_ . I . I 6 c
o .. . .. . , . ..
. . . .....-...r..
. p _ . .
3... . . .. . . . sxr..sk....n.oo¢0§
. . . . . ...... ... _ o: . 0.5.:
. _. . . .. o o. . .. ... .......co. . .. .......n....oo . .- .I
, . .o .. ..., ..
. . ... ......o o......, . . . v. ..v.o”...0..oo¢ou.
... ... . . u . . o 30. o
. . L .- ... ...o. ... L... . ..0...ow..o’..rq. ...éoo
. ... . . .c o. ..a... ...-...
. . . ...oo" .. . o..u.o
o . c 0...; . o .. . ,. .
. ...... 11...... .. — .... .....
a ....o. . . o . ... . u ......L .
A .........,......_ ... .... . ......
. . I . . .o ..‘n ,.......<.o..o‘ . O ...“...Uo .
. ...-..L .1... . .
_ .. o. . . . a
. .. ...H... .. ..... .. ..h
. .. ... . .
. . . 4 . ...... .... . ...”... ... ...
a . . 0.1.. . o .a- . ...
. . ... .... . ..... . ... ..
. . . .. . . .... _ ...
. . . .. .. .... ...... _. . .. . . . ..
. . . . . .... .. ... . , ....
.. .. . ..d . ... . .h. o. .
. ... _ . .. . ... 1.
.v . . _ ... _ .. . .
a» _ . . _ .a ... ... ... . .... ....o .
. ...... ...... .o . . . ..
u . ... .. ..
C . _ y _. .. . . .. _.
. a. ... . .. ...
In .. . . n. . I
. o. I. c .o _. .. ... p . ... r .. . . .o .I. .. . .. . ....H...ol.. . .
m . . .o u . .. nu . o. ...V H. , v. . ...... 1. ...o. W: ol...‘..\._. .....0 vvlu‘hv cc _
- ..I o .. ... v. ... . . ..> ... m. p ...n. . a 1‘ n' . . ~ .
.o .. .. . , . ...I. . . . ... .. “a. __ ....u. ... . H. .IW.HH..:HB 3. A Iv. fl . I .
Q . . . .. . I . . ..I. ....nv.‘..:uu ..VdoO..-".a.v..I‘.o In. ,. ... .A
. . .. . ..I O . .. . .0 ......I.‘ . . < .IA
. . . 9.9.. ..
. . . —
W . .. .
~ T. ... .... ... v
o. . .s. r . ...
' p a
. A I. .... . ..
.0 O o . .. .... .. g
o A Y . . . .. ...... . . .
, .. a
m — .. . .
... .
o . .
m f . . .H
m of. In . . . .
I g a. . .
. R N .... . .
6 r _ . . .. ..
_ O r U _. . .
. T 6 . . ._ _ . .
.. Ii 9 g .
. 1. o E 6 . . .
.
. D - I . _
o ‘v A r S
I .0 ..
u ... 8 f S s I
.c
. ...... 1. . . -
_ .... IO N e
.01 o .~‘
co .
. . ..v. of A
.0. O. A
u. .c . _
.1
... ..., C 5.. G.... a
O. .
..3. .0. 'l 0‘ H .
..... ..x. J
r . II
. _ - .H. he C
v _ T. m
o m
. .
T _ .. . . I . I-
O\ u .-
. . t I a. ......1
. ... In”... .. In... .. .
‘1. .a
I. . 1.. . . . . I ..
I ..l ... ... .. .
I. . 1.. .. . . . I
' l I l n O O ... I
. I. . o. . I.
0 II. G
C

.....H ‘~M~.“....o.o o ”I.
D
O
U

        
 

 

I
0
CD a
. ...
o . .
. U
. .. ... ... .. . .... . . .o ..
n I. . l '1!
. .o ..v .oaooo.‘.coo . . . u... ..o o. '...I.OI u
...-.0 . I. . .... . . o. . o .5... ...
. . . .
no . o o..JO..o..-o.oll .
...: t. Io not. cpl. Y.
. . u I l .1 ...?u.) 0. \o
o . y. o. o. .. u .. .. .u
i . . -.bo. I t a . .4 \I‘
. o I I. .u ....
t I. . . .0: . u .
. . . . .. I o . I... . . ._
c 0 I . 1.3. :- I. .. n.
k . . a .. . . .
o I ... O .
.5. . o. o a .
1‘ s A I s . .
‘ u I l ‘ t - II C I
”I I I I .U I
I. " ..I - . D. n - I o I. o .
Q I ‘iI ‘ . - I I.
. c I _ . .-. (:_I l
- l' II I
I. I . . I'II'.’ . . .
u on. . . u .0 .‘ ‘ . . I . .olI.. 0
III," . .‘l. .1 .. 1"), I 0 II. . II. .. I
. . \ I 11. ,. t... . . .. o 0 a
I I I 1' Io U ..rvI .o ..|.V
- O “ i I
'0 . . ‘ '0 . I I . .IIu.l.b\.o.- .0
- I . I . I l
.
...- v

u . ”'Ih OI. ‘I.
It‘ll....|loI 0':

 

7—1-6

 
  
   

"'IIImIIIII‘IIIIIIIIII L

3 1293 00808 8852 - . . ,
Mlchlgan
Univemty

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE CHICAGO AUDITORIUM THEATRE

1886 - 1966
by James W. Wright

The Chicago Auditorium Theatre has been called "the greatest
room for music in the world-—bar none."1 The superlatives used to
describe it in the last decade of the nineteenth century when it
was new seemed unlimited. Public Spirit concerning the Auditorium
was always good. Today, though, this building once containing
a fine theatre, an office block, and a hotel to rival many in the
world, has almost passed into oblivion. The hotel and office por-
tions have been remodeled into facilities for a large university,
and the theatre lies empty. Designed by Dankmar Adler and Louis
Sullivan the building was renowned for its massive plainness on
the exterior and its exquisitely delicate and beautiful interior.
The theatre, with its fine acoustics, was one of the best known
in the country. To Chicago and to the rest of the United States
the Auditorium remains today a fine example, not only of the work
of Adler and Sullivan, two of the world's truly great architects,
but also of the reflection of a public Spirit encompassing Chicago
in the eighteen eighties and nineties.

Little, with the exception of newspaper articles, has ever

microf
able 1

RECESS

James W. Wright
been written about this great theatre, and there is no written
/_
account covering its entire history. Consequently, the pur-
pose of this thesis is to present as complete a history as pos-
sible of the Chicago Auditorium Theatre.

Materials on the Auditorium Theatre are not particularly
abundant. A few books contain chapters on the building but little
else. However, two private libraries in Chicago, the Newberry
Library and the Burnham Library of Architecture of the Chicago Art
Institute, contain fine collections including scrapbooks of press
clippings, programs, etc., collected during the years the Auditorium
was in operation. In addition, the Chicago Public Library contains
microfilm files of a number of Chicago newSpapers which are invalu—
able in researching a topic such as this. These three sources are
necessary for the research from 1886 to 1945. Material for the
years from 1946 to 1966 can be obtained from the Auditorium Theatre
Council, a non-profit group organized to restore the theatre, and
from newspaper files in the Chicago Public Library. The research
techniques employed were simple but effective. They involved spend—
ing a great deal of time in the above mentioned libraries searching
through their various collections and personal interviews with per-
sons involved in the restoration.

The major finding of this study, if one can be pinpointed,

' would be that this theatre which was designed to be self—sustaining,
and for the people of Chicago, could not long sustain itself. Before
too many years it was forced to shut its doors, first for only a few
years, but later for good. At present the Auditorium Theatre Council

is attempting to restore the theatre to its original state. This

n;
I?!
C.)

1.-

James W. Wright
restoration attempt has been in existence for six years-almost
twice as long as the original construction-and has yet to raise
the amount of money necessary to complete the job. There is little
question that this restoration will be completed, and when it is
the theatre will be closer to the original than any remodeling
since its Opening. The only question remaining is when the re-
storation will be completed.

This thesis, The Chicago Auditorium Theatre, 1886 - 1966,
deals exclusively with the history of the Auditorium, and makes no

attempt to look at the building in any other aspect.

Approved,

 

1Prank Lloyd Wright. Recollections: The Auditorium Building
and Its Architects, Taliesin Spring Green, Wisconsin (1940), p. 2.

THE CHICAGO AUDITORIUM THEATRE

1886 - 1966

BY

James W. Wright

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Speech

1966

PREFACE

Slightly over a year ago, this writer became aware, through
various means, of the existence of a theatre which, though it had
been dark for almost a quarter of a century, had been reputed to
be one of the finest halls in the United States. This theatre was
the Chicago Auditorium. Realizing the possibilities for a subject
for a major paper, the subject was researched at which time it was
discovered that little had been written about it. Because of its
seeming importance, but lack of publicity, it became this thesis
topic. '

This thesis is a study of the Auditorium Theatre from a
historical point of view. No attempt has been made to discuss any
other aspect of the theatre. Although there were unlimited Oppor-
tunities to discover such things as the social overtones of the
history of the Auditorium Theatre, no effort has been made in these
directions since the author feels that the study presented here is
necessary groundwork for any further research and writing on other
aSpects of the theatre's construction or Operation.

Two private libraries-~the Newberry Library of Chicago and
the Daniel Burnham Library of Architecture of the Art Institute of
Chicago—-were extremely helpful through their collections of scrap—
books and manuscripts of the history of the Auditorium Theatre, and

this writer would like to thank the staffs of these libraries for

ii

their UH
In
acknorle
fer Beve
talk to
lag the
places 1:
of the C
took tim
personal
tion of
fometio
matte-in
like to
lichigan
niting
[my 0th

men tiOn

their unceasing help.

In addition, there are a number of peOple who deserve Special
acknowledgment. First of these is Mr. Robert Ahrens, Vice President
for Development at Roosevelt University, Chicago, who found time to
talk to this writer when he was just beginning his research, and dur—
ing the course of this conversation suggested many peOple to see and
places to go for background information. Second is Mr. Karl Hartnack
of the Chicago architectural firm of Harry Weese and Associates who
took time from his very busy schedule to conduct the writer on a
personal tour of the Auditorium, and during that tour gave informa-
tion of an architectural and structural nature which, Since this in—
formation has never been put down on paper, would have been otherwise
unattainable in this thesis research. Finally, this writer would
like to thank Mr. Frank C. Rutledge of the Department of Speech,
Michigan State University, whose help in research, technique, and
writing style was invaluable in the preparation of this thesis.

Many other people were of great help, but they are too numerous to

mention here.

iii

PREFACE

LIST OF

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
0 O O O O O O O O O I O ...... O O O O O O O O 0 1i-

ILLUSTRATIONS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Vi

THE CHICAGO AUDITORIUM THEATRE . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Idea
The Construction and its Problems
The Republican National Convention, 1888

STATISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

The Exterior Design

The Hotel and Office Portions
The Theatre

The Stage

GRA‘VD OPENING YEAR 0 O O O O O O O O O O C O O O C . 69

The Dedication
Opening Night
The First Season

THE IN-BETWEEN YEARS: 1890-1922 0 o o o o o o o o o 88

The Early Years

The World's Fair, 1893

The Closing of the Auditorium, 1904
The Moving of the Chicago Symphony

THE TROUBLED YEARS: 1923-1945 . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Plans to Raze the Auditorium

The Court Proceedings, 1925

The Moving of the Chicago Civic Opera
The Building Closing, 1929

The Reopening, 1932

The Final Closing, 1941

iv

VI. THE RESTORATION YEARS: 1946-1966

Roosevelt University

The Restoration Fund Drive
The Restoration Construction
The ReOpening Plans

COIQCLUSION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

BIBIdIOGRAPl-N O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

APPENDIX

128

155

158

165

9.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

21.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Dankmar Adler andeouis Sullivan .

Ferdinand W. Peck . . . .

The Republican National Convention

Louis Sullivan's First Preliminary

1888

Sketch

Louis Sullivan's Second Preliminary Sketch

Louis Sullivan's Final Sketch

H. H. Richardson's Marshall Field Building

Auditorium Cross—section .
Hotel Main Lobby Staircase
Recital Hall Ground Plan .
Parquet Ground Plan . . .
Main Balcony Ground Plan..
Gallery Ground Plan . . .
Gallery Ceiling Pieces . .
Wall Stencil . . . . . .
Wall Stencil . . . . . .
Staircase Stencil . . . .
Proscenium Arch.Mural . .
Fan Treillis . . . . . .
Reducing Curtain . . . . .
Reducing Curtain close-up

Stage Ground Plan . . . .

vi

Page

13
21
27
27
28
28
3O
34
36

39

41
43
46
46

47

52
54
55

62

23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

29.

31.
32.
33.

34.

New Boxes — 1911 . . . . . .
Theatre Main Lobby . . . . .
Theatre as a Bowling Alley .
Remodeled Boxes . . . . . .
Re—cast Plaster Piece . . .
Restored Stenciling . . . .

Recital Hall Arch - Restored

Adlai E. Stevenson Memorial Service
Letter from Mayor Richard J. Daley .

Auditorium Theatre Council Advisory Committee

List Of Tributes O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Letter from Mayor Richard J. Daley . . . . . .

vii

106
113
127
130
144
144
146
152
168
169
171

172

til

0;!

'~‘
-r.

5‘ I

CHAPTER I
THE CHICAGO AUDITORIUM THEATRE

During the late 1800's the Opera was a favorite pastime for many
people, rich and poor alike. Since most cities in the United States
could not support a resident Opera company, it was the usual practice
for them to present an opera season, engaging one of the many touring
repertory Opera companies--mostly EurOpean-to Sing, in the reSpec-
tive cities, one or more weeks of opera. The Eastern cities had
Opera and this made them cultured, or so Chicago thought; so naturb
ally a city like Chicago, "The gateway to the West," of necessity had
to have Opera, not only to fulfill the popular pastime of the citi-
zens, but more Importantly it would elevate Chicago to a cultural
level similar to that of many of the great Eastern cities such as
New York, Boston, and Philadelphia.

Chicago had been growing rapidly in every other reSpect so it
was only natural to expect some growth culturally. From 1880 to 1891
Chicago's pOpulation more than doubled, growing from 503,298 to
1,099,850. The size of the city had increased five times over-—from
135.79 Square miles to 180.2. Chicago's wealth had grown from
$117,133,726 to $219,354,368 during those ten years while the amount

of building went from $8,207,000 to $47,400,000.1 Chicago could well

_‘__

1Thomas E. Iallmadge, Architecture in Old Chicago, Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press (1941), p. 133.

1

afford to 5

lhe né
i'etre of 1
festival 0:
mimizm
as 'one of
ms: liber.
12.11 was t'n
heeied the
tiling r
the three
natinue t
Es really
usic. nt
5153590 t1
533' Polit
est facil
Could aff
ham to
599:3, U.
glitteri

my 0th

afford to support opera.

The need for Opera and a place to hold it is one of the raison
d'etre of the Chicago Auditorium. It was the success of the Opera
festival of 1885 that Spawned the idea for a great hall such as the
Auditorium in the mind of Ferdinand W. Peck. Ferd Peck is described
as 'one of the wealthiest, among the most pOpular, and, perhaps the
most liberal of all the numerous patrons of art in Chicago."2 This
man was the driving force behind the Chicago Auditorium. Peck had
headed the 1885 Opera Festival held in the old lake front Exposition
Building redecorated eSpecially for this event, as it had been for
the three preceding years. To Peck it seemed rather ludicrous to
continue to remodel an old, ill-suited hall year after year when what
was really needed was a new, modern facility designed essentially for
music. At the close of the Operatic season he promised the City of
Chicago that a great hall would be built to be used for mass meetings
and political conventions, and would provide the masses with the fin-
est facilities for music and first-class Speakers at a price everyone
could afford.3 What Peck envisioned was a great permanent opera
house to serve "as a civic center for the highest develOpment of the
Opera, the symphony, the dance, and musical festivals, as well as for
glittering society balls and political conventions."4 To him, and

many others at that time, and even now, Chicago seemed to be an ideal

 

2"The Great Auditorium," The Chicago Tribune, June 18, 1888, p. 7.

3The Graphic (Chicago), December 14, 1889, [cited ifl "Scrapbook
of Press Clippings of the Chicago Auditorium," III, p. 63.

4Hughmorrison. ‘Lpuis Sullivan: Prophet of Modern Architec-
ture. (New‘York: Peter Smith, 1952), pp. 85—86.

Lfl

3
'place to hold national political conventions because of its central
locality and fine transportation. Consequently, on May 29, 1886, in
a speech before the Chicago Commercial Club, Ferd Peck prOposed the
building of the new hall. Since the Commercial Club was made up of
the more affluent men in Chicago, it was only natural for Peck to turn
to them for support. In a portion of the Speech Peck effectively
argued the acceptance of the prOposal by saying:

We have had seven National political conventions in this
city; we have built temporary auditoriums for Six of them,
two of them complete buildings. Three times we have built
within the Exposition Building seating capacity for this
purpose at a cost ranging from $17,000 to $30,000 in each
instance, four times for large musical festivals, three of
which cost about $20,000 each and one over $50,000. *'*'*
Now, gentlemen, shall we let this exceptional opportunity go
by, and wait, perhaps twenty or more years for as favorable
a basis and conditions for the accomplishment of this im-
portant purpose, and permit our sister cities, which are be—

-hind us in every other important reSpect, to reach out for
the great Conventions and musical festivals which the educa-
tion and entertainment of our people demand as well as our
”business interests? or Shall we now avail ourselves of the
prOpositgon presented to us to do so much for our city of
Chicago?

Needless to say the Commercial Club members availed themselves
of the opportunity and accepted Peck's proposal. The idea, however,
does not seem to have been an immediate success, at least as far as
the newSpapers were concerned. The only mention of the Commercial
Club meeting was a Chicago Daigyjfribune note mentioning that the
chief tOpics of discussion were "The Causes of Recent Labor Troubles

and the Possible Remedies" and the regulation of "liquer' traffic.

 

5"Early History and Press Clippings: Chicago Auditorium Asso-
ciation,“ Chicago; 1887-1889. [Gift to the Burnham Library of Arch—
itecture of the Art Institute of Chicago, by the Auditorium Associ-
ation., 194g]

he Piper 31’
though
idea, some 1.
subscribers'
Leather 8,
t month]
ri‘hzdson l
president;
secretary.
Jules uou
A. bprag

the p:
heatre cos
had that :
backers it
the theatr
headded t
enlarged t
around the

Until
Planning 1
\

4

The paper also mentioned that Peck was one of the Speakers.6

Though the newSpapers seemingly took little notice of Peck's
idea, some Chicagoans did, since on December 4, 1889, the first
subscribers' meeting was held. The Association was incorporated on
December 8, and the first directors' meeting was held on the 11th of
that month.7 Ferd Peck was elected president of the Association,
with Edson keith as lst vice-president; N. K. Fairbanks, 2nd vice-
president; Charles L. Hutchinson, treasurer; and A. F. Towne,
secretary. The directorate was composed of N. B. Ream, Wm. E. Hale,
Charles Counselman, Eugene S. Pike, Henry Field, Martin Ryerson,
A. A. Sprague, and the officers of the Association.8

The project started small but grew rapidly. Beginning as a
theatre costing about $800,000.9 the project soon leapt far be—
yond that figure, but when considering the prominence of the
backers it is not surprising. In fact, the cost got so high that
the theatre alone would no longer suffice; something else had to
be added to support the theatre venture. Thus, the project was
enlarged to include a hotel and office building forming a shell
around the theatre.10

Until an architect for the project was chosen, most of this

planning was fairly meaningless. On December 22, 1886, the Chicago-

 

6Chicago Tribune, May 30, 1886, p. 16.
TList of Association members in the Appendix.
8Chicago Tribune, January 30, 1887, p. 17.

9The Daily News (Chicago), December 9, 1889, Eited irfl "Scrap—
book," I, p. 37.

10Morrison, p. 86.

13534 film c
sziifible to
then 0‘
the real get
fission "55
jgct, in £3
3 on the F
15:; chosen
hie: was
tally came
res someth
my thirt
lie: was
Sullivan
.a-iLer sho
of
let
3111
on

0
11‘.

q

OP.
Ac

5
based firm of Adler and Sullivan was named to design a building
suitable to the backers' wishes.

When considering today that Louis Sullivan was reputed to be
the real genius in the finn, it is interesting to note that the com—
mission was entirely Dankmar Adler's.11 The supporters of the pro-
ject, in fact, weren't even sure that they wanted to have Sullivan
in on the project at all. Sullivan himself says that he was not
the chosen architect. In his Autobiography of an Idea Sullivan says:
"Adler was Peck's man. AS to Louis he was rather dubious, but grad-
ually came around-conceding a superior aesthetic judgement-which
was something in the nature of a miracle. Besides, Louis was young,
only thirty when the task began, his partner forty-two. . ."12
Adler was.an experienced architect whose work was known, while
Sullivan was relatively untried. Therefore, it is only natural that
Adler should get the commission. Thomas Tallmadge in his book
Architecture in Old Chicago says:

I like to think of the building as more the creation

of the senior partner Adler. Sullivan came into his own

later as leader and prophet with the TranSportation

Building at the World's Fair. At the Auditorium he stands

on the threshold and seems to be trying to divine the Sign
in the sky.

So when the Auditorium came into the office of Adler
and Sullivan in the summer of 1886 it most certainly was
Adler's job particularly, as he was chosen without compe-
tition, with every architect in town after the commission."13

 

11Frank Lloyd Wright, Recollections: The Auditorium Buildinq
and Its Architects, Taliesin, Spring Green, Wisconsin. July 10, 1940.

 

12Louis Henry Sullivan, The Autobiography of an Idea, (Chicago,
1924, Chap. 15, p. 13. [Manuscript in the Burnham Library of
Architecture of the Art Institute of Chicago;

13Tallmadge, pp. 157, 161.

idler “9"
used na
Sullivan
55:}! t0 i
To

fix: is

.5319 "we

r‘
[3333' 01
HES? ]

seio:

A A”.

6
Adler never did develop the feeling for design which Sullivan pos-
sessed naturally, but by the same token, at this time at least,
Sullivan had nowhere near the grasp of building technique neces-

sary to attempt a job of this magnitude.14

To say that the Auditorium commission was important to the
firm is an understatement. It was not only the largest commission
that Adler and Sullivan had had up to this time, but was also the
largest commission that any firm had ever held.15 [Figure i]

During the course of this project Adler was acknowledged by
those working under him as the "chief". He constantly hovered over
the project, both on the drawing board and at the construction site.
Many of the sub-contractors tried to take short-cuts, but unless
these had been previously 0.K.'D by Adler, as Frank Lloyd Wright
said:

. . . perhapslthey would bé7condemned to tear out what

they had done and do it over again as hefldlefl had told

them to do it in the first place; most of the profit gone

out of the job because they had tried, and failed, to fool

the 'old man'. These would be the 'green' ones. Those who

knew him feared and reSpected him mightily. He was master

of their craft and they knew it.16

But now an interesting point arises. How much of the building
can be attributed to Adler and how much to Sullivan? In essence the
over—all plan of the building was Adler's. Most of the decorative
work, inside and out, was done by Sullivan. Although the pencil

sketches and the essential conception for the interior ornamental

work were mainly Sullivan's, most of the ornamental work was detailed

 

14Wright, p. 1.
15Ibid.

16Ibid.

 

 

 

Fig. l.--Dankmar Adler and
Louis Sullivan, architects for the
Chicago Auditorium.

555193 f

we shall

vlzed t1
especiai

were bu

8

by an eighteen year old, twenty-five dollar a week draughtsman
for Sullivan, Frank Lloyd Wright.17 The main portion of the interior
design furnished by Adler was the acoustics of the Theatre, but that
we shall come to presently. In other words, this building, the
first by which Sullivan became known outside Chicago, was a combin-
ation of the best efforts of two great architects. One, Adler, had
the genius to plan a magnificent building with "harmonious and
masterful distribution of the masses," and the other, Sullivan, pro-
vided the finished decoration and detail which made the Auditorium,
especially the interior, the imposing edifice that it is. Both men
were building for the future yet with a very great practicability.
It was truly the Spirit of the West.18

Adler and Sullivan set to work on the preliminary plans, but
when they presented them to the board of directors for approval, the
directors felt some changes were necessary. In fact, they made it
quite clear that changes were inevitable, and that these charges were
likely to be made until such time as the roof was firmly fixed in
place.19 And changes there were. Through the entire four years of
the planning and construction of the building, and though both archi-
tects were physically exhausted, when the task was completed they had
succeeded in creating as Adler put it:

. . . an Opera-House larger and finer than the Metropolitan,

a hall for great choral and orchestral concerts, a mammoth

ball-room, a convention hall, an auditorium for mass meetings,

etc., etc., all under the same roof and within the same walls.

. . self—sustaining and not, like the Metropolitan Opera
House, a perpetual financial burden . . . . Auditorium . . .

 

1Morrison, p. 85-
18The Daily Inter Ocean (Chicago), December 11, 1889, p. 9.

19Chicago Tribune, January 30, 1887, p. 17.

busin
hooit

But 1
the day a
tire proj
task, sir

OISE-TS.

9

business building and hotel . . . together . . . form the
Auditorium Building.2O

But we are getting ahead. On January 11, 1887, only a month to
the day after the first directors meeting, all the land for the en-
tire project had been acquired. Getting the land was not an easy
task, Since various pieces of the property were owned by six separate
owners. Since only two of these owners were diSposed to this venture
to begin with, the task was made just that much more difficult. For-
tunately, one of these owners held three—fourths of the land, leav-
ing five to deal with for the remaining quarter. These five, says
E. 3. Hand in his booklet entitled Auditorium, ". . . varied only in
the degree of sordid selfishness and in eagerness to compass their

personal gains at the eXpense of a great public enterprise."21 HOW-
ever, with a little diplomatic tact the backers of the project managed
to secure the land without any undue sacrifices. Peck signed ninety-
nine year leases on the property, a minor fact at the time, but one
which was to prove of great importance in the long run. The site
they acquired was an area of about 63,500 Square feet (about one and

a half acres). The land comprised the south half of a block with
Michigan Avenue on the east, Congress Street on the south, Wabash
Avenue to the west, and Van Buren Street to the north. Best of all,
however, was that the site overlooked Lake Michigan-—a good Spot for

a hotel.22

 

2OEdgar Kaufmann, Jr., (ed.) Louis Sullivan and the Architecture
of Free Enterprise. (Chicago: The Art institute, 1956), p. 24.

21E. S. Hand, Auditorium, (Chicago: Exhibit Publishing Co.,
1890), p. 20.

22Morrison, p. 89.

The
static, }
share 1‘
the mil
to 9,951
the ori

althoug

in,

. l’,

[I]

10

The magnitude of the project, as previously mentioned, was not
static, but grew constantly. The area to be covered grew from 46,000
square feet to about 62,000 square feet, while the cubic capacity of
the building went from 4,750,000 cubic feet as it was first projected,
to 9,950,000 cubic feet when it was completed and as it now stands.
The original cost of the project was estimated to be about $800,000,
although Hand says the amount deemed ample for every possible require-
ment was $1,500,000. However, by the time the building was completed
the amount had risen to the astronomical sum, at least for those days,
of $3,500,000.23 When the Chicago Auditorium Association was founded,
stock was issued in the amount of $2,000,000 andan additional $900,000
in bonds were issued. The entire amount was raised from among the
eventual three hundred stockholders of the Association.24

The plans for the Auditorium were drawn and redrawn. Additions
kept being made to all parts of the building. A multitude of tech-
nical improvements for the theatre were incorporated. ". . . the
building grew in height, and a banquet hall was added to the hotel."
In all, a total of $60,000 was spent by Adler and Sullivan on prelim-
inary studies alone.25

Fund raising appears not to have gone as well as might have been
expected. Hand says that Mr. Peck's brothers ". . . at a critical
period in the initiatory stages of the enterprise, even went so far
as to offer their personal bond for two millions of dollars in sup-

port of the position taken by their public—spirited brother. This

 

23hand, p. 21.
24Morrison, p. 86.

251bid, p. 86.

heroic 66"»
timing P3
aized 0,);
1:15 0011
since the
Peck, an:

Therefor

ll
heroic act of devotion and confidence proved, however, to be the
turning point in the history of the Auditorium. After this.a11 org—
anized Opposition died away and the growth of the Auditorium began."26
It is doubtful that this $2,000,000 backing was ever used, however,
since the only Peck on the stockholder list is the Estate of P. F. w.
Peck, and this particular stockholder is never mentioned again.
Therefore, it Seems unlikely that this holding was a $2,000,000 one.
Also, it was only a personal bond.

"Speed" may be the word which best describes the construction
concept of the Auditorium. Excavation was begun on January 24, 1887,
a scant month and a half after the venture was incorporated. (The
date of the start of excavation is also recorded as January 28,
1887.27 However, an article in The Chicagg_Sunday Tribune of Jan-

uary 30, 1887, records the event like this:

The contract for the excavation was let ten days ago,
Monday the first shovelful of earth was removed.

Since January 30, 1887, was a Sunday, then the previous Monday would
have been the 24th. Hence the excavation date was January 24.) This
error can probably be attributed to the fact that ground was frozen
and, since buildings were still on the premises and the workmen were
working behind these buildings, their presence was not noted. Jan-
uary 29, being a very pleasant day, work was begun in earnest. At
eight o'clock in the morning two hundred men and thirty teams of
'horses began their excavation by tearing down the remaining buildings.

Though this venture seemed to be an important event in the

 

26Hand, p. 21.

27Morrison, p. 89.

Struc

33,33:

12
history of Chicago, there was actually very little reporting of its

progress in the local neWSpapers. The Chicago Daily Tribune, for

 

instance, makes no mention of the Auditorium until the coverage of

the Republican National Convention of 1888. However, when Ferd Peck
was asked for some information just after excavation began, he declined
to answer many questions on the grounds ". . . that the public should
see the tangible results rather than a construction of the building

in the newspaper ."28 This appears to be a shrewd move by Mr. Peck.
figure 2] By releasing just enough information to keep the public
aware, he could goad them into coming to watch the progress first hand,
and, therefore, to take a closer interest in the project.

