Toward a Better Understanding of the Evolution of the Iron Skeleton Frame in Chicago
Author(s): Gerald R. Larson and Roula Mouroudellis Geraniotis
Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians , Mar., 1987, Vol. 46, No. 1
(Mar., 1987), pp. 39-48
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural
Historians
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/990144
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Society of Architectural Historians and University of California Press are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians
This content downloaded from
147.251.101.74 on Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:22:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Toward a Better Understanding of the Evolution
of the Iron Skeleton Frame in Chicago
G E R A L D R. L A R S ON University of Cincinnati
ROULA MOUROUDELLIS GERANIOTIS, Ph.D. Bethesda, Maryland
William Le Baron Jenney and the Home Insurance Building have
been given a pivotal position in many of the early histories of modern
architecture, a reputation that has been consistently embroiled in cantroversy
during the building's 100-year history. The context of the
Home Insurance Building in Chicago's commercial building milieu
immediately prior to Jenney's design of 1884 reveals that tall buildings
constructed before the Home Insurance Building were called skyscrapers.
Many of these earlier buildings, in fact, were even taller
than the final height of the Home Insurance Building. A technical
analysis ofjenney's final structural design reveals that it was neither
conceived nor detailed as a rigid, independent iron frame. A recently
discovered article on the potential of iron framing published by Chicago
architect Frederick Baumann in March 1884, beforeJenney even
started designing the Home Insurance Building, not only disputes
Jenney's reputation as the 'father of the iron skeleton frame," but
also exposes the antiquated nature of Jenney's actual structure and
detailing.
THE ISSUE of the origin of the skyscraper and the role played
by William Le Baron Jenney's design of the Home Insurance
Building (Fig. 1) in Chicago has been the subject of considerable
discussion, especially during the last few years as the
building's centennial (1984) first approached and has now past.
The Home Insurance Building has been credited by various
authors as being everything from the first iron skeletonframed
building to the first skyscraper, and Jenney has consequently
gained the reputation of being the "father of the
skyscraper."' Actually, when one reads contemporary professional
literature and examines the structure that Jenney designed,
it is readily apparent that the Home Insurance Building
was not the first building in Chicago to be called a skyscraper,
nor did Jenney conceive or detail its structure as an independent
iron skeleton frame. In fact, as will be documented,
00ii;!iiii~iiii~ii~iiiiii!!i~~iiii~~ !i;!
Iq l Ziiiii!~iiii~~i!iii~i~iiii~ii~
Oweiii!!i~i!
MOM%~iiiii~i
'446iiiiiiiil
T70Wi~i!i!
", ?00,pow"
Fig. 1. William Le Baron Jenney, Home Insurance Building, Chicago,
1884. Exterior (J. W. Taylor, IChi-00989; Chicago).
Jenney was not even the first Chicago architect to articulate
the concept of an iron-framed skyscraper.2
1. A recent article by Theodore Turak attempted to confirm
Jenney's priority of invention by comparing letters uncovered in the
records of the American Institute of Architects to the unpublished
recollections of Jenney's partner, William B. Mundie. Theodore
Turak, "Remembrances of the Home Insurance Building," JSAH, 44
(1985), 60-65.
2. For the development of iron skeletal framing in America prior to
the 1871 Chicago Fire see: Gerald R. Larson, "Fire, Earth and WindPart
I," Inland Architect, 25 (September 1981), 20-29, and "Fire, Earth
and Wind-Part II," Inland Architect, 27 (January/February 1983),
31-37.
JSAH XL VI:39-48. MARCH 1987 39
This content downloaded from
147.251.101.74 on Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:22:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
40 JSAH, XLVI:1, MARCH 1987
iii~iiiiiiiiiiOr
Fig. 2. Solon Spenser Beman, Pullman Palace Car Building, Chicago,
1883. Exterior (J. W. Taylor; Chicago Historical Society).
The term skyscraper, as used to describe a tall building,
dates from at least 1884, when the 2 August 1884 issue of the
Chicago magazine Real Estate and Building Journal contained an
article, "High Towers and Buildings," which stated that
"Veritable skyscrapers have been springing up here during the
past couple of years almost with mushroom rapidity."3 In
addition to three towers designed by W. W. Boyington, the
article also listed eight buildings that it considered to be skyscrapers,
three of which (S. S. Beman's Pullman Palace Car
Building, 165' [Fig. 2]; Boyington's Royal Insurance Building,
164' [Fig. 3]; and Burnham and Root's Insurance Exchange
Building, 160' [Fig. 4]) were not only taller than the
projected height of 159' for the Home Insurance Building,4
l v,
-ar
Fig. 3. W. W. Boyington, Royal Insurance Building, Chicago,
1883. Exterior (Gilbert and Bryson, Chicago and Its Makers; Art Institute
of Chicago).
but were also already completed by August 1884, when the
Home Insurance Building was only two stories out of the
ground and its exterior iron work had not yet started to be
erected.5 Therefore, Chicago's local professional press at the
time identified skyscrapers as buildings that were built not
only prior to and taller than the Home Insurance Building, but
also did this before the iron members in the Home Insurance
Building's exterior were publicly announced or erected. Consequently,
the iron skeleton frame was not intrinsic to the
original Chicago definition of "skyscraper;" the Home Insur-
3. "High Towers and Buildings," Real Estate and Building Journal,
(2 August 1884), 364.
