World Heritage Skyscrapers

[Klippenstein]

In 2017, the US added Early Chicago Skyscrapers to its tentative list of UNESCO World Heritage sites. To my knowledge, if this was eventually nominated by the US and determined to meet the Outstanding Universal Value criteria necessary for inscription, it would be the first set of skyscrapers to become a UNESCO World Heritage site. Personally, this seems amazing to me and possibly the beginning of more world renowned skyscrapers being recognized by UNESCO.

Unfortunately, the whole process is complicated by the relationship between the United States and UNESCO. I can't find any news that Biden has rejoined UNESCO after the US' withdrawal under Trump. Though the US added a new site to their tentative list in November 2022 for the first time since 2017.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think there's any chance this becomes a UNESCO site? Any possibility that us skyscraper nerds could increase the likelihood? If this set of buildings spanned the whole US/World, what early skyscrapers would you add to it?

Anyway, onto the list of Early Chicago Skyscrapers:

This is a serial proposal of 9 primarily commercial buildings in Chicago’s central business district, the “Loop.” The buildings, built over a period of about 20 years starting in the 1880s, exemplify the first generation of “skyscrapers.” Making use of new technologies of the time, particularly internal metal structural systems instead of load-bearing masonry walls, they were able to rise to heights of near 20 stories with large plate-glass windows, the first elevators (lifts) to reach the high floors, and electric lights to make interior spaces usable. The architects active in designing these buildings, including Louis H. Sullivan, William Le Baron Jenney, John Wellborn Root, Charles Atwood and Martin Roche, simultaneously developed a new aesthetic for the building exteriors suited to this new form, consisting of a vertical, tripartite form derived from classical columns and expresing the internal structure and functions of the buildings.

Auditorium Building 1889
by Louis Sullivan and Dankmar Adler

Photo by Victorgrigas

Second Leiter Building 1891
by William Le Baron Jenney

Photo by Zol87

Marquette Building 1895
by Holabird & Roche

Photo by J. Crocker

Rookery Building 1888
by Burnham & Root

Photo from the American Memory Collections

Monadnock Building 1891-3
by Burnham & Root and Holabird & Roche

Photo by David K Staub

Old Colony Building 1893
by Holabird & Roche

Photo by Tony the Tiger

Fischer Building 1896
by D.H. Burnham & Company

Photo by J Crocker

Carson, Pirie, Scott and Company Building 1899
by Louis Sullivan; Burnham, Daniel H., & Co.

Photo by Ken Lund

Luddington Building 1892
by Jenney & Mundie

Photo by ajay_suresh

[SIGSEGV]

If only the Home Insurance Building wasn't torn down in 1931 I think it would be a shoo-in

[Steely Dan]

Please tell me that Chuck Atwood's spectacular masterpiece, The Reliance Building, is also included in this.


Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_Building

[edale]

My initial reaction was "what's so special about Chicago's collection of pre-war skyscrapers?" because lots of other cities have historic skyscrapers that are even more notable than the ones listed here. Detroit comes to mind, specifically. However, when digging in a little further, it's pretty remarkable that all these buildings are from before 1900. That's significantly older than Detroit's famous skyscrapers, and ones that come to mind for Cincinnati, SF, Pittsburgh.

If we can expand just a couple years after 1900, I'd nominate Cincinnati's Ingalls building. It opened in 1903 and is the first reinforced concrete skyscraper in the world.



I'd also nominate the Central Trust Building, but it's from 1913, which is stretching the time constraint a bit too far, I think. But it's a badass old skyscraper nonetheless.

[mousquet]

That would be a great move by UNESCO IMHO. Those structures in Chicago are old enough to be recognized as something historic and prestigious, now.

In particular, it could change the views of certain annoying nimbys that claim skyscrapers are only dystopian achievements by dominant freaks who want to crush everybody around them, blah blah blah...
Maybe they are dominant freaks, themselves.

Fact is skyscrapers appear to be quite convenient in enhancing both density and urban comfort, at least in modern urban environments and when properly laid out.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Please tell me that Chuck Atwood's spectacular masterpiece, The Reliance Building, is also included in this.

This is the biggest omission in the list I believe. Though if it was actually nominated there would be a process to assess the list to see if any important structures were missing from the designation and it could be added then. I would really hope it would be.

The stretch of early skyscrapers along Dearborn from Ida B Wells to Adams is my favorite and if the Home Insurance Building wasn’t demolished it would have been nearby at Adams and Lasalle. The Rookery still holds the opposite corner from the former Home Insurance building site and it’s a beauty with the interior light court having been redesigned by Frank Lloyd Wright at the turn of the 20th century.