Work on the excavation was just as hurried as was the financing
before it. Some of the crews even worked at night by floodlight. An
average of eight hundred workmen worked night and day on the project,
yet in the almost three years of the building of the Auditorium, there
were only two fatalities, a record envied by many of our modern con-
struction jobs. The excavation itself required the removal of some
30,000 cubic yards of loam and sand, and by June 1, 1887, the site
was ready for the laying of the foundation. Soil conditions were
fairly poor at the Auditorium site. The first eight to ten feet of
soil was sand, and below that for a similar depth was clay which be-
came increasingly softer becoming mud to a level of about fifty feet.
Below that was bedrock.29 Construction methods were different when
the Auditorium was built than they are now. At that time neither

caissons nor skeletal construction had been invented. The former,

 

28The Chicago Tribuna, (January 30, 1887), p. 17.

 

29Hand, p. 22.

13

 

 

"Father of the Auditorium'I

. u
.11’1‘
lei-o

131 to

if to

(11'

14
a method of sinking cement columns to the bedrock, would have pro-
vided more support, and the latter would have greatly lightened the
building.30 Instead, planking was laid over the entire foundation
surface. One million feet of pine lumber, laid below the water line
where it wouldn't decay, was used as flooring. Upon this a four foot
layer of concrete was poured. Steel rails were used in this base,
four miles of them in the foundation of the tower alone. Because the
building could not depend on the bedrock for support it was naturally
assumed that portions of the construction would sink. (Evidence of
this assumption and its ultimate truth is still apparent in the Audi-
torium. The arches in the main lobby are built in uneven arcs seeming-
ly correSponding to the sinking of the floor. No cracks in the masonry
of these arches is apparent, thus indicating that the building had
settled before the arches were built and their unevenness was compen—
sation for the settling. Karl Hartnack, architect with the firm of
Harry Weese and Associates, pointed out to this writer that the arches
become more symmetrical the higher one goes in the building. This,
he says, stems from the fact that the building had done the major part
of its settling before the upper stories were put in place. He fur—
ther added that there has evidently been little more settling since
the building's completion. If there had been, he says, cracks would
be evident in such places as these arches.)31 Since some portions of
the building were heavier than others, Adler found it necessary to work

I out a unique system whereby he determined the total weight of each

 

30Tallmadge, p. 162.

31Personal interview with Karl Hartnack, architect with the firm
of Harry Weese and Associates, Chicago, April 7, 1966.

pa!

50.4-

15

portion of the building, including the estimated audience weight in
the theatre, and, by using pig iron, counter-weighted the foundation
accordingly.32

Two sections of the building required special foundation work.
First of these was the tower, already mentioned, which required a great
deal of extra support because of its tremendous weight. The other sec—
tion was the stage. The Association wanted the most advanced stage
built to date-anywhere. It was to include, in addition to the usual
stage paraphernalia, traps, bridges, a fire curtain, and cyclorama,
all of which were to be Operated mechanically. In addition there had
to be ventilating equipment, a sewage ejector, and various other forms
of machinery necessary in the Operation of the building, all of which
was to be placed in a pit beneath the stage. Because the pit had to
be sufficiently deep to allow for the vertical movement of the hydraul-
ically Operated traps, it was, of necessity, eighteen feet deep-five
to seven feet (the distance varies with different sources) below the
water level of Lake Michigan which stood less than two blocks away.
Since no effort was made to provide for the discharge of surface water
into the sewers, it was necessary to make a waterproof flooring. No
matter how much the downward pressure of the machinery exerted on the
pit floor, the upward pressure on the floor from beneath was even
greater. Therefore, the floor had to be strong enough to withstand
_a pressure of ten pounds per square inch over its entire surface, and
yet be waterproof. Adler finally hit on a method. First of all, the

area to be taken up by the pit was excavated to the prOper depth and

 

32A complete description of Adler's method may be found in
Hugh Morrison's Louis Sgllivan: Prophet of Modern Architecture.

16
constant pumping was initiated to keep the area free from water. The
first portion of the floor was a layer of Portland cement six inches
thick. On top of this layer of concrete was laid a sheet of asphalt
one and one-half inches thick. The aSphalt was in turn covered by two
layers of aSphalt paper, which was covered with another one and one-
half inch layer of asphalt. Now the floor was waterproof, but not yet
strong enough to withstand the pressure of the water from below. Con-
sequently, another layer of Portland cement, this one with railroad
bars imbedded in it, was laid on tOp of the asphalt. The total weight
of the flooring now proved more than sufficient to counter-balance the
head of water beneath it.33 The foundation was completed in just four
months, and construction began on June 1, 1887.

The final plans had been adOpted in April, 1887, and by October
the building was in readiness for the laying of the cornerstone. Be-
cause of the importance of the building, the owners decided that they
needed a notable figure to lay the cornerstone. Since he was going
to be in Chicago already, they decided to ask Grover Cleveland, then
President of the United States, to officiate, and on October 6, 1887,
the event took place. A great parade was held and the streets about
the building were jammed with Spectators, including pickets from
various labor unions. It seems that in the interest of haste of
completion, the owners of the Auditorium rejected work done solely
(by the labor unions and hired whomever could complete the job quickly
and at the least expense. Consequently, the unions petitioned the

President ". . . not to lay the cornerstone of a Building whose owners

 

33Hand, p. 23.

17
will not recognize labor unions. . ."34 Obviously the petition wasn't
too effective since Cleveland appeared anyhow.

If coping with the labor unions had been the only problem which
confronted the construction, then the task would have been relatively
simple, Since at that time the strength of the unions was slight, at
least by our current standards. But there were other problems. One
of these was that on December 8, 1887, the Republican National Com-
mittee decided to hold its 1888 National Convention in Chicago, and
the Auditorium was a possible site, or at least one of the influencing
factors in bringing the convention to Chicago. On the surface this
appears to be more a stroke of luck than a problem, but when consider—
ing that at that time not a single block of the granite for the outer
walls was in place, and the bare brick walls of the inner structure
were only about half way up, then it was a problem. From that time
on construction work fairly flew. Over one hundred different con-
tractors were engaged in the work, and at times over one thousand men
were employed in some aSpect of the construction. Whenever possible
extra men were put on the job. Contractors neglected some orders
and abandoned others altogether in order to have the building ready
for the June convention. Not till late in March was the roof of the
theatre in place, and the iron work was not in place until April 1.
From then on all attention was focused on completing the theatre.

The outer walls were built just high enough to support the inner
structure and then were abandoned for the time being. By early June,

however, there was no longer any doubt that the hall could be finished

 

34"Early History and Press Clippings: Chicago Auditorium Asso-
ciation," no page number.

18
by'June l8; and masons and laborers began again to swarm about the
outer walls.35 This obstacle of time had been cleared.

There was a second problem which was evident almost from the time
construction was begun. The first two stories, or the sub-structure
of the building, were to be faced with dark grey granite to be obtained
from the Mesaba Heights quarries of the Minnesota Granite Company.

By January 1, 1888, it was obvious that this company could not furnish
the largest stones necessary. However, giving their all, as had most
of the other contractors on the Auditorium, they went bankrupt trying
to produce the stones. Having failed, they turned over their quarries
and cutting plant to the Auditorium Association, but this didn't solve
the problem of getting the granite. Since a good deal of the stone
had already been cut the problem was compounded. Granite, like many
other kinds of stone, varies from vein to vein as to color and tex-
ture. The problem remained, then, of where to find a granite of a
matching color and texture which could be cut into large enough stones.
After a diligent search, the Hallowell Granite Comoany, with quarries
in Maine, was found to have a vein that harmonized with the color and
texture of the Mesaba quarries. (Even after a lapse of some eighty
years, the color and texture of the stone is still plainly visible

on the exterior of the Auditorium.) The granite problem was solved
and the 60,000 cubic feet of stone used-a quarter of a million tons-—
was mined, 10,000 cubic feet from Maine and 50,000 from Minnesota.36

The work on the theatre portion of the Auditorium was nearly

 

35Chicago Tribune, June 18, 1888, p. 7.

36Hand, p. 24.

19
completed by the early part of June, 1888. On Thursday, the 7th,
the lights were turned on for the first time. Seven hundred fifty of
the twenty-seven hundred incandescent lamps in the theatre were set
ablaze. Because the skylight would not be completed in time for the
convention, and the ceiling was not completely finished, draperies
were hung from the ceiling and the lights were on whenever the build-
ing was in use, day or night.37 It appeared that the only portion of
the theatre not to be finished for the convention was to be the upper
galleries, and a picture from the June 10, 1888, edition of the
ChicagogQaily Inter Ocean shows the galleries closed off. However,
a sentence on page nine in the article accompanying the picture states
that '. . . with the addition of the upper gallery and the improvised
galleries in the organ chamber, the hall will contain 8,130 seats."38
80 apparently the entire theatre was to be put to use.

On Monday, June 18, the day preceeding the Opening of the con-
vention, the completed hall, or as much as it was to be completed for
the time being, was turned over to the Veteran Union.League for a con-
cert of war songs. The concert was performed by a chorus of five hun—
dred voices and an orchestra composed of fifty-five wind instruments.
Following the concert, the hall was opened to the public in its full
grandeur so that thousands of peOple would be afforded their only Op-
portunity of viewing the hall where the Republican Presidential can-

didate was to be nominated.39

 

37The Daily Inter Oceag_(Chicago), June 9, 1888, p. 3.
33The Daily Inter Ocean (Chicago), June 10, 1888, p. 9.

39The Sunday Inter Ocean (Chicago), June 10, 1888, p. 6.

t
"‘N
nine

.5: ale

_ U
2"-

5t
50
bu
5t

20

On June 19, the convention Opened. Eigure 3] Strangely enough,
little is said about the Auditorium theatre in the convention news
articles. Instead, a great deal of Space is given over to describing
in "society page" fashion, the appearance Of the audience. Opera
chairS-7,603 of them--were set up throughout the hall. In addition
there was standing room for 1,400 peOple, so that over 9,000 persons
could be accomodated during each session.40 The seating plans were
Similar to those of our present conventions with the delegates and
press being closest to the rostrum. Further back were the alternate
delegates, and beyond them, the Spectators. When the convention had
broken Up, Benjamin Harrison had been selected as the Republican
candidate for President.

Though the building had been in use for the duration of the con-
vention, it was by no means completed. Only one portion-the theatre--
could be used and it was not completely finished. The hotel and office
building portions were not very far along at all. However, the work
continued at its break-neck pace and on October 2, 1889, only four-
teen months later, the COpestone ceremonies took place. On that date
the OOpestOne (the topmost stone in the tower) was set in place with
full Masonic ceremonies presided over by the Illinois Masons. This
event, like every other in the past history of the Auditorium, was
filled with bands, Speeches, and dignitaries. On October 3, 1889,
.the following appeared in the Chicago Herald:

What iS this Auditorium, an incident in the con-
struction of which is signalized by imposing parades,
solemn ceremonies and eloquent orations? The grandest

building ever erected by private capital. The Auditorium
stands without a peer in a city whose proud palaces of

 

40The Daily Inter Ocean (Chicago), June 7, 1888, p. 9.

vention,

Could be

20

On June 19, the convention Opened. )Eigure 3) Strangely enough,
little is said about the Auditorium theatre in the convention news
articles. Instead, a great deal of Space is given over to describing
in "society page" fashion, the appearance of the audience. Opera
chairs——7,603 of them--were set up throughout the hall. In addition
there was standing room for 1,400 peOple, so that over 9,000 persons
could be accomodated during each session.40 The seating plans were
similar to those of our present conventions with the delegates and
press being closest to the rostrum. Further back were the alternate
delegates, and beyond them, the Spectators. When the convention had
broken up, Benjamin Harrison had been selected as the Republican
candidate for President.

Though the building had been in use for the duration of the con-
vention, it was by no means completed. Only one portion-the theatre--
could be used and it was not completely finished. The hotel and office
building portions were not very far along at all. However, the work
continued at its break-neck pace and on October 2, 1889, only four-
teen months later, the COpestone ceremonies took place. On that date
the c0pestone (the tOpmost stone in the tower) was set in place with
full Masonic ceremonies presided over by the Illinois Masons. This
event, like every other in the past history of the Auditorium, was
filled with bands, Speeches, and dignitaries. On October 3, 1889,

the following appeared in the Chicago Heralgk
What is this Auditorium, an incident in the con-
struction of which is signalized by imposing parades,
solemn ceremonies and eloquent orations? The grandest

building ever erected by private capital. The Auditorium
stands without a peer in a city whose proud palaces of

 

40The Daily Inter Ocean (Chicago), June 7, 1888, p. 9.

 

21

l“ 1139?“, 1T1"

. Fig. 3.-ArtiSt's depiction of the 1888
Republican National Convention. - J

 

_ -W _fllT-TF'W.'1

hit?
_:ractica.

tail no I!

9, 1,589,

22

trade are the wonder of the world. From the coping of the

skyspiercing tower down to the massive foundations the

Auditorium is a gigantic illustration of the enterprise

and public Spirit of the business men of Chicago.4

With the conclusion of this ceremony the Auditorium was, for all
practical purposes, finished. All that remained to be done was de-
tail work, cleaning, and other such finishing touches. On December
9, 1889, less than three years after ground was broken for the pro-
ject, the Auditorium Building was dedicated. When Louis Sullivan
discussed the Auditorium in his autobiography, he related that:

. . .the entire structure comprising Theatre, Hotel,

Office Building and Tower he Ferd Peck named the

Auditorium Building-nobody knows just why. Anyway
it sounded better than ‘Grand Opera HOuse'.

L

4lghaoago Herald, October 3, 1889,[§ited in]1, p. 4.

42Su1livan, Chap. 15, p. 12.

araztic

tail h:

22

trade are the wonder of the world. From the ceping of the

skybpiercing tower down to the massive foundations the

Auditorium is a gigantic illustration of the enterprise

and public Spirit of the business men of Chicago.41

With the conclusion of this ceremony the Auditorium was, for all
practical purposes, finished. All that remained to be done was de—
tail work, cleaning, and other such finishing touches. On December
9, 1889, less than three years after ground was broken for the pro—
ject, the Auditorium Building was dedicated. When Louis Sullivan
discussed the Auditorium in his autobiography, he related that:

. . .the entire structure comprising Theatre, Hotel,

Office Building and Tower he Ferd Peck named the

Auditorium Building-nobody knows just why. Anyway
it sounded better than 'Grand Opera HOuse'.

l_

41Chicago Herald, October 3, 1889, pited i§]I, p. 4.

42Su111van, Chap. 15, p. 12.

1h
trip-.1.

13: 0982
new)

owl-d c.

CHAPTER II
STATISTICS

The cost of the Auditorium, originally set at somewhere between
$750,000 and $800,000 (the sources vary in their estimates), grew, as
has been mentioned, until by January of 1887 it reached a sum of
$1,500,000. At that time, however, it was conceded that the figure
could conceivably grow much greater, and, indeed, this original est-
imate proved to be much too low. The final figure was presented by
Ferd Peck in a report to the stockholders upon the Opening of the
building in December, 1889. The total cost, including construction
and equipment, reached a final figure, with carrying charges totaling
nearly $200,000, of $2,900,000. As Peck pointed out, however, it was
fortunate that the structure had been started at the time it was, since
by the time of completion the cost would have been at least an addi~
tional $500,000, the cost of iron alone having gone up nearly $100,000
during the three years taken for the construction. Peck was also
careful to mention that the earning power of the building had nearly
doubled during the same period.1

Hugh Morrison quotes a figure of $3,145,291 as the final cost of
the project, which is a sum of about thirtyasix cents per cubic foot

for the 8,737,000 cubic feet contained in the building. The amazing

 

1The Daily Inter Ocean (Chicago), December 11, 1889, p. 9.

23

24
fact about this figure is that the cost was almost six times the cost
per cubic foot of any previous assignment by the architects, resulting
in a quality of workmanship and materials unrivaled in that age. The
Auditorium thus became the most luxurious building between New York
and San Francisco.2 The Chicago Tribune Of December 10, 1889, compared
the new Auditorium with other architectural landmarks:
Compared with the solidarity of this wonderful deve

elopment of Chicago enterprise the useless pyramids shrink

into insignificance and the Eiffel tower is but a toy.

The cost of the great structure has been over $2,700,000

and the ground upon which it stands is worth $1,000,000.

It has been built in three years, while the Grand Opera

House in Paris, with half its seating capacity, cost

$9,000,000 and occupied thirteen years in construction.
Peck, in his report to the stockholders, made this point even stronger
by claiming that the Paris Opera was also much inferior to the Audi—
torium both in beauty and in practical features. In all fairness to
the Paris Opera, however, all of the other great Opera houses of
EurOpe were also inferior to the Auditorium, at least according to
Peck, including those in Vienna, Frankfort, Dresden, Berlin, and.Milan,
if for no other reason than that they were Smaller in capacity than
the Auditorium, and a great deal of their seating was taken up by ex-
clusive boxes since they were obviously meant to have been designed
more for the few than for the masses, while just the opposite was
true of the Auditorium.

Most of the great theatres of Europe have grand ap-
proaches and Splendid vestibules, embellished with costly

frescoes and statuary which governments have paid for;
but the interiors are a disappointment, and lacking in

 

2The Auditorium Building, (a pamphlet produced by the Auditorium
Theatre Council), p. 8.

3The Chicago Tribune, December 10, 1889, p.3.

:~1*ce

.“E‘

on the
style I
ation.
griaar:

Shines:

25

practical details as compared with the Chicago Auditorium.

They are all smaller in capacity, exclusive boxes occupy—

ing much of the Space. They are built rather for the few

than for the masses—~the titled and the wealthy rather

than for the people-1acking the broad democratic policy

of providing for all which prevails in the arrangement

of the Auditorium thereby lessening the gulf between the

classes.4

Briefly mentioned in the first chapter was the stipulation placed
on the architects as to the simplicity of the exterior. The basic
style chosen by Sullivan was Romanesque-—almost devoid of all decor-
ation. The reason for the choice of thisetyle seems to have been
primarily the influence on Sullivan of H. H. Richardson, the reigning
Chicago architect. (Many people feel that the greatest blunder in the
entire structure is the lack of plastic decoration on the facade.)
Probably the biggest single reason for the choice of this particular
architectural style, however, was the wishes of the backers who more
than likely had an eye on the financial aSpect of the building. As
has been previously mentioned, the Auditorium was the most expensive
structure of its kind yet constructed. Consequently, a simplified
exterior was a good means of cutting the financial corners.

There was, however, another reason, other than cost, for
Sullivan's choice of the Romanesque style. Paul Mueller, Adler and
Sullivan's chief engineer on the Auditorium project, suggested that
the use of the style may have been the result of pride on Sullivan's
part. Mueller said that most of the plans for the building were
completed, including a highly ornamental facade, when Sullivan was

told of a remark about him made by John Root, another of Chicago's

well known architects. The remark went something to the effect that

 

4Daily Inter Ocean (Chicago), December 11, 1889, p. 9.

in,»
l d
ii. «I

:rzauce;

-r...,.
1 '1
in‘sl-y

I
.7
l D
r r,
O
P.‘

26

“Louis couldn't build an honest wall without covering it with orna-
ment."5 This statement, of course, made Sullivan furious and in an
attempt to diSprove Root, he discarded the nearly completed designs
and created instead the fantastically simple yet massive lines with
no excessive ornamentation which characterize the completed struc-
ture. The second preliminary design [Figure 3 which Morrison has re-
produced in Louis Sullivan seems to bear out at least some credita-
bility for Mueller's theory.

Adler was not particularly happy with the exterior, and made
the following comment about it:

It is to be regretted that the severe simplicity of

treatment rendered necessary by the financial policy

of the earlier days of the enterprise, the deep im-

ression made by Richardson's Marshall Field Building

Eigure j Upon the Directors of the Auditorium Associa-

tion, and a reaction from a course of indulgence in

the creation of highly decorative effects on the part

of its architects, should have happened to coincide as

to time and object, and thereby deprive the exterior of

the building of those graces of plastic surface decora-

tion which are so characteristic of its internal treat-

ment.6

It is unfortunate that Sullivan chose the Romanesque style,
devoid of ornament, for the exterior of his building, because
except for the massiveness and the tower surmounting the ten
story structure, it is not a particularly impressive building.
It hardly seems fitting that this starkly plain facade should serve,
for whatever the reason, as the shell for the delicately majestic

interior which Sullivan so painstakingly created. Thomas E.

Tallmadge says in his book, Architecture in Old Chicago, that

 

5Thomas E. Tallmadge, Architecture in Old Chicagg, Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press (1941), p. 159.

6Morrison, p. 89.

27

)- O 4 -A—. _‘-_"-—"_

OI

 

534‘ "12I|'i""
I - .. Y'. '

I

 

Fig. 4.-—First Preliminary Design
for the Chicago Auditorium.

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 5.-Second Preliminary Design
for the Chicago Auditorium.

l .vloi}.{fl

28

 

x1

 

Fig. 6.-The Chicago Auditorium,
Final Design.

 

Fig. 7.-H. H. Richardson's Marshall Field
Building. This is the architectural style that
Sullivan attempted to follow on the Auditorium.

29

". . .there is no suggestion in the form of this building of its pri-
mary function in the housing of a vast auditorium. In fact, its great
tower seems to preclude the possibility of a huge hall lying beyond."7

One Opinion in favor of the style Sullivan chose was put forth
by Carl W. Condit in his book The Chicago School of Architecture. He
says that it is fortunate for the field of architecture that Sullivan
did abandon his love of elaborate exterior ornament and instead "con-
centrated on the architectonic effect of mass, texture, and the pro-
portioning and scaling of large and simple elements." Condit does not
say, however, why he feels this way.8

"Massiveness" is probably the one word which captures best the
outer appearance of the building. It was to have a 362 foot frontage
on Congress Street, 187 feet on Michigan Avenue, 160 feet on Wabash
Avenue, for a total of 709 feet, equal to almost one city block. The
building prOper was to be ten stories, with an additional seven
stories in the tower. (figure 8 is a cross-section of the Auditorium)
It was expected to be the largest building erected by private capital
in the United States and probably in the world Up to that time. The
sub—structure (lower floors) were of dark gray granite, rough-hammered
finish and set off by polished granite columns. The super-structure
was entirely of buff Indiana limestone, smoothphammered finish.9 TO
give an idea of the massiveness of the structure, the second story
consisted of a granite facing sixteen inches thick backed by twenty

inches of brick. There were 17,000,000 bricks used in the construction

 

7Ta11madge, p. 157.

8Carl W. Condit, The Chicago School of Architecture, Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press (1964), p. 70.

9The Sunday Inter Ocean, June 10, 1888, p. 9.

 

and 6;:
weigh 5
tion tl
63,303

P:

arim '

31
and 6,000 tons of iron and steel. The building was estimated to
weigh 86,000 tons and the tower added another 15,000 tons. In addi-

tion there are 1,500 windows and 2,000 doors using a portion of the
60,000 feet of polished plate glass found in the building.10
Probably the most salient feature of the exterior of the Audit-
orium was the tower which surmounted it. It rose 270 feet above the
main entrance on Congress Street. In addition to much of the mech-
anical equipment for the Auditorium, the nine stories of the tower
also contained some office Space. It was in the tower that Adler and
Sullivan had their offices for twenty years. The t0p floor, plus a
small one story extension on the tower, which housed equipment, was
occupied by the United States Signal Service Department. The tower
occupied an area 70 feet by 41 feet up to the eighteenth floor and
the extra story constructed of terra-cotta and iron, nine by eigh-
teen feet, extended thirty feet into the air. As an article in the
Chicago Tribune put it, the tower would be large enough to provide
room for twenty-five sets to dance a quadrille on the top.11 Dur-
ing the early 1890's the Auditorium tower was considered one of the
best places from which to obtain a breathtaking view of Chicago.
One could stand on the over—hanging balcony on the nineteenth floor,
or the braver few could ascend to the smaller twentieth floor and see
the entire city of Chicago Spread out before them in three directions,
and Lake Michigan in the fourth. It was said that on clear days one

could see into Indiana from the tower.12 At the time it was built,

 

10Daily Inter Ocean (Chicago) December 11, 1889, p. 9.

11The Chicago Tribune, January 30, 1887, p. 17.
12The Chicago Tribune, December 8, 1889, p. 30.

32
the top of the tower was the highest point in the city.

Inside the simple outer shell, the building was even more spec-
tacular. In Peck's report to the stockholders he said:

The arts represented in your building by mosaic work,
marbles, onyx, bronze work, and plaster casts, together

with ceiling and mural decorations, are not equated in

amount in any other building on the continent, and are of

a quality that will constantly attract art lovers and

connoisseurs to the Auditorium and hotel.

Where the outside of the Auditorium was Romanesque in style, the in-
terior was no such thing. Tallmadge, in Architectgre in Old Chicago.
says "Where the Romanesque was material, thislfhe interio§1is ether—
eal; where the old was common and brutal forms, this is a fairy-land

. .‘14 Fifty thousand square feet of Italian mosaic floors con-
taining 50,000,000 pieces of marble put together by hand in France
and Italy were used in the building.

The entire structure was fireproof, one of the first buildings
to be constructed with this precaution, and it was to pay in the
future. All of the structural parts were noncombustible and non-
yielding to severe heat. This was accomplished through the use of
a porous hollow clay tile known commonly as "fire—proofing tile,"
but technically as "terra cotta lumber.u This material was not
". . . affected by age, acids of gases, or changes in temperature,
and not liable to shrinkage or expansion. Its weightlfia§]one-third

that of brick; its qualities for nonconducting sound, cold and

heat, and resisting rats, mice and other vermin have no superior

or equal."15 Other interesting statistics showed that the com—

 

13The Dailyglgter Ocean, December 11, 1889, p. 9.
14Tallmadge, p. 158.

15Hand, p. 28.

the t9? 0
Insi
tacular.
mart
with
amou
a CI”
corm
[here the
teriar we
says "if:

eel; whe

32
the top of the tower was the highest point in the city.

Inside the simple outer shell, the building was even more spec-
tacular. In Peck's report to the stockholders he said:

The arts represented in your building by mosaic work,
marbles, onyx, bronze work, and plaster casts, together

with ceiling and mural decorations, are not equated in

amount in any other building on the continent, and are of

a quality that will constantly attract art lovers and

connoisseurs to the Auditorium and hotel.

Where the outside of the Auditorium was Romanesque in style, the in—
terior was no such thing. Tallmadge, in Architecture in Old Chicago.
says "Where the Romanesque was material, thislihe interio£1is ether—
eal; where the old was common and brutal forms, this is a fairy-land

. .“14 Fifty thousand square feet of Italian mosaic floors con-
taining 50,000,000 pieces of marble put together by hand in France
and Italy were used in the building.

The entire structure was fireproof, one of the first buildings
to be constructed with this precaution, and it was to pay in the
future. All of the structural parts were noncombustible and non-
yielding to severe heat. This was accomplished through the use of
a porous hollow clay tile known commonly as "fire-proofing tile,"
but technically as 'terra cotta lumber." This material was not
“. . . affected by age, acids of gases, or changes in temperature,
and not liable to shrinkage or expansion. Its weightlwa§]one-third

that of brick; its qualities for nonconducting sound, cold and

heat, and resisting rats, mice and other vermin have no superior

or equal.“15 Other interesting statistics showed that the com—

 

13The Daily Inter Ocean, December 11, 1889, p. 9.
14Tallmadge, p. 158.

15Hand, p. 28.

plated A1
later pi;
12,393 e1
pinging l

The
tained or
in all, 1

0f the b1

5

33

pleted Auditorium building contained twenty-five miles of gas and
water pipe, electric wire and cable stretching over 230 miles,
12,000 electric light bulbs, dynamos, electric and hydraulic motors,
pumping engines, and a total of thirteen elevators.16

The office building portion of the three-part building was con—
tained on the Wabash.Avenue, or west side of the building. There were,
in all, one hundred thirty—six large offices and shops. This portion
of the building was an immediate success which is apparent from the
fact that each unit was rented, mostly by artists and students, almost
as fast as it was completed. The Chicago Conservatory of Music occu-
pied a major portion of the office Space, mostly on the upper floors.17

The hotel, which occupied the third of the building fronting on
Michigan Avenue, was reputed by many to be on a par with many of the
very finest European hotels. It showed great ingenuity of design since
there was an average depth to this portion of only forty—five feet. In
it was included a large, ornate lobby, men's smoking-room, a parlor,
restaurant and banquet hall with necessary kitchens and service rooms,
and four hundred large guest rooms. The public rooms were extremely
ornate with mosaic floors, and a grand staircase rich with onyx panel-

ing and intricate wrought-iron railings leading to the second floor

main lobby.18 [3h example of the work of this staircase is found in

Figure 9;] This portion, opened in January, 1890, was leased to the
Auditorium Hotel Company, a group separate from the Auditorium Associa-

tion, for a period of ten years. The lessee, who was reSponsible for

7f

. léaoseph and Caroline Kirkland, The Story of Chicago, Vol. II,
Chicago: Dibble Publishing Co., (1893), p. 364.

17The Chicago Tribune, December 10, 1889, p. 3.

l

1aMorrison, pp. 96-97

 

 

 

Fig. 9.—-The Main Staircase of the Auditorium
shows Sullivan's touch with delicate ornamentation. .

kindred
Eecital
0?! Octo'
Versary

til? ha

35

furnishing the hotel, paid a fixed rental plus a percentage of the
gross receipts. It was to be conducted on both the EurOpean and the
American plans. One of the best known features of the hotel was the
banquet hall which served as host to a number of famous persons at
feasts held there. The room was an extremely beautiful one built of
steel and carried on the trusses Spanning one hundred twenty feet
over the orchestra of the theatre.19

Before turning to the Auditorium Theatre, the third portion of
the building and the only one that remains intact serving its original
purpose, there is one other portion which bears mention. This is the
Recital Hall on the seventh floor on the Wabash Avenue side. It was
a small hall, in comparison to the main theatre, seating about five
hundred persons, and was to be used for both concerts and lectures.
(Recital Hall ground-plaanEigure 10] The Recital Hall was dedicated
on October 12, 1889, with a concert celebrating the twentieth anni—
versary of the Illinois Humane Society. The critics pronounced this
tiny hall a "gem".

