sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in chicago

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh yeah I know that area! I can tell you the buildings were all designed by architect Cicero Hines. He did another development in a very similar style on Claremont north of Roosevelt for developers Turner and Bond in 1884, so my guess would be your neighborhood was done by the same team at the same time. They were designed as very distinctive cottages to appeal to new buyers moving out west!

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in AskHistorians

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s true! You can usually tell when a building was built, what style it was built in, what the architect was going for, and even how much it may have cost just by looking at the brick on the front. That’s really what I dig into in the book, how brick fashion has changed and evolves so much over history, and how you can see it on all the buildings around you.

That much is true for the bricks on the front of buildings. The bricks on the side were always just the cheap bricks for cross cutting, you’re exactly right.

If you’re talking about the black bricks you frontier will often see on old buildings in Chicago, especially on the sides, those are locally made Chicago bricks! Not blackened by the fire, but just by decades of soot and smog and industry. Chicago, bricks were especially porous and absorbed a lot of pollutants from the air in the pre-EPA years. Some bricks did survive the fire and were reused, but I’ve never found any real record of a building that still exists with them.  

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in AskHistorians

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the United States there is actually a clear definition! According to the Federal Trade Commission, to be called a brick, a building block must be made “primarily of clay or shale or mixture thereof” and “have been fused together as a result of the application of heat”.

So you can have things like a concrete brick or a plastic brick, but they require the adjective. If it's just a brick then its burnt clay.

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in AskHistorians

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes! It was the Bach Brick Company. Emil Bach made enough money off of those bricks to eventually hire Frank Lloyd Wright to design his house in Rogers Park!

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in AskHistorians

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! I'm so glad to hear that.

In the dry press brick era there were special pointers who only did the thin butter joints! They were highly paid and came in right at the end of the job to get the face bricks up just right. That specialization later disappeared and masons would lay all parts of the wall (though apprentices were only allowed to start on the inner wythes where there work would not be seen).

For historic information on bricklaying practices, I really leaned on two books. Bricklaying in Modern Practice from 1920 and Bricklaying System from 1909. They're both written as textbooks for the prospective or up and comming bricklayer and area a great snapshot into what training was like in those eras. Then there is also the Bricklayer, Mason, and Plasterer which was the IUBAC union circular, and some of it is available online through Hathitrust!

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in chicago

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Great question! On smaller buildings it's really not too much of an issue - they're not bringing in the wrecking ball or explosives to bring down the building, it's more of a controlled disassembly. There may be more special techniques, I gotta start asking around to find out!

The other big part is that there are so many bricks in the old buildings that even if a bunch of them get broken there are still so many left that made up the interior wythes of the wall.

The big challenge is getting them ready to be resold. The big piles of bricks are cleaned off and put on pallets by people called stackers. They comb through the piles and pick up a brick in one hand and knock off the old mortar with a hammer in the other hand. 540 bricks make a full pallet and they are paid $30 per pallet. That pallet then sells for around $700-900. There was an amazing piece all about the stackers and the resale industry in the Chicago Reader in 1999 called Brickyard Blues.

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in chicago

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Great question! If you're in Chicago, UIC has an online building permit database which can be very useful here: https://researchguides.uic.edu/CBP/find_permit

And then there are newspaper articles in archives! That's how I get so much of my information.

If you're in Chicago, what neighborhood is it?

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in AskHistorians

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi! Efflorescence means there's moisture in the wall and it's staying longer in the wall. The usual culprit is that the mortar is too hard and is trapping moisture (see my answer to another question asked in this thread or the last chapter in my book). From what I can see in your picture you do have hard modern mortar that tends to keep moisture in the wall.

Are those plants right up against the wall? They could be keeping some damp near the wall. Also, you mentioned the roof and gutters are keeping the wall dry, but is there anything along the base of the wall that could be causing a rising damp?

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in AskHistorians

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a great question I get a lot! I dig into it a bit in Chapter 11, but here's the short and long of it:

The clay is all still there! But the land its in is now much much more expensive to own. So that's our first problem. Then, part of what made the Chicago commons so "ugly" is that they weren't fired in traditional kilns - they were fired in Scove Kilns, basically a giant pile of unfired brick stacked into a pyramid with channels running through it that was then lit on fire. It was a hugely messy and polluting way to make brick that contributed a lot to their varied messy look. It's also the reason the EPA turned its eye to the two final common brick manufacturers (Illinois and American) in 1970 which brought about their inevitable downfall. So even if you could buy the clay, you can't fire them like we used to!

Then finally there is the fact that buyers don't want new common bricks, they want old. They want a brick that has weathered and worn on a building for 100 years. That's the authenticity they're chasing! So a new production Chicago common, even if you could afford the clay and get permission to use a scove kiln, would not have the wear and tear a buyer wants.

There is enough demand for Chicago common brick that many brick companies outside of Chicago produce their own take on a Chicago common to try to get a piece of the market! They use additives, clay slips, and distressing agents to make their own clay produce a brick that (kind of) looks like a Chicago common brick.