4. In descending order of height, the skyscrapers were Boyington's
Tower of the Board of Trade, 303'; Boyington's Water Works
Tower, 175'; Boyington's twin towers of the La Salle Street Station,
170'; Beman's design for Marshall Field's ill-fated 13-story office
building which would have topped the existing height record for a
building of 165'-that of Beman's Pullman Building; Boyington's
Royal Insurance Building, 164'; Burnham and Root's Insurance Exchange,
160'; Jenney's Home Insurance Building 159'; Burnham and
Root's Counselman, Calumet and Montauk Buildings, 145'. Ibid.
5. Real Estate and Building Journal of 26 July 1884 (p. 352) reported
that the first floor of the Home Insurance Building was nearing completion.
The first published account of Jenney's intention to use iron
members in the exterior of the Home Insurance was contained in the
September 1884 issue of Inland Architect (p. 24), which also stated that
the construction had reached the third floor, the point where the
exterior iron was to begin erection.
This content downloaded from
147.251.101.74 on Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:22:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LARSON AND GERANIOTIS: TOWARD A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVOLUTION 41
hrl-
Ir
Fig. 4. Burnham and Root, Insurance Exchange Building, Chicago,
1884. Exterior (Inland Architect July 1885; Art Institute of Chicago).
ance Building was not considered to be the first skyscraper in
Chicago; and Jenney was not the designer of Chicago's first
skyscraper. Boyington, Beman, and Burnham and Root had
already built more and taller skyscrapers before Jenney and the
Home Insurance Building ever entered the scene.
As early as 1892, Peter B. Wight, in the March issue of
Inland Architect, began to link the technique of iron framing
that Jenney used in the Home Insurance Building to the ironframed
buildings of James Bogardus and Daniel Badger that
had been erected more than 30 years prior to the re-emergence
of exterior iron framing during 1884 in Chicago:
But while this system of building is new as applied to business structures,
it is not entirely novel. There is a grain elevator in Brooklyn
[Badger's U.S. Warehousing Grain Building, 1860 (Fig. 5) ], that was
erected 30 years ago, the exterior of which is constructed of a cast iron
framework filled in with a light wall of brick, the iron showing on the
outside. There is also a shot tower in New York City [Bogardus' shot
towers for the McCullough Shot and Lead Company, 1855, and the
Tatham and Brothers Company, 1856] which was built about the
same time in the same manner.6
Eleaton f
~L
Fig. 5. Daniel Badger and George H. Johnso
Grain Elevator, Brooklyn, 1860. Elevation (Ba
Iron Architecture; Art Institute of Chicago).
In fact, the only departure from standard
early 1880s in the Home Insurance Buildi
street fapades.7 The two rear masonry bear
ran the entire height of the building and t
(Fig. 6) were typical for the period. In fact
floors of the street fronts consisted of rus
battered from 4'-0" thick at the base to 2'-10" at the third
floor. Upon these were set story-high, hollow rectangular c
iron columns (Fig. 7), bolted one on top of another to suppo
the upper seven floors and roof. The columns were filled w
concrete8 and surrounded with brick, which created a solid
cross section in the building's exterior piers. Rather than describing
this technique as wrapping or enclosing the iron column
with a masonry skin, Jenney stated that he embedded the
column within the masonry pier: "a square iron column was
built into [emphasis added] each of the piers in the street
fronts."' This conceptual difference from modern skeletal
framing is even more evident in the way Jenney used the
exterior masonry to stiffen the assembly of iron columns,
mullions, and spandrels.
6. Peter B. Wight, "Recent Fireproof Building in Chicago--Part
II," Inland Architect and News Record, 19 (March 1892), 22.
7. To ascertain the actual detailing of Jenney's structure, Larson
examined Jenney's working drawings for the Home Insurance Building
now on microfilm at The Art Institute of Chicago. He also examined
the four-columned bay fragment that is in the collection of Chicago's
Museum of Science and Industry.
8. Theodore E. Tallmadge, The Origin of the Skyscraper-The
Report of the Field Committee, Chicago, 1934, 12.
9. "As it was important in the Home Insurance Building to obtain
a large number of small offices provided with abundance of light, the
piers between the windows were reduced to the minimum." William
Le Baron Jenney, "The Construction of a Heavy, Fireproof Building
on Compressible Soil," Inland Architect and Builder, 6 (December
1885), 100.