In most instances a grand hotel or a building containing thirty-
six offices would have been reason enough for having built that build-
ing, and both of them together under one roof, as in the Auditorium,

would have been more than reason enough to sanction its construction,
but the "raison d'etre" of the Auditorium Building was the theatre.
It was the physical and Spiritual heart of the building. Just as the
plain exterior of the building formed a shell about the magnificant
interior, so also did the hotel rooms and the business offices form

a shell around the theatre, for at no place did it penetrate to the

 

19The Chicago Tribune, December 8, 1889, p. 30.

outside w:

V' .
,i —-v“ v
r— . ‘ ..‘
1 I 1
W‘ (.1 ‘H
I v
‘71—“

A)

(A)

I"\""""“"""'
E (”V VIA.

L....--..- .--—-----.

D

II | --.---_--...-.----.. .....

{a

e

ll uluu‘ Imam ism-mu .mm -
bANouLY "ALL , )

flulmm IIIIIIIIII! 11m :11: I'm... II

1' . '
.. H mm ummnm mm mm

 

'unnnum Illlll 21:: mm”! It!)

7:"-
/

t.“ ',—‘b
-..—.--..- ........ ...-....—'

I "fill" lllllllllllllll

CONGRL35 3T

CHICAGO AUDITCRmM DUILDING

PLAN .. T... SEVLNTH 31'on
“It“;fo' ; .

32.1—1. .- -- sol - v'“-. - n‘ . - _

 

l !

I .
l r I‘

2!”
E7313

 

 

 

 

 

37
outside walls. This shell formed a rectangle 118 feet by 246 feet
within which was found the theatre. Including the various vestibules,
foyers, and cloak-rooms the theatre occupied over half Of the total
area and about a third of the total volume Of the building, and seated
4,237 persons.20 The Auditorium Theatre was, at the time Of its con-
struction, the largest permanent theatre, excluding Open-air theatres,
ever erected.21
The seating capacity of the Auditorium for ordinary
occasions is to be 5,000, but 8,000 people can be com—

fortably accomodated when a national political convention

is held there. It will be arranged after the most modern

way, and have besides a main floor seating 3,000, two ex—

pensive balconies with chairs for 2,000. About the pro-

scenium Openings there will be fifty-one elegantly fash-

ioned boxes.

Various sources claimed that the Auditorium could accomodate up to
11,000 peOple if the need arose.23 This figure seems somewhat un—
realistic, and the largest crowd seems to have been the 9,000 peOple
(including standing room) who attended the 1888 Republican National
Convention.

Adler and Sullivan were not in the least hampered by a lack Of
Space in which to put their theatre. Rather they were instructed to
design a perfect hall, with money and time being no obstacle. The
main architectural design concept Of the theatre seems to have been
to destroy the effect Of a great Open Space. There is a great open
Spacg‘to be sure, but one never has the feeling Of emptiness. One

of Adler and Sullivan's greatest achievements was the plan devised

for controlling the flow Of the audience. Even taking into account

 

2'oThe La Scala Opera House in Milan, Italy, seats only 3,000.
21Morrison, p. 99.

22The Chicago Tribune, January 30, 1887, p. 17.

23The Chicago Daily Newg, December 9, 1889, p. 2.

the vast 5
fact an EU
in a matte
traces th
vestibule
use: the c
IES, when
fifteen fe
ated the u

The a
the larges
55?: The
to the 13.5
Figure 13
The orches
film-s mn
iiieiiatel
the main 1
were Ieac‘r
first, 01‘
He re 12]
the“ Sight

&
“he main 1

38

the vast size Of the room, there were ample entrances and exits. In
fact an audience Of eight thousand could enter or leave the building
in a matter of five minutes. In addition to the usual number of en-
trances there were also vomitoria-like tunnels which ran from the lower
vestibule to the front seats in the house. In fact, if a Spectator
used the closest entrance to his seat, then no matter where his seat
was, when he entered the theatre prOper, he would be no more than
fifteen feet from it. In this way the architects successfully elimin-
ated the usual noise created by latecomers.24

The arrangement Of the seating seemed to be designed to accomodate
the largest number Of peOple possible while still retaining some intim-
acy. The parquet, or main floor, measured 112 feet from the footlights
to the last row Of seats, and seated 1,442 persons. [ground—plan——
Figure 13 This area was actually divided into three individual levels.
The orchestra or lowest of these could be entered from the side cor—
ridors running underneath the boxes. These same seats and the section
immediately behind them were entered from the vomitoria entrances from
the main lobby, or grand foyer. The rear seats in the parquet circle
were reached from the foyer on the floor above the main lobby. The
first, or main balcony contained some 1,632 seats. [Eround—plan—-
Figure 12] It had a rise of forty feet, determined by acoustics rather
than sightlines, but that will be covered later. Immediately above
the main balcony were two galleries, both reached from the Sixth floor,
either from the elevators in the office portion or by climbing many
flights of stairs from the main lobby. The first gallery seated 526

and the second, which was carried on iron columns and trusses a little

 

24The Chicago Tribung, June 9, 1888, p. l.

P

J

above and

 

Continue.

A.
”d

0
\

thfluVK.

1

-.,1.
Add.”

0
.3

“t

in IC’H

N

1

 

i C

‘u

GEATLunans

TRLSH Am
vLHT

Conn-oo-

 

 

II“:-

‘ gIOLi’w" - 3A).!Mr!
.[ '

lat-AL)!

 

 

 

CFHCQEOO 5T-

CHICASC AUDITORwM EOILDIHC

PLAN or T—L FIFTH -.)TOR\'

 

 

 

 

“-....- p... ov—~.__q-_“

42
above and in front Of the other so as not to interfere with its sight-
lines, had seats for 437 persons.[Cround-plan-Figure 13) This second
gallery, reached by horizontal bridges and tunnels from the sixth floor
was popularly known as the "family circle”.25 These were the inexpen-
sive seats. Even from the galleries the sightlines were perfect,
though the back row of the top gallery was seven stories up and almost
a block away from the stage. The seats in these upper sections were
not particularly comfortable by modern standards, but since they were
so inexpensive, they were as comfortable as could be expected. The
architects of the Auditorium were realists and knew that the theatre
would not always be full. This problem was also echoed by some of
the artists who were to perform in the house. They complained about
the possibility of playing to half empty houses; and, consequently
Augustin Daly suggested to Sullivan that some method be devised whereby
the galleries could be closed Off when not in use so that the theatre
would maintain all of its intimacy. Sullivan's plan was to construct
a curved, hinged ceiling piece which could swing down and close Off
the galleries. [Eigure 14) When the galleries were to be used, these
pieces swung up out of the way so that they acted like, and actually
appeared to be, portions of the ceiling. Though each Of these units
‘weighed nearly twenty tons, they were so perfectly counter-balanced
that one man on each Of six windlasses could raise or lower them
easily in a matter Of minutes. By closing the two galleries, and by
drawing a curtain from pillar to pillar across the rear third of the

balcony, the seating capacity of the theatre could be reduced to

 

25MOrrison, pp. 100-101.

 

 

Fig. l4.-The main balcony with the family
circle and second balcony closed off. Also
evident are a portion of the Skylight and some
Of the boxes with the original pillars inter-
rupting the sightlines.

2,574.3
areas CC
soaew’nal
to maini
gieces v

The
9396 few

boxes cc

44
2,574.26 Very soon, however, it became evident that Shutting Off these
areas constituted no real gain in intimacy, but it did tend to detract
somewhat from the overall design Of the hall (though they were designed
to maintain the symmetrical design) so it is doubtful if these ceiling
pieces were used very much, if,indeed, at all.

That the theatre was built for the masses instead Of the privil-
eged few was borne out partly by the fact that there were only forty
boxes containing 200 seats, or about one-twentieth of the total seat-
ing. These boxes are arranged along each Side Of the room,[Figure 14)
a radical departure from the typical Opera—house arrangement of a
horseshoe formation for the boxes. There were twenty boxes on each
side arranged in two tiers, the eight boxes in the lower tier forming
a decorative arcade for the twelve in the upper tier. The boxes them-
selves were Of cast-iron with the fronts slightly bowed out.2‘7 An or-
namental iron treiliswork separated the boxes from the foyer from which
they were entered. The only bad sightlines in the house, unfortunately,
were from the lower tier of boxes. Ihstead of being cantilevered, the
upper tier Of boxes was supported by cast iron pillars from the lower
boxes. This, therefore, left the peOple in the lower boxes having to
look at the stage through this maze of pillars.28

The foyers and vestibules were as beautifully decorated as the
rest of the theatre. The main vestibule was 117 feet long and 59 feet
wide. It had a very handsome groined ceiling with arches rising from

massive square pillars, the capitals Of which were rich in gold plaster

 

26Yvonne Bonsall Shafer, "The Auditorium Theatre,‘I Educationg;
Theatre Journal, XVII, (March, 1965), pp. 40, 42.

27The Daily Inter Ocean, December 11, 1889, p. 9.

28Hartnack

laceration

sails baCk

outstandir
flanking“ *
ielicatel‘
the cente
gas-leg i
nth var?

The
the main
ivory CC

0.
9..
A.

AC- be:

»4
ET

fl.’

1”

45

decoration. The walls of the foyers, vestibules, stairways, and the
walls back Of the boxes were covered with some extremely intricate
gold stencil work designed by Sullivan. [Figures l5-li] One Of the
outstanding features of the grand foyer were the two inglenooks
flanking the central staircase. Featured in these inglenOOkS were
delicately carved oaken benches with leather tufted seats, and against
the center walls were massive red Numidian marble fireplaces fed with
gas-log flames. The side walls, back of the benches, were adorned
with vari-colored dados of marble mosaic.29

The decoration in the theatre was eSpecially beautiful. Like
the main rooms Of the hotel, it was done predominantly in gold and Old
ivory colors. The quality Of the gold leaf used was exceptionally
fine being twenty—three carats. In all a total Of 26,500 pounds of
white lead and 46,875 square feet of gold leaf were used in the de-
coration, or more than enough to cover one acre.30! 31 The boxes were
done in the same ivory and gold with the exception of the upper boxes
which had plush draperies of a slightly darker ivory color, and the
chairs were upholstered in yellow satin. The chairs in the main part
Of the house were done in old yellows. All of these colors went well
with the raSpberry red Wilton carpeting. Built during an age when de-
corative plaster was widely used, the Auditorium was no exception,
and decorative plaster work was used throughout. Much Of the decora-

tion designed by Sullivan was extremely intricate but never tiring.

 

29The Daily Inter Ocean, December 11, 1889, p. 9.
3°Tbid, p. 10

31A pamphlet, The Auditorium Buildigg put out by the Auditorium
Theatre Council gives detailed descriptions of hbw this decoration
was painstakingly applied.

46

 

Fig. l5.-0riginal Sullivan stencil.

 

 

 

 

Fig. l6.-—Original Sullivan stencil.

47

 

 

 

 

Fig. 17.-0riginal Sullivan stencil.
Uncovered in the main staircase Of the
theatre. (Seen over a scaffolding during
restoration work).

Torinsta
a design
twining ‘
tanning
with orn
ation, E
integral
cei ing
rather

ward to
feet of
Supgor'
tionin
which

the SL
tallic
The 5'

with

48
For instance, the capital of every column in the foyer was made up of
a design consisting of acanthus and lotus leaves intermingled with the
twining vines Of some Southern plants. Even the four great arches
Spanning the 118 feet Of the main portion of the theatre were covered
with ornamental plaster work. Here the light bulbs used for illumin-
ation, 5,000 of them arranged in five-bulb "star" patterns, formed an
integral part of the design. Thelight that they cast on the gold
ceiling seemed to make the Auditorium appear lighted by a golden glow
rather than direct lighting. But these trusses pushing upward and out—
ward toward an immense skylight filled with stained glass, 2000 square
feet of it, and located above the main balcony, were not solely for
support. Adler ingeniously doubled their use as heating and air-condi-
tioning ducts. The theatre was warmed by a large mass of fresh air
which was washed, then warmed, then dried in the winter, and cooled in
the summer.32 The air escaped from these trusses through little me-
tallic, decorative pieces resembling beehives which studded the arches.
The system Operated with a high degree Of efficiency, at low cost and
with great ease.

A very integral part Of the theatre decoration were three murals,
one over the proscenium done by Charles Halloway, and two on the Side
walls at a point where the balcony began done by Fleury. The two side
murals, each twenty-five feet wide, were inSpired by quotations from
Louis Sullivan's unpublished poem "InSpiration." The mural on the left
Of a late fall or winter scene was based on the line "A great life has
passed into the tomb and there awaits the requiem of winter's snows".

This mural was acclaimed by the critics as a truly fine work. Its

 

32Hand, p. 33.

companic
line u
not on ‘
itcmm
defiant

it seem

49
companion piece, a Spring scene of the rebirth Of life, based on the
line '0 soft melodious springtime, firstborn Of life and love," was
not on the same par.33 Although the mural was a green meadow scene,
it came nowhere near capturing the feeling Of Spring breaking forth in
defiance of the cold and snow of winter. In fact, as E. S. Hand says,
it seemed to more closely approximate a damp meadow suggesting pneu-
monia and mustard plasters.34 Both Of these murals, however, blended
in perfect harmony with the rest Of the decor. The third mural,
(actually a frieze) by Halloway, arched gracefully over the entire
width Of the proscenium Opening. In this mural fortybfive life-Sized
figures were presented, representing the power of music from the quo-
tation "The utterance of life is a song, the symphony Of’Nature."
(figure 18] The biggest complaint about this work was that most Of the
female figures were in various states of undress. Hand says that the
French may think this was all right, but to Americans it was repugnant.
The lack Of taste was unfortunate, he says, because the work showed
snatches of brilliance. An interesting note about this frieze came
from L. Grant Duncan in a letter to the editor in the Chicggo Daily
33313 in December, 1932.
He Halloway made his models pose for him on the scaf-

folding Of the unfinished theatre. It was early fall and

the building was unheated and the models were very lightly

draped. At about the middle of the painting, they struck for

heat or more draperies. Comfort considerations won over ar-

tistic desires.

New audiences in the theatre, who will be able to dis-

tinguish all the details of the murals, will quickly dis-
cover that the right-hand half Of the scene above the pro-

 

33Morrison, p. 104.

34Hand, p. 130.

i.fl\..m
IANWHXu-uumflfluflmlm‘ .

bl-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I‘x'v"V '
J‘lt A

ATTOI.’

CR

\—

‘fiC'fZNIUM ARCH Lil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l—Offlocl

24ml: Eamnooto Auditorium and V» -°
3- min Foyer.

4—Cioak Rooms.

S-Smoklne Room

6--Pdrquctto.

7»ch«5.

8. 9~Ba'c:>ny Foyam
1_\—Second Balcony.

lI-Oallez’y.
12,13- False Ceilings cutting or! Gallery and
Fill. Iy Jlrclu.

lit—Rec .31: H.111
if. ~Otur‘LeoL'l PH;
1' , - Oran.
17 -:AY’L‘.#TD and 5m BONGO.
1 1 Tons er,
1‘.)— Laue-d Parlor.

 

D
at-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A~8taac.

B Intermedtafe Eta-co.
C ~ Hydraulic. 61330.
b—Dreseing Rooms.

E. F—Fw Galleries.

G ~Dmm'.‘ Bridge.

8. l—Bfldamu Across 8m
1’. Store. Room.
ir-Propertv Room.

Li Rigging} Loft.

2.’ mar/ants Room
U — Hz". ,1 knight-n.

F How-1 Emil-er. Hall.
Q-kiozc. Dining Euom.
R—Hjte; Planers.
S—Byuu Offices.
T—Enerze Room.
U—Pdmpa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1./

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-.-.a---.o.-..4-
l‘
O O
I
\\\' .—
0; ~
1
.H 1
D
' 1
' 1
'.3. ‘
V
I}
~ a _J a
\ ____ l
1 -,
,11 y,
11 I."
. .,{,. ,
1 7¢ %
1 1 J .‘5
Do ,I .3
K.\ i
y L
' a
1 ' E]: v I
‘ I rv‘r. r. '
NI” ~ '.r: r§
-‘—‘r" VP,
R r'r'y .
. f 'r -(,
_ ‘F*7‘]rfl .,- ..
1 .. Fi- n .
. ‘1" t ‘T A
_§ ‘ 1 . ,. .. ,.
.‘1' I,’
"‘1 1 1 I ... »
.. 1 “

1 in th

.1 o c :1 [/13 31%)) c I I
TH w" "E '11
Donhgann 1000

[xnflfiooa'bzc

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ .
-JA-~.-

 

 

 

,5“

 

1v?

 

 

     

\/
lg -— \ \ ,, / I
"‘ 1K— ‘ 1 "T ‘
E» “l. ”- '\ ) 1‘ y > > K r r
H. I ‘ -.J

 

51

scenium arch shows the models in far more comfortable
attire than they wore before they struck.

The major purpose of the murals, besides as decoration, was to present
the close harmony Of music and nature.

On the Side walls close to the proscenium the major decorative
pieces are huge gold, fan-shaped treilises, above which are, on one
side, the gold relief portraits Of Wagner and Haydn, and on the Oppo-
site side likenesses of Demosthenes and ShakeSpeare. [figure 197 The
left treilis also served to hide the main portion of the magnificent
organ of the theatre. Though the organ did not have as many stOpS as
some others, it far surpassed most in purity and volume Of tone. It
also contained all Of the latest improvements and novelties both elec-

trical and pneumatic. It was a Roosevelt organ costing, with all its

parts, $45,000.36 'The keyboard was in front Of the proscenium and
faced the orchestra director in case it should ever be needed with an
orchestra (which it was on the dedication night). In addition to the
main organ behind the treilis, there was an echo-organ placed in the
attic over the parquet which was used for soft and entrancing sounds
such as was necessary in the “Angelic chorus" closing.§gg§t. This
echo-organ produced a sound which seemed to envelOp the listener and,
indeed, probably produced a magnificent effect. The chimes were placed

in the flies and were especially useful in church scenes such as in

 

35 Letter from L. Grant Duncan, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. Chicago
'Daily News, December 1, 1932, cited in "Scrapbook", XXIV, p. 8.

36 A complete description of the great organ, its parts, and its
Operation can be found in E. S. Hand's Auditorium, Chicago: Exhibit
publishing Co., (1890), pp. 122-127. A complete list of parts with
diagrams is found in Egrly;History and Press Clippingg: Chicago
Auditorium Associatioo, Chicago: 1887-1889, in the Burnham.Library
of Architecture Of the Art Institute Of Chicago.

52

 

L“.._.__.___ -1. , >‘vwgl

 

 

 

Fig. l9.——Treillis flanking the pro-
scenium. The left treillis hide the main
workings of the Auditorium organ.

53

Lohengrin. These Special organs showed good planning on the part Of
the designers, since both of those Operas were scheduled for the
first season.38

Two more decorative features which, though actually a part Of
the stage are more rightly discussed as a part Of the audience Space,
are the reducing curtain and the act curtain. The proscenium opening
was actually 76' x 44', but for practical use a reducing curtain was
flown in which cut this Size to 47' x 36'. This curtain, in itself,
was a magnificent Spectacle. It was iron covered with decorative
plaster and weighed 26,000 pounds. Like most Of the rest Of the decor
of the theatre, it was done in gold, and emblazoned on it in large
gold letters were the names of many of the leading composers both
'classical and modern, at least in 1890.1Eigures 20 and 2;) From top
left to top right were the names of Gluck, Gounod, Verdi, Mozart,
Rossini, Schumann, Haydn, Berlioz, Beethoven, and Bach.39 The act
curtain was probably the single most beautiful piece Of work in the
hall. Measuring 37’ x 49' and weighing Six hundred pounds, this can-
ary yellow curtain believed to be the largest curtain in the world
when it was made, received an ovation on Opening night when the fire
curtain was raised revealing it. Made entirely by the J. A. Colby
Company of Chicago, the foundation of the curtain was formed by two
hundred yards Of solid gold silk canvas eSpecially manufactured and
woven in this country and worth over $12. a yard. Twenty pounds, or
more than 40,000 yards Of embroidery silks were used. The applique

work was done with one hundred and seventy-five yards Of heavy silk

 

38The Daily Inter Ocean, December 11, 1889, p. 10.

39The Chigago Tribune, December 7, 1889, p. 12.

54

IA

 

 

 

 

Fig. 20.—-Reducing Curtain.

55

 

 

 

 

Fig. 2l—Reducing Curtain close-up.

56
plush woven to order and dyed in Europe. The finishing touches were
accomplished with thirty yards of cloth of gold, ten pounds of gold
bullion, five pounds of silver, and about three hundred large brilliants.
The drOp curtain was smooth in the center and hung in folds as it moved
outward. The curtain was enhanced by a centerpiece representing the
American coat-Of-arms. Figure 20 In essence this consisted of a gol—
den lyre superimpdsed on a shield among stars. Superimposed in turn
on the coat-Of-arms were a crossed flagolet and a violincello support—
ing a musical score on which were the Opening notes of Yankee Doodle.
This entire design was enclosed in a laurel wreath.40 It is no wonder
that this Splendid piece of work received an ovation.

The Auditorium Theatre was truly a magnificent work Of art, but
its most magnificent feature was not even visible to the naked eye.
This was the acoustics. Acoustics were Adler's Specialty and he made
the most Of them in the Auditorium. Carl Condit, although describing
the Central Music Hall, another Adler creation, tells in essence the
extent to which Adler went to achieve his fine Auditorium acoustics,

and why they work.

The acoustical prOperties of the theatreKCentral Music
Haliiwere nationally famous and served to give Adler the re-
putation of the leading acoustical 'engineer' of his time.
This reputation justly became world-wide with the completion
of the Auditorium. The acoustical excellence Of the Music
Hall theatre resulted from three characteristics: (1) the
upward curve of the orchestra floor away from the stage;

(2) the transverse projections below the ceiling (the furring
around the trusses over the theatre); and (3) the lateral
curve Of the ceiling vault. Adler's mastery of acoustical
design appears to have been the product Of a direct empiri-
cal approach to the problem. In 1885 he made a careful study
of the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City as preparation for

 

40Hand, pp. 120, 121.

57
the design of the Auditorium.41
The method Adler used for acoustics in the Central Music Hall was
essentially the same as that in the Auditorium. When planning the
seating, the uninterrupted sightlines were Of almost secondary imporb
tance, they seem almost to have been an end result of Adler's attempt
to make the house acoustically perfect. To achieve his end Adler based
his floor design on Scott Russell's "isocoustic curve". Consequently
the rise in the floor was designed to achieve better acoustical prO-
perties rather than better sightlines. The seventeen foot rise over
the one hundred twelve foot length Of the main floor, and the forty
foot rise of the main balcony to a point in the last row, 266 feet from
the stage, was more than enough for good sightlines. The ceiling with
its series Of flat arches getting progressively larger as they lead
away from the proscenium to a point perpendicular to the front of the
main balcony, was also planned acoustically. Floor and ceiling toge-
ther caused the outward movement of the sound waves to reach every part
Of the floor without creating an echo.42
The acoustics of the Auditorium Theatre were indeed amazing. The
Ighicaqo Tribune in an article on January 5, 1890, mentions that even
in the rear Of the main balcony, the farthest point from the stage
(266 feet) ' . . . the faintest pianissimo tone, even the swish Of a
dress, is distinctly audible."43 Only a few months ago this writer sat
in the very back row Of the top gallery and was able to hear, with

little strain, conversation going on on the stage. Of course, in this

instance the Auditorium was empty and the effect would undoubtedly be

41Condit, pp. 32-33.
42M0rrison, pp. 99-100

43Chicago Tribune, January 5, 1890,[§ited in)"Scrapbook", I, p. 90.

58

different with an audience absorbing some of the sound. Not every—

one was completely entranced with the Auditorium's acoustics. Frank
Lloyd Wright tells of Theodore Thomas, director Of the Chicago Sym—
phony, and his dismay upon first playing in Chicago's then new Orche
estra Hall and finding that the intimate quality which had been present
in the Auditorium was so severely lacking in Orchestra Hall.44 However,
Dr. Leo Beranek of Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc., a firm which con-
ducts acoustical surveys, tells quite a different story. In his book,

Music, Acoustics, and Architecture he has this note from Charles

 

Edward Russell:

From the beginning Theodore Thomas had known that the
Auditorium was not the place for orchestral concerts. It
was so big that to fill it with sound he was obliged to
employ a stress that obliterated the finer points he wished
the public to seize and assimilate. The stage was so ill
adapted to an orchestra's use that he regarded it as hOpe-
less. . . Nothing would prevent what was to his ears a
deadly mishmash of sound where his passion was for clarity
and sweet reasonableness.

Thomas did agree that for a hall Of its immense capacity the Auditorium
did have excellent acoustics, but they were not ideal for a symphony
orchestra since it was necessary to fill the entire space.46 However,
he was also quoted many times as saying,

. . . that in no other hall in which an orchestra of his

has ever played has every instrument come out so completgfi

ly and perfectly in the tonal mass as in the Auditorium.

From these contradictory statements it is rather difficult to decide

just what Thomas thought of the Auditorium's acoustics. We do know

 

44Wright, p. 3.

45Leo L. Beranek, Music,,Acoustics, and Architecture, New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc. T1962), p. 119.

46Ibid., p. 120.

471Chicago Sunday, Tribune, December 11, 1904, Part IV, p. l.

59
however, that because Of the exceedingly high fly Space, a great deal
of the orchestra sound never reached the audience but was lost instead
in the fly gallery. Although Bolt, Beranek, and Newman have run acous-
tical surveys on many Chicago halls, they have never run one on the
Auditorium; and consequently, there seems to be no scientific compari—
son between the Auditorium and other musical halls in Chicago.48

Just as the hall is technically and artistically one of the finest
in the world, so also is the stage of this theatre one Of the greatest
ever built. Unlike many theatres in the United States where the stage
is secondary to the beauty and comfort Of the house, the Auditorium
placed almost primary emphasis on the stage. It was larger and better
equipped than almost any other stage in the world. It was full Of all
the latest technical stage improvements, plus a few that were intro-
duced on it.

AS has been previously mentioned, the stage had a normal proscenium
Opening 47' x 36', but for large choral concerts, conventions, or events
which required the full use of the stage, the reducing curtain, hydraul-
ically run, could be flown out leaving an Opening 76' x 44'. Behind
the proscenium the stage was 62—1/2 feet deep, and with the added width
of the 6—1/2 foot apron, the overall depth from footlights to rear wall
is 69 feet. The actual width of the stage, from side wall to side wall,
is 110 feet, but there is a clear width Of 98 feet allowing for a great
deal of wing Space, the total available stage room being 6,862 square
feet. The clear height Of the stage from floor to rigging loft was

about 90 feet. Thomas E. Tallmadge claims that he belonged to a tennis

 

48Dr. Leo L. Beranek, Personal Letter to James W. Wright,
January 19, 1966.

60
club which, between Opera seasons, would set up a full double tennis
court on the stage.49 More practical demonstrations of the size are
realized from the children‘s production of "Cinderella" in 1890 which
involved two thousand children with six hundred fifty of them on stage
at one time;50 from Adler's description of large choral concerts when
the proscenium was Opened to its fullest and ". . . The chorus seats
fioséltier upon tier seventy-five feet wide, seventy feet deep, closed
in on the sides with suitable decorations and covered with a series Of
sounding boards suspended from the rigging loft";51 and the 1888 con-
vention when seats for one thousand Spectators were placed on the stage.
But an even better example was that on this stage, with the largest
proscenium arch in the country, the Madison Square Theatre of Neerork,
in its entirety, could be placed. The Auditorium stage was exceeded
in size only by the La Scala Opera HOuse in Milan, Italy.

To build the greatest stage possible Dankmar Adler travelled to
Europe to study the finest stages there. Although be modeled his
stage after that at Buda Pesth, his stage had the advantage Of mech—
anical, electrical, and hydraulic improvements in stage equipment made
since the construction Of the Buda Pesth theatre. In fact, there were
only three stages in the world to rival the Auditorium and these were
the ones at Buda Pesth, Prague, and the Old German University at Haile.
The majority of the technical improvements were innovated and patented
by the ASphaleis Company of Vienna, or the firm of Kautsky and Sons.

Fritz Kautsky, head Of that firm, even Spent some time in Chicago

 

49Tallmadge, p. 164.

50The Morning News (Chicago), June 7, 1890lgited DE "Scrapbook",
II, p. 56.

51Kaufmann, p. 28.

61

supervising construction of the stage. When finished, the Auditorium
caused a revolution in scenic apparatus and equipment for stages in
America.52 Milward Adams, the manager Of the Auditorium, was led to
remark, ”This stage will mark the beginning Of a new era in theatrical
productions in this country".53

A section of the stage floor 46' x 36' was trapped so that it
could be raised or depressed in four sections, a total of eighteen feet.
These four traps, 9' x 46', could be operated either independently or
together. Contained in each of these four traps were smaller bridges,
26' x 4', each of which also contained still smaller bridges, 4' x 6'.
Located just back Of the main curtain were two 2-1/2' x 291/2' star
traps, which had a vertical travelling distance of nine feet. Between
the star traps and the main traps Of the stage was a bridge 4' x 46'
with a travelling distance Of 13 feet. All of these traps or bridges
could be Operated separately, and those contained in the main trapped
section could Operate either individually or together.54 The traps
were run by water powered hydraulic rams supplied with water stored in
tanks in the tower.lfigure 22 shows a ground—plan Of the trap system]

Eighty-nine feet above the stage was the gridiron capable Of sus-
taining an overall weight of 159,000 pounds. Used for rigging on the
stage were twelve miles Of steel cable and about 6,600 feet Of 1—1/4"
hemp used in the counter-weight system. (Everything on the stage was
run either hydraulically or on the counterdmflgbt system.) The drOps

were Operated from the stage floor rather than from the fly-gallery as

 

52The Chicago Tribune, December 7, 1889, p. 12.
53The Daily_Inter Ocean, December 11, 1889, p. 10.

