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
Chicago
Eiffel's
Tower
ROBERT
The
Tower:
Projects,
JA Y
London
and
1889-1894
University of Hawaii
During the later 19th century the rapid spread of iron and steel
in which techbuildingtechnologycreatedan engineers'architecture
E:::
:~
nical problemsfrequently took priority over traditionalconcernsof
architectural
1~
style. Perhapsno otherstructurerepresentsa moredra;~~
a,;
matic statementof this new spirit in architecturethan the Eiffel
~~I;
"?
Tower. Yet while the controversysurroundingthe buildingof the
~:-????--a
Eiffel Tower is well known, the almost immediateattemptson the
~iiQ ~
part of Americanand Britishengineersandarchitectsto builda taller
:si:2~
~8;?
"
towerare not. This articleconcentrates
particularlyon two ambitious
-'1..
but ultimatelyunsuccessfulattemptsto outdistancethe Eiffel Tower:
~"~;?~
Sir Edward Watkin's WembleyPark Tower in London and a
~i-~??~C?i::;L.~
~
?~'
monumentaltowerfor the Columbian Exposition in Chicago in
p-??~,
1893. These effortswerewell documented
in any numberof architec?~
~"
Ou~a
sd
-:I---~-I:
tural and engineeringjournals of the period. They were alsofrequentlyreportedand debatedin popularmagazinesand newspapers,
~~n~lxi
4~X~_I
ps~
reflectingthe stronggeneralinterestandnationalprideinvolvedin the
"'~
prospectof claimingthe talleststructurein the world. This articleis
i-~x?
~v-~-u
basedprimarilyon suchperiodsources,not only becauseof the liveli?4X:l
;;"
~Ru:
nessof the reportage,butbecause,in somecases,theyprovidethe only
s:
x
~?i~
accessibleinformationon some of the proposedtowerprojects. The
most strikingfact about the ultimatelyfutile effortsof British and
r
JI
American buildersto constructa taller tower is that, while they
1*
had
the
technical
to
do
economic
considerations
so,
certainly
expertise
overcamethem. Doubtsas to theprofitabilityof anothertall toweras
to the ReFig. 1. RichardTrevithick,,
Projectfor the Monument
a public attractionon eithera temporaryor permanentbasisdoomed formAct, 1832.
both the Londonand Chicago towerprojectstofailure.
THE IDEA OF BUILDINGmonumental towers to commemo-
rate important cultural or political events persisted throughout
most of the 19th century. The first major attempt of this sort
was that of the British engineer Richard Trevithick, who proposed a 1,000-foot columnar tower of gilded cast iron to commemorate the passage of the Reform Act in 1832 (Fig. 1).
Trevithick died in 1833, and although the project was briefly
revived in 1862 as a possible monument to Prince Albert, it
met with little enthusiasm.1 It was especially on the occasion
of international expositions that 19th-century architects and
engineers came forward with monumental tower proposals.
JSAH XL VI:145-156.JUNE 1987
Followingthe LondonExhibitionof 1851, one architectsuggested using the glass and iron from the Crystal Palace to
constructa tower 1,000 feet high.2The first seriousproposal
for a monumentaltower at an internationalexpositioncamein
the 1870s, when the civil engineeringteam of Clark and
Reeves, proprietorsof a bridgeworks in Phoenixville,Pennsylvania,concocteda planfor a towerto be erectedadjacentto
the CentennialExposition in Philadelphiain 1876 (Fig. 2).
This "CentennialTower" was also intendedto be 1,000 feet
high, constructedof iron, and, like Trevithick'searlierproof Eiffel'sTower,"JSAH, 16 (1957),
1. F. L.Jenkins,"Harbingers
22-23.
2. Jenkins,"Harbingers,"25.
145
146
A
JSAH, XLVI:2, JUNE 1987
I
"
.[..[.L.
++U,
.
l Fa ICTWALI
M
All].
MI• l INC.
II+
+
+IN'
. I
X
I",),Uo.A"t.,
A
K,..,cmmmmtwsom
•x•v+m
m-+
o•
Fig. 2. Clark, Reeves and Company, Project for the Centennial
Tower, 1874 (ScientificAmerican,
January1874).
posal, was to be columnar in shape. The core of the tower
would have contained a tube 30 feet in diameter housing its
four elevators. Although the technical difficulties of building
such a monument in the space of two years were clearly understood, there was considerable support for the Centennial
Tower at the time. As one article in ScientificAmericanput it,
"Not only shall we commemorate our birthday by the loftiest
structure ever built by man, but by an edifice designed by
American engineers, reared by American mechanics, and constructed of material purely the produce of American soil."3
Ultimately, the plan for the Centennial Tower went the way
of earlier unrealized projects. However, as the enthusiastic
language of ScientificAmericanindicates, many saw the realization of a 1,000-foot tower not only as a spectacular commemorative monument, but, perhaps even more important,
as dramatic proof of the technological supremacy of the country which could produce it.