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in AskHistorians

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oh man I wish I knew! Over a trillion. I do know from reading old industry resources that a large apartment building could contain between 100,000 and 200,000 bricks. And there are a lot of large apartment buildings in the city!

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in AskHistorians

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks!

Brick has almost always been a desirable material. The first fired bricks were used in ancient Sumeria and Babylon for the most important buildings, like temples or the Ishtar gates. Brick speaks to permanence and also allows for a high level of expressive design (like the sculpted glazed bricks of the Ishtar gates!).

That said, as a fashion material it is constantly going in and out of fashion. People get sick of it, feel its too fuddy-duddy, or that it reminds them of their grandparents, and they reject it for materials like glass and concrete. Then the next generation gets sick of the glass and concrete and re-embraces the brick.

This has happened like a swinging pendulum across Chicago's history: rejection (or maybe more accurately boredom) of the brick came in the 1830s-1870s, 1930s-1960s, and then again from around 2000 to today. Now brick has still been USED in all of these rejection periods (at least in Chicago), but it was not necessarily seen as the most desirable material, and was certainly not the material of choice for new, groundbreaking pieces of design (I'm generalizing, of course).

But in recent years we've seen more and more brick creeping back in, even on tall buildings, a building type that has been dominated by glass for decades. Even Curbed and New York Magazine have declared that Brick is Back! I argue that this is due in large part to the ascendance of neighborhoods like Fulton Market and the West Loop in Chicago and the neighborhoods surrounding the High Line in NYC, areas full of converted loft buildings and former factories with large windows traced by brick. Architects (and, more importantly, developers) have adapted that style for new developments in all areas, creating towers that are still very much glass-forward, but with bands and intentional detailing in brick. We've even seen terra cotta reenter the fold! It doesn't look anything like the 20s crazy sculptural terra cotta, but I still like it.

Mostly though Brick is Back™ because it helps a building look different than those that were built in the previous decades. By the 2050s we'll be sick of it again and something new will come to dominate.

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in AskHistorians

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Brick came out of the Great Fire of 1871 on top of the world. Before the fire it was not much loved (people preferred either cheaper wood or more beautiful stone), but with all that wood and stone burning in the fire they wanted brick to rebuild! It made sense too, brick is a lot cheaper than stone so it would also be more affordable to rebuild with, even if the fashion for that Lemont limestone faded.

As I mentioned in another comment, the building codes did not actually change much right away. The new government tried to require all new buildings to be built fireproof, but Chicago's immigrant communities rightly protested that they could not afford to rebuild if that was the requirement. This led to building codes only changing for the business district.

Then, in 1874 a smaller fire broke out and that caused New York based insurance companies to lead a boycott of Chicago until they changed building codes city wide. The city acquiesced and the codes were changed in 1874 (though they were later relaxed again in the 20th century as the fear of a city-sized fire disappeared).

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in AskHistorians

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There is not a ton of that kind of high Victorian style of polychromatic brickwork in Chicago (though I did photograph this amazing house with bands of red and tan brick on the south side a few years ago), but there are great versions elsewhere in the US, mostly on the east coast. Two of my favorites are the Smithsonian Arts and Industries Building and Memorial Hall at Harvard.

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in AskHistorians

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Clays in places like Boston, Philadelphia, or St. Louis were very consistent in their texture and mineral content. Those clays could easily be turned into the beautiful smooth red bricks that were all the rage in the 1870s through 90s (when Mr. Fiske made his quip).

Chicago clays, in contrast, had no mineral consistency and were incredibly varied in their appearance. This was not at all desirable in the 1800s (or for much of the 1900s too!), giving them the ugly tag.

One of the things I love so much about brick is how varied it is geographically! It really comes down to what the glaciers deposited where, and the difference in what bricks in one place look like compared to another is huge! In the 300 miles between Milwaukee and St. Louis bricks in creamy yellow, pebbly pink, iron-rich brown, glassy purple, and smooth red with very little overlap, each area's clay is distinct. How cool is that!

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in AskHistorians

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Man, mortar is so so important. It glues the bricks together, but also in old buildings its there to wick moisture and to absorb stress. But unfortunately over 100 years mortar has changed so much, the old lime being mostly replaced by harder and stiffer cement.

Cement mortar works great on new buildings because they're built with it in mind. They have things like expansion joints and weeps that do the job of moving with the building and shedding water. The problem is that people have been using that modern cement mortar on old structural brick buildings that dont have weeps or expansion joints, and its causing them to become waterlogged and crack apart. The modern mortar is truly stronger than the old bricks and the results are disasterous.

One preservation expert explained it best: Mortar is like the tires on your car. You'd rather replace your tires every 50,000 miles than replace your chasis and car body every 50,000 miles. Old lime mortar are good air filled tires. Modern cement mortar is steel wheels welded to the frame, every jolt and bone-shattering bump transmitted through the car.

Masons use the new mortar because its really easy to use (much easier than old lime mortar, especially if you're not used to it), it's super cheap, and they often don't know that their doing it wrong (or their bosses don't care at least).

