The Midway, as shown in the provided 61/2" x 6" stereoscopic picture, first came to being during the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago as a bit of an accident. The world's fair scheduled for 1892 was pushed towards a higher standard than most others. The successes of the 1876 Philadelphia and 1889 Paris fairs drove the Chicago planners to produce something even greater. As stated by Richard Wilson, the Paris fair especially hit home for the Americans. The sheer magnificence of the buildings and exhibits made the United States look very backward indeed. While France and the rest of the Old World countries held their own with remarkable advances in art, architecture, and science, the U.S. appeared to be falling behind. America's relatively inferior showings didn't help to shake this harsh image. The U.S. was desperate for a new self-image. It needed an opportunity to establish itself as the superpower it felt it deserved to be. The Columbian Exposition gave the U.S. this chance. Fair organizers planned the fair on a grand scale. They gravitated towards a solemn Neo-Classical style, as exemplified in the all-white Court of Honor, a style which represented order, tradition, purity, and grandeur -- all the things that America was trying to display.
However, this new classical character impressed upon the fair's major buildings produced a conflict with a group of people that had already laid claim to the fair: the members of the entertainment industry. Even before the formal announcement of the Fair in 1890, requests for space from all sorts of vendors, musical and circus troupes, and restaurateurs. Amusement vendors had been set up at previous expositions, usually right outside the fairgrounds. There, they not only attracted more fairgoers than the regular exhibits would normally bring in, but more importantly, provided additional revenue to help defray the cost of the fair. Nonetheless vendors created a great hindrance for the fair planners. The intrinsic disorder and disjointed look of such a gathering would have been anathema for the dignified, traditional image that the US was trying to project. A compromise was reached by way of the small strip of land between the two areas of the Fair, Jackson and Washington Parks. This isthmus was dubbed the Midway Plaisance, or "the Midway" for short. While appearing to be simply a large freestanding, oddly placed circus, the Midway proved to be an immensely popular, almost essential part of the Columbian Exposition.
One of the most noticeable features of this stereoscopic view is the immense crowd of people, man and woman, child and adult, all gathered to experience the excitement of the Midway. The most obvious reason for the popularity of the Midway was its very purpose. Despite the numerous, novel exhibits of the main Fair, the Midway's "'Barnumesque eclecticism' and exuberant chaos" (Findling, p. 127) was simply designed to entice crowds with its bright lights and happy sounds.
Its makeup, as a rule, was kept diversified, with as many varieties of entertainment as there were people to be entertained. There were caged wild animals to be seen, and jugglers to be watched. Different traveling troupes put on all sorts of performances, from bawdy comedies to jolly songs. There were many vendors on hand to satisfy an appetite or rampant sweet tooth. International exhibits were also present. They could be categorized into two groups: the first was a stereotypical parody of a culture, a sort of caricature of the host country it represented, displayed as little more than a side show. This was especially true for cultures that were generally the subject of bias and underrepresented to begin with. There was a Dahomey village from "darkest Africa" which showed the "cannibal tribe". Indian "chiefs" and "braves" in feathered headdresses also were put on show, set into an environment of teepees and wigwams. The second category of international display was a bit more realistic and at least as legitimate as one could get at the Midway. These included the German beer halls, the noisy Egyptian bazaars, the controversial Algerian belly dancers, and the World Congress of Beauties, which showed representatives of forty countries in national attire. All these exhibits had their place in the Midway.
A somewhat more subtle reason for the appeal of the Midway can be observed in contrast to the main Fair. With an unspoken goal of topping the 1889 Paris fair, and the disparate influences of the amusement tucked away in the Midway, the fair planners were allowed to concentrate purely on creating a great fair under a unified, classical style. This single-minded focus brought about the monolithic buildings of the "White City". The temple-like structures loomed large over the Exposition, shining blinding white in the sun. With these buildings foremost in the visitors' minds, not to mention the thousands of exhibits, small international and miscellaneous pavilions, and meetings and "World Congresses", all held within a space that would have taken a person a half hour to walk across, the whole thing could quickly become very overwhelming, even for the city dwellers of Chicago. The Midway took the role of a valve that allowed visitors to relax and enjoy the Exposition without any pressure to "keep up".
