but it's nice to see the level of detail these buildings had.

Again, from an ownership standpoint there are three separate lots. Several L-Courts combine to create two central courts. Architecturally it reads as a single multi-court building.

It appears that the central section makes use of corridors to access the units. This is unusual for a courtyard apartment, which normally depends on a number of entrances. Perhaps it's necessary because of the comparatively small lot size.

Courtyard Apartments- Graphs and Charts!

2011-08-31T21:22:00.003-05:00

When you're working with about 200 buildings it's natural to organize them into a list. And of course, if you're making a list why not use Excel? And as long as it's in Excel why not generate a few pie charts and line graphs? And why not import that table into a free geocoding site and see what kind of maps it comes up with?

Anyway, it was only a matter of time before I could inflict some abstract illustrations on the viewing public. I believe I've already included a distribution map in an earlier post, but sometimes it's hard for me to stop fiddling.

The above maps are good representations of the distribution of the various types of courtyard apartments. The map to the left uses individual markers for each address, while the one on the right uses pie charts of various sizes to represent building clusters and distribution of types within the cluster. Both clearly show the dominance of the U-Court building. Not bad for free maps from BatchGeo.

Above a more comprehensive pie chart from Excel showing the courtyard type breakdown much more clearly. Yep, the U-Courts win. L-Courts are a distant second.

But I'm also looking at the construction dates for these buildings. Nice to know Excel can do such an clear chart showing total buildings by year and by type breakdown. Took me a bit to figure this out, but I think it's worth it. Still trying to get the total building counts placed at the top of the column... Anyway, it's interesting to show that all building didn't end with the onset of the Great Depression. Not until after 1933 does construction of these types appear to cease.

Click to actually read these numbers.

One of the things that I'm interested in showing is how drastically the density in Rogers Park increased during the time in which the courtyard apartment colonized the neighborhood. Sure, the Census figures (and the Local Community Factbook) show that Chicago's population increased 150% between 1910 and 1930, but the population of Rogers Park increased more than 800%.

Farwell between Greenview and Glenwood

It helps to illustrate the change with a snapshot of the block of Farwell bounded by Glenwood and Greenview. The du/ac notation above indicates dwelling units per acre. Coincidentally, it shows almost exactly an 800% increase.

OK, that should do it for charts and diagrams, at least for the moment.

S-Court Apartments in Rogers Park

2011-08-26T14:25:00.002-05:00

The Rogers Park S-Court apartment is the most irregular and the most predictable courtyard type. Irregular because I can never estimate what sort of dimensions will work for an S-Court. They can be located on lots ranging from 100' deep to 170' deep, and they might accomodate as few as 20 units or more than 40. But one thing is sure-- if it's an S-Court you'll find it on a corner lot.

7001-7017 N. Wolcott

An S-Court is really the fusion of a U-Court with a more standard apartment building attached on one end and arranged to provide a narrow interior access court. Rather than construct a single U-Court (which would provide a generous amount of central green space) the S-Court maximizes nearly every square foot of a lot. It does this partly by skimping on the central court, which may read as uncomfortably narrow. And unlike an L-Court, which can sometimes borrow the perception of space from the lot next door, an S-Court will be narrow forever.

Perhaps in compensation for not having views into the interior court the side wing will often have use of a front yard. I've seen front yards that are very generous on some of these buildings, but also yards with barely room for a potted plant.

Here's my courtyard test: If you can stand in your window and unintentionally watch your cross-court neighbor do something embarrassing then the court is too narrow. As you might guess, I live in an S-Court building.

Entrances to Courtyard Apartments, #2

2011-08-12T15:11:00.001-05:00

Click to enlarge.

In a previous post I introduced some examples of the decorative entrances of several courtyard buildings and talked about some of the ways these operate to define public, private, and semi-private spaces. I even had a nifty graphic, which I'm recycling to the right. But as usual, I have some more examples I'd like to include.

7320-7330 N. Damen, 1930

Above is a brick and stone wall and fence combination with Craftmans details. It seems likely that the fence section is a later addition, but it doesn't add much more security. Even I could hop this one. Still, it's good to retain the visibility into the court. I've seen some high solid walls which make a building look under seige.

7349-7355 N. Damen, 1926

This is a particularly good one, with some gothic touches. The combination of very tall piers and very low walls is a bit unusual. So again, not a real physical barrier, but it provides a psychological break between public and private space.

7381-7389 N. Damen, 1929

Sometimes you'll find these types of entrances, which use wrought iron to suspend a lantern. This is an elegant treatment, but they don't age well. It's difficult to keep something like this protected from the elements and operable. Easier to chop off the metal and install lamps on the top of the piers. Or not at all.

6822-6828 N. Wayne, 1928

The most common materials used are brick and stone (or cast stone), so it's a bit unusual in Rogers Park to find a courtyard building with a significant amount of terracotta. This entrance actually uses two types of terracotta, white and a dark green speckled base, which resembles granite. Nice adaptation of a gothic buttress form.

7400-7410 N. Damen, 1932

This is a good example of a different type of entrance incorporating a change in grade. In this case the entire courtyard is elevated, probably creating a bit more basement storage. There are also buildings which use a sunken courtyards, which can be even more effective in creating a semi-private space.

OK, that should do it for courtyard entrances, at least for a while.

U-Court Apartments in Rogers Park

2011-08-05T08:04:00.000-05:00

"Tendencies in Apartment House Design: Part VII - Courtyard Plans,"

Frank Choteau Brown, The Architectural Record, Vol. LI, 1922, p.64.

U-Court apartments are generally what people think of as the classic courtyard building. A single deep, semi-enclosed courtyard flanked with overlooking apartments. Sometimes these courtyards open up to the street, and sometimes they're shaped more like a keyhole. But in reality there's a remarkable variety in how these buildings utlize their lots and organize their space. A previous post concerned with L-Court apartments introduced some of these principles. To the right is Frank Brown's 1922 graphic that I'm recycling from the L-Court article. But in this case it's the bottom row that's of interest.

As usual, click for a more legible version.

The above footprints are adapted from Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. The smaller grey shapes represent interior or exterior stairs. If you look carefully you can tell that every unit has a front stair and a rear stair. Although these aren't necessarily accurate they're the best I can do without some serious trespassing.

1639-1649 W. Touhy, 1931

Note the variety in the front yard setbacks. While this is sometimes due to zoning it's just as likely that a property is observing a subdivision setback, recorded to the property prior to development. This is definitely the case for 1617-1627 W. Fargo, which observes a 30' front yard setback. You can see these clearly on the 80-acre maps of the area. Front yards are also a function of lot size. The smallest lot at 1615-1625 W. Columbia has a zero front yard setback, allowing more square footage to be crammed in.

Just like the L-Courts described previously, these buildings have multiple front entrances serving six units, two on each floor. Arranging them in a U shape around a central court provides cross-ventilation and light from at least two directions. The court itself functions as a symbolic entrance and a landscaped centerpiece. No matter how dense the neighborhood may become the central court remains a green oasis. Generally.

I realize these are tiny. Click for a larger version.

While the first grouping shows buildings arranged on rectilinear lots, the central courtyard type can be adapted to a variety of lot shapes. The buildings to the right are on irregular lots shaped by some of the neighborhood's diagonal streets and rights-of-way. The modular form of the courtyard apartment allows these lots to be utilized just as easily as one made up of right angles. In fact, adapting a building to an irregular lot can provide a variety of apartment sizes and configurations, which may help the building appeal to a variety of renters with different budgets and spatial needs.

The challenge for many of these buildings is to find a system of ornamentation elastic enough to accommodate and unify an irregular plan. At least a few future posts will investigate some of these ornamental schemes.

7401-7411 N. Hoyne, 1931

There's a great variety in the size of lots and the number of units in each of these buildings. But in general the lots of my unscientific sample above range from 14,500 sq. ft. to over 19,000 sq. ft. There are normally 25 to 40 units (sometimes more) in these buildings. In the case of 1535-1555 W. Fargo (bottom left above) the Cook County Assessor estimated 59 units, which I put down to the atypical use of a double-loaded design on one wing of the building. And also tiny apartments.

1923 Zoning Code, Rogers Park, and Courtyard Apartments

2011-07-20T15:05:00.001-05:00

Rogers Park, 1923 Zoning Ordinance

This is my colorized version of the Volume District map for Rogers Park, adopted as a part of the 1923 Zoning Code. There were five volume districts created throughout the city, but only districts 1, 2, and 3 were mapped in Rogers Park.

I find zoning maps interesting, especially when they represent the first attempt of a city to get a handle on it's own development. Does it reflect the neighborhood character or aspirations for the future? Generally it's an interweaving of the two.

You can see that the greatest volume was assigned to the area adjacent to the lakefront. This was a typical pattern for the 1923 code. With a maximum permitted height of 195' the blue zone would have allowed 20 story buildings throughout the area. It's hard to imagine what Rogers Park would be like if that had happened. Even the least dense district 1 (yellow) would allow buildings around 6 stories. As the legendary Homer Hoyt once observed, if Chicago had been built-out to the extent permitted in the 1923 Zoning Ordinance it would have housed the entire population of the United States.

7062-7078 N. Wolcott, 1931

So what's really going on here? One answer is that the map represents the ideal distribution of land uses and densities over time. But ideal for who?

The creation of these maps followed a survey and planning process where existing development was cataloged and future needs were anticipated. The ordinance itself was shaped by volunteer commissioners, city planners (still a new profession), and members of the Chicago Real Estate Board. As others have observed, city planning makes for an odd combination of entrenched financial interests and idealistic social scientists with an unshakeable belief in the power of rational land-use. There are always disconnects between the two. As developers know, there's some value in pointing to an official city document and assuring potential investors that they can build their 20-story apartment on the site.

This is my colorized Use District map for Rogers Park showing the locations zoned for industrial, commercial and residential development. Rogers Park's major commercial thoroughfares were (and are) Clark, Devon, Morse, and Howard. If you're familiar with the neighborhood you'll notice several additional commercial areas. Many of these never developed the way the zoning map envisioned, or at least not to the extent shown.

A criticism of the 1923 code was that it didn't allot enough area as residential districts. But by 1923 there were fewer single family homes being built in Rogers Park. In fact, every major metropolitan area saw a surge in the construction of multi-family buildings. But even if the entire neighborhood had been zoned to encourage the least dense development it would have still permitted the construction of 6-story apartment buildings side-by-side with single-family homes. The 1923 code was not a tool intended to limit development, but rather to make it more predictable and consistent.

This is my attempt to geocode a list of courtyard apartments. For the purposes of this study these are generally 3-stories in height with a raised basement built roughly between 1915 and 1930. Special thanks to BatchGeo. Most of these buildings were built after the 1923 code, so it's interesting to see the wide distribution. Based on the 1923 code there were no districts which would have prohibited their construction. Although there are a few clusters, but they don't seem to directly relate to the zoning maps. I suspect the most significant factors governing their location were economic. But the distribution map provides a spatial sense of how these building types relate (or don't) to the formal zoning goals of the city.

1638-1646 W. Farwell, 1929

I can't end this post without referencing Joseph Schweiterman's and Dana Caspall's book, "The Politics of Place: A History of Zoning in Chicago." They provide a coherent framework for understanding Chicago's zoning system, and much of the background information above was stolen from them. Definitely worth reading.

Next week is vacation! So the next post may be even slower than usual...

7614-7616 N. Eastlake Terrace- Apartments of the Better Class #4

2011-06-30T08:31:00.003-05:00

7614-7616 N. Eastlake Terrace

The assessor claims that this home was built in 1922, but here it is in "Better Class Apartments on the North Shore," which is dated 1917. So either the asssessor is wrong (very common) or the booklet is misdated. In most cases I'm more inclined to believe the Avery Index of Architectural Periodicals, so for now I'll stick with 1917.
Anyway, this is a handsome brick and terra cotta apartment building nearly as far north as you can get before crossing over into Evanston. The location is described as suburban, and I suppose it was in 1917 (or 1922). Now this block of Eastlake is dense with small and large apartments. Of course it still has spectacular proximity to the lake and to transit, as noted below:

And what is birch mahogany? Is that birch stained to resemble dark mahogany? Can you really call that mahogany? And don't forget the convenient trash shoots. These worked just fine in 3-story buildings. Less so in anything higher than that.

