Studio instructors: Ali Rahim, Ezio Blasetti, Nate Hume, Robert Neumayr.

Asset Architecture 3
University of Pensylvania School of Design Department of Architecture MSD-AAD
Ali Rahim (ed.)
ISBN 978-1940743738

The image you just clicked on shows the project VERTICAL ABYSS by students Ke Liu, Angeliki Tzifa and Dongliang Li.

The Best Building Money Can Buy – The Future of the Skyscraper Outside its Current Capitalist Logic

“Once you learn to look at architecture not merely as an art more or less well or more or less badly done, but as a social manifestation, the critical eye becomes clairvoyant.” – Louis Sullivan

In 1896 Dankmar Adler and Louis Sullivan completed what would eventually be their practice’s last mayor built project, the Guaranty Building in downtown Buffalo. At the time of its completion however, the building had already changed its name. Carefully located at the intersection of Church and Pearl Street close to most of the city’s and the county’s official buildings, it was initially supposed to be called The Taylor Building, named after a local businessman by the name of Hascal T. Taylor, who had developed the early skyscraper as a speculative office building in the wake of the construction boom surrounding Buffalo’s quick but temporary rise to importance as its former mayor Grover Cleveland was elected 22^nd president of the United States.

It was only due to the entrepreneur’s untimely death before the structure’s completion that the contracted Guaranty Construction Company decided to continue with the project alone. But also the architectural firm Adler & Sullivan met their fate. Ironically enough, a continuous decline in commissions, resulting from a severe recession, known as the Panic of 1893, that in turn started with the burst of a speculative bubble in Argentina, forced the two architects to dissolve their partnership in 1894.

So, speculation, I would argue, has from the early days on been one of the key drivers for real estate development in general but also for its most prominent protagonist in particular: the urban skyscraper. However, little attention has been given to the question of how the principles of financial speculation have affected its historic and typological development.

In her book Form Follows Finance, Carol Willis for example argues that high-rise buildings, especially in Chicago and New York, have always been speculative developments, and that their form, location, and distribution throughout the city are the result of complex interactions of parameters such as plot sizes, local or regional building patterns, cost effective construction technologies, fluctuating real estate cycles, building codes and zoning laws [1].

Christopher Marcinkoski defines speculative urbanization as “[...] the construction of urban infrastructure or settlement for political or economic purposes, rather than to meet real (as opposed to artificially exaggerated) demographic or market demand.” [2] Giving an overview of notable past and present speculation bubbles, he points out a fundamental change in what drives contemporary urban development. Urbanization is no longer a response to economic growth but is rather deployed as a driver for economic growth, thus becoming a preferred instrument of economic production.

As the amount of capital that is channeled towards real estate increases, the degree to which space functions as an asset has increased radically and the large-scale effects, that high-rise buildings as objects of financial investments have on their immediate built environment become visibly more clearly. It seems that cities nowadays have become complexly multi-layered commercial environments, where space is being privatized in all three dimensions and all property—similar to the stock market—is subject to fluctuating value cycles. Buildings have become assets and air rights have developed into a speculative commodity.

In that sense, for some time now, New York, and more specifically Manhattan with its long history of converting incoming capital to high dense building mass has been on the forefront of this development and therefore seems to be uniquely equipped as a location to examine the phenomena of speculation, asset architecture and its effects.

In direct contradiction to the standard evaluation criteria typically associated with any building in an urban context, the contemporary pencil shaped condominium towers, that sprout all over the city, only operate as financial investment assets. Following the national trend, speculative vacancy in New York has grown rapidly to 12% of the housing market [3] and explains why so many facade windows of upscale Fifth, Madison and Park Avenue apartment buildings remain dark every evening. In 2004 across the United States 23 percent of all the houses acquired were for investment purposes and another 13% were obtained as second homes [4].

As of now, New York is still the third most expensive city for prime real estate in the world. According to Knight Frank Research [5], in December 2016 one million US$ let you buy 26 m2 of prime property. At that time only Monaco and Hong Kong did better. For the amount of one million US$ you could afford 20 m2 of luxurious property, in the exclusive Mediterranean princedom that same amount of money bought you a meagre 17 m2 of first class real estate. But cities in the Western hemisphere appear to be on the decline, and Asia seems to be on the rise. In 2016 luxury residential market performance in New York was at 3.50% and market value is forecast to not increase at all in 2017. In comparison, the four top performing cities in the Prime International Residential Index (PIRI) 2016 were all Asian, Shanghai coming in first, closely followed by Beijing and Guangzhou (all three of them with an increase of prime real estate value of around 27%) and Seoul. And contrary to New York, Shanghai’s top real estate segment is predicted to increase in value by another 8% in 2017 [6].