As much a part of the fun as the sideshows, several exhibits brought a bit of the Exposition into the Midway by displaying new consumer products and innovative technology to the public, although with a more open mercantile motive. The Libbey Glass building, which can be seen on the right of the stereoscopic view, is an example of this new kind of fair exhibit. It was designed to resemble a palace. Twin towers flanked its entrance and a large 100-foot dome doubled as a chimney for the pavilion's furnace. Inside, the glass-making process was displayed in its entirety for the fairgoers, from its initial manufacture to the intricate arts of glass blowing and cutting. With shelves full of glass objects, from cut glass vases and bowls to spun glass ceiling coverings and tapestries, and walls covered with mirrors, it was a breathtaking Midway building done completely in transparent, shining glass.
Libbey Glass had relocated from Boston to Toledo, Ohio in 1888. By 1892, the company was beginning to turn a respectable profit. In anticipation of the Columbian Exposition, Edward Libbey, its owner, decided to set up a costly pavilion. Many of his advisors were against spending the company's relatively meager profit on such an unlikely attention ploy, but Libbey convinced them that the business could only benefit from added publicity. Unlike a few other glass companies that displayed their wares in the main fair, Libbey decided to set up the pavilion in the Midway. A shrewd businessman, Edward Libbey knew that the Midway would naturally attract more customers than the rest of the fairgrounds. The carefree atmosphere would also be more conducive to a commercial venture. Also, the main attraction of the open, "interactive" environment of the glass-making display harmonized more with the atmosphere of the Midway than the educational, "hands-off" displays of the main Fair. The large corporation pavilions in the 1930s Fairs would use the same technique in order to draw a large crowd.
Interactive display of process and product did prove very popular for the Libbey Pavilion, which recorded an attendance of over 2 million. Visitors ranged from the regular middle-class fairgoer to the more wealthy patrons and retail storeowners. A special visitor was the Princess Infanta Eulalia of Spain, who was attracted by the display of a spun glass dress made for Georgia Cayban, a famous actress. She soon ordered one for herself . Hence the Libbey Glass Co. could claim the title of "Glass Cutters to Her Royal Highness Infanta Do a Eulalia of Spain" (Keefe, p. 13). In the end, the Pavilion was a large success and did indeed bring new business, placing Libbey Glass in stores as far-flung as Tiffany's in New York, and James & Skinner in British Columbia.
The second aspect of the Exposition transplanted to the Midway, the display of innovative technology, is exemplified in the background of the picture by the looming figure of the Ferris wheel. A mechanical masterpiece, the "Great Wheel" reconciled the fields of applied science and recreation. With the 140-foot tall towers pushing the already huge wheel to a height of 240 feet, the 1893 Ferris wheel was a gigantic machine. By itself, it weighed 2,079,884 pounds; with its maximum capacity of 2,160 passengers, it could reach a weight of about 2,382,244 lbs., or 1,191 tons. The axle alone weighed 45 tons, and was the largest hollow forging in the world at its time. It was powered by a 1,000 horsepower steam engine located outside the fairgrounds and equipped with a Westinghouse Air Brake for starts and stops. The Ferris wheel has been compared to the Eiffel Tower. The idea of the Wheel did in fact come about in reaction to this Parisian landmark. In the early stages of planning for the Fair, chief of construction Daniel H. Burnham called together a group of architects and civil engineers to brainstorm ideas. To him, American civil engineers were unfairly ignored, both in their own country and abroad. The upcoming Exposition would give people a chance to see the industrial power of the United States through some distinctive engineering feature, something that would be to the 1893 Fair what the Tower was for the 1889 Fair.