This content downloaded from
147.251.101.74 on Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:22:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
42 JSAH, XLVI:1, MARCH 1987
L FTTTT TTTILQLIIC1
5MAFT
M3IGT LO PLAN L .ILLG
M4OM P4 IU ANCE U1LDINV
0 ftAAPO
d~ii; %i~ii ~iitwo."""i
i ii /i} / iiiiii!iii~iiii! ................
ffi - i i , A - --
Fig. 6. Jenney, Home Insurance Building, typical floor plan. (Tallmadge, T
Onestsoryhihcioy"ncr"etnoe-fle
4" brick facing which at temsnype.Sz erae
projected to 12' (dashed in) accordance with the 1884
Building Code.
Single bolt smaller than hole
loeycnetbohfloo
Igirdrsto doblecrss o
separator bracket that is cast I imtrio o etit
~pulling gird
Spandrel pan bears on shelf cast
withscoleumn.s Apparentlynon?. ..to permit potential rotation
due to the expected differentialsettlement of the piers
Spandel pn noched4" bck a
this point to allow the brick
facing to be independent of
spandrel to minimize potential
8" wrought iron floor joists at
hollow tile segmental flat
4" deep cast iron spandrel pan n arched floors
that spans from column shelf to
mullion, to be levelled with
wall. Width varies with respect
~Two 12" wrought iron floor
column to shel cast wit
. exterior column
Cas ion trctualmulio
Fig. 7. Jenney, Home Insurance Building. Reconstruction of the structural detailing of the ext
Maxwell Merriman).
This content downloaded from
147.251.101.74 on Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:22:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LARSON AND GERANIOTIS: TOWARD A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVOLUTION 43
The columns were cast with projecting shelf brackets to
receive the appropriate horizontal framing members. Two 12inch
wrought iron I-beam floor girders sat on the ledge at the
interior face of the column. These were loosely bolted to the
column by a single bolt that passed through each of the girder
webs and a projecting bracket which was also cast with the
column. As a good amount of tolerance was needed for site
erection, the holes were larger than the bolt, leaving the
connection with a considerable amount of play. Therefore,
Jenney incorporated a clamp consisting of a one-inch diameter
wrought iron rod that was bent at one end and placed into a
notch cut in the top flange of both girders. At the other end,
the clamp was bolted to the column by a nut placed inside the
column, thereby pulling the girders tight to the column face.
The floor girders supported eight-inch wrought iron I-beams
at five-foot centers, within which were placed hollow tile
floor arches.
To support the windows and masonry spandrels between
the piers, cast iron lintels in the form of four-inch-deep hollow
pans, also filled with concrete like the columns, spanned from
a column shelf bracket to an intermediate cast iron mullion.
The cast iron lintels were as wide as the masonry spandrel
walls that were constructed on top of them. As if the street
fronts were still considered to be bearing walls, the spandrels,
for no other conceivable reason, increased in thickness along
with the piers, as required by the building code, from 20
inches in the top three floors to 24 inches in floors 5-7, to 28
inches in floors 3 and 4.
The cast iron lintels were not one continuous piece that
spanned between the columns but were in halves that joined
over the mullions. The lintel pans were evidently not bolted to
either the column shelf brackets or the mullions, but simply
rested on the bearing surfaces, apparently relying on the supported
masonry knee wall, which was bonded into the masonry
pier, to hold the iron armature in place laterally. The
lack of bolts may have been a technique on Jenney's part to
impart some rotational flexibility at the column/spandrel connection
to accommodate differential settlement of the piers.10
This flexible joint was augmented by notching the front of the
iron lintel pan back four inches which allowed the pier's exterior
face brick to continue past the lintel without actually sitting
on it and minimized the potential of the face brick to crack
if an iron spandrel rotated due to the settlement of an adjacent
pier.
Therefore, the pier's brick facing (which was 12 inches thick
in some locations) was continuously self-supporting from the
granite piers at the third floor and was not supported at each
floor on the iron column, as was the contention of the Field
Committee.1" If it was Jenney's intention to support the pier's
brick facing on the frame, why did he intentionally notch the
lintel pans precisely where they could have offered critical
support to the facing as it turned the corner? While the iron
lintels carried the weight of the masonry spandrels to the iron
mullions and columns, the structure created by the lintel pans,
mullions, and columns was far from being a rigid, self-supporting
iron skeleton that independently carried its masonry
envelope at each floor, which the Home Insurance Building
was later claimed to have been.
This brings up the first of two extremely important points
of interpretation. Jenney did not make the intermediate iron
mullions a continuous vertical line of support to the foundation
for two reasons. Principally, he wanted to avoid the inevitable
uplift problems experienced by the lesser-loaded intermediate
piers in buildings of the period. This resulted from
the heavier-loaded major piers settling at a greater rate than
the smaller mullions, transferring more and more load to the
smaller mullions and usually creating major cracking in and
around them.12 The easiest way to avoid the problem was to
prevent the mullions from becoming a continuous line of
bearing by transferring the mullion loads over to the main
piers before they reached the ground. If this could be done in a
series of transfer beams, the mullion loads would be relatively
uniform, and therefore the mullion cross section would not
have to increase as the columns did, keeping the windows as
large as possible.
