Rowhouse Chicago: 1930s and 1940s

In the 1930s and 40s the row house became an important form for government subsidized public housing.  This program was interrupted by WWII and resumed afterwards at a much larger scale. 

Some early examples utilized a simplified Classicism, or a Moderne design aesthetic.  But as the program continued ornamental details were stripped away.

I want to write more about these, but for now I'll settle for getting them on-screen.  If you're familiar with the topic you'll notice that the Lathrop Homes (recently redeveloped) are missing. Those will be included once I get some good reference photos.


Trumbull Homes (2454 E. 106th), 1938.

Frances Cabrini Green Rowhouses (902 N. Hudson), 1942.

Bridgeport Homes (31st and Lituanica), 1943.

Altgeld Gardens (13357 S. Langley), 1945.

Rowhouse Chicago: 1900s through 1920s

After the 1890s it became much harder for me to find row houses.  Since this isn't exactly a scientific study it's possible I'm just missing them, but it seems to be more than that...

My guess is that that urban land became expensive enough to usher in the era of larger apartments.  Also, more affluent buyers were drawn to the expanding first tier suburbs, which had increasingly strong public transit connections and were far from the pollution and political unrest of Chicago.

Anyway, I'm hoping to add more examples from these decades as I find them.

201-217 N. LeClaire, 1900.

I had to restore one demolished unit based on photographs (second from the right).  And I know an emergency demolition permit was issued to demolish another unit, so it really doesn't look this way any more.  This row basically creates an instant village, so it's disappointing to see it deteriorating.

5344-5350 S. Wabash, 1914.

Here's a strong example a classical revival design unified by the decorative parapet.  I had to restore some altered porches and balconies and cornice sections.  I'm impressed by the use of bays to bring in more light, but I don't know if the porches were quite big enough to provide much benefit. 

Rowhouse Chicago: 1890s

Hands down the 1890s were the decade of the most elaborate row houses, with the most astounding combination of styles.

2451-2451 W. Jackson, 1890s.

3910-3918 S. Prairie, 1893.

229-241 N. Sacramento, 1895.

2814-2826 W. Warren, 1896.

Rowhouse Chicago: 1880s

Perhaps the golden age of the Chicago row house?                                                                                                           

3920-3924 S. Prairie, 1889

2829-2837 W. Warren, 1880s.

2320-2326 W. Warren, 1884.

2148-2158 W. Bowler, 1882.

615-623 E. 42nd, 1880s.

615-623 E. 42nd, 1880s.

4341-4349 S. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr., 1889.

Rowhouse Chicago: 1870s

Some of the oldest row houses in Chicago, built soon after the Chicago Fire of 1871.  These have been drawn to represent their original appearance, as closely as I could determine. In the real world all have lost some structural or ornamental features. 


2300-2310 W. Monroe, 1871

1254-1262 W. Lexington, c.1875.



3712-3722 W. Cermak, c. 1875.



Rowhouse Chicago - Circling the Wagons

In the 1960s and 70s many rowhouse designs in Chicago began to incorporate solid walls and barriers in front of the home.  Traditionally rowhouses had addressed the street with small setbacks and a generous stoop, allowing residents the opportunity to participate in neighborhood street life.

515-529 W. Dickens, 1964.  Tigerman and Koglin.

But now many turned away from the street, setting the structure further back on the lot and privatizing the front yard. The designs themselves also become more defensive--  in some cases almost bunker-like, as if they were intended to occupy the neighborhood by force.   These designs were most common in areas undergoing urban renewal, and convey some of the racial and economic anxiety that must have been felt at the time.  My examples here are from the Mid-North and Old Town neighborhoods, where they often replaced older building types.

515 W. Belden, 1967.  Anderson and Battles.

At the same time this was a very creative time for rowhouse design, with an emphasis on geometry and massing that utilized traditional as well as new ornamental materials. There was also some notable strides in site planning, often using several lots to create rowhouse arrangements with shared common spaces. 

 



1415-1425 N. Sandburg Terrace, 1972.  Component of Sandburg Village.