3. "The CentennialTower One ThousandFeet High," Scientific
American,Ser. 2, 30 (1874), 50.
5 (1889),361.
4. Commonweal,
Ser. 2, 1 (1887),471.
5. La Semainedes Constructeurs,
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
against Gustave Eiffel's tower is well known. Yet what is
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 rebuke 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
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
Tower Company stood at fully twice their original value.
Likewise, it is scarcely surprising that planners of expositions
elsewhere would begin to consider taller or more novel towers
which would presumably provide the same lucrative centerpiece that the Eiffel Tower had been at the Paris Exposition.
As early as 1886, the Belgian architects F. Hennebique and E.
N'eve proposed to preempt Eiffel's project by constructing a
wooden tower 300 meters high for the exposition to be held in
Brussels in 1888. The design of this quasi-Gothic fantasy (Fig.
3) is not without a certain charm, although, as was pointed out
at the time, its construction costs would have been enormous
and its stability would have been doubtful, to say the least."
The first serious attempt to build a tower taller than Eiffel's
originated with the financier Sir Edward Watkin and Benjamin Baker, constructor of the Firth of Forth bridge. These
men proposed a tower for London which, even though it
would not be associated with an international exposition or
major political anniversary, was nevertheless expected to be an
immensely profitable venture. In October of 1889, Watkin
extended invitations for a competition, and 68 proposals for
the London Tower had been received by the beginning of
1890. By its own account, the jury was generally disappointed
with the results of this competition and could not recommend
JAY: TALLER THAN EIFFEL'S TOWER
_,
LI
Is:
!
? :B CCE
...
-! :???i?;
:js
Fig. 3. F. Hennebique and E. N'eve, Project for a monumental
tower at the Brussels International Exposition of 1888 (La Semainedes
Constructeurs,
April1887).
any of the entriesenthusiastically.Injusticeto the contestants,
however, thejury pointedout thatthe problemof originality
had been a difficultone "becausein the EiffelTower the most
naturalandobvious way of combiningeconomicconstruction
and suitable architecturaleffect had alreadybeen appropriated."6The heightsproposedfor Watkin'stower rangedfrom
1,197 to 2,007 feet, and the proposeddesignsvariedfrom the
most absurdlyeclecticto the most radicallyfunctional(Fig.4).
147
Most of the designssubmittedwere for towersof ironor steel,
although there were a few projectsin concreteand stone as
well.7The winningdesign,submittedby A. D. Stewart,J. W.
Maclaren,andW. Dunn, was for a relativelyplainsteel tower
which would have hadan eight-leggedbase300 feet in diameter and would have risento 1,200 feet. Recognizingthe need
for ample concessionspace within the tower, the designers
providedfor four galleryplatformsat regularintervalsalong
the length of the tower. The plan for the Wembley Park
Tower, namedfor 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 greaterthan 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 superstructurehad risento 62 feet (Fig. 6). Althoughprogresshad
been slow to that point, the contractorsoptimisticallypredicted that the tower would be completedwithin a year.8
Even before the Paris Exposition of 1889 closed, several
engineersin Americahad alreadyproposedideasfor a monumentaltower at the ColumbianExposition,scheduledat that
time to open in 1892. A host city for the ColumbianExposition had not yet been chosen;New York, St. Louis, andChicago were the three most frequentlymentionedcandidates.
Latein 1889,W. L.Judsoncameforwardwith a proposalfor a
free-standingtower 1,600 feet high (Fig. 7). This design,
which harkenedbackto the columnarprojectsfrom earlierin
the century, was intended to highlightJudson's system of
pneumaticcarpropulsionby includingtwo separateroadways
to spiralalongthe innerfaceof the tower frombaseto summit
andbackon a gradientof eightin 100feet. One pathwas to be
used by ordinarystreetvehicles,the other servedby tramcars
propelled by Judson's pneumaticsystem. This gargantuan
structurewas plannedto have a daily capacityof 94,000 people. The samePhoenixBridgeCompanywhichhad proposed
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.Threedays later, the ChicagoTribunepublisheda
crude pasticheof Millet's Angelus,in which the personifications of New York andSt. Louisglaredejectedlygroundward
while, in the background,a vaguelyEiffelesquetower shines
radiantlyover the World'sFairin Chicago(Fig. 8). Speaking
for the city of New York, Life magazinewould laterofferits
own sarcasticsuggestionfor a Chicago tower, scarcelyconcealingits disappointmentover the selectionof sucha boorish
city for the ColumbianExposition (Fig. 9).
148
JSAH, XLVI:2, JUNE 1987
PROJETS
Af wvs
$Id" MMT
de.
*~ts~et
iri
DE TOUR
tftre,
S
p
t dV Mm
Mo1, i
Pohl
?
?, Ike
j W. .