This is a pretty decent tour of this stretch that reminded me of its potential.
• Video Link

[sopas ej]

I LOVE the Monadnock; it's the world's tallest "skyscraper" with load-bearing masonry walls, at least its oldest half is. That's why the base has such thick walls, particularly the corners. It has no skeleton.

[hipster duck]

A well-deserved inclusion to UNESCO's list, especially given how important the skyscraper is to everyday life all around the world.

Has anyone ever tried to guess how many people live in high-rises (buildings over 12 stories) in the world? It's probably under a billion, but not by much.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by edale

My initial reaction was "what's so special about Chicago's collection of pre-war skyscrapers?" because lots of other cities have historic skyscrapers that are even more notable than the ones listed here. Detroit comes to mind, specifically. However, when digging in a little further, it's pretty remarkable that all these buildings are from before 1900. That's significantly older than Detroit's famous skyscrapers, and ones that come to mind for Cincinnati, SF, Pittsburgh.

The buildings listed aren't necessarily the most famous Chicago skyscrapers, but IMO they should become more recognized among the most famous. Of course skyscraper nerds are probably more or less aware of half of them.

A NY vs Chicago comparison that I read on wikipedia recently really intrigued me:

By 1893, Chicago had built 12 skyscrapers between 16 and 20 stories tall, tightly clustered in the center of the financial district. In comparison, New York trailed behind Chicago, having only four buildings over 16 stories tall by 1893.

I have started to compile a list of existing skyscrapers built before 1900 just because I am really interested in this. In this process, I've found a few things I'd like to share.

First, there's a really amazing "Bird's eye view" map of Chicago from 1898 that you can look at in pretty amazing detail here:

https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4104c....,0.247,0.158,0

It gives you a great sense of the scale of the city at the time and the impact of these skyscrapers.

Also, I just ordered a book titled, "The Structure of Skyscrapers in America, 1871–1900; Their History and Preservation" By Donald Friedman.

In this long-awaited book, award-winning author Donald Friedman presents an illustrated history of the development of the structure of skyscrapers during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In the first 190 pages, he details the context for the emergence of this new building type and thoroughly explains the cutting-edge technology of construction. Preservation problems are examined in depth.

A separate 200-page section provides construction dates and images for every known building taller than nine stories erected in the United States between 1871 and 1900—a total of 443 individual buildings, both extant and demolished, in 36 cities all across the country, from Boston and New York to San Francisco.

I'm sure I'll share some tidbits here when I receive it including a presumably complete list of the extant ones.

[hauntedheadnc]

What other skyscrapers / high-rises / tall buildings that we would recognize as following the typical "skyscraper" or office building model are there in the world that are UNESCO world heritage sites?

The only other ones that come to mind for me are the "Three Graces" in Liverpool, and then, only the one on the left is likely to be considered anything approaching a "skyscraper."


Source.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

What other skyscrapers / high-rises / tall buildings that we would recognize as following the typical "skyscraper" or office building model are there in the world that are UNESCO world heritage sites?

Well, I guess some nasty Bolshevists might want to include some Stalinist architecture to it.
Like those dystopian things for instance.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_b...ate_University


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Ukraina,_Moscow

But I would deeply hate it, given the sadistic and perverse traits of that kind of regimes.

Besides, advocating the US achievements in that respect is fair, because their work was earlier and more original. And just more democratic, bigger and better.

So, I'd rather be a faithful friend of America in this case. Actually, I'd like a bunch of their skyscrapers to get in the Unesco World Heritage list.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Besides, advocating the US achievements in that respect is fair, because their work was earlier and more original. And just more democratic, bigger and better.

So, I'd rather be a faithful friend of America in this case. Actually, I'd like a bunch of their skyscrapers to get in the Unesco World Heritage list.

Well, the buildings in Liverpool already are a UNESCO site. I tried to find any other skyscrapers or office buildings that are, but came up short. I found where the only skyscraper Frank Lloyd Wright ever designed, in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, was nominated to become one but couldn't find that it was ever actually designated as a world heritage site.

[Wigs]

Louis Sullivan's Guaranty building in Buffalo, NY should be.
It's a masterpiece from 1896

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/guaranty-building

[mousquet]

Chicago is well known for having been the earliest in trying to develop taller structures.
They must have looked at the Eiffel Tower in Paris, then said - what can we do of that, that would actually be useful?
Some of their early related work is listed above.
Chicagoans can certainly complete it accurately.

