THE TALL OFFICE BUILDING

Copyright © 1999 by David H. Fox.  All Rights Reserved

In the mid-1890s, the firm of Spencer Trask & Company engaged the Audsleys to build the largest office building ever erected in New York City to that time.  Given that tall office buildings were utterly unknown in Britain, the appointment seems somewhat surprising.  

In addition to his investment banking activities, Spencer Trask (1844-1909) was an early business associate of Thomas Edison. .        John W. Leonard, Who's Who 1899-1900 (Chicago: A. W. Marquis & Co., 1899), 736.  Another Edison associate was Americia'a patrician organbuilder Hilborne Roosevelt (1850-1886), a friend of G. A. Audsley.  Whether Roosevelt introduced his friend to Trask in the 1880s is not known, but the Audsley firm may have participated in a c. 1894 design competition hinted in the records of the prominent McKim, Mead & White firm of New York City. .        Sarah Bradford Landau & Carl W. Condit, Rise of the New York Skyscraper (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996) chapter 8, note 9.  The Bowling Green Offices project provides a striking example of the ability of W. & G. Audsley to shift creative efforts from structures of the most traditional sort to those of the most modern.

Published just prior to the commission, the 1893 King's Handbook of New York City provides an account of the rise of the office building:

It was not until after the Civil War that the five-story building made its appearance to any extent.  The population of New York then began to increase enormously, and when the higher buildings came, they appeared in the form of flats and tenements.  With the crowding of the population in the lower wards came a demand for higher structures.  This eventuated in the introduction of the elevator, which has revolutionized the construction of buildings in New York, as it has in other cities.

It was the elevator, and that alone, that made possible the enormously high office-buildings that are to be seen in the great business centres of New York to-day.  When the seven-story office-building made its appearance, nearly a quarter of a century ago [c. 1870], the popular belief was that the limit of construction had been reached.  But we have seen scores of eight-story buildings erected, and to-day there are other scores of ten-story buildings in the metropolis.  At least a dozen exceed eleven stories in height; some are as high as fifteen and sixteen stories...An important factor in the construction of high office and other buildings in recent years has been the introduction of fire-proofing materials. This has made it safe for tenants to occupy the upper stories.  Indeed, it is an axiom among real-estate brokers that the upper stories rent most quickly, and at high figures, because the light and ventilation are better than on the lower floors.  Another important factor is the introduction, during recent years, of the method of building known as iron or steel skeleton construction.  It was customary with architects, until within three or four years [c. 1890], to draw plans whereby walls of immense thickness were run from the foundation to the roof, to support the general structure.  These walls were in some cases required by the Building Department to be three feet or more in thickness at the base, according to the height of the building; so that under such conditions, the owner of a single lot, no matter how valuable the ground, was unable to put up a very high building, as the two side walls would take up a space equal to about one-quarter the width of his entire lot, hence, the values of single lots down-town were kept in check by the impossibility of erecting very high structures on them, which consequently decreased their earning power.

The system of iron skeleton construction, however, effected a remarkable change.  By its use the thickness of the walls was considerably reduced, thus giving a larger floor space.  Architects and builders were enabled to plan and erect buildings as high twelve and thirteen stories on lots from twenty to thirty feet wide, as noticeable in the Columbia, the Havemeyer, the Home Life and other office-buildings.  By this system of construction, iron and steel columns are carried up from foundation to roof, and then covered in with bricks.  Thus the carrying capacity equal to that of walls of much greater thickness is produced.  When it is considered that the unimproved property in the great office section of New York City has sold as high as $33 per square foot (equivalent to $825,000 per lot of 25 by 100), it will readily be seen that iron skeleton construction will have a very important bearing upon office-building of the future.  A prominent architect say that in a twelve-story building covering two New York City lots of 25 by 100 feet each, the saving in floor-space effected by means of this new construction amounts to thousands of square feet.

