Taller Than Eiffel's Tower: the London and Chicago Tower Projects, 1889

Home , Gustave Eiffel

Taller Than Eiffel's Tower: The London and Chicago Tower Projects, 1889-1894 Author(s): Robert Jay Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Jun., 1987), pp. 145-156 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural Historians Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/990183 . Accessed: 02/02/2012 10:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of California Press and Society of Architectural Historians are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.

http://www.jstor.org Taller than Eiffel's Tower: The London and Chicago Tower Projects, 1889-1894

ROBERT J A Y University of Hawaii

During the later 19th century the rapid spread of iron and steel buildingtechnology created an engineers'architecture in which technical problemsfrequently took priority over traditionalconcerns of E::::~ architecturalstyle. Perhapsno otherstructure represents a moredra- 1~ ;~~ matic statement this new in architecturethan the a,; of spirit Eiffel ~~I; "? Tower. Yet while the controversysurrounding the buildingof the Tower is well known, the almost immediateattempts on the ~:-????--a Eiffel ~iiQ ~ part of Americanand British engineersand architectsto builda taller :si:2~ ~8;? towerare not. This articleconcentrates particularly on two ambitious " -'1.. but ultimatelyunsuccessful attempts to outdistancethe Eiffel Tower: ~"~;?~ Sir Edward Watkin's WembleyPark Tower in London and a ~ ~i-~??~C?i::;L.~ ?~' monumentaltower for the Columbian Exposition in Chicago in p-??~, 1893. These were well documentedin number architec- efforts any of ?~ ~"Ou~a sd tural and engineeringjournals of the period. They were also fre- -:I---~-I: and debatedin and quentlyreported popularmagazines newspapers, ~~n~lxi reflectingthe stronggeneral interest and nationalpride involvedin the 4~X~_I ps~ "'~ prospectof claimingthe talleststructure in the world. This articleis i-~x? based on such not because the liveli- ~v-~-u primarily periodsources, only of ?4X:l ;;" ~Ru: ness the but in some the s: of reportage, because, cases,they provide only x ~?i~ accessibleinformation on some of the proposedtower projects. The most strikingfact about the ultimatelyfutile effortsof British and American buildersto constructa taller tower is that, while they 1*r JI certainlyhad the technicalexpertise to do so, economicconsiderations Doubts as to the anothertall toweras overcamethem. profitabilityof Fig. 1. RichardTrevithick,, Project for the Monumentto the Re- a public attractionon eithera temporaryor permanentbasis doomed formAct, 1832. both the London and Chicago towerprojects to failure.

Following the LondonExhibition of 1851, one architectsug- gested using the glass and iron from the Crystal Palace to constructa tower 1,000 feet high.2The first seriousproposal THE IDEA OF BUILDINGmonumental towers to commemo- for a monumentaltower at an internationalexposition came in rate important cultural or political events persisted throughout the 1870s, when the civil engineeringteam of Clark and most of the 19th century. The first major attempt of this sort Reeves, proprietorsof a bridge works in Phoenixville,Penn- was that of the British engineer Richard Trevithick, who pro- sylvania,concocted a planfor a tower to be erectedadjacent to a 1,000-foot columnar tower of cast iron to composed gilded the CentennialExposition in Philadelphiain 1876 (Fig. 2). memorate the of the Reform Act in 1832 passage (Fig. 1). This "CentennialTower" was also intendedto be 1,000 feet Trevithick died in 1833, and although the project was briefly high, constructedof iron, and, like Trevithick'searlier pro- revived in 1862 as a possible monument to Prince Albert, it met with little enthusiasm.1 It was especially on the occasion of Eiffel's of international that architects and 1. F. L.Jenkins,"Harbingers Tower,"JSAH, 16 (1957), expositions 19th-century 22-23. came forward with engineers monumental tower proposals. 2. Jenkins, "Harbingers,"25. JSAH XL VI:145-156. JUNE 1987 145 146 JSAH, XLVI:2, JUNE 1987

The first successful execution of a 1,000-foot tower at an international exposition was of course the Eiffel Tower of 1889. The petition of protest by artists and various others