MOINUMENITALE
426 MR".
r
E.tM
rojeIle
S. ha w.
A LONDRES
90 M r"re36,;V
Prl e fie MW T1.
(I Irk e J..Vaer
Ifir
W
de
pro
P.
kis
(•m,
A
Mot
Tim e
ey
wtm
P
t
M. A.
MN1.
va.he.
1),
NM. Fti
1i.Vy'
dh~ul
J.r
Fig. 4. Projects submitted to the London Tower Competition, 1890 (Le Genie Civil, July 1890).
M,
at'o
Uac
Biw,
J'P:;r'.
ji~
n
l~u%?
:++:+ ++-,"•
+' +
.:+•++++,+++•+
. '
U?
rlZt,
:+
• ++.•
t++•:
+'•:.>
•+•++:+"
.
';it
~
t
I
3W '
r'•+; •++t+
+++,
a
v: '+
"4d+ ++•'+
++++:+k++.+
""
FIG.
The site of the Expositionhavingbeendecided,the Chicago
Tribunehad designateditself as the unofficialforum for proposalsto build a ColumbianExpositiontower. An especially
innovativeideawhich was announcedin the Tribuneof March
9, 1890, was a planby E. S. Jenisonand Companyto enclose
the entireexpositionin a vast circulariron and glass tent coveringsome 193acres.A centralsteeltower, capableof holding
eight elevatorsand supportingthe entire roof, would have
risento 1,100 feet. Ideasfor the ColumbianExpositiontower
floodedthe officesof the Tribunethroughoutthe earlymonths
of 1890, and in June the newspaperpublishedan articledescribinghow the Expositioncommissionerswere alreadytiring of what they consideredto be the frequentlyridiculous
49 (1890),736.
6. "TheWatkinTowerCompetition,"Engineering,
7. A review of many of the projectssubmittedin the competition
49
was publishedin "The Great Tower in London," Engineering,
(1890), 542-544.
8. "WembleyParkTower," TheEngineer,76 (1893),239.
9. ChicagoTribune,24 October 1889.
JAY: TALLERTHAN EIFFEL'STOWER
-?
149
tI
OF THEWOSLIYPAfTO
LEV*ATN
r
,77
Fig. 6. The WembleyParkTower under construction,1893 (The
Engineer,
September
1893).
~VTO
FTE
WiMLE
I
AKTOE
.........
andW. Dunn,RevisedeleJ. W. Maclaren,
Fig. 5. A. D. Stewart,
vation, WembleyParkTower, London,1891(The Engineer,September 1893).
proposalsbeingsubmittedto them.1oTherewas one proposal,
however, which undoubtedlygave the commissionerspause
to consider.In April, GustaveEiffelhimselfmadean offer to
build a tower for the ColumbianExposition that would be
fully 500 feet tallerthan his famous structurein Paris.1"
10. "The ColumbianExposition Cranks," ChicagoTribune,15
June 1890.
11. ChicagoTribune,23 April 1890.
12. American
andBuildingNews, 28 (1890), 126.
Architect
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 aestheticalternativeto the design of the Eiffel Tower.
Several designs submitted during 1890 certainlypresented
such an alternative,perhapsthe most ambitiousof which was
one by the Washington,D.C., architectsCharlesKinkeland
G. R. Pohl. This firm, which had previously submitteda
similardesignin the Londontower competition,proposedan
immensestructure1,500 feet high and480 feet in diameterat
its base(Fig. 10). The tower itselfwould havebeencomposed
of 16 hyperbolicallycurved legs with numeroushorizontal
and diagonalbraces.Directlybeneaththe tower would have
beena domedauditoriumrisingto 230 feet, which, alongwith
its adjacentlobbiesand galleries,would have accommodated
an estimated30,000 people. Beyond this, the structurewas
intendedto includethe largesthotel in the world (approximately 4,000 rooms), together with additionalspace that
would have been offeredto the ChicagoPublicLibrary.The
lower floors would have communicatedwith the tower
througha systemof eight elevators.As the ChicagoTribuneof
24 May pointed out, this proposed structurewas different
150
JSAH, XLVI:2, JUNE 1987
Vil
ever, by the springof 1891, the projectby David Proctorand
the ColumbianTower Company (Fig. 11) had emergedas a
clearif unofficialfavorite. Citing a reportby Chief of ConstructionD. H. Burnhamas its source of information,the
Tribuneconfidentlyannouncedon 5 Marchthat the "Proctor
Tower," 1,050 feet high, would be built at the head of the
midway. This optimismwas undoubtedlyinspiredin partby
the importanceof Proctor'scollaborators.The well-known
Chicagofirmof GeorgeA. Fullerwas preparedto contractfor
the constructionof the tower;the steelwould be furnishedby
Carnegie'sworks in Pittsburghand shippedby bargeto Chicago, readyfor assembly.The cost of the tower was estimated
at $2,000,000,anda stock corporationhadbeen formed,with
the partiesin the constructionhaving agreedto take half of
their fees in stock. However, therewas still the fundamental
questionof whetherthe Expositioncommissionerswould allow the towerto remainafterthe conclusionof the Columbian
Exposition. A spokesmanfor the ColumbianTower Company made it clearthat if the tower could not remainon the
site they would not buildit. Projectionsof its enormousearnings notwithstanding,both the commissionersand the members of the companywere clearlyunsurethat the tower could
pay for itself duringthe courseof the Exposition.Still, supportersof the ProctorTower remainedoptimistic;on 12 May
1891, the Tribunereportedthat a force of workmen had alreadybegun makingsoundingsfor foundationson the Mid-
.