As the office-building has increased in height and size, so has it advanced in the style of its appointments.  The modern elevator, with its handsome wrought-iron wall inclosure and its quick speed, has made the former elevator antiquated.  Where wood was universally applied, the costliest marbles are now used for stairs, wainscotings and other parts of the interior.  Light and ventilation, the lack of which was the bane of the old five-story structures, are now considered all important; while the toilet arrangements in modern office-buildings are superior to anything dreamed of a quarter-of-century ago [c. 1870], and are the delight of the tenant, as much as of the sanitary expert and the plumber.  Then where woodwork is used for trimming, it is of the finest hardwoods: mahogany, ash, oak, sycamore and bird's-eye maple have replaced the pine and soft lumber used in the older buildings.

The steel skeleton system of construction was prefigured in New York City in the five story buildings erected in the post-Civil War era.  These utilized cast iron columns supporting wooden beams and floors.  While some of these structures had facades of brick or stone, many utilized cast iron which could be molded into a variety of architectural forms and allowed greater fenestration.  The result was an openness in floor space with natural illumination and ventilation previously unknown.

As far as the design of taller structures was concerned, the five story iron buildings offered no innovations.  Almost without exception, the facades consisted of that of a single story repeated five times.  A heavier cornice placed above the highest floor was generally the only concession to any treatment of the facade as a whole unit.

The modern form of tall office building facade is often credited to the work of the Chicago architectural firm of Dankmar Adler and Louis Sullivan.  In 1890, they were commissioned to build a ten story structure in St. Louis, Missouri, by brewer Ellis Wainwright. .        Robert Twombly, Louis Sullivan: His Life and Work (New York: Elisabeth Sifton Books-Viking, 1986), 286.  With a sudden flash of inspiration, Sullivan designed a facade consisting of two story base, eight stories of recessed windows and panels separated by narrow piers, and finally, a decorative top floor with a prominent overhanging cornice.

The height of the Wainwright Building was not masked by horizontal moldings at each story, but was actually accentuated in its large middle section.  This use of vertical "stripes" of glass and masonry would have a profound influence on building design into our own time.  The Audsleys followed much of Sullivan's thinking in the design of their Bowling Green Offices.  The tenets of Sullivan were formulated by him in an important article for Lippincot's Magazine [March 1896], entitled, "The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered."  G. A. Audsley responded with a similar essay which quoted the Sullivan piece at some length. .        George Ashdown Audsley, "The Designing of Tall Office Buildings," unknown publication (c. 1896 - 1898).  Clipping of article preserved in the Audsley Notebooks at the Music Division of the New York Public Library.  Mention of British architects in the introduction may suggest publication in that country.

It may safely be affirmed that no problem of greater difficulty has presented itself to the architects of the nineteenth century that the artistic designing of tall office buildings.  This problem has, however, received little or no attention, in any practical sense, from the architects of the Old World, for nowhere, save in American cities, has the tall office building been developed.  Even in a great and crowded city like London, where, in business localities, land is of immense value and office rents are at the highest possible figure, such towering structures as have been and are still being erected in the streets of New York and Chicago would neither be allowed by the building authorities nor tolerated by the citizens....

The designing of a lofty office building is purely an aesthetic matter under the dominating influence of practical considerations--a problem to be solved by hard study and cultivated taste alone....

The very nature of a tall office building, which consists of a series of superposed divisions or stories, dictates some system of horizonal treatment; while, on the other hand, the great height of such buildings brings into prominence the necessity, on aesthetic grounds, of giving expression to the vertical or ascending element.  The problem before the architect is, therefore, how best to combine the horizontal with the vertical principles so as to produce a design which shall, under all practical restrictions, be perfectly satisfactory to the eye in its general line and proportions; which convey an idea of structural strength and repose; and which shall charm with the appropriateness and beauty of its architectural details....

As regards the horizontal division of a lofty office building we may suggest a general rule, which, however, like all known rules, may have exceptions.  Its horizontality, seeing that the building consists of a series of superposed horizontal stories, should be marked to the greatest degree possible without injury to the oneness and dignity of the design.  This is in accord with the accepted canon of architectural art, which stipulates that the external design of a building shall be governed by, and be expressive of, its internal arrangement and uses.  ["Form follows function" --Louis Sullivan]  Such being the case, the horizontal element should assert itself most boldly in the lower portion; become secondary to the vertical element in the larger middle portion; and again assert itself in the crowning or upper portion of the structure.  This is the greatest concession that can, with artistic propriety, be made to horizontality; for in all tall office buildings oneness and true grandeur of effect can only be gained by free recognition of the vertical element in every portion of the design....