A I . l Fa ICTWALI M All]. MI• l INC. . I X against Gustave Eiffel's tower is well known. Yet what is II+ .[..[.L. " +IN' + I",),Uo.A"t., ++U, most striking about the many criticisms aimed at the Eiffel Tower is that the most abusive of them came from foreign rather than French sources. More than anywhere else, Eiffel's accomplishment aroused the national jealousies of the British, who spoke ill of the tower almost from the time that it was first conceived. Not unexpectedly, some of the sharpest re- A buke of the Eiffel Tower came from William Morris, who saw it while attending a socialist congress in Paris in the summer of 1889. Responding to a rumor late in 1889 that one or more such towers might be built in London, Morris indignantly dismissed the Eiffel Tower as "a hellish piece of ugliness," and, as a concession at the exposition, "a piece of brigandage on the public."4 By the time the Exposition of 1889 closed, however, there was one point which none could dispute: the Eiffel Tower had been an enormous financial success. Even •x•v+m o• K,..,cmmmmtwsom m-+ though the cost of tickets was relatively expensive, the trip up the elevators of the tower had been so popular that there was often a wait of several hours at the ticket booths. Constructed with a government subsidy of one-and-a-half million francs, the Eiffel Tower easily paid for itself in admission revenues even before the Exposition closed; Eiffel himself would enjoy a concession on the tower profits over the next 20 years at the ridiculous fee of 100 francs a year paid to the city of Paris. It is little wonder that by November of 1889 the shares of the Eiffel Fig. 2. Clark, Reeves and Company, Project for the Centennial Tower stood at twice their value. Tower, 1874 (ScientificAmerican, January 1874). Company fully original Likewise, it is scarcely surprising that planners of expositions posal, was to be columnar in shape. The core of the tower elsewhere would begin to consider taller or more novel towers would have contained a tube 30 feet in diameter housing its which would presumably provide the same lucrative center- four elevators. Although the technical difficulties of building piece that the Eiffel Tower had been at the Paris Exposition. such a monument in the space of two years were clearly un- As early as 1886, the Belgian architects F. Hennebique and E. derstood, there was considerable support for the Centennial N'eve proposed to preempt Eiffel's project by constructing a Tower at the time. As one article in ScientificAmerican put it, wooden tower 300 meters high for the exposition to be held in "Not only shall we commemorate our birthday by the loftiest Brussels in 1888. The design of this quasi-Gothic fantasy (Fig. structure ever built by man, but by an edifice designed by 3) is not without a certain charm, although, as was pointed out American engineers, reared by American mechanics, and con- at the time, its construction costs would have been enormous structed of material purely the produce of American soil."3 and its stability would have been doubtful, to say the least." The first serious to build a tower taller than Eiffel's Ultimately, the plan for the Centennial Tower went the way attempt of earlier unrealized projects. However, as the enthusiastic originated with the financier Sir Edward Watkin and Benja- language of ScientificAmerican indicates, many saw the realiza- min Baker, constructor of the Firth of Forth bridge. These tion of a 1,000-foot tower not only as a spectacular com- men proposed a tower for London which, even though it memorative monument, but, perhaps even more important, would not be associated with an international exposition or as dramatic proof of the technological supremacy of the coun- major political anniversary, was nevertheless expected to be an try which could produce it. immensely profitable venture. In October of 1889, Watkin extended invitations for a competition, and 68 proposals for 3. "The CentennialTower One ThousandFeet High," Scientific the London Tower had been received by the beginning of American,Ser. 2, 30 (1874), 50. 4. Commonweal,5 (1889), 361. 1890. By its own account, the jury was generally disappointed 5. La Semainedes Constructeurs,Ser. 2, 1 (1887), 471. with the results of this competition and could not recommend JAY: TALLER THAN EIFFEL'S TOWER 147

Most of the designssubmitted were for towers of iron or steel, although there were a few projectsin concreteand stone as well.7The winningdesign, submittedby A. D. Stewart,J. W. Maclaren,and W. Dunn, was for a relativelyplain steel tower which would have had an eight-leggedbase 300 feet in diameter and would have risen to 1,200 feet. Recognizingthe need for ample concessionspace within the tower, the designers providedfor four galleryplatforms at regularintervals along the length of the tower. The plan for the Wembley Park Tower, named for its site on the MetropolitanRailway, was greatly simplifiedafter the site was selected. For the sake of economy, the numberof legs was reducedfrom eight to four, and the platformsfrom four to three. In its revisedform (Fig. 5), the Wembley Tower resembledthe Eiffel Tower even more closely than it had originally, althoughits height, 150 feet greater than the Eiffel Tower, would be all the more accentuatedby its more narrowbase. The foundationsfor the _, legs were laid in 1892, and by Septemberof 1893 the super- structurehad risento 62 feet (Fig. 6). Althoughprogress had been slow to that point, the contractorsoptimistically pre- LI ! dicted that the tower would be completedwithin a year.8 Even before the Paris Exposition of 1889 closed, several engineersin Americahad alreadyproposed ideas for a monumentaltower at the ColumbianExposition, scheduledat that time to open in 1892. A host city for the ColumbianExposi- tion had not yet been chosen;New York, St. Louis, and Chi- ? :-B CCE- cago were the three most frequentlymentioned candidates. Is: -! ... :???i?; Latein W. L. came :js 1889, Judson forwardwith a proposalfor a free-standingtower 1,600 feet high (Fig. 7). This design, which harkenedback to the columnarprojects from earlierin the century, was intended to highlightJudson's system of pneumaticcar propulsion by includingtwo separateroadways to spiralalong the innerface of the tower frombase to summit and backon a gradientof eight in 100feet. One pathwas to be used by ordinarystreet vehicles, the other servedby tramcars propelled by Judson's pneumaticsystem. This gargantuan structurewas to have a of Fig. 3. F. Hennebique and E. N'eve, Project for a monumental planned daily capacity 94,000 peo- tower at the Brussels International Exposition of 1888 (La Semainedes ple. The samePhoenix Bridge Company which had proposed Constructeurs,April 1887). the CentennialTower for 1876 offered to build the Judson Tower at an estimatedcost of $2,500,000.9 On 23 February1890, the U.S. House of Representatives finallyvoted in favorof Chicagoas the site for the Columbian Exposition.Three days later, the ChicagoTribune published a any of the entriesenthusiastically. In justice to the contestants, crude pasticheof Millet's Angelus,in which the personifica- however, thejury pointedout that the problemof originality tions of New York and St. Louisglare dejectedly groundward had been a difficultone "becausein the EiffelTower the most while, in the background,a vaguelyEiffelesque tower shines naturaland obvious way of combiningeconomic construction radiantlyover the World'sFair in Chicago (Fig. 8). Speaking and suitable architecturaleffect had alreadybeen appropri- for the city of New York, Life magazinewould lateroffer its ated."6The heightsproposed for Watkin'stower rangedfrom own sarcasticsuggestion for a Chicago tower, scarcelycon- 1,197 to 2,007 feet, and the proposeddesigns varied from the cealingits disappointmentover the selectionof such a boorish most absurdlyeclectic to the most radicallyfunctional (Fig. 4). city for the ColumbianExposition (Fig. 9). 148 JSAH, XLVI:2, JUNE 1987