54Hand, p. 134.

 

I!

.3

....

ql.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

octfi‘ b'rol lust

 

 

0.3““ «'
.9“

 

.‘ .
\.,
WV

 

Ive-C...“
- ....ul<

 

 

    

\‘uuo
. ‘ a
‘ ""1““
II

on

  

 

I»:

 

 

 

 

 

h-Lssnm b

 

COIRIIM I

 

 

     

DAB A Carl.

 

X0
0...: O A
-11. ..

f/lfaflhhlbous 1

     

 

1119

 

 

    

(000 r radio.“

"111D

 

En (tho 01010

I

 

."

 

l

T 3,51”ng

 

Rump

\

\J

S
‘0:

Eco“? ’7
T...
1
?_7'
'

 

a?

 

 

:5 1'.

 

 

Coco-Doe

15.25:: Aime
‘
On -...
I

m
‘
o
1 "
D

O. AUDTT"

(DAG D. i‘ 53 67‘

9

[Pinna-

1‘! ,

 

 

 

l : lanolu

 

A?
.q 0
‘PLl AM :or
I

IHL'L'.

Lungs Lvru \m‘

 
 

7t; H i 918’

C 001.0”:

      

 

(001 ..(n 40

 

 

 

 

     

  

dulLbn,

111.! in:

     

           

   

‘ 7' 'v-‘—~-—vv—v"r
o

 

 

 

 

~- :02."

 

 

 

 

 

at. .t‘

.erauau"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...-v. 0'

... xfio.

 

:

soq
I

.

I‘ll I
"-5-:

|.’.I

: 0'
I:‘ c a": lo I...

I: II
J 'r
IEI1:

a; I: I; I

.‘,T'
f...

“$.-

,. .
. win... 5: a 3. :1 _..,... .21
c . . q 0

1,0 , To.

wuuuo.c.3.?.ul
..OUIII-IIICI
- on I... o a 0
£10.03 ..5.‘s‘.0¢..$
Clo-II...-

‘

I

A.
.

...... u:..- 9 .2 .-

-.h.,u.:..:. c .. ....1‘o,0 O

a...- on on o. l a.
. . . . . .

I I n .. u l . .I
s 9. .3 u .9 a: a1
T1u1u.,.J-....J. .13» ......
u t o o a I

I ..COL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. o. 9104.- ~Q§o§f£§ ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CD NCR’fiSS ST

111 CLUE.) .D‘Torw

 

 

63
was the practice in most theatres of that time. In this way the Op-
eration was much more convenient and thus more accurate Since the
Operator could see the stage. Supported by this gridiron were the
26,000 pound reducing curtain, an iron fire—curtain weighing 9,000
pounds, a small scene bridge of 7,200 pounds, a two section steel
paint frame of 12,000 pounds, and sixty sets of lines or the battens
for them, weighing, without drOps, 38,000 pounds.

The Auditorium was remarkably well prepared, scenically, for the
Opera seasons that were planned. In stock there was an assortment Of
one hundred twenty-five drOps, each 36' x 45'. In Short, there was
complete equipment enough to do thirty different Operas. In addition,
there were some three hundred set pieces, largest of which was the
24' x 36' Egyptian tomb for "Aida“, a thirty-eight foot high tower for
"Otello", and the set trees, tallest of which were thirty—three feet
in height.55

Probably the greatest innovation on the Auditorium stage, and
the only one in America at that time, was the "horizon" as it was
called then, or ”panorama" as it is known today. This piece of equip-
ment, fifty feet high and containing some three hundred yards of canvas,
was develOped to be used in lieu of a cyclorama, and to create weather
effects for the rear of the stage. It consisted of two large cylinders
placed on either side of the stage, attached to which was the canvas,
moved by a steel link belt in a track running from one cylinder, across
the back of the stage, to the other cylinder, the entire proceSS form-

ing a pattern somewhat like a "U". The purpose of the horizon was to

 

55The Daily Inter Oceao, December 11, 1889, p. 10.

56The Chicago Tribuoe, December 7, 1889, p. 12.

64

create the illusion of illimitable Space for a set. Painted on it
were four kinds of weather so that by moving the horizon across the
stage a change could be effected going from fair weather to a dark and
threatening Sky, and finally to the heavy clouds of a storm. All of
the horizon was tranSparent so that lighting effects such as the sun,
moon, stars, or lightning could be accomplished from behind it and
appear as a part of the sky. Light and beautiful as this unit may have
appeared, it weighed 5,800 pounds, counter-weighted, yet it could be

flown hydraulically out of Sight into the fly Space.56

Under Mr. Ernest Albert, the scenic artist, and with the aid of
all the latest technical devices found on the stage, a different type
of setting was used in the Auditorium than was common in other theatres
in the United States. There were no floor grooves on the stage and
all sets consisted Of the horizon and thirty-five to forty foot side
pieces which could be flown. These side pieces, called ”walls" by Fritz
Kautsky to avoid the term "wings", were arranged similar to the wing and
border sets. They were suSpended from the grid and then prOpped up
from behind with stage braces. Obviously a great deal of care was
taken in preparing the scenery for the Auditorium as can be seen by
the following newSpaper account:

The artistic finish of all these pieces makes them worth

looking at on their own account. Ordinary stage decora-

tions are coarse when looked at closely, but in this case

each piece is a picture in itself, so perfect that one

might hang it in his parlor alongside of a good Oil paint-

ing.57

Six of the battens above the stage held the borderlights which

provided most of the illumination for this area of the theatre. Each

56The Chicago Tribune, December 7, 1889, p. 12.
57Ibid.

65
of the border lights had a full complement of colored lamps, 165
lights in each, in green, red, and white. Added to this for illumin-
ation were 150 lamps in the footlights. All Of these lights were run
by electricity which, as Milward Adams says, made calcium light a
thing of the past. Electrical lighting gave the Auditorium the oppor-
tunity to use many Special forms of lighting effects. Nora Marks, in
a Chicago Tribune article Of 1889 tells of her surprise when, at the
touch Of a button, a beam of sunlight suddenly blazed through a
stained-glass window so true that even the divisions between the panes
stood out.58 Lightning was produced by a stagehand who stood at the
side of the stage holding two wires with carbons attached. At the
prOper time he merely had to bring the carbons close enough to create
an arc similar to a lightning bolt.

Although not a lighting effect, one of the fine sound effects which
could be achieved at the Auditorium Theatre was that of thunder. The
device used for this was calculated to create real terror in the hearts
of the audience. In fact, the results were SO terrifying that often
they frightened even the actors and actresses. Thunder was made by
rolling sixteen to twenty—four, depending on the amount Of terror re-
quired, cannon balls, down a chute made of boiler-iron which extended
from high up on one side of the stage around across the back to the
other side of the stage. The cannon balls started with an initial
drop of eight feet into the boiler-iron trough in which they rolled
down an incline of sixty feet where there was a drOp of five feet in
'the chute. From there they continued down the chute, made a shorter

drOp, rolled some more, and ended their journey by falling noiselessly

 

5811mm Marks, The Chicago Tribune, December 11, 1889, p. 3.

66

into a padded box, having suitably terrified everyone within hearing
distance.59

The stage and its accompanying equipment was not inexpensive.
Most sources list the cost of the stage and equipment, including iron
fire-curtain, at $175,000. One source even claims that the iron work
on the stage, alone, cost $110,000. and that the total figure for all
of the furnishings amounted to upwards of $300,000.60

Even the performers weren't neglected when the Auditorium was
planned. For the actors there were thirty dressing rooms which, all
together, accomodated some three hundred people. Six large dressing
rooms were located on the stage floor and were furnished in antique oak
and bronze. The remaining rooms were found on the various levels above
the stage. The average size of these rooms was 12' x 16'. All of them
were connected to the prompter's box by means of an electrical bell
system. All of the dressing rooms were painted, neatly furnished, and
carpeted. Wash basins were built into all dressing rooms and washrooms
connected each set of four. Interestingly, all Of the dressing rooms
were furnished with electricity but there was also gaslight for makeup
purposes. On stage left, back of the proscenium there was a very hand-
somely furnished reception room connected to the foyer back of the
boxes. Here the actors could receive callers and yet the stage would
be kept free of visitors. At the rear of the stage was a large cove
ered area for the actors arriving in carriages.61

The musicians were not forgotten either. Built especially for

 

59The Chicago Tribung, March 30, 189o,[§ited in)"Scrapbook", II, p. 4.
60The Chicago Tribugo, December 7, 1889, p. 12.

61The Daily Inter Ocean, December 11, 1889, p. 10.

67

them back Of the orchestra pit, on the intermediate stage level, was
a room 16' x 50', the same size as the orchestra pit, accomodating
one hundred people. In this room, fitted out with full washroom fac-
ilities, the orchestra members could retire when they were not perk
forming. Even the stage manager and electrician had their own little
rooms placed conveniently on the stage level.62

Properties for the Auditorium were Obviously quite realistic.
One writer says that they were not sham, but rather the real item.
She went on to say that the glassware was of the finest quality, as
was the furniture and other material.63 It is unlikely, however, that
inany of the prOperties were real since Fawcett Robinson, the prOp man,
was considered somewhat of a genius with papier-mache. The prop room
and workroom were located above the orchestra pit and here Robinson
and his brother, both of whom had once been prOperty artists for Henry
Irving, worked with a force of artists creating papieramache furniture
which from a distance Of five feet not only appeared to be the genuine
article, but also appeared to be made of antique oak.64

The manager of the Auditorium Theatre was a young man named
hkilward Adams. He had worked for this same management at the old
[music festivals held in the Exposition Hall. He had proven himself
cxmaable of handling large affairs with never any problems, and was a
.logical choice to take over the management of this endeavor.65

62The Chicago Tribuno, December 7, 1889, p. 12

63The Chicago Tribune, December 11, 1889, p. 3.

64The Chicago Tribune, December 7, 1889, p. 12.

65The Daily Inter Oceag, December 11, 1889, p. 9.

68

It gives Chicago once more the home of art and
music which it lost in the fire of 1871, only on a
larger grander and nobler scale. It gives her the
largest, most elegant, and most admirably equipped
Opera-house and public hall in the world, with an
organ which stands unrivalled in its resources, and
a stage provided with every device known to the dra-
matic art. It has been a colossal undertaking, but
Chicago skill, courage, and faith, and enterprise
have carried it through to success and the great
structure is already world-famous.66

It had been built by Chicagoans and was a fitting tribute to their

public Spirit and drive.

 

66The Chicago_Tribune, December 8, 1889, p. 12.

CHAPTER III
"GRAND OPENING YEAR"

In the Auditorium nothing was ever done in a small way. Even
the dedication was a mammoth affair. The last time Chicago had seen
crowds similar in size to those at the Opening of the Auditorium was
at the Chicago Fire in 1871. With the amount of time, money, and
effort put into the construction of the building it was Obvious that
the Association would not allow it to be forgotten. Consequently, the
theatre portion of the Auditorium was dedicated on a grand scale on
December 9, 1889. Plans for the dedication were begun far in advance.
In a report to the stockholders November 23, 1888, Ferd Peck announced
that the President of the United States would more than likely be pre-
sent for the ceremonies.1 By December 1, 1889, the plans were nearly
completed but the noteworthy officials who had been expected to attend
had by then become doubtful attenders. The program was to have some-
what of an international flair with a number Of lesser Canadian Offic-

ials in attendance. In honor of these guests, Special boxes were to

be placed on stage, by the proscenium Opening, and were to be decor—

ated for the occasion with Canadian and American flags. It was hoped
that the Canadian Prime Minister could attend, but this was uncertain.
The United States, on the other hand, was to be represented by its

Vice President, Levi P. Morton.

 

1Early History and Press Clippings

69

70
In the same article as the above, the program for the dedication
was announced, and it proved to be as marvelous as the building in
which it was to be held.
'Triumphal Fantasie,‘ by Theodore Dubois composed
for the occasion for the grand organ and
orchestra, Clarence Eddy, organist,
Address by Mayor Cregier, flhayor of ChicagéL
'Auditorium Festival Ode,' by Frederick Grant Gleason,
a symphonic cantata composed for the occasion and
sung by a chorus of 400 voices, under the direc—
tion of William L. Tomlins; text bylhiss Harriet
Monroe,

Address by John S. Runnells,

'Home, Sweet Home,' Sung by Mme. Adelina Patti.
-Intermission-

'America' by the Apollo Club,

'Concert Fantasie,' by F. Dela Tombelle, composed
expressly for the Auditorium organ; Clarence
Eddy, organist,

'The Heavens Are Telling,' Haydn, by the Apollo Club,

Dedication address by Gov; Joseph W. Fifer [Governor
of IllinoifiL

'Hallelujah' chorus from 'The Messiah,' Handel,
Apollo Club.2

The hit of the program, from the time of its announcement was the
choice of Adelina Patti, the prima donna of the opera, to sing “Home,
Sweet Home.”

Seven days before the dedication an announcement was made which
greatly enhanced the aura of the ceremonies. The Auditorium Associ-

ation revealed that President Harrison, nominated in this same hall

 

21he Chicago Tribun_e, December 1, 1889, p. 27.

71

before it was completed a year earlier, was going to return to the
Auditorium for the dedication of the completed building.3

The Washington Hatchgt_of Washington, D.C., announced that an
audience of 5,000 persons, and an outside assemblage of 10,000 gathered
to dedicate ". . . the largest and grandest Operatic structure in the
WOIldP-the Chicago Auditorium."4 The event appeared differently in the
Chicago papers. By 7:30 a.m. there was a gathering of some 225 men and
women waiting outside the building hoping to get standing room tickets
for the dedication. By 7:30 that evening, a mere twelve hours later,
these same 225 had become the veterans in a veritable army estimated
at 7,000, and by 8:00 p.m. this number had risen to about twice that
number so that Congress Street, from Wabash to Michigan was jammed.
The crowds were so vast, said the Chicago Tribugg, that the doors of
the residences on the south side of Congress Street fairly sagged with
the pressure of the crowd, and the plate glass in the Auditorium win-
dows needed all of its thickness to withstand the impact.5 By nine
O'clock the streets were free of peOple but were still filled with the
hundreds of empty carriages awaiting the end of the program. Inside
the house was an audience of about 7,000, those in the boxes having
paid as much as $2,000 for that privilege. The program proceeded accord-
ing to the announced plan with the exception that remarks by Ferd Peck
and President Harrison were inserted early in the evening. There was

some small complaint on the order of the Speakers, Since the important

 

3The Dailyglnter Ocean (Chicago), December 2, 1889, p. l.

4The Hatchet (Washington, D.C.), June 30, 1889, [cited irfl"Chicago
Auditorium Dedication Volume", ress notices and replies to invitations
to the dedication, accumulated by Ferd. W. Peck; Gift to the Newberry
Library by F. W. Peck, Jr., October 30, 1941.

5The Chicago Tribune, December 10, 1889, p. 2.

72
ones had gone first and the less important Speakers last, but this com-
plaint was rather minor and soon disappeared. The evening was one Of
general merriment, the high point Of which was, of course, Patti's
rendition Of "Home, Sweet Home" for which she received such a tremen-
dous ovation that she had to reciprocate by doing an encore of Eckert's
"Swiss Echo Song".

Across the country neWSpapers were exceptionally kind to the new
auditorium by heaping superlatives on it. They compared Chicago to
other great cities. The Deadwood, South Dakota Pioneer claimed,

". . . its[the Auditoriu§)erection does honor to the enterprise of
Chicago, while again making the contrast between that city and New

'York in everything that involves public spirit."6 The Philadelphia

Inggirer reported,

The great Auditorium Building in Chicago, which was
dedicated yesterday, is more than a mere landmark; it is
an event. It marks the progress of the age and the devel-
Opment of wealth, intellect, and culture in the newer sec-
tion of the country. Philadelphia, New”York, Boston, Balti-
more, and Washington were all old when Chicago was begun;
yet Chicago has outstripped them all in cost of a building
devoted to the liberal arts, and if expectations shall be
realized, has produced a structure worthy to rank with any
in the cultivated cities of Europe. There will be the
usual Western self-laudation over the achievement no doubt;
but there need be no jealousy of it in the East. Rather
should we rejoice that our common country has grown so great
and rich as to afford so fine a building, so significant a
testimonial to intellectual attainments, a thousand miles
from the seaboard.

They pointed out the public spirit and enterprise behind this venture.

'They'expressed the opinion that the investment would probably retunn

 

6The Pioneer (Deadwood, South Dakota), December 14, 1889,[§ited 1B7
'thicago Auditorium".

7fhe Chicago Tribung, December 12, 1889, p. 4.

73
no profit to the investors. According to the Chicago Tribune everyone
in Chicago, high born or low, those attending the inaugural and those
who couldn't even attend the inaugural Opera season, should be gratified
just to be a part Of a community in which such an endeavor as the
Auditorium could have taken place.8
But most important of all, the Auditorium, according to the news-
papers, was a building for the future. The Daily Inter Ocean said:
"It is not a temporary affair; it was builded to the ages, and it will
endure with the Nation, and only fall into ruin when the great principles
upon which this government is based have been overwhelmed by the folly
and degeneracy of men".9 The Chicago Tribune put it differently:
Some traveler from New Zealand may, indeed, sit on
a broken arch of London bridge and sketch the ruins of

St. Paul's but the traveler who will first sketch the
ruins of the Auditorium must come from one Of the planets.

10

From the impressive dedication night ceremonies the Auditorium
management went on to produce an Opening season unrivaled by most other
theatres. The preparations for this Opening Opera season began long
before the actual date, December 10, 1889. Since the main impetus for
the building of the Auditorium had been the Opera Festival of 1885,
and since one of the main purposes of the hall was to provide a home
for the Opera in Chicago, it was only natural that the first season
in the new Auditorium should be one of Opera-the very finest Italian

Opera available. The Auditorium was presenting a four week season of

Opera which would be of interest the world over for two reasons.

 

8The Daily Inter Ocean (Chicago), December 10, 1889, p. 4.
91bid.

10The Chicago Tribune, September 15, 1889,[§ited ié]"Scrapbook",
I, p. l.

74
First, this was an attempt, an important attempt, to revive Italian
Opera on a large scale, and secondly, because the company employed had
some Of the most talented Operatic voices in the world. Selected to
present the season was the Abbey and Grau Company, who had under con-
tract to them such stars as Adelina Patti, the acknowledged prima donna
of the Opera, and Signor Francesco Tamagno, the leading operatic tenor

at that time.11 The repertoire of the company consisted of Romeo and

 

.Iuliette, Otellg, Lakme, William Tell, La Traviata, Les Huguenots,

l.ucia di Lammermoor, Lohengrin, Faust, Il Trovatore, Semiramide,

 

 

 

hiefistofele, Aida, Martha, and La Sonnambula.

With a company Of the caliber of that gathered by Henry E. Abbey
:and maurice Grau, and with the season they had planned, it was no wonder
that good seats, in fact all seats, were at a premium for the season.
LPrices for the seats, as they were listed in the program, were not as

expensive as one might believe, however:

Main Floor $ 3.50
main Balcony, Front 3.00
Main Balcony, Rear 2.50
Second Balcony 2.00
Family Circle 1.50
Boxes, Seating Six 30.00
Season Tickets 54.00
Season Boxes 450.0012

‘The price list found in the newspaper advertisements differed somewhat

from the list in the programs, although for no apparent reason.

Boxes (seating five) for the season of twenty-one

performances, $500.
Seats for the season, $20, $30, $40, $30, and $60.

Single seats $1, $2, $2.50, $3, $3,50.

 

“We IgbuLe, December 8, 1889, p. 12.
12"Auditorium Scrapbook Collection", 8 v., Newberry Library, Chicago. II.

13The Chicago Tribune, November 17, 1889, p. 9.

75

The method used to distribute the best seats was one not altogether
pOpular with the public. On November 22, 1889, an auction was held
at the Central Music Hall to diSpose of as many seats as possible.
This auction was strictly a society affair. 0n the evening that it
was held State Street, in front of the Central Music Hall, was filled
with carriages, many of them with English drivers (a sure sign of af-
fluence by the owner). The air was filled with seemingly knowledge-
able talk of Verdi, Beethovan, Berlioz, Sullivan, and others. Even
the auctioneer, Franklin H. Head appeared in evening dress.14 It was
necessary, however, for the Auditorium management to devise some
'condition(s) Of sale' by which the auction should be conducted.
\kider these conditions each successful bidder could select not less
than two seats nor more than six. The seats, however, had to be all
in one row so that no person could select all aisle seats. In addition,
no more than two boxes should be sold to any bidder. The bid price,
incidentally, was over and above the price of the seat; and, conse—
quently, the bidder paid the normal price Of the seats plus the amount
he bid for the choice Of them. 'The tickets were delivered to the purb
chaser immediately upon the acceptance of his bid by the auctioneer.15

The sale of thirtyesix boxes netted a sum of $19,900. This sum
added to the normal prices of the boxes-approximately $500 apiece-
brought the total for the boxes auctioned Off to about $37,900. As

the Tribune stated, however, the society of Chicago must (society

felt) be isolated elegantly when they went to the Opera, but they had

 

14The Chicago Tribune, November 23, 1889, p. 1.

15The Chicago Daily News, November 22, 1889, p. 2.

76

to pay for the privilege. The first choice of boxes went to George
M. Pullman who paid $1600 for that choice. From then on the price went
lower, though very slowly, as is the case with most auctions. Ferd
Peck was the successful bidder for choice number twelve and paid $800
for his success. Even some of the single seats were auctioned off at
a fairly high price. Their price began at $5 but went up rapidly until
Charles Counselman took the opening bid for sso. (Again, this price
did not include the regular price of the seats.) The single seat bid-
ding price stayed at $50 until nearly all of the seats in the parquet
circle had been sold.16

As mentioned previously, this auctioning of the seats was not the
most popular action ever taken by the Auditorium management. To the
public it didn't seem right that a business venture such as this should
employ the tactics of charities. For charity this auction, which seemed
an attempt to make as much money as possible, would have been acceptable,
but not for a business venture. Also, the Auditorium was to have been
built for the people, yet here was society paying exorbitant prices
for the good seats in the house, seemingly cutting out the less wealthy.
The auction, some of the newSpapers claimed, proved that this monument
to the people was, in reality, a millionaire's paradise. There were,
however, a number of very good reasons for holding the auction. In the
first place one Of the conditions of the contract with the Abbey and
Grau Company imposed by Mr. Abbey was that an auction type of seat sale

be conducted. Milward Adams, though, was quick to point out that the

 

16Ihe Chicago Tribune, November 23, 1889, p. l.

77

Auditorium management was by no means Opposed to this method. In this
instance, with the demand for tickets being so great, the auction
method seemed to be the fairest. Another reason for the choice of sale
was based on the feelings of the management that if seats were sold
on the usual "first come, first served” basis, then the Speculators would
be bound to buy up many of the tickets and in the long run the public
would be forced to pay the same prices as were paid at the auction.
The management reasoned that the excess cash would do better in the
box office than with the speculators.17 There need not have been so
much concern over the tickets, however, since out of nearly 4,500 seats
available in the Auditorium, only about 430 of them were sold at the
auction, and the majority of the best seats in the main floor and first
balcony, as well as the entire second balcony and family circle re-
mained unsold. As Mr. Adams had implied earlier, the Auditorium was
still to be run on an equal basis for all pepple.18

The remaining seats for the first four week season of Opera were
put on a week by week sales basis, with the seats for the first week's
Operas going on sale on Tuesday, December 3. There were plenty of
seats remaining to be placed on sale. The sale Opened at nine o'clock
in the morning at the Congress Street box office, but approximately
ten hours before that time the nucleus of the crowd had begun to gather
in the vestibule. Before dawn the crowd had formed into four separate
lines leading to the two box office windows. Shortly after dawn the

lines reached from the vestibule down Congress Street to Wabash Avenue

 

17The Chica 0 Tribune December 12, 1889, p. 1.

iglhe Chicagg Tribune, [letter to the editor], December 4,
1889, p. 7.

78
and down Wabash to Van Buren , a block away.19 The Auditorium manage-
ment's charge that speculators would buy up as many seats as Oppor-
tunity permitted seemed to have been borne out by the events of the
single seat sale. many of the Speculators hired boys to stand in line
as early as the Friday before the box office Opened. The boys camped
in the vestibule much as peOple today camp at box offices in order to
be first in line to get tickets for a world series baseball game. As
each boy bought his Choice seats, he would hand them over to the broker
and get back in line. According to one Old theatre-goer, never in the
history of Chicago had there been such a tremendous interest in secur-
ing tickets for anything.20 The following article appeared in the
December 4, 1889,,9higago Tribune and was entitled "Her Tussle for
Tickets". It is a report Of a hypothetical case overheard in a res-
taurant at 4 p.m. on the day tickets went on sale. It is supposedly
the account Of one woman's struggle to get tickets:

Well, l'm so tired I don't know anything! Been stand-
ing up at the Auditorium since 8 o'clock this morning!
.My'daughter, she said: 'Ma, what are you going SO early
for?' But I knew what I was about: haven't lived in
Chicago all these years for nothing. I waited there since
8 O'clock and have just got my seats; got 'em, though,
and they must be a whole block away from the stage! Way
up next to the roof! The man said it was the family bal-
cony or something, and I just had to take 'em or go with-
out. Couldn't go without because they said I mustn't come
home without some kind of seats, anyhow. Here they are.
Paid a dollar apiece for 'em.21 AS early as I wag I COUld
get to the sill Of the door, and I never got any further
till half past 1. Another woman Offered me $3 for my place,
and I saw lots of places sold for $3. There were five

 

lglhe Daily Inter Ocean (Chicago), December 4, 1889, p. 6.

203a Chicago Daily News, November 25, 1889, p. 1.

21There are a number of errors in this article, but they are
all very minor. Since it is only a hypothetical case, the writer
probably felt free to take whatever liberties he pleased to make the
article as interesting as possible.

79
lines and eight policemen. I heard one man say after

he got his tickets he 'would be dashed if he would go
hear Patti or anyone else sing if there was going to

be such a crowd', and he sold a good seat for just
what he paid for it, but in trying to crowd out caught
the fever again-—pressed into him, I suppose-—and turn-
ed around, joined the line, and ended by being mighty
glad to get a seat against the roof. There were lots
of Speculators in the crowd Offering seats for $7 a
pair. Shame, ain't it, to have seats bought up that
way? Ever so many fainted away, and there was some
screaming all of the time-gettingtrampled on I sup-
pose. Lot's of 'em had been there Since 4 this morning.

22
Regardless of whether the Auditorium management employed an auction or
a Single seat sale in order to dispose of tickets, there were bound to
be some people who would be Opposed to the method. One neWSpapenman
was quick to point out that Peck's motto had been that the Auditorium
didn't have to pay, and yet many of the Opera boxes went for about
$1,000. Worse yet was that in a house seating nearly 5,000 where nearly
all could enter Cheaply, peOple were still forced to stand in line for
an entire day and pay as much as $5 for a seat.23 It is unfortunate
that the writer did not understand, or chose to ignore the economics
of the Auditorium, or of any business venture for that matter. It is
true that the investors in this building didn't hope to make a for-
tune from their investments, but neither did they wish to keep pouring
more money into the project or watch the building go bankrupt simply
because the peOple wanted to get in cheaply no matter the loss. After
all, weren't the society patrons a part of the crowd and entitled to
get more comfort and better seats for their extra money? In a rough

estimate, if all of the seats in the house (assuming that they were

 

22The Chicago Tribune, December 4, 1889, p. 7.

23John McGovern, The Elite News (Chicago), December 14, 1889,
Eited irfl"Scrapbook", I, p. 60.

80

all sold) brought an equal amount of two dollars, the evening's pro-
duction would probably lose money, or at best just barely break even.

Opening night of the first season, December 10, 1889, was truly
magnificent. The hall was jammed to hear Mme. Patti and the Abbey and
Grau Company sing Gounod's Romeo and Juliette. Even the streets out-
side the building were jammed with people who had come for no other
reason than to gape at the very fortunate first-nighters. Inside,
the hall seemed to be filled with nothing but society. Wherever one
looked he-could see one of Chicago's fashionable set. Some Of the
elite were even found standing. The following day, when Mme. Patti
was asked what she had observed from the stage on Opening night she
said:

'Chicago may be proud of her great Operahouse . . .

It is wonderful. That is the word. It is wonderful.

I never faced a more beautiful sight than the view from

the stage. The magnificent audience, the Sparkling lights,

Egguigisping4curves of white and gold-0 .it was beautiful,

Some of the critics, however, were not overly enthusiastic
«about the Opening performance. The critic for the Tribune claimed
‘that the performance was good, but nothing special. He felt that
while Patti was still agood singer she lacked much of the Sparkle
\Nhich audiences had known at the height of her career. .She was past
her prime and her voice was beginning to Show it.25 The major
criticism about the perfOrmance was not against Patti, however, but

:rather against the choice of Romeo and Juliette as the Opening Opera.

AACcording to many critics this Opera is not one of the best. Patti,

‘—

24Ihe Chica o Tribune December 12, 1889, p. l.

25The Chicago Tribune, December 11, 1889, p. l.

81
herself, claimed that the Choice was a mistake. She personally had
wanted to do ll,Trovatore or another of the old favorite Operas-at
least something that ended with a flourish. But the Auditorium and
Abbey and Grau wished it differently, and therefore Romeo and
Juliette was the choice. Patti also claimed that this Opera was not
as fully prepared as some of the others in the repertoire. Also, since
the company was quite unaccustomed to the size of the stage and the
terrific size of the set pieces they consequently had trouble adjusting
to them.26 The consensus was, however, that regardless of the choice
of the Opera, or Patti's voice, the Opening night was a success. The
work of the other principals, the superb chorus, the naturalness, sol-
idity, and Splendor Of the scenery more than made up for whatever was
lacking in the rest Of the production.

