The Minneapolis 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 ten stories on Fifth Street at the corner rious blazes in a modern fire- resisting fire limits in 1865, two years before W of Hennepin Avenue in Minneapolis, structure. Some in the nascent field the town became a city.1 But these became Minnesota’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 Lumber Exchange Building, 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.