PROJETS DE TOUR MOINUMENITALE A LONDRES

Af wvs p tftre, S ?, Ike ? 426 MR". 90 M r"re36,;V W Ifir $Id" MMTde. iri t dV MmMo1, i j W. . rojeIler E.tM Prl e fie MW T1. pro de P. A Tim e *~ts~et Pohl S. ha w. (I Irk e J..Vaer (•m, kis Mot ey

wtm

P t MN1.M. A.va.he. 1), NM. Fti J.r 1i.Vy' dh~ul Fig. 4. Projects submitted to the Lon- don Tower Competition, 1890 (Le Ge- nie Civil, July 1890).

J'P:;r'.M,Uacat'o Biw, ji~l~u%? n rlZt, ';it~

t •++:++:+ ++-,"•+'' + .:+ ++,+++•+. :+• ++.•t++•: •+•+ +:+" +'•:.> . r'•+; •++t+I 3W ' a "4d+ ++•'+v: '+ ++ "" U? +++, ++:+k++.+ FIG.

The site of the Expositionhaving been decided,the Chicago of 1890, and in June the newspaperpublished an articlede- Tribunehad designateditself as the unofficialforum for pro- scribinghow the Expositioncommissioners were alreadytir- posals to build a ColumbianExposition tower. An especially ing of what they consideredto be the frequentlyridiculous innovativeidea which was announcedin the Tribuneof March 9, 1890, was a plan by E. S. Jenisonand Companyto enclose the entireexposition in a vast circulariron and glass tent cov- 6. "TheWatkin Tower Competition,"Engineering, 49 (1890),736. eringsome 193 acres.A centralsteel tower, capableof holding 7. A review of many of the projectssubmitted in the competition elevatorsand the entire roof, would have was publishedin "The Great Tower in London," Engineering,49 eight supporting 542-544. risento feet. Ideasfor the Columbian tower (1890), 1,100 Exposition 8. "WembleyPark Tower," The Engineer,76 (1893), 239. floodedthe officesof the Tribunethroughout the earlymonths 9. ChicagoTribune, 24 October 1889. JAY: TALLERTHAN EIFFEL'STOWER 149

-? tI

OF THEWOSLIY PAfTO r LEV*ATN ,77

Fig. 6. The WembleyPark Tower under construction,1893 (The Engineer,September 1893). ~VTOFTE WiMLEI AKTOE

For the sake of braggingrights, the ColumbianExposition tower would assuredlyneed to be at least slightly tallerthan the tower in Paris. However, it was also widely felt that, unlikethe tower plannedfor London,it shouldalso providea clear aestheticalternative to the design of the Eiffel Tower. Several designs submitted during 1890 certainly presented such an alternative,perhaps the most ambitiousof which was ...... one by the Washington,D.C., architectsCharles Kinkel and G. R. Pohl. This firm, which had previously submitteda 5. A. D. Stewart,J. W. Maclaren,and W. Dunn,Revised ele- Fig. similar in the Londontower vation, WembleyPark Tower, London,1891 (The Engineer,Septem- design competition,proposed an ber 1893). immensestructure 1,500 feet high and 480 feet in diameterat its base (Fig. 10). The tower itself would have been composed of 16 hyperbolicallycurved legs with numeroushorizontal proposalsbeing submittedto them.1oThere was one proposal, and diagonalbraces. Directly beneaththe tower would have however, which undoubtedlygave the commissionerspause beena domedauditorium rising to 230 feet, which, alongwith to consider.In April, GustaveEiffel himself made an offer to its adjacentlobbies and galleries,would have accommodated build a tower for the ColumbianExposition that would be an estimated30,000 people. Beyond this, the structurewas fully 500 feet taller than his famous structurein Paris.1" intendedto include the largest hotel in the world (approxi- mately 4,000 rooms), together with additionalspace that would have been offeredto the Chicago PublicLibrary. The 10. "The Columbian Exposition Cranks," ChicagoTribune, 15 lower floors would have communicatedwith the tower June 1890. 11. ChicagoTribune, 23 April 1890. througha systemof eight elevators.As the ChicagoTribune of 12. AmericanArchitect and Building News, 28 (1890), 126. 24 May pointed out, this proposed structurewas different 150 JSAH, XLVI:2, JUNE 1987

