The Architects and the City: Holabird & Roche of Chicago, 1880-1918 9780226076959, 0226076954

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
Acknowledgments (page vii)
Introduction (page ix)
PART ONE Starting Out, 1880-1883
1 The Founding of the Firm (page 3)
2 The Partners: William Holabird and Martin Roche (page 17)
PART TWO Boom Years, 1884-1893
3 The Firm (page 29)
4 Labor Unrest and the Creation of Fort Sheridan (page 49)
5 Capital, Technology, and the Tall Office Building: The Tacoma (page 65)
6 The Skyscraper and the City: The Marquette 1 (page 101)
7 The Skyscraper and the City: The Marquette 2 (page 121)
8 Along Leafy Avenues: William Holabird's Evanston (page 145)
PART THREE Turn of the Century, 1894-1907
9 The Firm (page 163)
10 State Street in the Nineties (page 183)
11 Theme and Variation: The Loft Building (page 207)
12 Terra Cotta on State Street: The Department Store and the Tall Shops Building (page 233)
13 Golfing in the Suburbs: The Glen View Golf and Polo Club (page 255)
14 Fishing in the Wilderness: The Coleman Lake Club (page 269)
PART FOUR An Expanding Practice, 1908-1918
15 The Firm (page 285)
16 Palaces of Democracy: The Business Hotel (page 313)
17 Civic Grandeur, Civic Squalor: Cook County Courthouse and Chicago City Hall (page 337)
18 Terra Cotta on South Michigan Avenue: Automobile Row (page 367)
19 At the Corner of Michigan and Monroe: The University Club and the Monroe Building (page 389)
20 The Architecture of Communications: Buildings for the Chicago Telephone Company (page 415)
21 By Way of Conclusion: The Three Arts Club, Holabird and Roche, and the American City (page 431)
Abbreviated Catalog of Works by Holabird & Roche, 1880-1918 (page 445)
Notes (page 471)
Sources of Information (page 509)
Index (page 511)

Citation preview

vee APOMIEOCLS se vue GHEY

CHICAGO ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM A series editedby — Robert Bruegmann

Joan Draper

Wim de Wit David Van Zanten

Om OAS Dee oe Oe On. ae On &

OTHER VOLUMES IN THE SERIES Joseph Connors The Robie House of Frank Lloyd Wright Joseph Siry Carson Pirte Scott: Louis Sullivan and the Chicago Department Store John W. Stamper Chicago’s North Michigan Avenue: Planning and Development, 1900-1930 Sally A. Kitt Chappell Architecture and Planning of Graham, Anderson, Probst and White, 1912-1936: Transforming Tradition

8

—rr—e _ . Pe _ ee Pee ee ghee. ee — oo :| ~ a|.See eS >—_ 7 RR geeg rae SRE EEOC ee See Re— es ee nc Sere ae Pees eee Be.SS .Sos _Ne : -SPE - ae a .Ee :

BRS SNSen EAE San Se Ee Spacers See aes ners Bee RES ees ee PEE ge) — Pea Sec pees oo__| -; < ERS SS Se: ee ges Bae ste aos eae Bee eis. SeRSs Coe Sees ees — .S ERSe Benes igo .ee eauSeee: RSS os COU eE:eeSR oes RAE ee fs oS _ 2he “ts ae >.tye eeees eewe ee veers aeSeas ee CR Rees pes: RS: ee mews — eee aie oeea -— we eee

ee le . “ — oo ee — oS ee a 2S ie 2oe e oo — ee aeae es ee SasSe oeFee Seee es Sas eee ade. wes, : “fo Ore —RsRees pal Me ges oeeeBEC Sea foe . _Se -> i :aater C:‘ ed ueoe _ oo§Sean Spe er 8S oe ee Sea eSae Cee Soa ne ae ar Be cd See es SS Ske i Ps Oe ee 3 — Sa ORS eee ao ne aeSst ee esSee ohare ae oepe ee oe aeee ee e.. Rae aden ets Sarees ea aes eR Bees SeSe eeeee Seeee oe : —— a2g. “ons : | :| sees Seer SoS Rows — ee _ RS oo Se Sean ee oo, wo. we is ES Sie: ee oes — Be. Bn, e fe Bede ese ea he siete RS ik Bo ae sane eate Oa S ee one nee: s a| - ee Sates Sa aR Ee Seas ESSE ne wen Ege es EAs ss AS ae oe Se 8 eRe ye eh, “ Serene ts ae irae Se Poe Site Spee SES eens ee Sr a Ras Se Beas Ra REISER ek Nee Se Se See Se sre een ie

oe ee ee oe Rook Ske aaa oes Sues nce RRS beet % a PER BG Sapa eee PEER se SES ae Sh Ave.

esSk ea Bee ee Soe Bee eee BRe SS Bet eRe yaSe SeSEG eaeree Sees So uC ay SeSeay Sa sac Segsted Sea Bee PEtn! ee . S82 aes ee co . ASEES oe es Rae oe Ce Seas vy :;3ry:mse a. * Hees BeeSaBs Se ee comes set Sa See Gaetan eu: PELe ag ESsean ay Se Sean seae BAY eee os eneNSS Rs Reet ees Ree ae eSe Bs Se PSS poe BE2esSake Nae SESE eon Ss prc iaescat Seen Nea: RE Bas ares See 3eS Seon ee ign — : 3er , :

o yo. oe ese Cee 8_-. e |} ve oe | a oo oe sR oe . eee oe — oo - _ _ . 7 BS a 2S Be aa Sis A eae geRates Ss See RareSpe ENE SeanBecee a a as Rae eeoeBO a a7 es SRR ee SM ce BL Se eee Papepea nE es DasSee Se haem reurRare ers pean: oneSe ae ease Baoa oe ceaESS oe eae oe cot

Se oS he eis eaecae ees KOR SMe we ire seer oe Saas See ak Sata Rane nk Saeen Sens 7a ” : : Re RSs Pe ase SSaR aes oe| RR SOR ONS, ORO aes ewes Hee ee Seas eeSe eeBCS oe a— | SF eoSole te — ‘ eS eeeORG ote&erRae RRR BS See: eS aSes Bsos— Rae esoe— ane Be tee

aa nid : a :Bake es : _Re eeea — :— Dag aes Pg pe i © -. eae e 4SRR eseas — oo esSeSpore! esPS—Ge— Be pene et: Se ee, ree Sos eee Rea anes oe Spa See SE oe " :Rees >cece: oe eee = Sah ae eee ae See ee oe Se ge ener es. i See 3 ees ENS ws Se Raee Sheree a sere ee Ree oe Siraraatas ee een ae StSee . oeRie Bie ees_._ .eS Feat os Sees Se Be a oes Ses — Seater Sa es See anne sea Rane Se ee ee Sera ee SEED ee er Rave eee Be ete etn AS ee fe Sao aa Rs eee ee oo _ae:

Re Be rusts States See ae ee Re eae Raa eee Sha Rees PNA Re a SRR ara ta Peco RS Recs SS Sena Boe Satis Sheena ce se: ee oe See Seed Spee CEN SA ares ean Pama Ree Ren Se pe Sraens se eee Re Seon eee Se re Sea on Renee Seen Rete Re as Bs es on

SE ead Roe . -Bee 82 Bee Bee Rene oo ae aeFoe aes Poe aesaoe SS aaaSee ee as ee oe oe ESS Soe xoe- 3 oe So See Besar Surana BS a— ee es See: Sener oF ee AS ESS Be aoe SS ee ce sates

on. ae Bi BR "= dis ai oe

US

oe Bane 8. —

Works in Chicago Architecture and Urbanism are supported in part by funds given in memory of Ann Lorenz Van Zanten and administered by the Chicago Historical Society. This work was aided by a grant from the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Visual Arts.

Robert Bruegmann is professor of architectural history at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He is the author of Holabird && Roche/Holabird &8 Root: An Illustrated Catalog of Works, 1880-1940.

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London ©1997 by The University of Chicago All rights reserved. Published 1997 Printed in the United States of America

06 05 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 97 123 4 5 ISBN: 0-226-07695-4 (cloth) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bruegmann, Robert. The architects and the city: Holabird & Roche of Chicago, 1880-1918 / Robert Bruegmann.

p. cm.—(Chicago architecture and urbanism) “In cooperation with the Chicago Historical Society.” Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-226-07695-4 (cloth: alk. paper)

1. Holabird & Roche (Chicago, Ill.) 2. Chicago school of architecture (Movement) 3. Architecture—Buildings, structures, etc. I. Title. II. Series. NA737.H558B78 1997

720’ .92'277311—dc20 96-22151 CIP

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

CON TEN T S

Acknowledgments vii

Introduction ix

PART ONE Séarting Out, 1880-1883

1 The Founding of the Firm 3

2 The Partners: William Holabird and Martin Roche 17

3 The Firm ~ 29 The Tacoma 65

PART TWO Boom Years, 1884-1893

4 Labor Unrest and the Creation of Fort Sheridan _ 49 5 Capital, Technology, and the Tall Office Building:

6 The Skyscraper and the City: The Marquette 1 _ 101 7 The Skyscraper and the City: The Marquette 2 121 8 Along Leafy Avenues: William Holabird’s Evanston 145

9 The Firm 163 10. State Street in the Nineties 183

PART THREE Turn of the Century, 1894-1907

11. Theme and Variation: The Loft Building 207 12 ‘Terra Cotta on State Street: The Department Store and

the Tall Shops Building 233

Polo Club 255

13 Golfing in the Suburbs: The Glen View Golf and

14 Fishing in the Wilderness: The Coleman Lake Club 269

15 The Firm 285

PART FOUR An Expanding Practice, 1908-1918

16 Palaces of Democracy: The Business Hotel 313 17 Civic Grandeur, Civic Squalor: Cook County

Courthouse and Chicago City Hall 337 18 ‘Terra Cotta on South Michigan Avenue:

Automobile Row 367

19 At the Corner of Michigan and Monroe: The University

Club and the Monroe Building 389 20 The Architecture of Communications: Buildings for the