This building is surprisingly intact. It lost some ornament above the gable parapet, but it still has the tile mansard roof and the copper ornament above the entrance. The windows are long gone, which is not unusual. The historic image is dark, but I'm pretty sure the building has the original wood door and sidelights.

The projecting bays bring light into the main living spaces, while the building narrows to allow light from the side yards into the rooms at the rear.

The lot is trapezoidal in shape, with a 50' frontage and 150' in depth. The bays are staggered but remain roughly parallel to Eastlake Terrace, which runs at an angle towards the northwest. In addition, a 30' building line was recorded to the subdivision to provide a front yard for the block. Subdivision setback lines were one way in which developers could provide a measure of predictability to the areas they were trying to sell. They weren't a very precise tool, but prior to adoption of the Chicago Zoning Code in 1923 they were better than nothing.

Even with the staggered bays the configuration of the units are very similar. The differences in size probably permitted a range of rents. Both units have maid's rooms at the rear, with easy access to the kitchen and pantry. Both plans allow for a small receiving hall. And like most narrow apartments, they use a corridor to organize their circulation. Not the fanciest apartment on the market at the time, but a solid design with a decent amount of space.

This building somehow avoided the condo craze, and is still in use as apartments.

111 W. Washington, Conway Building, 1913

2011-06-22T16:45:00.005-05:00

I've always admired the Conway Building's richly molded terra cotta facade. Sure, there were some awful things done to the lobby rotunda and the Washington entrance in the 1980s, but the exterior of the building is still impressive. Last month I found myself on the roof of City Hall, and I had an amazing view of the ornament at the top of the building, including the band of lion and gargoyle heads. The gargoyles are probably intended to be Green Men, but let's not split hairs.

The building was designed by Frederick P. Dinkelberg of D.H. Burhman and Co., and reflects the Beaux Arts inclination of the firm following the World's Columbian Exposition (also found in the 1909 Plan of Chicago). This was their last building before Daniel Burnham's death in 1912. In many ways it resembles the more elaborate Flatiron Building in New York (1902) which was also primarily designed by Dinkelberg. The building follows the typical skyscraper configuration of a base, shaft, and capital. But somehow the Conway Building lost its terminating cornice... It leaves it looking somewhat unfinished. Not sure if this was a part of the 1980s renovation.

Anyway, in this drawing I wanted to show the texture of the ornament rather than the architectural characteristics of the building. Anything more than a narrow strip, and I would have spent a couple of weeks frantically crosshatching. Seeing it on-screen I realize that I could have pushed the lights and darks further. Sometimes it's good to post these images just to find out if they're done.

Entrances to Courtyard Apartments

2011-06-07T16:45:00.000-05:00

I'm going to try and do what I normally do with these courtyard apartments, which is take a complex element, distill some of the best examples, and try and draw some conclusions. But first I thought it might be useful to create a simple social space map of a courtyard apartment to help illustrate how they differentiate various levels between public and private space. (My apologies to Adrian Tomine for stealing one of his color schemes from a New Yorker cover.)

The grey tones represent the public areas, including the street, the parkway, the sidewalk, and the alley. Everything outside of the public right-of-way is private. But there are levels of privacy. In practice, the front yard functions as a semi-public zone, where it's unlikely you'll be arrested if your dog wanders over to the rose bushes.

But as the courtyard establishes itself the character of the space changes, and you may find yourself more reluctant to enter deeply without a good reason. This is very natural, and reflects the growing social control of the space as conveyed by the landscaped features, easy visual proximity to living spaces, and increasingly obscured views of the street. By the time you get to the end of a particularly deep courtyard you feel fairly conspicuous.

The element that divides the semi-public space from the increasingly private is the gate, or entryway. Sometimes this is only suggested by the shape of the building, but often there's a designed element intended emphasize and formalize this division. The location, materials, design, and visual permeability of the gate are all messages which the architect (and later, owners) wanted to convey to those that pass by or inhabit the building.

7405-7415 N. Damen, 1927

This brick and stone arcade is a good example of a substantial entrance element in the Classical Revival style. A broken pediment with central urn is supported by paired pilasters. The round arches are spaced with circular stone elements (called tondi). The bottom portions of the arched openings are partially filled with wrought iron. Despite the level of detail this screen is less than one foot thick. The open arches invite views into the court, but don't necessarily encourage visitors. The central stone entrance reflects the design used for the main entrances into the building.

1637-1642 W. Estes, 1929

This gate is a bit more traditional. The brick and stone piers with decorative ironwork is a time-honored way to say, "Hey, we live here!" This is for a side-court building, which has less of a span to fill between the building and the side property line. On the left you can see that there's a half-column. This is where it attaches to the building. It looks a bit odd in isolation, but by cutting the column in half they were able to maintain the scale without making it seem cramped.

2014-2018 W. Estes, 1931

This is one of my favorite entrances of an L-court building. While it presents a substantial appearance the central piers are lowered, becoming more welcoming. I haven't seen these octagonal ornaments before, but they provide the perfect emphasis for the gate.

1919-1923 W. Estes, 1928

This is one of the more modest entrances I documented. The low wall invites you to have a seat. The built-in urns are intended for seasonal plantings, but could also be adapted for Halloween candy. The limited size puts this squarely in the symbolic category.

6414-6420 N. Newgard, 1932

This is another fairly elaborate arched screen for a central court building. While this approaches the look of a gatehouse, it's not quite there. It's designed in the Italian Rennaissance Revival mode, just like the main building. Again, the arches carefully frame views into the courtyard while conveying a sense of exclusivity. But the detail goes a bit far in this case, almost giving the entrance a toylike quality.

Although these gates weren't primarily intended to function as actual security elements, many have been adapted for that purpose. It doesn't take much to fill an arched opening with an iron fence and add an electronic security door. Frequently there are fences installed right at the sidewalk in addition to beefing up the security of the historic entryways. This creates almost an "airlock" feel on the street, as if the building is under seige. The most peculiar treatment I've seen uses airlock fences as well as individual fences along the walkways leading to the first floor doors. How those fenced areas are mowed, I have no idea.

The social space map above is really a best-case scenario. As entrances are modified to address real or perceived security concerns the semi-public space and the sense of permeability disappears, giving a fortified look to the street. The green spaces which are so much a part of the courtyard design give way to a less rich sensory experience, where only visual access is maintained.

I have about 5 more of these entrances to document in a future post. But maybe time for a break from courtyard apartments...

Pratt Manor (1252-1262 W. Pratt) - Apartments of the Better Class #3

2011-05-30T20:19:00.004-05:00

1252-1262 W. Pratt- South Elevation

This is a big one. Either the original photographer used a fish-eye lens, or they were able to take their photograph from a vacant lot across the street. I had to stitch together several shots to approximate the image from 1917. This is still a fairly attractive building, although it's lost the original windows and filled in others with glass block.

This building was designed (and owned) by our friend Percy T. Johnstone, who was also responsible for the apartment at Touhy and Paulina as described in a previous post.

Units on the end had two bedrooms, while those in the middle had one. Bays front on Pratt.

The plan above illustrates the difficulty of squeezing numerous units (15 of them) on to a small lot. Well, it's not really that small. It's 57' along Lakewood and 134' along Pratt but the architect wants to squeeze out every inch. The units on the end receive the best light. The ones sandwiched in between have to make do with what they can capture with their projecting bays and the windows on the alley. There are skylights to help illuminate the stairway and halls, but no light courts were incorporated into this building. At least they all have south exposures.

All living spaces were (and are) required by code to have a minimum of natural light and ventilation. But when light only comes from one direction it has the effect of making objects seem flatter. If you want a comfortable living space try to find rooms that provide light from at least two directions. This is one of those things that registers on people subconsciously, but they may have a tough time articulating why one space feels so much better than another.

Vacuum cleaning system included! And I like that recessed tubs are also a selling point. Ivory enamel and mahogany still sounds kind of appealing.

I think the architect, Percy T. Johnstone, must have been a interesting guy in his day. A quick search through the Chicago Tribune online archives shows that he was an owner and developer of buildings as often as he designed them. His most ambitious project seems to have been a large hospital which was to have been built in West Ridge at about 6500 N. Ridge. It never happened. He had some other spectacular misfires in Uptown, where he planned a large hotel which also never came to fruition.

But below are interesting "before and after" images for an auto sales building he designed on Broadway south of Devon. Special thanks to my wife for calling this to my attention. At least one of us knows how to use Google correctly.

6335 N. Broadway, 1922. "Architectural Record," Dec. 20, 1922.

6335 N. Broadway, 2011(?) Google Maps.

The above image is from an ad for Northwestern Terra Cotta Co. Sadly, it hasn't retained any of its amazing storefronts and entry. But you can still see the griffins on the freize panel.

If you want to know more about auto showrooms in Chicago (you do, right?) you should read the designation report for the Riviera Motor Sales Building, which is located just a few blocks south. And of course you should read the report for the Motor Row District on the near south side. That one isn't posted, but I can email it if anyone requests it.

Anyway, if someone tracks down Percy Johnstone's obituary please drop me a line.

Rear Parapets in Rogers Park #2

2011-05-21T20:34:00.002-05:00

As warned, I have a number of these rear parapets to include in my courtyard apartment series. For those of you who missed the triumphant first entry here's a link to it.

7345-7355 N. Damen, 1940

I'm not sure I trust the construction date for this property. Not much building was going on in 1940, and the style seems wrong. But there was quite a bit of construction in the northwest corner of Rogers Park in the 1930s, so maybe this is possible. If I ever get over to the ancient building permit files (conveniently located on microfilm at the Harold Washington Library) I'll check. The design itself is fairly minimal, with some basic castellations trimmed in stone.

7424-7436 N. Damen, 1928

This is another version of the Tudor Revival with twin-gables and half-timbering. In this case the timbers are painted white and the bound areas are decorative brick patterns rather than the more common stucco panels. Simple brackets support the eaves. These are the shallowest decorative gables I've ever seen. And spanning the space between the peaks with brick really undercuts the illusion of a pitched roof.

7400-7410 N. Damen, 1932

Here's a Classical Revival design combined with an Italian tile mansard roof. I especially like the square hood molding around the large window, complete with little projecting ears.

So many of these buildings make use of decorative clay tile. When it comes time for a major repair I always expect it to disappear. We need a Chicago non-profit called "Save the Mansards." Any volunteers?

1409-1415 W. Farwell, 1927

The architect of this one went a bit crazy with the stone quoins. If a little looks good a lot should look great, right? Nice decorative stone panel that suggests iron work (scrolls and curves connected with straps).

1638-1645 W. Farwell, 1929

This is one of the simpler rear parapets, but the use of multi-colored clay tiles really gives it distinction. The central windows probably held French doors at some point, but now only aluminum double-hung. There's a building almost identical to this a few blocks north on Greenleaf. Same architect, same date of construction.

OK, I've got about 8 more of these, but maybe time to give the rear parapets a rest.

7210-7212 N. Paulina- Apartments of the Better Class #2

2011-05-13T16:14:00.006-05:00

Northwest corner of Touhy and Paulina

This buiding is at the northwest corner of Touhy and Paulina in Rogers Park. It's one of my favorites from the Directory to Apartments of the Better Class, as referenced in my previous post. I remember admiring the arched brick and stone entrance on Touhy, and wondering why it was called "The Kenilworth," which I thought was pretentious. It's still kind of pretentious, but it's because Kenilworth Avenue was the original name for Touhy.