In the case of Sandburg Village the rowhouse components were part of a larger plan incorporating a variety of building types and sizes.  Rowhouses were one way to connect the new development with existing buildings at the periphery utilizing a similar scale.

1515 W. Belden, 1970.  Booth and Nagle.

This generation of rowhouses also addressed the needs of cars, often through clustered parking or even below-grade parking structures.  In some cases the occupant could step from their car right into their townhouse, without having to experience any of the intervening space.

Rowhouse Chicago - Facade Rhythm

This blog entry looks at some typical façade organizations of the Chicago rowhouse and theorizes a bit about the intent of various approaches.  But mostly it's a visual essay.


3710-3722 W. Cermak, 1870s.

This Second Empire style rowhouse basically reads as a single structure. Sure the entrances allow you to visually separate the individual units, but the unifying treatment of the third floor ties it all together.  The constituent parts step forward and backward slightly to create an interlocking but symmetrical mass, with a varied roofline.  The ornamentation is limited to the carved stone lintels, pressed metal cornice and roof coping. I've never seen another building like this in Chicago, and it basically kicked off my interest in rowhouses.

2300-2310 W. Monroe, 1871.

These Joliet limestone rowhouses (Neo-Grec/Italianate Style) are comprised of six identical units.   Combined they create an undulating façade which can fill a few lots or an entire block, depending on the budget and available land.  The homes have individual as well as collective character.  But mostly collective. This is the type of rowhouse that most clearly says "Chicago" to me.  They once filled entire blocks on the near south and west sides, but only pockets remain.

1106-1114 E. 62nd, 1888.

This Classical Revival limestone rowhouse utilizes two alternating designs.  The "B" design is more elaborate, with a 5-sided bay, elaborate parapet, and stained-glass oval windows.  Even rowhouses in the same building with identical square footage allow for a bit of individuality and variety.  The A-B-A-B pattern seems to be the most common choice for historic Chicago rowhouses.

2814-2826 W. Warren Boulevard, 1896

This unusual design combines two façade treatments in a A-B-B-A pattern.  Combining modules in different ways allows rowhouses to approach a variety of architectural styles.  In this case a combination of Queen Ann and Classical detailing.

2415-2457 W. Jackson, 1890.

And finally, some buildings are so complex that no two units are designed in the same manner, even when the interior plans are nearly identical.  This is a combination of Classical and Romanesque styles.  A fifth row house was demolished here prior to the 1970s, and I have no clue what it might have looked like.

Rowhouse Chicago - Introduction

229-241 N. Sacramento, 1895

Recently I've been looking at the rowhouse in Chicago.  This is a building type that appears again and again, from elaborate versions of the 1890s to low income housing of the 1940s. Because there are thousands of these in Chicago I developed some selection criteria to maintain my sanity. These are a bit arbitrary, but I had to start somewhere:

-Constructed between 1870 and 1970

-A minimum of 3 units

-Shared common walls

-Separate entrances

-At least two stories

-Linear arrangement

-Not a designated Chicago Landmark



2454 E. 106th, 1938

These are presented with minimal elaboration.  In many cases windows, porches and rooflines have been restored with ink based on whatever evidence or expertise I could muster.  There are bound to be some mistakes.

To preserve an accurate sense of proportion I've drawn the buildings in elevation.  The line drawings are then scanned and tone added digitally.  I tried to avoid perspective, although I've had to break that rule on occasion...



2901-2909 W. Granville, 1958

I won't be going into too much detail about source material, but when I use ideas that aren't my own I'll provide a reference.

For previous series I would write and draw as I went.  In this case I need to make sense of a few dozen images chosen mostly by my subconscious.  New entries will be added irregularly.  If it turns out OK I'll look into putting it on paper.

If you have comments or suggestions feel free to post below or email (larryshure at gmail dot com).  I know I don't need to say this, but all images are protected and cannot be reposted without permission.

View of the back of Mision Cristiana Elim

I'm continuing my series looking into some of the areas of the neighborhood that were never really meant to be on display.  You can't do much better than the church at Morse and Ashland.