Therefore, Jenney placed transfer beams (Fig. 8) to carry the
mullion loads to the piers, immediately above the cast iron
lintel pans at the fourth floor (four 7-inch I beams), sixth floor
(three 15-inch I-beams), ninth floor (two 12-inch I-beams),
and roof (two 15-inch I-beams). These transfer beams also
nominally tied the columns together laterally (especially at the
roof), thereby creating what one might call a skeleton. However,
if it was Jenney's intention to actually create a rigid iron
skeleton frame in the street fronts, these beams should have
been introduced at every floor. The framework as built was
not rigid independent of the masonry, for the columns in
floors 6-8 extended unbraced for three stories. Since the lintel
pans were not bolted to the columns, their action in this vein
was negligible at best. Consequently, without the masonry
10. "As the building must settle . . . the first settlement must be
uneven, therefore every care must be taken to make the construction
elastic." Ibid.
11. The Trustees of the Estate of Marshall Field, Sr., planned to
demolish the Home Insurance Building in 1931 in order to erect the
46-story Field Building designed by Graham, Anderson, Probst and
White. With hopes of gaining a special historical prominence for the
site of the new building, they assembled a respected committee of six
architects, a contractor, and a realtor, to ascertain the true construction
of the Home Insurance Building during its demolition.
12. For a complete description of this problem see Frederick
Baumann, The Art of Preparing Foundations, Chicago, 1873, 17-22.
This content downloaded from
147.251.101.74 on Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:22:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
44 JSAH, XLVI:1, MARCH 1987
1*........
Lowe "
AN* AS * i I e#t
A r- S
AL L 0 IN14 *., UAt L
{itivtofw
IT 0T ?
Fig. 8. J
iron me
beams a
and the
inheren
impossi
walls."a1
This ra
and rol
stability
be argu
iron columns because of the manner in which it was constructed
around the lintels. However, the 4-inch exterior facing,
which increased to 12 inches at the corner and entrance
piers, enjoyed no similar support as the lintel pans were
notched back at the piers to allow the facing to be independent
of them, thereby allowing the facing to be continuous from
the granite walls for eight stories. Jenney went so far as to
specify a very conservative technique of bricklaying to achieve
a stronger-than-usual assembly to keep the cross section of the
masonry piers to a minimum. Selected hard-burned brick was
used with a strong cement, not lime, mortar and was laid up in
very tight, solidly packed joints. This would have been entirely
unnecessary if Jenney was supporting the face brick at
each level.
We can therefore conclude from at least five points that the
iron framework in the Home Insurance Building was not conceived
or erected by Jenney as a modern skeletal frame that is
entirely self-sufficient and independent of its masonry enclosure.
First, he initially did not refer to the masonry as a covering
but always stated that he embedded the iron column
within the masonry pier in order to reduce its size and maximize
the amount of daylight. Second, as the lintel pans were
not bolted to the columns, rigidity of the mullion/lintel assembly
was gained through the masonry spandrel wall. Third,
the exterior brick facing of the piers was not supported on the
iron column at any point; therefore, it was continuously bearing
from the granite piers. Fourth, as the columns typically
extended laterally unbraced for two stories (the spacing of the
mullion transfer beams), and in the middle of the building for
three stories, they relied solely on the rigidity of the spandrel
masonry interacting with the masonry pier for lateral stability.
Finally, without the rigidity of the two rear masonry bearing
party walls and the masonry piers, the iron frame with its
loosely bolted and clamped connections could not have resisted
any wind loads. Therefore, the historical significance of
the Home Insurance Building's structure is that it was the first
extensive use of iron in the U.S. in the exterior of a multistory
building to support a portion of its masonry enclosure since
Badger's Grain Elevators of 1860 and 1862.
Because of the later controversy surrounding the Home Insurance
Building and the issue of the origin of the iron skeleton
frame, Jenney's professional position in the Chicago architectural
scene of the early 1880s has been greatly inflated. The
Home Insurance Building was not only Jenney's first tall
building, but also his first major commission in the 11 years
that followed the completion of the Portland Block and the
Lakeside Building in 1873. To even better appreciate the fortuitous
nature of his Civil War acquaintance with Arthur C.
Ducat, the Chicago agent of the Home Insurance Company of
New York, one must recall that the Home Insurance Building
was Jenney's only tall building during the 16-year period be-
13. William Mundie, Skeleton Construction, Its Origin and Development
Applied to Architecture, Roll 23, Chicago Microfilm Project, Art
Institute of Chicago, frame 27. This disputes Mundie's recollection of
not only the type of construction employed in the Home Insurance
Building, but also the chronology of its erection. Mundie said that
"the iron framework was up to the sixth floor of the building and two
or three floors ahead of the brick walls" in August 1884. Ibid. In
reality, the ironwork did not start to be put into place until September
1884. "Our Illustrations," Inland Architect and Builder, 4 (September
1884), 24. As will be seen, this is not the only error contained in
Mundie's unpublished manuscript of 1931, which throws suspicion on
his accuracy and motives.