I like that this building has retained it's original windows and the Italian tile roofs.

This is also one of the few entries which uses a rendering of the building rather than a photograph. It was fairly common to have a perspective rendering made for a speculative building in order to attract investors and tenants. The real estate section of the Chicago Tribune would publish these, even for small buildings. The drawing above is pretty much dead-on, a testament to the skills of the draftsman. I wonder if the original drawing is hanging on a wall somewhere. Or more likely, long gone.

Click for larger version.

I'm impressed at how efficiently the architect has arranged this building to maximize the number of units on the lot. Narrow light courts bring in air and provide alley access to the rear stairs. Some of the larger units have space for maid's rooms, but most do not. The design generally depends on the front bays to bring in light.

This building features one of my favorite awkward realities of many Chicago apartments-- a wall of windows on the narrow interior court perfectly aligned with a neighbor's wall of windows. In this case it occurs between the two dining rooms of the middle units fronting on Touhy. I hope whoever lives there are on good terms.

It advertised close proximity to the Birchwood Elevated Station. I think this is now the Jarvis Station, unless Birchwood was another stop that was later removed.

Click for larger version.

Apartments offered the most modern amenities. Changes and improvements in technology were rapidly incorporated into apartment construction. This was a good way to attract high-class tenants who might otherwise look for a single-family home. Gas heat, electricity, and refrigeration were all used the same way solid marble counter tops and sub-zero freezers are used today.

Showing overall page layout.
As usual, click for larger version.

I don't know much about the architect, Percy Johnstone, but I can at least share a couple more of his buildings identified in the Chicago Historic Resources Survey. Photos are taken from the Cook County Assessor:

2200 W. Granville

1527 W. Touhy

L-Court Apartments in Rogers Park

2011-05-09T19:49:00.001-05:00

"Tendencies in Apartment House Design: Part VII - Courtyard Plans,"
Frank Choteau Brown, The Architectural Record, Vol. LI, 1922, p.64.

I'm not the first to look at apartment buildings in a systematic manner. Architect Frank Chouteau Brown illustrated his own categorization of open court buildings in the chart to the right. He put together a remarkable series of articles dealing with various types of apartments from a space planning and development perspective. These were published in The Architectural Record in 1921 and 1922. Given Brown's proximity to the apartment boom of the 1920s these are useful in understanding why these buildings took particular forms. Much of the analysis below uses his observations as a starting point.

6414-6416 N. Paulina, 1931

What Brown calls Open Half Court I've labeled L-Court. An L-Court can occupy a long, narrow lot, but there isn't really enough space to allow for landscaping, or even to secure sufficient light and views for the units created. They typically have three entrances, each of which serves 6 units. In some instances developers would add another L-Court to create a U-Court, but if that wasn't the case adjacent construction would often block them in.

To the left are some typical L-Courts in Rogers Park. (For some reason these examples are all on Estes, but this is just a weird coincidence.) You can see they all have narrow courts with projecting bays (rectangular, hexagonal or rounded) to take advantage of available light and views. The grey rectangles indicate interior and exterior stairs, which are commonly grouped together to simplify construction. A narrower secondary court services the back stairs and provides access to the alley. These all have small front yards which provide a minimal separation from the street.

A lot with a 170 foot depth and a 50 foot width provides sufficient area to construct one of these buildings. With 5 or 6 units per floor these buildings generally have 15 to18 units. If basement units were constructed this adds a few more. Generally there are no more than 21 units in a building like this.

I found an unusual L-Court building at 1059-1103 W. North Shore sited on a larger than typical lot. In this case the amount of green space really does function like a larger central court. The lack of complete enclosure gives the property a park-like appearance which is emphasized by a remarkable number of mature trees.

It makes sense to me that the building to the right was constructed in 1916 and the four examples above were all built in the late 1920s and early 1930s. As the neighborhood became more urbanized, property values increased and developers squeezed more value from each lot. You can sense a certain balancing process in action, where lot coverage, unit counts, and land costs play against each other.

One of the things that I'm interested in investigating relates to the Chicago Zoning Code of 1923, which regulated the size and type of buildings permitted in various areas. It seems to me that once minimum standards were established buildings were designed to meet them, rather then exceed them. I believe courtyard apartments pre-dating the zoning code provided larger units and more green space for their tenants. But it's difficult to prove this. I don't always trust the building data provided by the Cook County Assessor, which may or may not have accurate construction dates and square footage calculations.

While a perfectly rectilinear lot makes an L-Court easy to plan, there are many irregular lots which were also adapted to the L-Court. In particular, there are a number of lots adjacent to Clark Street and Sheridan Road, both streets which run at a slight diagonal through the neighborhood. This often created skewed and tapered lots. A skewed lot (as seen at 1666-1670 W. Farwell) isn't too difficult to adapt. In this case the units align with Clark rather than Farwell. A lot which widens towards the rear is a natural opportunity for an L-Court. While a typical L-court can normally fit only one unit at the rear, a tapered lot often has enough space for two units.

To the right are two examples of L-Court combinations. On the left is the building at 6810-6814 N. Lakewood, with two distinct side courts. The lot is both wider and shallower than those of the typical L-court buildings. Rather than providing additional green space for the tenants the design has used a double-loading technique to create 32 units with narrow courts. Without a way to easily provide secondary exits the architect had to run corridors from the central stairwells to the exterior. These interior courts accommodate light wells, but the lack of rear exposure probably impacts their air flow and limits their light.

The examples above on Sherwin are the best I found showing how an L-Court becomes a U-Court. The building on the right (1413-1415 W. Sherwin) was built in 1917. The building on the left (1407-1411 W. Sherwin) was built in 1926. Even in plan you can see the difference in design and configuration. Nevertheless, the architect of the later building carefully matched the size and ornamentation of the curved bays of the interior court to create a consistent character for both buildings. They now appear to be under common ownership. There are other examples in the neighborhood which were constructed closer in time. These are difficult to identify if you don't have access to a map showing property lines. Commonly the two L-Courts are identical in design but with different colors of face brick.

I almost skipped the L-Court building when I was organizing this project. They really don't create the outdoor space I imagine when I think of a courtyard building. But I'm glad I didn't. They have some important qualities, and they help to understand the organizing principles of the larger courtyard buildings. The next entry in this series will focus on the U-Court, which is what most people think of as a true courtyard building.

As a final note, the building footprints were re-drawn from Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. The lot sizes were derived from the City of Chicago 80-acre maps, which are available through the online Chicago Zoning Map. Dates of construction are taken from the Cook County Assessor's website.

Directory to Apartments of the Better Class- 1133 W. Columbia

2011-04-25T22:28:00.005-05:00

I'm going to be posting some entries documenting modest apartment buildings in Rogers Park, all of which are taken from Directory to Apartments of the Better Class along the North Side of Chicago, published in 1917 by A.J. Pardridge and Harold Bradley. This bound pamphlet was intended to help rent these properties, which ranged from exclusive flats on East Lake Shore Drive to more affordable dwellings in Lakeview, Uptown and Rogers Park. Entries included photos or renderings of the buildings, typical floor plans, a brief description, and an estimate of the monthly rent.

I'm focusing on seven buildings in Rogers Park including 1133 W. Columbia, 7614-7616 N. Eastlake, 7210-7212 N. Paulina, 1252-1262 W. Pratt, 6757-6765 N. Sheridan, and 7600-7602 N. Sheridan. It's good that all of these are still around. Rogers Park managed to preserve much of its housing stock and is one of the last affordable north side neighborhoods along the lakefront.

If these buildings were considered luxurious apartments in 1917 there's something reassuring about their current, generally run-down, appearance. It gives me hope that today's luxury condos may devolve into affordable housing. In the current economic climate this may be much sooner than the developer would have preferred...

1133 W. Columbia

This 1913 craftsman-style building hasn't changed much on the outside, except for the unfortunate removal of the casement windows on the sun porches. It's also lost the clay tile roof above the side entry. The cornice appears pretty much as it did.

Full disclosure- Part of my job is helping people restore buildings which have been severely altered over the years. A photo like this is a gift for someone who owns a modest building. These are always harder to document than the more architecturally significant buildings. Window replacement is one of the cheapest ways to make a major improvement in the appearance of a building. And of course it's also the cheapest way to ruin a building.

Click for a larger version.

Floor plans are another great thing to find when looking at these apartment buildings. Especially for those which have since been subdivided or undergone extensive renovations. A maid's room with a bathroom is simple to convert to a one-bedroom apartment, effectively doubling the number of units in a building. Floor plans allow a reader to imagine the spatial experience. These apartments are commonly broken up into numerous rooms with a certain amount of space reserved for hallways. Circulation is carefully orchestrated. Modern apartments tend to remove the separating partitions, creating spaces which flow into one another.

Looking at this layout I can imagine a household set up rigidly, where each room is strictly dedicated to a particular use. While this limits the feeling of spaciousness, it may have provided a variety of experiences beyond what you might expect with the limited square footage.

Click for larger version.

The description above mentions my favorite apartment amenity, central vacuuming. I'm still a bit fuzzy on how this worked, but apparently a number of vacuum sockets were provided for each unit. Tubes were hooked up to a central vacuum which was activated when the socket was opened. This way no one had to push around a bulky vacuum cleaner or provide the storage space it would have needed. Systems like this were eventually found to be difficult to maintain while improved technology made the portable vacuum more attractive.

Without odd publications like this it would be even harder to get a handle on buildings which are important more for their typical nature rather than their outstanding design or important associations. The more I look at small-scale Chicago apartment buildings, the more I think they're deserving of some closer attention.

Below is a thumbnail that takes you to the overall page layout.

Click for a larger version.

Courtyard Apartments in Rogers Park- Parapet Details

2011-04-20T09:37:00.007-05:00

If you want categorize the ornament on a courtyard building (and who doesn't?) look at the rear parapet at the back of the court. A building may have a variety of bays and window treatments, but it's really the decorative parapets that give it character and establishes the stylistic theme and rhythm of the facade. The parapet is outlined against the sky, which emphasizes each curve and castellation. In some cases a false gable or mansard roof is used in place of the masonry parapet, but the effect is similar.

7405-7415 N. Damen, 1927

The most common treatment is a face brick with stone sills, lintels, coping and medallions. In the case above stone urns are used to emphasize corners and provide additional focal points. I'm a particular fan of cartouches and coats-of-arms, as if the builder raided some ancestral mansion.

6901-6917 N. Ashland, 1923

Here the castellated parapet is offset against glazed roof tiles, which provide additional texture and rhythm. When I see parapets like this I always imagine tiny people pouring tiny buckets of boiling oil down onto the mailman.

2100-2110 W. Fargo, 1927

The Tudor Revival style is regularly adapted for large courtyard buildings. Sawn lengths of wood approximate the look of heavy timbers. In this case, the interstices are covered with stucco, creating a variety of geometric shapes contrasting with the dark wood timbers.

1622-1630 W. Farwell, 1927

This is another parapet that takes its cues from the Classical Revival style, but also makes use of stones panels with inset pointed arches common to a more Gothic style. It's not unusual to see these buildings mix and match their ornament, creating a unique fusion of eclectic styles.

1519-1527 W. Farwell, 1929

This is a more simplified version of the Tudor Revival, with multi-colored slate shingles on a false mansard roof. The half-timbering is fairly complex, including small quatrefoils. In this case both stucco and brick were used as infill elements. The slate shingles still gives these buildings a touch of class.

I have a few dozen more of these to document, but those above will have to serve as a representative sample for the moment.

Stanleigh Apartment Hotel, 6800 N. Sheridan

2011-04-07T09:40:00.068-05:00

I found this building while tracking down sources for my project on courtyard apartment buildings. Thanks to various scanning projects you can suddenly find rare books and journals online that few people have the patience or leisure to track down at a conventional library. I was suprised to discover this illustration of a Rogers Park apartment hotel from 1917. And yes, it's still there at the northwest corner of Pratt and Sheridan...

