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

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

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

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...