Chicago Telephone Company 415 21 By Way of Conclusion: The Three Arts Club,

Holabird & Roche, and the American City 431

1880-1918 445 Notes 471

Abbreviated Catalog of Works by Holabird & Roche,

Index 511 Maps 541

Sources of Information 509

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S

I)... the nearly fifteen years I have been doing research on the firm of Holabird & Roche/Holabird & Root, I have received an enormous amount of help from many individuals and institutions. I have thanked many of them in the acknowledgments

section of the Holabird & Root catalog volumes published by Garland Publishing Company in 1991. If I do not repeat this voluminous list of names here, it is not for want of continued gratitude. What I shall do below is acknowledge those individuals and groups who aided me specifically on this narrative volume. I am once again deeply indebted to the Chicago Historical Society. Without the continuing cooperation of many individuals at this admirable institution this volume would never have appeared. I thank Harold Skramstad and Ellsworth Brown, former directors, and Douglas Greenberg, director; Larry Viskochil, until recently curator of prints and photographs; Eileen Flanagan of prints and drawings; and Janice McNeill, the Society’s librarian. For their staunch support of this project for many years 1 am especially indebted to Wim de Wit, formerly curator of the Society’s architectural collections and a strong supporter of this work; Scott LaFrance, curator of the Charles FMurphy Architectural Study Center until his recent and tragically early death; Margaret Kelly, acting curator of the collection; and Russell Lewis, assistant director for research and curatorial affairs, who has been involved with this project virtually from the start and who has been unfailingly enthusiastic and helpful. I am also extremely grateful to the Society for playing host to the Chicago Urban History seminar. Over the years the dedicated efforts and intellectual hospitality of stalwarts like Russell Lewis, Michael Ebner, and Ann Durkin Keating resulted in a series of meetings that have done much to expand my urban horizons.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Parts of the manuscript, or all of it, were read by Peter Hales, my colleague in the Department of Art History at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Perry Duis of the Department of History at the same institution, Sally Chappell, recently retired from the Art Department at De Paul University, Mark Burnette of the Evanston Historical Society, and Michael Ebner of the History Department at Lake Forest College. All these people offered excellent counsel. | am also grateful to my fellow editors in the series Chicago Architecture and Urbanism— David Van Zanten of Northwestern University, Joan Draper of the University of Colorado, and Wim de Wit, formerly of

the Chicago Historical Society and now of the Getty Trust in Santa Monica—for their willingness to include this book in the series. For sharing information and insights with me or challenging my thinking about some of the issues I raise in this book I thank Daniel Bluestone, ‘Thomas Hines, Scott Jorgenson, Katherine Solomonson, Mitchell Schwarzer, Eric Monkennen, Carol Willis, Eric Sandweis, and Gwendolyn Wright. I also thank Dennis McClendon of Chicago Cartographics, who not only provided the maps for both the catalog volumes and

this project, but also played a major role in shaping the content and served as the proverbial tireless fact checker. Finally, I thank several people at the University of Chicago Press, notably acquisi-

tions editors Karen Wilson, who stood by this project for ten years, and Susan Bielstein, who saw this volume to completion, manuscript editor Alice Bennett, who performed wonders in pulling together a manuscript produced in phases over many years and making it coherent, and designer Marianne Jankowski, who created the elegant format.

viii

INTRODUCTION

1. book grew out of an effort to understand the vast and varied man-made landscape that constitutes the Chicago metropolitan area and its hinterland. I set out to _ explore aspects of this story by carefully examining the enormous body of records available for one of America’s largest and most prominent architectural firms, the organization that started as Holabird & Simonds in 1880 and has continued to the present under successive partnership agreements as Holabird, Simonds & Roche; Holabird & Root; Holabird, Root & Burgee; and finally, once again, Holabird & Root. My work on this topic started when I arrived in Chicago in 1978 to teach at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Like many other newcomers I was at once attracted and repelled by the city, exhilarated by its sheer size and diversity but dismayed by the rawness and apparent disorder. I soon became aware that my reactions were typical. For over a century newcomers have had to come to terms with a place where huge industrial buildings jostle against modest single-family houses and miles of commercial

strips and rail yards all but overwhelm the occasional park or public building. In a search for the order behind this landscape, I started to look for a topic that could serve as a point of departure for investigation. At the time, Chicago was known in architectural history primarily as the place that had created the great commercial structures of the “Chicago School” of the 1880s and 1890s, the reform domestic work of Frank Lloyd Wright and his followers in the “Prairie School” in the early twentieth century, and the modernist work of Ludwig

Mies van der Rohe and his American followers in the postwar “second Chicago School.” For reasons I did not then fully understand, these buildings and their treatment in standard histories left me unmoved, so I looked elsewhere. What caught my eye was the set of spectacular stepped-back office buildings of the 1920s, among them ix

INTRODUCTION the Chicago Tribune, Palmolive, Board of Trade, and Civic Opera Buildings. To my amazement I could find very little serious writing about them, even though when they were built they were among the best known and most discussed structures in America. It turned out that one after another of the most compelling examples were by the same firm: Holabird & Root. On further inquiry I discovered that the firm still existed and that in 1979 it had donated to the Chicago Historical Society almost all of its drawings and other records created before 1945. I went to look. Thus began a project that has occupied me more or less continuously for over fifteen years. The first step, even before the monumental task of processing all the drawings at the Chicago Historical Society was completed, was an exhibition I curated there in 1980, with an accompanying essay on the firm in Chicago History. In this exhibition and essay I tried to create a framework for discussing the work of the firm outside the traditional plot of the two “Chicago schools” and to deal with the work not as part of the evolution of “progressive” styles but as a record of intervention by the architects into the built fabric of the city. Once the show was over, I had intended to move on to other work, but in 1982 Ann Van Zanten, then curator of the Society’s architectural collections, proposed transforming the manuscript catalog of the firm’s drawings into a small published catalog introduced by a series of short essays we would write. Shortly after I agreed to collaborate on this effort but before any substantial work was started, Ann’s life was tragically cut short, and the project continued under my direction.. The more I studied the drawings and other records, and the more | searched for information about the firm in the other collections of the Society, the more I realized how important these documents could be in revealing unexplored as-

| pects of the city’s history. Both the entries and the essays mushroomed as I found the materials necessary to flesh out the historical context of the firm’s work. Soon it became apparent that the project could no longer be shoehorned into a single volume, let alone the small-format book originally envisioned. At about that time an editor at Garland. Publishing Company proposed publishing the catalog separately in a multivolume edition. After years of labor by me and by students and volunteers at the Society under my direction, the three-volume catalog Holabird & Roche/ Holabird &8 Root: An Ilustrated Catalog of Works, 1880-1940 finally appeared in 1991. It documents over fifteen hundred projects for new buildings, substantial remodelings, interiors, and furniture designed by the firm between 1880 and 1940. In these volumes I attempted to collect and summarize as much information as could be found on the firm’s commissions, using the Holabird & Root archives at the Chicago Historical Society as well as a broad array of other materials. ‘This work, primarily documentary

rather than interpretive, forms the basic underpinnings of the present project. Although this book is intended as a self-contained narrative and has its own abridged x

IN T R ODUCTION catalog, anyone interested in the full documentation for any of the firm’s buildings should consult the catalog volumes. To make this easier, throughout this book I have supplied the entry number from the catalog after the initial reference to a Holabird &

Roche project. - _ |

This book is the first of a projected two-volume set whose goal is to examine the work of the firm from an interpretive historical perspective. This volume deals with 1880 to 1918, tracing the origins of the firm, its early work, its maturation in the boom years of the 1880s and early 1890s, and the slow but steady growth of expertise in many building types in the first two decades of the twentieth century, all under the leadership of the founding partners, William Holabird and Martin Roche. ‘The second volume will cover the years from 1919 to the early 1940s, including the work of the firm during the boom period of the 1920s, the lean years of the depression, and the war years. During the period covered in the second volume, the firm was dominated by a second generation of partners, including John A. Holabird and John Wellborn Root Jr. At first glance some of these dates may seem arbitrary. Ending this volume at the

end of World War I, for example, might seem illogical, since the founding partners both lived into the 1920s, John Holabird until 1923 and Martin Roche until 1927, and it was not until 1927 that the firm name changed from Holabird & Roche to Holabird & Root. But the name change only made official a transition that had been in progress since the mid-1910s, when the next generation first entered the office, so I have chosen to end this volume with World War I and start the second volume with the return to the office, immediately after the war, of the young men who would lead the second generation. Likewise I have used 1945, the date of John Holabird’s death, as the cutoff for the second generation, even though John Root lived until 1965. This reflects the fundamental changes that appeared in the firm and in the city in the postwar period and the cutoff date of the Holabird & Root donation to the Chicago Historical Society.