:
\
.
o
7
Fig. 7. W. L. Judson,Projectfor a monumentaltower at the ColumbianExposition, 1889 (Le GenieCivil, November 1889).
from the Londontower not only becauseits proportionswere
mightier,but also becauseits ornamentationwas much more
elaborate.This was precisely the point which a critic for
AmericanArchitectand BuildingNews felt recommendedthis
design over the plainerand more utilitarianEiffel Tower.12
Constructionof the ColumbianExpositionbeganin January of 1891,andit was obviousthat,despitethepostponement
of the openingdate until 1893, for thereto be a monumental
tower at the expositiona decisionwould have to be reached
soon. Until now, the Expositioncommissionershadremained
generallyaloof from the tower debate, neitherrejectingthe
idea outright nor supportingany particularproposal.How-
's
4~
-~~r
g
an sw.
Fig. 8. Cartoonfrom the ChicagoTribune,27 February1890.
JAY: TALLERTHAN EIFFEL'STOWER
151
0WO
-411
14~
I
:t
liAll
~--i
R
A
i r'
0
v
.
Mlc-
A SUGESTIN
FO
THA
WORD?S
AIR
OWERAT
CICAG
Fig. 9. CartoonfromLife,20 August1891.
way. Threedayslater,it announcedthatProctor'sColumbian
Tower project was still definitely on. It would now cost
$3,000,000 and would stand 100 feet taller than the Eiffel
Tower.
Aside from the factthatit calledfor six legs insteadof four,
the overallconfigurationof Proctor'sdesignwas quite similar
to that of the EiffelTower. As with severalearlierproposals,
however, Proctor'sdesign reflectedthe desireto greatlyen-
152
JSAH, XLVI:2, JUNE 1987
Ik
L
A
LA
UA?T
OMER."
i
:
Ti-E CI I IC A :\0
v(I,
Mi
I
i:: :
--------------i
----i-ii
i :
Fig. 10. CharlesKinkelandG. R. Pohl,Designfor the Chicago
ColumbusTower, 1890 (H. G. Cutler, The World's
Fair, p. 524).
Fig. 11. DavidProctor,Designfor the Columbian
Tower,1890
(Cutler,p. 618).
large visitor capacity,and presumablythe profitability,of its
predecessorin Paris.Thus, while the observationplatformat
its summitwould have been essentiallyan amplifiedvariation
on Eiffel'sdesign, much more substantialarchitecturalstructureson the tower's two lower platformswere planned.The
elevators would have ascendeddirectly through the central
shaftof the tower insteadof along curvedlegs. Withthe prodigiouscarryingcapacityof 8,000 peopleperhour, this system
would have eliminatedthe crowding which had plaguedthe
smallerand more delicatelifts on the Eiffel Tower. It was
estimatedthat, altogether,the towercouldhold 50,000people
at any given time. Stylisticallyspeaking,the structureson the
platformsand the decorativedetail of the tower generally
showed a much greater elaborationthan either the Eiffel
Tower or the towerunderconstructionin London.The extent
of this decorationis evidentin the half section diagram(Fig.
12), wherethe richGothictracery,as well as the dome andthe
protrudingbays of the first landing,can be clearlyseen. For
many, it was once again the greaterornamentationof the
Proctor design which made it aestheticallypreferableto its
Frenchpredecessor.For one Frenchcritic,however, its flamboyantGothicdecorationrepresenteda distinctstepbackward
from the more originalapproachto ornamentationin ironwork found on the Eiffel Tower.1aThe Proctor design was
certainlyless ponderousin its eclecticismthanthe one submitted by Kinkeland Pohl, althoughthe lattermight have been
even more in tune with the generalappearanceof the White
City of the Expositionas it emergedin 1893.
JAY: TALLERTHAN EIFFEL'STOWER
hasgivenmanyof themanappetite
andso themanyplacesdevotedto
variousrefreshments
areliberallypatronized.
the
Others,especially
fairsex,crowdthephotograph
gallery,andtheyoungmenareequally
partialto thebilliardhalls.'4
""-
•
i/
.•-,,-
Y
JB
.I.
t.
ii
153
/
-.
Fig. 12. David Proctor,Half section diagram,ColumbianTower,
1890 (ScientificAmerican
Supplement,
April 1891).