At first glance apartment hotels have a lot in common with courtyard apartments, but there are some notable differences. Apartment hotels are generally taller and of fireproof construction (steel-reinforced concrete frame). Most of them make use of an interior corridor to access the units and therefore need fewer stairs (see plan below). They often have generous areas on the first floor which could be used for communal activities.

You can view the original 1917 publication here.

I wanted to get the exact same angle, but I would have had to stand in the middle of Sheridan Road. I try not to risk death when taking photographs.

Not much has been written about the apartment hotel in Chicago. They were intended to function as a step between a full-service hotel and a long-term rental apartment. They came fully furnished complete with maid service. Most units had kitchenettes and shared facilities for dining and recreation. It's worth reading the description:

Click for a larger version.

I like that they had a "special" wing for bachelors. Wouldn't want them mixing with the normal residents. These buildings required use of the Murphy bed, which folded up into a cabinet or closet when not in use. This idea still sounds brilliant, but perhaps reading about a Murphy bed and sleeping on one is an entirely different experience.

Stanleigh floor plan. Click for larger version.

It seems to me these buildings were instantly converted into Single Room Occupancy apartments as soon as the rental market heated up after the second World War. Perhaps earlier. I once lived in one of these former apartment hotels in Edgewater for a year. It was my first apartment without a roommate, which nearly made up for being able to touch every wall from the center of the living room. And finally I understand why my closet was insanely enormous-- it was a dressing closet, as if that makes any sense.

The Stanleigh was designed by Chicago architect Ralph C. Harris. A quick search of the Chicago Tribune online archives shows that he was responsible for many buildings in the 20s and 30s, some of which are still around. He then became the Illinois highway architect for 10 years, returning to private practice in 1944. None of his buildings were highly rated in the Chicago Historic Resources Survey, but The Aquitania was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2001. Most of the photos below are photos from the Cook County Assessor.

1356 E. Madison Park, 1925

The Antone, 1926
7. E. Ohio

5819 W. Roosevelt, 1927

1220 N. State, 1927

60 homes at 5800-5900 N. Ottawa and N. Oriole, 1947

This is a representive example.

1350 N. Astor, 1949

The Aquitania
5000 N. Marine, 1923
Photo from Wikipedia

It's worth mentioning that the building at 1350 N. Astor is smack in the middle of the Astor Street Historic District. I'm trying not to hold a grudge. After all, this building probably helped convince the neighborhood of the need for a district.

Want to see some more apartment hotels in Chicago? Click here.

Typology of Courtyard Apartments in Rogers Park

2011-03-25T15:37:00.020-05:00

Early Courtyard Building
Pattington Apartments, Chicago
660-700 W. Irving Park Rd.
Published in the Inland Architect, 1903

So recently I've been looking at courtyard apartment buildings. They're surprisingly easy to overlook. After all, it's the things we see every day that are the easiest to ignore. But when I say I've been looking at them what I really mean is I've been making detailed lists, taking photos, and digging through old copies of The Architectural Record.

Specifically, I'm looking at buildings in Rogers Park built between 1910 and 1929. This covers their earliest appearance in the neighborhood through the building boom of the 1920s. And I've limited myself to walk-ups no higher than 3-stories. Or 3 1/2 if you count the raised basement. Even with these limitations there are still over 200 buildings in the neighborhood which would meet these conditions.

Thanks to Google, Bing, and the City of Chicago online zoning map it's been relatively simple to put together a list. I've been augmenting it with information from the County Assessor's website. And I've started to collect building footprints using Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (available online through the Chicago Public Library). Although I'm sure this will evolve as I uncover more information, I've put together some graphics to help define and categorize these buildings.

Courtyard apartments are mainly a collection of L-shaped modules. The simplest is a single module oriented to create a side court open to the street. Two linked modules create a U-court, which seems to be the most common type. Three modules can create an S-court, which is a narrow court open to the street in combination with a hidden interior court. And four L-modules can create a multi-court building.

[I apologize for the candy coloring, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.]

As I define them, a courtyard building must create at least a partial sense of enclosure while providing some green space which remains visible from the street. These four types cover the majority of these buildings, but the variety among each individual type is surprising, and will require separate posts.

The axonometric views above give some sense of the massing created from the different module combinations. It also suggests how the different configurations could be chosen to fit on various sizes of city lots. But the graphics themselves start to raise additional questions. How many standard city lots are needed to accommodate the different types of courtyard buildings, and how much of the lot can the building cover? Can formulas be derived for each of the types which predict the size and configuration of the buildings? How much green space is there per unit? All questions I can't yet answer, although I have high hopes for my evolving Excel table.

Above are building footprints taken from Sanborn Fire Insurance maps. I've used a variety of colors to better illustrate the configuration of the individual units. Small rectangles indicate stairs-- yellow for exterior or open stairs and color-coded for interior. By code, each unit needs two egresses and natural light and ventilation for all living spaces. These units represent an evolution from the typical narrow Chicago apartment to a wider, more rectangular configuration with increased cross-ventilation.

Courtyard apartments are partly characterized by the number of entrances on the buildings. While earlier apartments commonly made use of interior corridors, courtyard apartments will generally have one entrance and stair for every six units (two units per floor). The space that would have been used for corridors is then incorporated into the units. As a side-note, stairs which served a limited number of units helped give the impression of a smaller, more intimate building. But in some ways even the largest of these buildings function collections of six-flats.

Click for slightly larger version

The height of these buildings is also significant. If they were any taller than 3 stories they would have been required to be fire-proof, which would have bitten into the profits of the developer. And at 3 stories there was no need to install elevators, another good measure to cut costs. And of course, any taller than 3 stories and people are genereally less willing to climb the stairs.

These courtyard types first appeared as luxury housing. They could be seen as scaled-down versions of the French-style flats on East Lake Shore Drive. As such they were widely published in architectural literature (see the plan for the Pattington Apartments above). Some early critics saw these as a distinctly Chicago form, although examples can be found widely. In the 1920s a simplified version, with less frills but better suited to middle-class incomes, spread throughout the city. They embody many systems of architectural ornament, most often Classical Revival, Tudor Revival, and Italian Renaissance Revival. These same styles were common for other buildings of the era, both commerical and residential.

So I don't want to get bogged down in this initial post, but I'll be taking a closer look at each of the four variations as well as identifying some of the less typical types of courtyard buildings. And maybe a brief jog into financing, social history, and the Chicago Zoning Code of 1923...

And finally, here's a link to a blog posting from A Chicago Sojourn, which I think is a good photographic introduction to the variety of the form.

6414 N. Paulina, 6960 N. Ashland, 7001 N. Wolcott, 1414 W. Lunt

Charlie Daily's Home, 2206 W. Lunt

2011-03-02T14:47:00.004-06:00

When the photo archives of the old Chicago Daily News went online it was pretty exciting, even though the photos were small and didn't have much background information. During a trial search I came across a model home built in Rogers Park in 1924. Below are photos from construction of the foundation to near-completion. It was solidly built of tile blocks and finished with stucco. But where was it, exactly? And is it still there?

Click to see slightly larger version

According to the photo descriptions, it was built near the intersection of Lunt and Pingree. But for some reason there is no Pingree Street any more. It took a quick internet search to find out that Pingree became Bell. And sure enough, the house is still there.

2206 W. Lunt- Photo taken a few days after our big blizzard.

So this was a good discovery, if you're into that sort of thing. But there was something about this building that looked familiar. It took a while for me to realize that I had seen this design before. And I didn't have look further than my bookcase:

Sure, the windows above the entrance were different, the roof was asphalt shingles instead of Italian tile, and the porch was around back. Other than that, it was pretty darn close. The image on the left is from a Dover reprint, "Authentic Small Houses of the Twenties," originally published in 1929 as "Small Homes of Architectural Distinction: A Book of Suggested Plans Designed by the Architects' Small House Service Bureau, Inc."

All told, the Chicago Daily News built three model homes-- one in West Rogers Park, one in Jackson Park Highlands (6847 S. Cregier), and one in River Forest, IL (250 Lathrop). I couldn't find the one in River Forest, but the one on Cregier is still there, and looking good. Apparently their readers were updated on the progress of the work in the Saturday edition of the newspaper. It took a quick microfilm search at the Harold Washington Library to confirm that the Rogers Park house was taken directly from plans from the Architect's Small House Service Bureau. As modest as they seem now, these must have been very famous homes in their time.

One of the strangest things about these projects was that the newspaper concocted fictional backgrounds for all three homes. For instance, the home in River Forest was identified as "The Home of Tom News." The one in Jackson Park, "The Home of John Daily News, Jr." And in Rogers Park, "The Home of Charlie News." And of course their fictional wives and children were identified as well.

I'm fascinated by these old pattern books. They catered to middle-class buyers looking for traditional, single-family homes. The most famous were from Sears-Roebuck, where you could not only pick a house but have all of the materials delivered to your site. But there were also homes available from Aladdin, Gordon Van Tine, Lewis, Sterling, and many other, lesser-known companies. These were advertised as a good option for people who couldn't afford architects but still wanted the benefit of an efficiently designed and attractive house. If you look carefully you can still find them in outlying areas and suburbs.

These books mostly disappeared after the 1940s. During the post-war boom home construction took off in ways that left the small neighborhood builder far behind. New development took advantage of economies of scale, new materials, and a greater level of standardization. As alleys disappeared garages migrated to the front of the homes and the character and scale of neighborhoods changed. Only recently have architects and developers realized that there's still a market for the traditional, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods memorialized in the pattern books of the early 20th century. Here in Chicago we're lucky to still have the real thing.

Mirrored Courtyards on Farwell

2011-02-23T08:31:00.008-06:00

Parapet Detail, 1425-1433 W. Farwell

A few years ago I found an amazing book called "The Concise Townscape" by Gordon Cullen. This

is a collection of essays published in 1961 and adapted from a series of articles printed in The Architectural Review after WWII. Cullen was English, and worked as an illustrator, townscape consultant and planner. His book is an extended exercise in documenting built environments and drawing out urban design principles which could inform the work of planners and architects. Knowing these studies were created in the aftermath of the war gives a certain intensity to his work. Just to give a quick impression, his photos and graphics illustrate unusual concepts, including viscosity, insubstantial space, thereness, and deflection. And there are many many more.

When I finished the book I wanted to recreate it using examples from my neighborhood to illustrate the dozens of principles Cullen identified. It was a stretch. Actually, it was impossible. There's a big difference between a 120 year-old Chicago neighborhood built on a grid and a medieval English town (OK, multiple towns) which developed over hundreds of years. But the exercise itself had some value, and it affected how I looked at the neighborhood. I began to identify some interesting things I had never noticed before.

Often in a gridded city with rectilinear lots it's the negative space which creates unique effects. This is never more true than with courtyard buildings, which create their own landscape and interior plaza, typically in densely developed neighborhoods. Rogers Park is a mecca of courtyard buildings, with nearly 200 scattered throughout the neighborhood (yes, I've counted). As far as I know, no one has done a definitive study of this building type. While this is on my drawing board for the future, I want to take a closer look at a condition that's relatively rare-- two courtyard buildings of comparable size and character mirroring each other across a street, creating a secondary, axial path in the center of a block. This takes us to Farwell Avenue, directly west of the Red Line elevated train.

You can appreciate these courtyards best while standing in the middle of the street (briefly please). Suddenly you're in a different city, where the streets are narrow and the buildings loom above. There's a sense of enclosure and intricacy not usually found in Rogers Park (note the Cullenesque reference words!). I imagine the most interesting views would be from the third floor from the back of the buildings, where you can appreciate the entire 380 foot combined courtyard.

Was this alignment accidental, or were larger forces of design and organization at work within the grid? But first maybe a closer look at the spaces defined by the buildings.