ever, by the springof 1891, the projectby David Proctorand the ColumbianTower Company (Fig. 11) had emergedas a clear if unofficialfavorite. Citing a report by Chief of Con- struction D. H. Burnhamas its source of information,the Tribuneconfidently announced on 5 Marchthat the "Proctor Tower," 1,050 feet high, would be built at the head of the midway. This optimismwas undoubtedlyinspired in partby the importanceof Proctor's collaborators.The well-known Chicagofirm of GeorgeA. Fullerwas preparedto contractfor the constructionof the tower;the steel would be furnishedby Carnegie'sworks in Pittsburghand shippedby bargeto Chi- cago, readyfor assembly.The cost of the tower was estimated at $2,000,000,and a stock corporationhad been formed, with the partiesin the constructionhaving agreedto take half of their fees in stock. However, there was still the fundamental questionof whetherthe Expositioncommissioners would allow the tower to remainafter the conclusionof the Columbian Exposition. A spokesmanfor the ColumbianTower Com- Vil pany made it clearthat if the tower could not remainon the site they would not build it. Projectionsof its enormousearn- ings notwithstanding,both the commissionersand the mem- bers of the companywere clearlyunsure that the tower could pay for itself during the course of the Exposition. Still, sup- portersof the ProctorTower remainedoptimistic; on 12 May 1891, the Tribunereported that a force of workmen had al- ready begun making soundingsfor foundationson the Mid-

. : \ . o 7

Fig. 7. W. L. Judson, Projectfor a monumentaltower at the Co- lumbianExposition, 1889 (Le GenieCivil, November 1889). from the Londontower not only becauseits proportionswere mightier,but also becauseits ornamentationwas much more elaborate. This was the which a critic for precisely point 4~ 's AmericanArchitect and BuildingNews felt recommendedthis -~~r an sw. design over the plainerand more utilitarianEiffel Tower.12 g Constructionof the ColumbianExposition began in Janu- ary of 1891, andit was obvious that, despitethe postponement of the opening date until 1893, for thereto be a monumental tower at the exposition a decision would have to be reached soon. Until now, the Expositioncommissioners had remained generallyaloof from the tower debate, neither rejectingthe idea outright nor supportingany particularproposal. How- Fig. 8. Cartoonfrom the ChicagoTribune, 27 February1890. JAY: TALLERTHAN EIFFEL'STOWER 151

0 WO

-411

14~

:t I liAll

~--i R i r' . A 0 vv

Mlc-

A SUGESTIN FO THA WORD?S AIR OWERAT CICAG

Fig. 9. Cartoonfrom Life, 20 August1891.

way. Threedays later, it announcedthat Proctor's Columbian Aside from the factthat it calledfor six legs insteadof four, Tower project was still definitely on. It would now cost the overallconfiguration of Proctor'sdesign was quite similar $3,000,000 and would stand 100 feet taller than the Eiffel to that of the Eiffel Tower. As with severalearlier proposals, Tower. however, Proctor'sdesign reflectedthe desire to greatly en- 152 JSAH, XLVI:2, JUNE 1987

Ik LAL UA?T A OMER."

i :

Ti-E CI I I C A :\0 v(I, Mi I i:: : ------i----i-iii :

Fig. 10. CharlesKinkel and G. R. Pohl,Design for the Chicago Fig. 11. DavidProctor, Design for the ColumbianTower, 1890 ColumbusTower, 1890 (H. G. Cutler, The World'sFair, p. 524). (Cutler,p. 618). large visitor capacity,and presumablythe profitability,of its Tower or the tower underconstruction in London.The extent predecessorin Paris. Thus, while the observationplatform at of this decorationis evidentin the half section diagram(Fig. its summit would have been essentiallyan amplifiedvariation 12), where the richGothic tracery, as well as the dome and the on Eiffel's design, much more substantialarchitectural struc- protrudingbays of the first landing, can be clearlyseen. For tures on the tower's two lower platformswere planned.The many, it was once again the greaterornamentation of the elevators would have ascendeddirectly through the central Proctor design which made it aestheticallypreferable to its shaft of the tower insteadof along curvedlegs. With the pro- Frenchpredecessor. For one Frenchcritic, however, its flam- digious carryingcapacity of 8,000 peopleper hour, this system boyantGothic decoration represented a distinctstep backward would have eliminatedthe crowding which had plaguedthe from the more original approachto ornamentationin iron- smaller and more delicatelifts on the Eiffel Tower. It was work found on the Eiffel Tower.1aThe Proctor design was estimatedthat, altogether,the tower could hold 50,000 people certainlyless ponderousin its eclecticismthan the one submit- at any given time. Stylisticallyspeaking, the structureson the ted by Kinkeland Pohl, althoughthe latter might have been platforms and the decorativedetail of the tower generally even more in tune with the generalappearance of the White showed a much greater elaborationthan either the Eiffel City of the Expositionas it emergedin 1893. JAY: TALLERTHAN EIFFEL'STOWER 153 hasgiven many of theman appetite and so themany places devoted to variousrefreshments are liberally patronized. Others, especially the ""- fairsex, crowd the photograph gallery, and the young men are equally partialto the billiardhalls.'4 •