In a couple of other cities, some obvious candidates could simply be this way.

NYC:
41 Park Row
Flatiron
Chrysler
Empire State
Rockefeller
And more older and shorter from the 1880s like Park Row that could be mentioned.
There is a bunch of them.

Philadelphia:
The entire old stuff on South Broad Street, that was neatly designed and looks 'grand' enough.
And possibly some more in other parts of their downtown.

Detroit:
David Stott
Fisher
Guardian

There is a bit more in Boston, possibly in the cities of Ohio and a few things on the West Coast as well.
Even some things from cities of the broader Midwest like Kansas City or of the Great Plains could be designated. Who knows?
The list could grow pretty big, but I think it should focus on high-rises built from the 1880s to 1930s and some early modern skyscrapers from the 1950s like Metlife in NY.
Those are often the most original. Especially the Art Deco league.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Louis Sullivan's Guaranty building in Buffalo, NY should be.
It's a masterpiece from 1896

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/guaranty-building

I definitely agree with this. Probably the most beautiful pre-1900 skyscraper IMO. I also grew up outside of Buffalo so I might be biased.


Photo by Warren LeMay

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

Well, the buildings in Liverpool already are a UNESCO site. I tried to find any other skyscrapers or office buildings that are, but came up short. I found where the only skyscraper Frank Lloyd Wright ever designed, in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, was nominated to become one but couldn't find that it was ever actually designated as a world heritage site.

Thanks for pointing out the Royal Liver Building! I wasn't aware of its status as a UNESCO site, but that's because it is no longer recognized since UNESCO rescinded World Heritage status for Liverpool's Maritime Mercantile City.

Even still, this reinforces the historical significance of the early skyscrapers. The Royal Liver Building finished in 1911 certainly used the modern building techniques developed in these buildings. Most of the Chicago skyscrapers pre-date the Royal Liver Building by 20 years.

There are many skyscrapers in Chicago that are widely recognized as more beautiful and monumental, but these early skyscrapers are historically and culturally as significant as any of them. That's a huge reason I think this nomination is so important. Chicago's rise has necessitated a lack of sentimentalism and nostalgia as it has continually razed its history in the name of progress. I don't want Chicago to become a monument to the past or simply a heritage city, but the city is truly maturing into an historic city as it recently passed the 150th anniversary of the Chicago fire and its 200th birthday approaching. Many of these skyscrapers rose with Chicago's prominence before the 1893 World's Fair, which was Chicago's entrance on the world's stage. These buildings are our Eiffel Tower, innovative, practical and beautiful.

[tech12]

It would definitely be cool to see old highrise/skyscraper buildings get listed as UNESCO world heritage sites.

As far as San Francisco goes, most of its 19th century highrises were destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire, but there are a few that survived:

The Central Tower/Call Building/Spreckels building, built in 1898 (315', 15 stories):



On fire after the 1906 earthquake:



Here's how it looks now, after an art deco renovation in 1938 (299', 21 stories):




The Chronicle Building/De Young Building/Ritz Carlton, built in 1890 (218', 10 stories):



It was heavily damaged in the 1906 earthquake, and reconstruction involved the removal of the clocktower, and the addition of a 16 story annex:



It was then covered in an ugly metal skin in the 1960s, which was removed in the 2000s, as part of a project that also added more floors to the building (bringing the height to 312', 24 floors):




The Mills Building, built in 1892 (154', 10 stories):




The Ferry Building, built in 1898 (245'):

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Philadelphia:
The entire old stuff on South Broad Street, that was neatly designed and looks 'grand' enough.
And possibly some more in other parts of their downtown

These definitely deserve to be there:

[lio45]

Montreal's "first skyscraper" is from 1887:

(the one in red sandstone)

It was the city's tallest at the time. Same style as NYC/Chicago buildings of the era.

[lio45]

Some of these early Chicago skyscrapers are extraordinarily modern for their time. It's really impressive!

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by lio45

Some of these early Chicago skyscrapers are extraordinarily modern for their time. It's really impressive!

Well, it’s quite likely that some modernist architects found their inspiration from the group.

For example, the Monadnock building was just about Mies Van Der Rohe’s favorite building. He used to sketch it all the time when he first came to Chicago.





The Monadnock building is one of the last of the load bearing brick skyscrapers, and one of the first of the structural steel skyscrapers. The economic transition happens right in the middle of the construction of the two halves.