In tall office buildings, which everyone knows are constructed on iron frame work, and with comparatively thin walls, crowning cornices of large projection should never be introduced, notwithstanding the self-evident fact that they are miserable shams of copper or galvanized iron, probably painted and sanded [coated with adhesive and dusted with powdered rock] to represent stonework.  Such large cornices are most objectionable, especially in buildings occupying confined positions, for they invariably give a top-heavy effect to the otherwise flat facades, from the fact that they can only be seen from points almost directly under them....

It is of the first importance that the style of architecture and its special treatment followed by the architect should be consistently adhered to throughout the design; a failure in this direction amounts to a simple record of incompetence and want of knowledge.  Nothing could be worse, for instance, ęsthetically, than to commence, in the lower division of a building, with a composition in severe Greek style, in which trabeation [use of flat lintels] is a leading principle of construction and design, and then, in the higher divisions, to roam into some other style or styles in which arcuation [use of arches] takes the place of trabeation, to the utter destruction of symmetry and artistic propriety....

So far as street architecture is concerned, the lower division of the tall office building is, perhaps, the most important portion of the structure.  It is indeed, the only part of such a building which, in a street of average width, can be seen to advantage--certainly the only part which can be seen from the sidewalk adjoining it.  Such being the case, the designer should be extremely careful of its architectural expression.  It should be massive and bold in its structural features, refined in its proportions, and rich and beautiful in its details.  The prevailing idea at the present time is that the lower division should be simply a base or pedestal to the upper structure; and this has done much to cramp the architect, and to lead him to produce works better suited for the facades of power houses or railway warehouses than high-class street buildings....

In the middle division of the building, which rises immediately from the lower division above spoken of, the treatment of the leading features and of design generally is somewhat restricted.  Here the vertical element should predominate in a clearly marked manner over the horizontal element, which is, of necessity, present in every story....

More liberty of design obtains in respect to the upper crowning division of the building; and it is, accordingly, impossible to allude, even in the most sketchy manner, to the many treatments that are here possible in a short article like the present....

While there was considerable similarities between the Sullivan and Audsley philosophies, there are also some pronounced differences.  The most apparent was in the use of ornament.  Audsley relied strictly on historical forms even when used in non-traditional ways.  Sullivan developed his own system using geometrical shapes and leafy forms that owed something to the American Romanesque Revival style.  Audsley thoroughly disliked Sullivan's work in this regard and described it as "bizarre," "intensely ugly," and "meaningless." .        George Ashdown Audsley, The Art of Organ-Building (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1905), 2:735.  It would seem that for Audsley, ornament devoid of traditional symbolism or historical connotation was unjustified in existence.

Another area of dispute was the use of overhanging cornices and elaborate ornamentation at the summit of a structure.  Sullivan favored non-traditional slab-like projects that were sometimes formed of terra cotta encrusted with ornament.  

The Broadway wing of the Bowling Green Offices was sufficiently completed to accommodate tenants as of May 1896.  The Greenwich Street wing required construction beyond this date.  About six months prior to the opening, G. A. Audsley wrote a description of the building for 9 November 1895 issue of Architecture and Building.  The text was additionally used by the developers in their promotional literature.

Bowling Green Offices (at extreme right) as seen from across the Hudson River.

The situation of the Bowling Green Offices is unsurpassed by that of any office building in the city of New York.  It occupies the site adjoining the Washington Building on the west side of Bowling Green, directly opposite the ornamental garden.  The site has the imposing frontage on lower Broadway of 162 feet; it extends thence to Greenwich Street an average depth of about 190 feet, and on Greenwich Street displays another imposing frontage of 152 feet.  The site is unsurpassed in its natural formation.  It consists of rock throughout its entire area, at a moderate distance below mean high water line, upon which all the foundation works are constructed, giving absolute stability to every portion.  The mean high water line is below the level of the cellar floor.

Bowling Green with Audsley's project on the left.