It is curious to note that, while the construction of the Proctor Tower was by no means certain at this point, one publisher
who wanted to get a jump on the competition produced a
guidebook in 1891 which provided, along with coverage of all
the other attractions of the Exposition, an illustration and extensive description of this Columbian Tower, including various crowd reactions to it:
Embarkingon one of the many elevatorswe speedilyreachthe first
landing,which comprisesthreebalconies,twenty-fivefeet apart,all
coveredby a beautifuldome of glass 100 feet high from the floor.
Herewe finda surgingmasskeenlybenton enjoyingthemselves,now
thatthey haveleft earthlythingsbehind.Theirunwontedupwardness
13. "La Tour de 1'Expositionde Chicago," Le GenieCivil, 19
(1891),76. "Lesseulesmodificationspresenteesparl'auteurdu projet
consistent dans la disposition hexagonale de la base, et
l'ornamentation
generale,qui, aulieu d'etre,commeau monumentau
Champ de Mars, d'un caract'ereenti'erementnouveau, parait tre
emprunteeau style flamboyant."
14. H. G. Cutler, The World's
Fair, Chicago, 1891, 619.
This might have been a fairly accuratedescriptionhad the
structureever been built, but after all of the publicity surrounding the project, and just over a month after it had
claimedthat work on the tower had begun, the Tribunesuddenly 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
committeeannouncedthatit was readyto negotiatewith any
other responsiblepartieswho might wish to build a tower.
However, for any such party,thereremainedtwo seriousobstacles.First,it was by this point certainthat whatevertower
might be constructedfor the Exposition would have to be
temporary.Second, unlike the generoussubsidy the French
governmenthad providedfor the EiffelTower, the commissionersmadeit clearthatany suchstructurein Chicagowould
have to be totally supportedby privatefunds. By the middle
of 1891 there was the additionalproblemof time. Even the
Eiffel Tower, which was constructedwithout any majordelays, had requiredtwo years to complete.
In responseto the renewedappealfor a viabletowerproject,
on 4 AugustGustaveEiffelcabledWilliamT. Baker,president
of the Board of Directorsof the Exposition, offering for a
secondtime to builda tower tallerthanthe one in Paris.Baker
quickly repliedthat the boardwould be glad to considerhis
ideas.15When news of this exchangegot out, it brought a
sharpreactionfrom membersof the WesternSocietyof Civil
Engineers.In a petition publishedin the Tribuneon 16 August, this group maintainedthat to allow Eiffel to erect a
tower in Chicagowould be "equivalentto a statementthatthe
great body of civil engineersin this country, whose noble
works attesttheirskill abroadas well as throughoutthelength
and breadthof the land, lack this abilityto cope with such a
problem,andsuch actionwould havea tendencyto rob them
of theirjust claimto professionalexcellence."A Tribuneeditorialisthad little sympathyfor this appeal,respondingthat
Americanengineershad alreadybeen given ampleopportunities to begin constructinga tower, but none had done so.
Eiffel'spropositionbecamea moot point when it was learned
thathe only proposedto buildthe tower andexpectedAmericaninvestorsto pay for it. On thatbasis,the WaysandMeans
Committeeof the ExpositionrejectedEiffel'sproposal,even
though at around$1,225,000its cost would have been well
below thatof Proctor'searlierproposal.At the sametime, the
committeealso made it clearthat it would considerno more
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
Althoughseveralmore or less dubiousproposalscontinued
to come in duringthe latermonths 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 hadbeensuch a steadfastsupporterof a tower
for the Expositionover the pasttwo years,triedto put the best
face on the situationby bravely announcingthat "Chicago
will not endeavorto imitateParisby constructinga sky-scraping tower." However, in October George S. Morison came
forwardwith plansfor a 1,120-foot tower which he claimed
could be built within a year, easilyin time for the openingof
the Exposition.Morison'squalificationsfor thejob were well
established;like Eiffel,he hadmadehis reputationas a prolific
bridge builder, working primarilyin the midwest. Morison
was supportedby a substantialconsortiumof backers,including Carnegie'sKeystoneBridge Companyin Pittsburgh,the
company which would provide the standardand recyclable
steel componentsfor the tower. The promoterswere convincedthatthe tower couldbe builtfor $1,500,000,which was
roughly $200,000less than the Eiffel Tower had cost.
Morison'splanwas a radicallysimpleapproachto the problem of talltower construction.The spareandutilitariannature
of his design (Fig. 13) would have been a distinctlyAmerican
alternativeto the more elegantand fragileappearanceof the
EiffelTower. It was undoubtedlythe most plausibleandcarefully conceivedof any ColumbianExpositiontower plansubmitted to that point. Morison'sdesign reflectednot only the
need for economyandrapidconstruction,but also the specific
conditionsof the site on which it was to be built. The soft,
sandy soil of the areacould take heavy loads well enough if
evenly distributed,but it couldnot handlelateralthrustswell.