The buildings themselves are so similar that it makes sense to talk about both of them at the same time. Both are built on lots with 100' frontages and 175' in depth, and are 3 stories with a raised basement. Both use a combination of face brick and stone (or cast stone) ornamental surrounds and accents. They make use of false mansard roofs with Italian tile and have castellated bays that project into the courtyard, providing additional light as well as views to the street. Both were built within a year of each other, 1422-1430 in 1927 and 1425-1433 in 1926. And the final argument for intent rather than accident, both were designed by architect Anthony H. Quitsow.

Some cursory online research (mostly the Chicago Tribune) shows that Quitsow was basically a specialist in the design of large, multi-unit buildings with eclectic details. There are several in Rogers Park, and a number remaining in Evanston, just to the north. He's an architect who might be identified as typical of the period, someone who worked with builders and developers to provide solid, predictable results with good curb appeal. Not much information about him, except that he had offices downtown and at some point became a developer himself.

Parapet Detail 1422-1430 W. Farwell

Why this block went from entirely single family homes in 1914 to accomodating several large, multi-unit buildings by 1937 (dates of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps) is difficult to say precisely, but it would make sense in the larger context of the neighborhood. The 1920s saw Rogers Park develop from a suburban enclave to an urban neighborhood due to improved transportation (especially the elevated train) and an influx of new residents. And there was an increasing acceptability of living in large multi-unit buildings, which had been considered "anti-family" by the previous generation. A larger scale of residential development had become possible due to improved financial instruments, more standardized construction, and plenty of skilled (and cheap) labor.

But did Quitsow anticipate that combining courtyards (at least perceptually) would create a unique design feature? Or did he just draw up the buildings based on the most profitable use of the lots permitted by city codes? I like to think that both were considered and had their impact on the final result. But it hardly matters. Even in a neighborhood with limited history and tighly controlled development there will still be fortunate (and sometimes unfortunate) accidents. I intend to explore a few more of these in the coming months.

Monumental Lighting #3- 212 W. Washington

2011-02-04T10:14:00.001-06:00

This 1911 building has a lot in common with the one at 311 W. Washington. Both were commissioned by the Chicago Telephone Company and both were designed in the historicist mode by their favorite architects, Holabird & Roche. And of course, both have huge metal lanterns flanking their main entrance. While 311 Washington was used for switchboards and mechanicals, this 20-story building was the administrative headquarters. It has the same quasi-public feel that all of these phone company buildings assumed.

This view is a little narrower than I would have preferred (reference photo taken from the 12th floor of a nearby parking garage),but you can see that it's in keeping with the classic skyscraper formula of base, shaft and capital. This has been somewhat obscured by hanging metal balconies along Washington, which accompanied the 1990s condo conversion. It was a pleasure to eliminate these from the sketch. Several of the lower floors were hollowed out to provide indoor parking, which they've made no attempt to hide. It looks pretty odd from the street, although probably most people don't notice.

The main entrance to the building is indicated by these two story arched openings with decorative keystones. Above are stone balconies hung with stone festoons. The 3-story base is capped with a substantial projecting cornice. The rusticated stone blocks really give the building a distinct identity. The ornamentation is best described as a combination of Classical and Rennaissance Revival.

Looking at this drawing I realize how much I've let this project get out of hand. My first intention was just to focus on the decorative entrance lanterns in the Loop. Then I thought, "Wouldn't it be nice if a reader could place these in context with the rest of the building?" So I decided to include a couple of rough sketches. This rough sketch took a week and a half to finish.

Of course the whole point was to look at the lanterns, and these are particularly good ones, weathered to a noble green patina. Leave it to Holabird & Roche to get the details right, from the dome decorated with a leaf pattern (similar to the keystone design) to the acanthus patterns and scrollwork. And the brackets that support the lights are works of art in themselves. I'm also impressed that they accomodated the lantern attachment by eliminating a portion of the rustication to create a unbroken area of flat stone. It also points out how artificial (a modernist might say unnecessary) the ornamental scheme is to the structure of the building.

I think this will be the last entry in this series. I have reference photos for one more building (on Washington, of course), but it's probably time to move on to some other things.

Monumental Lighting #2, 311 W. Washington

2011-01-13T20:42:00.002-06:00

311-27 W. Washington

This is the outline of the Franklin Exchange, built in 1915 and designed by the legendary Chicago firm of Holabird & Roche. Their involvement in designing telephone exchanges is examined in Robert Bruegmann's excellent book, "The Architects and the City." Holabird & Roche were responsible for dozens of these moderately-scaled exchanges, many of which can still be found in various neighborhoods, now retrofit for automated operations. They're notable for their quality as well as their tendency to resemble public buildings, which must have been a branding choice made by the Chicago Telephone Company. But in this case the design pretty much resembles a typical speculative office building in the Loop, built in a Venetian Gothic historicist mode.

Main entrance on Washington

To the right is the main entry on Washington, with its pointed arch and trefoil cornice. The first floor is clad with Bedford stone (granite), and the upper stories are mainly red brick. The blocked windows suggest huge banks of computers at work. Not much resemblance to the switchboards of 1915, but probably more delicate. And of course, the entrance is flanked by a couple of huge copper lanterns.

Lantern flanking entrance

These lanterns are mounted below the spring point of the arch, and appear to be oxidized copper (maybe brass?) ornamented with cast leaves, rosettes and finials. Many of these elements are cast in shapes to suggest wrought ornament. I must associate Gothic with church architecture, because these looks vaguely ecclesiastical to me. The temple of the telephone? Interestingly, the glass panes are prism glass, which was commonly used in storefront transoms to redirect and intensify light for retail spaces. Once again, these lanterns are in scale with the 2-story entry rather than the pedestrians. I'm guessing they're about 5 feet high, from top to bottom.

Just like 35 E. Wacker, I've never seen these lit. I'm sure they were never intended to shed much useful light, but it would be nice to see them glowing in the evening. Especially at this time of year, when it's dark at 4:30.

1246 W. Pratt, 1927 (originally posted 3/28/06)

2011-01-03T13:18:00.004-06:00

Since my series on monumental lighting is moving slowly I thought I would post some older blog entries. This one is from my old MySpace account, viewed by at least half a dozen people.

This is a detail of a projecting terra cotta bay on a strange late Gothic Rennaisance Revival building in Rogers Park. Somehow the builders took a lot with a 50 foot frontage and dropped a 13 story building on it. To be fair, it's pretty nice looking, with some exceptional terra cotta details. And how about those cat brackets supporting the bays? Maybe they're supposed to be lions, but they look too lean. According to the Chicago Historic Resources Survey, the architects were Koenigsburg & Westfeld. Every hear of them? I'm guessing probably not. This used to be the Pratt Lane Hotel.

I was thinking about people in the Lakeview neighborhood upset about new buildings next to them that are 2 or 3 stories taller. Imagine living in the single family home next this building in 1927 and seeing steel columns being sunk 6 inches from the property line. And construction continued for 3 years... Maybe the whole neighborhood would have followed suit if the Depression hadn't hit.

Looking at this again I realize that the scan is pretty crummy. I may have to dig up the original and rescan. Or perhaps the original drawing is crummy. If that's the case, I'm out of luck.

Monumental Lighting #1- 35 E. Wacker

2010-12-10T09:04:00.006-06:00

View from E. Wacker Drive

Recently I've been interested in the massive lanterns found on many historic skyscrapers downtown. Sure they're lousy at casting any useful light, but they seem to pull their weight in other ways. I thought it would be interesting to examine a few of these buildings and their light fixtures to see if I could identify some controlling principles related to their size, location, and design.

Just to set the stage, 35 E. Wacker Building has been a Chicago Landmark since 1994. Originally known as the Jewelers' Building, it was completed in 1927. The main building is 23 stories tall and is topped with an 18 story tower. The first floor is covered with grey limestone and the rest of the building is beige terra cotta. The domed pavilions at the corners of the main tower originally concealed water towers for the sprinkler system.

Main Entrance on Wacker Drive

The portals at the second and third floors are masterpieces of ornamentation with carefully composed cornices, frames and decorative spandrels. The Chicago landmark designation report identifies the ornament as primarily early Italian Renaissance, borrowing liberally from church designs. It notes that typical decorative treatments in this style present the most aggressive decorations at the street level, becoming more sophisticated (restrained) at higher elevations. That works for this building, at least until you hit the domes, which are like a Baroque hallucination.

Original marketing material for the building indicates that the design "was based on that of the 15th century chapel for the monastery of the Certosa of Pavia..." Sure, I can see that. Kind of.

Lantern details

But that's not to ignore the the most important part of the building-- the four enormous brass lanterns projecting out from the second floor! These things are massive. From a distance they look in scale with the building, but up close it's clear they could crush an elephant if they popped off the wall. They're covered with classical ornament. Fluted colonettes support an elaborate crown topped with shields, scrolls and tiny urns. The finial is an eagle with spread wings (although from an angle it looks like a parrot). Inside the shields you can see an intertwined JB for Jewelers' Building.

The lanterns almost look like scaled-up pieces of jewelry, which would be appropriate. But they also resonate with the four domed pavilions and the dome on the main tower (see below). Their scale works, but mainly because they've been elevated above the first floor where they can read as sculptural rather than functional.

I'll be taking a look at a few other buildings with lighting standards in and around the Loop over the next several weeks.

North Elevation of 35 E. Wacker, 1925
Original can be found at the Chicago History Museum

More Unremarkable Buildings in Lorain, OH

2010-11-15T20:46:00.007-06:00

Moving on slightly from Ashtabula to Lorain, Ohio, land of my birth.

When we were kids there were well-defined areas we were comfortable exploring. But the most exciting ones were on the edge of our range. To the east was Dairy Queen, but to the west it was Chapman's.

Chapman's Food Mart was cool. There were entire aisles of junk food. Kids were not particularly welcome, probably because of shoplifting. You could buy one slice of bologna for 10 cents. I'm pretty sure my older brother introduced me to it, as he did most of the questionable experiences of my childhood. For some reason I'm glad to see that it's still there, and possibly still under the same ownership.

It's good to see Ardick's Seafood is still around. Unless you've lived close to Lake Erie it will be hard for you to understand the importance of perch in maintaining mental health. I can't really explain it. You can buy fish here or you can have them fillet your catch. Despite living in Lorain for 18 years I never once caught a single fish worth eating. I try not to be bitter about it.

For the life of me I can't remember what this diner was called when I was a kid. My Dad used to bring us here on walks in the winter. We would drink hot chocolate at the counter and play their tabletop video game. It was Popeye, which was state-of-the-art at the time. Only now do I realize that these long winter walks were probably designed to give Mom a break from the three of us. Probably four of us, including Dad.

Geneva-on-the-Lake, OH

2010-11-09T08:35:00.002-06:00

Back to Ohio! Maybe 2 more entries before I return to Chicago.

One of the more enjoyable destinations when visiting Ashtabula is a drive west to Geneva-on-the-Lake, which is basically an old cruising strip and linear carnival. And if you're wondering where all the biker bars are in northeast Ohio, look no further.

This is the type of summer resort town that you might find on the east coast, not on Lake Erie. There are wine gardens, putt-putt golf courses, arcades, water slides, hamburger joints and bars. Lots of bars. This is where local folks come to relax, especially those that can't afford an expensive vacation. Given the current economy, I wouldn't be surprised if Geneva-on-the-Lake received a big bump in visitors.

In addition to the strip, there are tiny cottages and bungalows that people can rent for extended stays. According to my wife, most of these were strictly seasonal (meaning uninsulated) until recently. Unlike an amusement park, this is a real place, and must be a lot of fun late at night.

The buildings are worth a study in themselves. Many of these look temporary, but must have been in place for 50 years or more. Above are two connected Quonset huts. These were a popular and cheap way of creating space after WWII. Some of the buildings look like old frame houses converted to commercial uses, but others look like elaborate hot dog stands that just kept growing.