It was only recently, and after looking back at a considerable record of burst real estate bubbles, that the notion of financial speculation as the main driver for urban tower development has started to rapidly gain influence within the contemporary discourse about high-rise structures within an urban context, considerably shifting the way we look at the history of the skyscraper. More than any other contemporary building typology, the tower has always been widely understood, by the general public as well as within the profession, as a symbol for innovation, modernity, technological advancements, and progress. As a consequence, historically, two narratives dominated the discourse about the development of the skyscraper. The first account is chronological, understanding the tower as a in itself shapeless typology that adapts throughout history to the prevailing styles, ideas and agendas of any given specific time period. The second reading focuses on technological aspects, linking constant advances in building and construction technology as the main drivers behind skyscraper development. However as both of these narratives can only operate post festum, they lack the projective mechanisms that would be needed to allow for productive speculations about this dynamic typology’s future.

But now, as these narratives are being cast aside by an increasing criticism of global capitalism, its relation to speculative capital, global wealth distribution and its impact on our built environment, high-rise buildings are rediscovered as ideological objects to bring back a strong social and political agenda to architecture, tying in with modernism’s long lost social project, where rationalization, new technologies, automated production techniques and innovative materials were supposed to provide affordable high-quality products and solve social problems on a global scale.

So, while the contemporary architectural production, such as Norman Foster’s 700-foot ultra-thin high-tech residential tower on 610 Lexington Avenue, just behind Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building, is still well embedded within the current architectural paradigm and its speculative logic, shifting the architectural discourse back towards a more socially biased agenda has also jump-started academic speculation about the socially responsible future of the skyscraper, following Zaha’s famous dictum that “[w]ithout experimentation not much can be discovered. […] I think there should be no end to experimentation.” [7]. And in its more interesting recent moments, the results of these experimental design approaches manage to be innovative on multiple levels.

“New York Horizon”, the winning entry of the 2016 Evolo Scyscraper Competition [8] for example explores a new high-rise typology by excavating Central Park down to its bedrock, thus creating a seven mile long and 1000 feet tall wall of skyscrapers along its perimeter, with an unobstructed view onto the newly emerging underground landscape.

Referring to one of Central Park’s designers, Frederick L. Olmsted’s initial intention, to provide a central common green space, equally accessible to all citizens, the project clearly sets its social agenda in providing an additional seven square miles of inhabitable indoor space with direct view to the park scenery, a commodity that has become scarce in recent years as new towers around Central Park have continued to rise higher than ever before as have the prizes of property with a direct view to it.

By doing so, at the same time, the project inverts the modernist understanding of the relationship between building and landscape, making the purposefully faceless architecture the mere background for the natural landscape as a centerpiece.

But, just like the “Manhattan Tower”, a twelve kilometer high extrusion of the “site formerly known as Central Park, scraping the Stratosphere” in Jimenez Lai’s dystopian graphic novel Babel [9], the proposal also makes us reconsider our understanding of scale and the reciprocity between volume and void. It reveals the complex interplay between the height limits of large-scale human structures and the immediate, yet not directly graspable dimensions of the geological and geographical structures that surround us and it reminds us of the unearthed potentials of the contemporary urban fabric’s inherently stratified nature and vertical complexity.

This year’s AAD PPD students responded to the design brief In equally innovative ways, speculating about how novel ideas about asset driven architecture could start to shape the program, structure, materiality, form and visual nature of the contemporary city tower.

Responding to the prevailing speculative urban high-rise development, the studio’s thesis is how to design a Manhattan skyscraper that, rather than fighting financial investment logic, subversively operates within the capitalist paradigm in order to come up with building proposals that will not only generate a return on investment that outperforms conventional investment strategies, but that will also at the same time be able to operate as a social, cultural or programmatic condenser within the surrounding city fabric.

