The Railway Exchange Building of 1904 (left) & The People's Gas Building (1910) |
One hundred-twelve
years ago on this day, January 21, the Judiciary Committee of the Chicago City
Council made a recommendation to that body that all restrictions on the height
of “full fire-proof construction” buildings be lifted. [Chicago Tribune, January 22, 1902]
There was a
considerable amount of pressure placed upon aldermen to remove the height
restrictions, and The Tribune
observed, “Representatives of building firms asserted that in Chicago alone of
all great cities in America were such limitations in effect and they declared
that the competition with other cities would force the removal of restrictions
here.”
Mayor Carter
Harrison went on record as favoring the removal of restrictions on building
height even though he was in favor of restriction four years earlier when a
130-foot height limit was imposed. “The unfortunate thing in this city is the
fact that Chicago is a sort of wheel, the loop district being the hub, with the
spokes radiating into the outlying wards,” he said. “With rentals being where they are and space
so valuable in the district bounded by the loop, it is impossible to get enough
out of property to make it a good investment unless the buildings are allowed
to go up.”
There were a number
of arguments put forth as to why the height limit should be kept in place. Some felt that tall buildings were ugly,
belching smoke and blocking the sky.
Others felt that tall buildings made for an unhealthy city, cutting off light and air from anyone at ground level.
Still others argued that with tall buildings holding as many people as a
good-sized town, the congestion they caused was insufferable. And, of course, the owners and developers of tall buildings erected before the 1898 set of restrictions were not especially joyful at the prospect of taller and more modern structures competing for leases.
Members of the city
council were inclined to agree.
Chicago Building of 1905 (JWB Photo) |
Sensing that
council members were opposed to raising the height limit, the First National
Bank applied the pressure, announcing that it was abandoning its proposed building projects, threatening
to remove nearly $12,000,000 from the construction calendar and the tax rolls.
D. R. Forgan, the
president of First National said, “Why the owners of the Masonic temple
property should be permitted to erect a building of over twenty stories and
many others of sixteen and seventeen and the same privilege denied to the First
National Bank, which is at the center of the loop, I fail to understand.”
Owen Aldis, the
agent behind such great buildings as the Marquette, the Rookery, and the
Monadnock, said, “The attitude of the Council is short sighted and narrow in the
extreme. It may please the present
owners of high buildings, but it is certain to check contemplated large
improvements. It is stated that building
to cost $12,000,000 are involved. The
figures really are much larger, as I know of several other large plans which
will be abandoned if the Council stands on Monday night’s action.”
In the end a majority of City Council members voted to end the restrictions – sort of. The last section of the ordinance read, “No
buildings shall be erected in the City of Chicago of greater height than 130
feet from the sidewalk level to the highest point of external bearing
walls. No restriction contained in this
ordinance regarding the height of buildings shall apply to any building to be
hereafter erected which shall be erected in full fire proof construction.”
A Tribune editorial on February 6, 1902
provided the final word on the subject – at least until 1920 when the height
restrictions were once again changed. “Without
any reference to individual cases,” the piece read, “The Tribune is decidedly of the opinion that the high buildings—meaning
thereby structures of more than ten stories – are a public advantage. Arguments are advanced against them, but
those arguments did not convince the Council, nor do they have influence with
the general public.”
University Club of 1909 (JWB Photo) |
No comments:
Post a Comment