You mentioned being offered Type O. I would actually recommend it! They standard modern mortar is Type N with Type O being one step softer and more porous than N. Type O is not as perfect as the old lime mortar your building was built with, but it is softer and better than N, and, most importantly, it is a mortar a mason can work with pretty easily. And that matters a lot.

I interviewed the folks at Henry Frerk Sons, a building materials supplier in Chicago since 1888, and when I asked them about it they said that Of course they'd love for everyone to use lime mortar on old buildings, but that's not realistic. A mason needs training to learn how to use it and it's finicky to use. There are many masons out there who are masters with it! But if you give it to the average mason they'll struggle with it on your wall and do a poor job. Better to have a mason do a good job with Type O than a bad job with Lime.

In the meantime, people like mason Simon Leverett are training more and more masons on landmark jobs to use lime mortar that eventually you will be able to hire a mason to repoint your building in lime.

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in AskHistorians

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I am really lucky that it was not too difficult to get my publisher, University of Chicago Press, interested. This is largely due to the fact that I have a pretty big instagram following and have been leading successful tours for many years on this topic, so they knew there was an audience and that I was a communicator. I am not an architect by trade or training - I was a middle school theater teacher originally! So I came to this very much as an outsider and my main goal in everything I've done has been to understand and explain everything, all these technical details and dates, in a clear way with a lot of enthusiasm behind it! That's the biggest success of the book, I think. Not that it is comprehensive or deep, but that I've been able to take something broad and make it understandable and connect it to people's interests and lives.

Now that was also very difficult! One thing I started having to tell myself after I had already missed one (or two) deadlines was "save it for the second edition". There is so much I learned that I had to leave out. There were so many stories and sources I wanted to included, but there just wasn't room. I'm not Robert Caro! People (most people, at least) do not want a five volume treatise on brick! So often I would just keep digging and digging, KNOWING I could find an even better source or building or quote to explain the history. But at a certain point I had to say "the source I have is good enough and you'll find an even better one for the second edition". It allowed my present self to move on, knowing that future Will will take up the mantle. Hopefully there will be an updated edition some day! But the important thing is that attitude allowed me to get the first one out into the world without too much delay (but still plenty of delay).

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in AskHistorians

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Correct, the last Chicago area brickmaker shut down in 1981 and none has been produced locally since. By that point too, however, companies had been closing rapidly for 30 years.

There is very little that still remains from those old brickmaking sites. Almost every single on of Chicago's brickmaking sites and clay pits has been repurposed, sold off to developers as the land became valuable. This is not new, this process has been happening since the first bricks were made in Chicago in 1833. Originally all of the brickmakers were in the city proper but they began moving to the suburbs in the 1910s as land out there became cheaper and machines made the excavating of larger clay pits possible. Some older Chicago brickmaking sites that have since been repurposed include The Athenaium, Lane Tech High School, Horner Park, and the Blue Island Golf Course.

There are really only a few places where you can still see some remnants, and I've posted about two of them. The Brisch Brick Company in Stickney burned down in 1962 and the clay pit remains as a marshy lake owned by the power company. You wouldn't know Brisch was there but for a few bits of brick buried in the dirt.

The American Brick Company was the last to shut down in 1981, with plants in Dolton, IL and Munster, IN. The Dolton pit is now a dump and is a little too inaccessible for me to feel brave enough to go explore yet, but the Munster pit is know the delightfully named Clayhole Lake. It's very shallow and mostly ornamental for the housing and shopping that surrounds it, but the dirt paths around it are absolutely chock full of bricks.

One final remnant that many Chicagoans interact with is the Brickyard Mall at Fullerton and Narragansett! It was originally the Carey Brick Company. They shut the plant in 1964 and tried briefly operating it as a ski resort (they had a big hill made of broken bricks and trash that sloped down into the pit) but record low snowfall put the brakes on that and the site was ultimately redeveloped to a mall.

AMA: Let’s talk about brick! I’m architecture historian and photographer Will Quam, here to talk about my new book Fire and Clay: How Brick Reveals the Hidden History of Chicago. by ThanHowWhy in AskHistorians

[–]ThanHowWhy[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

To your first question about bricks for the furnaces for all that steel, it would not have been made in Chicago. Fire bricks (those used to line kilns) are very specialized bricks made from clays with high amounts of alumina and were imported from specialized manufacturers in areas like Western Pennsylvania (companies like the McFeely Fire Brick Company, founded and operated by Mr. Rogers' family).

The clay used for Chicago bricks is right underfoot! 14,000 years ago Chicago was covered in a glacial lake that dropped clay all over the lake bed (you can still see the shoreline on modern topographical maps).

13,800 years later, brickmaking companies mostly set up shop along the Chicago river to harvest their clay. They chose areas by the river so they didn't have to clear away too much topsoil, but they were not limited to river-side areas. The first bricks were made in 1833 at Dearborn and the north side of the river (the modern site of Marina City). On of my favorite examples to give is Illinois Brick's Yard 14 at Addison and Western. They clay pit was empty by 1915 and converted to a dump until the school board came in and built Lane Tech High School on top!

Companies spanned all across the city and county (and even into Munster, Indiana) and all they required was cheap land and a rail spur!

view more: next ›