Understanding the mechanics of asset architecture as a complex social phenomenon rather than an abstract and detached market mechanism, students are able to conceptualize the given challenge simultaneously on a social, cultural, programmatic and aesthetic level.

A series of seven sites in midtown Manhattan along the south end of Central Park that form part of Billionaires Row, becomes the testing ground for this semester’s speculative design research.

Some teams investigate alternative programs that might lend themselves as possible investments and their potential to be organized in new vertical ways.

Starting from the observation that burial space has become a scarce commodity in New York, leaving only one cemetery still selling space for remains on the crowded island of Manhattan, the project “Death in Manhattan” by students Carrie Frattali, Jeon Bosung, and Zhao Xiaoyu for example investigates a novel type of real estate by turning burial space into a commodity and developing it as a vertical program.

The vertically structured mausoleum can produce a huge variety of burial typologies at varying price levels, depending on prominence, orientation, views or relativity to ceremonial or public spaces. Vertically densely stacked mausoleums, niches, stacks of urns or caskets are contained within the structural elements of the building and connected by a procession of programs. The tower’s novel typology rotates the traditional ceremonial progression into verticality, thus elevating the process of ritual, meditation, and contemplation in a vertical version of the traditional landscaped cemeteries. The towers facade consists of a series of louvers that change direction and depth, highlighting program changes on the interior as well as providing a variety of light quality throughout the tower.

Another important field of research appears to be the investigation into new residential typologies. With new condominium towers going up across the city nowadays in the form of super slim pencil towers, the floor plans of New York’s most expensive apartments have locked into one standardized one storey layouts that wrap around a massive central core, increasingly failing to offer differentiated experiences in a saturated market.

“Vertical Abyss”, a project by students Li Dongliang, Liu Ke, and Angelika Tzifa sets out to redefine the concept of luxury housing by developing an interiority of accentuated verticality, that reflects the soaring upright directionality of the tall building’s overall shape. 136 apartments units are devised with minimized footprints on multiple levels, which are connected internally by a moving platform. They are stacked and arranged following a vertical packing algorithm to interlock around a series of vertical void spaces that act as atria for the respective units.

Other design projects finally call into question the well-established financing models for contemporary asset architecture. “Ten Million New York” by students Chen Xiaonan, Wu Mengyue, and Zhong Jianbao for example suggest a participatory bottom-up real estate crowd funding model in which a multitude of small private investors contribute a modest investment to the overall cost of the skyscraper. In return they do not only receive tradeable shares of the building but also gain the exclusive right to access the tower and its semi-private facilities which are being shared by all the investors. The building’s interiority in turn consists of a vastly different spaces, levels, plateaus, niches, and crevices generating a multiplicity of atmospheres with their respective effective and affective conditions to be temporarily inhabited by its shareholders.

Consequentially the continuously variegated outdoor space that entwines the building, reads as a complex contemporary three-dimensional interpretation of New York’s private green spaces, such as Gramercy Park.

Endnotes:

[1] Carol Willis. Form Follows Finance. Skyscrapers and Skylines in New York and Chicago. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1995)

[2] Christopher Marcinkoski. The City That Never Was. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2015)

[3] Sam Roberts, “Homes Dark and Lifeless, Kept by Out-of-Towners.” The New York Times, 06 July 2011. Online Edition.

[4] “In Come the Waves” Economist, 06 November 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/12501011.

[5] Kate Everett-Allen, “Going up, going down.” The Wealth Report 2017. ed. Andrew Shirley. (London: KnightFrank, 2017).

[6] James Roberts, “Future view.” The Wealth Report 2017. ed. Andrew Shirley. (London: KnightFrank, 2017).

[7] Hans Ulrich Obrist, “Foreword” Zaha Hadid Early Paintings and Drawings. (London: Serpentine Galleries and Koenig Books, 2016)

[8] “New York Horizons” Evolo Skyscraper Competition 2016. http://www.evolo.us/competition/new-york-horizon/.

[9] Jimenez Lai, “Babel” Citizens of No Place. An Architectural Graphic Novel. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2012.

Studio instructors: Ali Rahim, Ferda Kolatan, Nate Hume, Robert Neumayr

Asset Architecture 2
University of Pensylvania School of Design Department of Architecture MSD-AAD
Ali Rahim and Robert Neumayr (eds.)
ISBN 978-1-5323-1714-9

Cover image: The Hive. Yifeng Zhao, Nadeel Ayed Mohammad, Chengda Zhu.