I can't help but wonder how a town like this develops. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason, but somehow it works. Other, more modern developments have located on the edges of the district, but they're too far to impact the character of the area. I have to wonder when the tipping point is reached- when there are too many cars and people to be absorbed into the network of spaces. But I've been there maybe half a dozen times, and have yet to see it overwhelmed. And sure, they don't have enormous roller-coasters, but no one is charging you $45 just to walk around. And $45 can sure buy a lot of insanely sweet Ohio wine.

Ashtabula Harbour Commercial District, Ashtabula, OH

2010-10-29T08:24:00.002-05:00

Getting away from Chicago for a bit, I'd like to talk about Ohio, where I grew up. More specifically Ashtabula, Ohio, where my wife grew up.

There are a surprising number of similarities between Ashtabula and my hometown, Lorain. Both pretty much exist because of their location at the intersection of Lake Erie and a major river. Just like the Black River in Lorain, the Ashtabula River created a natural harbor (which was then enhanced through dredging). In the 1950s the expanding chemical industry made the Ashtabula harbor one of the most important on the Great Lakes. And also one of the most polluted.

Ashtabula Harbour Commercial District

Before the area sunk into depression (along with the rest of Ohio), some remarkable commercial districts were built. One of the best is the Ashtabula Harbour Commercial District, which has been on the National Register since 1975. This was apparently a concentration of saloons and houses of prostitution back at the turn of the century. It's become a bit more sedate since then.

Ashtabula Lift Bridge- View looking east

The Ashtabula Lift Bridge was completed in 1925. It's always an odd thrill to drive under the 420 ton concrete counter-weight hanging above the roadway. You can tell a bridge intended for purely functional needs- it doesn't much care about blocking the views up and down the river. This is in contrast to the bridges on the Chicago River, where a great deal of engineering went into minimizing the visible support structures. But to be fair, there's not much height above the water to work with here. The bridge acts as a gateway into the historic distirct to the west.

Goodwill Buildings

This is the Goodwill complex a block south of Bridge Street. It's really a collection of buildings strung together, probably from the 1960s. Not a particularly graceful combination, but since these are the newest construction near Bridge Street it gives a good sense of the needs of the community. I've never visited Ashtabula without making a stop at this Goodwill, and it's always busy. While maybe not an engine of economic development, it does attract people to the area.

Italianate Commercial Buildings

The core of the district is an impressive block of 2-story brick buildings between Hulbert and Morton. The frame buildings shown above are just to the west. It's rare it is to find historic commercial frame buildings like this in decent condition. It looks like someone has been taking care of these, even to the point of a partial restoration.

I think this area has an incredible amount of potential. It's already attracted a number of unique businesses and restaurants. And because it's on the National Register it's qualified for tax credit projects. I think Ashtabula knows what it has here, but maybe could be more active in attracting investment. After all, there aren't that many alternatives to strip malls left in the area...

Metalwork at Riverside Plaza

2010-09-27T08:30:00.002-05:00

This is part of an air return grille at the southeast entrance of Riverside Plaza, also known as the Daily News Building (Holabird & Root, 1929). This is another world-class building which has somehow escaped Chicago landmark designation.

I've drawn this grille 3 times- first in 1997, then in 2006, and now a couple of weeks ago. I'm not exactly sure why I've been so drawn to this design. It's a typical art deco theme, organic shapes in a rigid geometric framework. Sunflowers maybe? Hard to tell for sure.

I'm also fascinated by the metal itself, nickle silver, which was popular for art deco designs. Made from 75% copper, 20% nickel and 5% zinc, it could be rolled, pressed, or cast. Silver white was the most common color, but it could take on tints with the addition of various other metals.

The building and its interiors are practically an encyclopedia of art deco themes and decorative techniques. A shame that the ceiling mural above the concourse was removed for restoration years ago, and has yet to be returned.

One North LaSalle- Bronze Grille

2010-08-30T22:53:00.005-05:00

This building has what may be the coolest lobby in Chicago. Think black, gold and green. But the ornament surrounding the entrance is pretty amazing too. The drawing to the left is a small detail taken from one of the entrance piers. I think I finished it in 2006.

But some of the most interesting elements are the large bronze grilles above the entrances. They're remarkably precise and seamlessly organic. I'm still trying to figure out just how it achieves this effect.

The grid is created by starburst patterns comprised of four teardrop shapes, two large and two small opposing each other. These create star shapes which alternate between horizontal and vertical orientation. The points of the teardrops are connected to create either horizontally or vertically oriented diamonds. Four of these diamonds are connected by a square rosette into a larger starburst pattern. The triangular spaces between the large and small teardrops are filled with geometric patterns radiating inward.

The small teardrops point towards each other creating a cross with tapering ends terminating at the square rosettes. In the center of this shape is a large round rosette made out of petals and overlaid with four blossoms. Fascias radiate out for this intersection, wrapped in vines, flowers and leaves.

I tried to capture a module of sufficient size to convey how the pattern would repeat itself. Any larger and I would have gone a bit crazy. I've also added a digital color overlay, although the original will probably get a watercolor wash at some point.

Have I mentioned that this building was designed by Vitzhum & Burns and completed in 1930? I've got to work that in somewhere... Also, it's been a Chicago Landmark since 1996.

33 N. LaSalle- Grille Detail

2010-08-23T16:10:00.003-05:00

Elevator surround detail at 33 N. LaSalle

When I first started to work downtown I was fascinated with the decorative metal elements found on so many of the buildings. I did a series of close-up images of some of these, without much concern about the surrounding context or the decorative influences at work. The drawings were 1" x 1". I think I was more interested in testing my crosshatching ability more than anything else.

But recently I've started to rediscover these grilles, screens, and elevator doors. And I find that I'm interested in going a bit more in depth, particularly in regard to the skyscrapers of the 1920s. And where better to start than my own office building? Well, I guess it's not really mine...

I had to get special permission from the building management to take some reference photographs of these air return grilles in the lobby. I think taking photos is harmless, but apparently I don't think like a terrorist.


Air return grille

Anyway, this is one and a half modules of the pattern used for the air return. It's amazing how a few simple elements can give the impression of remarkable complexity. The best of this ornament creates a tension between the use of geometric and naturalistic themes.

Unlike many earlier eclectic-style buildings, these are unashamed of their height and seem to acknowledge that their design lends itself to mass production. This can been seen in everything from the decorative spandrels, thin limestone veneer, and machine-fabricated interiors. At the same time their decorative elements benefited from the work of artists and sculptors who adapted their work to accomodate mass reproduction.

These buildings may seem quaint now, but they represent the apex of technology and economy for their day. Their stepped back form and height aren't the result of a whim. They incorporate what can be built (permitted by zoning and technology) and what should be built (profitable with a minimum of risk). While the major tenant usually had rights to the name of the building, no one organization could fill every floor. The developers had to provide adaptable office space for a range of users.

Most of these offices have been cut up, and the natural light has been drastically reduced by new mechanicals and drop ceilings. But they still retain enormous functionality. And in my opinion, quite a bit of charm. Many have been given new life through careful restorations, often utilizing tax credits through government programs. In Chicago LaSalle Street has the best colletion of these buildings, including the Field Building, the Chicago Board of Trade, and One North LaSalle.

Interestingly, the same floral elements used to create the air grilles were modified to become light fixtures throughout the lobby. It's a good way to retain some continuity in a space which has been greatly altered since its time as the Foreman Bank Building. And looking at the old photos displayed in the lobby, I really miss the grand staircase that once led up to the banking floor.

That said, I'm not positive that the brass air return grilles (and light fixtures as well) are original to the building. The more I compare these with the elevator ornament the more it seems like the work of a careful modern designer. But even if they're not original, I enjoy how they key into the general decorative vocabulary of the building.

P & S Restaurant at Touhy and Western

2010-08-11T08:47:00.002-05:00

In general there's always been a lot of interest in old neon signs. But writers and photographers tend to treat them as if they're works of art, picking and choosing the most interesting and intact examples. Which is great, but for some reason I'm always drawn to the crummiest, most deteriorated signs. In that vein I'd like to focus on just one.

Western Avenue and Touhy is a major intersection on the far north side. As a pedestrian you feel distinctly second-rate to the cars whizzing past. On the southeast corner is a Baker's Square (mediocre food, somewhat edible deserts), on the northwest is Lakeshore Surgery (Lasik surgery on sale!), and on the southwest corner a Marathon gas station (always 10 cents more per gallon than the gas station I prefer). All three have their own attached parking and auto-oriented circulation.

But on the northeast corner is a sad-looking 1928 yellow-brick building with apartments above and commercial spaces below. It has a vaguely English look, castellated, with few gothic stone ornaments. Large areas along Western have been infilled with artificial stucco. The commercial tenants are typical storefront businesses-- a cell phone store, grocery, computer service, hair salon, etc.

In the 1920s a burst of optimism flung buildings like this to cheap land at the edge of the city and beyond, with the expectation that more development would fill in the missing linkages. Of course it didn't work out that way, due to an inconvenience known as The Great Depression. Most of the nearby lots didn't develop commercially until the 50s and 60s. And even then it never achieved the density common to older commercial corridors in Chicago.

The sign for the P&S Restaurant has seen better days. Most of the neon has cracked off and the letters haven't been repainted in decades. Rusting chains keep it from swaying in the wind. It's only a matter of time until the steel supports fail and the sign will have to come down. I would like to say that it might be repaired, but the P & S doesn't really look prosperous enough to undertake major repairs.

It's a relatively simple combination of oval, trapezoid, and scalloped band. It wouldn't surprise me if there had been an arrow at the termination of the band pointing to the restaurant. The organization of the information is fairly typical-- name, function, and amenities. If I had to date the sign I would guess early 1950s. The signs in the 40s were generally simple boxes, and the signs in the late 50s became progressively more exuberant. This is not an exuberant sign.

In general, signs like this are evidence of the growing car culture. On the highway it makes sense to have a large, illuminated sign. The speed of the experience and the viewing angles require a sign large enough to interest the driver and give them time to pull over and park. But this format is not particularly functional for a corner building with a zero setback to the street and no associated parking.

Initially I thought that this sign may be a relic of a time when the surrounding development allowed this building to operate as an auto-oriented strip. A glance at the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of the area (1937, 1941, 1950 and 1951), showing mostly greenhouses and gas stations, seems to support this. Only as the surrounding areas became built-up with apartments and businesses did the 1920s typology of the building limit the effectiveness of the sign to attract drivers which could actually take advantage of a quick stop at a diner.

But that can't be the entire story, since so many of these signs can be found in areas which have always been densely urban. Auto-oriented development and advertising permeated the commercial landscape after WWII, and there are many good examples of this in Chicago. For my purposes it's not much of a jump to suspect that the old main street businesses would have attempted to present a more modern (neon!) image to the customers they were afraid of losing. When it came time to modernize they didn't choose to paste up gold leaf letters on the storefront.

While the stand-alone auto-oriented businesses could place their sign on a pole out front and go as crazy as they wanted, the traditional buildings were stuck with slapping these signs onto aging structures with a variety of steel connections. Some of these attachments are reminiscent of a torture chamber, and aren't particulary sensitive to existing ornament. As much as I like these signs, there's typically a glaring difference in scale and and an uncomfortable relationship with the building on which they're mounted. For some reason I find that juxtaposition kind of appealing.

I don't normally reference books in this blog, but I have to nod to Lisa Mahar's excellent study, "American Signs: Form and Meaning on Route 66." This is a brilliant graphic manual for understanding, categorizing, and even dating this type of signage. She probably didn't intend to have it applied to an urban setting, but that's OK.

4550-4556 N. Beacon- Cornice Detail

2010-07-06T18:59:00.003-05:00

Generally I don't focus on building details unless they're useful for making some larger argument. But I was out at Wilson and Beacon a few weeks back and had to admire this amazing prairie-style cornice. This multi-family building is in the Sheridan Park National Register District and identified as the work of Samuel N. Crowen (also responsible for the Biograph Theater). It's adjacent to Chicago's Dover Street District, which basically carves out a few blocks from the larger National Register district.