A number of interviews were held with.Mme. Patti on the day
following the Opening to find out what she, the first star to perform
in the magnificent new building, actually felt about it. She admitted
to having had one big fear. She had heard that it was possible to
hear, from the last gallery, normal conversation going on on the stage.
This, of course, was wonderful, but her fear was that the voice would
be lost on the stage, the voice could be absorbed. The worst thing
in the world would be for the singer not to be able to hear herself.27
But her fears were diSpelled. She remarked to one of the reporters:

'Wasn't it grand last night? I never saw anything
like it, never. And the hall is perfect. Tell the peOple

 

26The Chicago Tribune, December 12,1889, p. l.

2(1hg_§higago'Tribune, December 8, 1889, p. l.

82

of Chicago that they have the most perfect hall in

the world'.28
She was asked if it was more difficult or required any extra effort to
make herself heard in such a vast hall, to which she replied that not
the least extra effort was necessary. In fact, just the opposite was
true. She felt that this hall could separate the good Singers from
the bad ones. The acoustics were so good that every note, high or
low, would be perfectly audible. Because of this, She said, there
could be no worse hall for a poor singer. Any fault that a singer
might have, be it a gaSp for breath, a mispronounciation, or whatever,
would be immediately and distinctly audible to the audience. For the
perfect singer there could be no better hall. She was asked to com-
pare the Auditorium with other famous halls, particularly the Metro-
politan Opera House in New‘York, to which she replied that there was
no comparison; it is like comparing night and day. The Met, she said,
was a beautiful place in which to appear, but one may as well sing in
a ballroom. And, as to other halls in the world, there was simply
nothing which could compare with the Auditorium.29

The Auditorium had had its first real test with a first-rate
opera and a full house and had passed with flying colors. One purely
mechanical detail of the Opening night did not fare so well and was to
plague the Auditorium for some time to come. The writer included this
problem, not only for interest's sake, but also because it showed one

of the many minor problems that could arise when a house of this size

 

28mark$c

29Ibe Chicago Tribune, Decemberlz, 1889, p. 1.

83
was constructed. Quite naturally, with 4,500 persons attending the
performance there would need to be a good number Of carriages to
convey them to and from the Auditorium. There would undoubtedly be
a crush of carriages all converging on the entrance right about the
time the curtain was to go up, but this was to be expected and there
was very little that those in charge of the Auditorium could do to
avoid it. However, Since everyone would be leaving the theatre at one
time at the conclusion of the performance, there would be an even big-
ger crowd and the street would be jammed for hours unless some system
were devised for the orderly loading and diSpersal of the carriages.
Between eight hundred and eleven hundred carriages filled the streets
after the Opening night's performance, and in anticipation of this a
unique system for loading had been worked out in advance. As each
carriage arrived to unload at the beginning of the evening the driver
and the occupants were given coupons with identical numbers. At the
end of the performance the holders Of carriage checks were asked to
remain in their seats until their number was called. Then a large
placard reading "Carriages now ready from 1 to 100'I was diSplayed on
the stage. The patrons holding Odd numbered coupons were asked to
load on Congress Street and-those with even numbers had their car-
riages drawn up on Wabash Avenue. When the first hundred carriages
were loaded, the next one hundred numbers were called, and so forth
- until all the carriages were loaded. The firstpnighters paid abso-
lutely no attention to the system and it turned into a fiasco. The

problem was that the men would escort the women to the sidewalk,

hand the check to the attendant, and then go off to search for their

carriage themselves. Consequently, when the carriages were drawn

84

up to load, the women had no idea what the number of their particular
carriage was, and because of the press of carriages trying to load,
the drivers would have to drive away empty. The result was that many
women were left standing on the sidewalk Shivering in the December
night, many tempers were lost, and at 12:30 a.m. the street was still
filled with carriages waiting patiently-—many impatientlyb-to load.30
Although there was never any follow-up article on the carriage pro-
blem, it must somehow have been solved.

The remainder of the first week consisted of Wednesday night's
production Of William Tell with Sig. Francesce Tamagno in the title
role; Thursday night had‘figggt with Mme. Emma Albani as Marguerite;
Friday night again featured Tamagno, this time as Manrico in.;l
Trovatore; and the week concluded with‘ngia di Lammermoor and
Adelina Patti as Lucia.

The first season was an artistic success, but was not without
its troubles. One complaint was that, with the exception Of the first
week, there were no performances on Wednesday and Saturday evenings.
This, according to the complainer was highly illogical since Saturday
was the one night when most peOple could really afford to take the
time to Spend an evening out. This was back in the days when the
average person worked a six-day week rather than the four or five
day week that is now usual. Consequently, with Sunday being a day
l of rest, one could afford to Spend Saturday night at the Opera, and

yet there was no performance.31 There was, however, a much bigger

 

30The Daily Inter Ocean (Chicago), December 11, 1889, p. l.

3lrhe Indicator (Chicago), January 4, 1890, [cited in]
"Scrapbook", I, p. 89.

 

85

hurdle. This took place on December 31. On that night the schedule
called for Otello starring Tamagno. Unfortunately, Tamagno, like a
good many other members of the company, was sick in bed with the flu.
The Auditorium Association was up in arms as to what to do, where to
find a replacement. They asked Patti to substitute that evening, but _
since she wasn't scheduled, she asked such a high price that they
couldn't afford her. Finally, on the verge Of cancelling that even-

ing's performance, Mme. Albani stepped in and did Les Huggenots.

 

gflgg;g_was rescheduled later in the week but had to be cancelled
again.32

One Of the more humorous complaints facing the Auditorium Asso-
ciation during the first Opera season was brought out in a letter to
the editor appearing December 21, 1889, in the Chicago Eagle:

To the Editor,

Do you know that I do not believe that Patti is in
America? You may be startled at this, but I have heard
the lady now singing at the Auditorium, and She sings
no more like the Patti of Old than any other woman
would. Besides, this Patti has red hair.

The real Patti had black hair, and was beautiful
to look upon.

Who ever heard Of a pronounced brunette dyeing her
hair red?

I am not the only one who thinks that Patti is not
at the Auditorium.

How is it?

G.E.B.33

G.E.B. may not have been the only one who thought Patti was not at
the Auditorium, but he was the only one who bothered to make his Op-

'inion known. Quite naturally, the Association took this complaint

 

32The Chicago Tribune, January 1, 1890,[61ted in] "Scrapbook",
I, p. 850

The Chicago Eagle, December 21, 1889,[§ited inJ"Auditorium
Dedication Volume."

86

with a grain of salt, and probably had a good laugh over it. Besides,
not only was there a change in Patti's voice, which has already been
explained, but there was a change in her hair also. The real Patti
had auburn hair-fshe used to dye it black.34

Expenses for the Abbey and Grau Company were fairly high with a
weekly average of $37,000. However, the company reportedly received
between seventy-five and eighty per cent of the gross while the
Auditorium got the remaining twenty to twenty-five per cent. Adelina
Patti, being the acknowledged drawing card of the season, received the
greatest salary. Her basic salary was $3,500 for every night that she
sang plus ten per cent of the receipts each time they exceeded $5000
per evening during her stay in the Auditorium. On the evening of the
dedication on which she sang “Home, Sweet Home" and encores, Patti
received $4500. Supposedly, she gave the extra $1,000 from her
dedication night earnings to a charity.35

It was estimated that about 100,000 peOple heard the opera in
the four weeks of the season, with 6,000 people attending the final
matinee. The average for each performance was $10,588.81, with the
final matinee starring Mme. Patti drawing the greatest, financially.
This performance Showed total admissions Of $14,229, and, in fact,
each of Patti's performances averaged something over $13,000. At the

final performance, not only was every seat in the house sold, but

also no less than 1,400 standing room tickets were sold, making the

 

34William Armstrong, The Romantic World Of'Musig, London:
George Allen & Unwin, Ltd. (1923), p. 6.

The Dailngraphic (London, England), January 27,1890,[§ited
ié]"Auditorium Dedication Volume".

35The Chicago Tribune, December 12, 1889, p. 1.

87
crowd nearly 6,000. The gross for the four week season, broken down

into weekly totals was:

 

First week (six performances) 7 $ 60,087
Second week (five performances) 53,807
Third week (five performances) 52,735
Fourth week (six performances) 66,323
Total (twenty-two performances) $232,95236

Estimating roughly, out of this total gross, the Abbey and Crau Company
received approximately $186,360 for a profit of almost $38,360. The
Auditorium Association received a gross profit of about $46,500, not

a bad four weeks work.

Both artistically and financially the first Opera season was

accounted a great success.

 

36The Chicago Tribune, January 5, 1890,[§ited in]"Scrapbook",
I, p. 91.

CHAPTER IV

THE IN-BETWEEN YEARS: 1890-1922

The years between 1890 and 1922 at the Auditorium were not

really too much different than they would have been at any other
theatre. NeWSpaper coverage, which had never been really abundant,

dropped off even further, though the theatre was seemingly never
lacking for events or spectators. In the eyes Of the papers the

Auditorium should receive no more publicity than the other theatres.

Even advertisements for events held in the Auditorium were small in

comparison to those of the other Chicago theatres. Often the only

mention of the current attraction there was a small two or three line
announcement tucked off at the bottom of a page. This lack of pub-

licity and advertising simply meant that things were running smoothly
in the great hall, crowds continued to Show up regardless Of the lack
of advertising, and newspapers found nothing new to write about the
building so they wrote nothing at all.

During the early 1890's, while the building was still new, and

the superlatives had not yet completely run out, there was a great
deal more written about it than in later years. Consequently, these
formative years will be discussed in more detail than the latter.
Mention is made only of the more important events taking place after
about 1905 (mainly because little, if anything, is written or remems
bered about the unimportant things up until about 1922).

Ferd Peck, as has often been stated previously, was careful to

make it known that his theatre was constructed on an equal rights basis

88

89
and, except for the seating arrangement,1 everyone in the theatre was
to be treated equally. In his Own words he commented that,
. . . the Auditoriumeag} 'the temple where the rich

and the poor and all classes can meet together upon common

ground and be elevated and enlightened by the power of

music now typified over this arch Ehe proscenium arch mural].

It has been built out of the rich man's largess and the

poor man's mite for the benefit of all'.
Special programs in the form of concerts, lectures, and the like were
planned especially for the workingmen, in an attempt to give labor
and capital a joint interest in the venture. The first Of these pro-
grams was heralded by the announcement, only a few days after the Open-
ing of the Auditorium, that the Apollo Club, a well-known choral organ-
ization in Chicago, was going to do two Christmas concerts featuring
Handel's "Messiah”, in the Auditorium in late December, 1889. The rea-
son for two identical concerts was Simple enough; in that way there
could be one concert for the society folks and another for the working-
men. In order not to let just anyone in the city take advantage of
the ”wage-earner's concerts”, as they were pOpularly known, the stock-
holders of the Auditorium were careful to define as a wage-earner or
workingman, anyone who made less than $15 per week. Anyone making more
than that was not allowed to attend the concert. Also, the tickets were
distributed by the individual employers to their employees.

The idea of a second concert for the workingman was a fine and
noble gesture by all concerned, but it seemed rather a slap at the

,wage-earner by the more affluent who would prefer presenting a second

concert rather than have the ”lower class” associate with them. Howe

 

1In Peck's theatre wealth was a minor matter, it was just that
those who paid more for their seats sat closer to the stage, and those
who paid less sat further away. That society got to sit up close was
a privilege Of their affluence.

2The Chicago Tribune, December 11, 1889, p. 4.

90

ever, since this was the only way many people would get to hear the
"Messiah" or see the inside of the Auditorium, and since these poorer
classes were financially unable to compete for tickets, the plan did
have some merit. One problem did develop very early though. A few of
the stockholders expressed a fear that these wage-earners, not being

as "Clean" as the people who normally attended programs in the new
building, might have a tendency to get the rich plush hangings and car-
peting dirty. TO guard against this, they suggested covering these
fineries with canvas. They were, in essence, willing to take the hard-
earned money of the common laborers, yet deny them seeing half of the
Show-the Auditorium itself. Ferd Peck, the workingman's friend, again
came to his rescue. He vetoed the demands of the stockholders (actually
a minority) and declared that he had no intention of hiding the tiniest
piece of plush in the building.3 When the crowd of wage-earners arrived,
freshly scrubbed, they proved to be better behaved and more attentive to
the program than were the usual crowds.

Two announcements appeared in the first year's programs which fur-
ther backed up Peck's thesis that this could be a people‘s theatre.
First of these was a schedule of trains to all parts of Chicago and the
suburbs which was useful to people attending the theatre. The richer
people would more than likely have brought their carriages to the theatre,
but those less well to do would be forced to seek a cheaper means of
itransportation and for those living far away this meant trains, so for
them the train schedules were a great help. The second notice to appear

indicated that the management felt that the patrons weren't getting the

 

3rhe Dgny Mgil, (Chicago), December 30, 1889, [Cited by "Scrap-
hock", I, p. 820

91
most out of their visits to the Auditorium. Consequently, the following
note appeared in the program:
Special Notice - The management desire that each

entertainment at the Auditorium should be made a social

occasion, for which ample facilities have been provided,

ant the audience, especially the ladies, are requested

to leave their seats during the intermission.
Peck and the stockholders could be proud of the strides being taken to
enhance the public's opinion of their theatre. Every possible detail
was taken into account to make sure that all people could enjoy the com-
fort and entertainment found in the Auditorium.

The Auditorium Theatre was not run on the same basis as most other
theatres and Opera houses. In most other houses, one Opera company or
a single Show would perform for an extended period Of time. The Audi-
torium, however, operated on the principle that many evenings Should be
kept free so that one night concerts, benefits, dances, and other such
short term engagements could be booked into the hall. One of the first
of these single evenings for the Auditorium was the charity ball held
January 10, 1890. For this occasion, and in fact for every ball held
there, a wooden flooring was placed over the orchestra pit and almost
the entire parquet circle, from the footlights to the rear tunnels. At
the rear of the stage a balcony had been built to accomodate the orches-
tra, and the Second Regiment Band of Chicago was stationed at the other
end of the hall in the promenade. The sponsors of the dance felt that
the hall was beautiful enough that too much decoration would have been

superfluous. Consequently, the decorations consisted only of a few

flowers and the beauty of the natural decoration within the building.

 

‘4Ghand Opera Program, December 19, 1889,l§ited inJ”Scrapbook',
I, p. 94.

92
The electric lights in the Auditorium were more effective than many,
many flowers.5 The guests at the ball were able to greet their
friends or watch the dancers from the theatre boxes or from the front
of the balcony.

Another of the touring companies to visit the Auditorium Theatre
in the first year, besides the Abbey and Grau Opera Company, was the
Duff Comic Opera Company who specialized in the works of Gilbert and
Sullivan. The company performed for two weeks doing two Of the duo's

better known Operettas. Opening and continuing for the remainder of

“...-‘i—mll

the first week was H.M.S. Pinafore, and the second week was the run

Of Thg Mikggo. There were three thousand persons in the Opening

night audience, but with the fantastic scenic effects achieved on the
stage for this production it was a shame that the house was not stand-
ing room only.

The scenery was the feature of the opera. Eight
ships instead of one lay in the harbor. The horizon line
was scarcely perceptible in the deep perspective. The
ships rolled on the swell 8f the sea with a realism that
made some persons seasick. It was difficult to believe
that the ships were not riding at anchor in the harbor.

A small pleasure boat occasionally skimmed across the un-
dulating sea and the lighthouse and the buildings of
Phrtsmouth appeared in the distance. When Sir Joseph
approached the Pinafore in his gig the vessels lying at
anchor saluted him with broadsides that Shook the gilt-
covered arches.7

Pingforg was just one more indication of the tremendous effects which

 

5The Chicago Tribung, January 10, 1890, @ited irfl "Scrapbook”,
I, p. 940

6The rocking motion was achieved by an uneven movement of the
pistons controlling the large bridges. One of the persons made sea-
sick was the teenage boy whose job it was to sit on the edge Of one
of the traps and pull the small launches across the stage.

7The Qgily Negg (Chicago), February 11, 1890, Eited irfl"$crap-
hock", I, p. 123.

93
could be accomplished on a stage as advanced as that in the Auditorium.
But, no matter how great the scenic effect of Pinafore, the second
week‘s Offering of The Mikado was even more spectacular. When the cur-
tain rose on the first act, the newspapers reported, a momentary hush
fell over the house, and then, as one, the members of the audience
”. . . burst forth with prolonged applause . . ." The stage picture
was absolutely breathtaking and seemed to be a gigantic enlargement
of a rice paper painting done by one Of the Mikado's own court artists.8
In short, it seemed from reading the newspaper articles on the Auditor-
ium, that, scenically, each production was an.attempt to out-lavish the
one before it.

Opera was by far the favorite of audiences at the Auditorium and
to prove it, in March, 1890, the Abbey and Grau Company, with Patti and
Tamagno, returned for a six performance stand. This season was almost
as well accepted as the first. By April, the Auditorium management,
sensing that Chicagoans had had their fill of Italian opera with the
two engagements by the Abbey and Grau Company, and feeling that many
excellent Operas in other languages were being passed over, presented
as a change of pace, the MetrOpOlitan Opera Company of New York for
‘eighteen performances of German opera, under the baton of Walter
Damrosch. The Operas presented during the Met's visit were well-done,
and supposedly well-received by the audiences, but they were not as

heavily attended as the Italian opera seasons had been.9 a 10 There

 

8Thg Globe (Chicago), February 21, 1890, [Cited 1:9 ”Scrapbook",
1, Po 1270

9The Daily Mgi], (Chicago), March 29, 1890, Eited in]"Scrapbook",
II, p. 30

lolnterestingly enough, during the last week of the season the

94
had been in the short span of five months three separate seasons of
German and Italian opera.

The summer Of 1890 was highlighted by the June appearance of the
Vienna Orchestra under the direction of Edouard Strauss.

The 1890-1891 year, the second regular season at the Auditorium,
was inaugurated on September 8, with a return engagement by the Duff
Company. They opened that night with Gilbert and Sullivan's Iolanthe.
In the remainder of the first week the company performed flgflg§g
Pingfore and Trial by Jury. Back by popular demand during the three
week season were revivals of Patience, The Mikgdg, and Pirgtes of
Penzance.11

The high hopes for a wonderful season were shortlived. On
September 19, 1890, Milward Adams made a rather startling announce-
ment. ACCOrding to Mr. Adams, the Auditorium and the music-lovers of
Chicago were both due for a very dull season. He announced that there
would be no grand Opera whatever in Chicago during the second year. He
observed that there was simply no grand Opera in the country which meant,
obviously, that as a result there could be none engaged for Chicago.
When Adams was asked about re-engaging the Metropolitan Opera, he
pointed out that the New York Company sang German opera and from the
reaction to the previous spring's Offerings, the citizenry of Chicago

was not interested enough to warrant a return engagement. Therefore,

 

seat prices changed for no apparent reason. For the final week the
price of boxes was reduced from $20 to $15, yet the price of general
admission tickets went up from 50¢ to $1. (The Globe (Chicago), April
20, 1890, [cited in) ”Scrapbook“, II, p. 17. and The Chicago Tribune,
May 7, 1890,[§ited in]"Scrapbook”, II, p. 38.

11The Sgturd§y_Eveninq Herald (Chicago), September 6, 1890,[§ited]
"Scrapbook", II, p. 69.

 

' A

95

there would according to present plans be no Opera. Mr. Adams reported,
however, that almost all of the dates for 1890-1891 were filled even
without the drawing power of a grand Opera season.12

The Boston Theatre Company production of the play §gggan in March,
1891, provided yet another example of the wonderful scenic effects pos-
sible On the Auditorium stage. In the Trafalgar Square scene of that
play there needed to be an exceedingly large crowd of victorious sol-
diers returning from battle. Since it was inconceivable to put such

a large crowd on the stage, a large group of extras made of papier-

l‘.’

mache, with intelligent faces and wearing ordinary hats were used in-
stead. AS the scene was set, the stage carpenters would bring the
”dummies" up from the basement. These were fastened together in long
double rows and placed on stage in a semi-circle about the Nelson monu-
ment. Then, with a crowd of live, moving people milling about the
”dummies", the papier-mache soldiers seemed to all of the audience to
be really a living part of the scene. Their silence and fixed position
was hardly noticed. According to Mr. McCarty, the stage manager for
the Boston Theatre Company, the ”dummies” were better than real actors
for at least two reasons. First of all, the dummies didn't cost the
50¢.a night that it cost to hire extras, and secondly, the dummies

didn't get into fights.13

 

12The Morning News (Chicago), September 20, 1890,Z§ited in]
"Scrapbook”, II, p. 69

13An interesting means of advertising was used for this play. Ob-
viously the public was familiar with the play and knew of famous scenes
in it. This can be seen in the advertisements which announced:
"The Great Battle Scene at 10,
Trafalgar Square at 10:10"
Ibidc ’ MarCh 4, 1891, III, p. 21.

fl

96

The people of Chicago seemed to have been unwilling to have
a single season pass without grand opera. In May, 1891, contrary to
Milward Adams' statement, there was an opera company at the Auditorium.
A Special company was formed to present three Operas in English-~an in-
novation for the Auditorium. The company was actually an augmented
version Of the Duff Comic Opera Company, doing gggmgn, Myngn, and
La Scheme. The season was apparently very well received, indicating
that the people of Chicago really did want to see and hear opera.14

The third season, 1891-1892, started off at quite a rapid pace.
Beginning on September 14 with Alexander Salvini, followed immediately
by the Theodore Thomas Orchestra of New YOrk, the remainder Of the
first half of the season was taken up with five weeks of Italian Opera
sung by the Abbey and Grau Company.15

The appearance of the Thomas Orchestra was especially important
since this was its first appearance under its new name, the "Chicago
Orchestra”. Here was an important turning point in the history of
Chicago music. This Midwestern metrOpolis could now compete with New
York, Boston, or many cities in Europe with the vauisition of the
Thomas Orchestra. Supposedly there was no finer orchestra at the time,
and the programs from the group were to be unequaled. Now they were
Chicago's own. Beginning on October 17, 1891, the orchestra was to
present twenty concerts, each preceded by a public rehearsal. Admis-
sion was to be charged for both the rehearsals and the regular con-

certs. The price for the rehearsals ranged from 25¢ to $1., and the

 

14The Chicggo Evening Post. May 2, 1891, [gited inj"Scrapbook",
III, p. 56.

15.12.11” August 27, 1891, p. 76.

 

97
evening concerts weren't too much more expensive with the price rang-
ing from 25¢ to $1.50. The programs, especially the rehearsals, were
very well received.16
On January 2, 1892, the Elite News announced that on the follow-
ing Saturday the second annual indoor baseball game was to be played in
the Auditorium between the Ashlands and the Careltons of the Midwinter

League. Of course, the game was not the usual baseball game that we

3

know. The newSpapers described the ball to be used as "‘. . . a large
ball, like a four-ounce boxing glove with the thumb cut off and the
wrist plugged up".17 If the game bore so little resemblance to the
real game Of baseball, the crowds bore even less resemblance to those
normally found at baseball games. All of the peOple came to the game
dressed in evening dress. From 8:15 to 9:15 p.m. the Second Regiment
Band-they seem to have spent most of their time performing for Chicago
societyb-played a concert, and after the game, played again, this time
to provide music for those who wished to spend the remainder of the
evening dancing.18

In 1892, the year before the magnificent world's fair in Chicago,
the Auditorium Hotel management decided to take advantage Of the anti-
cipated crowds flocking to Chicago for the fair, and built the Auditor-
ium Annex. The Annex was a hotel-only facility built on Michigan Ave-

nue across Congress Street from the Auditorium. The two buildings

 

161bid., October 9, 1881. p- 91-

17The Times (Chicago), January 10, 1892,[§ited in]"3crapbook”.
1v, p. 55.

18The Chicggo Tribune, January 6, 1892,[§ited in7"Scrapbook",
IV: p0 480

98

were an attempt to be just what their names implied, a hotel and its
annex. many of the facilities of the annex were drawn from the Aud-
itorium, including heat and light, a move that was to prove very un—
wise in the long run. The annex also provided a valuable addition to
the hotel not only because it provided more guest rooms, but also be-
cause it provided many of the service areas, storage rooms, and the
like which were cramped in the Auditorium. The two buildings were
connected by a very ornate mosaic tunnel running beneath Congress
Street.19

The Auditorium Theatre, in conjunction with the theme of the
1893 World's Fair, a theme of magnificence in Chicago and America, pro-
duced a special entertainment which ran for the entire summer of 1893.
The beauty and Splendor of the Auditorium's production, “America", was
matched only by the beauty and Splendor of the event for which it was
being held. The production was staged by Abbey, Schoeffel, and Grau,
the Grand Opera Impresarios. It consisted of a prologue and thirty-
six tableaux, dealing with the rise and progress of America from the
landing of Columbus on the shores of San Salvadore to the 1893 fair.
The production comprised impressive scenery, music, ballet, and mime.
Although there was to be some dialogue it was intended to be subordin-
ate to the other aSpects of the show. All of the exquisitely painted
scenery was executed in Paris by a corps of well-known artists, all Of

whom were connected-with the Grand Opera House there.20

By about 1893 the Auditorium had settled down to a normal pat-

tern of Operation. No longer did the newspapers make a big fuss_over

 

19"Early History and Press Clippings"

2OnAuditorium Scrapbook Collection", I-

99
it. It would rather appear from the newspaper advertisements from
about 1893 on, that the theatre was in almost constant use. The man-
agement had no difficulty filling up their schedule with a variety of
events. Many of the great individual artists in the world made fairly
frequent visits to the Auditorium. One such was Ignace Paderewski,
the great Polish piano virtuoso. The building was the home of the
Chicago Symphony Orchestra for many years. John Philip Sousa, the
famous bandleader, made frequent, almost yearly, visits to the Aud-
itorium both with the United States Marine Corp Band and with his own
bandsmen. The Apollo Musical Society and other private groups used
the hall often. But music was not the only criteria for getting on
the schedule. Lectures, from beauty tips and grace to the qualities
of liquid air, took place on the stage. Conventions of all sorts;
receptions, including Presidential receptions; and mammoth, beautiful
Charity Balls took place in the Auditorium Hotel and Theatre. The
Sunday School Association of Greater Chicago held its annual meeting
in the Theatre. Northwestern University and Hyde Park High School
were two among many institutions to hold their commencement exercises
on the stage of the great hall. In short, the hall had been built
for the people and the schedule of events for it showed that, indeed,
the programs presented in the Auditorium were Of such a great variety
that they were sure to satisfy the entire citizenry of Chicago. The
Auditorium had not been built to amass a great fortune for the stock-
holders, and judging from the diversity of programs, many of them
with appeal to only selected Spectators, the Auditorium could not
hOpe to amass great fortunes. But to keep the lovers of Grand Opera

in Chicago happy, there was Opera at the Auditorium every year,

lOO
usually at least two companies, one in the fall and one in the spring.21
Sometime about March, 1896, the first change in the decorations
of? the Auditorium Theatre took place. A note in the programs around

the]: date informed the audience that:

The draperies on the walls and in the boxestere]

only temporary, and were put up for the Opera Season

as an experiment, in compliance with many requests

for a change in the color of the decorations. Should

this change be acceptable to the box patrons of the

Auditorium it will be made permanent. If you approve

of this scheme of color on the walls and hangings, or

if you have any suggestion to make for something dif-

ferent, please address Milward Adams, Manager, the

Auditorium.

13115 was the first of a number of redecorations to be done on the
Aiuiitorium and it seems that none of them did anything to improve
the: appearance. They added, usually, only another coat of paint.
Interestingly enough in the preceding note, peOple's theatre not-
withstanding, the decision about redecorating and the colors to be
used was left almost entirely up to the members of fashionable soc-
iety, the box—holders.

In 1903 an event took place in Chicago which created many pro-
blems for the theatres in the city, the Auditorium included. It was
on December 30 of that year that a tragic fire took place at the
Iroquois Theatre with the loss of 602 lives. Since the Iroquois had

been constructed only a short time prior to the fire,23 and since the

death toll had been so exceedingly high, the city of Chicago was

_g_

21"Auditorium Scrapbook Collection"
22Ibid., I.

23The Chicago Tribune, December 31, 1903, p. 1.

lOl
moved to form a theatre fire—safety inspection commission,24 the ac-
tivities of which were to cause much grief for the theatre owners in
the city. On January 2, 1904, the mayor of Chicago ruled that every
theatre in Chicago would have to be closed immediately. Each and
everyone of them would have to be inSpected by the commission, and then
make any repairs or changes which the commission deemed necessary to
the safety of the patrons before being allowed to reopen. Consequently
it became Milward Adams' sad task on that evening to inform the Spec-
tators that there would be no performance Of the Thomas Orchestra.

By January 6 the Auditorium was still closed, and it was anti-
cipated that it would remain so for at least another thirty days.
Consequently, Spokesmen for the Chicago Orchestra requested Special
permission to hold concerts in the building. Since the main concern
of the commission was with the stage area, the orchestra even offered
to perform in the pit with the fire-curtain lowered, thus cutting off
the stage from the house. According to the orchestra Spokesmen, if
the theatre was closed for the thirty day minimum which was rumored,
the expenses incurred by them would be so exorbitant that it would
mean disbanding the orchestra. Their request, however, was denied.
On January 14, after an inspection tour of the Auditorium by the com—
mission, they allowed it to reOpen for concerts by the orchestra pro-
viding that they did perform in front of the fire-curtain.25 By'Jan-
uary 20 the commission had outlined the Changes necessary for the

reopening of the building. Only two were required. These were

 

24Ibid., January 1, 1904, p. 1.

25The Chicago Sunday Tribung, January 3, 1904, p. 1.