The great size of the site allows the provision of a spacious open court, about 110 feet in length by an average width of about 60 feet.  This opens into the court of the Washington Building, thereby gaining the maximum amount of light and air.  Additional small open courts are provided on the north of the building for the purpose of giving light and air to the main corridors which extend along the north portion of the structure from east to west.

The style of architecture which has been carried  consistently throughout the design of the building is "Hellenic Renaissance," a free but pure treatment of ancient Greek architecture, in which the spirit rather than the letter of that refined school of art is carried out.  The term "Hellenic Renaissance" appears for the first time in architectural nomenclature, though we venture to think it comes to stay.  It has been introduced by the architects of the building under review, as the term which expresses, in the most direct manner, the origin and development of this modern style, and separates it from the common and corrupt French treatment known as Neo-Grec.  As mentioned in a previous short notice of this building, the Messrs. Audsley give to the late Mr. Alexander Thomson, of Glasgow, full credit as the founder of the style or treatment of Greek architecture which they now call "Hellenic Renaissance."  Notwithstanding the several beautiful works which have emanated from Mr. Thomson's genius, there can be no doubt but that Bowling Green Offices will be the greatest work carried out in that style.  The only other example of "Hellenic Renaissance" in this country is the Layton Art Gallery, at Milwaukee, Wis., erected in 1888 from plans furnished by W. & G. Audsley, which were still in London.  The acknowledged refinement and beauty of this building led to the adoption of the style for the Bowling Green Offices.

The architectural Order of the main colonnade of square attached columns is practically unique, appearing only in a small and tentative form in the Layton Art Gallery.  The capitals of this Order present a rich mass of severe Greek ornamentation seven feet in height.  These capitals have been designed by the architects and have no counterparts in the world.  Some idea may be formed of the importance of this unique Order from the fact that each of the smaller capitals presents about 63 square feet of sculptured enrichment, while the large angle capitals have each more than 130 square feet of similar enrichment.  The aggregate amount of sculptured surface on the capitals of this Order is about 1,050 square feet.



The main colonnade stands on an elevated stylobate which forms the architecture of the basement.  The bold and plain stylobate gives prominence to the main Order which rises above its water-tabling to the height of 30 feet 5 inches, exclusive of the entablature, which has the additional height of 7 feet 6 inches, and which is richly sculptured throughout.

The most note worthy architectural features of the lower portion of the Broadway facade are the two great doorways, which present several characteristics of the culminating period of Greek architecture.  Their massive curved entablatures present the most elaborate sculptured ornamentation to be found in the entire design.  These entablatures are surmounted by large and richly sculptured anthemia.  The surface of these entablatures covered with ornamentation measures about 200 square feet.

The first floor windows in the main colonnade are ornamented by pilasters, attached to the sides of the square columns.  The pilasters have richly sculptured capitals and carry enriched entablatures surmounted by anthemia.

The architecture of the third story consists of a dwarf Order; pilasters with sculptured capitals appearing in the lateral, projecting portions of the facade, and circular columns, with reeded shafts rising from octagonal masses of sculptured ornament and carrying capitals of a severe Greek type, extending along the curtain, or central recessed portion, of the facade.  These dwarf columns are unique in design and treatment, being designed specially for this building.  The dwarf Order is surmounted by an enriched entablature secondary in importance to that of the main Order below.



The whole of the work above described, and which rises to the height of 65 feet from the sidewalk, is to be executed in white granite, all with the exception of the stylobate being in the beautiful granite quarried at North Jay, Maine, and worked by the Main and New Hampshire Granite Company.  The stylobate and basements of the great doorways, portions of which are polished, have been executed in the light gray granite of the Stanstead Granite Company.

The Broadway facade, from the fourth to the thirteenth story, inclusive, is to be of white brickwork and terra cotta, treated in a simple manner, having the vertical principle, so desirable in a lofty building, clearly marked throughout.  The horizontal principle, characteristic of Classic architecture, is present in the enriched sills and corniced lintels of the numerous windows.  These lintels are supported on pilasters having ornamental capitals.  This portion of the design is dignified and perfectly consistent in its architectural treatment.