Thus the kind of inclinedsupportsused in the Eiffel Tower
were out of the question.The planfrom above(Fig. 14)shows
the configurationof the eight outlying piers which would
have supportedthe exterior frame of the structure,and the
centralconcretecore to supportthe shaft of the tower. The
eight elevators,eachwith a capacityof 50 persons,would have
run directlyfrom the ground throughthe centralshaft, with
two going non-stopto the summit. As indicatedin a skeleton
elevation (Fig. 15), the outlinesof the tower are an essay in
geometricsimplicity.The GreekCross form of the base was
to be 400 feet wide. The circularfirstplatform,200 feet above
the base, was to rest on anothercruciformbase200 feet wide.
The secondplatform,another200 feet up, would have had a
squarebase 100 feet wide. From therethe tower would have
16. ChicagoTribune,29 August 1891.
17. ChicagoTribune,17 October 1891.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii::ii:ii
..... :i
----------
....
....
iIiis:i-,,ii~i
i
:'
[m
i
...
................
:::::::::::::
::::::
7.4
..
-**A:::*
- P-777
r
:-:::: :..........
Fig. 13. GeorgeS. Morison,Perspectivedrawing,towerprojectfor
the Columbian
November1891).
Exposition,1891(Engineering,
taperedgraduallyfor 500 feet to a width of 40 feet at the
lantern. As with the Eiffel Tower, the main concessionary
spacewould have been on the first platform.The plan called
for four separaterestaurants
at this level, eachof which would
have been three stories high, 45 feet wide by 90 feet long;
altogether,they would have been ableto accommodate8,000
people. One restaurantwould havefacedoutwardon eachside
of the tower, with enoughspaceremainingin the centerof the
platformfor severalsmallerbuildings.
It was estimatedthat Morison'stower could hold 25,000
people at any given time and carryup to 75,000 a day on its
eight elevators.(The price would have rangedfrom 50 cents
for the first landingto $1.50 to ride directlyto the top.) According to the figures of Morison'sAmericanTower Company, the tower could easily bring in receiptsof $4,000,000
during the 150 days of the Exposition,a sum four times the
earningsof the Eiffel Tower duringthe Expositionof 1889."
Some undoubtedlyconsideredthis projectionto be extremely
optimistic;it would have requiredmore than 5,500,000paid
admissionsto the tower duringthe Exposition.Even during
the ParisExposition,which had the largestattendanceof any
JAY: TALLERTHAN EIFFEL'STOWER
M (F
1W~S.M()JUSONPIN
155
NEWVV 0
VLJ
Figt
?71
AlJq
t4:'f
:
:~
~n~
I
---::..:-i--:i~i
--i i::-:-
:
:':--l--::
IL
,C~
/
,~,
I
2G315*
___~ L$A
Skeletoi Elevation and Plans.
Fig. 15. George S. Morison, Skeletonelevation,tower projectfor
the ColumbianExposition,1891(Engineering
News,December1891).
andplans,towerprojectfor
Fig. 14. GeorgeS. Morison,Elevation
the Columbian
December1891).
Exposition,1891(Engineering,
expositionin the 19thcentury,only 3,500,000peoplehadpaid
to ascendthe Eiffel Tower. The AmericanTower Company
had no trouble securingoptions on the grounds where the
tower was to be built, andit seemsto have madeconsiderable
headway in securing pledges for funds by October 1891.
However, the fact that no structureswould be allowed to
remainafterthe Expositionclosed undoubtedlyundermined
the confidenceof some prospectiveinvestors in Morison's
project,just as it had earlierwith Proctor'sproposal. On 1
December1891, spokesmenfor the AmericanTower Company went beforethe Committeeon Groundsand Buildings
to appealfor an extensionof time to secureadditionalfunding
for their tower. The committeeaccededfor the time being,
but by the beginningof the followingJanuarythe American
Tower Company had still not securedsufficientpledges to
begin constructionand so was given a final deadlineof two
additionalweeks to find the necessaryfunds.It failedto do so,
and thus the last opportunityto outdo the EiffelTower at the
ColumbianExpositionwas lost. Ironically,the only tower at
the ColumbianExposition which became a money-making
enterprisewas a model of the Eiffel Tower exhibitedby a
Frenchconcessionaire."s
It should be noted that, even afterthe ColumbianExposition had come and gone, the idea of a permanentmemorial
tower for Chicago was not completelyforsaken.Constant
Desire Despradelle,a Frencharchitectwho held a chairat the
MassachusettsInstituteof Technology from 1893 until his
deathin 1912, was so impressedwhen he visited the Columbian Expositionthat immediatelythereafterhe formulateda
plan for a 1,500-foot"Beaconof Progress"to be built on the
site of the Exposition in JacksonPark. The design for this
monument(Fig. 16) was awardedthe gold medalfor architectureby thejury of the ParisSalonof 1900. Writingaboutthe
projectin thatsame year, Despradelledescribedthe tower as
both a tributeto the splendorsof the vanishedWhiteCity of
the Expositionand as a monument"typifyingthe apotheosis
of Americancivilization."Conceived as a sort of magnified
and much more ornatevariationon the WashingtonMonument, the Beacon of Progress would have included ample
amountsof allegoricalsculptureanda greatamphitheatre
at its
of
base,which, in Despradelle'swords, would be "asort sanctuary where orators,philanthropists,and savansmay deliver
18. [H. N. Higinbotham], Report of the Presidentto the Board of
Directorsof the World'sColumbianExposition, Chicago, 1898, 485.