The image you just clicked on shows the project BIOMORPH by students Jayong Shim, Dailong Ma & Tai Feng.

Capitalism as an Urban Catalyst

Current American Architecture is not a matter of art, but of business. A building must pay or there will be no investor ready with the money to meet its cost. This is at once the curse and the glory of American architecture. - Barr Ferree, editor of Engineering Magazine, speaking at the American Institute of Architects in 1893ⁱ

More than any other contemporary building typology, since its beginnings in the late 19^th century the skyscraper has always been widely understood by the public as a symbol for innovation, modernism, technological advancements, and progress. Little attention, however, has been given to the question of how the principles of financial speculation have affected its historic development.

Over the years, the typology of the tower has undergone a series of crucial changes, in its building morphology as well as in the way it engages with the surrounding cityscape. For a long time, towers were essentially block buildings, building volumes extruded along site boundaries, and, due to the need to directly connect rentable spaces to their environment, office spaces were arranged on the perimeter around a central core.

In 1952 SOM’s Lever House introduced a new high-rise typology by combining a slender vertical slab tower with an open ground floor, an open courtyard, green space, pedestrian walkways, and a large 2^nd floor plinth containing auxiliary office spaces. In 1958 Mies van der Rohe set back his Seagram Building from Park Avenue by a large open plaza, thus creating a public urban space in front of the building, which became so popular, that the City of New York revised its zoning laws a few years later, offering incentives for investors who created privately owned public spaces. These two buildings went on to set the architectural style for high-rise buildings in New York for the next decades. Nowadays, pencil towers, extremely lean condominium skyscrapers, that do not contain more than one exclusive unit per floor, have started sprouting up all over Manhattan.

To account for the historic development of the skyscraper, two main narratives predominate the contemporary architectural discourse. The first narrative is a strictly chronological one. Invented in the 19^th century due to the need for urban densification and rendered possible by technological advancements, their continuous changes in form and facade treatment throughout history are mainly attributed to their constant adaption to the prevailing styles and architectural agendas of a specific time period. In that way it is easy to categorize towers according to their age and appearance. Towers are historicist, art deco, modernist, international style, postmodernist, or high-tech architecture.

The second, more modernist reading emphasizes the technological aspects, identifying advances in building and construction technology as the most important drivers behind skyscraper development and their typological changes.

While it is certainly true that no high-rise building could have ever been developed without the invention of crucial technologies, such as elevators, air conditioning systems or advanced materials, and that the forms and surface ornamentations of high-rise buildings, not unlike any other building, are subjected to the constant change of architectural styles, none of these narratives can really account for their typological development, let alone for the recent propagation of super thin residential pencil tower developments all over Manhattan. Contrary to standard historic narratives that normally focus on design philosophies, architectural ideologies, styles or technological progress, it might therefore be more interesting to look into the principles of financial speculation to understand the recent development of skyscrapers.

Large urban structures in general, and the buildings that are a part thereof, should be perceived to have an intrinsic networked nature, as they are organized primarily around currents and lines of exchange where people, services, ideas, and goods are collected, organised and redistributed in a multitude of directions (a good account of these phenomena are for example given by Manuel de Landa in his book A Thousand Years of Non Linear Historyⁱⁱ). It seems that cities nowadays have become complexly interwoven commercial environments, where space is being privatized and land property—similar to the stock market—is subject to fluctuating value cycles. Buildings become assets and air rights have developed into a speculative commodity.

In her book Form Follows Finance, Carol Willis argues that high-rise buildings have always been highly speculative developments, and that their form, location, and distribution throughout the city are the result of complex interactions of parameters such as plot sizes, local or regional building patterns, cost effective construction technologies, fluctuating real estate cycles, building codes and zoning lawsⁱⁱⁱ.

Today, there is more capital than there has ever been in the world. Worldwide financial capital has more than doubled from 2001 to 2011 from $37 trillion to $80 trillion^iv. While monetary capital has always played a significant role in determining the built environment, recent shifts in the character of global finance have resulted in a new relationship between investment practices and buildings. As the capital has grown, investors have circumvented traditional stable assets, such as treasuries and municipal bonds, for real estate, which directly affects architecture and urbanism. As the amount of capital that is channeled towards real estate increases, the degree to which space functions as an asset has increased radically.