At this, George Ferris, co-owner of a steel bridge company, began to formulate his idea of a large rideable, rotating wheel. Such an unprecedented feat was not as easy to implement as it looked. By 1892, the country was in the midst of a severe depression and initial funding for the Wheel was scarce. However, through persistence and conviction, Ferris eventually amassed $600,000 and brought his idea before the Commission Ways and Means Committee. At first, the design was rejected, deemed impossible to build, much less operate. After some arguing, Ferris did get a plot at the Fair, albeit in the small Midway strip rather than in the primary fairgrounds. By then, it was mid-January 1893, with four months to go until the opening of the Fair. Construction continued until June 9, when the first trial run of the Wheel took place. As it began its first motions, crowds formed around, entranced and frightened by the impossible sight of the large turning disk. Thereafter, the Ferris wheel was a runaway success, not only because of its mechanical significance, but mostly, for the thrill it gave as it rose hundreds of people into the air to a remarkable view of the Fair and city. It was admired by everyone, from visitors to dignitaries, as well as by engineers, who saw the Ferris wheel as somewhat of a masterpiece. The "Great Wheel" ran until the closing of the Fair without a mechanical problem. Despite its initial shunt to the Midway, the purpose and operation was ultimately better suited for this location, more at home as a rideable sideshow than a monument. The popularity it gained for itself carried onward, from other Wheels in subsequent Fairs to the smaller versions in future amusement parks.
The Midway was all these things and more. Replete with shows and exhibits, it was almost an exposition in itself. The enticing mixture of carnival and exposition stayed in the minds of Fair organizers, so that hardly any future Fair was without one. Where it was called "the Midway" in 1893, St. Louis hosted "the Pike" in 1904, while "La Ronde" delighted crowds at Montreal in 1967. This endurance of the idea of the Midway is a testament to its charisma, its power, and the high place amusement holds in the eye of society.
-Ricardo Gonzalez
Findling, John E. Historical Dictionary of World's Fairs and Expositions: 1851-1988. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990.
Meehan, Patrick. "The Big Wheel." Chicago's Great Ferris Wheel of 1893.
Rydell, Robert W. Fair America: World's Fairs in the United States. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2000.
Keefe, John Webster. Libbey Glass: A Tradition of 150 Years: 1918-1968. Toledo, Ohio: Toledo Museum of Art, 1968.
The Columbian Exposition was notable for its impressive architecture and large
international attendance. Of particular importance was the Women's Pavilion. The first of its
kind
to have been designed by a female architect, it revealed much about the social plight of women at
that time, and the need for further progress in the movement for equal rights. While its existence
did not trigger significant changes for the Women's Movement, this pavilion was certainly a
promising first step that would set a precedent for women's involvement in later years.
All aspects of women's involvement in the Chicago fair were overseen by the Board of
Lady Managers. This governing body, the first of its kind, had authority over all the decisions
regarding the Women's Pavilion. It was headed by Mrs. Potter Palmer of Chicago, and
composed of a diverse group of women from all over the United States. There were two women
members from each state and territory as well as nine from Chicago. Invitations were extended to
women across the world for their participation. Delegations from England, France, Spain,
Germany, Austria, Russia, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, Mexico,
Nicaragua, Ecuador, Venezuela, Algeria, Siam and Japan all participated in the planning ,and
particularly the interior decoration. Many of these organizers belonged to the upper-class or even
aristocracy of their societies.
The first women's pavilion had been erected in 1876 in Philadelphia. The previous year,
women had been given their own section in the main fair building, but at the last minute this
decision was revoked. Instead, women were told if they wanted a display, it would have to be in
their own building and from their own funding. They did collect enough funds for construction
of the pavilion, but Mrs. E.D. Gillespie, President of the Women's Executive Committee said
that, "..weary and longing for rest, we never thought of employing a woman
architect...."(Greenhalgh, 175) Even among women themselves, it was generally thought that
there were few reliable female architects and indeed there were few women in the field at the
time.