i/ This might have been a fairly accuratedescription had the .•-,,- structureever been built, but after all of the publicity sur- rounding the project, and just over a month after it had claimedthat work on the tower had begun, the Tribunesud- denly reportedon 20 June that the ProctorTower was not to be. The Ways and Means Committeeof the Expositionhad come to the conclusionthat the ColumbianTower Company had not made satisfactoryprogress with its plans, and the JB Y committeeannounced that it was readyto negotiatewith any other responsibleparties who might wish to build a tower. However, for any such party,there remained two seriousob- t. stacles.First, it was by this point certainthat whatevertower .I. ii / be constructedfor -. might the Exposition would have to be temporary.Second, unlike the generous subsidy the French governmenthad providedfor the Eiffel Tower, the commis- sionersmade it clearthat any such structurein Chicagowould have to be totally supportedby privatefunds. By the middle of 1891 there was the additionalproblem of time. Even the Eiffel Tower, which was constructedwithout any major de- lays, had requiredtwo years to complete. In responseto the renewedappeal for a viabletower project, on 4 AugustGustave Eiffel cabled William T. Baker,president of the Board of Directors of the Exposition, offering for a secondtime to builda tower tallerthan the one in Paris.Baker Fig. 12. David Proctor,Half section diagram,Columbian Tower, 1890 (ScientificAmerican Supplement, April 1891). quickly repliedthat the boardwould be glad to considerhis ideas.15When news of this exchange got out, it brought a sharpreaction from membersof the WesternSociety of Civil It is curious to note that, while the construction of the Proc- Engineers.In a petition publishedin the Tribuneon 16 Au- tor Tower was by no means certain at this point, one publisher gust, this group maintainedthat to allow Eiffel to erect a who wanted to get a jump on the competition produced a tower in Chicagowould be "equivalentto a statementthat the guidebook in 1891 which provided, along with coverage of all great body of civil engineersin this country, whose noble the other attractions of the Exposition, an illustration and ex- works attesttheir skill abroadas well as throughoutthe length tensive description of this Columbian Tower, including var- and breadthof the land, lack this abilityto cope with such a ious crowd reactions to it: problem,and such actionwould have a tendencyto rob them of theirjust claimto professionalexcellence." A Tribuneedi- Embarkingon one of the many elevatorswe speedilyreach the first torialist had little for landing, which comprisesthree balconies, twenty-five feet apart,all sympathy this appeal,responding that covered by a beautifuldome of glass 100 feet high from the floor. Americanengineers had alreadybeen given ampleopportuni- Herewe find a surgingmass keenly bent on enjoyingthemselves, now ties to begin constructinga tower, but none had done so. thatthey haveleft earthlythings behind. Their unwonted upwardness Eiffel'sproposition became a moot point when it was learned that he only proposedto buildthe tower andexpected Ameri- can investorsto pay for it. On thatbasis, the Waysand Means 13. "La Tour de 1'Expositionde Chicago," Le Genie Civil, 19 Committee of the Expositionrejected Eiffel's proposal, even 76. (1891), "Lesseules modifications presentees par l'auteur du projet though at around$1,225,000 its cost would have been well consistent dans la de la base, et disposition hexagonale below that of At the same l'ornamentationgenerale, qui, au lieu d'etre,comme au monumentau Proctor'searlier proposal. time, the Champ de Mars, d'un caract'ereenti'erement nouveau, parait tre committeealso made it clearthat it would considerno more emprunteeau style flamboyant." 14. H. G. Cutler, The World'sFair, Chicago, 1891, 619. 15. ChicagoTribune, 8 August 1891. 154 JSAH, XLVI:2, JUNE 1987 projects for a tower on the Exposition grounds unless the partiesinvolved could guaranteethey had the financialmeans to build it.16 Althoughseveral more or less dubiousproposals continued to come in duringthe later months of 1891, the chancesof a monumentaltower being built in time for the Exposition seemed by this point to be very slim. On 12 Septemberthe Tribune,which had been such a steadfastsupporter of a tower iiiiiiiiiiiiiii::ii:ii:i for the Expositionover the pasttwo years,tried to put the best ..... face on the situationby bravely announcingthat "Chicago ...... i will not endeavorto imitateParis by constructinga sky-scrap------:- ing tower." However, in October George S. Morison came iIiis:i-,,ii~i ' forwardwith plans for a 1,120-foot tower which he claimed [m iiii could be built within a year, easilyin time for the opening of .. . the Exposition.Morison's qualifications for thejob were well established;like Eiffel, he had madehis reputationas a prolific