156
JSAH, XLVI:2, JUNE 1987
and, as architecture, the Manufactures and Liberal Arts Build::::?l:-iii:ii--i:-iii-i
ing was certainly less stylistically original than the Palais des
i:
:I-:
-:-i
--::_:_iii
a:i~,i~iz~B~iiii~~i~~i~i~iiizi~-~~c
s-IIF-''~-~~l~'-.-:_-;-:ia-B~':
_-~iiii:i~:i~i~iii~x;~-:~,,':~
Machines. The structure which was more universally apiiiiii-:-:-~i:i
i-ii
-i _::?l_::i
:iiiii~i
':i':
ii:aiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiai
:--- .??i:- ''I
':'
-:''?::~;?-ii
~Bl~~_n~~
~i~i~i!i---i.--i:iiii~i:-i.~a--ii:
---~._-,,~I
plauded as the primary engineering achievement of the Coi:i--?.:-:'-~i:
:--:---::-:
-:::-:--:?::
-::::::::-?:--'
::-::-----'::---i:-_::-i?-'--:?
__:_j::
:--:_::_-_::-,_?
??-::_
:::-:
::::
:::::
:::-::
:::
::::::
; :-:ii:i
i-i~~i:
iiiiii
i ??:1-:
-. ::::-:::::?-:i-:n~:,:i~i:?:iiiiii-~i~i5_1::ii.:
lumbian
likii~Siiiii~iiEif-;si~iii~_~'l'ii'~
Exposition was the giant revolving wheel by George
ii:iii?iii-ii::ii-::-~i-ii~~
:~~?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----::-i:
~i--i-:i:i
:::-'
?--i:i
i-ii~--:-'
:-'-'--i:':iii-i::-_ ..::i::j:::-:::::
__;::
_:::::;::::-_-:_,_,
. ii-:i:i: -::.:..:_
:::?:i;::-:
-:-:-::----.
-.--ii:---ii
-::
:?:?::-:-:-?-:`;:::;:::
:
::,::_-:::::_
::::::i:::::j,:,,:,,::::-:--:__:-::-__.i-:-_:::-liiig~iii_:W. Ferris, located directly adjacent to the model of the Eiffel
::::;
i:-:::::::::l
. --:-_--i::_i-::
-:-::::::::i::::'::l:j?il::::::::::::
:-_:-::;':_;_:_i::;i-:ii:-~-?:---:--::_i
-ii~-ii:iii~~iii6iri~:_
::--:--i:-:::::--:::-::
'i-j:.ij-::il:~i~i:,ix'.:'---~~i:i::-I?-:k-i??:-:'il--~-_
.::,-:::
::.:...
..-:;::
:-----:-ii-::-Il_
ii::rr:i:i:-::i:l
:i:i:iiii?ii:--:
:-:iii
Tower
on the Midway Plaisance. Unlike most of the tower
i:i--i:i:,-:l-.:-i-ii--_:
:
:::?:-j---::::
:-:-:
'
'-':
:-i:
:
:-:i-~--:iiiii::
:-_r_.:??':~:l??--'
i::1:::
:::. :: :-::.:i::-_--~-r?
:---:::: :
-::'::::-i::-i-::-::iii~iii:lii::_---:::
-,_:i_::--;j,::::_:
i~i:iiiii-::::?:
: ii:i-~P,~~_:l
:Li::-:-i-,-il:-i,___i:,_:ii:i?i
-i:i::i
...
i~i-~-:-:i-i- :..--.
---:,:: r:;;?-:_:i:;.:?-~:;~~j
I_-li_
I--'-'-::i-!
i2?--i
_:-:
-_-: :.:-...-..-::
:-:-;-:::-i~--j
i-i~;al-isll_~x
-:
_
i-:
i:
i:
.
:
:.