Above the portions just described rise the three stories which form, collectively, the crowning feature of the facade.  The architecture here is in strict keeping with that of the lower stories, having a dwarf Order of simple pilasters and an imposing colonnade of unique design above.  The columns are square, tapered considerably, and have a boldly-marked entasis; they rise from rich bases of Greek anthemion ornament, and terminate in capitals of a form somewhat similar to that of the main colonnade capitals, and equally unique in design.  Projecting windows with sloping architraves and curved entablatures appear between the columns.  The facade is crowned, at the height of 235 feet, by a boldly and richly ornamented entablature and pierced parapet.  The entire upper portion is executed in white terra cotta.

The five stories which appear above the roofs of the Washington Building are executed in white brick and terra cotta in strict accordance with the treatment of the Broadway facade, as described.



The facade to Greenwich Street is executed entirely in white brick and terra cotta.  Its architectural disposition is similar to that of the Broadway facade.  The lower portion is ornamented with lofty pilasters bearing richly modeled capitals.  The entrances to the basement, treated as a stylobate, are in the form of double and single projecting doorways of simple design.

The facade from the fourth to the thirteenth story, inclusive, is similar in general treatment to the corresponding portion of the Broadway facade, but somewhat simpler in detail.

The upper three stories are identical in general design with those of the Broadway crowning feature, and are surmounted by the same entablature and parapet.

The whole internal arrangement of this large building is of the simplest character, access to every portion being easy and direct through spacious and well-lighted corridors.  Every office in the building is amply lighted by large windows in the external walls.  So perfect is the lighting that no recourse to artificial lights need be made at any time during the day in ordinary weather.  This ample supply of direct natural light also secures a plentiful supply of fresh air.

The main entrance to the building is through the north doorway in the Broadway facade, into a spacious and lofty corridor, the marble floor of which is only five steps above the level of the footwalk [sidewalk].  This corridor is about 20 feet wide, and extends directly through the building to the Greenwich Street entrance.  It is handsomely finished in marbles of harmonious tints.  On the north side of this corridor are the eight elevators which open on the main corridors of all the floors of the building.  Two of these elevators are express.  On the south side of the corridor is the spacious staircase, in the centre of which is placed a large freight elevator.  A telegraph office, private lavatory and four booths open off this corridor.

The principal offices in the basement and first floor have entrances direct from Broadway.  The larger office, having the great south doorway devoted to it, is about 22 feet in height.  The other offices on the first floor are 16 feet 6 inches in height.  The main corridor is 20 feet in height.

On the second and all upper floors lateral corridors extend from the main corridors through the centre of the Broadway and Greenwich Street blocks, giving access to the ranges of offices on both sides.

All the offices throughout the building are of ample depth, and without exception have external windows to the streets or the large central court.  Certain large offices have windows on three sides.  All the offices in the building are finished in polished oak of Greek design.

The plumbing and sanitary arrangements throughout the building are of the most perfect description.  In addition to small lavatories on each floor there are two large and handsomely fitted up lavatory halls; that on the eighth floor, for gentlemen, measuring 56 by 30 feet, being fitted up in the most complete manner.  Opening from this hall is an apartment, measuring 20 by 19 feet, fitted up with three convenient bathrooms [with bathtubs] for the use of the tenants.  The ladies' lavatory on another floor, is also handsomely furnished.  These halls will be under the charge of special attendants, so that absolute cleanliness will obtain at all times.

Among the other conveniences in the building are fireproof storage vaults for use by the tenants; steam heating; a perfect electric light installation; a system of telephonic communication; a telegraph and telephone station; a convenient series of mail chutes; and, in all probability, handsome club rooms, restaurant, and private apartments on the upper floors which command extensive views over the bay and Hudson River.

The general plan of the Bowling Green Offices was nothing out of the ordinary for its era.  Indeed, it bears some resemblance to Adler & Sullivan's Wainwright Building.  This was to a large degree dictated by the period's reliance on natural light and ventilation.  It was simply not practical to have a desk more than about twenty-five feet from a window.  This necessitated the division of the building into wings separated by a large open court.  The resultant form allowed nearly seventy-nine percent or about 14,883 square feet of the total of 18,740 square feet per floor to be used for rental offices.