In this respect Ultra High Net Worth Individuals find unique opportunities in the United States and especially in New York. Whereas, according to the Prime International Residential Index (PIRI), the value of high-end residential property in the whole world increased on average by just around 2% in 2014, luxury residential prices across the US rose by almost 13%. In New York itself prices skyrocketed by a breathtaking 18.8%. This increase starkly contrasts with other world regions, such as Europe with an average increase of only 2.5%^v.

New York City has a total of 845,000 houses and apartments and 102,000 units (or 12 per cent of its housing market) are vacant^vi. This number is predicted to grow further if the growth of capital keeps increasing at the same rate. The people who own these condominiums are usually foreigners , spending only 2% of their time in New York. This number has grown rapidly and explains why so many windows dotting the imposing facades of Fifth, Madison and Park Avenue apartment buildings are pitch dark every evening. These buildings are often referred to as zombies, as they are buildings without life.

Especially in the history of the development of Manhattan, within its gridded logic of property development, architecture has always been the expression of capital due to its increase of land value by densification of building mass. Thus, architecture can be read as the outcome of vertical expressions based on its relationship to its land. Manhattan therefore is uniquely equipped as a site to speculate on asset architecture and develop innovative architecture and urban proposals that are unprecedented in the ways they link to global capital. Nowadays increments of architecture (units, buildings, parcels of land, etc.) increasingly operate primarily as financial investment assets, which is in direct contradiction to the performance criteria typically associated with any building in an urban context. Architects and architecture have not responded to this issue in any way.

Under the current logic of speculative high-rise development, the question then becomes how to conceptualize a Manhattan skyscraper that, as a speculative object to draw investors, outperforms standard high-end residential pencil towers while giving something back to the surrounding city and thus acting as a social or cultural catalyst within its urban context. The thesis taken within the studio is that the architecture of New York City is able to increase its value as a commodity by fusing urban elements into a new form of architectural interiority to the mutual benefit of both. The building and the city, thus avoid the detrimental impact of zombie architecture on Manhattan’s urban structure. The site on 432 Park Avenue, currently the location of New York’s most famous pencil tower, becomes the testing ground for this speculative endeavor.

Student teams in this year’s studio responded in different, innovative ways to that challenge. On the one end of a wide spectrum of different design proposals, students took on Manhattan’s tradition of infrastructural buildings, such as Carl Warnecke’s 1974 AT&T Long Lines Building, in order to speculate on the provision of imminent and future public services and how these could start to shape the program, structure, materiality, and visual nature of the city tower.

On the other end of the spectrum, students explored the role that refined aesthetics and restlessly technique-driven formal differentiations within the framework of a consistent part-to-whole relationship can play as an urban catalyst.

Some teams investigated how contemporary, highly profitable services and provisions for the public could be structured, expanded, combined, and reorganized three-dimensionally to, at the same time, create a strong asset argument and investigate the formal, spatial, and aesthetic consequences of these typological changes.

Others read the contemporary tower as a green tower with its own complex ecological system, that not only provides public recreational green spaces, such as a vertical spiraling version of the Highline or elevated parks and green facades, but would also dramatically improve the local climatic conditions in the city and create new and interesting micro-ecologies within Manhattan’s dense urban fabric.

Looking at the wide range of programmatic solutions and their spatial, formal, and aesthetic implications, another important issue arises: the question of architectural style. Since the studio’s agenda was to push New York’s recent pencil tower typology beyond its current boundaries, it has also developed its own distinctive and novel aesthetic, driven by techniques and processes.

High-rise building typologies have developed considerably since William Le Baron Jenney’s Home Insurance Building in Chicago, and so have their compositional principles, facades, and ornamentations. In today’s architecture production we can identify various design strategies operating well within the modernist paradigm, yet still ambitiously contrasting the predominantly featureless and sleek modernist facades of most of New York’s international style skyscrapers.

On one end of the spectrum, Norman Foster’s 700-foot ultra-thin condominium tower on 610 Lexington Avenue, just behind Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building, for example, appears to be another attempt to push high-tech architecture well beyond its reasonable limits. On its other end, for his 41 West 57^th Street pencil tower, Mark Foster Gage reverts to a building design that seems to be a contemporary version of last century’s Art Deco style, replacing gargoyles with articulate figurative balconies to provide the building’s wealthy residents with individual computer-controlled outdoor environments.