bridge builder, working primarilyin the midwest. Morison ...... was supportedby a substantialconsortium of backers,including Carnegie'sKeystone Bridge Companyin Pittsburgh,the company which would provide the standardand recyclable -**A:::*- P-777r steel components for the tower. The promoterswere con- 7.4::::::::::::: :::::: :-:::: :...... vincedthat the tower couldbe builtfor $1,500,000,which was roughly $200,000less than the Eiffel Tower had cost. Morison'splan was a radicallysimple approach to the problem of tall tower construction.The spareand utilitarian nature of his design (Fig. 13) would have been a distinctlyAmerican alternativeto the more elegant and fragileappearance of the Eiffel Tower. It was undoubtedlythe most plausibleand care- Fig. 13. GeorgeS. Morison,Perspective drawing, tower project for the ColumbianExposition, 1891 November fully conceivedof any ColumbianExposition tower plansub- (Engineering, 1891). mitted to that point. Morison'sdesign reflectednot only the need for economy andrapid construction, but also the specific tapered graduallyfor 500 feet to a width of 40 feet at the conditionsof the site on which it was to be built. The soft, lantern. As with the Eiffel Tower, the main concessionary sandy soil of the areacould take heavy loads well enough if space would have been on the first platform.The plan called evenly distributed,but it could not handlelateral thrusts well. for four separaterestaurants at this level, each of which would Thus the kind of inclinedsupports used in the Eiffel Tower have been three stories high, 45 feet wide by 90 feet long; were out of the question.The planfrom above (Fig. 14) shows altogether,they would have been able to accommodate8,000 the configurationof the eight outlying piers which would people. One restaurantwould havefaced outward on eachside have supportedthe exterior frame of the structure,and the of the tower, with enoughspace remaining in the centerof the centralconcrete core to supportthe shaft of the tower. The platformfor severalsmaller buildings. eight elevators,each with a capacityof 50 persons,would have It was estimatedthat Morison'stower could hold 25,000 run directlyfrom the ground throughthe centralshaft, with people at any given time and carryup to 75,000 a day on its two going non-stopto the summit. As indicatedin a skeleton eight elevators.(The price would have rangedfrom 50 cents elevation (Fig. 15), the outlines of the tower are an essay in for the first landingto $1.50 to ride directlyto the top.) Ac- geometricsimplicity. The GreekCross form of the base was cording to the figures of Morison'sAmerican Tower Com- to be 400 feet wide. The circularfirst platform, 200 feet above pany, the tower could easily bring in receiptsof $4,000,000 the base, was to rest on anothercruciform base 200 feet wide. during the 150 days of the Exposition,a sum four times the The second platform,another 200 feet up, would have had a earningsof the Eiffel Tower duringthe Expositionof 1889." squarebase 100 feet wide. From therethe tower would have Some undoubtedlyconsidered this projectionto be extremely optimistic;it would have requiredmore than 5,500,000 paid 16. ChicagoTribune, 29 August 1891. admissionsto the tower duringthe Exposition.Even during 17. ChicagoTribune, 17 October 1891. the ParisExposition, which had the largestattendance of any JAY: TALLERTHAN EIFFEL'STOWER 155

M (F 1W~S.M()JUSONPIN NEWVV 0 Figt VLJ

?71

AlJq

I IL t4:'f : :~~n- ~ ---::..:-i--:i~i --i i::-:- :':--l--::: ,C~ /

,~, I

2G315*___~ L$A

Skeletoi Elevation and Plans. Fig. 15. George S. Morison, Skeletonelevation, tower projectfor the ColumbianExposition, 1891 (Engineering News, December1891).

enterprisewas a model of the Eiffel Tower exhibited by a 14. S. Elevationand tower for Fig. George Morison, plans, project Frenchconcessionaire."s the ColumbianExposition, 1891 (Engineering, December 1891). It should be noted that, even afterthe ColumbianExposi- tion had come and gone, the idea of a permanentmemorial tower for Chicago was not completely forsaken. Constant expositionin the 19thcentury, only 3,500,000people had paid Desire Despradelle,a Frencharchitect who held a chairat the to ascendthe Eiffel Tower. The AmericanTower Company MassachusettsInstitute of Technology from 1893 until his had no trouble securing options on the grounds where the death in 1912, was so impressedwhen he visited the Colum- tower was to be built, andit seemsto have madeconsiderable bian Exposition that immediatelythereafter he formulateda headway in securing pledges for funds by October 1891. plan for a 1,500-foot "Beaconof Progress"to be built on the However, the fact that no structureswould be allowed to site of the Exposition in JacksonPark. The design for this remainafter the Exposition closed undoubtedlyundermined monument(Fig. 16) was awardedthe gold medalfor architec- the confidence of some prospectiveinvestors in Morison's tureby thejury of the ParisSalon of 1900. Writingabout the project,just as it had earlierwith Proctor'sproposal. On 1 projectin that same year, Despradelledescribed the tower as December 1891, spokesmenfor the AmericanTower Com- both a tributeto the splendorsof the vanishedWhite City of pany went before the Committee on Groundsand Buildings the Expositionand as a monument"typifying the apotheosis to appealfor an extensionof time to secureadditional funding of Americancivilization." Conceived as a sort of magnified for their tower. The committee accededfor the time being, and much more ornatevariation on the WashingtonMonu- but by the beginningof the followingJanuary the American ment, the Beacon of Progress would have included ample Tower Company had still not securedsufficient pledges to amountsof allegoricalsculpture and a greatamphitheatre at its begin constructionand so was given a final deadlineof two base, which, in Despradelle'swords, would be "a sort of sanc- additionalweeks to find the necessaryfunds. It failedto do so, tuary where orators,philanthropists, and savansmay deliver and thus the last opportunityto outdo the EiffelTower at the Columbian was lost. the tower at Exposition Ironically, only 18. [H. N. Higinbotham], Report of the Presidentto the Board of the ColumbianExposition which became a money-making Directorsof the World'sColumbian Exposition, Chicago, 1898, 485. 156 JSAH, XLVI:2, JUNE 1987