Organization and Goals of the Book I have tried to link two fields of study that I feel ought to be close cousins but in practice have been distant relatives. As | became increasingly aware in preparing this book, the rift between architectural history and urban history runs deep and presents a formidable challenge to any project of this kind. Much of the “urban history” of the past several decades has grown in response to the crisis of the central cities in the post-World War II years. Historians of the city xi

INTRODUCTION have been especially keen on identifying and exploring what is specifically “urban” in the development of our metropolitan regions. ‘They have concerned themselves with what they felt were the most fundamental elements that generated America’s great cities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, then left them vulnerable in the postwar years. Because of this interest, their focus was largely on the city center and on the elements in it that survived from the traditional industrial city. They have been less interested in what happened at the periphery of the metropolitan area. In addition, because the training of historians focuses primarily on social, political, and economic forces, on the printed word and the statistical table, they have often given short shrift to the fabric of the Euilt environment. Buildings, whether the apartment blocks along Haussmann’s boulevards or the early office buildings of late nineteenthcentury Chicago, are usually presented as illustrations of the effects of more basic historical forces. With a few notable exceptions, historians have tended not to see the design and construction of buildings as integral parts of the city’s development. Modern architectural history, on the other hand, grew out of a completely different set of concerns. Heavily influenced by the theoretical ideas of nineteenth-century art history, one branch of architectural history has been concerned with categorizing buildings according to either their aesthetic merit or how they fit into a great chain of stylistic development running from the pyramids to Versailles to the Villa Savoye. Another strain exhibits a strong impulse to see buildings in moral terms. Does a given building honestly express its function, its structure, the age in which it was built? Out of the effort to reconcile these often conflicting goals, much of recent architectural history has tried to correlate “progress” in programmatic and technical means with a succession of “progressive” styles, usually the creations of single, heroic designers. Once the canon of approved works was established, the architectural historian could go back to recover some of the social and economic factors that led to the production of a given building. But these factors, it was clearly implied, could never get to the heart of the design, since the role of art is to transcend the specific circumstances that led to it. Because what was important and less important was already determined, moreover, the architectural historian’s task was to flesh out the details of a story whose main lines were presumed to be known. The result has been a dramatic split between the city as seen by a historian and the city as seen by an architectural historian. Many of the biggest or most prominent structures in any American city barely appear in architectural history, and many of the major monuments of architectural history are extremely marginal in the tale told by

, the urban historian. The Holabird & Roche buildings most discussed in modernist architectural history were usually relatively inexpensive speculative structures at the fringes of the Loop that could be classified as belonging to the Chicago School. Alxii

IN T R OD UCTION though these buildings were not unknown to discerning viewers at the turn of the century, they did not for the most part elicit much comment, even in the architectural journals. Many other Holabird & Roche buildings from these years that are barely mentioned in modernist architectural history, on the other hand, loomed large on the cityscape. Few Chicagoans were unaware of the LaSalle Hotel, the Boston Store, or the Cook County Courthouse and Chicago City Hall. In trying to place the buildings of Holabird & Roche more firmly within the realm of urban history, I have paid little attention to many of the matters that have most engaged architectural historians. For example, I have made relatively little attempt to attribute designs to individual designers. Except in a few cases, this practice does not seem particularly fruitful. To say that Martin Roche “designed” the Tacoma Building is fundamentally misleading. Holabird & Roche, like many large twentiethcentury commercial architectural firms, was organized more like a business office than an artist’s studio, and almost all projects were the product of many hands. Although Martin Roche himself undoubtedly drew much of the ornamental detail for the Tacoma, evidence makes it clear that his partner William Holabird, as well as the client, Wirt D. Walker, the contractor, George A. Fuller, an elevator manufacturer, and a terra cotta salesman all played large roles in its creation. I hope that these essays will suggest something of the daily operation of the firm and how its members engaged with all the other players involved in creating the built environment. This book is meant to be a set of interlocking explorations into the operation of

the architects in the city. The Holabird & Roche material is ideal for this purpose because it covers so many building types with such extensive documentation. Although the high office building must be part of this discussion, many of the most illuminating building types have rarely appeared in architectural histories. The telephone switching station and automobile showroom provide fascinating evidence on the search for an appropriate expression for new pieces of the urban fabric. The design of a major military installation or a large city hotel illustrates the process of city building in miniature, since each constituted its own small world. The work at the Glen View Golf and Polo

Club or the Coleman Lake Club in northern Wisconsin provides a rare glimpse of the architects at the intersection of work and recreation. Writing this work presented substantial conceptual and organizational problems, in part the result of the immense scale of the enterprise. Between 1880 and 1940 Holabird & Roche was responsible for thousands of commissions, some built, others remaining on paper, ranging from tombstones and boiler room alterations to entire industrial and institutional complexes. Holabird & Roche worked on programs as diverse as racetrack grandstands and public housing projects, for sites all over the country and abroad, often making it difficult to imagine that the projects were all the work of

x

INT ROD UCTION the same architectural office. Yet there was clearly a kind of unity. After some acquain-

tance with the firm’s work, it is often not hard to pick out its other buildings, even when the buildings seem at first glance quite different. The great challenge was to convey some sense of this unity and at the same time to point out the particulars that best illuminate a specific time or place and shed light on the city building process. To deal with this problem, within each of the four major divisions of the book a chronological chapter on the organization, personnel, and business practices of the firm is followed by a set of detailed explorations of particular issues. [hus the chronological chapters (1, 3, 9, and 15), form a self-contained narrative. Each of the other chapters is organized around one or more specific topics. Some deal with the development of a given building type: for example, the department store on State Street in the years 1890-1910; others explore the workings of the real estate market, as in the creation of the speculative office building; still others trace the role of clients like the Chicago Telephone Company; the changing character of specific areas of the city like the corner of Monroe and Michigan; or the importance in Chicago history of a single landmark structure such as the Cook County Courthouse and Chicago City Hall. I hope by this method to balance the need for narrative unity with the possibility of extended exploration into topics that cannot fit within any single plot line. Another problem sprang directly from the nature of commercial architecture. Commercial architects, like all architects, functioned in part as artists. They tried to make their buildings beautiful as well as useful. But if they wanted to stay in business, they also functioned as businessmen. Like many businessmen, members of the Holabird & Roche firm did not feel it was in their best interest to indulge publicly in speculative musings or make known their aesthetic reactions to the work of their own firm and others. There are only a few scraps of evidence on what anyone in the firm thought

about the important architectural issues of the day—or about any subject, for that matter. I have tried to piece together what fragments I could find to give some sense of these men, but in the end access to them must be primarily through a close reading of their buildings. My desire to discover something of the point of view of the authors

behind the works has reinforced the decision to talk about minor as well as major buildings in the firm’s oeuvre. Sometimes a tiny bank in a rural area can reveal more about its creators than a skyscraper in the Loop. This, then, is a book about how the partners and employees at Holabird & Roche operated in the urban realm, how they used Chicago, its central business district, its neighborhoods, its suburbs, and its vast hinterlands as a place to build a career and make a living, to engage in civic and cultural activities, and to find relaxation and relief from urban pressures. It is about how their work shaped the city and how it reflected XIV

INTRODUCTION some of the most important forces in urban life during the years between the late nineteenth century and the end of World War I. It is a study of the architects and their city. One final point. I have tried to present the work of the architects from the standpoint of their own time and, whenever possible, to describe how their buildings were

seen and judged at that time. I attempt to show, for example, that the fixation by modernist historians on the few relatively undecorated loft and office buildings of the 1880s has led to an unbalanced picture of the work of the firm and the way it was received in its own day. But it is useless to suggest that I have achieved objectivity, a goal as futile as it is naive. The past is a shifting landscape that is seen anew by each successive era, and it is obvious that few scholars would engage in a study of this magnitude without a definite point of view. In case my own program is not immediately clear, let me state at the outset that I greatly admire both the work of the firm and the city it helped create. 1 believe, moreover, that the kind of architectural history that elevates the reputations of single iconoclastic creators over those of firms like Holabird & Roche, which were responsible for substantial portions of our cities, in the end demeans both profession and city and alienates the public. A book like this might be seen as a defense of the existing order of the city. It is true that the kinds of buildings designed by Holabird & Roche and presented here were commissioned by a relatively small segment of the American population, the segment that actively controlled day to day much of the production and wealth of the country. But I hope no one will read this work as an unthinking apology for the firm or for the American upper middle class it served, or as a call to return to some former golden age. The changes in Chicago during the years covered by this book were enormous, and they were often achieved at great cost. Although there is now a certain nostalgia for the city in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it was far from being a golden age. Even more than most American cities, Chicago was often harsh and turbulent in its social and political environments as well as in its physical and climatic ones. It cannot be denied that the attitudes of just such upper-middle-class citizens as William Holabird and Martin Roche, by upholding the status quo, could be considered partly responsible for the class dissension, labor unrest, and environmental problems of these years. I do not want to downplay these problems. In this book the labor trouble that in part led to the creation of Fort Sheridan, the invasion by commercial buildings of South Michigan Avenue, one of Chicago’s most prestigious residential areas, the widespread fear and resentment aroused by big buildings put up in the speculative frenzy of the 1880s and 1890s, and even the deforestation of the landscape of northern WisxV

INTRODUCTION consin by Chicago lumber interests are all episodes connected in one way or another

with the commissions of the firm. ee And yet for all these problems, Holabird. & Roche and its clients were engaged _ in an optimistic enterprise. They felt that the problems of change were temporary and were more than offset by the great increase in opportunities for all citizens. Certainly the architects and their clients created buildings that most citizens from that day to this have found both useful and aesthetically pleasing. For all its faults, the American political and economic context they worked in made possible, if not a golden age, at least a remarkable variety of living, working, and recreational environments. No previous society in history boasted more choices and chances for the population at large. Thus readers should feel free to see this book as a reminder of how design professionals and other citizens can operate in what appear to be chaotic and disturbing times yet create a built environment that can serve the needs of the present and future with dignity and grace.

xvi

BLANK PAGE

Part

: . .— — fe Se ee *, re fFGeo =.ag gg ee See — i— lel die; Be ee ee ee so a3 a Sas ae oF ee ee eS ae a r. ee. 43 Rh 20 Pee ON oea= ge pe§ee ee Ee ee ce

DoFRYAH Uh 7UBT ghd Rardin ‘BeaBaas ane : Mh ee Pepe GL top aARE To Bh GS 2GS SeBE a re aSS ae REE SE eM Ope te RE TEI eeROT ae ee ae ee aets ee RPS os -| . “ ee ant aice can .ae . a oN Es Soe Sere ceTRS SESE eR a ee CeeEE eeuBy REE ae mE OSS :wor-;ve : ee AatHERS RR ee ee ee aoiPaee —ee “oe ag

a:7. 5ee cote PR eeseES ghee 2. ce Le cee aseeree ees ee. eS etmae oeeeBees 2SAE ee oe, on ch. Sie eee oe PMee eoee SS,cee ee a.

