Rowhouse Chicago - Circling the Wagons

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

But now many turned away from the street, setting the structure further back on the lot and protecting 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 conveyed some of the racial and economic anxiety of the time.  My examples here are from the Mid-North and Old Town neighborhoods, where they typically replaced older building types.  The term "social control" became a common phrase for planners and developers.

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

 

In Sandburg Village, the rowhouse components were part of a larger plan that incorporated 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.  My image shows the homes' rear yards.  This portion of the development turned its back on Clark Street, creating new interior streets that could be better regulated.

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 directly into their townhouse, without encountering any intervening space. This was really a suburban pleasure brought into the city for the middle class.

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

Recently I've been looking at the rowhouse in Chicago.  This is a building type that appears again and again, from elaborate 1890s versions to low-income housing of the 1940s and geometric mid-century townhomes. 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 (I'd rather focus on less recognized stuff.)



These are presented with minimal elaboration.  In many cases, windows, porches, and rooflines have been restored (as much as a drawing can restore anything) based on whatever evidence or expertise I could muster.  In some cases, these buildings were included in the Chicago Historic Resources Survey, which included very small photos from the 1980s or early 1990s.  But in many cases, those are the only available images before Google Street View began in 2007.

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


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.

Stucco Bungalows on Arthur, 1915

Figure 1. Fifty Stucco Bungalows on Arthur Avenue

I've written several 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.  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 to the east and the Union Pacific Railroad embankment on the west, stands an impressive collection of modest stucco bungalows built in 1915. Permit records show that Edgewater architect and developer Niels Buck designed these homes.  Two permits were issued: the first covered the homes on the north side of the block in April 1915, and the second covered 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 in 1914. Construction costs were estimated at $230,000, likely including site improvements.

Figure 2. View from the west looking
towards Clark Street, 1921.

This was a high-quality development, with poured concrete curbs, walkways, sidewalks, and electric streetlights.  The tile-and-stucco construction was just as sturdy as brick, but at a fraction of the cost.

Figure 2 is a great photograph of the street in 1921, when you could still smell the paint. The image is available on Wikipedia, which considers it too old to be subject to copyright.  Still, I'd like to know where it originated...

Real estate developers in the city were responsible for tying their development into the city's street grid and extending 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.

Figure 3. A sample of the bungalow designs.

Although these were basically the same in square footage, the changes in massing and design avoid the appearance of repetition.  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.

I put Figure 3 together when I thought the block was comprised of repeating building types. But in actuality, they all seem a bit different.  And after a hundred years of modifications, it's even harder to make that conclusion.

Figure 4. 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 affordable air conditioning became available.  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 original roof shape 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 in Figure 4 incorporates a formstone cladding.  This was popular for home repair as early as the 1930s and was probably a bit cheaper than new stucco, which requires specialized installation skills.

Figure 5. Bungalow with renovations.

The home in Figure 5 has been altered just as much as the one above, losing the open porch and extending a new covered entrance porch.  In this case, the renovations followed some 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.

Figure 4. 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 a page from a booklet found on Archive.org.  It even includes a fuzzy floor plan and some more detail about the construction method.  The cost of the homes is noted as less than $3,000, which is about $54,000 in 2018. Wow.

Figure 6. Industrial Housing, National Fireproofing Company-  published 1918
and accessed via Google Books.