and, as architecture, the Manufactures and Liberal Arts Build-

i:::::?l:-iii:ii--i:-iii-i:I-: -:-i--:: _: _iii ing was certainly less stylistically original than the Palais des a:i~,i~iz~B~iiii~~i~~i~i~iiizi~-~~c s-IIF-''~-~~l~'-.-:_-;-:ia-B~':iiiiii-:-:-~i:i i-ii-i _:- _-~iiii:i~:i~i~iii~x;~-:~,,':~:?l_::i :iiiii~i':i': Machines. The structure which was more ii:aiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiai:--- .?? i:- ''I':'-:' '? :: ~;?-ii universally ap- ~Bl~~_n~~ ~i~i~i!i---i.--i:iiii~i:-i.~a--ii:---~ ._-,,~I plauded as the primary engineering achievement of the Co- __:_j:::--:_::_-_::-,_?i:-i--?.:-:'-~i:? ?- ::_:-- -:-:-:---- :::--: :-:-: ::-:--:?:: -: : ::: -:::::- ::::: :::-?:---' ::-- ??:1-:::------'::---i:-_::-i?-'--: ::-:: ::::::::: -:? -. ::::-:::-::?-:i-:n~:,:i~i:?:iiiiii-~i~i5_1::ii.: ; ii:ii-i~~i: iiiiiii likii~Siiiii~iiEif-;si~iii~_~'l'ii'~ lumbian Exposition was the giant revolving wheel by George ?i~ii:: -:?:; :. :-:-::-:::ii:iii?iii-ii::ii-::-~i-ii~~ :::::i:::::::?::-:::::::-:i::-::::::-::: :~~?ii:ii~~-iii-iiirii-!i--i jriilii~-i:i~ii~~ :~jil:~i~~~~:?: ~h::i;: .~-j-iii~i~i~ - -:i:'- :-ii::::::i::: i-i:: - .. _-_:i:-i _;::-ii-l- _:::::;:::--:-:i:i::::;:-i::: :-_-:_,_,::i_-:i----::- . ii-:i:i-: -::::?:i;:- -i: ~i--- i-:i:i :-: :::-'-:-:-::----. ?--i:i i-i i~--:-'-.- -i i: - -- -::ii :-'-'- :?:? ::- ::::;-:-:-?-:`;:::;:::i:-:::::::::l . : ::,::_-:::::_--:-_--i::_i-:: _ ::-:-::::::::i::::'::l:j?il:::::::-i::j:::-::::: ::::::i:::::j,:,,:,,:::- ::::::.:..:_:-_:-::;':_;_:_i::;i-:ii:-~-?:---:--::_i :-:--:__:-::-__.i-:-_:::-liiig~iii_:- W. located to the model of the Eiffel ::--:--i:-:::::--:::-::'i-j:.ij-::il:~i~i:,ix'.:'---~~i:i::--ii~-ii:iii~~iii6iri~:_ Ferris, directly adjacent -I?-:k-i??:-:'il--~-_.::,-::: ::.:... ..-:;: : : ------:-ii-::-Il_ ii::rr:i:i:-::i:l :i:i:iiii?ii:--::-:iii i:i--i:i:,-:l-.:-i--i::1:::: ::. ii--_: :: : ::::--::.:i::-_--~-r? ?:-j---:::: :---::::-- : : :-:' - '-'-: :-i:: - :-:i-~--:iiiii:::-- -_r_.:??':~:l??--' Tower on the Midway Plaisance. Unlike most of the tower -,_:i_::--;j,::::_:i~i:iiiii-::::?:: ii:i-~P,~~_:l :Li::- -::'::::-i::-i-::-::iii~iii:lii::_---::: I_-li_I--'-'-::i-! i-2?--i-:-i-,-il:-i,___i:,_:- _:-:-_ -: :ii:i?i.:-...-.- .-::-i:i::i...i~i-~-:-:i-i- :-:-;-:- - :..--. ---:,:-::--i~--j: r:;;?-:_:i:;.:?-~:;~~ji-i~;al-isll_~x -:_i-- :i: i: . : :-. _-__:;iiiiiiii:-i - i:-:-i~ i-i which had been for the Ferris -::: :::- - -:::-:iii;Fiiii-iii~ i:-_j-::-:i -:: :. -..: projects proposed Chicago, ::-::::i::-i:-: : :::-:-:- ---- : '- -i~i:~:_i;::;:_i-_iili;i~:-i_8i~i--::ii:~:-'::i~i'--i:-ilii~iioi~i ~~:g~.::-:-::;:_,::::::;:_:;:~i::: : :---::: Wheel could be disassembled and relocated after ~i:li:':i-iiii-;?i-iii~;iiiiiiiii-i : ::- i::-- _: _-:; : - :- : _:,:.: :-: ::::i::i-ii--..-::_ -- i::-ii ---: ?ii-i ?i-ii-iiii:i easily the ?i:::::::::::i:::---i43:i'.l:i'r~~:~ai:iii-:-"-ii-i:l-_lliii..:i-:---:: : --_ _:_ii:_i:::: ii ..iiiiiiiiFi--i-i ~ii~ iili-:.iii-iizii:. - :--ii~ji.iiiiiiiiili':ia~-liiiii .:: -:: iii_iiii ::-:::::--_:_:::::: . : _-:_--i:-:'.i:__---I--_ii-x_: --'.:-::::::r-8:-- Exposition was over; by the same token, its temporary nature - i-i:: . ::?::::;::::-::::::::j?-i--~:_-i_:iiiiiiaiilis-i~iil~ : :;-:::1::?-::?:::::1:::::~::1:; j ..-.:.- .:: :'::::-- . :::: ::::-il::-lli;~;-i:: : : ; ::-:':::':-::-::::::__a:;::-:-?--i~i--;i-;- it of the monumental of the Eiffel i-ii':.iii, deprived enduring, quality ::::::iiilr~~-~,,,ii~-:--iii-i-il;-_-ii:i~-ii:--i ..... --:ii_ ::i: : -: -:-::--i--.-':--?::: i-:?ii--~i- -.- : :: -: -__~:_I:-i : :--i -l;_i:--i-iii ::ii :iiiiii-i-4i ::ii::::::i::::;-:: :::ii?-i-i-i~~-?::-i::::-:-::-:::-:-:-' :-:::::,,---:il- _-:-_-;iii:i---':- :si-iii Tower. It was also much less profitable, although the rela- ii:,ii-i:i-i-ii:-:-:l:--'-iiiii:; : ------:i-i--:-ii:l i-i 1 ..:::::---::;;.i::.:_-:: ::-:::: 'ii'ii'ir~.,? i .i~::-::,i: lower attendance at the Columbian was un- :: '::'- :'':-:i;i-i -:- ::::::::-: ------_::::i:'i-i: ::::ii"'':: - --::;:-~1~1:.:11--;:':;:::' ':":"' tively Exposition doubtedly a factor. The claim that the Ferris Wheel was actu- :: : -.-.- :-i- - ;- ally more innovative than the Eiffel Tower in terms of pure engineering was widely made at the time and has been given