ee. fF. i oe ‘ 2 eee eee sao a ee Re ERE EE OR ER SME ORG ee

: an SOS See ear ee tae a oe RR " ge, 2&3 oe es See i

~~ a Re er FS oe os Se ue ee lrES Sg a eeeSee weCyoe a rr ts.—C—“ COO. pe ee ge ee ‘Sy Su F Sena ee ee ee PS iSI oS Sees bog ee Be eR ie teSaaee i "SR ae aeea: ee ee. Bee geag eS a ee NS ee ee Ca, Ce Ps . SE A SR SaeS eS een Bereta a. Ie Se BSce a ee eeoe ae 4CG *Fg ge peaesee RR See Pe ge . eee Sy, Oe Pe SS ee oe eet ae So”. eS ae a ee ee Os eee. > S,- eeee Geee rr Pga Beare a aeeeeeoS.eee es eeeSePRR Fe Sie ES se SRS PIC ARNO. aE, S. Se i enee: RESee a sation oo aSe ge ee Re Siete 2 eS Baw Bea SF se. ae Bh eaeSRR ae = oF ee ee Poe we ont Sa cae a SE ORR - RR ES BESS i RS RS ee a errs wae Re ae BOR AR Sake SO . Pease Semen Se Sg a Recta, toe ae ts’eae eo oeBa . aeS aeSS 3NR 5oe ceeeFa ssie,SS — bop = OOgee eeecee ara emer aS eeaieeS Se‘Sepa oe ae eeeeae oeeees eee ee 8mes

Bees CS a? _ 4 ee ee Se: SR eS x Bin BOE Soa Ss BR gS SO ge SRR eas ees Soc bes pS MIR RR . : Se agate ERP aS, ee Re Li IO RRR Re RE SRN. slag Twenees 2sEEN ES RRS SE oe NS Tee ae 2a eed ages. SR SN BRER RES ee Sa oe a Pie rc aay Pe me. ae ar Ee es:ee oe ee Oa BY ERS SERS ORES SR BO Re aaed ae | SR eRe Pe aeee Ae ASeRR ee eeSe rc —COisSOisCOW re a. ; a NES ER NG ae eee Sige oe oeRea Rs SE Sas ee aNVe ERS RE. .ORB RR eeeSRR TE RS ee eee etee eeeENE ea, (pri Neea Se ee es Ry Se ay RS: notes. RR, es See Re ee ee ey ee eC Bee Ze LIS RS SSae f/RO MMMMOOR ERee ee eeSg eeeee Se| ee os RE SS SRE Re ee Ge ee NE ee Ree RR ee eeSOE ge” SS SSS BEE oi)SL SESS ESee ea eo 24 . a =. ek . -aeShh ee 2Re ESN RO RE AENS ee [RR Be 3aeS eea SRR BES EE RS BES RR Pe Nr cone a ER SE oo IRR RR EE er 2ee EO oe CS . Se Nae? as — ee Hes _.,. ee a ee SR ee a ea eee Ne ON ON aN ayo 0 eek: ae a em ee ce Roemer en amSSA aseTa SONS ‘ BREESE a. 2SR CES EeENSS ESS. es oe $ aREooTERS oF SR — ceeee Ee See Nee ce RRREE RRSSS OSGe or eR ESEN SR orRg RNS SOO EO RR eeSSHS RO RR ee NUE : :_§sake — —rt—“‘_iOCCOWCOC—C—.—CCUCCNDnANANRERQA§GCE§§$ ss LC *s iC Cc— rr—“‘ CCC

ES Re ee ee EF ee 2 oo ee Be Dece ME OE, AO # ee en ee ee .ieee oo ate =... oe eS ae " . ee PH Ce ae ccs esr . : Eee ee

Ee | : RR _ ; eto ; + ae: '

Piss AF, uas 5 im GR‘ESS ah * ee “wae one 5)3.\;MAT me See = -? ee canoe: .: st\ re sinh~

® bor) a ae re i 2

be: —; y| eta.eR) : a-€. Wo a iezaz* ome 47?1tae imaPe Rand, McNally andofCompany, aw “le i a| aae4B.py ona 1886. University Chicago

| | © + sae wis Library.

STARTING OUT, 1880-1883 The rapidity of Chicago’s growth is apparent from the window of the railcar. Entire neighborhoods are under construction as development leapfrogs outward, rushing forward in some places while bypassing other areas altogether, thus sparing their rural character. Even in neighborhoods built up all at the same time, development is uneven. In some neighborhoods single-family houses sitting behind large or small front yards adjoin apartment buildings and shops that come all the way out to the lot line. Some houses have bridges from the sidewalk to a raised first floor, reflecting the city’s decision in the 1850s to raise the street level above Chicago’s mud. In the finer neighborhoods, deed covenants and neighborhood pressure have led to more coherent rows of masonry houses, lining the streets in a display of ample means and love of comfort.’ The most remarkable characteristic of Chicago to many easterners was the large number of single-family detached houses. Although many were modest onestory flat-front cottages on small lots, they represented a momentous American social revolution. They signaled the development of an urban pattern in which a high percentage of the middle class could aspire to a single-family house, an option that had until recently been almost exclusively the domain of the wealthy. Extending in fingers from the business district are dense areas crisscrossed by railroad lines and filled with factories, warehouses, and other industrial establishments. These almost always inspire awe. “Huge, misshapen buildings appeared in flat spaces, amid hundreds of cars. Webs of railway tracks spread out dangerously in acres of marvelous intricacy, amid which men moved, sooty, grimy, sullen, and sickly,” is Hamlin Garland’s description in Rose of Dutcher’s Coolly.* Interspersed with the industrial areas are the famous ethnic working-class neighborhoods such as Bridgeport and Back of the Yards that provide the workforce for Chicago’s immense industrial machine. Then there are the slums, areas crowded with brick and frame tenements, devoid of amenities, housing thousands of the city’s poorest residents.

.|

Finally, the train crosses the no-man’s-land of rail yards and freight houses to reach the edge of the central business district and railroad terminals. Leaving the train, the traveler joins the crush of people surging out of the cavernous train sheds onto the street. Near the station are hotels, warehouses, and other buildings catering to arriving and departing travelers and freight. Closer to the center of the Loop are loft districts where five- and six-story utilitarian brick warehouses form a tight semicircle to the north, west, and south of the central business district. A few blocks, and the traveler is at the very center of the Loop, the tight core of the business district created by the cable car circuit and later defined by the elevated railway lines. Here there are government buildings with stone facades along Clark and Dearborn, office buildings, department stores, and hotels farther east along State, Wabash, and Michigan.

THE FOUNDING OF THE FIRM The overwhelming impression is of movement and activity. In the Loop everything is congested. Pedestrians pack the sidewalks. The streets are filled with horsedrawn carriages, freight wagons, street railway cars, cable cars, and people everywhere, all in a hurry. “America is energetic, but Chicago is in a fever. It does not rest one moment, but goes on, on—ever ceaselessly ahead—to buying and selling and getting , gain. Everything is rapid, everything is keen. There are hardly any idlers on the streets. Everyone has an object in immediate view—and is walking fast to reach it,” Englishman C. B. Berry wrote in 1879.’ Chicago in 1880 was a noisy, exciting place, where anything seemed possible except to find time to reflect on the rush of events, their causes, or their consequences. In this tumultuous young city was founded, in 1880, the architectural firm of Holabird & Simonds.

644°. ..OLa0IN . | . .amily . 1.2 | Tee.

William Holabird

William Holabird, the elder of the founding partners, was born in Amenia Union, Holabird family t Duchess County, New York, in September 1854, one of three children of Samuel Drawn by John A. Beckley Holabird, an officer in the United States Army, and Mary Theodosta Grant =x, ),47,7 Irs detail Holabird.*° Young William apparently spent his childhood in St. Paul, Minnesota, redrawn by Dennis while his father occupied posts around the country as he rose through the army ranks.11. = McClendon, 1996. Samuel Beckley Holabird 1826-1907 married 1849 to

Mary Theodosia Grant

Agnes Theodosia Holabird Mary A. Holabird William Holabird |

Agnes TheKurowsky Mary A. Willian Holabied Paul von married 1875 to

,7 . Maria Ford Augur

Mary Holabird Cornelia Baird Holabird -RobertGrantHolabird © Jane AugurHolabird John AugurHolabird William Holabird, Jr.

married to married 1902 to married to married 1917 to

William M. Cruikshank Leona Van Epps John Towne Dorothy Hackett

Mary Cruikshank John Towne | William Towne

Margaret Holabird William Holabird Jean Holabird Christopher Holabird

‘1904-1992stSCS 1918-1929 1927-

H&R fen members and ‘John Augur Holabird, Jr.

: STARTING OUT, 1880-1883 Samuel Beckley Holabird’s career was eventually capped in 1883 by his appointment as quartermaster general of the army with a rank of brigadier general. In this position he would secure his place in military history by inventing the pup tent and the canvas fatigue uniform. Despite a modest army salary, by the 1870s Samuel Beckley Holabird was quite affluent, if not wealthy, perhaps the result of trading in the New Orleans cotton futures market.”