102

the enlarging of the air vents over the stage and the installation of
a Sprinkler system, the total cost being only about $15,000. By
following the fire laws existing at the time the Auditorium was con-
structed, including the installation Of a steel fire-curtain instead
of the usual asbestos kind, the management saved themselves countless
hours and great eXpense by anticipating the changes in the new laws.
When the outlined alterations were completed and an inSpection had been
made, the theatre would be allowed to reopen. On January 26, however,
the Chicago City Council ruled that the Auditorium could reopen with-
out installing the Sprinklers. Therefore, as soon as the vents on
stage could be enlarged the theatre could be opened. On February 2
the first theatrical performance was held, and the Auditorium became
the first of Chicago's theatres to resume Operations. The perfor—
mance was a benefit to aid the actors put out of work by the closing
of the theatres. Many of the best acts in Chicago appeared before a
rather small but very appreciative audience, and a total of $2,100 was
raised. This performance, too, was played in front of the steel cur-
tain, it being raised only once to allow the bringing forward of a
piano.26 Very shortly after this, the necessary repairs were made
and the theatre was back operating normally, the first one in Chicago.

The year 1904 seems to have been one of changes at the Auditor-
ium. In January Heinreich Conrad, manager of the New York Metropolitan
Opera Company announced plans to do Richard Wagner's newest Opera,
Parsifal, during the fall engagement of the Met. The Auditorium,

Conrad admitted, had the best stage in the country, but even so, it

 

26The Chicago Tribune, January 20, 1904, p. 2.

103

would need some alterations before the Opera could be staged. It would
require two months alone to fire-proof all of the scenery. In addi-
tion, the stage required the installation of Special pivots and pulleys
for the movement of the mammoth sixty-five foot high columns. Conrad
figured the expense of these changes at around $5,000. This, he said,
was quite inexpensive, however, when it was considered that he Spent
$135,000 to rebuild the Met for this same opera.27

Another change taking place in the later part of the year played
a great part in the demise of the Auditorium Theatre, although no one
at the time foresaw it, or said anything about it. On June 9, 1904,
a picture appeared in the Chicago Tribune of the proposed new Orchestra
Hall to be ready for occupancy by the Chicago Orchestra on November 1
of that year. Up to this time there had been no mention that the
orchestra had any plans whatsoever of moving out of the Auditorium.
Since no article accompanied the picture, the Only information obtain-
able about the move was from the caption under the picture, and this
provided nothing but the announcement of the intended move.28 Howe
ever, on October 30 the same newSpaper announced that the first four
pairs of concerts of the Chicago Orchestra-public concerts and their
accompanying public rehearsals-would be held in the Auditorium since
the new hall would not be ready until sometime around December 1.
The orchestra finally did move, and on December 10, 1904, the follow-
ing paragraph appeared in the Chicago Daily Tribune:

The Chicago orchestra gave its last afternoon con-
cert in the Auditorium yesterday. It was the fifteenth

 

27Ibid., p. 6.

28The Chieago Tribune, June 9, 1904, p. 2.

 

104

anniversary of the dedication of the great hall, and

it seemed a noteworthy coincidence that the farewell

of the Splendid organization which owes its origin

to the Auditorium should fall on that date. Tonight

the final concert will be given, and Mr. Thomas and

his men will move next week to their new home in

Orchestra Hall.29
The reasons for the move into Orchestra Hall weren't really apparent
until December 11. Then the Orchestra Association made the reasons
clear. Because of the great Open Space above the stage which tended
to absorb a great deal of the orchestra sound, it was necessary for
the orchestra to forsake quality to achieve volume. The new'Orches-
tra Hall, on the other hand, was designed eSpecially for orchestral
music, with a stage resembling a bandshell, where the quality of the
orchestra could stand out. In addition, the orchestra over the
years in the Auditorium had established a financial deficit. For
these reasons the Orchestra Association wanted a hall of its own
where a permanency would help to wipe out the deficit. Thomas also
wanted a hall built to his own Specifications and which would be
devoted exclusively to his orchestra. Everyone in Chicago seemed
to have been happy to see the new ball, and the orchestra move was
made seemingly with the blessing of the Auditorium management. At
least no adverse criticism was reported.30

For many years after the Opening of the Auditorium Theatre it
had been under the management of Milward Adams, whose job it was to

secure at least one Grand Opera season each year, and often two.

However, in 1910 the Chicago Civic Opera Company was formed31 and

 

29The Chicago Tribune, December 10, 1904, p. 8.
30The Chicago SgpdaygTribune, December 11, 1904, p. 1, part IV.

31Morrison, p. 100.

105

this eliminated the need of Spending time and effort securing a first
rate company to appear in the hall. Chicago could now boast not only
a first rate orchestra, but a first rate opera company in addition.
NO longer would there be a need to bring in outsiders, although other
opera companies did perform at the Auditorium during the ensuing years.
It was the true home of the Chicago Civic Opera.

In 1911 a structural change was made in the seating of the
house. At this time new building laws required the construction of
a fire-proof partition between the parquet seats and the main foyer
where there had previously been no separation at all. Consequently,
the last eight rows of the parquet were removed and in their place
were constructed a double row of boxes, forming a horseshoe Similar
to the normal seating arrangement for Opera houses.[Figure 237 These
were obviously put Up with little or no concern for using the same
decorative plaster and iron-work which was found in the other boxes.
In comparison to the original boxes, these new ones were actually
quite plain. The parquet seating capacity was reduced by 412 seats,
but the amount of seating in the boxes was greatly increased--llO
seats.32 Mr. Karl Hartnack, architect with the Chicago firm of
Harry Weese and Associates, the architects on the Auditorium recon-
struction, suggested that another reason for the addition of the
nearly thirty boxes was a need for a number of higher paying seats.
To get more money for the seats, it was Obvious that a better seat
than already existed would have to be installed, and the only thing
better than the original parquet seats were boxes which would appeal

to the society elite. Whatever the reason for the new boxes, however,

 

32Ibid.

 

  

  
   
 
 
      
    

   

o
o
l
99
a:
u .
1 .
3“ . ’
t .
,0.
1'! .i
. I”... :V A
/ ...
1.,» - l ._
'
I I

l.
l
I
i
l
'l

 
  

 

 

 
 
 
 
 

  

    
  

  

 
   

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Mr 7
u' ; - -
Ii, ‘ “HI ’- ‘h‘ ‘ I . . T ‘ V L
>- 9 V l . l
O D b .
duh" .4. L - ( , . : I I. 3 1
‘ ‘ “ "‘* g?‘ L; f a
L . . n (..T. .. .’-|
~‘ g |, H i —. n—
, _ '— .— I"!
.H.« v—w pO—o . I. _ .... _h.“ ':'-:l-'--.
, -~ . .. ,. ._ 5. ,. . . Intern-i--
.‘ . y . y _ , _ ._ , __ _ .- . “Au-r-rI-y.
' - .— . > .— — L- - h , g _ g _ . Ira-9w—
.. e, er » — ,.mqqe. —v~ , EEH=I
> .- o- & L )- > 4 ,‘ l I 1‘
~ .— 5 >— c- » > - _ u.'..--o.. .“..HJI
- . .. r .- r .— e . . . . . . :
e.»»»» — ‘ 7:: : T‘ T)
C ‘ ’ r - ' ‘ ‘ ‘ ’ ' I
:1 fl . , ‘
oHO-u A 'l . . L
L _ r .. y ‘k .— 'n . _ _ - ‘
>- v- 7' p- r b’ .— n
- .— ._. ‘ e. .. - 1 ...,.
‘ Q.- w > L ' I) .
o- .— 6 O- 9 p
l ‘ -- 9 v- ‘v- t i ' '
. . . .
s 0- v— y V I t.
. > u. A" ‘5 V r . l
. 5 _ r f e . ’ I
e v ~ r 9 c i
' C . 4- -
u ' ‘

     

 

 

Y' ’-"—Y"' ..
:

...,»-

L ..-.” .....
‘T—fl—Y‘VT‘P‘:

 

mu-

5

6'11»;th Poem

 
 
  

I“
.l

   
 
 
  
     

-..—

...-..

.... - ...-

....

 

 

~ 1'

 

  

QLJTLB p.33 "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rim lei-21"

 

      

 

  

‘ .
-.‘ r
u

:- ruin;

CJNCRessén ,’ \
/~ . 'Kfi .... - . , . I'
. - emu/too A0 D1 1 ORION BUILDING .
Wt .y- : - ; V f . ...‘l .xLAH or ‘r—L SIXTFT IéTORY , f‘ I I 0' h 1" '\\"

—~ can . . , - -- ~.
— ~ I ~ , - - . _ “ s- .
- A . ). l V ' . . . _ ‘ » '1 ,5 . - . a; ., ‘ ‘
- . .- l's - . ,,..‘ r .._ ' - .31.. ‘(- ’l .. , ""
.. | _ . , _ _ - . 7‘ 4 ’ _ . - a . . s p. , V J».

\
,/

  

 

 

41

 

 

106

I . ‘CO-I.“dl..-.I.4-
‘ ,- {nab-[1| .‘3.." b
- lo ..1 July. 941'". "'0‘... I
., " up ‘.. '

I i .5: _ \

I

Ji.
71%».

1";8
)

'.‘~\_

 

Fig. 23.—-Boxes installed in the
theatre at the rear of the parquet-—l9ll.

107

‘whether because of the new building laws or because of a need for
Ibetter paying seats, they did nothing to improve the beauty of the
lnall. In fact, the original beauty of the hall was impaired.

For the next ten years or so, the Auditorium ran along smooth-
le. Unfortunately, the volumes from the various scrapbook collec-
'tions covering these years are missing. However, the schedule for
‘the theatre was seldom free and the quality of production remained
liigh. NeWSpapers wrote little of the events there. We do know
‘that the Chicago Orchestra under Thomas, and later Frederick Stock,
p>layed numerous performances in the hall, and in 1916 that the
F>rogressive Party National Convention took place in the Auditorium.
lividently nothing of exceptional importance happened until the

eearly 1920's. Then, however, all was to change.

CHAPTER V
THE TROUBLED YEARS

From the time of its Opening in 1889, securing performers had
never been a problem at the Auditorium. Nights when the Auditorium
was empty were seemingly seldom. At some point during these years,
however, though no source mentioned it, the Auditorium ran into fin-
ancial difficulties. This trouble came to light suddenly and with no
forewarning on February 15, 1923. On that date Circuit Court proceed-
ings were begun in Chicago by attorneys for the Auditorium Association
against the estates of Willing and Studebaker and fifty-two other
holders of the title to the land on which the Auditorium stood. The
Association proposed razing the present Auditorium and in its place
build a building which would be as tall as present or future ordin-
ances would allow. This new edifice, planned to cost between
$10,000,000 and $15,000,000 was to be the skyscraping height of
twentyetwo stories and would include a huge hotel and a theatre.1

The Association attorneys presented some extremely impressive
arguments for their prOposal. They maintained that the entire build-
ing, including the theatre, hotel, ShOpS, and Offices, had never been
a paying venture. In fact, the first, last, and only dividend on the

capital stock of the corporation was paid thirty years previously, in

 

1The Chicago Tribune, February 16, 1923, p. l.

108

109

1893, and amounted to only a 1-1/2 per Cent realization by the stock-
holders. Taxes, according to the records attached to the petition
filed by the attorneys, had been $3,555 in 1888, but by 1922 they had
risen to $145,289 (or about $4,160 per year increase). In addition,
in the three years from 1918 to and including 1921, $734,000 was lost
to the stockholders. There was still more to the petition, however.
"Present inability to pay the interest on the bonded indebtedness out
of the earnings of the building endangergdjthe capital and assets of
the company through possible foreclosure".2 The attorneys 315° 85-
serted that because the building had settled (in some places as much
as twenty-two inches) it was very likely that the city would require
the razing or at least a complete alteration. It was their Opinion
that within the not too distant future the building, because of de—
preciation would become unsafe and unsanitary.3 Thus, the Associa-
tion wished to force the title holders of the land to allow them to
remove the Auditorium and replace it with a more permanent, self-
sustaining building.

The Attorneys did not have long to wait for an answer to the
charges set forth in their petition. The following day, February
17, 1923, Ferd Peck, the "Father" of the Auditorium, made clear his
feelings on the razing attempt.

I say it has paid, and enormously, thousands of

percent in thirty—four years to the stockholders and

to a large part of our people. The prestige that has

come to Chicago because of this building and the Opera

house it contains has not only added value to real es-
tate and other interests, but has promoted entertainment

 

2lbid.

31bid.

110
for the peOple.
In its creation it was never intended to prove

profitable to its Shareholders from a monetary stand-

point. I promised every shareholder that joined me

in subscribing the two millions of stock that he would

never receive a dollar back in dividends, but would

indirectly receive enormous profits which in my judg—

ment would amount to more than any money dividend from

any building in New York or Chicago.

The $734,000 which it is claimed has been lost to

the stockholders is merely the amount of the deprecia-

tion which every building must suffer.
Peck was right. He had never promised a profit return and, in fact,
had warned that there probably would not be one. The indirect bene-
fits that Peck had promised to the stockholders were in essence, an
increase in trade from people visiting the Auditorium. The Auditor-
ium had been a major selling point when discussing Chicago as a conven-
tion city, and these conventions alone accounted for some increase in
trade. But most important of all, the mere fact that the Auditorium
was constructed at all, gave Chicago and its citizenry something to
take some measure of pride in. As one critic put it, for almost two
generations the terms "opera" and "Auditorium" were synonymous in
Chicago.5

Peck admitted that the subject of the need for a new Opera
theatre, one designed eSpecially for Opera, popped up now and then in
public discussions. If these plans were to materialize, he said, it
would make no real difference to the Auditorium. There was no reason
why Chicago couldn't use another opera theatre. But there were a

good many productions, public gatherings, etc., which could be held

nowhere else but in the Auditorium because of its Size. There was

 

4’1‘he ChicaggTribune, February 17, 1923, p. 5.

5Morrison, p. 99.

111

also no other stage in the city so grandly equipped.6

With the exception of the two articles cited and a note in the
Chicago Journal of Commerce, November 18, 1932, which pointed out that
the basis of the defense lay in the fact that the original leases,
good for ninety-nine years, prohibited tearing down the building, this
writer could find no other mention of the first action by the courts
deciding the fate of the Auditorium. A 1925 report on the Chicago
Civic Opera reported that the Opera had amassed a $400,000 deficit
during the 1924-1925 season. The benefactors, therefore, would have
to pay at least eighty per cent of their guarantees. The deficit
seemed rather large until compared with the previous year's deficit
of $325,000 and the 1922-1923 season when there had been a loss of
$350,000.7

On February 2, 1925, a hearing was begun delving into the struc-
tural soundness of the Auditorium.8 Witnesses for the plaintiff, the
Auditorium Association, were extremely adamant in their charges that
the building was unsafe. One witness Claimed that many of the beams
in the building were carrying a great deal more stress than that for
which they had been designed. However, under later questioning this
particular witness did admit that he had, in fact, never made any ex-

tensive tests of the stress and could find no meaningful faults, or

 

6The Chicago Tribune, February 17, 1923, p. 5.
7The Chicago Tribune, January 24, 1925, p. 13.

8This author assumes that this action was another step in the
long series of court cases between the Auditorium Association and
the titleholders of the land, although no newspaper articles could be
found to back this premise. The information, however, comes from a
microfilm of the testimony in that hearing, found in the Architecture
Library of the Chicago Art Institute.

112

cracks, in the structure. Another witness for the plaintiff reported

having seen nearly 100,000 square feet of unprotected, unfireproofed
lumber in the building, a great deal of it in and under the theatre
itself. As far as he was concerned the building was unsafe. Although
it had settled already up to almost two and a half feet in some places
he did not consider this critical unless some excavation was done in
the immediate vicinity. If a building of any great size was built on
Wabash, Congress, or Michigan Avenue directly across from the Audi-
torium, the entire Auditorium Building was very liable to come
crashing down into the streets. Still another of the plaintiff witnes—
ses testified that he had found a column of water which had risen in-
side a column of the building. From his calculations he estimated
that the water probably rose several stories inside the column.

While the presence of the water could have been meaningless, it

could also be rather dangerous. If the water were to rust the pipe,
the column could be very greatly weakened structurally, cm if the
water were to freeze and crack the column, the same effect would

take place. The witnesses for the plaintiff, all architects and

structural engineers were unanimous in their pronouncements that

the entire building was generally unsafe for public occupancy.
Witnesses for the defendants, the title holders, were quite
naturally just the Opposite in their viewpoints. These men, also
leading architects and structural engineers, felt that while the
building was not exactly one hundred per cent safe, it could easily

be made so. The settlement of the building, they claimed, had been

anticipated and in fact alterations had been made during construction

to correct for this settling. The main floor lobby [Eigure 2a] shows

113

 

Fig. 24.—Main Lobby of the theatre

114

no Signs of any further settling, although the arches are not per-
fectly round, since they were planned taking the previous settlement
into account. In regard to the claim that excavation in the immed—
iate vicinity would lead to permanent damage to the building, they
replied that while there was some danger, it, too, could be mini-
mized if the slightest bit of care was taken during the excavation.9

Evidently the defense arguments were either more sound or
more convincing since a short time after this hearing the case was
dismissed, not on the grounds that the building was or was not
structurally sound, but on the grounds that the Auditorium was con-
sLdered, when it was built, as a civic project whereas the proposed
structure was planned as a purely financial venture.10

On January 29, 1927, the Civic Opera made another rather start-
ling announcement affecting the Auditorium. The Opera company an—
nounced plans for a new building Specifically designed for them. The
losses from the Opera seasons in the Auditorium were continually
growing and the financial statement for 1926 stated that the Opera
planned a new building which would insure the permanency of the
opera as a civic institution.ll The reasoning behind this move was
based on the fact that the current lease on the Auditorium ended in
September, 1927. Of course, the lease could be renewed for a few
years, but the Opera management was convinced that within the not

too distant future the entire Auditorium block would be razed

 

9Structural Soundness of the Auditorium, Testimony in Chicagg
Circuit Court, (Chicago, Illinois, February 2, 1925), plates 4, 10,
18, 31.

1QJonathan Pugh (ed.), "Restoring the Auditorium", Talmanac,
)éustomer magazine of Talman federal Savings and Loan Association,
ChicagéL (November, 1964), p. 15.

11The Chicagg_Tribune, May 23, 1927, p. 19.

115

ultimately necessitating the move. So, rather than being forced
into a hurriedly built hall, they wanted to be prepared. The house
they had planned was to cost $15,000,000 to $16,000,000 and was to
have a stage equipped in the most modern fashion. The new Opera house
was to have a third less boxes12 and fifty per cent more seating on
the main floor than the Auditorium. There was to be a smaller theatre
to go with the opera theatre, both of them to be a portion of a huge
office complex which was expected to Offset any deficit created by
the opera. The opera management suggested that the public would be
asked to share in the expense of constructing the building. Half of
the amount was to be raised by the sale of bonds while the rest was
to come from the sale of preferred stock. To push the sale of the
stock, the management pointed out that not only would this be a good
investment, but it also would be a matter of civic pride to invest in
this new theatre. More important, however, was that the bonds were
to start paying back within three to five years after the Opening of
the house. Of greater interest to the public was the announcement
that there was a Slight possibility of having free Opera in the new
hall.13

Later in the year (1927) the United States Court of Appeals in
Chicago sent the Auditorium case, now in its fourth year, back to the
court of Federal Judge James H. Wilkerson. The Association was so

supremely confident that they had won the case that they made some

 

12The Talmanac is not specific whether this figure is based on
the original number of boxes in the Auditorium or the remodeled
number.

13The Chicago Tribune, January 29, 1927, p. 1.

116

alterations in their original plan. Since plans had already been
announced for the new opera house, the theatre which had been plan-
ned in the new Auditorium Building was deleted. However, there was
still to be a skyscraper hotel, or office building.14

In August, 1927, a group of five Chicago businessmen purchased
the controlling interest in the Auditorium, but the deal was well
Shrouded in mysterye-there was no publicity other than a short an-
nouncement of the action. When the newspapers tried to talk to the
men, they were unavailable for comment either by refusing to comment
or by being conveniently out of town on business. One of the five,
a lawyer, appeared in neither the legal directory or the Chicago
telephone directory. Following the announcement, however, talk of
the syndicate died down. Two months later, though, the United States
Supreme Court ruled in favor of the land owners on the failure of the
lessees to pay the ground rent.15 The battle for the Auditorium, a
battle which had been raging in the courts for nearly five years, was
now at an end, and the Auditorium Building was safe, at least for a
few more years. Though these had been five particularly long and
hard years, the Auditorium had, throughout, maintained a busy sche—
dule with a full program of opera, individual artists such as
Paderewski, orchestras like the Chicago Symphony conducted by Richard
Strauss in concerts of his own compositions, and many other special

productions such as Max Reinhardt's The Miracle.16 In this

 

14Talmanac p. 16.

 

15Journal of Commerce, (Chicago), November 18, 1932,[§ited in]
"Scrapbook,“ XXIV, p. 4.

léléhflflrfli

 

 

 

 

117
particular production the major portion of the theatre—~stage, pros-
cenium openings, and the areas adjacent to these-were transformed
into a church complete with stained-glass windows. The set even

included the replacement of many of the seats in the parquet with

 

pews, in order to carry the illusion even further.

On January 26, 1929, the Chicago Civic Opera gave its last per—
formance in the Auditorium. Fittingly enough, the Opera chosen to
end an era was the same one that had started it. On that date the

Opera closed out an artistically, though not financially, success-

 

ful existence at the Auditorium with a performance of Gounod's
Romeo and Juliet starring Edith Mason as Juliet. Many people won-
dered why the opera forsook the Auditorium to move to the Civic
Opera House, a much inferior hall.17 There are two answers: first,
since the opera obviously needed a second source of income to carry
its losses, an Office building the size of the Civic Opera House
certainly served the purpose; and secondly, (though this is mostly
conjecture) the design of the building is very much like that of a
throne, and a good many peOple felt that Samuel Insull had it built
as a personal throne. The two theatres were huddled into what room
remained under the seat. The new house was long and narrow and the
sightlines on the main floor were bad. The sound, as one writer
said, was somewhat akin to that produced in a padded-cell. The
micrOphones clustered on the proscenium served a very definite pur-
pose, and only grand opera failed to find a need to use them. But

then, the hall was designed specificallY for grand opera.18 At the

 

I

171bid., p. 20.

l8lbid.

 

118

time the Civic Opera House was constructed it was ideally located
for its principal patrons-—close to the major railroad stations.
However, the hall is now hopelessly isolated from the cultural center
of Chicago (if Chicago can be said to have a cultural center).

Late in 1929, $834,000 worth of bonds for the Auditorium
that had been issued back in 1889 fell due, and when the syndicate
could not pay, the entire property went back to the four separate
interests owning the land.19 Soon after this the Auditorium closed
for the first time for financial reasons. On September 8, 1930,
plans were announced to build two miniature golf courses in the
theatre. Tentative plans called for an elaborate set-up. A course
of six holes was to be placed in the lobby and a second full eighteen
hole lay-out was to go on the main floor.

In the orchestra pit, where the ninth hole of

the miniature golf course would be sunk in synthetic

turf, Campanini and Polacco once waved their batons.

On the stage occupied by the hot dog stand Mary Garden

sang her Carmen, muzco her Aida, Marshall his Pagliacci,

Challapin responded to an encore with the "Volga Boat

Song." Duse was last seen[}here]before She died.
0n the stage was planned a stucco replica of a country clubhouse
complete with a veranda, artificial trees, a privet hedge. Here
the players could purchase hot dogs, soda pop, or lemonade. Though
the papers had not been signed, R. Floyd Clinch, president of the
Chicago AuditOrium Association, which had been named receiver of the

building, felt that the miniature golf craze might provide some of

the much needed income to redeem the bonds. It was strange that the

 

19 Chicago Tribune, May 30, 1941,)§ited ié}"Scrapbook", XXVI,
p. 586.

20 Talmanac, p. 16.

 

 

119
hall once known as the "world's largest theatre" and in 1893 as uthe
'wonder building of the fair", should be turned into such a horrible
fate as a miniature golf course.

The Messrs. Gluck, Handel, Beethoven, et al, can say,
'Art is dead; long live midget golf.'2l

There is, however, no record confirming that this fate ever befell
the Auditorium.
In September, 1932, plans were made to reOpen the Auditorium.

At that time the architectural firm of Holabird and Root, one of the

1’ 7. 0' 5- 1'

leading firms in Chicago was chosen to begin an eight week, $100,000

rejuvenation job on the theatre. The remodeled hall was to be used
for large shows, concerts, and the like, although grand opera was
not expected to perform there. George Kingsbury, the new manager of
the house, admitted that although no bookings had definitely been
made, there had been a considerable number of requests and applica-
tions.22 AS the time for the reOpening of the Auditorium drew closer,
a number of suggestions were made that the management should try to
celebrate the 43rd anniversary of the Auditorium Opening with real
style by attempting to ring up the curtain again on December 9,
forty-three years to the day after the curtain had been rung up for
the first time.

Although the actual birthday was missed, it was only by a few
days; and, on December 14, 1932, the Auditorium reopened, having been

dark for three years. Much of the same splendor was again evident

 

211bid.

 

22Chicago Timee, September 20, l932,[§ited in7"Scrapbook,"
XXIV, p. l.

 

120

in the theatre that Chicagoans once knew. On that evening Frederick
Stock directed an augmented version of the Chicago Symphony Orches-
tra-2OO players-—, and several distinguished soloists, including
Elsa Alsen, John Charles Thomas, and Josef Hofmann. Claudia
Cassidy, writing for the Chicago Journal of Commerce, reported
that "The program. . . generously repaid the enthusiasm of the
capacity audience."23 The audience was rewarded in another way—-
more light was provided on the stage with the installation of the
new $25,000 lightboard. This was probably the biggest single ex-
pense in the renovated house-the total cost being $125,000. The
new board, a Major Pre-select, resistance system was the last word
in modern lighting. The lighting system throughout the house was
rewired and a complete new set of footlights was installed.24

Even better news to lovers of the Auditorium was the an-
nouncement in the Chicago Timeg that there would, indeed, be grand
Opera at the Auditorium once again. A new company, The Chicago
City Grand Opera Company was organized by Attico Bernabini, the
former chorus-master of the Chicago Civic Opera, and John Pane-
Gasser, tenor. They announced plans to open a ten week Opera sea—
son in the Auditorium on December 26, with Il_Trovatore as the
first production.25

The 1932-1933 reopening season lacked nothing of the glamour

that had been present in the original Opening season of 1889-1890.

 

23Chicago Journal of Commerce, December 15, 1932,[§ited in]
"Scrapbook," XXIV, p. 14-

24Chicago Tribune, December 11, l932,[§ited in7"Scrapbook,"
XXIV, p. 11.

25Chicago Times, December 4, 1932, cited ié]"Scrapbook,"
XXIV, p. 8.

r";

 

121

The season included a number of one and two nights of Opera featur-
ing such great artists as Lawrence Tibbets and Lily Pons. The
famous Polish pianist, Ignace Jan Paderewski, made another of his
almost yearly appearances in the Auditorium. Other guests were
violinist Nathan Milstein, singer John Charles Thomas, and pianist-
composer George Gershwin. There were road shows such as Showboat
with Helen Morgan, and Of Thee I Sing. And there were such other
well-known groups as the Don Cossack Chorus, the Ballet Russe de
Monte Carlo, and the Minneapolis Symphony under the baton of Eugene
Ormandy. The real highlight of the 1932—1933 season, however, be-
gan with the announcement by Fortune Gallo, Opera impresario, that
beginning on Labor Day, 1933, the world famous San Carlo Opera
Company would open a four week season at the Auditorium Theatre.
As if the mere presence of Opera in the Auditorium was not enough,
the price was even more rewarding. The season, offering twenty
Operas, had an admission price ranging from $1.00 down to 25¢.26

The brilliance of the following season was only slightly less
than the previous one. The "piece de resistance" of the 1934

season, however, was Max Reinhardt's production Of A Midsummer

 

Night's Dream. Most Chicagoans could remember the Reinhardt pro-
duction of The Miracle seven years earlier, and they eagerly anti—
cipated his newest offering. What made it even more enticing was
that it was billed as being even greater than The Miracle. The
"Dream" cast numbered over 300 and was augmented by a vocal chorus,

a ballet of eighty dancers, and a symphony orchestra. The production

 

26New York Americae, August 4, l933,[§ited ié7"Scrapbook,"

 

271bid.

 

122
ran for two weeks.28

NeWSpaper coverage on the Auditorium was still fairly poor, so
little can be realized about the next few years. The hall continued
to maintain a fairly full schedule with the usual Opera companies-—
the San Carlo Opera appeared a number of times—-road shows, indi-
vidual stars and the like. During the thirties the Auditorium man-
agement also began to show movies as a part of their bill of fare.
In the latter 1930's people at the Auditorium seemed to have begun
to have serious doubts about the merits of the acoustics. Two
shows, Leave It To Me and The Women (1938), employed Special sound
amplification systems for their productions.

In May, 1941, the then current smash hit, Olsen and Johnson's
HellzapOppin, began its run at the Auditorium. For this show no one
was in the least concerned about acoustics Since, as the Chicago
Tribune critic stated, "HellzapOppin' is a show you can hear two
miles away."29 But that show was more important for another, less
wonderful, reason. Though few people SUSpected it, this was to be
the last show to appear in the Auditorium for a long, long time.

The ChicagggTimes on May 29, 1941, made this announcement:

 

The old Auditorium theatre . . . will close its doors
for the last time on June 30 . . .

At the same time, the Auditorium hotel, with its 330
rooms, and the related lO-story office building, with its
17-story tower, will be abandoned.

'Taxes assessed against the prOperty in the past 12
years, exclusive of penalties, have been $722,000 greater
than the net Operating income,‘ heljohn Goodridge, Presi—
dent of the Auditorium Building Corpg]said. 'Penalties

 

28Chicaqo American, November 10, l934,[§ited ié]"$crapb00k."
XXVI, p. 216.

29Chicago Tribune, May 4, 1941, Eited ifl "Scrapbook," XXVI,
p. 581.