The promotional pamphlet made a particular point that all of the structural metal portions of the building were of mild steel rather than cast iron.  Being more flexible, steel had been shown to be less prone to failure than iron.  With the steel skeleton system, the internal partitions were non-loadbearing, and thus easily rearranged or entirely removed.  Columns were placed at intervals of about twenty feet throughout the building.  In this respect, the exterior piers, which seem to support the structure, lend a note of falseness as only every other one actually contained a steel column.  The same situation appeared in Adler & Sullivan's pioneer Wainwright Building.  It is apparent that the desire to emphasize the vertical aspect of the structure took precedence over purely functional architecture.

A noteworthy aspect of the Bowling Green Offices was the provision made for elevators.  The world's first elevator with an automatic safety device to prevent the car from falling had been installed just one and one-half miles north on Broadway at the E. V. Haughwout & Company Building at Broome Street.  This five story cast iron building was completed, with its elevator by Elisha Otis, in 1857. .        Nathan Silver, Lost New York (New York: Weathervan Books, 1965), 208.  In the Audsleys' work, one finds two of the eight passenger elevators devoted to serving the highest floors.  Additional provision was made for a freight elevator whose car had about twice the floor area of the passenger units.

So complete was the reliance on elevators at this time that one finds but a single staircase serving the upper floors.  Indeed, despite the elegance of its white marble slabs, this stairway crept somewhat ignominiously around the open metal grille-work of the freight elevator shaft.  The dangers of these open shafts in the event of fire had not then been recognized:

Although the building is fire-proof beyond question, yet as a precaution against small fires on any one floor, which if not properly subdued might cause annoyance to the tenants, a new and unique system will be employed...This system obviates the necessity of all tanks on the roof, by means of stand pipes and drums for compressed air, capable of sustaining a pressure of 200 lbs. per square inch....[creating] streams of water sufficient to flood the building in a short time... .        Spencer Trask & Co., The Bowling Green Offices (New York: Coloritype Co., c. 1896).

In subsequent years, the stairways and elevator shafts were enclosed with fire resistant walls and doors.  Additional means of egress from the upper floors were also provided so as to meet building codes.

These necessary alterations have unfortunately destroyed much of the original character of the building's lobby.  The only hint of what had been is to be found in the outer vestibule at Broadway.  Here, one finds multi-color marble walls on a gray granite base.  Pilasters of gray-rose with veining of dark red disappear into the dropped ceiling.  Walls of white with shadings of rose serve as a background for black horizontal mouldings, a yellow frieze, a light green-gray horizontal band, and a cornice of black veined with cream.  The floor is of white marble mosaic with colored borders and boasts a central medallion proclaiming "Bowling Green."

Both G. A. Audsley and Louis Sullivan shared a keen sensitivity to color.  One finds in their work astonishing chromatic juxtapositions that remain, nonetheless, harmonious.  In his stencil designs for beams of the main trading room of the Chicago Stock Exchange (1893), Sullivan called for the application of fifty-two colors. .        John Vicki, The Art Institute of Chicago: The Stock Exchange Trading Room (Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago, 1977), 54.

Early alterations to the Bowling Green Offices included removal of iron entrance steps and replacement with ones of granite set behind property line on Broadway and modernization of the elevators.  An additional floor above entire structure and a four story tower over center section were added c. 1916 creating a total of twenty-one floors.  A two story addition was placed inside the courtyard by c. 1920.  The building was sold in 1985 for $58,750,000. .        Norval White and Elliot Willensky, AIA Guide to New York City (New York: Collier Books, 1978), 9. .        Advertisements, The Brickbuilder (Jan. 1897) 16, 19. .        Advertisement, The Brickbuilder (Feb. 1897):43. .        Building Records for Block 15, Lot 5, (various dates), Municipal Archives, New York City, NY.  Owing to its facade "rich with Greek architectural elements," the structure was given protected status as a New York City landmark, along with three others on Bowling Green, by 1995. .        David W. Dunlap, "Bringing Downtown Back Up," The New York Times (15 Oct. 1995) 9:8.