William graduated from St. Paul High School in 1871. In 1873 he entered West Point, probably with some help from his father. His career at the Academy was far from smooth, judging from the scanty evidence available. He was expelled once, according to Holabird family legend, for rowing across the Hudson to Garrison, New York, the prototypical saloon town that seems to be found near all military installations.’ He was reinstated, apparently again with his father’s help, only to resign in 1875 in the wake of another disciplinary action. According to a much later account, William resigned because he had been “angered by being disciplined for breaking a camp rule to aid a sick comrade.” It is likely that this version of the story was obtained from the Holabird clan and represented the accepted, if perhaps selectively remembered, family oral tradition. A second, unauthorized version has William resigning “in order to get married.”'* This appears more likely. It is known that William met Maria Ford Augur, known as “Molly,” in New Orleans during a visit to his father, who was by then a lieutenant colonel and quartermaster general of the Louisiana Department. William and Molly, who was herself the daughter of an army officer, apparently had a short and tumultuous courtship. The were married on 29 December 1875." After his marriage William immediately moved to Chicago, possibly because his father was being sent there as chief of the Military Division of the Missouri, a job he held until 1878.’ William undoubtedly already knew Chicago, however, since he would have changed trains there on trips from St. Paul to the south and east of the country as his father moved from place to place. He was also influenced, no doubt, by the reputation that post-Fire Chicago enjoyed as a splendid place for ambitious young engineers. William promptly applied for and, on the basis of his engineering training, got a job with William Le Baron Jenney.’” By choosing to work for Jenney, he threw in his lot with a man who was still in his forties but already provided a serious challenge to the established order in the Chicago building world. Schooled at the Ecole Centrale des Arts et Manufactures in Paris, and with extensive experience as an engineer in the United States Army, Jenney was much more highly trained than pioneer designers like W. W. Boyington and John van Osdel, who had dominated practice in the city before and just after the Chicago Fire.’® Although there is considerable debate about his personal sophistication and artistic ability, Jenney was undoubtedly a highly competent 8

Pee itis Bw eeae HR, SIRs I . EO ste SO eS 2 ees Pe ern atone aeF |ioe aEeees aa EE ES ee ee Ae Ee 8 eee U sean Nbs!EEO ee, ee hee Petbmoests —eae O 5oS oeot Pe es i See es ra oe "f Bese Roe es atest E FIR We es bo ee ee eeNanas oe “eget or ee eS Re ee Fg ath TTR Ee Beemer A ae ERE ay tigets 1 edeneee ey afte po ea ee RS Se seoaoa nan cessenseansnssnass G Eee ee tee AE Ry re Se aotamir Nea ees Bee Ree IRS Se Benguet hy ieaon ee He Song ge Se eA yo. Sleee a cee Ss as RNa eC RRM TREN Bats een snEcon sc ‘OS Ree SiBi aenoittiin teens, " |SSID Soedie3 tne . ita i SEO ond ck Rescpconenotagcapss ee Nee tianan te Sos pgs By Pag?weg $e BR ‘ eats ee en SS pe gunemnsnnenrn i S*

eee ee a Se rer re Le ee Rep, he Nee a tee gt ERE, ER. ee ia eae Oe ee

geGee SNe Boost, cae re ie ca 2aBaSP Se co tah ager gon ER Boe Se Re ee aPtatSAPCTS eS RE oe Bee cath feraeiese ee ee ete AS ee& Seomtned aMtge a ae os pan aewoes ae aBe gee FoeHE S ie aneehe eee saamecameamonsasse ok: eae es saben oeBeBh SE Been ET Ete ADR ages SE a ee SR cee aerig EE RSE ahhee ne A Where ty LETTE es SS RHE Be Se cae re Sha oeNS Si SSF. Bah SS Es hea ak FUR eee gyre daeng eT woe eeBeg ge ee ssh age es ea Rs eae Sees SE BS SO RS BA cnnJB gBek teee teater Faifei ENE Se SP Saag ETre OS tsaeSages ae Reine moibostetiseSns ees BEE onlin, ae Ba Pree Oe nee Pgh s,RON Baga SSS RX vd Eta ig afeeeoeseee a PR ghee vagagetenge asrapaoesanontas Renee eede?ier es ape comatt eg PE ce iolsence eeportant SER he Fee Pera aSts a EP OOSSs SEE Beatie, oak oo Ege a se aneASaaa ee eee SCO wee aae og ee Be Ro ease .,aa Saeed art TS ee. “eBe ee Ce ysBehan PB Re ae SUCeee theonByoe Peaaaee eeseewees ee eat oe, eoSeats See ae ee ae Ne healaat, apy PEEP . #Beee whee. ga yercerrncrctenctsbitionts gS DR US ¢ :we ooON cane Seth 25 BS Pe es othe See aa Se Pa ne BP ES SEEM teeee ee ae— a. aa SER BS acute Oe feoAve eB hoanee wv i RON Oe cca ata Diiocs gba. O a ety “shot a BRE

ee ae: cahee whe, 2 BP ag a 0eeee | Ma a se i fags ae Ea corel Nessa ee aPe — Baalae gee ey 23 es2Bape UM toe |ceBae *Be be eee 2. aetye a7 ee ee eees ooieSa eae ics. festa Tigee. NE me ABgee ay PE ooaepeers Ree es 2 co Soy Yeo. | ee edeaad aTea RE of nn he Me “aig!etWie roe eS peg ..-—) | eeae 3 ee rae = es, ‘ehae WES PeBR CLee See Me Ace. ee eleRES eOS Studd ioe gage 2Ped eeIstpx eeeeSe Oe aeNR Be A ee ae ee ie.pgs -wing FB tetSiena eg ll es speed ceeds. soSeBR aosSs aeeee ee Toh Oe5.aene ody | ae Sepia CScae BeaahBRO a epi Sete eeaSh See eee weygate aoe ‘ hy .tage Sac CRN aca Racsiesrt Sees eSwef POS Tests. wee eens esRO CO REee a eee BO a sia SSS fad we Ae i cae wyas~eR ae aes wpe ree neg a

ste oa Pe ene oo ce Tae Sat pies “y Sea SRR $i RE Re RC oi ss Se ena oe APg aeSS SORae Sea commits ang Degg eng a og, nee a wat eR “de Pd 3S(Ra SS eases oe s Ee SES es.aaa ee es ga iea em eee We eecagCae BiBORE iesaORoe eased Toa SES eeaeRea me 3.0, ise EeEX, Se weegot eee ge eke EES ee ina EB eeagON ee ee way EE yyOe ernaabas eRSee SN

|esSeeee we 5ORESPE aoegS as Be oes Sey ee eeoeSc. Se SRG ee sy es ere BY ae eee Sc a SOEee BR oa OES Re eee SRS Seee Se tSBe OER. So SOR eeaRR RR Fo ge atBe eee eapn Na oe Neen eeeBM Pe ree ee wot 4 BtBaye Nes PSE RoyBee oe BO. B ieee oes eS ce Loe eS oa a See © ape ee pee eeONS ee sae Ce RE ON he ie Cog RO ee Set. ie aae SeaPe cee ee ee See ee eo RE ES aBRE aeeae eae Perr ee aea estas, ieee te,ossort Be Ue aBeteHs Eee SARSeas eg ok es igey PS SE eg 8 ge Beasian Ser oe ORNS BR eote eegee Berio Sy catesbs EPcae PaRe ohne Se engeeee Ps SoeSP Naud: ge ik eee, CS. Ee Bi iere Re So Seren “thks,FO et eenage eeES ae eae RRS |eree BN ceIG eeAS 2S JSee eee fe RR SE eee ies pee reee aech ag ee Re eee: oe aes — oft 4 eo PE re pc es a ie Ea Re oS Bere: “ye oy are es Se SR SoS Be go! REA a RI pea PERE cs ee 2g ORE ae Pe aa ee oes So" ae ener a ae GS Seg gems cps 2 a an ch, BR SNS Rue 3, Eeee eeRe Neer cae ee ee aeecemee Ne Oe Boe. _ 2 3g” ee! Stic & gs Se BSR onSe aa 1Serres Se ee Ene eySyOFS SPSS eea Nae peg oe ee Le oe ES. Brinig ‘aS ei ee Se OR ie i eee ec, Means et bt Shes as Bee RON SER agRss PERS GEOR wsBae ls aaa Ca, as REE a SE a Peake: RE neeeeaeee:asee Sas “tie ah) Sc: EResNS oe oe ee Ree eS FS Bee Roane sees asec BOS ae Grice apeBa “gg ca: oe SS ee pe 2Seoe eeeaoie ® 62 a a Bet BE atPrince Bat Ha

Ee ce Pe ae ee. i te eeeeee Ro es8ees OD sRS. soe woe Sa ee eh Eones 2 (oe a |PvE ce aa... WM Ba se=ee, 4gae— AG

Ribs canes Seen pss ee Pe a aeWs neSoe coBG eeet. ee eeeeesee 2 ee co a’ aS ieeeSESE OT ee a ie, RR in eg Aras von oo OE ee ae ee eee eeeeaee igi eSPee . ee sO? S: enAS Pesci. * oo ReOe eee ee ote age Ra 1tee aSae em Seaee aneg Ped gsEEER ce WRU GREE Soshe ae ee pe ae ey Be.ee §ee :| oe ee eee Se eo: [_— i oF iaenag Bacau’ er Le gee os yroSES a.ee ee ee aae enemas ere ctpe POR ak. ee Se eerra Qe ee eePageg wishes 2S, eed wetgeotat aT 1eee ES aes Segee eee ee eerce ee ee x:Paes ge ES eeee "at Beee: eS Eo ae es ; BSA Mer. Pv ais PRP SF a ce eR pea: oe ee CS oe : are. ieeHt ne ee ae gaara: Fo sas nas tuSO REE Ae Cl eS, SS aPn Rae Se. aLE aees wit EET ES eae oe Bese coe ¢ae eR ' Bi eS cas Ree eae 3SSeS RE PEE osoe, PR SARS Se Rae Hate — Ea Be J Sane iiiREE, ea eee SE Opeee phys AR Rte ASSES CHGS a Scat Sa oe pe Re‘Sere “a, Late... een | SARE easSS EOS Soe eeeee “in, Sgtes eed SRS seater Cae Rees RE SESS Eto pee Tee sgge GRR aes Sees aoePo: Coe ig REA AGMa, aePaLae a OE Eh ie Le was, eS ee SeNg SS RS oe ea ,ee aeaSu re cee ea MRE, a ee 3aees ae , see Bin, asNS BES a: paar Sone SE Se aren Tee, FEI, otees aSE SOR RS FeOME aCe Oe EE oeon OS oes Pee eae ceecae ie See” -EREEREE 3 tag Se aES esaape gee PRE a SS Secas SR REstare aaghee ES at Pe EE ot ES ie aRE Aaa gee 8 Re woe ysBes Se eae Baeg ae Rae. ieSEEMS fF‘Seems aSe Betty oS 5ee tees. Reg EES oeCe ES Eile ee et i' Se EES Sao Se Rar PEER pacaais PO i Wo ae Pa ee eat oe cp Beg ORR Tete otaBy tia: pee ees eee een it nS nee4SePEO Het at She ee : Bo, pcSee eee - LL leOES seect SERet age ee che 7 gaa eo coed aea7 Sean en oe a ee Sohemeamees Ee Se ee — ean geoeeerie ae ee pee a:Ce Bee se TheBOS OS ORS Meg eR eeeyaeeas ESah,Oe ae en Bk aefe Ro ee SSACacegee Bes De EESae OP,ct PO eee Se dl Pepice ake oe Penis Ne Bee Beet OO $5 RE x CES SS See Sone cent Oe As, Bee hee aege ;Big See leek aw od eyBSE cee we Po ee Se=. oe fraeerrer, PS ear: eo absae ee BES PO ee atseeneerioy pienononomneneccererree EN ane “pase ee er MS .