This content downloaded from
147.251.101.74 on Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:22:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LARSON AND GERANIOTIS: TOWARD A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVOLUTION 45
Fig. 9. W. W. Boyington, Chicago Board of Trade, Chicago, 1882.
La Salle Street south from Adams Street, late 1880s (IChi-00253; Chicago
Historical Society).
tween the Portland Block and Lakeside Building and the Second
Leiter Building of 1889.14
In stark contrast stand the records of Chicago's four premier
firms, W. W. Boyington, John M. Van Osdel, S. S. Beman,
and Burnham and Root, who were responsible for the vast
majority of Chicago's early skyscrapers. Quite simply, Jenney
no longer enjoyed the reputation he had had in the early 1870s,
as one of Chicago's foremost office building designers. The
true measure of the Jenney office's professional stature in the
early 1880s is best exemplified with the Montauk Block of
1881. The owner ofJenney's Portland Block, Peter C. Brooks
of Boston,15 did not turn to Jenney when he was ready to build
Chicago's first skyscraper, the ten-story Montauk Block. Instead,
Brooks gave the honor to the young upstart firm of
Burnham and Root, in association with Peter B. Wight, their
former employer, who was to be the fireproofing contractor
for the Montauk Block.
By this time, iron construction was being given more exposure
in the local architectural press. Across the street from the
Montauk, then under construction, Haverly's Theater was being
erected. Although the exterior consisted of solid brick
12 SECTION
PHOEN I X
PROLLED IRON COL,1MNSFRtR E-PROO FE D
VV 'T" H
POROUS TERRA COTTA
90 FT HIGH3FT" 3IN.DIAM.CH I CAGO
SOAR DoFTRADE
Fig. 10. Peter B. Wight, fireproofed wrought iron Phoe
umns in the Chicago Board of Trade Tower. (Brickbuilder,
1897; Art Institute of Chicago).
walls, the supports of the galleries were all iron, lead
Real Estate and Building Journal in 1881 to state: "It is
and feasible to construct the auditorium entirely of a li
framework, which would make it practically firepro
every theater should be built this way.'"16 The sam
contained an article on the newly constructed Cape
Lighthouse on Chesapeake Bay: "It is 155' from base
30' in diameter at the base, 16' at the top. The exterior
is octagonal in shape, is constructed of cast iron. Every
solidly bolted together by heavy cast iron floor plat
7,000 pounds of bolts were required."'17
This article may well have been the inspiration for
go's tallest building, the Board of Trade Tower (
whose ironwork was a direct prelude to the Home In
Building. Designed by W. W. Boyington early in 18
tower was 303 feet high, although it was only 32 feet
its base. The mammoth tower was supported by the
iron columns built during the 1880s. These were 12-s
Phoenix wrought iron columns (Fig. 10) that were 3
inches in diameter and 90 feet high and fireproofe
Wight's patented terra cotta casings.'s As the base of th
was only 32 feet wide, these columns must have sup
some, if not all, of the masonry in the tower's exterior
the thickness of the walls and the columns would ha
14. Jenney admitted the importance of his prior relationship with
Ducat in his success of gaining the commission for the Home Insurance
Building: "In 1883, when the Home Insurance Company proposed
to erect a building in Chicago, Ducat (who was the agent of the
company in Chicago and the leading agent in the West) kindly recommended
me to be their architect." Letter of William Le Baron Jenney,
printed in Arthur C. Ducat, Memoirs, 65.
15. Land Owner, 5 (June 1873), 99.
16. "Theatre Construction," Real Estate and Building Jou
(July 1881), 323.
17. "A Gigantic Lighthouse," Ibid.
18. Wight, "Fireproof Building," 22.
This content downloaded from
147.251.101.74 on Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:22:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
46 JSAH, XLVI:1, MARCH 1987
up almost all of the floor area at the ground floor.
In December 1883, three months before Jenney started to
design the Home Insurance Building, the Board of Trade's
columns were considered to be Wight's finest installation. In
contrast to the ironwork of the later Home Insurance Building,
for which Wight was also the fireproofing contractor, the
Board of Trade Tower's iron was put in place before the masonry
facing was added. The tower was under construction
from December 1883 to August 1884, a period that parallels
Jenney's gestation of the Home Insurance design for a site only
two blocks north of the Board of Trade. In fact, the ironwork
of the tower had been completed just before the first exterior
iron columns of the Home Insurance Building were put into
place.19
Even more revealing of the environment in which Jenney
designed the Home Insurance Building is an article, "Improved
Construction of High Buildings," in the 15 March
1884 issue of Sanitary News, recently uncovered by Dr.