Those that were in the field also received little public acknowledgement. At this Philadelphia
fair,
November 7th was chosen was "women's day", based on the assumption that the women should
take advantage of the fair while the men were casting their ballots. This angered the suffragettes,
who proceeded to boycott the fair. The women's pavilion placed "...particular emphasis on those
activities generally acknowledged to be within the women's sphere" with little information in the
areas of science and discovery. (Greenhalgh, 175) Most of the art work done by women was
nowhere to be found in the women's pavilion, but instead was in the main Fine Arts building.
While the Board of Lady Managers was supposed to have "general charge and management of all
interests of women in connection with the Exposition", they were denied a say in the selection of
the actual architect. (Ralph, 170) This decision instead was made by a board of men. In order
to select the architect, work was examined from fourteen distinguished women in the field. It is
noted that none of these applicants was over the age of twenty-five. The woman who was chosen
was Sophia Hayden, who had just graduated from the School of Architecture at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The image on our website is a print approximately 7 x 10 inches, from a collection of 28
photogravures made from drawings taken at the fair. This rendering shows the main facade set
on
the lagoon. It is rather idealistic as no other buildings can be seen in the background. People can
be seen as they strolled around the waterside watching a lone dingy. Detail on the building itself
has been simplified while the trees and shrubbery on the edges of the lagoon and the sun
reflecting
off the water are vividly rendered. This image also makes the building appear a little larger than
it
actually was. However, since the larger surrounding buildings are missing, the scale is left more
to the imagination. The Women's pavilion was located just north of the Horticulture building,
with its eastern front facing a man-made lagoon. The scene was picturesque, with a terrace
extending to the tip of the waterline. The building which measured 388 by 199 feet and cost
nearly 150,000 dollars, was "Grecian" in character, with decorative elements such as terraces,
porticos and colonnades derived from Antiquity and the Italian Renaissance.. On the ground
level, a landing and stairway led up from the lagoon to a terrace six feet above the water. Upon
ascending another staircase, one would enter the pavilion, set back about 108 feet from the water.
The first terrace contained lovely flora -- low shrubs and flowerbeds -- that transported one
immediately to a villa in the Italian countryside. The first story was set ten feet from the ground
line, with a wide staircase rising to the central pavilion. There were a triple arched entrance and
open colonnade on the second story. The front elevation was graced with a low pediment
accented with a bas-relief. Attached by open colonnades were corner pavilions; here can be seen
the "Hanging Gardens". As they entered the main pavilion, visitors were greeted by a forty- foot
wide lobby which preceded a domed hall that measured 70 by 65 feet and extended the entire
height of the building. The hall was surrounded by an two story open arcade. The ceiling of the
rotunda was enhanced with an elaborate skylight; the overall effect was that of a "thoroughly
Italian court-yard". (White, 437)
Inside, every inch of available space was used for various displays, accomplishing a true
feat of space efficiency. The first floor contained scaled-down models of a hospital and a
kindergarten. Behind a curtain opposite the main entrance were the library, bureau of
information, and records. The second story held a lady's parlor, committee rooms, and dressing
rooms. In the second story, the north pavilion featured a great assembly room with an elevated
stage for speakers, as well as a clubroom, the south pavilion a model kitchen, refreshment room,
as well as a reception room.
There was a great deal of competition among many talented female artists for the honor of
showing their work here, either inside or outside the pavilion. Figures in high relief covered the
45
foot long pediment along the outside border of the building. There were also two smaller clusters
of statues over the cornice. The focal point was a grouping of winged figures which stood ten
feet high. These were then supported by smaller figures, which were intended to symbolize
womanly virtues such as "Love", "Charity", "Sacrifice" and "Maternity". In addition to these
were two other statues entitled "Women as the Spirit of Civilization" and "Woman's Place in
History".
Inside the pavilion, there were several large paintings. At the end of the gallery of honor were
two large murals, each measuring 14 x 58 feet. Perhaps the most notable of these was "Modern
Woman" by Mary Cassatt. The other was entitled "Primitive Woman" by Mrs. Mac Monnies.