‘ xem SES Apes, satei oe. eee — beg eeSoC ee Ste ge ieee a ce AES arteae isRaed, on eg wee tt , :ttoka Be wey ve .Coes :avsrn re ESbigae Rey Se pet Wragg eisee a Rg tees iat“Eo arMe :,eS =,apee cate meen aavy S 3s. VE” “fie aee apa te Bee itenage Paeae aeaywee Se Pewter atfete, aeot ‘es% yo. . éoot .‘pet ot:wih .woe Btones age Para 24tte” Bs. Sy Fe “adie Shs we Soe 2Lee bacon peu ieoy i ages, Seiad witwoe Met... AEE op %:..ae a:. .. eo wo nS BAY 3ba SY BaeBSS Pray,et Beane ketbaghiids wes SEee a EE ee Siea gt Bite Saad wg eS es] wtwe cee Ba = peorr.amnarnt, . fs yh : 7aa oy y.aran pe *eewt OE oot ne es Pan eal ih ngs Be we esBE catty PO Bee we gree ,: .kemS :a: ee en BE eaoepea aE ae aaa sage : aAree? eePRS. wie, Beta $n Be Sek .aoe BE ; . ot“oe aeuwe sane Pei Pasoree SS? ES “hehe ata Ss By FS Ca 3 io ge Fe geen, Ee wg Agt nF &heyo, SEE ° :ee awe tag teas Bisa es aEte. nbecabadan Bens Beas wee iaigntt gk We na Te nee onFeee Sot tyfos” 7: ”o.~ri = ---an eeetere 3 co: ‘ 3 : aog Oe J ee eae hows ager. | ee r et ee eas” Aa ae wen eb cone ee we, HSE. ra, Sok Clg See eS ar ae na Me yet coaept Por! Tanfe SB ti”iad So ec es tc Bihan, 2g A aes PageLB PeStes an 3Sogee amennetng ‘ ey wee ages 1SEE RF Bites *aeme ES Bs aeePe. ooion eae taht Gi iaa RBs es Bie Ay ag eee ts ‘ae Bs we Doe ‘ ¥enw SY er a. . + ue_Aee ar "Yor oe #_ : Se ute

' Me ::jTF = .aoty bk ee” 2 ae | ae -_— : ‘thee > eipk

> #“ “=._SU te oj Hamo aya /1gn / SY oe eq Se EET aN f.

: tg os % hee ~~ ; “ = “Al S Sh £ rhe oie, . Hh 7 e fs “+ Le) ‘ j ; . Cee 5 ‘ is ig r) 2% a? ee ei teAe ef AR < woe orth aa I r Sed - me/ ,} 24 % Of gt ‘fs 7 Pr Biep ey, £ Y OP OAR ig *,ot. .age aS oe meee Oe

A Aa 00 EyBg,Za PeEN TE ERE SSR=> IR SREgd a ae

a (“Seep

ee —— et . Fe yi wes Ra, ¢ y ¢ % em i je ; a“ ‘M4 +. aye : a SJ

z 4 “a 2 we if " " 4 YS. eee-2Ge ee ee | : f.j wy ——: z=,| i.SS'

gia | Pag ON ae — ho 2 | y "a pepe ie |r Lee +e call 1 Be | > Fi eh i S j - _, | . . = J 7% > 4 a NS

2-

». ant | \.

p33 sf — = - oF i as * “ts ‘3 r . 4% ; .

= -_ = 44 ; z fs . : 4 4 a P= 2——— ss = aePoe } fNj Sig Be = a (= J nf Ia -— = i= rt = oe — oe . Ne ; .

iat he aie: ie DS Ge : es f = =A 5 | i ‘ e . ' , ee i=) /g i A t. 7 N 1) pil x i|“a aa .

- ~~ ‘7 i— _ }5 »‘. ee =| 1) rf ~~ } Da ze : < ; = > Asem) 44 c= 1}|..Ji ]I. %q1-5Ly 4 zoe =i Be es xwa Ze—— aly =g | rit Bei= =oe aoa a~~ 4 *he 4 ee A ——— 5 i 7} . ly! | = Exe Tee IF ae i a Be f i! be ] a | a tI 5SEdaehy=“ fT i & ee ie ¥ cit Pa SS Wl } a #2 mr =i +e pe eo 3 a Ms : % fi R. & 7 5 a f Au} Ce Fi ee . ;i— ee SslsPa JES ~ i::4aN »” f :;rh {ae en ~~ a",’ Bi 1ji ee ) f-a|jTT ee (i 3 14 fe_=— oseau2 8Fat~ SsSs“IiF1Pal\ b\ A =\ \ \\ a3\ji eS

. WA —xG ff /

Atlas of Lake ANE ah, \— // : | \ \is\ . ) / ( ~ / County, 1907. AW. me - Ww

:

fad os ee = -. 7 + 7 ~ ‘ ‘ i . 2 wo * ae a om = . — YT “a . an useuayeni aei* -4 ' . 4 : tt ig! west F a as a. Hlig > os . » seitgigst in = cece eaxieealse. * a te, hates hice eee ar]oe ikcress =e: #3 pee oe, Teees neSe” ~ = ee wi eS —8: 3 ty at ‘= ae" poe ee

aL °c aa te ce EG Ne

J i nit et ae seine 2 3 ; ot a ae aed (> ~ ee reer ee i oy

4.2

Fort Sheridan (142), water tower, cavalry barracks (left), and infantry barracks (right), all completed ca. 1892. Courtesy of National Archives.

LABOR U N RE S T A N D F OR T S H ERI DAN

Bf Sa TE, owe ee AY fac! or on 7 : rr -

fue. Mee Set a aE ee ce ———tis—S ¢| aa a oere: re oe ; “ EER OR rr—~”r——“=i—COC@S - rrtstsrs———OrOriCidszaCiCC

meeroe Ff. ot ” ee Soe OO ee ee APs _ a — rr—s—“OOS—~—~s—S~s~—S~—OCO®WCN

V2 SESS eu) aes co : Cr = CC ae. i eee ae, er ee —60 NO x a SE STUN : ee A : a NS ee oe ae = 4. rk ere Fae

| ao . |Oe: ee es CO eee dl lc I ee oe eee be ee eae | Me ek ee Re pre ET Sa es OR ee A Se cS ge Se TE —e_

“. ae 1g rr: A. cy wr fee. Ce eee vee , eer hLlClLlUmULUmULmrrr CC eee jee” eS ore fesag’ roON ee:Seve veot Tt calee yo, oid OME ogra ec OLE EE CNR Se ae UC Pr PEE MOS owSU ihe AR ate Seta a i ee EPPS otSO eececgmaree oa PRO SO

er 7 rrr Oo ee CO

SS ee80eee 2 pone’ otSSES eR,RSAB Spgs GETEEon eyBeeeSk See neREUSE Tce ORR eR OREOme rearyedtaSenet er ene ere aeeer i oterMidis ee2 oiiPeres ee Be a hg agNO weve Re oeeaten, BE year REESE EOI, a MRR ag 280 7Seeman, oo Ea Seana ae ES.eee , SEye PenSo RQte1 hie BOANS gs ARIES SeEST BE Sr . wiea at . feetShad Rag ae ET hentai” ESE tae ea 1SSake SRE SRE at SRE SFP aE 0 a OER nthglStNoy abner,

wor ee :aBS ae Dl Soe OS Ss Roe eee se a Bese 8 Resta Sis ee . pac oo ee oa Soe 2 es Sas scar te . . 3 . Ee SS S — ee sent een eee Re oe Ne ee So ._ Soe hoe: Sea o— ces IES oe Se ee ee sees Se a po = a see ae Se es ce Se Se 32&:s oo oe ee eseS_eerea ree ee ee seepee Sas Os eee: :saan oo es ee eee Se ee=eisPitas Berets ee eS ee ee— oes eeas Se ee # iee =— _ :seea _Sure _ea= ee ee Rass eens oe. ees ee oe corer oes ne

EES Pa iE 7 ES - S S — - . RS potas ee Sees ees Seeee ease es Beane roo pete Seco Ses — 8

PRS eae Ronee seen seoo -Saher Bee se Seance eeaepoe Be SR “S sees —Shane: 3 Seow eeos Se Baeae Sees eaaes pera Sere " Bs athe SSeeaee eres es eS — ee. post, Pape eeSerpents =Soe : _ es a oe -ae. 4aSNY 'a: .' .