: further support in subsequent literature.22However, to sug- that ::-:: gest it had the same impact on the popular imagination or - - that it provided the same centerpiece for the Columbian Expo- _.--.... -'i:l:--:::::-::-::-:-- sition that the Eiffel Tower had been in 1889 is to distinctly :::::: overstate the case. Meanwhile, by February 1894, the Wembley Park Tower had still only reached a height of 150 feet. Despite such meager progress, its promoters predicted that the tower would be done within a year. Six months later, however, it was announced that work had been temporarily halted for want of funds.23Construction of Watkin's tower never recommenced. Ultimately, that the Eiffel Tower would remain a unique and Fig. 16. ConstantDesire Despradelle, Perspective drawing, project tower in the 19th had more to do with for the Beaconof Progress,1900 (The TechnologyReview, October unsurpassed century 1900). economics than anything else. A taller tower was easily within the technical grasp of English and American builders, and the inspiringwords before the altarof their country."19It might desire to build one was certainly strong in both countries in be said that this representsthe last and most hopelesslyambi- the early 1890s. Yet, as the fate of both the London tower and tious of the monumentaltower proposalswhich had inspired the various projects for the Columbian Exposition shows, pri- so manyengineers and architects throughout the 19thcentury. vate enterprise in England and America could not by itself Americanarchitects and engineersclearly saw the Colum- provide what generous government patronage, combined bian Exposition as an opportunityto demonstratethe same with the novelty of Eiffel's idea, had achieved in 1889. sort of technologicalascendancy that the Frenchhad exhibited at the Expositionof 1889. The sense of competitivenesswith the Paris is in Exposition reflected the fact that, althoughit 19. ConstantDesire Despradelle,"The Beaconof Progress,"The was only by an arm'slength, the spanof the Manufacturesand TechnologyReview, 2 (1900), 306-307. I am indebtedto Alison Sky LiberalArts Buildingat the ColumbianExposition was delib- and MichelleStone, UnbuiltAmerica, New York, 1976, 86-87, as the initial source for this citation. wider than that of the record the erately previous holder, 20. Donald Hoffman, "ClearSpan Rivalry: The World'sFairs of Palaisdes Machinesat the Expositionof 1889.20The Chicago 1889-1893,"JSAH, 29 (1970), 48-50. Tribunesaid of this mammothbuilding: "This is the structure 21. ChicagoTribune, 21 February1892. 22. See in Kouwenhowen,"The EiffelTower and which we expect to make ever heardof the particularJohn people forgetthey the FerrisWheel," in his Half a Truthis BetterThan None, Chicago, EiffelTower."21 Still, this was undoubtedlya less obviousfeat 1982, 109-124. than a tower taller than the Eiffel Tower would have been, 23. The Engineer,78 (1894), 103.