I wish I could formulate some principles for good prairie-style ornament, but there are so many exceptions that it hardly seems worthwhile. In this case it seems like classical elements have been warped and twisted, and there's some interesting manipulation of scale. For some reason the brackets remind me of jointed bones or cow knees. Does this thing even shed water? Doesn't matter. Somehow it just works.

I'm not sure why this needed to be in color, but it does make a cheerful composition. It makes me want to try some other color effects.

Watercolor is good for range of color and retaining a crisp line.

Teardowns in a North Shore Suburb (reprinted from AREA Chicago #8)

2010-07-03T10:31:00.005-05:00

Things have been pretty busy with the birth of our new son (June 25th!), so I'm posting an article that was included in the last issue of AREA Chicago. It's on their website, but from some reason the illustrations weren't included. This has bothered me, so I thought I would remedy it. The theme of the issue was Peripheries, interpreted in various ways. Some of these sketches are pretty old and kind of rough, so I apologize for that.

_______________________________________________

The tension between the public interest and private property rights was front and center in Chicago’s North Shore suburbs during the housing boom of the early 2000s. These small towns and cities (including Evanston, Wilmette, Kenilworth, Winnetka, Glencoe, Highland Park and Lake Forest) are historic commuter suburbs that benefited from easy transit to Chicago while providing attractive lakefront access to those who could afford it. Over the years, these communities have become less exclusive but are still highly valued for their prestigious addresses and substantial community amenities. Property owners looking to profit from selling their houses often turned to developers who, in turn, demolished the existing buildings and constructed McMansions in their place. A climate of easy credit, quick turnarounds, and strong demand, in addition to decades-old zoning laws that permitted much larger buildings, made cities on Chicago’s periphery attractive for redevelopment. Once demolition of houses began, they clustered, partially due to zoning, but also because teardowns attract teardowns. Builders kept track of areas of new construction and new construction signaled to adjacent homeowners that it was time to cash out.

Communities that saw their character changing due to teardowns often addressed the issue through a variety of city boards, such as a plan commission, housing commission, or community land trust. There is nothing illegal about someone tearing down a home and building a new one in accordance with all building and zoning codes, but the loss of economic diversity and erosion of historic character was alarming to many. In response, many of Chicago’s older suburbs adopted demolition delay ordinances to determine if their communities were losing buildings of historic or architectural significance. Delaying demolitions between three months and two years enables a historic preservation commission to initiate proceedings to assess whether a building is deserving of historic landmark status. Whether a building can be landmarked in spite of intent to demolish depends on the language of the Historic Preservation Ordinance adopted by the particular community. Despite the efforts of planners and preservationists, North Shore cities, towns, and villages have lost hundreds of buildings since 2000. Some have been of historic and architectural importance, others not. Characters of streets, towns and whole communities have been altered. Some residents welcomed demolitions; others loathed the new buildings. Beneath the teardown trend, however, were the planning concepts and economic realities that have shaped community development for decades.

I was a liaison to a historic preservation commission in a North Shore suburb until 2006, and it fell to me to document, research, and recommend action for each residential demolition permit received. This put me in a unique position to witness this dramatic shift in the built environment, and on my own time I made the following sketches. They are just the tip of the iceberg, depicting some of the hundreds of buildings on Chicago’s suburban periphery that have been demolished since 2000. With the deflation of the housing market, I wonder how many of the new owners were able to maintain their huge mortgages and tax assessments. Have some communities traded streets of diverse housing for a row of expensive white elephants? Perhaps the real lesson is how little control was available to the municipal authority, or the startled residents, once the teardown trend hit. In many ways the cities finally began to resemble the zoning maps that were adopted decades earlier. These maps defined the height, setbacks, and floor area for a building on any given lot. This is a predictable, consistent, and common method of managing growth but not the best way to guide development for communities intent on maintaining a unique identity. Any real solution would have to be a combination of thoughtfully constructed regulation which can respond to unique conditions, coupled with a strong sense of those things within the community which are worth preserving. Combine this with a vision of the future and you have just the beginnings of a comprehensive approach.

This 1920s Craftsman style home was in the middle of its own forest. There had been numerous additions, but all very much in keeping with the character of the home.

When this rustic home was razed, the wooded areas in front were replaced with a lawn and a circular drive.

This 1950s ranch house was completely hidden from the street, but was a nice example of mid-century modern scaled for affordability. I especially liked the cantilevered roof shading the recreation room.

This 1920s French Eclectic mansion had a particularly dramatic view of Lake Michigan. It was demolished along with a nearby neighbor to accommodate the next generation of mansion, with a scale that made this look quite modest.

Rumor had it that this 1950s house was taken from a design in Popular Mechanics. I couldn’t confirm that, but it’s a nice solution to a hilly site. The owners said there were too many stairs.

This Craftsman style house (c.1915) was demolished to make way for a planned development. It was located on a lot that had been rezoned as multi-family. (Note: This hasn't yet been torn down, probably due to the current economy.)

Very stylish 1960s ranch with angled roof. Too small to survive.

This turn-of-the-century Classical Revival home was actually in a National Register Historic District. The neighbors tried to organize a local historic district, but with no success. Only locally designated landmarks have protection from demolition.

This Dutch Colonial Revival was replaced by a French Country home. Those are the ones with the turrets.

This 1940s ranch house was particularly close to my heart. It was constructed in the part of town which still had some rural character after WWII. It approximated the board and batten look of the barns and livestock structures which would have been found in the area at the time.

Flatirons in Rogers Park #4- Paulina Building

2010-06-23T08:10:00.002-05:00

This is the final flatiron building in the series, at the northwest corner of Howard and Paulina. Just like the earlier Loyola flatiron, this one is defined by the diagonal line of the El tracks. Howard is the last Chicago stop on the Northside and was once quite an entertainment district. I'm assuming this building has its own elevator because of the huge override on the roof. This would have been unusual for a 3-story building in the 1920s, and suggests that it might have been luxury apartments or offices at some point. Although being right next to the tracks wouldn't have been the most desirable location.

7600 N. Paulina

Built: 1929

Architects: Newhouse and Bernham

The primary facade is clad entirely in terra cotta, which was a less common treatment by the 1920s, when architects and builders were more likely to use a combination of brick with terra cotta accents. This was easier than detailing (and constructing) all of the steel attachments necessary for terra cotta. This building has an almost festive use of cream and pink terra cotta, decorative spandrels and no lack of classical festoons. It probably looked old-fashioned the day it was completed. I particularly like the simplified terra cotta columns spanning the second and third floors between the windows.

This is also the only flatiron building in this series to have received an "orange" rating in the Chicago Historic Resources Survey (CHRS) which means that the building has some architectural significance in the context of the neighborhood. Unfortunately the first floor has been remuddled mercilessly, and the generous storefront windows have been reduced to a 1970s strip. But you can still see the name, "Paulina Building" proudly displayed on the band below the cornice.

Because of the survey I know that the architects were Newhouse and Bernham. I could have found this out by looking up the information in the ancient permit files on microfilm (available at the Harold Washington Library or the UIC Library). But what I couldn't have done easily is identify three other buildings designed by Newhouse and Bernham. Sure enough, they seem to have specialized in full terra cotta facades, although one of the buildings is a classically designed limestone-clad synagogue:

5501 S. Cornell

4953 S. Drexel

7839 S. Ashland

Only buildings identified as potentially significant were documented in the survey, so there's certainly more out there by the same team which have not been categorized. This is a problem with windshield surveys, which only identify the most significant buildings. If you want to understand the range of an architect, or see designs which may have preceded (or followed) better buildings it's very difficult to accomplish. Of course it would have extended the CHRS survey period from 10 years to 50 years, so I understand the limitations.

Flatirons in Rogers Park #3- Greenview, Howard and Rogers

2010-06-17T22:22:00.003-05:00

I've finally found the Rogers Park equivalent of Times Square. Sort of. Seventh Street and Broadway create a New York-sized hour-glass as they scissor across each other. Howard and Rogers create a Rogers Park-sized hour-glass. This intersection acts as the east gateway to the sadly faded Howard Street commercial district. The criss-cross allowed for the construction of two opposing flatiron buildings, the only instance of this happening in the neighborhood. Because of the strange way that Howard shifts south as it heads east over Greenview these buildings seem to point at each other like huge arrows.

Although I reference Rogers Avenue in a previous post, I didn't really go into any explanation of why there's such an uncharacteristic diagonal street cutting through the neighborhood. In 1816 the Fox and Sauk tribes ceded a 20 mile corridor to the United States at the Treaty of St. Louis. Everything outside of this corridor was owned by Native Americans until the Chicago Treaty of 1833. At which point you were out of luck if you were a Native American. Rogers Avenue represents the northern boundary of this defunct corridor, and continues from Lake Michigan to the southwest. You can still find this line on plat maps. Although it doesn't have much meaning nowadays, it's responsible for some unusual street and park configurations. For a great entry about this check out Forgotten Chicago's website.

1509-1519 W. Howard

Buit: 1922

Architect: Leo Miller

On the west side of the intersection is a very handsome building with limestone facade, a classical parapet and flat-pedimented entry. There's a really interesting antique and thrift store here which has been in the neighborhood forever. I'm not sure if there are apartments above or additional storage. The limestone has some condition issues, but you can tell that this building is very important to someone.

7601-7611 W. Rogers

Built: 1928
Architect: M.O. Nathan

This building on the east side of the intersection doesn't use its false mansard roof to the best effect. But some interesting ornament is found on the side elevations, where elaborate parapets project above the roofline and contain decorative arched areas framing triple-ganged windows. Unfortunately the first floor has been coated with a pebble stucco which has not aged well. I think all the storefronts in this building are vacant.

Gable Apartments in Rogers Park (reposted from 6/1/09)

2010-06-08T08:26:00.001-05:00

While I'm putting together more flatiron entries I thought I would revisit a post from 2009:

I've only found these in the southeast part of Rogers Park, near Loyola's lakefront campus. Basically they're typical 3-flats but with a projecting gable front flanked by two ground floor terrace areas. Most of them have Prairie or Craftsman detailing, often with some classical ornament thrown in. Some preliminary digging indicates construction around 1915.

1244 W. North Shore

Built: 1917

The gable front tends to minimize their mass and bring in more light . Maybe this is a localized sub-type of some sort. By the 1920s developers seem to have combined several lots to allow courtyard buildings, but these appear to fit on standard 25' wide Chicago lots.

1130 W. North Shore

Built: 1915

1128 W. North Shore

Built: 1915

Another thought is that these buildings were some of the first signs of increasing density due to the extension of the nearby elevated train and the associated increase in land cost. The attention to detail and use of domestic symbolism may have made these buildings more acceptable to the single family homeowners in the area.

1325 W. Arthur

Built: 1916

Architect: Carol Hoerman

Since I wrote this in 2009 I've found some more of these buildings in Hyde Park. It would be interesting to do a real study to determine if this is a valid sub-type or a brief architectural fad.

Flatiron #2- 1230-1234 W. Loyola

2010-06-01T23:10:00.003-05:00

1230-1234 W. Loyola

Built: 1928

Owner: A. Kirschbaum

Cost: $120,000

Architect: Kuya (no first name given)

This building is opposite the Loyola stop on the Red Line. If you set up a pulley system maybe you could swing onto the platform from your window. This is an uncomfortable, windswept section of Rogers Park, exaggerated by the massive concrete viaduct supporting the El tracks. The blank modern buildings on the south side of the street don't help, and neither does the nearby surface parking and lack of street trees. But it has been improved in recent years by converting a vacant lot into a garden for the Chicago Waldorf School, which is a bit further to the west.