a._2Sau Bees es ae cate Seater aeSseee Beare ary eee Seas ee reneseene oeSos Perea eS eee: _on cranes sae: mass Stee: os Shee ReSean sponBee poeerah oes cae 3 ES28 eeSe eae ee mone aSSee eae poumn Peas cou ee pores seesesee iree .eee ee—ee Se=Sens auae aesere me Beare Secs RNR na enONS SRS Es ae ce Benen eee eros Seer — Sra See— Soeesoes ee, Res oe Be a BS Beemer Re Baas Ss cea ees Ronn eer:Sssas eeees eres eae See ae omens RSsees — ee ay Seen osrenee Sees Rie ees se RSs See Seon Shae eee aS =See pesccecs eee 3 ere eaneen Seencase RS Semen SoreeeeeSess aes SSS Es Boe ESSE Ss Pes oe Seren Saree aeeres Seeneee: SESS eaeseShe aac: a ee 3

ee eee es ee — sre IS ees ere: een Es : eS s gee g feeey7y —7eeSC oe . ae ses oF — " = : : = 7 See a a fe ee Sone = . = — ‘ —Bee & ee Saat 6. | ae eee ae = — ee oe pe Soe: _2S : Bene ass oe a. ee |) oee, eae oes es i se i : See. ee | Ee Es Soonci ee Se: AeseS Ree Seasrons EENesesSeoeesoeseNes ge 2 ag ee:ee eeee RS es ES aa Sees genera oe Bese ooRes ss eee Soe oe _ _ :uses _ a -ee: |3

ae ee : pera _ Genres :Seee ace ipoensnens oe es secs i. tee Pike nee Hited . Beets: AES KS Site Spesnaeats eee ken ee > SR Sys ois Sa oe he ene noes USES a 2 | :

es . oe _ : - - -

Seitea“mamecinremneneaete ieaneeacs toon les Ds = coos Baseaecesratecess sa a CS Fath SOR oe “eo, wo ee Sythe heMIN Sus TP ey FA i) aview an Wvel aof 2) -ase eee > Bae WI SORES cciats — __ BEE oe _hance as 3Ee Sooo eepseaacons eee SE i _

hitect | | | |as:sing : : SUIT : unUu 2 : : | y ake O 2: It | | as |, dj ninLs : ris : d “e :Ins t10 |Own -.3 :|| " kan €x = |!1m. ; nos. 141, e€ 14 flar rking he fo central f ure | | } oomed aDdDOove O ounding lan Cc ke e tower of a m dwe ern C no. 14 fromh SsuIT the sou € o he parade 2. ound ne ?

i en

Ww: ually thinat an . ding. so condition, wa" | oO surp elicate the O op aWw : f no In doubt, w he fort’s elegan °

.

= ne : mM : h eve : zen of ! L Fores

H| oh anveouappVdWwW actly aa Iu ion thee ower repre e e€ | reciate the ay evoked : nca or some other.Euro Id ha e

llPar a -k , | ,

: ding é ble, picturesque backdrop iNn COortabD1e ue Dac O O C1 mm a

LABOR UNREST AND FORT SHERIDAN

e °ee e e e e e ° ee ° e o ° “@ e

estates. The army has never been known for extended flights of fancy, however, and eo ° e the tower also housed a 94,000 gallon tank for maintaining the post’s water pressure. The view close up within the fort was quite different from that seen by suburban neighbors. At close range the lower part of the brick shaft, with its bulbous projecting corners and slit windows, recalls a medieval fortification more than a church tower. At ?

o ee ea °e ee ° e

the bottom the brick tower flares outward to meet an impressive stone base dramati- , cally opened by a great arch to provide a carriageway. The enormous rusticated stones forming the wedge-shaped voussoirs of the arch reinforce the impression of ponderous weight above the narrow opening and bring to mind a medieval sally port. Creating such an opening in the base of a massive tower was expensive and completely superfluous, of course, since there was ample space for passages on either side of the tower or through the adjacent barracks buildings, but the architects and the army apparently felt it necessary to create at least one impressive set piece that was unmistakably martial, perhaps to counteract the somewhat fanciful crowning element visible from the surrounding suburbs. The adjacent barracks, one for the infantry, another for the cavalry, each housing four hundred men, were placed directly against the tower on each side. They provided

e.eee

°e e ,ee eCJ e e . e °° ° .a=:;a,.;:..se.ees Co ee ee ae eee ee ee RT eS a sehidgs deci ee ee ree Lh rCaseCsCC ae .lr—" gee eee I e

, ‘ ° a iis,” eh lr ee ——s EE

a a a ee” LS eae lg lL ae. SS eee oo. ae gel ca lc cK GC UhULCmUmUmrm—C~—O

eel ie = ee eee | Ne El tS CC A ee

Me Pee ae ll errr Me + pcearomear ee L—“—*™—r——S=*' aeeee ees ia, ai oe Sh 5 BBEP fo, Lee =EEF SSie HOE HieM . i eeaee ek. i BR SR Ee ones were 8 Es aie 3;+“Ser ieeeae le ee ee pik ee ~ ; eee wor ee ee ee Lr r—C—iw CT ce eee a rrrr—~—“—O— ewe .hC™hCUC™~w™~C™C—~

re eee as Ae Cr r—=C*CN go cc eelS" ee rrr—“—S”Cisisi wis ‘CL a eS ee i —ri‘OeOOONCOiNCNikCsCNCCsCidsCCC oe - ne i 5 =. eee -

kt e”—LlrCrSrtrt—~S~S—=a“_—sOOOONOSsaséa‘(‘ ee Mc een cn oa cu ar em Re eae Csi re PY 0 ee - ooo UO Thyra, Satturars,we oe |ae = - 7

(le ongS ee reeRlccec-rr rr — rr nr C—O a eee 2g. 7 Ro ae Oe acui oo iii..4.@...@2@i@C@C—tOC—teesSseeS Presenter ee rrr SaSOR OR 0 TN Sc RAR SRN CRORES Ss, | NS,ercyEE EERE Ra a NS ero eK Bs Bie SSIES SR a RS ORCL REN eR ES SON eC ce ee NN tw = on

SES Se aN ee 2 en ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Ce ee re ee

ce Be gos — _ Poe BO EG Ba ke ee —rti‘OéTCtC—O—O—C—C—C—C—C—C—C—C—C—..L.CCS~ ‘ ye ot: e “7° 4. Mw: ALS ¢ ay i: mei Se) Yah ar ee WP 5S

:* ;> a-ie:Ses a:» oe.meth -)Bey : ‘et 3.. ; i * ‘ ; P i : 8s! + : Ry toe Be i+: ae ‘ ay» 3?$;‘i. *: .§; —— acheoh.eget hesej

|.; ,:;a»ipmeg 5 a a , y Bae * ; a ee Fh, * 7 : ‘>
~. { _— —| “sa >

-22e a!noes Sie ee .. ~ss&oan — wt : = . ~~ - en - tee & FPy ’ —_ { : . ‘

i 3 =~ 28 tre ee. |

AAT od oa = fe ae sl *

2 ea y & “4 : dh ae 4 ‘ia ; 4 es = 3 cee ‘ F Soa & i iAhy ini ia= eRe=ee4] +— -— ~. ——— = =be saitine & Same ee =aeepia : ft al = ot : ” ai t i.) we . P 1 ola hh _ if l qeil } =| “Ht 2 =i — 5 hee eT See : v abe ' ‘ ») 7: — mee : : i — 4 eo 7 i 3 a a § ng SE gh + h %

.a— 3Saf Bwe ¢— =Fe %wa t >—i ie REa iePdGF ae, pe la 4 “Ss “j) &€2 —oh =ee be ; ’Seg Pere aa 29 OD *i 88 G8 G8: Oo ee gg,

ateer f. > a iy =-~ Ra, =F%& s,aanes tel Vere : —— : “—~ oo re =e _& 1 " 7 aa "oan i | ne 4 i : I. Re wh ee oe, : i \ ~$. i ] :-« e aee "ae “*ids. Ag i :7—

Pipe ae | Heh = z ‘ > ? : : ef rs ‘ = 2% y a)

i ’ue :Nwh e : ad |!LSS ; i , 5 ‘ _ , | . 2, 1% B ‘a

: oS - Byall i _—— aue=ada . 7§>i, te|ae "antl €= oS¥. ae e, a) i i oh hy : ‘ Hh ‘ ee oo : * L.. ; : | is enh at =. Se ae ;

“aSy.* .. s ‘=. “.A*. 4)f

3 .EARS ESE el OR TEEN eiigRR aesSES eSESR ee SE erSS ee Be DEG SEG ssce: SSS Se : SS : : ee SEES gE Ee Sco :Shee Site eit Seca nhES ce ay ReCRE SarrrrC NEEES OC. er OE en ERRESR RS SaaS “ela Si EUR MaRS — rc CC ##### ===. . Bae ee ee ae ee ee ee ee SE rr —.. eee CRESS TE RRR ee eS SS Pe poate SERENE SseeaSRS egri“ pcan eeeBcBaan SCERE eR ON RRR RR Ra eee EES eee Ohe Si ee Soe SESE ies Se ee ae Se Oe Sees: OS ee ee oe gas ae eee ye — Bases EneEn EES SE eS ee Bee roe 3eee ee ;.mDmLUmUmUmUCOCOCOCD RESURGENCE eaeBa Oe ee ERE es BaoP Sy aaa aeee secea eeeeBASS SoSee eee eeeBEES a ‘:9ww5or nc aSSsee aaaga rR ieee ae ae a ee a, —hCrr,.,rC—~—“i eooes pie “tg re ges ube ee Boe Eg 5 ne ee ¢ or 2 ccna t ‘ 3 7 og” ae eae ar eee ne i Rewer eee eens: ae aa ee a errors ettieitit Hasasantcrsnniena sesete, EAININE — occrecompepenncrereccenenss aM Lt ad * Ny wees The eG Pid, Pee ea RE Tb = a ate ‘gi, | Pama seta, Bae L Irene ee TE eee ene ee aunaiinanenuanth naanenceinenngencor nts wntatianwasesiinaienneien Matai aainceacnncnnwcnumminpeimyg $f $F -. 0 fe Me

EORSU RE EOS Ba ae Me BT = {2 8 BAUR Sole tewworeeerieerecerreerrererrerrers erent hist ahead d Ferenc een esas nrg pt arn ames oe a oe em ene eaten nda BE Loe a Sa can

Pe ee Ago stg fic, “PF as EL Ree " “ elit i: pong ae. eae : cr : eceresera FP ERAZ A wonton Eos jonok He es a tay

Bn BEAD | RE ok hd SR a an ar a i oo EB [oe oe pool BE cose ersmserreeacconassian Fe De ches, ee Ee i fae ee oat a . wo, 2.8 ” Ee ts Sahat “pe i ‘ pen he ae . Boca. PROS Dott. KE “Sere Feeders “aoacr anime aigne nenininearnaronensentnarnangesinedteatreaeteepieee rn eeee tes SSSA SS An AAaNOONIIEN SALINE NUNEATON ec erence unhaanacne reins Qi : ae “ee woe “i *% ; aS Py Ce teen ae FI dc IES. wn memeomonmnannnnyenennt momen Mmmm Seteoo Re ee a oS ero a os aeeesros. a deca a IRM RON ONL OEY i ee omnes eee ce oar,NNN eleStseeNanos ee ae a a tra ees a eo Aone

Be Pe 0 oa EE Rae ae . a2 4=08 ES L hessh a SS Lies LL Bo Sag So gee * 6 . . hs ce ee ee ee La Lecrmsitarcommernncrt Ce eas | eee ey ae Cr a = iia me uae a a a Ka Sere, ; i : DORETR Se PEELED E BT a ee ee ieeeeh) wide —, ee ay aoe ¥ 7. Be ada ry omBe ee:a aCoe ee aeee

7 6a eee 6 Si lee ea ae ene rd

een ns © CO se oa eo) - IEEE ah ne: WUE Sine: ene: UN Seen: Wane MUNROE SOU ee ON Cree ee en meena, eo: ane en a yg ae Oe eecona gE pig hag Be ; Peeve Betis & cl iid ENE ae ee Saheapestinemenare See | a in meee er me poegzin

Oye Pao a a, Sen | eee ne ee 6s oe on 2S one ee eo.