This was originally the reform synagogue Temple Mizpah, and I've written about it a bit here.  There's a substantial parking lot on the east, which was intended to be the main sanctuary but was never built.  The result is that the building (and the block) remains forever unfinished.  

The property's unfinished nature allows for a glimpse across the parking lot and into the service areas. All of the loading and unloading spaces and mechanical accommodations are on full display. In many ways, it's more complex than the primary facade, constantly adapting to meet the owners' needs. How many more changes before it finds equilibrium? Or until the whole property converts to condos...

View from Goldberg Park

Looking up from Goldberg Pocket Park.

I'm interested in parts of buildings that were never meant to be displayed.  These are the spaces that most honestly respond to the needs of the structure and the limitations of the materials.  Sometimes these are visible when an adjacent building is demolished, but you can also walk down any alley in the city. I find pocket parks create some great viewing galleries, and sometimes even a bench.  This view from Goldberg Park is one of my favorites.  
It's really a streetscape in its own right, following a set of rules just as compelling as those which govern the finished facades. 

View at Sheridan and Pratt

View from Sheridan looking Northeast towards Pratt.

Sometimes the spaces created between buildings are just as interesting as the buildings themselves.  I'm especially drawn to taller buildings with irregular footprints and deep courtyards.  The negative space creates  complex pinwheeling shapes that most people sense, but don't consciously appreciate.

I've written about both of these buildings before.  They represent the transition of Sheridan Road from a leisurely lane lined with mansions to a more dense and urban thoroughfare.

Here are the previous posts:

6801 N. Sheridan- Rogers Park Hotel, 1922

6757-6765 N. Sheridan, 1917

 

Pratt Lane Hotel, 1927

Detail of terra cotta brackets

This building was designed by Koenigsburg and Westfeld in the Gothic Renaissance Revival style and constructed in 1927.  The ornament has always fascinated me-- and in particular the lion brackets supporting the twin projecting bays.  The first drawing I did of the building was back in 2006, but apparently that graphic is trapped on a obsolete Photobucket server.  But here's a link to the previous post.

This was constructed as an apartment hotel, which was basically a month-to-month furnished apartment with communal dining and socializing areas.  Apartment hotels would typically include a regular cleaning service.  This is an urban type that hasn't survived in Chicago (as far as I know).  The closest  approximation I can think of is an extended-stay hotel, and those are now mostly found out by the highways.

1246 W. Pratt

This building dwarfs its neighbors, and would have been one of the few to approach the permitted height increase established by Chicago's first zoning code in 1923.  I think the entire lakefront may have followed suit if it hadn't been hit by the Great Depression.  So for now it remains a crazy outlier, catching the sun all day with it's amazing glazed white terra cotta.

Stucco Bungalows on Arthur, 1915

Fifty-One Stucco Bungalows on Arthur Avenue

Republishing this with a new historic image I just found!

I've written a number of posts about collections of homes planned, designed and built by early developers in the neighborhood.  These range from a few identical cottages to more complex arrangements of alternating designs.   These small scale developments are found throughout Chicago and their quiet existence probably accounts for most of the city's small-scale speculative residential development.
On the block of Arthur Avenue with Clark Street on the east and the Union Pacific Railroad embankment on the west, there's an impressive collection of modest stucco bungalows constructed in 1915. Permit records shows that these homes were designed by Edgewater architect and developer Niels Buck, who was active in the area from the 1890s through the 1920s.  Two permits were issued, the first covering the homes on the north side of the block in April of 1915, and the second on the south side in October.

According to an article in the Chicago Tribune Niels Buck, in partnership with Herman Becker, bought 12 1/2 acres in the area for $60,000 from Jacob Rehm. The cost of construction was estimated to be $230,000, which puts the cost per bungalow around $5,600.  In today's value this would be about $134,000.  Typically a developer would work with a bank to issue bonds in the value of the loan. Investors buying the bonds received a guaranteed rate of return.  But partnering with Becker may have allowed Buck to bypass this process, making the development more profitable for both.

