LOUIS SULLIVAN & THE WAINWRIGHT BUILDING

LOUIS SULLIVAN & THE WAINWRIGHT BUILDING

Louis Sullivan is considered one of the greatest architects of the 20th century because of his impact on American architecture.  Sullivan, along with other architects from the Chicago School, rewrote the guidelines of metropolitan architecture in the United States. This new architecture suggested the use of existing architectural traditions but promoted them in a vague, pliable, and adaptable way in order to apply them to modern conditions (Colquhoun, 37). Other architects during Sullivan’s time worked to develop this new style but none were as effective as Sullivan.

Sullivan’s goal was to perfect this new style of architecture paying special attention to the shortcomings found in the designs of his peers. In Sullivan’s Wainwright Building, he went against rational thinking by ignoring the spacing of the structural columns. He then reduced this spacing to the width of a single window to emphasize the verticality of the window units; by doing so, the windows read as a vertical unit, rather than a horizontal unit which gave away the information of the floors behind the structure. Furthermore, this design allowed the vertical units to function as traditional columns, window mullions, and exposed structure. 

Spandrel Panel Detail

Sullivan also carried on the previous tradition of ornamentation through his design. The piers, friezes, spandrels, and cornices are all articulately designed using terra cotta, a building material which was growing in popularity at the time. 

Despite the buildings success, there was one thing that caught me as slightly odd. At the time of its design there was a push to give buildings a lighter appearance. “Ever since the mid-eighteenth century, French rationalists such as the Jesuit monk and theoretician Abbe Marc-Antoine Laugier had argued for the reduction of mass in buildings and for the expression of a skeleton structure. Armed with this theory, which they had absorbed from the writings of Viollet-le-Duc, the Chicago architects started from the assumption that window openings should be increased so that they spanned from column to column and provided maximum daylight.” (Colquhoun, 37-38)

The Reliance Building in Chicago (seen at the bottom left), designed by Charles Atwood, did not strive for monumentality, but rather aimed to achieve this perception of lightness. While some may argue that the Wainwright Building achieves this lightness by visually directing its mass vertically, I argue that Sullivan’s use of materials gives the building a massive, monumental appearance. Red brick as well as dark colored terra cotta read as very heavy materials so if the building was intended to achieve this perception, it seems to have failed. 

Despite this potential argument, the Wainwright Building met (or exceeded) any other expectations people of the late 1800’s/early 1900’s might have had for it. Through its new vertical expression and its articulate ornamentation, reminiscent of previous styles, the Wainwright Building has found its place into the architectural history books of the 21st century.

Viollet le Duc, Ruskin, and Semper: Rationalism vs. Empiricism

Eugène Viollet le Duc, John Ruskin, and Gottfried Semper are among some of the most influential figures in the early modern architecture movement. Each of these men wanted to redefine the principles of architecture and they each have their own unique methods for developing this new language. These individual languages are vastly different, yet they all employ new methodologies which contribute to the modern architecture movement of the 19th century.

Viollet le Duc focuses the majority of his attention on the concept of rationalism. He sees architecture as less of an art and more as a science which can be mathematically measured and achieved. According to Viollet le Duc, the architect must be “conscious of the logical process which lies behind the successful result” (Summerson, 1949, p. 141). Unfortunately for Viollet le Duc, this rational thinking creates a lack of style in his work. He seems to be more concerned with the rationality of his designs than the form to the point where his work often lacks the unique style which he was hoping to achieve in the first place. Viollet le Duc has however made a significant impact of the architectural movement to date.

Viollet le Duc is responsible for much of the social hierarchy today surrounding the professionalization of architecture. Previously, architecture had been seen as a form of high art but Viollet le Duc creates a new image for architects through his theory and practice which elevates the architect from his existing role as a craftsman to his new role as an intelligent designer.

Ruskin approaches architecture from a completely different viewpoint aligning himself more closely with the artist’s perspective. Ruskin believes that architecture is alive with the spirit of the carver; it is the craftsman which gives architecture beauty, not the plans designed by the architect. Ruskin is not concerned with perfection but rather, he is concerned with the satisfaction of the artist, posing the question: “was the carver happy while he was about it?” (Pevsner, 1969, p. 22). If the carver is happy with his work, then despite any imperfections, it is still a notable piece of work. Furthermore, Ruskin argues that “imperfection is in some sort essential to all that we know of life. It is the sign of a state of progress and change” (Pevsner, 1969, p. 24). If everything remains in the same state of perfection, there will be no variance which could potentially better the design.

Expanding upon his belief system, Ruskin wrote The Seven Lamps of Architecture which lays the ground work for nearly every architect after his time. Ruskin’s seven lamps include:

Lamp of Sacrifice

Lamp of Truth

Lamp of Power

Lamp of Beauty

Lamp of Life

Lamp of Obedience

Lamp of Memory

Each of these “lamps” provides us with insight into a new dimension of architecture and design. These ideologies aren’t necessarily the rules of architecture but they are the design fundamentals which Ruskin and many other architects hold to be true. These fundamentals have had a significant impact on architecture throughout the last century. 

Semper is similar to Viollet le Duc in his rational approach to architecture. Semper views architecture as a mathematical problem which has a given solution. It is the job of the architect to find the correct equation and then use this to achieve the perfect results. Semper even goes as far as developing a mathematical function which he uses to solve the problem of architecture. “Y” represents the end result of the finalized design. “F” represents the function which the building is going to serve. Lastly, the letters in brackets represent the various external influences (variables).

Y = F (x, y, z etc.)

Semper’s work has created a lasting effect on the social science aspect of architecture. It is ultimately his mathematical function which encourages architects to take a more structured look at the problems which arise during architectural design. It was this function that caused designers to think about the function of a building in terms of its materiality,  the local and ethnologic influences such as climate, religion, and politics, and the personal influences of the client, artist, or craftsman (Poerschke, 2012, p. 120). This sort of formulated thinking creates a linear thought process for architects to follow often increasing their chances for success. 

Although each of these men have their own unique view on the role of the architect in modern society, they are each able to create lasting changes in the field. It is through their unconventional methodologies and their desire to contribute to the profession that these men were able to create such a profound impact still experienced today.

Works Cited

Pevsner, N. (1969). Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc, Englishness and Frenchness in the Appreciation of Gothic 

Architecture.

Poerschke, U. (2012). Architecture as a Mathematical Function: Reflections on Gottfried Semper.

Summerson, J. (1949). Viollet le Duc and the Rational Point of View.