These paintings were juxtaposed to emphasize the progress of women over the centuries. On the
south side was one painting of young Puritan girls, by Mrs. Sherwood and Miss Emmett. On the
north side was a painting by Mrs. Fairchild and Mrs. Sewell. In the library there was a central
display by Mrs. Dora Wheeler Keith of two male figures and one female figure, interpreted as
Science, Romance and Imagination.
Displays, both national and international, were extremely varied. In the library there were
many books by female authors, as well as their autographs. There were also statistics which had
been gathered on the conditions faced by women around the globe. Furthermore, there were
canvas panels with images measuring 5 x 9 feet, intended to represent several occupations
performed by women. In the southwest corner lay the national displays of France, Mexico and
Italy, and in the opposite corner the German exhibition. In the southernmost section the
Spanish
display, designed in Moorish style, presented the famed swords of Isabella, as well as portraits
and
jewels belonging to the queen. This was especially appropriate since the fair marked the
400-year
anniversary of Columbus' landing in the New World, with Queen Isabella as his patron.
Adjacent
to Spain were displays from Siberia, Siam, Japan, Norway, Austria, Belgium, India, Sweden,
Brazil and the Cape of Good Hope. Upstairs, one would find the United States exhibit which had
information on American women's colleges, particularly Smith, Vassar, Wellesley, Bryn Mawr,
and LaSalle. There were also state rooms, other national exhibits, a cooking school display, and
rooms for education, inventions and discoveries. At the other end of this floor was a room of the
Women's Christian Temperance Union and other women's organizations which exercised a great
deal of influence at the time.
The building did have a notably smaller scale than many of the other exhibition buildings. It
also
was surrounded by other grand structures such as the Horticulture building, which seemed to
emphasize its smallness. Due to its limited dimensions, Sophia Hayden deemed it more effective
to concentrate attention on the outside details. For these reasons, the building was criticized for
too easily revealing the sex of its designer. The open arcade surrounding the rotunda was
deemed
"delicate and chaste in design". Furthermore, the roof garden was described as a " a hen coop
for
petticoated hens, old and young....". (Greenhalgh, 181) These attitudes reveal expectations of the
"womanly qualities" should possess. One critic even wrote: "...Its fault is one which makes it
especially suitable for the purposes for which it is to be used-it is chaste and timid." (Ralph,
162-163) Unfortunately, just prior to the opening of the fair Sophia Hayden suffered from a
nervous breakdown and was not able to oversee the completion of her work. This is
understandable, given the pressures of the exhibition committee, the prospect of such a global
audience, and given that she had only recently completed her education. However, many
individuals who were skeptical of women entering the architectural field took advantage of this
occurrence, bolstering their argument that they were not physically capable of such a demanding
career.
This fair was a benchmark in terms of women's roles in the fairs and the way in which they were
represented at these events. In the past, women had been displayed as mere sexual objects and as
the subordinates of men. The reality of the inequality faced by women at this time was
reinforced
by their presence at fairs as cleaners, ticket vendors, and booth operators. Despite the progress
made at the Chicago Columbian with a pavilion designed by a woman, and displays on the
accomplishments of many female artists and inventors, there was still a long road ahead. In the
fairs of the 1930's, such as the Golden Gate Exposition, the role of the Women's Board was
limited to what can be aptly called the "macrocosm of the housewife."(Greenhalgh, 192)
Women's responsibilities were limited to functions of hospitality and the beautification of the
fairgrounds. While in 1893 the cause of suffrage did receive some attention, this was not always
the case. In later fairs, the political aspect of Women's displays would be dominated by
anti-suffrage groups, and attention would be taken away from the women's social movement.
More emphasis would be placed on women's accomplishments in the domestic arts. In
subsequent fairs the women's pavilion would also become the place of "leftovers", for items that
could not be placed anywhere else. For the first couple of decades after the Chicago Columbian
Exposition, there was a significant decrease in the prominence given to the women's building.