But how can the advanced formal vocabularies of this studio be located within contemporary architectural discourse? The work is seemingly positioned at a point of intersection between the two major antitheses in today’s architectural discourse: a recently materialized persuasive digital sensibility—which it is definitely part of—and an explicitly socially oriented and environmentally conscious architectural agenda, which it follows by addressing the issue of New York’s Zombie towers.

Design research in the wake of new digital design and production strategies, with their clear predilection for soft, undulating, and malleable architectural forms, has opened up new perspectives for both the spatialization of complexly interwoven with social and environmental specifications and its articulation in the form of a new structural ornamentation.

However, while the use of the ornament has become more widespread recently, there still seems to be a lack of rigor in intellectually pursuing its underlying concepts, and, as Marjan Coletti puts it – “… a generative logic and morphological syntax is nowadays being embraced by parametric and scripted generative techniques to produce myriads of complex, patternised, ornamental topologies, although the endeavor…usually drifts towards the generic and the dogmatic, and away from the phenomenological and the experimental.” ^vii.

Coletti identifies two different conceptual strands within the pursuit of digital ornamentation, “one [propelling] towards ‘pure form’ through abstraction, [one] towards the purely figural through sensation.” (Coletti, ibid.). Both distinguish the results of contemporary digital form finding processes from representational digital visualizations in the same way a modern painting “[escapes] from the figurative in art.” (Coletti, ibid.). Both of them pursue the rationalization of the contemporary ornament as a systematic, abstract, and theoretical endeavor, that, though intellectually driven, first and foremost speaks to the sensorial and atmospheric qualities of a spatial configuration.

The technique-driven, methodical development of these deep surface systems aims towards the generation of tightly controlled complex geometries, which are highly adaptive and open for multiple connectivity. Variation and continuous differentiation of initially simple elements reflect the mutually influential forces within a system’s different layers in order to eventually articulate a complex architectural system that ties together a spatial organisation, its complex program, its environment, its inhabitants, and their constantly changing patterns of use.

This implies a controlled and simultaneous development of function, form, structure, and material, and also requires attention to the associative qualities of all single constituents, their semiological properties, and to their part-to-whole relationship.

The act of design is no longer framed by “a singular aesthetic end, but by the multiple constraints and ambitions of each project, as negotiated by the architect.”^viii. The result displays a contemporary elegance that is supported by articulated complexity rather than by minimalism or simplicity.

Successful complex building structures are able to develop a descriptive architectural language that visually reduces the underlying complexity and helps to order, frame, and organize the varying patterns of use. “An elegant building or urban design should [...] be able to manage considerable complexity without descending into disorder.”^ix.

On the other hand, the recent general shift of contemporary architectural practice towards a more political, social, economic, or environmental agenda has not yet resulted in the development of a novel formal language that is able to coherently reflect its ideas and ambitions. Discarding what Peter Sloterdijk calls “Euro-American technical titanism” we see architects all over the world reverting to a material practice that favors the vernacular, makeshift solutions, and thriftiness. But is this really what we want our future built environment to look like? Is this kind of prospective nostalgia capable of generating the forms, materials, and spatial organizations that we will need to frame our social interactions in the 21^st century?

At its best, architecture is the result of a simultaneous advancement of agenda, program, typology, tools, and innovative digital techniques, that need to be developed in parallel within a very specific contextual framework, and thus result in the emergence of unprecedented formal, aesthetic, and spatial solutions. It provides clues and anticipations about what lies behind its currently visible layers and the type of communication and interaction it houses. And it has the potential to generate nuanced architectonic articulations within its multi-layered building configuration that reflect the different patterns and intensities of its interaction with its urban environment.

In this sense, the student work in this book – speculative and radical as it may be – opens up new ways of synchronizing novel program ideas with advanced formal design and construction sensibilities, calibrating a high-rise building’s geometric ecology with the affective and effective qualities that connect it with its urban environment.

Endnotes:

 i Barr, Ferree. Economic Conditions of Architecture in America. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Convention of the American Institute of Architects. Inland Architect, Chicago: 1893; 231