 

 

123

accumulated are an additional $411,000 load.‘30
Mr. Goodridge was quite put out by the failure of the Auditorium,
and rightly so. Nowhere else but in Chicago could a thing like
this have happened. According to him the Auditorium was one of
the greatest theatres in the world, and in other countries this
building would have been kept alive, if it had to be done by mun-
icipal, state, or national subsidy. Instead, the Auditorium was
forced to struggle, sometimes against almost insurmountable odds,
to keep the building operating against the confiscatory tax laws.
The Auditorium, however, could no longer struggle and had to close.
Every bit of net revenue since 1930 had been applied toward the
taxes. The owners received no income, yet each year the tax bills
were at least twice the net operating income, and Often they were
four or five times this amount.31

The crowning blow in closing the Auditorium, however, pro-
bably came when the Auditorium Annex, across Congress Street, was
sold. Under normal circumstances this would have made little dif-
ference, but sometime after 1893, a heating, lighting, and hydraulic
power system had been installed in the Annex. This was a logical
step since both buildings had drawn their power from the Auditorium
system, so, naturally when the new system was installed both build-
ings continued to draw power from one system. However, when the new
owners took over, they redesigned the power system to serve only the

Annex. The Auditorium management was forced to install their own

 

3°Chicago Times, May 29, l94l,[§ited ig)"5crapbook,fl XXVI,
p. 586.

3lchicago Daily News, May 29, 194l,[§ited in]"Scrapbook,n
XXVI, p. 586.

 

124

power supply at a cost of $150,000 for the unit. Unfortunately, this
extra cost added to the tax problem left no alternative except
closing.32

Once again it was a Peck who Spoke out for preservation of
the building. This time, however, it was Ferd Peck, Jr., son of the
originator of the Auditorium. There was a noticeable difference in
their arguments, though. Where Ferd Peck, Sr., had argued the sta—
tistics and figures about the building, the younger Peck argued
from an emotional standpoint.

I know the buildings are no longer profitable, that

taxes have piled up, but it seems a shame that the

theatre can't be moved into Grant Park and rebuilt.
There were other suggestions which offered more practical solutions.
One such was the Warterfield Plan devised by J. Saule Warterfield,
President of the Chicago Building Congress. He suggested that the
four owners of the Auditorium property deed it to the city and
county in payment of the $1,150,000 of back taxes. These owners--
made up of three estates and an insurance companyb-would receive
in return revenue bonds which would be issued by a foundation
created especially for the purpose of Operating the prOperty. In
this way the Auditorium Theatre could be preserved as a civic
theatre.34

On June 14, 1941, the Chicago Herald American announced that

the June 30 closing date for the Auditorium had been temporarily

 

32Chicago Timgg, May 29, l94l,[§ited ié]"Scrapbook," XXVI,
p. 586.

 

33Chicagp Tribune, June 1, 1941,[§1ted in]"Scrapbook,“ XXVI,
p. 587.

34Ibid., June 5, 1941, p. 588.

 

 

 

125
su5pended. It seemed that when the famous building was in a very
real danger of closing a number of peOple were suddenly ready and
willing to come to the rescue. Shortly after the closing was an-
nounced, a group of civic leaders called what they termed a "rescue
meeting". A committee was appointed to work out a means of retain-
ing the building. Their plan was to keep the building functioning
by operating it as a non-profit musical organization, to be known
as "The Chicago Music Foundation". Under further portions of the

plan the tax burden would be reduced so that the back and current

 

bills could be met. This would be done by basing the tax levy on I!

the income rather than the theoretical value of the building. If

both of these plans were followed the committee felt that the

building could be kept open.35 More importantly, however, John S.

Clark, Cook County Assessor, promised to re-assess the property

at $600,000, a big drOp from the original $2,000,000 assessment.

Under this new rate, and with a non-profit charter, the Auditorium

would be reSponsible for paying $20,000 a year instead of the orig—

inal $72,000. Another break came when Clark reported that this

would be retroactive to past years so that the tax bills could

be paid.36
None of these plans were effective, however, and in the sum-

mer of 1941, the doors of the Auditorium were shuttered. Soon af-

ter, the majority of the contents of the Auditorium Building were

 

35Chicago Herald Americanj June 14, 1941, [cited inj"Scrapbook,"
XXVI, p. 590.

360hicago Daily News, June 16, 194l,[§ited ié]"Scrapbook,"
XXVI, p. 5900

126

sold at auction.37 As far as the Auditorium as a public building was
concerned, it was finished. From 1942-1945, however, the Chicago
U.5.0. used the building for a servicemen‘s center. The Auditorium
theatre was turned into a bowling alley,[figure 251and what foyer
and stairway walls had not been painted over in previous remodeling
jobs, were whitewashed and covered with signs for the servicemen.

It seemed almost criminal to adulterate the Auditorium this way,

but we should be thankful that it was not razed.

 

 

37The Auditorium Buildhgg

127

 

 

‘lfllfl‘ llflzll "(il‘

,, 5' “an “(in "(W
9" -

tit!!! vtlffll “f}“

'0-
‘ v J.' *.I

‘e- .0
‘ I.

 

Fig. 25.—The bowling alley placed
on the stage during its use by the 0.8.0.
from 1941-1945.

CHAPTER VI
THE RESTORATION YEARS

At the end of World War II the U.S.O. moved out of the Aud-
itorium Building and it was empty once more, this time for a
very long time. In 1946, the one year old Roosevelt University,
looking for a home, found the empty Auditorium suitable for its
needs. They cleared up the tax bills and successfully rescued the
building from demolition. They took over the lobbies, rooms, and
offices, and altered them to be appropriate for the university
needs. The unfortunate problem was that, because of the theatre,
the university was unable to use half of the total area and a third
of the volume of the building. The theatre lay dormant in the
midst of the building. Even if they had been able to raise enough
money to restore the theatre, it was far too large for their use,
and far too eXpensive for them to Operate on their own. 50, though
the major portion of the building was once again in profitable use,
the theatre remained empty.

In 1956, Crombie Taylor, now Professor and Associate Dean,
School of Architecture at the University of Southern California,
but then in Chicago, led a group on an inspection tour of the
theatre. The only light was from the flashlights carried by the
group. Karl Hartnack told this writer of Mr. Taylor's eXpedition.

The dust was choking-—a lot can accumulate in ten years. The

128

 

 

129
eerie part of the venture, though, was that all that could be seen
was that captured in the flashlight beam while unseen, but often
heard, and all too often felt, were the chunks of plaster falling
from the ceiling. Later, when enough lights could be turned on to
see the rest of the theatre, it didn't look much better. Most of the
paint was peeling or flaking off. A great deal of the plaster-—de-

corative and p1ain—-was falling. The skylight which had been so ex—

“i

quisitely beautiful during the heyday of the theatre was now sagging
dangerously under the weight of the lead panes. In short, the con-
dition of the theatre was quite disheartening. Several structural “.1
changes were discovered which had been made at some time during the

theatre's operating history. One change for the better had been the

removal of the pillars supporting the upper tier of boxes on both

sides of the house.[figure 26] By cantilevering the upper boxes, the

sightlines in the lower ones were greatly improved. Also, the width

of the orchestra pit had been narrowed enough to permit the instal-

lation of two more rows of parquet seats.1

In 1958 peOple began to wonder seriously about restoring the
Auditorium Theatre. Insull's Civic Opera House had become a white
elephant. The Lyric Opera season was very short and few other
tenants could be attracted to the theatre. In June of that year
the owners decided to turn the Opera House into a wide-screen
Inovie house. When this happened there began to be talk that maybe
the Lyric Opera might have to look for new quarters; and, since

legal problems were still holding up progress on the Arie Crown

1Hartnack.

130

 

 

Pig. 26.-The restored boxes with
the supporting pillars removed.

 

131
Theatre in McCormack Place, there were no stages available unless
the Auditorium could be restored. There were 4,536 suggestions
offered in an attempt to relieve the cultural emergency and in
response Mayor Daley organized one Of his inevitable but always
futile committees to solve the problem. However, the Opera House
remained Open to Opera and the problem was by-passed. Many of the
suggestions received during the crisis had been for restoring the
Auditorium Theatre. Herman Kogan, writer for the Chicago American,
received a number of Offers of contributions although he hadn't
asked for them, and Norman Ross, asking how many of his radio lis-
teners would be willing to give $1 toward the restoration of the
Auditorium, received 5,000 responses in two weeks.2 Many Chica-
goans still remembered the Auditorium Theatre. It is no wonder
that they remembered it. After all, almost every major artist had
appeared there at one time or another. John McCormack said Of the
theatre: "I would rather sing here than in any other hall in the
world."3 Madame Amelita Ga11i~Curci, the great operatic saprano,
made her American debut with the Chicago Opera Company in 1917. In
a sense she was discovered in Chicago, and her loyalty always re-
mained there. Various opera seasons saw'Chaliapin, Caruso, Melba,
Geraldine Farrar, Mary Garden, Tettrazini, and EdithnMason. Actp
resses Ellen Terry and Sarah Bernhardt and actor George M. Cohen
were among those appearing at the theatre, as were Teddy Roosevelt

and evangelist Dwight L. Moody. The variety of attractions at the

 

2Herman Kogan, Panorama - The Chicago Daily1News, February
29, 1964.

3The Auditorium Theatre, (a pamphlet produced by the Audi-
torium Theatre Council).

 

Fm“!

132

Auditorium was amazing. In a single ten day period, for instance,
the theatre hosted a circus complete with elephants, Grand Opera,
the United States Marine Corps Band, a ball for Prince Henry of
Prussia, Northwestern University's commencement exercises, the
annual Chicago Flower Show, John Philip Sousa and his band, the
Apollo Musical Club, and various other recitals and concerts.4

There were other large theatres and halls in Chicago but
none could compare with the Auditorium.

There is the Civic Opera house on Wacker Drive,
which replaced the Auditorium-if a second-rate hall
can ever be said to replace a classic of design and
acoustic balance.

Also there is Arie Crown theatre in McCormack
Place, which hasn't replaced anything, for the simple
reason that it is too big and misshapen to serve any
esthetic function beyond sales conventions. Even the
addition of a new fiberglass acoustic shell for or-
chestral concerts has not been more than a welcome
stOp-gap measure. The design of Arie Crown is basic-
ally wrong, just as the design of Philharmonic hall
in Lincoln Center is basically wrong. Whereas the
latter is a tunnel, a fact which no amount of su5pen-
ded ceiling panels will ever change, our lake front
theatre is too wide, an almost manical miscalculation
by its planners. Without micrOphones, there cannot
be equal dispersion of sound throughout the hall.
With micrOphones, however, one might as well stay
home and listen to a high caliber stereo rig.

On February 18, 1960, the Board of Trustees of Roosevelt
University voted 18 to 7 to authorize a fund raising drive for
$3,000,000 to restore the Auditorium. Four of the seven who voted
against the drive did so because they felt this drive would severely
limit a University fund campaign. (These four finally resigned

from the board). In addition, the University Vice President for

 

41bid.

 

5Roger Dettmer, Chicago American, March 8, 1964.

133

Development and the Dean of Faculties, both of whom Opposed the
drive, were discharged. At the time student Opinion was Opposed
to the drive--it later was reversed-—and the faculty was divided.6
To conduct the fund drive and the theatre, the Roosevelt Board
authorized the formation of the Auditorium Theatre Council, a
modern counterpart of the original Chicago Auditorium Association.
In essence, the Council was empowered to raise the $3,000,000
necessary, to plan and begin the restoration, to restore the
theatre, and, finally, to supervise the management of the theatre
once it was completed.7

The Auditorium Theatre Council was made up of civic-minded
volunteers who gave their time, effort, and financial support in
an attempt to restore the Auditorium Theatre to use. The execu-
tive committee was made up Of peOple who had demonstrated Special
talents in fields such as architecture, the arts, education, law,
finance, etc.“ Chosen to head the Council was Mrs. John V. Spachner,

.xh’1L4thXflgépf4
a volunteer who had just finished raising $1,000,000 to restore
Ganz Hall, the old Auditorium banquet hall: for use by the Chicago
Conservatory of Music. Harold W. Norman, a prominent Chicago law-
. t“, ‘.. , 3.

yer, was selected as Mrs. Spachnerls coichairman. Honorary Chairb
man was the Honorable Richard J. Daley, Mayor of Chicago. The
main purpose of this non-profit organization was " . . . to re-

store the Auditorium, not out of nostalgia, not merely because it

is a great piece of architecture, but because it is the perfect

 

6Lois Marie Fink, "Roosevelt University," College Art
Journal XIX, (Fall 1959-Summer 1960), p. 370.

 

7Talmanac p. 21.

 

134
medium to enhance the cultural life Of Chicago and the Mid-west."8
Another of the major purposes of the Council was:

. . . to offer to the youth oflthe]community, educa-
tional and cultural programs thatibould7enhance their
capacities for aesthetic growth, and develop their
intellectual and social maturity.

In March, 1960, Roosevelt University requested a tax ruling
from the Internal Revenue Service concerning their status as a tax
exempt institution if they went ahead with plans for the Auditorium
fund drive. In May of that year they received a reply. The new
ruling, which showed the school to be still tax exempt under a rul-
ing Of October, 1945, gave perhaps the best description of the
Council and the purpose and uses of the Restoration fund.

Information submitted shows that by a resolution of
your Board of Trustees the Auditorium Theatre Council,
formerly the Auditorium Restoration and Development
Committee, was authorized and directed to raise funds
on your behalf for the restoration of the Auditorium
Theatre and for the supervision and administration of
its restoration. Contributions are to be deposited in
a Special fund to be known as the Auditorium Restora-
tion Fund, segregated and separated from your other
funds and to be used for no other purpose than the re-
storation of the Theatre and the Operation of the fund
drive. An Executive Committee Of the Council composed
of not more than 25 persons is to be formed. After the
restoration of the Theatre, any funds remaining in the
Auditorium Restoration Fund will be transferred to an
Auditorium Theatre Operating Fund to be used only for
the maintainance and operation of the Theatre. Any
surplus in this account, after the establishment of a
reserve adequate to safeguard the maintainance and Op-
eration of the Theatre, will be transferred to your un-
restricted funds and used for educational purposes.

 

91bid.

1OLetter to Roosevelt University from John W. S. Littleton,
Director, Tax Rulings Division, Office of the Commissioner Of
Internal Revenue, U. 5. Treasury Department, Washington, D. 0.,
May 11, 1960.

135
The Internal Revenue Service ruled that the contributions would
not affect the University status as a tax exempt institution.
In addition, since all contributions to the fund would technically
be considered contributions to the University and therefore tax
exempt, these contributions would be tax deductible for the contri-
butor. The Council was now ready to move forward.

Plans for the restored theatre, elaborate as they may have
been, were quite slow in taking effect. From the time the Council
was formed in 1960, little if any work was begun until the middle
of 1964. Events taking place during those years explain the delay.
The first big delay was caused by the announcement that Chicago's
new convention hall, McCormack Place, was to contain a 5,000-seat
theatre. All but the most ardent supporters of the Auditorium lost
interest in it until the completed Arie Crown Theatre could be testy
ed. After the tests, however, the Arie Crown Theatre acoustics were
found to be, in a word, "bad." If it had not been clear before, it
now became fairly evident to almost everyone concerned that there
was no finer acoustical hall in Chicago than the shuttered Auditor-
ium. An even more bitter problem arose from within to plague the
Auditorium Council. Shortly after being formed, the Council hired
a nationally known architectural firm to research and made sugges-
tions concerning the best way to restore the theatre. In November,
1962, with their expenses already topping $50,000 of the Council's
money, the firm announced that after careful examination of the con-
dition of the theatre their original estimate Of $3,000,000 would
have to be raised to nearly $4,250,000, and it was quite feasible,

they added, that even that sum might not be sufficient. What

136
really impressed many of the members of the Council, however, were
the photographs which the architects had carefully collected in order
to prove that the building was in imminent danger of collapse. They
even advised that no one but themselves be allowed in the theatre or
on the stage lest they be killed by falling plaster. Needless to say,
a great many people became uneasy. Since the rise in the cost of the
restoration was more than the total amount raised by the drive in
nearly two years, the entire project was in financial jeopardy, and
became even more so when many of the original supporters backed out,
realizing that this project was quite a financial risk..

The Council still retained the money that had already been
raised and with it made some minor repairs. Then they went out to
find, if not better, then at least other technical assistance. At
this time the Council got in touch with Harry Weese, a noted Chicago
architect whose firm specialized in the restoration of old build-
ings.11 As a volunteer, Mr. Weese accepted the chairmanship of the
Building Committee and through his recommendations the Council sought
the advice and counsel of such people as George C. Izenour from Yale,
a noted theatre designer-engineer; Fred N. Severud, a structural
engineer with the New York firm of Severud, Elstad, Krueger and
Associates; Sumner Sollitt, a Chicago construction engineer; and
the architectural firm of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill.12 All Of
these men concurred with Mr. Weese's Opinion that as a whole the

theatre was structurally sound. Where the original architects had

 

11Talmanac, pp. 23—24.

12"Auditorium Theatre Fact Sheet," (Updated, February, 1965)-

137

been in favor of replacing the theatre-that is, rebuilding it within
the already existing shell-Harry Weese was of the firm belief that
all that was really necessary was a restoration-restoring what was
already in existence.13 With these findings, the estimated cost of
the restoration was reduced to a figure in the neighborhood of
$2,750,000.14

By February, 1964, the project of restoring the Chicago Auditor-
ium Theatre was well underway. During that month the first building
permits were issued and work, other than fund raising, was begun in
earnest. Through the efforts of Mrs. Spachner and her Council, in
the three years since the fund drive began, a total Of $762,000 Of
the $2,750,000 necessary had been raised. Optimists believed that
the building could be ready for use in the fall of 1965.15

It was only by some miracle that the entire structure had not
been removed in order to put up some building of less lasting impor-
tance. Even more of a miracle was that the original blueprints plus
reams of documentation were found which indicated the theatre's true
original appearance.16

A pamphlet produced by the Council announced the magnificent
plans they had for the theatre restoration:

Airbconditioning, modern heating, lighting and ven-
tilating equipment, and complete fireproofing, will be
built into the theatre.
Additional cross-aisles, luxuriously-upholstered, self-
rise seats, and many more lounges will be installed. Ex-

isting murals will be carefully restored and ornamental
plaster work will be renewed.

 

13Talmanac pp. 25-26.

 

14Richard Christiansen, Chicago Daily'News, August 7, 1965.

15Kogan. 16Dettmer.

138

... . there will be a new floor over its the stage
110 foot width and 70 foot depth. Its 26 hydraulic—
lift sections will be restored. There will be new stage
lighting and controls.

A new, concealed projection booth is planned. There
will be new stairways, fire doors, additional rest rooms,
powder rooms and checkrooms.17

One of the major suggestions had been to replace the stage floor with
a six inch slab of cement. This idea was quickly squelched by the
cries of such musicians as LeOpold Stokowski. One of his chief reasons
was that part of the success of the acoustics was attributed to the
wooden floor Of the stage which acted like a sounding board Of a piano
or the wooden case of a fine violin.18 To replace this with cement
would ruin one Of the very reasons for the Auditorium's remaining in
existence, the acoustics.

The Council also had big plans for the back stage Space:

The use of less bulky contemporary scenery and mod—

ern stage lighting, and adoption Of the trucking-ware-

housing system, will facilitate scenery handling and ex-

tend still further the production possibilities. More

than 35,000 square feet of Space in the theatre basement

and backstage areas will be utilized to provide more than

adequate room for scenery, prOperties, for larger work-

shops, sewing and pressing rooms.

Nearly a score of stars' dressing rooms are planned.

Casts of more than 150 can be accomodated in these and in

chorus dressing rooms. Backstage, two high-speed elevators

will serve the performers.
Plans were also formulated for the productions to be held in the
theatre. All of the scheduling and the details of running the theatre
were to be managed by a professional staff who would be serving under

the guidance of a professional manager.2o

 

17The Auditorium Theatre. 18Hartnack.
19The Auditorium Theatre.

20"Auditorium Theatre Fact Sheet" February, 1965.

139

Although it was estimated that the restored Auditorium would
draw nearly one million peOple and twenty million more dollars
annually into downtown Chicago,21 the question still remained, who
would use the Auditorium once it was renovated? The Lyric Opera had
already stated categorically that it would remain in the Civic Opera
House and would not transfer operations to the Auditorium. After all
the Owners of the Opera House were providing warehouse space for the
sets and costumes, and were providing free office Space for the managers
of the opera.22 The same problem was found when discussing the return
of the Chicago Symphony to the remodeled Auditorium. They, like the
Opera, had a home of their own in Orchestra Hall. True, it was not
as acoustically fine as the Auditorium, but for an orchestra it was
all right, and it was their own.23 However, the hope has been ex-
pressed that the Chicago Symphony will play occasional concerts in the
Auditorium as they had done for years after Orchestra Hall was built.
If these concerts in the Auditorium were not as artistically success-
ful, they would be at least financially more successful since the box
office revenue Of the orchestra in the Auditorium could be fifty to
seventy-five percent greater than the corresponding revenue in Or—
chestra Hall.24 But for these two Chicago groups which would not un-
der present plans be appearing in the renovated theatre, there were
many internationally and nationally known stars who had stated they
wished, in fact, intended to perform in the restored theatre. Among

these stars were conductor LeOpold Stokowski; pianists Artur Rubenstein

 

211 bid. 22Dettmer.

23The acoustics of Orchestra Hall are being im roved during a
$2,000,000 remodeling job now in progress. (Hartnack).

24Dettmer.

140
and Van Cliburn; violinist, Nathan Milstein; and singers, Jan Peerce
and Richard Tucker.25 The question still remained, however, would
there be enough attractions to fill the Auditorium and keep it in op-
eration? The answer was simple, if somewhat Optimistic. Maybe there
wouldn't be enough to fill it every single night all year long, but
until the restoration is completed this will be unpredictable. The
philosophy was to get it ready and then see; performers were bound to
come. The most important aspect of the Auditorium restoration was
that it would provide a tremendous facility for everything from
shows, ballets, musical concerts, festivals, lectures, educational
programs, to conventions. It would be a place to showcase local tal-
ent, a place to stimulate the arts.26 Roosevelt University would have
use of the building for assembly needs as would other educational
institutions in line with the policy set up by the Council. No matter
what, the restored theatre would be a civic center. It would be a
place where programs, commercial or otherwise, would be presented.
All segments of the Chicago Community would have the use of the avail-
able facilities. The purpose of the programs would be to entertain,
educate, and inspire.27 The Auditorium would have the advantage over
other theatres in Chicago of not having to depend on the box office
to stay in business, and thus would be able to provide a much wider
variety of productions. The Council has emphasized repeatedly that
the revenues received from rental of the theatre will be used to help

insure maintenance of the building. In addition, since the theatre

 

25Fact Sheet, 1965. 26Kogan.

27”The Auditorium Theatre.

141
would be let on a guaranteed rental basis, the theatre would be self-
supporting and once the project has achieved the basic aim-that is
renovation and establishment of a program-the Auditorium would need
no further outside financial assistance.28 Also, because of the tre-
mendous physical attributes of the house, the Auditorium would attract
many great artists and national touring companies who currently do not
appear in Chicago.

The Auditorium has another advantage over its two rivals-~the
Civic Opera House and the Arie Crown Theatre-—that is its central
location. It is located at the focal point of a vast network of ex-
pressways, superhighways, and toll roads. During the day there are
parking facilities for the cars of a capacity audience within a half
block of the theatre, and night parking for four thousand cars within
a block of the building. In addition, bus and subway lines also run
within a half block of the main entrance.29 NO other major theatre
in Chicago can boast this accessibility.

On April 23, 1964, music filled the Auditorium for the first
time in almost a quarter of a century.30 The theatre was Opened for
the Dick Schory musicians for their first in a series of stereophonic
recording sessions in the Auditorium. When the session was finished
Mr. Schory said, "I've recorded in many halls, but I have never before

heard one like this. The sound is literally as clear as a bell."31

 

281hid. 29Ibid.

30Technically this statement is not true, since in 1961, Van
Cliburn played a Special fund-raising and publicity concert. The
theatre was dimly lit and extremely dusty, and the audience was small,
but the acoustics were perfect. Since that time Van Cliburn has been
one of the major backers Of the restoration project. Talmanac, p. 30.

31Ruth Moore, The Chicago_Sun-Times, April 28, 1964, p. 14.

142

The records he made there bear out his statement.

May 11, 1964, marked the beginning of the actual restoration
repair work. The first job was to remove all of the defective plaster
in the building. The main cause of the falling plaster was water
seepage in the ceiling. However, the three broken downSpoutS which had
caused the leakage were repaired and the roof, twenty-five feet above
the ceiling of the Auditorium, was waterproofed and provided with a
new drainage system, thus eliminating any further problems of this
kind. When the amount of water damage was assessed, however, it was
discovered that only three areas covering a total of only about 400
square feet of the ceiling had suffered any appreciable damage during
the theatre's fifty years of use, and two and one half or more decades
of neglect. What was even more amazing, however, was that while it
had originally been thought that most of the gold decoration was gone,
it turned out that it was instead buried under years of dust, and only
warm water was necessary to restore it to its original Splendor. The
stenciling in the main staircase [Figure 177 was restored in this man-
ner. First, camells hair brushes were used to remove most of the dust.
Then the area was washed carefully with warm water, and in most cases
the decoration returned to its original state. In some instances,
where the plaster beneath the gold leaf was damaged, it was painstak-
ingly removed, in order to be replaced. As it turned out, only about
fifteen percent of the ornamental plaster had to be removed.32 Here
a problem arose. In the first place, working with decorative plaster

is a dying art, and it was rather difficult to find men trained in the

 

32Claudia Cassidy, The Chicago Tribune, April 15, 1965.

143

field. Of almost equal importance, however, was the fact that it was
necessary to remove each piece of plaster, truck it off to the plas-
terer's shop, recast it—-a separate cast was needed for each individual
casting-and return it to the Auditorium to be put back into place.
Since the going price for a cast was $25 or $50, the entire restoration
budget would likely be Spent just on the decorative plaster work.33
0f necessity, therefore, the plasterers soon discovered an inexpensive
method of doing the castings without leaving the building. The system
was relatively simple and quite inexpensive. The good piece of plaster
from which the mold was to be made was removed and coated with a half
dozen coats of liquid latex. This was allowed to harden and was then
set in a wooden box of plaster which in turn hardened around the latex
mold. From these molds recastings could be made every ten minutes if
necessary.34 As each new piece of plaster was finished, it was over-
laid with gold leaf and put back into place.35 Eigure 2:77 An even
more difficult task was that of uncovering Sullivan's stencil work
buried under coats of dust, paint, and whitewash. Although the fol-
lowing is a description of the method used in restoring the recital
hall stenciling, it is also that used in the Auditorium:

Blocks of plaster were removed, x-rayed, and examined by

a paleontologist but no trace of the gold design was re-

vealed. Trying another approach, Crombie Taylor carefully

sandpapered for hours and hours through layers and layers

of paint. Gradually the hidden design emerged. More

blocks of plaster were sanded until the whole of each de-

sign was uncovered [Eigure 237. From the drawings Of these

original designs stencils were cut and used for redecorat-

ing the restored room. The pattern had eluded the x-ray

because of the process of application. Gold had been

33M. W; Newman, The Chicago Daily News, August 7, 1965.

34Ibid. 35M00re.

144

1
I

 

Fig. 27.-An example of the recast
plaster pieces used in the restoration.

.-b ——s- -

_ ...“ »_ -..--

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 28.-—Stenciling uncovered on the
wall behind the boxes. This is the only por-

tion in the theatre proper to be uncovered.

145

applied over the entire area and the design was then

painted over that. Thus the x-ray could not register

the differences between the metal and the plaster be-

cause the entire surface was metallic.
In many instances the stencil in the Auditorium could be brought
back to its original Splendor just by washing away the many years of
dust and grime,[§igure 29] but in other cases the stenciling was in
too bad condition to be restored and had to be painted out. It was
estimated that the cost Of restoring the decoration would be in the
neighborhood of $150,000, and would take some four months to com-
plete, but that when it was finished, the Auditorium would more
closely resemble the theatre which opened in 1889 than did the re—
modeled and redecorated versions other generations of Chicago thea-
tre—goers had known.37

Fund raising for the theatre went on at its normal pace and by
September of 1964 Chicagoans had contributed the sum of $855,000 of
the necessary $2,700,000.38

The restoration work schedule showed February, 1965, as the
target date to have the walls reinforced, the roof repaired, the sky-
light removed, and the stage vents, which the new city code required,
installed. In addition, they hoped to have the fire curtain back in
Operation. (When the curtain was restored, the hydraulic system
worked perfectly, and the fire curtain moved soundlessly). Also to
be completed, was a modernization of most of the mechanics of the

building including the plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, electri-

cal work, and the lighting and communication systems. The dressing

 

36Fink, p. 365. 37Cassidy.

38Chicago Daily News, September 3, 1964.

146

 

 

”WWW—~r

Fig. 29.—-Restored arch in the Recital
Hall Showing Sullivan's artistic skills.

147

rooms, orchestra pit, and service areas were also to be included in
the modernization. Much of the seating was to be reconditioned or
replaced, as were the carpets and stage draperies. In short, a great
deal of the Auditorium was to be restored.39

By April, 1965, Harry Weese, Chairman of the Building Committee,
announced that the boxes which had been added across the rear of the
main floor had been removed, leaving a clean sweep from the orchestra
pit to the beautiful arches of the main lobby. The 110 box seats
which were thus removed were replaced by about 500 parquet seats,
bringing this section back to its original 1,400 seats. When the
boxes were removed a new band of gold Sullivan stencils was revealed
in almost perfect condition.40

In the same article as the announcement by Mr. Weese was an
announcement by Mrs. Spachner that the fund raising campaign had
exceeded the million dollar mark with a $20,000 gift by Mrs.
Ferdinand Peck, daughter—in«1aw Of the founder of the Auditorium.
A much more important announcement, though, was the decision by Mr.
Weese and Sumner Sollitt, the building contractor, that the building
was so sound that $1,750,000 would be sufficient to complete the re-
storation. The information contained in these announcements meant
that the fund drive was now well over the half way mark with only
iabout $750,000 left to be raised.41 If these funds could be made

available quickly, said Mrs. Spachner, it was entirely possible

that the Auditorium could be expected to reopen by December, 1965,

 

39"Fact Sheet", 1965.
4QMoore, April 15, 1965, p. 32.