Hi” “HR ge Ue ays “Gh ke! RS a eee: covnnuinnih E Seccoedy! 2 5: me E eae | Fi pers aE ts Hy ns Ps * 4 yy .

Pe spte oatwee age on Hneniar’ meee ia ‘aalenis Pb ooR. Seal perere Rt sgt SAS; porno BT a ee i a aa aaean|BYs bone wl eeRM = a SCT noe ee eee ge Berne Bopehice RP Ss 4cae Sosa aoe—_ omen cece scenes ES, Sree oat , ia | OEPSee E«© gp|oe eiteet oak aa oe| oe iine gee iae i ‘ne } 40 iets ABexbss s jee we pias CT yh | — aif bo ne ee ee re rc ae oe re ne tee ee a l(t ped. Hage wei | Rapa Berwoce fb Pood, re rr ee ee ee ee Fd e a So ee EB ag eae | aEY ee ee(GES Pogfogsa aide Sees. ee es al foooceees pomeeny ‘

re rns Tae

|een °ee«eeeoeeee° ° . eee e e ee eee°° s e e e J ° e ee e e°.eeee

eepee | Eee eee LWHIE jdithe a ieae ice Laid Ld miniene an | ae WEGSD PREEELS BI. LELEVATIOL: re ne emcee tera te , LAME LEVELS CLO: Vr Tae ge COMFANI. _ ge - . ses . FOE ra ere] *_ tear ape ; L yee eeveree : a a enna ATE tA woman «oa ie eo bia;

BO TON OP IMAL Ew a os

% eal mo POL a a weet " : ee on . al ' ; LCE Sof’ CRIES, a seg ; oeCE * aah . d iSa 5we, . . $ reBIRD . Php & MBIED BORE . ng .| .Sy eikh, OS LS RACE REeeSB LEpRA ROGExARHTBETS |

Bale ae esc SPLINES NEE ES ie A ree nr a OE Nek(ERLE! SO eerVE i eeERB er Ok Se ee erLFOR er enSe eCeee ee ee See ee Pee

11.5

.RSG 2.Po eS Si: SERENE. Ne ce we .eR aS eS sites oc pp ..iy = one apes ea -beoo |SN -SE OE) RG 2-2 aEkeaoer ee ee eee gee BE ee — aeeBRS eee pe ee SENN sis_ee GPSS RS SRE ES Se See ee CS EeeSE a3Ra ee SSRN SO ae So, RR SEE eeae See oR spSE: SEEN Si os _-eS ~ A -EN BOE ROSE NG eer eeRN Meme Seo Co aCree ea Bee eSYER ON eoee ee ee ves aENE PS ee aeERE ene ass Soe i4.oe eSoeaOER fo, Rs gpSy eee SEER be REee SR eee SRS Beets Sara Ree reeS Fs ae ae LD Ree 've aeo:ups oS le .Recs oe Be SEE AS RE ei: ee ee aRS Oe Ge ores asokaR eee &Bee Nee ee aRS RE Oe =RS edJi Zo. oF oo OUR ee nS Sage on NSE. osSoe Soucy SE ERR ae Rg so RS Noe : Oe eSSR ee oe Suh So RE ses.. Bae SRSSs RR FS aR IS Se Seem as ene Tats BRt RS Sere ees PC oS BR BS ROSesRia RN RR re | pe 2 eeRE gam =Sg~SN a ias “Se == OO we EEE se Lo Ce ae ay ae ae eee Se RE oa peer OR RS re ae peace Ae ERE SSM 3 Miri SSS ae Peng Senate ee Sie ON Des es : Re Le Nee, “aes eam * RS Se > cr Bee — a OO a Serene Zea ree ag ere 4 Bocas CSE es RRS Sy a NS PRES Sos See = ie Re at oe RPS SR RRR EE BRS Bs SR Rostoaeesuaag LESS ee SR Ne SSE Say Poaieaee seen See BE SESE ae * Sh a - mi Bee We Se. 7 Nace Sap Ses LEON ae ees a oo _

ww ee eee A SS SES op ES RES Ree Se, (_).. . GORE ae Ba ee ES ENS Tee eas ie ORG Re Sn ges dba Siig coe NE FO ee ona gS pee fete ge Ea Lee ns Bae rr

“ a Ree ES ae Be ee Te ee ere ON ssSER Sire BeeisREC ce SS BEE a BS SO ee ss ieee aS ae Reteres ceePecee eeoe mE° Ne Be .aeee.BE PT [SRNL ee oe ee SG See co. oe Ca oo PERS. SeRs SnRess Neye eeSE ErROOES ee Se oe | Fess: ccae OR ER Rees osin BsPS RS pais keSn “pee RE ae oe ee ae“ae Esee eee Bee oe SENT Se a eS CaS eisBARES eta taeeeiisBe OO OSBER RE SS SE cen SRR RRS Ree ee Be wee 4SRE .feuo akgeeSO a fe = “ge —s

ee oo ee ——. SEIS EES Ses apie ee ee re nA ERR Cae SES De eG ae ite WERE oe el gee ees eee eee rs ne = Bee ee Boats ne Seem ee BiRR etd— Pe ae BBR a eNOee INCOR ne Ss RoR: See AR esee. BSRiBag EO: Beinn GgIES PES SeRe BONES ioe ae ater BR BIRR Sd RE hsre as Noe Sie HeBane eee 3ES eeeSRARS oe oeees 8 teeBe =e a fe— aeSEee SN aR SONG Sr oS 2 ine ORS TERNS BE GONE ogee SON Eas eS SeSeee is:Been Ses eeSe eee oe Be OR oe ER eS ooRR $Ra7aeaSe ee oS ee Be SOS 8ae aliPOE saa ee BR: ee ce eee PRSESESEEES CONG Se aoe BR ae8SS okSe“RR we ee Pad REY Cen. Sac ee——rr— Re 3A ENE IRS URS BSS Bee RE SES SeSS Re BIS SRR ER ARE RS ee — _.S | ae i aS Beteee eee EEN Breee ieee se Sa Pace a Been BRR De SSee OO Seca Sa SSOROS eae RR SeeeSeae BEaes ©BR ok:NS =e _8 oO iyRR Tee hor eeeeaoeSee |No ieC llRe ESS ER © Ee Reggae eSSO ILS ae usSgRS) ama Ss RR% SEAR earth RR ay eseee Se rl— SEiit A ss Seeees ne Ae eee BEN Ree See Re ragsSee eee Serre eee 2ees Bose REL a ee, ooBee - eo 2me : tePa a. |BS :

pee

ge “Son i. ras =. he oo eg EE os SIBee Bet Go ree re Pk ee ee ees ee —lUmUmrCUme ll sl QO ee | ee eae ee Ree tt Ot Po Be ee ... aa ge em OE he Ea a a . a i Aceh 00h oh Oe ee et .= 2 8 ee ee BR OO en ee eee es Maat eee Ce, Bo Be Se BR ce uae Sy ne ae ae ee ee te ey eae. Beas Ra 2. te ee ee, eee, “gh ges te ee Oe ee EE eS roe FO a By ae lt C6 Se Be gf OO ee ee. ll Ul OE Se O..UCUC ee 7 gg ee a men “« yee, Be aie See en Pt cm MO Re c Jae oo Sea” e ty ee Biogtee Geceora roahy ingsRy ee or. ii: alll BOS We SaaS ti Ae cae i, &Fy vs err. gexToa eeaA dl eee — 44 RE oe cae aS Ry -~ * * eg r—“ Oe oe | er ig EE a ge Be ay, . : ee 8? ps See OSes ee — oo 5 See eh PRS oo a eg a i | Si Se ee at es Me ee lr—Cs—~—Ss—Ss—KC—CS*s ee eae 6 Ba ne 2 orn ae “he, ‘ . He Po Che ee ee ee Se Steer, a Pe Hy Sy obs ee - %% a x eee Bue x f§ Be ® ie a a ee SPS ee a, ¢ ke Se eee Eee. soa one ce ae Seating

RE ea RRR. i. ae: eS RRR ue, OS, ges Pa By: , ee BOLT aia ce oe ne é RINE | SO RR AOE Sy ae PE amie ae eee Sg YS Ps SR Ny Rie, we 23

a age SESS gg BP. SENS So Sa BRR OO RRR RR Ie RN Mepis ’ a . BE BRE 3 so RRR ROMERO Cas RON SSR ae OR RS EEN. RRC RSE ENS Se" SR. + SRS

NE... ot em ec oy eee££. sg“too . . taser a BOS ate hs See PCE BRS RS a SS REE ES ee a | ~ =. wonad * ot Sg i TFSrrtrsr———SwsCCséiK*s=i‘(iC;w;tét(s

Md QO en Fn hi SN ee rrrrrrrrrr—“—COr*sCsaiC*aSCzdéCidsiziiéT ¢ ~~ oe Y sae rs re : ' oe OR Ye a )h|6.lUll eS OO a2ee J. oe rrrr—“ist—