Geraniotis.20 This article documents beyond the shadow of a
doubt that Chicago architect Frederick Baumann had indeed
clearly defined and articulated the concept of an independent
iron-framed tall building before Jenney incorporated a
watered-down version of the idea in the design of the Home
Insurance Building. In 1873, Baumann had already established
his reputation as Chicago's leading theoretician on construction
with his pamphlet, The Art of Preparing Foundations, in
which he was the first to clearly articulate the principle of the
uniformly stressed, isolated pad foundation, Chicago's other
important contribution to building construction.21 Therefore,
it comes as no surprise to find Baumann writing about the iron
skeleton framed skyscraper prior to Jenney's design of the
Home Insurance Building. As the newly discovered article is
dated 15 March 1884, and moreover, it reports that Baumann
had already publicly presented his scheme, Baumann's first
public discussion of his ideas would have necessarily preceded
the article by, shall we say, at least two weeks to account for
writing, editing, and printing. This, then, pushes Baumann's
date conservatively back to at least 1 March 1884, if not even
earlier. Such a date would confirm Baumann's statement that
his ideas coalesced during the Home Insurance competitio
and also lends credence to his claim that he experimented wi
the idea in an 1883 design for a building at the Southwe
corner of Clark and Jackson.22
In contrast, the first mention of the Home Insurance Building
in Jenney's personal notes is dated 19 February 1884. T
building at this date was to be only six stories plus a basemen
The basement story to be one step up from the sidewalk, similar to t
Boreel Building [in New York].... This would make the buildin
84'-5" high [six stories plus basement], if another, [it] would be 9
which is high enough and I would object to it being any higher .
The basement to be of some suitable stone to be decided upon. T
rest of the building to be of brick with terra cotta or molded bri
trimmings 23
When the building committee from New York arrived in Chi
cago during the first week in March (meaning they met afte
Baumann's initial presentation of his ideas) to review the com
petition drawings for the new building reported to be submi
sions by three different architects, they apparently had alread
increased the height of the building because a permit was o
tained on 1 March 1884 for an eight-story plus basement stru
ture.24 The premature permit-for Jenney's design was no
"officially" chosen for another two weeks-was forced by
pending building ordinance that threatened to limit the heigh
of all new buildings to 100 feet. Suspiciously, it was report
that even though the winner had not been chosen, the permi
was taken out upon the plans ofJenney, and that he, upon th
orders of the company (and undoubtedly at the encourage
ment of Jenney's friend, Ducat), had already begun to let th
contracts for the cut stone and other materials.25
19. "Synopsis of Building News," Inland Architect and Builder, 4
(September 1884), 28.
20. "Improved Construction of High Buildings," Sanitary News, 3
(15 March 1884), 123. Baumann later published his ideas in a threepage
pamphlet: Frederick Baumann, Improvement in the Construction of
Tall Buildings, Chicago, 1884.
21. Frederick Baumann was born in Angermiinde, East Prussia, on
6 January 1826. He studied architecture and building in Berlin, first at
the Gewerbeschule and then at the prestigious Konigliches
Gewerbeinstitut. He also acquired extensive practical experience during
periods of apprenticeship with master masons, master carpenters,
and an uncle who was the government building inspector in
Bromberg. Baumann joined many Germans in immigrating to the
U.S. following the 1848-49 revolution. He traveled directly to Chicago,
arriving in the summer of 1850. After working with John M.
Van Osdel and Edward Burling, he formed a partnership with Van
Osdel in January 1855, which lasted until the onset of the 1857 panic.
Subsequently, he worked as a building contractor with August
Wallbaum; he returned to architectural practice in 1864, eventually
becoming a leading figure in the Chicago architectural community
during the last third of the 19th century.
22. Letter, Frederick Baumann to Glen Brown, 14 December 1907,
Archives, American Institute of Architects, Washington, D.C. as
quoted in Turak, "Remembrances," 62. See also Baumann's autobiographical
essay, "Life, Reminiscences, and Notes," Construction
News, 4 (15 January 1916), 9.
23. Roll 9, Jenney Collection, Chicago Microfilm Project, Art Institute
of Chicago, frame 424. Jenney's first entry that pertained to the
Home Insurance Building correlates with the first published mention
of the project which occurred in the 23 February 1884 issue of Real
Estate and Building Journal (p. 88). This pushes Jenney's conceptualization
period for the Home Insurance Building back to the
Spring of 1884 and contradicts Jenney's failing memory in his later
years when he claimed he received the commission in 1883; see n. 14.
24. Real Estate and Building Journal, 8 March 1884, 114.
25. "Architectural and Building Notes," Inland Architect and
Builder, 3 (March 1884), 23.
This content downloaded from
147.251.101.74 on Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:22:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LARSON AND GERANIOTIS: TOWARD A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVOLUTION 47
The following month, Inland Architect reported that
Jenney's design had indeed been chosen the winner from plans
submitted by a half dozen of Chicago's best architects.26 The
design continued to be refined during the spring of 1884; the
final height was set at 150 feet with nine stories plus basement
on 28 April 1884.27 Using Jenney's notes, it appears that as the
building increased in height from the initial seven floors of 19
February, to the final ten stories of 28 April, he became concerned
about the size of the masonry piers and most probably
realized during the latter part of this period that he could keep
the piers' cross section within reason by embedding iron sections
in the piers. The first mention and calculation of the
exterior iron columns in his notes is dated 17 April 1884, over
a month after the article on Baumann's skeletal frame idea was
published.28 In fact, the erection of the iron in the street fronts
was not started until September 1884,29 over five months after
the publication of the article describing Baumann's ideas.