One might ask if the 1893 building was meant as an appeasement for women, as an attempt to
curb their appetite for further actions towards equality. Furthermore, this event highlighted class
divisions among women. The Board of Lady Managers, as previously mentioned, was composed
almost exclusively of the female elite. There was little representation of the women workers,
such
as those who swept the streets of the fair. While there was an effort to project the call for
equality of all women, this aspect was still shaped by the feelings of women who had fewer
complaints about their social position. The needs of the lower and middle class women still
needed to be addressed. While the women's pavilion at the Chicago Columbian was a
meaningful
step in the right direction, there was still a long way to go on the path to equality between the
sexes.
-Anna Burrows
White, Trumbull. The World Columbian Exposition ,Chicago 1893. Philadelphia.
P.W.
Ziegler & Co. 1893
Ralph, Julian. Harper's Chicago and the World's Fair
New York, Harper and Brothers, 1893. 161-172
Bolotin, Norm. The World's Columbian Exposition: the Chicago World's Fair
Washington, D.C., Preservation Press, 1992.
Paul Greenhalgh. Ephemeral Vistas: The Expositions Universelle, Great Exhibitions, And
World's Fairs, 1851- 1939 "Women: Exhibiting and Exhibited"
Manchester, U.K.: Manuchester University Press, 1988. 174-195
"World's Columbian Exposition of 1893"
Paul V. Galvin Library Digital History Collection, Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://columbus.gl.iit.edu/
Torre, Susan. "Women in Design"
Design Book Review 1991, Spring n20.
Pg.74-76 ISSN 0737-5344.
This 11 by 14 inch photogravure of the great Administration Building at the Chicago World's
Columbian Exposition of 1893 was taken from a set of 25 drawings of the exposition buildings.
It
was the main focus of the fair, and one of the masterpieces of its architect, Richard Morris Hunt
(1827-1895). With its fine classical detailing and sweeping scale, this large building was integral
to the "White City" concept of the fair. To this day it remains one of the most recognizable
landmarks associated with the Columbian Exposition .
The Administration Building was conceived by a board of architects led by Daniel Burnham as
part of the scheme for the Court of Honor, the major public space at the fair. As director of
architecture and construction for the entire Columbian Exposition, Burnham was responsible for
selecting designers for all the major buildings. After much debate, this group of mostly east
coast
practitioners decided that all the major buildings were to be cast in a pristine and highly
decorative
classical style based on the architecture of Antiquity. Burnham assigned the task of designing the
most prominent building to arguably the most prominent man of the group, the New York
architect Richard Morris Hunt.
By the time Hunt was selected to design the Administration Building, he was near the end of his
distinguished career. The first American architect to attend the prestigious Ecole des Beaux-Arts
in Paris, Hunt had acquired the status of "dean of American architecture" (Stein 3). His
reputation was supported by his large output of fine eclectic buildings such as the Breakers in
Newport (1892-95) and Biltmore House in Asheville, North Carolina (1888-95), both estates for
the wealthy Vanderbilt family. These two stylistically different buildings exhibit the quality of
Hunt's architecture known as the "grand manner," where he achieved monumentality by
combining different sources of classical architecture. This quality was what attracted the fair
organizers, and it would be carried to its furthest expression in the Administration Building.
As the focal point of the fair, the Administration Building had an important symbolic function.
Although not intended for anything related to the fair other than housing offices, the picture
shows that it was much larger than necessary for administration purposes. Its great size related to
its function as triumphal gateway into the fair. The large majority of visitors arrived by train at
the station located directly behind the Administration Building. From the station they would pass
through the rotunda of the Administration Building and out to the Court of Honor and the rest of
the fair. Thus, the building served as a kind of foyer or vestibule to the fair, being the first
structure seen by most visitors.