View from the west looking towards Clark Street, 1921

This is a great photograph of the street in 1921, before any substantial changes were made. The image is available on Wikipedia, which considers it too old to be subject to copyright.  Still, I wouldn't mind knowing where it originated...

This was a high quality development, with poured concrete curbs, walkways, sidewalks and electric streetlights.  The stucco cladding addressed building code requirements for fire resistance.

Real estate developers in the city were responsible for tying their development into the street grid of the city and extending the utilities.  Quality construction was profitable to the developer, who wanted homes to sell briskly so they could move on to their next opportunity.  And in 1915 affordable homes in Rogers Park, with its strong transit ties and proximity to the lake, probably went like hotcakes.

I've identified at least seven separate types of bungalow on the block.  Although perhaps "type" is too strong a work.  Basically these are all stucco boxes with slight variations in roofline and porch design. Originally they were all about the same in size and square footage, but the changes in massing makes the repetition of designs nearly unnoticeable.  This was an advantage of having a developer who also functioned as an architect. For those who look closely the block creates an almost perfect illustration of architectural variations on a theme.

Type I Bungalow with boulder cladding

Many of the homes on the block have since departed from the original design intent.  Enclosing open porches was common, especially after the introduction of affordable air conditioning.  Rear additions and detached garages are also common. I'm guessing garages weren't included in the original development in order to keep prices low.  Sometimes homes were expanded upward, losing the shape of the original roof but adding substantial square footage.

Stucco is a surface treatment that required maintenance, repair and sometimes replacement.  It wasn't such a stretch to replace one surface treatment with another.  The bungalow above incorporates a formstone cladding.  This was popular for home repair as early as the 1930s and probably a bit cheaper than new stucco, which required specialized skills for installation.

Type II Bungalow with renovations

This home has been altered just as much as the one above, losing the open porch and extending a new covered entrance porch.  But in this case the renovations observed some of the established patterns on the block, retaining the stucco and eave brackets and incorporating more traditional window details.

This block of Arthur represents the most extensive contiguous development I've found in the neighborhood. But I know there are many more out there.

Ad for Atlas Portland Cement Company from American Builder, May-1918.  Accessed through Google Books.

Somehow I keep finding more information about this street!  Below is page from a booklet found on Archive.org.  It even includes a fuzzy floor plan and some more detail about the construction method.  And I was wrong about the cost of the homes, which are noted to be less than $3,000, which is around $54,000 converted to 2018. Wow.

Industrial Housing, National Fireproofing Company-  published 1918.

6158 N. Richmond, 1959

Ok, getting back to my profoundly unpopular mid-century multi-family project for just a bit... 

I've written some posts about the Georgian Revival single family homes in the neighborhood which you can read here and here.    Below are some some throwback graphics from 2013, when I thought colored pencils were the greatest thing in the world.  Not sure what I was going for with the blue halo...

Georgian Revival Single Family Homes in West Ridge

As the West Ridge neighborhood developed the cost of land began to increase.  To make the investment worthwhile new construction became more dense, with more units per building. Parcels that had been less desirable, particularly on busy corners, could now be combined and developed profitably.

This 3-unit building below was constructed  on a double lot which might have accommodated two single family homes.  The developer also built a detached two-car garage, something typically eliminated from single family homes in order to keep costs down.  This is designed in the same  simplified Georgian style seen above, right down to the colonial-style windows and the gently pitched hipped roof.



6158 N. Richmond, 1959

The base of the building has the random coursed stone veneer common during the period. This is also used as the surround for a slightly projecting main entrance.  A large glass block window provides light to the interior stair.

The irregular the facade along Granville is really odd, with different windows sizes, configurations and placements.  And how about that uncomfortable-looking blank area?  It's almost as if the stylistic choice is working against the internal needs of the building. This might also explain why larger buildings began to rely on more modern facade designs, where there was more flexibility in the exterior expression. 

East Park Apartments, 1521 W. Sherwin, detail

In case you're wondering, those are holiday ornaments in the windows!

Art Deco terra cotta ornament is unusual in Rogers Park. Actually, Art Deco is unusual throughout Chicago, although there are still some great examples to be found.