The building itself is a good example of the Italian Renaissance Revival style, with false mansards covered with clay tile, the occasional decorative cartouche, and first floor storefronts clad with vaguely gothic ornament. And surprisingly, the storefronts haven't been entirely mucked-up. But I want to know why nearly every ecclectic architect in the 20s included fake Juliet balconies. Just let it be a window!

The main elevation shown above faces south. Unlike the previous flatiron, this building doesn't make use of an interior court for light and air. Although intended to have a zero lot-line with its west neighbor (now missing) there's an inset about 30 feet back from the front property line to allow for windows. Along the alley a couple of triangular light courts have been inserted for the same reason. I'm sure the south-facing apartments are very bright and cheery. For the others, probably less so.

The process of raising the El tracks began in the 1910s, but wouldn't be complete until the early 1920s. So the residents of this building have never been without the comforting rattle of the train. But as a famous couple of brothers have said, the train comes by so often you won't even notice it.

Flatirons in Rogers Park #1- 7219-7231 N. Rogers

2010-05-24T21:46:00.009-05:00

This entry marks a new series on this blog examining flatiron buildings in Rogers Park. Many people are familiar with Daniel Burnham's 1902 Flatiron Building in New York, which was famously dramatized by Alfred Steiglitz's photo, as well as its use as The Daily Bugle in the recent Spiderman movies. But most people don't realize that that the flatiron form is relatively common, and there are notable examples throughout Chicago.

7219-7231 N. Rogers

2038-2048 W. Touhy

Built: 1925

Architect: Schaffner (no first name given, but possibly Daniel J. Schaffner)

Generally flatirons occur when two grids are juxtaposed, or an atypical element cuts through a regular grid. Both systems create pairs of obtuse and acute angled lots. The acute angles are difficult to utilize with a standard building type. Enter the flatiron. Rogers Park has a number of these buildings, some of which respond to the elevated train viaduct and some to Rogers Avenue, which extends through the neighborhood towards the southwest. Because these buildings are not tall they're easy to overlook.

This flatiron is particularly dramatic because of the large intersection at Touhy, Ridge and Rogers, which allows for a direct view from the west. It has some restrained classical details, such as arches and geometric cast stone ornaments, as well as a pedimented parapet wall. It's a huge building, and it's actually easier to appreciate from an aerial perspective. The view above is from the west looking east. To prevent dark apartments sun porches were added towards the rear of the building and a complex courtyard funnels light into the interior. The architect also utilized this space for the heating plant, which is located in the center of the court. In the aerial above you can see the smokestack sticking up. It's now covered with cell antennas, but I had to leave those out for clarity.

Rogers Avenue helps create two other flatirons further east, both of which will be included here. Eventually.

LSI Industries, Inc. - 5535 N. Wolcott

2010-05-18T09:17:00.002-05:00

LSI Industries, Inc. produces wholesale heathcare supplies. Basically, they manufacturer a whole bunch of products that I pray I'll never need but probably will. This website is worth viewing just for the creepy image they've posted above the name and qualifications of the founder.

This is part of a large industrial area directly south of Rosehill Cemetery. I've driven past many times, but there's no better place than the train to view the site. I would love to explore this on foot, but sadly I've left my trespassing days behind me. Nowadays in order to gain access I would have to present myself as a serious scholar of industrial architecture. Might be worth a try.

Kennedy Expressway, South of Cortland

2010-05-13T08:37:00.001-05:00

For a while my train parallels the Kennedy Expressway (90/94). It has some amazing views of the support structures beneath the highway. I had to simplify this, but you get the idea. It looks like IDOT uses this area mainly for storage of vehicles and equipment.

Years ago I watched a documentary called Divided Highways (1997), which I recommend for a quick overview of the system. One of the interviews was a transportation planner whose job was to locate the expressways through and around cities. Planners were trained to find the least expensive land, so no surprise that they often bisected the poorest, least connected neighborhoods. In Chicago the highways often ended up reinforcing segregation lines. Nothing like an 8 lane highway to discourage a casual stroll.

Speaking of planning, I found a study of New Orleans which considered a raised highway along the waterfront, effectively blocking off Jackson Square. The best part was an analysis of how much scenic New Orleans the drivers would be able to enjoy as they whiz past.

S&C Electric- 6601 N. Ridge

2010-05-11T08:38:00.001-05:00

S &C Electric is hard to miss. Basically, they own nearly all the land from Ridge east to the Metra tracks. Although they don't use the train anymore (as far as I can tell) there's still a spur line leading down into their loading areas.

S & C was formed as Schweitzer and Conrad, Inc in 1911, building on their invention of a safety fuse that could prevent overload of electrical utilities. In 1947 they bought 6 acres along Ridge for new facilties. By 1971 they had expanded to fill nearly 50 acres. In 2002 they enlarged their Rogers Park plant along Pratt Avenue. You can follow their history in more detail on their website.

I'm fascinated by how much history these companies include on their sites. I need to get some good recommendations for books about industrial history and architecture.

Burrito House- 3545-3547 N. Lincoln

2010-05-06T08:22:00.003-05:00

How many places can you get a burrito at 4 a.m. on the weekend? Well, probably quite a few in Chicago. But I remember going here after improv shows in the neighborhood. They pride themselves on making a burrito too large for any normal person to eat.

The 2-story section with the stepped gable roof and projecting bay is from 1901, while the 1-story extension is dated by the assessor as 1928. To the left you can just glimpse the Dunkin' Donuts drive-through, which also has frontage on Addison. To the right is a car repair shop. In the background you can glimpse St. Andrew's Church.

Horween Leather Co. and Chicago Self-Storage- 2001-2027 N. Elston

2010-05-04T12:27:00.007-05:00

This is one of my favorite views from the train. The complex in the center (1886) is the Horween Leather Company. The building to the right (1899) is now Chicago Self-Storage, although in 1914 it was the Eisendrath Glove Company. There used to be an adjoining steel foundry on the far left. The gap between the buildings is a public right-of-way. Google Maps doesn't give it a name, but it used to be known as McLean Avenue. Looks to be typical loft construction. Horween has some decorative brick corbelling and the self-storage building has terra cotta arches above the windows and some simplified cornice details. I've only seen these from the train, but they still look pretty solid.

Just saw the Horween Leather Co. website. I'm impressed that Chicago businesses care so much about their history. This is worth visiting if only for the photos of their complex from the 40s. It also says that they're the only tannery left on the Chicago River. Can that be true?

Morton Salt- 1325-1359 N. Elston

2010-04-30T08:39:00.004-05:00

You can't miss the Morton Salt factory. Something about it... Oh right, the 3-story tall letters. This is one of the landmarks I always look for when I fly into Chicago.

Morton Salt has a long history in Chicago. The company which eventually became Morton Salt began here in 1848. In 1889 a controlling interest was sold to Joy Morton, who changed the name to Joy Morton and Co. In 1910 it became the Morton Salt Co. You might recognize the name Morton from their philanthropic additions to the city. Notably, the Morton wing of the Art Institute of Chicago. Probably the Morton Arboretum too, now that I think about it.

Visit the Morton Salt website and see the different versions of the girl with the umbrella.

Chicago Tribune Printing and Distribution Center- 651-735 W. Chicago

2010-04-27T08:46:00.002-05:00

This is the Chicago Tribune printing and distribution center near the intersection of Chicago and Halsted. Enormous only begins to describe it. I have to admit that I'm fascinated by the strange decorative touches, including the half-round windows intended to suggest an arcade. And the strange wall above the loading docks which resembles a garage door. I expect the entire thing to roll up and down, although I'm sure there are offices behind those windows. Apparently you can take a tour of this place. I imagine the most exciting time would be really early in the morning, when the presses are in full motion.

I thought it might be interesting to have a bit more context for this sketches. In the lower left corner you can see my train line. The tracks to the right are for newspaper distrubution. I think. (Thanks Google Maps)

And this is roughly the same area shown in a Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from 1905. Interesting to see the change in scale, as well as the enormous reduction in train lines. There was also a north-south street called Putnam (later Union) which was eliminated at some point. Perhaps it was sold to the Tribune.

The Golden Nugget Pancake House- 1765 W. Lawrence

2010-04-16T08:22:00.002-05:00

There are seven Golden Nuggets in Chicago, and they kind of typify the unreconstructed diner for me. They're not trendy. The waitresses don't flirt. And if you're going to drink coffee for 3 hours you better keep ordering some other stuff.

1400-1430 N. Elston- A.L.L Masonry Construction

2010-04-15T08:30:00.001-05:00

A.L.L. Masonry Construction has been operating in Chicago and surrounding areas for over 50 years. I was surprised to find more than 150 project photos on their website, including some of the more interesting schools and public buildings that have gone up in the last 15 years. This includes the new gorilla house at Lincoln Park Zoo, which is pretty sharp. Their material yard is on the other side of this building.

This view actually caught my eye because of the trains. No idea why they're there. Union Pacific must own this little stretch of track and use it for storage. Or maybe these are abandoned train cars dropped off in the middle of the night.

1720 N. Elston, Sipi Metals Corporation

2010-04-14T08:37:00.000-05:00

Sipi Metals has been in business since 1905, and has facilities all over the country. They seem to specialize in precious metals reclamation, such as from circuit boards, cell phones and laboratory equipment. The Sanborn Fire Insurance map of 1914 indicates that this used to be the Johnson and Jennings Foundry, which makes sense. In 1950 it was the Silverstein and Pinsof Smelting Co. It has a certain Old Chicago look, although it must be very high-tech on the inside.

When I first moved to Chicago I started to draw the city because I didn't feel very rooted. Drawing forced me to slow down and take a closer look at things. Nice to know this still works, even with my daily commute.

2301 N. Pulaski

2010-04-12T08:29:00.002-05:00

Yet again, you'll need to click this image to see it completely. There's got to be a way to change Blogger to allow long images...

The other week I took a different Metra line out to Northbrook for Passover with family. I could make a hobby of traveling all of the Metra lines and developing odd sketches. But the problem with traveling an unfamiliar line means that I couldn't exactly remember where the photo was taken. Thanks to Google Maps I was able to track it down.

This is at the intersection of Pulaski and Belden, which is apparently in Logan Square. This looks to be apartments above a shuttered commercial space attached to a light industry building. I couldn't find a construction date.

4011 N. Ravenswood

2010-04-06T08:26:00.000-05:00

This is an interesting stretch of Ravenswood. Many of the industrial buildings have been converted into loft spaces, yoga studios, art centers, etc. Chicago has lost quite a bit of its industry in this way, at least in the more popular neighborhoods.

Anyway, I would see this strange quarter round greenhouse-like structure from the train and wonder what the heck it was. Only recently did I discover that it's now part of the Ravenswood Event Center. Need a dramatic wedding locale for 200 of your closest friends? This would be pretty cool. It also has a narrow outdoor area with a trellis, which extends for a good 30 feet (you can see part of it to the right of the roof).

Originally this building was owned by a printing company, and they used this space to make huge billboards, which were created by painters and artists who needed the 45' high ceiling and natural light. With the improvement of printing technology it became obsolete. According to the website all of the window frames are original.

1228-1230 W. Augusta

2010-04-01T23:38:00.006-05:00

This is one of the most interesting areas my train passes. To the west is the highway, to the north and east there's industry, but this residential pocket seems likely to stay. Half of the lots are vacant, but the ones that aren't are divided between decaying older housing and high-tech new housing. The house on the left is an 1880s Italianate which lost its decorative cornice and had its gable window squashed. The one on the right is also an old one, but it looks like it's been practically reconstructed.

Personal anecdote: It was my first day working at the new job downtown. I was headed back to Rogers Park and as we passed the home on the left someone on the second floor mooned the entire train. They had their behind so far out the window that a slight misstep would have led to a very embarrassing tragedy.

Also, is anything as ugly as the back of one of those billboard signs? But I suppose if you overlook the Metra tracks you can get used to anything.