The Administration Building made a stunning first impression. It was extremely tall,
composed of a massive base, grand Ionic colonnade and gilded dome. The plan of the building
comprised four square pavilions jutting out from the diagonal sides of a 120-foot wide central
octagonal space, creating deep recesses for the arched entrance portals. These large arches
defined each side of the octagon, containing bronze doors leading outside on the four main sides
and into the square pavilions on the four diagonal sides. Above this sturdy base using the Doric
order was the stately Ionic colonnade flanked by splayed corners topped with small domes. The
central octagonal dome was obviously the building's most distinguished feature, higher and wider
that that of the U. S. Capitol building and visible from just about anywhere on the fairgrounds.
This sequence of volumes and general massing was influenced to some degree by Ecole des
Beaux-Arts student Emile Vaudremer's design for a French mausoleum (1854), a design that
Hunt
was familiar with from his days at the Ecole. As it was intended to be temporary, the
Administration Building was built of a thick, reinforced plaster on an iron and wood skeleton. It
was painted white to create the illusion of marble and fulfill Burnham's image of a "White City."
But the large number of allegorical sculpture groups by Karl Bitter and the bright gilding of the
dome set the building apart from its neighbors.
The interior of the Administration Building was no less spectacular than the exterior in its
use of monumental forms and lavish sculptural decoration. After all, this was where the visitors
would pass through and get a sense of the grandeur to come, and as such was the only major
building to have an elaborate interior finish. The administrative offices, press facilities and bank
vaults were all located in the corner pavilions, leaving the central rotunda open for decoration.
The area above the arcaded level was filled with sculpture and carried the names of men involved
with the fair. A balcony and a line of Ionic pilasters separated this zone from the massive interior
dome topped by a fifty-foot wide central oculus that allowed light to pour in. Unlike the white
exterior, the interior was lavishly colorful. Combined with the complex forms, heavy sculpture
and decoration, it created the enormous sense of drama, well suited for the entrance to such a
grand international exposition.
The Administration Building was almost universally acclaimed by critics and laymen alike.
In Hubert Howe Bancroft's Book of the Fair, it was dubbed the "crown of the
exposition palaces"
(129) and Benjamin Truman called the dome "finer in every respect than any other in the
Western
Hemisphere" (204). It was even referred to as "one of the finest achievements of modern
architecture" by world's fair correspondent Trumbull White (80). These accolades may seem
overly inflated, and it should be noted that many progressive modern architects of the day
including Louis Sullivan severely criticized the building along with many others at the fair. For
them, the design of the Administration Building was too superficial and its lavish classicism
represented a backward-looking attempt to keep architecture from expressing the requirements of
modern life. Nevertheless, taken on its own terms, the building can be judged a success.
Although demolished soon after the fair ended, it remained highly influential in its assertion of
Beaux-Arts classicism that came to dominate American public architecture for another three
decades.
Bancroft, Hubert Howe. The Book of the Fair; An Historical and Descriptive Presentation of
the World's Science, Art and Industry, As Viewed through the Columbian Exposition at Chicago
in 1893. New York: Bounty Books, 1894.
Igleheart, William and Trumbull White. The World's Columbian Exposition, Chicago,
1893. Philadelphia: Historical Publishing, 1893.
Stein, Susan R., ed. The Architecture of Richard Morris Hunt. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1986.
Truman, Benjamin Cummings. History of the World's Fair; Being a Complete Description
of
the World's Columbian Exposition from its Inception. Chicago: Mammoth, 1893.
-Aaron Zephir
Baker, Paul R. Richard Morris Hunt. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1980.
Drexler, Arthur, ed. The Architecture of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 1977.
Schuyler, Montgomery. "The Works of the Late Richard M. Hunt." Architectural
Record 5 (1895): 97-180.
Wight, Peter Bonnett. "The Great Exhibition Reviewed." American Architect and Building
News 42 (1893): 7-8, 21-23, 32-34, 47-49, 57-59, 86-88, 158-159.
"The World's Fair Buildings." American Architect and Building News 38 (1892):
85-86.
"The World's Fair Buildings At Large and the Lessons to be Drawn from Them." American
Architect and Building News 40 (1893): 181-183.