The primitive nature ofJenney's iron framework is evident
when compared to Baumann's ideas of modern skeletal
framing:
The design is to erect on foundations a firm and rigid skeleton, or hull,
of iron, and cover it at once with a proper roof. The enclosure,
whether of stone, terra cotta, or brick, or any combination of these
materials, may be erected at the same time the iron structure is being
put in place. But the latter might proceed much faster than the former;
while the hull might be roofed within two months, the enclosure
might not have proceeded further than the fourth story. Thus there
need be no delay to a steady progress. Derricks may be set on the roof
for finishing the enclosure in a convenient manner . . .
Mr. Baumann claims that this method would render the work more
independent of the weather than by the usual construction; the erection
of the iron hull is, in its nature, a rapid process. The practicability
of erecting buildings on Chicago soil, twelve and more stories high,
then becomes a fact. Light, the great desideratum in all city buildings,
is secured, even on the lowest-the most valuable-floors, whereas,
otherwise, the necessarily broad piers would be a hindrance. The piers
may not only be made narrow, but shallow-twenty-seven inches at
the most, thus, again making a saving of light. [Was this not the exact
logic Jenney used to explain his later design for the Home Insurance
Building?]
The iron uprights are to be provided with a series of projecting brackets
for the purpose of anchoring and supporting the parts forming the
exterior enclosure. These supporting brackets will be so arranged as to
permit an independent removal of any part of the exterior lining,
which may have been damaged by fire or otherwise. [Contrast this
with the lack of any structural support for the masonry facing in the
piers of the Home Insurance as well as the structure's dependence on
the masonry for rigidity]. The iron-floor girders are securely fastened
[riveted fixed connections] to the outer posts at both ends. This imparts
firmness to the structure; further, it increases the bearing
strength of the girders at least to one-half of their usual strength. The
iron floor-beams are fastened to the sides of the girders, and will gain
thereby at least 20 percent in strength [compare Baumann's fixed
connections to the friction clamp and single bolt used by Jenney]. ...
Mr. Baumann holds that there will thus be a saving in the four most
important items in construction-light, convenience, space and time.
Structures wholly constructed of iron would in this light, be the most
preferable, were it possible to clothe them with proper elegance, and
were they proof against neighboring fires.30
The date of this article disputes William Mundie's claim that
Baumann published his pamphlet on skeleton framing after he
had allegedly intensely questioned Mundie, then a draftsman
for Jenney, in the early summer of 1884 about Jenney's details
for the Home Insurance Building while it was "under construction."31
As construction didn't start until 1 May 1884,32
Baumann's ideas had been already published for at least six
weeks. The chronology of events surrounding the publication
of Baumann's ideas and Jenney's initial thoughts for the Home
Insurance Building contained in his own notebook suggest
just the opposite of what Mundie later tried to prove. Apparently,
Jenney used Baumann's ideas for the first time in the
Home Insurance Building. Perhaps these points shed some
light on the words of another Jenney employee, Elmer C.
Jensen, who was always puzzled over the fact that "Major
Jenney never made any claim that he had originated the skyscraper
principle."33
26. "Synopsis of Building News," Inland Architect and Builder, 3
(April 1884), 42-43.
27. Roll 9, Jenney Collection, frames 426-434. Jenney's notes correlate
with the 1 May 1884 start of construction as published in
Tallmadge, Field Report, 10.
28. Jenney Collection, frames 426-443. The first shop drawing of
the ironwork by the Dearborn Foundry was approved by Jenney on
24 May 1884. Ibid, 443. There is no evidence in Jenney's notebook to
support Mundie's allegation that Jenney originally intended to use
iron framing in all the walls but was prevented from doing so in the
party walls by the City Building Commissioner. Mundie, Skeleton
Construction, frame 25. Since the building permit was granted on 1
March 1884, a month and a half before the first mention of iron
columns in Jenney's notes, Mundie's chronology once again appears
to be faulty.
29. "Our Illustrations," 24.
30. "Improved Construction," 123.
31. Mundie, Skeleton Construction, frame 98. In fact, Baumann's
article was published on 15 March 1884. Mundie was not even in
Chicago then; he arrived two weeks later on 1 April 1884. Ibid.,
frame 4.
32. Tallmadge, Field Report, 10.
33. As quoted in Purcell, "First Skyscraper," 36. Although Purcell
did not give the source of Jensen's quote, the essence of it was
contained in an earlier article written by Jensen:
"Apparently Mr. Jenney either was not conscious of the important
contribution he was making to the world at the time or his modesty
prevented him from making any mention of it [the invention of the
iron skeletal frame] in the press and technical papers." Elmer C.