According to the Chicago Historic Resources Survey this building was permitted in 1931 and designed by architect Benjamin A. Comm.  Most private building ceased after the crash of 1929, so I expect this project was funded well in advance.

What became the Art Deco style made its official appearance at the 1925 Paris Exposition.  It reflected contemporary movements in fine art, such as Cubism and Futurism, emphasizing pure geometric form and rejecting historic ornamentation.  So it's a bit ironic that same ornament has now become historic in its own right...

In 1927 the officers of the Northwestern Terra Cotta Company brought over six French sculptors to supply new designs for the company.  These became popular with architects and builders and soon the new style of ornament could be found at other terra cotta companies as well.  The use of color helped to emphasize the forms and lines of the design, which typically had a lower relief than  traditional ornament.

Some buildings designed by Benjamin A. Comm showing various styles.

Benjamin A. Comm designed a number of buildings recognized in the Chicago Historic Resources Survey.  His most interesting design (as far as I know) was the Union Park Hotel at 1519 W. Warren Boulevard.  This was designated as a Chicago Landmark in 2010, and the designation report has an nice discussion about Art Deco in Chicago, which I've cribbed from shamelessly.  But you should read it yourself!  Seriously, read it.

B.A. Comm didn't really make the cut as a "significant" architect in the report, but his work is notable from a neighborhood character standpoint.  Here are some examples using photos I swiped from the Cook County Assessor's website.  At least the Assessor is still good for something...

Sign for the A&T Restaurant, 7030 N. Clark

7030 N. Clark, Detail from A&T Diner Sign

I've been doing some drawings of building details in the neighborhood, so I thought I would take another look at my favorite sign on Greenleaf and Clark.  I've been worried about the condition of this sign since I moved to the neighborhood more than 15 years ago.  Some of the bulbs still light, but the neon looks to be damaged beyond repair.  I really hope this will be fixed, but it's more likely to disappear along with so many others of the period.

I'm trying to visualize the cost of repair, which would include a crane for removal and reinstallation,  replacing rusted sheet metal, replicating the neon, rewiring and refinishing. Not cheap.  Probably above $50,000. On top of that there's a good possibility it doesn't meet current sign code.

These signs were really scaled to auto traffic more than the neighborhood pedestrian.  Which is odd, since Clark was (and is) better suited for walking.  And just attaching this massive sign to the delicate 1913 brick and terracotta building must have been an amazing effort.

I've drawn this building and sign a lot.  Here are few I've posted previously, from large to small:

Southwest Corner of Clark and Greenleaf.  Grey tone added with marker.

A&T Sign. Colored pencil over a xerox with a digital gradient background.

Detail in colored pencil.

6151-6159 N. Fairfield, 1957

This building contains five units with separate entrances, private backyards, full basements and alley access.  It provides many of the amenities of a detached single family home but at a lower cost. Now these are condos, but many of these mid-sized buildings were originally constructed as co-ops.  At around 1,300 square feet these rival the size of the ranch homes built around the time time further to the west.

Construction is concrete block with a face brick veneer  Which really isn't that different from modern masonry construction.  Because the structural needs are provided by concrete block the exterior could be clad in a variety of ways.  Brick was the most traditional, but why not mix it up with wood, glass and stone?  Because these were speculative construction they tended towards a more traditional design, which was seen as desirable to more potential buyers.  And that's really what you see here, with a couple of interesting design exceptions.

6151-6159 N. Fairfield, 1957

The large glass blocks on the second floor likely provide light to the stairwells and give a slightly space-age look to the facade.  Glass block, which is load-bearing, was an inexpensive way to add light to a building without the expense of a window.  But because they provided light without a view they were more suited to secondary spaces, or areas where a view wouldn't have been possible or desirable.

Maybe the most ornamental treatment are the two entrance canopies supported by flaring central walls of random coursed limestone.  These cover two entrances each, and suggest outstretched wings.  Because there's an odd number of units the last one has a sad-looking half-canopy that makes you feel like the designer grumbled "good enough" and went on to the next project.  To be fair, maybe it's been altered from the original design...