_-__:;
iiiiiiii:i
i:-:
-i~
i-i
projects which had been proposed for Chicago, the Ferris
-::: :::-- -::::iii;Fiiii-iii~
i -:
i:-_j-::-:
: :.-..:
::-::::i::-i:-:
:
:::
-:-:----: '- -i~i:~:_i;::;:_i-_iili;i~:-i_8i~i--::ii
:~:-'::i~i'--i:ilii~iioi~i
~~:g~.::-:-::;:_,::::::;:_:;:~i
:::
:
:---:::
Wheel could be easily disassembled and relocated after the
:-: ::::i::i-ii
--..-::_-i::-i
i ---:
?ii-i
?i-ii-iiii:i
~i:li:'
:i-iiii-;?iiii~;iiiiiiiii-i
: ::i::--_:_-:;
: -:-:_:,
:.:
:--_ _:_
ii:_i::
::ii..iiiiiiiiFi--i-i
~ii~
iili-:
:.-:--ii~ji.iiiiiiiii
.::
_iiii
.iii-iizii
li':ia~-liiiii
-::iii
?i:::::::::::i:::---i43:i'.l:i'r~~:~ai:
iii-:-"-ii-i:l-_lliii.
.:i-:---::
::-::
::::::
--'.
:-::::::r-8:-- Exposition was over; by the same token, its
:::--_:_
. : _-:_--i:-:'.i:__---I--_ii-x_:
temporary nature
_:ii
iiiiaiilis-i~iil~
- i-i::
. ::?::::;::::-::::::::j?-i--~:_-i
::;-:::1::?-::?::
; j ..-.:..:: :'::::
. ::::
::::-il::-lli;~;-i::
: :; ::-:':::':-::-::::::__a:;::-:-?--i~i--;i-;- deprived it of the enduring, monumental quality of the Eiffel
:::1:::::~::1:
-i-ii':.iii,
::::::iiilr~~-~,,,ii~-:--iii
-: -:-::--i--.-':-i-:?ii--~i-i-il;-_-ii:i~-ii:
--i ...
.. --:ii_
::i: :
?:::
Tower. It was also much less profitable, although the rela-.- :::
-: -__~:_I:i ::--i-l;_i:--i-iii
::ii:iiiiii-i-4i
::ii::::::i::::;-::
:::ii?-i-i
-i~~-?::-i::
::-:-::-:::-:-:-'
:-:::
::,,---:il_-:-_
-;iii:i---'::si-iii
--:i-i-:-ii:l
i-i1 ..:::::
---::;;.i::.:_-::
- ----ii:,ii-i:i
-i-ii:-:-:l:
--'-iiiii:;
:
::-::::
'ii'
ii'ir~.,?
i .i~::-::,
i:
tively lower attendance at the Columbian Exposition was un::
'::':'':-:i;i-i
-:- :::::
-----: - --::;:-~1~1:.:11
:::-:
_::::i:'i-i:
::::ii"'':
--;:'
:;:::'
':":"'
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:
gest that 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.
:::::
:
DesireDespradelle,
Fig. 16. Constant
Perspective
drawing,project
for the Beaconof Progress,1900(TheTechnology
Review,October
1900).
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
unsurpassed tower in the 19th century had more to do with
economics than anything else. A taller tower was easily within
the technical grasp of English and American builders, and the
desire to build one was certainly strong in both countries in
the early 1890s. Yet, as the fate of both the London tower and
the various projects for the Columbian Exposition shows, private enterprise in England and America could not by itself
provide what generous government patronage, combined
with the novelty of Eiffel's idea, had achieved in 1889.
inspiringwords beforethe altarof theircountry."19It might
be said thatthis representsthe last and most hopelesslyambitious of the monumentaltower proposalswhich had inspired
so manyengineersandarchitectsthroughoutthe 19thcentury.
Americanarchitectsand engineersclearlysaw the Columbian Expositionas an opportunityto demonstratethe same
sort of technologicalascendancythatthe Frenchhadexhibited
at the Expositionof 1889. The sense of competitivenesswith
the Paris Expositionis reflectedin the fact that, althoughit
19. ConstantDesireDespradelle,"The Beaconof Progress,"The
was only by an arm'slength, the spanof the Manufactures
and Technology
Review,2 (1900),306-307. I am indebtedto Alison Sky
LiberalArts Buildingat the ColumbianExpositionwas delib- and MichelleStone, UnbuiltAmerica,New York, 1976,86-87, as the
initialsourcefor this citation.
erately wider than that of the previous record holder, the
20. Donald Hoffman,"ClearSpanRivalry:The World'sFairsof
Palaisdes Machinesat the Expositionof 1889.20The Chicago 1889-1893,"JSAH, 29 (1970),48-50.
21. ChicagoTribune,21 February1892.
Tribunesaidof this mammothbuilding:"Thisis the structure
22. See in particular
John Kouwenhowen,"The EiffelTower and
which we expectto makepeopleforgetthey everheardof the
the FerrisWheel,"in his Half a Truthis BetterThanNone, Chicago,
EiffelTower."21Still, this was undoubtedlya less obviousfeat 1982, 109-124.
23. The Engineer,78 (1894), 103.
than a tower tallerthan the Eiffel Tower would have been,