Jensen, "Origin of the Skyscraper-Part II, "Union League, October
1950, 17. Jensen entered Jenney's office in March 1885 as an office
boy, becoming a partner in the firm in April 1905.
This content downloaded from
147.251.101.74 on Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:22:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
Professor Larson presented a shorter version of this article in a
paper delivered at the 1983 Annual Meeting of The Society of
Architectural Historians in the session "Commercial Architecture
Before 1914," chaired by Sarah Bradford Landau. Larson
is working on a book, Earth, Fire and Wind, which documents
architectural developments in Chicago prior to 1879. The Graham
Foundation has helped to fund some of this research. Dr.
Geraniotis is preparing a book on the German architects in
19th-century Chicago for the Architectural History Foundation.
The authors would like to acknowledge the efforts of
John Zukowsky, Curator of the Department of Architecture,
The Art Institute of Chicago, in introducing the work of each
author to the other. The joint results of Larson's research of
Jenney's chronology during the design of the Home Insurance
Building and Geraniotis' research which uncovered the article
by Chicago architect Frederick Baumann have established the
priority of events presented in this article.
APPENDIX II
On the key question of the piers' masonry facing, the Field
Report stated: "In the important matter of the masonry piers,
the conclusion is not so obvious. . . . Accordingly, the two
typical piers were stripped or girdled, one midway between
the fourth and fifth floors, and the other in the third story at
the top of the window level. In each case the masonry was
entirely removed for a space of two feet, completely exposing
the column; the masonry piers above remaining undisturbed
to the height of the remainder of the story on the fourth floor
and a full story on the third floor. The stripping was left undisturbed
and unshored until the building was wrecked down
to that point, a matter of one day. No cracking of the piers or
other failure of the masonry was apparent during the interval.
This indicates to the Committee that regardless of Major
Jenney's intention in the matter, and of the opinions of various
commentators on the building, the piers, were, in fact, supported
by the structural skeleton . . . the typical masonry pier
was eight hundred square inches, and of this six hundred and
forty square inches was supported directly by the cast iron
lintels and the doubled twelve inch spandrel beams and the
doubled twelve inch floor girders. The remaining one hundred
and sixty square inches, one-fifth of the area, represents
in typical cases the pier facing four inches in thickness and
three feet, six inches in width. As this facing was bonded into
the pier, it could not help but be supported by the corbel
action from the main body of the pier. There was in addition,
though unessential to its support, considerable adhesion to the
iron columns to which the brickwork was closely pressed.
Furthermore, at certain places stone lintels and stone belt cornices
directly supported by the iron framing traversed the
piers and was bonded into them, forming a cantilever and a
beam action which aided in the support of th
the function of a shelf. An important except
typical column design in the three street fron
these columns, at each floor, an iron flange ex
from the outside faces of the columns into t
which at this point is twelve inches in thic
ously was intended to support at least par
Tallmadge, Field Report, 14-15.
The Committee's interpretation of this last d
for this specific condition was the logical re
bolt the corner columns through flanges in
both street fronts, which unintentionally for
project into a corner pier's facing. This is qu
one examines the photo of the demolition (Plate IIITallmadge,
22). Another error contained in the report was the
Committee's extensive yet unconvincing explanation about
the stone belt courses' structural capacity. Jenney's own words
about the "cantilevered" stone lintels' potential to carry the
masonry facing, which were even, surprisingly, reprinted in
the Committee's report stated: "Stone lintels must have short
bearings on the piers, that there may be some movement
without fracture." Ibid, 32. Obviously, the short bearing of
the lintel would have prevented any cantilever action and thus,
no support to the masonry facing would have been available.
Incredibly, the Field Report even contained a close-up photograph
of the stone lintels in question that visually contradicted
the committee's argument. This shows a vertical joint in the
stone coursing directly over the corner of the masonry piers,
the exact location where ajoint could not occur if the committee's
argument was correct. The location of this joint obviously
would have prevented any beam action in the stone
coursing, which would have been necessary to carry the pier's
face brick as the Committee imagined. Ibid, 4.
Irving K. Pond also argued that the piers' facings were
loadbearing and not supported on the frame, noting that "no
masonry pier could have been installed until that immediately
beneath was in place," Irving K. Pond, "Neither a Skyscraper
Nor a Skeleton Construction," Architectural Record (August
1934), 32. The most cynical response to the Field Committee's
attempt to prove the iron column's support of the masonry
facing came from William G. Purcell in a letter to his partner
George G. Elmslie:
"See the picture on page 21 where a small square cast iron
column is seen, during demolition, to be supporting a few
cubic feet of brick masonry which clings to it. Well, naturally,
George, when they were taking down the building the brick
piers ceased to support that which was no longer resting upon
them and their reinforcing metal naturally had enough
strength to hold up a cubic yard of rubble" . . . William G.
Purcell, "First Skyscraper," Northwest Architect (January
1953), 5.
This content downloaded from
147.251.101.74 on Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:22:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms