The Lumber Exchange Fire of 1891 and Fire-Resisting​

Construction Sara E. Wermiel

hen it was com- most of the interior of the original sec- being erected in the densely built-​up pleted in 1887, the tion. The fire received a fair amount section of a town. This area was de- Lumber Exchange of attention in professional and trade marcated and known as the fire lim- Building, rising publications, being one of the first se- its. Minneapolis adopted a law with Wten stories on Fifth Street at the corner rious blazes in a modern fire-​resisting fire limits in 1865, two years before of in Minneapolis, structure. Some in the nascent field the town became a city.1 But these became ’s first skyscraper. of fire-​protection engineering con- laws, even when building developers A few years later, a two-​story addition sidered it an important side-​by-​side observed them, did little to prevent to the top of the original section and test of the two construction systems. or reduce the impact of general fires a 12-​story extension along Hennepin The Lumber Exchange blaze and the because buildings with stone and Avenue more than doubled its floor lessons contemporaries drew from brick walls had combustible wooden area, creating one of the largest, as it about the relative merits of the interior structures. Ordinary masonry well as tallest, buildings in the city. two systems open a window onto buildings were simply great wood- Newspapers of the day reported no changing technology and building piles inside masonry shells. concern about the possible fire hazard regulations at the time. This incident The idea emerged that buildings posed by this large, high building, per- in Minneapolis contributed to the de- without wood in their structures—​ haps because it was of fire-​resisting mise of the semi-​fireproof system and inside as well as outside—​would be construction. It was built using two rise of fireproof construction in the truly noncombustible. Wood might different systems. The original section United States. be used incidentally, for window was semi-​fireproof or “slow-​burning,” frames, doors, finishes, and so on, as Minneapolis’s building regulations but not for any load-​bearing parts. would call it, and the additions were ince the beginning of Buildings constructed this way came of fireproof construction. SEuropean settlement in North to be called fireproof. Over time, Nevertheless, a fire in the early America, local governments have morning of February 26, 1891, engulfed prescribed how buildings—or​ parts of the Lumber Exchange and burned out them—​should be built, with the aim SARA E. WERMIEL is an independent of preventing urban conflagrations. scholar and historic preservation consul- Early laws generally dealt with exte- tant. Her research focuses on the history Brand-new​ , of building materials and the construc- towering over Fifth Street and Hennepin rior materials; typically, they forbade tion industry. Avenue, about 1887 structures with wooden walls from

FALL 2014 119 technologies—​both materials and Noncombustible materials cost assemblies—for​ erecting fireproof buildings evolved. The first exper- much more than ordinary ones iments in constructing buildings and, therefore, the vast majority without wood, made in England in the mid-eighteenth​ century, involved of owners declined to use them. using only masonry in walls and piers and making floors of brick arches. Buildings of this type appeared in designed to replace brick arches to Placing insulating blocks around the America around the end of that build floors. They were also used metal helped keep it intact despite century, but they were massive and to make roof decks and partitions high temperatures. Hollow blocks impractical and, therefore, the system and to protect structural metal. This were usually made of clay but also of was little used.2 was the decade of the great confla- concrete; regardless, they were often Fireproof construction got a boost grations: Chicago in October 1871 called tile. Used in combination with in the mid-nineteenth​ century fol- and Boston in November 1872. One a metal structure—​iron columns, lowing the introduction of structural important lesson architects took girders, beams, and roof frames—​ iron made in shapes that could sub- from these fires was that structural they made a true fireproof system. stitute for wooden structural mem- parts made of iron and steel, al- While one might assume that bers. In the 1870s, a new material was though they could not burn, could prudent owners in booming and hap- introduced: hollow masonry blocks, still weaken and fail in a hot fire. hazardly built cities would embrace these fireproof materials and systems in order to safeguard their property and human life, one would be mis- taken. Noncombustible materials cost much more than ordinary ones and, therefore, the vast majority of owners declined to use them. Thus, inventors devised materials and systems that would offer pro- tection and be more affordable than fireproof construction. They reasoned that if metal could be protected by tile blocks, so, too, could wood, thereby making a fire-​resisting building at a lower cost. A system was invented involving masonry tiles that covered the underside of floor and roof frames to create a barrier against fire. These tiles, flat but often hollow, were made of clay or concrete. And like the hollow blocks used with structural metal in fireproof buildings, the tile-​ protected wood systems came on the market in the 1870s. Because the lat- ter buildings had wooden structures,

Advertisement, Inland Architect, May 1885, for the Midwest’s first and leading manufacturer of hollow structural blocks. The illustrations show hollow-​block floors (flat and curved arches), column protection, and partitions.

120 MINNESOTA HISTORY this method was usually called “semi-​ semi-​fireproof, with clay tiles cover- fireproof” to distinguish it from true ing its wooden floor beams and joists. fireproof construction. And while it Then in February 1885, the beautiful cost much less than fireproof con- Grannis Block burned.3 struction, it was still more expensive This fire, in such an admired than traditional methods. and apparently well-​built structure, increased calls in Chicago for regu- lations to better safeguard the city. One solution was to limit building height, and many cities took this ap- proach. But another was to require that tall buildings be fireproof. In the mid-​1880s, Chicago, along with Boston and New York, enacted rules Example of a semi-​fireproof system for pro- mandating fireproof construction for tecting wood floors: flat clay tiles, suspended from metal hangers, create a barrier against certain kinds of buildings, notably fire. Here, a second layer of clay blocks fills those exceeding a specified height. between the joists under the floor deck. Professional and trade publications disseminated information about the changing technologies and building s owners erected ever- ​ regulations. A taller buildings, concerns about their fire safety led to calls for regulation. How could firefighters round 1885, the Minneapolis extinguish blazes in buildings six or A architectural firm of Long seven stories and taller? These con- and Kees received the commission to cerns were most prominent in Chi- design the Lumber Exchange Build- cago, which by the 1880s was seeing ing. When completed, in 1887, this pioneer skyscrapers proliferate in its office building was the first ten-​story business center. structure in Minnesota and, with it, Among the architects designing Minneapolis beat out its rival St. Paul these buildings was the hot new in the skyscraper race. The Globe Chicago firm of Daniel Burnham and Building, St. Paul’s first ten-​story ed- John Root. In 1880 they designed the ifice (no longer extant), materialized seven-​story Grannis Block, which shortly afterwards.4 the Chicago Tribune soon called “the The original Lumber Exchange handsomest building in the city.” was a tall, narrow structure fronting The Grannis had a wooden inte- Fifth Street. At the time, Richard- rior structure, and its columns and sonian Romanesque architecture roof were protected with fireproof- was all the rage, and the Lumber ing tile; however, the floors were Exchange displayed features of that not protected. The following year style, filtered through the commer- they designed the Montauk Block cial work of Chicago’s John Root. It (1881–82), the first ten-​story building was relatively plain, with granite and in the world. The Montauk was built sandstone walls on its street façades. fireproof, designed this way entirely The building’s uniform façade was at the owner’s option since Chicago relieved by a projecting and decorated did not require any building to be fireproof at the time. The next large Detail of the Lumber Exchange’s rock-​faced Burnham and Root structure, the façade, 2014. This section was the terminus of nine-story​ Calumet (1882–84), was the original building’s Hennepin Avenue side. section around the main entrance, of the growing concerns about the Building. In fact, the same fi rm man- which was located in the center of fi re safety of tall buildings. Many in ufactured and installed the tiles in the Fifth Street side. Its architectural town considered the eight- story Tri- both the Calumet and Lumber Ex- elements— including treating the cor- bune Building at Fourth Street and change: Pioneer Fireproof Construc- ner to suggest a tower, turrets, rock- First Avenue South (today, Marquette tion Company of Chicago. faced stone walls, mainly rectangular Avenue), built in 1883–84, to be a fi re- windows, and minimal decoration— trap. The St. Paul Daily Globe reported had become popular in Minneapolis in 1889 that the issue of the Tribune’s n about 1889 the owners of and were found on a number of build- fi re safety was “considerable agitated” Ithe Lumber Exchange decided to ings of the era. Architect Franklin as early as 1886— just as the Lumber expand the two- year- old building Long, even before he partnered with Exchange was rising nearby.6 and commissioned Long and Kees to , had incorporated Perhaps to forestall controversy design the addition. An early draw- these features into his Kasota Block and reassure prospective tenants, ing of the enlarged skyscraper shows on Hennepin Avenue (ca. 1884; now the Lumber Exchange’s developers the new section, which would front demolished), which is considered a chose to make it semi- fi reproof. Its Hennepin Avenue, to be ten stories, prototype for the form.5 structure featured load- bearing walls the same height as the original sec- The Lumber Exchange was de- and an internal frame of cast-iron tion. But as built, the addition was 12 signed to be fi re- resisting using the columns, rolled iron girders, and stories, and two stories were added to semi- fi reproof system, at the owner’s wooden joists. The underside of the option. At the time, Minneapolis did fl oors, as well as the columns and Kasota Block, Hennepin Avenue, credited with not require fi re- resisting construc- the girders, were covered with clay starting the fashion for a style of rock- faced tion for any sort of building. Still, the tiles and blocks, similar to the system architecture in Minneapolis. It and its neigh- city’s developers undoubtedly knew recently used in Chicago’s Calumet bors have been razed.

122 MINNESOTA HISTORY than eight- by- eight inches in section, fl oored over with matched plank at least three inches thick. In either case, partitions were to be brick, tile, or three- inch plank; iron columns and beams were to be covered; and wooden partitions and wooden lath along the walls (for holding plaster) were forbidden.8 The height limit in the new ordi- nance was consequential for the Lum- ber Exchange’s owners. They hastily added two stories to the proposed structure and took out a building per- mit before the law went into eff ect. Indeed, they got a much larger build- ing on the same lot. But the additions disfi gured its architecture: the mod- est articulations on the original part were overwhelmed by the new overall mass, and the new roofl ine was fl at. Being an offi ce building, a type not mentioned in the new ordinance, the Lumber Exchange was not re- quired to be either fi reproof or slow- burning. Nevertheless, the owners must have seen the expedience of reassuring tenants, the public, and lawmakers that their massive struc- ture would be safe. Moreover, the Tri- bune Building was known to have had Early design for enlarging the Lumber Exchange. The addition (left side) along Hennepin Avenue tile- protected wood, which clearly is ten stories, like the original section, and preserves the original roofl ine. did not prevent its complete destruc- tion.9 Thus, the owners opted to build the original Lumber Exchange, creat- the like, six stories or more) had to the new sections using fi reproof ing an overall 12- story block. be built fi reproof. Stores, factories, construction: metal interior frames By then, concern in Minneapolis and mills six stories or more had to and, between the iron joists set seven about the fi re safety of tall buildings be “slow- burning,” which the ordi- feet apart, curved arches made of had intensifi ed. In 1890 the city nance defi ned in two ways, essentially hollow clay blocks, fi ve inches thick.10 passed a new building ordinance with allowing two diff erent structural Exactly what the fl oor blocks look stricter rules. No doubt, the previous systems to meet the requirement. like is unknown, but they probably year’s disastrous fi re in the Tribune The fi rst was the semi- fi reproof, resembled those of a contempora- Building was a factor; it had killed tile- protected system. Floor and roof neous tall building also designed by at least seven people and injured joists or rafters had to be protected Long and Kees: the Masonic Temple many more.7 The city now limited the underneath with clay tile one-and- (1887–90, now the Hennepin Center height of new buildings to 100 feet a- quarter inches thick; tiles could be for the Arts), which also is fi reproof. which, as a practical matter, meant thinner if a one- half- inch air space The owner of this building, although ten stories or fewer. It also required was left between the tile and the joist. it was only eight stories, had changed that certain kinds of structures be The other system involved heavy tim- the plans from slow- burning to fi re- fi re- resisting. Tall residential build- ber framing with wooden joists and proof construction.11 ings (hotels, apartment houses, and rafters of large dimension, not less The contractor for fi reproofi ng

FALL 2014 123 Lumber Exchange Building, 1896, with its extension along Hennepin Avenue and two- story addition to the Fift h Street side

Building, with an ordinary timber- frame interior.12 In the depth of winter, on Febru- ary 26, 1891 at about 12:30 a.m., a fi re began in the Russell Block. Just days before, a paint dealer had moved into the building, and the fi re started in the section that this business occu- pied. Firefi ghters arrived soon after an alarm was sent in, but the Russell Block was ablaze and the fi re spread to the Robinson Building, which was occupied by H. B. Gardner’s hardware store and, above it, a lodging house.13 Then, to the great surprise of those at the scene, fi re was noticed in the upper fl oors of the original section of the Lumber Exchange. It seems that there had been so little concern about the building’s safety that no provision had been made to fi ght a fi re inside it. That the fi refi ght- ers had water at all on a freezing night seems miraculous, but the streams from their hoses could not reach the the additions was, again, Pioneer Fireproof Construction Company. Being an offi ce building, a type not Still headquartered in Chicago, it now mentioned in the new ordinance, the had a branch offi ce in the Lumber Exchange. The fi rm had worked on Lumber Exchange was not required to several Twin Cities buildings by this be either fi reproof or slow- burning. time, including the West Hotel in Min- neapolis (1881–84, Leroy Buffi ngton, architect) and the Ryan Hotel in St. Building, erected around 1890 and upper fl oors. The fi re blocked access Paul (1885, James J. Egan, architect). also 12 stories and fi reproof. South of to an exterior standpipe. In a short Companies in this business commonly the Lumber Exchange on Fifth Street, time, the Lumber Exchange was made tiles and blocks for both the and separated from it by an alley, were burning: the blaze spread to the semi- fi reproof and fi reproof systems, two buildings that went up around fl oors above the seventh, igniting and Pioneer was no exception. 1885. The fi rst, closest to the Lumber the wooden window frames. To get Exchange, was the fi ve- story Russell at the fi re, fi refi ghters entered the Block. It had masonry walls and an in- Lumber Exchange’s new, not- quite- he Lumber EXchange terior frame that included iron beams completed fi reproof extension and TBuilding had neighbors of and girders, wood posts and, it turned fought the blaze from there. Not various sizes and types of construc- out, apparently unprotected wood until the after noon of that long day tion. Behind the new section stood fl oors. Adjoining the Russell, on the did they manage to get the fi re under the two- part Edison Light and Power south, was the four- story Robinson control. Mercifully, no lives were lost.

124 MINNESOTA HISTORY Firefi ghters at work in the early morning hours, dodging downed power lines Minneapolis photographer Charles Jacoby’s close-up covered with ice. Hoses and equipment froze to the ground. of the Lumber Exchange as ice palace

Aft ermath: The Lumber Exchange, Russell Block, and Robinson Building, aft er fi re and ice.

FALL 2014 125 In its reporting on the fi re the Although the new part was exposed following day, the St. Paul Daily Globe noted that the building “was sup- to the heat of the fi re burning in the posed to be fi reproof. Probably it was old part, it suffered little damage. fi reproof as fi reproof buildings went in those days, but yesterday morning demonstrated that it was only slow burning, and not slow burning, at of the original section. A large hole the iron frame of the building re- that.” And yet, the newspaper pointed had been cut through its upper fl oors mained intact and supported the top out, “the new part of the Exchange in order to raise a water tank up to two fl oors, which likewise remained escaped entirely.”14 the new roof, and the ends of wooden intact. And despite the interior dam- The blaze attracted the attention fl oor joists around the hole were age, the exterior walls of the original of the building community because supported by a temporary wooden section survived. They were repaired, it was one of the fi rst major fi res structure. This unprotected wood, and the old section was completely re- in a modern fi reproof building— the reporter wrote, “caught fi re and built inside. This time, only fi reproof specifi cally, the new section, which burned away, allowing the tank to materials were used. had hollow tile fl oors and structural fall upon the joists, destroying them The fact that the fi reproof system metal protected with tile. Although and the fi reproofi ng upon the girders performed well, regardless of the manufacturers of fi reproofi ng prod- below.”16 This statement suggests special circumstances in each section, ucts conducted fi re and load tests to that the falling tank dislodged some proved to Inland Architect’s editor that prove the value of their materials to of the fi reproofi ng, which allowed the “the regulation fi reproofi ng system” prospective customers, the tests did fl ames to get behind the tile barriers could live up to its name. This fi re, he not necessarily reproduce the con- and burn through the fl oors. wrote, should “enable architects to ditions of an actual fi re. Thus, “All Although the new part was ex- convince clients how advisable it is to interested have waited for that rare posed to the heat of the fi re burning fi reproof all important structures, and occasion, a fi re in a fi reproof build- in the old part through large openings also that fi reproofi ng by a standard ing,” wrote the editor of The Inland in the walls between the two sections, system does fi reproof.”17 In other Architect, a periodical for the design it suff ered little damage. Since it was words, not only was fi reproof con- and building community, published in unoccupied and had little to burn, struction superior to other methods, Chicago. The journal sent a reporter to this is not surprising. What was sur- it worked. Minneapolis to investigate the fi re and prising was that the two- story addi- And so, this Minneapolis blaze en- meet with the building’s architects and tion on the original building survived. tered the lore of the emerging fi eld of owners. In the article that resulted, Despite the prolonged fi re beneath it, fi re- protection engineering as a case published in the August 1891 issue, the which burned out the fl oors below, study. British Architect soon reprinted editor wrote that the building’s two diff erent construction systems made the event a perfect “fi re test of modern fi reproofi ng material and methods.”15 But from the report, one can see that this was not a perfect test. First, the contents of the two sections diff ered: the original building was occupied and contained combustible furnishings, while the new section, not quite completed, did not. More important, construction that was un- derway had compromised the safety

Tenth- fl oor ceiling in the original section aft er the fi re, showing uninjured fi reproof arches; Inland Architect, August 1891, page 9.

126 MINNESOTA HISTORY the Inland Architect article. In 1904 fi reproof construction was the only frames. Adding tile or concrete fl oors fi re- protection engineer Joseph K. safe system, especially for vulnerable and fi reproofi ng to these already- Freitag included the incident in his kinds of buildings. These conclusions expensive buildings was acceptable article “Fire Lessons,” presenting it as were taken to heart by city building- to their developers. Third, around an early and important one. Later, he inspection departments and law- the turn of the twentieth century also off ered it as a case study in his makers, who wrote them into local a new fi reproofi ng technology was fi re- protection handbook.18 building laws. introduced: reinforced concrete con- Fireproof construction was, and struction. This proved to be a more af- ever would be, more expensive than fordable option than steel and hollow he Lumber EXchange fi r e ordinary brick- and- wood construc- blocks for smaller buildings. The laws Tspawned changes in building tion, but a number of developments were always a compromise among laws and building- construction tech- in the 1890s made it more accept- interests— between what seemed best nology in Minneapolis and nation- able to owners. First, by that decade for public safety and what could be wide. Over the course of the 1890s, experience showed that fi reproof required of property owners, both many fi re- protection professionals buildings could contain and with- practically and fi nancially. But as drew conclusions from the blaze— stand a fi re. Second, owners wanted fi reproof construction technology be- principally, that semi- fi reproof tall and ever- taller buildings, which came mainstream, opposition based construction was inadequate and were inevitably erected with metal on its cost waned. In Minneapolis, public acceptance of stricter requirements resulted in a 1903 revision to the building law that added smaller buildings and more types, serving diff erent purposes, to the list of those that had to be fi re- proof. It required institutions such as hospitals; hotels, schools, and public halls; and apartment houses, over a specifi ed number of stories (two, three or four, respectively) to be fi reproof. Factories, offi ce buildings, and retail stores six stories or higher had to be fi reproof. Two years later, the build- ing ordinance was revised to require every building fi ve or more stories to be fi reproof, with some exceptions. Warehouses, wholesale stores, grain elevators, and factories could be of “mill construction.” The law defi ned mill, or slow- burning, construction in only one way: as heavy timber con- struction. Signifi cantly, it no longer accepted tile- protected construction as slow- burning.19 Indeed, in the 1890s the semi- fi reproof system fell out of favor and ceased being used anywhere in the U.S. According to fi re- protection expert Peter B. Wight, whose Wight

Still standing: Lumber Exchange, 425 Hennepin Avenue, 2014.

FALL 2014 127 Fireproofing Company in Chicago edged that altering floors in ways that to the system by its failure in several manufactured this product, demand compromised the tile barrier, such as fires, subsequent changes in tech- for the system dropped off around the cutting holes through them, and the nology, and trends in building, time of the Lumber Exchange fire. He possibility of an accident that could caused the demise of semi-​fireproof noted a case, a warehouse in Chicago, dislodge the tiles—two​ elements of construction. And so, a technology where the semi-​fireproof system the Lumber Exchange case—made​ introduced as a safety improvement had done its job: a serious fire in the the semi-​fireproof system less reliable disappeared. Fortunately, the Lumber building was confined to the floor than fireproof construction.20 Exchange still stands: a contributor, where it started, and the burned area Presumably these possibilities, not only a witness, to the process of was easily repaired. But he acknowl- combined with the discredit brought technological change.

Notes

The author thanks the many people in Minneap- Richardsonian Romanesque-​style commercial neapolis, vol. 3, 1912, sheet 257, in Proquest, Digi- olis who kindly responded to queries and pro- building in Minnesota. It was demolished as part tal Sanborn Maps 1867–1970, www.proquest.com, vided information, including Meghan Elliott, an of Minneapolis’s Gateway district urban renewal a subscription service. A microform copy is avail- engineer and architect at the time with the firm project. Many of its stony Romanesque contem- able in the Minnesota Historical Society library. Meyer Borgman Johnson; Ian Stade and Marla poraries likewise have been leveled. 13. Here and below, “The Exchange Blaze,” Siegler, librarians with Special Collections, Min- 6. “Sorrow and Sympathy,” St. Paul Daily St. Paul Daily Globe, Feb. 27, 1891, 1. neapolis Central Library; Barbara Bezat, archi- Globe, Dec. 2, 1889, 1. The Tribune was designed 14. “Three Are in Ruins,” and “The Exchange vist at the Northwest Architectural Archives, by architect Leroy S. Buffington. Blaze,” Daily Globe, Feb. 27, 1891, 1. University of Minnesota Libraries; and Brian 7. “A Life for a Life,” St. Paul Daily Globe, 15. “Practical Test of Fireproofing,” quotes, 7 Schaffer, city planner, Minneapolis Department Dec. 4, 1889, 3. The fire occurred in the evening and 9. This article has the most detailed descrip- of Community Planning and Economic Develop- of November 30, 1889. There had been fires in tion of the building, although it also contains in- ment. The online Minneapolis Photo Collection, the Tribune before then, and upper floors were accuracies, such as stating that the fire occurred created by , was an in- loaded with heavy printing presses, perhaps in January. valuable resource. beyond the weight they could safely support. 16. “Practical Test of Fireproofing,” 9. But the feature that made the building a death- 17. “Practical Test of Fireproofing,” 10, 11. 1. Augustine E. Costello, History of the Fire trap was its lack of adequate egress: it had only 18. British Architect 36 (Sept. 11, 1891): 192, and Police Departments of Minneapolis (Minneap- one stairway, around the elevator shaft. 201; J. K. Freitag, “Fire Lessons,” Fireproof 4 (Feb. olis, 1890), 39–40. 8. John M. Hazen, comp., “An Ordinance to 1904): 39–41, and Fire Prevention and Fire Protec- 2. Here and below, for a history of changing regulate the construction, alteration, repair and tion (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1912), 131–32. forms of fireproof construction in the nine- removal of buildings within the city of Minneap- 19. Proceedings of the City Council of the City of teenth century, see Sara E. Wermiel, The Fire- olis,” approved Apr. 1, 1890, in Building Laws Minneapolis, Minnesota, from January 1, 1903, to proof Building: Technology and Public Safety in the Relating to the Construction of Buildings in the January 1, 1904 (1903), 340; Minneapolis City Char- Nineteenth-​Century American City (Baltimore: City of Minneapolis (Minneapolis, 1891), sections ter and Ordinances (City Council, June 1, 1905), Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000). 10 and 32. 277, 284. 3. “The Grannis Block,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 9. Peter B. Wight, “Some Experiences of 20. Wight, “Experiences of Modern Fire-​ May 1, 1881, 5; “Chicago Badly Scarred by Another Modern Fire-​proofing Material in Actual Tests,” proofing Material,” 230. Conflagration,”St. Paul Daily Globe, Feb. 20, 1885. The Brickbuilder 5 (Dec. 1896): 230. The Grannis Block burned on February 19. 10. “A Practical Test of Fireproofing,” Inland 4. On the Globe Building, see Larry Millett, Architect and News Record 18 (Aug. 1891): 10. The images on p. 120, 121 (left), and 126, from Lost Twin Cities (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical 11. “A Stately Edifice,” St. Paul Daily Globe, Inland Architect, are courtesy the author; p. 121 Society Press, 1992), 188–89. Sept. 5, 1888, 3. (right) and 127, courtesy Bill Jolitz; p. 123, 124, and 5. Millett, Lost Twin Cities, 141. Millett wrote 12. “Three Are in Ruins,” St. Paul Daily Globe, 125, courtesy Hennepin County Library Special that the Kasota Block was probably the first Feb. 27, 1891, 1; Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Min- Collections. All others are in MNHS collections.

128 MINNESOTA HISTORY

Copyright of Minnesota History is the property of the Minnesota Historical Society, and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or users or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission: contact us.

Individuals may print or download articles for personal use.

To request permission for educational or commercial use, contact us. Include the author’s name and article title in the body of your message. But first--

If you think you may need permission, here are some guidelines:

Students and researchers • You do not need permission to quote or paraphrase portions of an article, as long as your work falls within the fair use provision of copyright law. Using information from an article to develop an argument is fair use. Quoting brief pieces of text in an unpublished paper or thesis is fair use. Even quoting in a work to be published can be fair use, depending on the amount quoted. Read about fair use here: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html • You should, however, always credit the article as a source for your work.

Teachers • You do not need permission to incorporate parts of an article into a lesson. • You do need permission to assign an article, either by downloading multiple copies or by sending students to the online pdf. There is a small per-copy use fee for assigned reading. Contact us for more information.

About Illustrations • Minnesota History credits the sources for illustrations at the end of each article. Minnesota History itself does not hold copyright on images and therefore cannot grant permission to reproduce them. • For information on using illustrations owned by the Minnesota Historical Society, see MHS Library FAQ.

www.mnhs.org/mnhistory