41Cassidy.

148

or April, 1966, at the latest.42 Already there had been Spent or
committed for construction $1,000,000, leaving only $500,000 needed
to finish the basic work.43 By May, 1965, the Council announced that
there were already about one hundred and eighty unsolicited, potential
renters for the restored theatre. Everything from the Metropolitan
Opera touring company to the Zion Passion Play to nearly fifty con-
ventions were hoping to make use of the building.44

The fund raising campaign has been somewhat of a sore point
ever since its beginning in 1960. It seemed incredible that in more
than five years in Chicago, a city with a population in excess of
three and one-half million, the Council has been unable to raise
$1,750,000. One of the big problems, of course, has been that the
Auditorium has been closed to the public for almost twentyafive years.
Consequently, Chicagoans hear many stories of the beauty and fabled
acoustics of the Auditorium, but an entire generation has grown up
without the Opportunity of hearing a concert in the building in per-
son.45 It is often quite difficult to talk peOple into parting
with money for a project they know little about. Most of the money
already raised, however, has been from the pockets of individuals.
Private groups and large corporations have been hard to interest.
There have been at least two gifts Of $50,000 and several in the vio-

inity of $30,000, but most have been much smaller.46 As incentive

to would-be donors, the Council has decided that:

 

42Moore, April 15, 1965, p. 32.
43Norman Ross, The Daily News (Chicago), May 26, 1964, p. 22.
441 bid.

45Robert Marsh, The Chicago Sun-Timeg, May 6, 1964. 46Newman.

 

149

Contributors Of $100 or more may have their names or

those of loved ones permanently inscribed in 'The4gook

of the Auditorium' for future generations to see.
Karl Hartnack told the writer of one offer of $1,000,000 which was
refused because the potential donor would give the money only if
the Auditorium were renamed after him. The Council felt that this man,
who had done little in or for Chicago, would be buying his way into
the city.

Many critics have claimed that the campaign is not being run on
a "professional" basis. To this Mrs. Spachner answers, "I'm the one
who has to do most of the money—raising. I'd welcome help."48 It is
true, she does get very little help. City Hall in Chicago, as an
example, one of the biggest benefactors of a restored Auditorium, has
given the restOration program its blessing, but has not found it in
its heart to give a single dollar.49

One of the big critics of the fund raising campaign, yet one
with many constructive suggestions, has been Peter P. Jacobi.50 In
an article on the Auditorium, Mr. Jacobi had this to say about the
fund drive:

Cultural do-good committees sometimes are more mot-

ivated than directed, and this has been part of the Audi-

torium story. Those on the Auditorium Theatre Council are

highly motivated individuals, idealists with a fine goal

in mind. Theylve worked diligently, but their enthusiasm
has been largely untransferable and untranslatable into

 

47"Why the Restoration of the Auditorium Should Concern You,"
Chicago: Auditorium Theatre Council.

48Ibid. 49Ibid.

5QMr. Jacobi is the Assistant Dean of Journalism at Northwestern
University; News assignment editor and theatre-music reporter for the
National Broadcasting Company, Central Division, Chicago; Chicago
theatre critic for the Christian Science Monitor; music correSpondent
for the New York Timeg; and Opera commentator for radio station
WFMQ, Chicago.

150

needed funds because no Specific program has been outlined
to detail what might be done with the Auditorium once it
is reopened.

TO preserve an architectural monument may appeal to
some people, but not to enough. The public must know what
the Auditorium can do and see action toward program fulfill-
ment.

It is not enough to Splinter further the meager fare
that now goes into the Arie Crown and the Civic Opera House.
The first of these theatres has major deficiencies to be
sure, and the Civic has its faults. But for money to be
Spent on a third equally large theatre, the Auditorium ladies
and gentlemen must come up with a sufficient plan. Occasion-
al performances, mixed with conventions and sales meetings,
would not be worth the investment, even the investment to
date of somewhere near $800,000. It would not be worthy of
the place.

A program added to an architectural masterpiece-now
that's a different story and would attract the fund-raiser.
TO scaffolding and fund-raising the Auditorium Theatre Coun-
cil right now should add an artistic director and planner,
someone with the courage and sagacity of a Tyrone Guthrie
to work on content within the Auditorium walls.

Chicago needs this marvel of a theatre; it will be to
our continued and everlasting shame if we fail to undo the
negligence of several decades, if we once again allow this
towering home for the arts to decay or lie fallow. But the
money would more likely be made available and the support
more likely at hand if——between now and a potential Decem-
ber Opening-a full program of professional artistic act-
ivity could be realized.

A suggested procedure toward a December Opening would
1) have the Auditorium Council name an artistic director;

2) have that director begin to set up a program, and 3) get
Chicaggans emphatically committed to providing additional
funds.

Jacobi is the one critic to give some helpful suggestions, yet
there is no indication that these suggestions have been heeded; and
now, almost a year later, the Auditorium remains closed, with only

about $400,000 having been raised during that year.52

 

51Peter P. Jacobi, "The Awakening Auditorium," Chicago
Magazine, Spring, 1965, p. 38.

52This figure is fairly impressive, however, when considering
that it took nearly five years to raise the first $1,000,000.

151

On October 24, 1965, the Auditorium Theatre was Opened to cele-
brate a memorial service for the late Adlai E. Stevenson. [Figureigy
The fact that the restoration work was not completed made little dif-
ference Since what work remained was essentially on the dressing
rooms, electrical equipment, and machinery. Since the permanent
seats in the parquet had not yet been replaced, temporary folding
chairs were used.53 There was a full house of 4,200 persons for a
program including United Nations Delegate Arthur W. Goldberg, who
gave a "reminiscences" Speech; actor Fredric March and his wife
actress Florence Eldridge who read Stevenson quotations; Gwendolyn
Brooks who read her new poem "Adlai Stevenson of Illinois“; and a
videotape Of Stevenson's last interview by the B.B.C.54 Since the
majority Of the program was Speeches, the acoustics could not be
adequately tested. Unfortunately, Grace Bumbry, an operatic con—
tralto whose voice would have been a perfect test for the acoustics,
was ill and couldn't sing. The remaining musical group on the pro-
gram, the Paulist Choir, came through very well.55

On October 27, 1965, Mrs. Spachner reported that only
$600,000 was necessary to complete the restoration work.56 The
theatre, however, did not achieve the hOped for December, 1965, re-
Opening, and on the 22nd of that month the Council announced that

they hOped for a single fund raising performance in the Spring Of

 

53Variety, October 5, 1965.
5“William Kling, Chicago Tribun_e, October 25, 1965, p. 1
55Donal J. Henahan, Chicago Daily News, October 25, 1965, p. 29

56Letter from Mrs. John V. Spachner, (Chairman, Auditorium
Theatre Council), The Chicggo Tribune, October 27, 1965.

152

 

Fig. 25.-Photograph of the restored
house for the Stevenson Memorial Program,
October 24, 1965.

153

1966, and then after further remodeling, a September, 1966, Opening.
In order to open by February 1, 1966, however, at least $300,000 still
had to be raised and an additional $164,000 would be needed to realize
a full September reopening.57

When this writer visited the Auditorium in early April, 1966,
the only things remaining to be completed were the dressing room areas,
some airbconditioning work in the lobby, the replacement of some de-
corative plaster in the lobby, and general clean-up work. Mr. Hartnack
gave some rather disheartening news during this visit. Commonwealth
Edison Company of Chicago, who supply the electric power to the
building, reported that they could no longer supply the D.C. current
necessary to operate the light board on stage. However, someone,
somewhere, found a rectifier to change the incoming A.C. current to
D.C. to Operate the board, so it is still very usable; and, since
almost the entire theatre Operates on D.C., this rectifier has saved
the Council a great deal of money. However, two other portions of
the stage area were not so fortunate. The reducing curtain and the
magnificent trap system are not at present to be restored, since
during the Operating years of the Auditorium, someone had damaged the
hydraulic system providing their power to such an extent that major
repairs are necessary to put it back into Operating condition. It
is hOped, though, that at some time in the future these areas can
be repaired.58 One story that Mr. Hartnack told was quite interest-
ing. The light bulbs in the hall were replaced, and when they were

turned on, the paint job looked awful. Finally it was discovered

 

57The Chicago Tribune, December 22, 1965.

58Hartnack.

154
that the paint only looked good under the original carbon filament
lamps. Fortunately there is still one company in the United States
that makes this type of lamp. When asked what would happen if this
lone supplier went out of business, Mr. Hartnack replied that as long
as the Auditorium remained in Operation, the supplier would never go
bankrupt. (The theatre and lobbies use more than 5,000 of these
carbon filament lamps.)

At the time of this writer's visit, no Spring concert had yet
been held and only $1,435,000 had been raised out of the needed
$1,794,000.59 There are no signs at present indicating that the
predicted spring concert will be held, or that the rest of the money
will be forthcoming in the near future.

The restoration has gone too far now to be halted. Consequently,
it seems only a matter of time before the remaining funds can be
raised and the Auditorium can be put back in Operation. The latest
figures Show that $352,000 still is needed to meet the goal, and,
according to Mrs. Spachner, the entire amount must be in hand before
an Opening date can be announced. If the needed cash is acquired
quickly, the theatre could Open within about three months.60 A
great many Chicagoans are looking forward to that day, whenever it

may be.

 

59"Auditorium Theatre Fact Sheet" (Updated, 1966).

60The chigago Sunday Tribune, May 1, 1966, p. 25.

CONCLUSION

Taking a final overview of the Auditorium Theatre it can be
seen that this structure has had a long, though Sporadic, and at
times glorious existence. The key word in the construction was
"Speed". From the time the original idea was presented by Ferd Peck
in May, 1886, it was only a matter of some three and a half years un-
til the building was completed and Opened to the public. A quick
glance at the important dates during this time bears out this

statement:

1886

Subscribers' Meeting
Incorporated

First Directors' Meeting
Adler and Sullivan appointed

December 4,
December 8,
December 11,

1886
1886

Architects December 22, 1886
Land secured January 11, 1887
Excavation begun January 24, 1887
Borings begun February 24, 1887

completed April 28, 1887
Construction begun June 1, 1887
Cornerstone laid October 6, 1887
Republican National Convention June 19, 1888
Copestone laying October 2, 1889
Dedication 1889

December 1?;

The major credit for the success of the Auditorium, however, was laid
to the tremendous public spirit displayed by Chicagoans at that time.
This Spirit was evidently more prevalent in Chicago than in other
large cities at the time.1

The reason for the financial failure Of the Auditorium is only

 

1Deadwood Pioneer (Deadwood, South Dakota), December 14, 1889,
(Eited 18) "Auditorium Dedication Volume."

155

156
Speculation. Probably the Theatre was just too large an enterprise
to be self-supporting, and even the added income of the Hotel and
Office Building was not enough to offset the losses. Once the tax
payments and such fell behind, it was more than likely impossible
to make them up while still paying the succeeding year's bills.
Regardless, even when the Auditorium closed in 1929 and then again in
1941, that great Chicago public Spirit was still in evidence. The
clamor was great enough to warrant the reOpening of the theatre. In
1941 the closing was not strictly the fault of the people. They
devised many ingenious methods to keep it in Operation, but all Of
them were impractical for one reason or another.

It is interesting to note that the demise of the Auditorium
seems to correspond directly to the demise of theatre in general
throughout the United States. This, then, could be one of the major
problems with the restoration of the theatre; it is being attempted
at a time when theatre attendance in the United States is on a down-
swing.2 It is difficult, consequently, to get money for a project
for which there may not be very much interest in the majority of
Chicagoans; it is difficult to say definitely. However, it is very
Obvious that the Council is having a great deal of difficulty raising
the funds for the restoration. Whether this difficulty is caused by

lack of interest on the part of donors as the Council claims, or whe-

ther it is caused more by the not altogether effective money raising
techniques employed by the Council as other critics claim, we may

never know for sure; there are strong arguments on both sides.2

 

2Walter Kerr, How'Not to Write a Play (New York: Simon and
Shuster, 1965), pp. 2—3.

 

157

The research covered in this thesis is by no means all that can
be written about the Auditorium. In fact, there should be some ques-
tions raised from the facts compiled here which will lead other re-
searchers to delve deeper into certain aspects Of the theatre‘s his—
tory. Possible questions are: (1) what events took place during the
early 1900's to cause the first attempt to raze the Auditorium in
1923, or (2) what were the principal failures in the final restoration
attempt, or (3) what were the social factors evident in Chicago which
would have initiated the idea for the construction of the Auditorium?

As far as this thesis is concerned, however, it has covered to some

degree the entire history of the Chicago Auditorium Theatre from its

inception to the present.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Armstrong, William. The Romantic World of Music. London:
George Allen & Unwin, 1923.

 

 

Beranek, Leo L. Music,_Acoustics, & Architecture. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962.

 

Condit, Carl W. The Chicago School of Architecture. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1964.

 

Hand, E. S. Auditorium. Chicago: Exhibit Publishing Co., 1890.

 

Kaufmann, Edgar, Jr. (ed.), Louis Sullivan and the Architecture
of Free Enterprise. Chicago: The Art Institute, 1956.

 

Kerr, Walter. How'Not to Write a Play. New York: Simon
and Shuster, 1955.

Kirkland, Joseph and Caroline. The Story of Chicago. 2 Vols.
Chicago: Dibble Publishing Co., 1894.

 

Morrison, Hugh. Louis Sullivan: Prophet of Modern Architecture.
New York: Peter Smith, 1952.

Sullivan, Louis H. The Autobiogrgphy,of an Idea. New York:
Press of the American Institute of Architects, Inc., 1926.
Manuscript in the Burnham Library of Architecture of the
Art Institute of Chicago.

Tallmadge, Thomas E. Architecture in Old Chicag_, Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1941.

Articles and Periodicals

"An Opera Box for $2,100," Chicago Tribuge, (November
23, 1889), p. l.

 

"The Auditorium," Daily Inter Ocean, (December 11, 1889), p. l.

"The Auditorium Dedication," Chicago Tribune, (December 1, 1889),
p. 27.

"Auditorium's Face-lifting to Begin," Chicago_Daily;Neg§,
(September 3, 1964).

158

159

"The Auditorium Stage," Chicago Tribune, (December 7, 1889), p. 12.

 

"Auditorium Supplement," Dailyglnter Ocean, (December 11, 1889),
pp 0 9-14.

 

"Auditorium Theatre Plans a One Nighter," Chicago Tribune,
(December 22, 1965).

 

"Boys Invade the Box—Office," Chicago Daily Newe, (November 25,
1889), p. 1.

 

Cassidy, Claudia. "Lights Gleam Again in Old Auditorium,“
Chicage_Tribuae, (April 15, 1965).

Chicagg American. (November 10, 1934).
Chicago Eagle. (December 21, 1889).
Chicago Evening_Post. (May 2, 1891).
. (August 27, 1891).
. (October 9, 1891).
Chicago Herald. (October 3, 1889).
Chicago Herald American. (June 14, 1941).
Chicago Saturday EveninggHerald. (September 6, 1890).
Chicago Journal of Commerce. (November 18, 1932).
. (December 15, 1932).
Chicago Tribune. (May 30, 1886), p. 16.
_____‘___. (September 15, 1889).
. (November 17, 1889). p. 9.
. (December 12, 1889). p. 4.
. (January 1, 1890).
. (January 5, 1890).
. (January 10, 1890).
. (March 30, 1890).
. (May 7, 1890).

. (January 6, 1892).

160

. (December 31, 1903), p. 1.

. (January 1, 1904), p. 1.

. (January 3, 1904), p. l.

. (January 20, 1904), p. 2 .

. (June 9, 1904), p. 2.

. (December 10, 1904), p. 8.

. (December 11, 1904), Part IV, p. 1.

. (February 16, 1923), p. 1.

. (February 17, 1923), p. 5.

. (January 24, 1925), p. 13.

. (January 29, 1927), p. 1.

. (May 23, 1927), p. 19.

. (December 4, 1932).

. (December 11, 1932).

. (May 4, 1941).

. (May 30, 1941).

.3 (June 1, 1941).

. (June 5, 1941).

. (May 1, 1966), p. 25.
"Chicago's Great Hall," Dailyalnter Ocean, (June 7, 1888), p. 9.
Christiansen, Richard. Chicago Daily;Newe, (August 7, 1965).
"The Convention Hall,"lghigago Tribune, (January 30, 1887), p. 17.
"The Convention Hall,” Chicago Tribune, (June 9, 1888), p. 1.
"The Convention Hall," Sunday Inter Ocean, (June 10, 1888), p. 9.
Daily_Graphic (London, England). January 27, 1890.
Daily Mail (Chicago). December 30, 1889.

. (March 29, 1890).

161
Daily_News (Chicago). December 9, 1889.
. (February 11, 1890).
. (May 29, 1941).
. (June 16, 1941).

"The Dedication of the Auditorium," Chicago Tribune,
(December 8, 1889), p. 12.

 

"Defending the Auditorium Management," Letter to the Editor,
Chicago Tribune, (December 4, 1889), p. 7.

Dettmer, Roger. "That Auditorium Jot>Needs $1,988,000 More,"
Chicago's American, (March 8, 1964).

Duncan, L. Grant. Letter to the Editor, Chicago DaiiygNewa,
(December 1, 1932).

 

Fink, Lois Marie, "Roosevelt University," College Art Journal,
XIX (Fall, 1959 - Summer, 1960), pp. 363—370.

The Globe (Chicago). February 21, 1890.

. (April 20, 1890).
"Grandest in the World," Chicago Daily Newa, (December 9,1889),p. 2.
The Graphic (Chicago). December 14, 1889.
"The Great Auditorium," Chicago Tribune, (June 18, 1888), p. 7.
"Greatest in the World," Chicago Tribune, (December 8, 1889),

p. 30. A report to the stockholders of the Chicago Audi-
torium Association .

 

The Hatchet (Washington, D.C.). December 10, 1889.

Henahan, Donal J. "Golden Day at Last: Auditorium Reopens,"
Chicago Daily News, (October 25, 1965), p. 29.

"Her Tussle for Tickets," Chicago Tribune, (December 4, 1889) p. 7.

"Historical and Statistical," Chicago Tribune, (December 10,
1889), p. 3.

"In and About Chicago," Chicago Daily Neaa, (November 22, 1889), p.2.

The Indicator (Chicago), January 4, 1890.

 

"InSpecting the Auditorium," Daily Inter Ocean, (June 6, 1888),
p. 12.

162

Jacobi, Peter P. "The Awakening Auditorium," Chicagg Magazine,
(Spring, 1965), pp. 33-38.

 

"King Among the Tenors: Division of the Management During the
Present Operatic Season,“ Chicago Tribune,
(December 12, 1889), p. 1.

Kling, William. ”4,200 Offer Tribute to Stevenson,"
Chicago Tribune, (October 25, 1965), p. 1 .

Kogan, Herman. "Advice and Counsel for Money-Seekers,"
Panorama - Chicago Daily;Newa, (February 29, 1964).

Marks, Nora. "Behind the Scenes," Chicago Tribune, (December 11,
1889), p. l .

Marsh, Robert. "Bargain Of the Century," Chicago Sun-Times,
(May 6, 1964).

 

McGovern, John. The Elite News (Chicago), December 14, 1889.

 

"Mob Worthy of the Occasion," Chicago Tribune, (December 10, 1889),
p. 2.

Morninchews (Chicago). June 7, 1890.
. (September 20, 1890).
. (March 4, 1891).

Moore, Ruth. ”Curtain Rises on Restored Splendor," Chicago
Sun-Times, (April 15, 1965), p. 32.

. "Music In Auditorium Theatre - 'Wonderful',"
Chicago Sun-Times, (April 28, 1964), p. 14.

"The National Convention," Daily_Inter Ocean, (June 9, 1888), p. 3.

Newman, M. W. "The Auditorium Returns to Life," Chicago Daily
News, (August 7, 1965).

 

New York American. (August 4, 1933).

"Opening Night at the Auditorium," Daily Inter Ocean, (December
10, 1889), p. 4.

 

"Patti Sings Juliet," Chicago Tribune, (December 11, 1889), p. 1.
npatti,the Divine,” Chicago Tribune, (December 8, 1889), p. 1.

The Pioneer (Deadwood, South Dakota). December 14, 1889.

163

"Plan to Raze the Auditorium as Obsolete," Chicago Tribune,
(February 16, 1923), p. l.

 

Pugh, Jonathan (ed.). “Restoring the Auditorium," Talmanac,
(November, 1964). Customer magazine of the Talman Federal
Savings and Loan Association, Chicago .

Ross, Norman. "A Thing of Beauty-—Will You Help It Come Back to
Life?" Chicago Daily Newa, (May 26, 1965), p. 22.

"Rush Renovation on Chi's Auditorium Theatre for October
Stevenson Memorial," Variety, (October 5, 1965).

Shafer, Yvonne Bonsall. "The Auditorium Theatre," Education Theatre
Journal, XVII (March, 1965), pp. 38-45.

"The Single Seat Sale," Daily Inter Ocean, (December 4, 1889),
p. 6.

 

"Some Future Uses of the Auditorium," Chicago Tribune,
(December 11, 1889), p. 4.

 

Spachner, Mrs. John V., Chairman, Auditorium Theatre Council._ Letter
to the Editor, Chicago Tribune, (October 27, 1965).

The Times (Chicago), January 10, 1892.
. (September 20, 1932).
. (May 29, 1941).
"The War Song Concert," Sunday Inter Ocean, (June 10, 1888), p. 6.
"Will Attend the Opening," agily Inter Ocean, (December 2, 1889), p. 1.
Reports
"Auditorium Theatre Council Fact Sheet," Updated February, 1965.
. Updated, 1966.
Testimony of hearing on the Structural Soundness of the Auditorium,
(February 2, 1925). Chicago: University of Illinois—-
Architectural Microfilming Project, Microfilm roll #6.

Unpublished Material

"The Auditorium Building," A pamphlet produced by the Auditorium
Theatre Council.

"Auditorium Scrapbook Collection," 8v, Newberry Library, Chicago.

"The Auditorium Theatre," A pamphlet produced by the Auditorium
Theatre Council.

164
Beranek, Dr. Leo L. Letter to James W. Wright, (January 19, 1965).

"Chicago Auditorium Dedication Volume." Accumulated by Ferd W. Peck.
Gift to the Newberry Library, F. W. Peck, Jr., (October
30, 1941). Contains Press Notices of: the auction sale
of season seats through the Presidential arrival, dedication,

and first opera season. Also replies to invitations to the
Dedication .

"Early History and Press Clippings: Chicago Auditorium Association,
Chicago: 1887;1889." Gift to the Burnham Library of Archi-
tecture of the Art Institute of Chicago from the Auditorium
Association, (January 28, 1942).

"Scrapbook of Press Clippings," 26v, (1889-1941). Gift to the
Newberry Library from John Goodridge, President of the
Auditorium Building Corporation Board, 1940.

Littleton, John W. 5., Director, Tax Rulings Division, Office of the
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue, United States Treasury
Department, Washington, D.C.. Letter to Roosevelt University,
May 11, 1960).

"Why the Restoration of the Auditorium Should Concern You," Chicago:
Auditorium Theatre Council.

Wright, Frank Lloyd. Recollections: The Auditorigchuildinggand
Its Architects. Taliesin Spring Green, Wisconsin,
(July 10, 1940).
Others

Inscriptions in the inglenooks of the main floor foyer of the
Chicago Auditorium.

Hartnack, Karl. Interviewed. Architect with Harry weese and
Associates, Chicago, (April 7, 1966).

APPENDIX

Inscriptions over the fireplaces in the inglenooks of the

main lobby of the Auditorium Theatre:

I wish that this great building may continue to

be to all your population that which it should be:
Opening its doors, from night to night, calling your
peOple away from cares of business to those enjoyments
and entertainments which develop the souls of men and
inspire those whose lives are heavy with daily toil;
and in this magnificent and enchanted presence lift
them for a time out of dull things into those higher

things where men shall live.
Benj. Harrison

President of the United States
December 9, 1889

I have stood in every great hall and sat in all
the famous theatres and Opera houses in the world;
but in its unrivaled acoustics both for oratory and
music and its unequaled capacity to comfortably ac-
comodate vast audiences, and in the harmony and taste
of its ornamentation, this Auditorium of Chicago is
without a rival or a peer.

Chauncey Depew
President Of the New York

Central Railroad
June 5, 1890

165

166

List Of stockholders of the Chicago Auditorium Association

February 1, 1889:

George E. Adams

J. McGregor Adams

J. O. Adams

Adler & Sullivan

S. W. Allerton

John Angus

A. J. Averell

Ed. E. Ayer

A. C. Bartlett
Perkins Bass

George F. Bissell
John C. Black

T. B. Blackstone
James U. Borden

H. Botsford

George P. Braun
Edward L. Brewster
John Buehler

W. H. Burke, Paris, France
W. H. Burnet

A. Byram

R. R. Cable

John E. Carson
Carson, Pirie, Scott 8 Co.
Eugene Cary

George W. Champlin

C. C. Cheney, Trustee
Chicago City Railway Co.
Jonathan Clark

A. L. Coe

W. H. Colvin

Austin Corbin, New York
Charles Councelman
Alfred Cowles

R. T. Crane

Henry Crawford

D. F. Crilly

Andrew Cummings

C. R. Cummings
Dauchy & Co.

Wirt Dexter

J. W. Doane

John C. Dore

John B. Drake

E. S. Dreyer & Co.

J. H. Dunham

Miss M. V. Dunham
George L. Dunlap

J. H. Dwight

William L. Elkins

N. K. Fairbank

P. Farrell

C. B. Farwell

Henry Field
Marshall Field
Frederick Fischer

A. J. Fisher

L. G. Fisher

L. E. Fitts

L. C. Paine Freer
William A. Fuller
Charles W. Fullerton
L. J. Gage

H. H. Getty

William A. Giles
George A. Gindele

J. J. Glessner
James B. Goodman
Daniel Goodwin

F. S. Gorton

A. W. Green

M. T. Greene

John B. Grommes
George W. Hale
William E. Hale

P. C. Hanford
George F. Harding
Carter H. Harrison
Mrs. E. D. Hawes
Albert Hayden

F. H. Head

C. M. Henderson
William G. Hibbard
Higgins & Furber

D. K. Hill

Thomas E. Hill

F. E. Hinckley

W. E. Howard
Charles L. Hutchinson
A. L. Ide & Son, Springfield, Ill.
Illinois Terra Cotta Lumber CO.
E. H. Irwin

John D. Jennings

E. H. Johnson, New York
N. S. Jones

Edson Keith

0. R. Keith

William D. Kerfoot

167
stockholders (cont.)

George F. Kimball
S. D. Kimbark
Charles D. Kimball
William Kirkwood
Knisely 8 Miller

H. H. Kohlsaat
George H. Laflin
Robert Law

Edward F. Lawrence
T. J. Lefens

E. J. Lehmann

L. Z. Leiter

John T. Lester
Adolph Loeb

B. Loewenthal
Frank G. Logan
John Mason Loomis
Franklin MacVeagh 8 Co.
McAvoy Brewing Co.
Estate of C. H. McCormick
Andrew McNally
Charles A. Mair
Mandel Bros.

J. Medill

N. C. Miller, New York
John J. Mitchell

W. H. Mitchell
John Mohr 8 Son

A. A. Munger

John Newell

George G. Newbury
Samuel M. Nickerson
William Penn Nixon
J. W. Oakley

Orr 8 Lockett

E. F. Osborne 8 CO.
J. E. Otis

William R. Page
Leroy Payne

Annah B. Peck
Clarence I. Peck
Ferd W. Peck

Mary K. Peck
Walter L. Peck
Eugene S. Pike

H. H. Porter

Potts 8 Esch

Ernst Prussing

N. B. Ream

David Reed

Alex H. Revell
Henry C. Rew
Frank Roosevelt, New York
Paul Rothbarth

H. A. Rust

Estate of J. O. Rutter
Estate of Martin Ryerson
Martin A. Ryerson

H. E. Sargent

J. Young Scammon, Trustee
Schlesinger 8 Mayer
Henry Schuttler

Joseph Sears

Conrad Seipp

William C. Seipp

Selz, Schwab 8 Co.

G. B. Shaw

John G. Shortall

Lazarus Silverman

E. T. Singer

H. M. Singer

The Snead 8 Co. Iron Works
William Sooy Smith
Sprague, Warner 8 Co.

M. C. Stearns

T. D. Stimson

O. J. Stough

Robert Strahorn

J. H. Swan

H. C. Taylor

The Tobey Furniture
Louisa Ullrich

James Van Inwagen

Wirt D. Walker

John R. Walsh

Louis Wampold

Robert Warren

P. B. Weare

M. D. Wells 8 Co.

A. W. Wheeler

P. A. B. Widener

John Wilkinson

Williams 8 Thompson

C. L. Willoughby

F. H. Winston

Henry R. Worthington
Charles T. Yerkes

Otto Young

Young 8 Farrel1

 

1The Auditorium Theatre.

 

 

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

(‘ITY OF CHICAGO
RICHARD J. DALEY
HAvon

PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS, the restoration of the world famous
Chicago Auditorium has officially commenced; and

WHEREAS, the Auditorium will be restored to the
original architectural beauty and useability of its opening
in 1889; and

WHEREAS, the United States is presently in the
middle of a great renaissance in music, dance and the
theater, restoring the Auditorium will give Chicago a cul-
tural facility of the first magnitude:

NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Richard J. Daley, Mayor
of the City of Chicago, do hereby prOclaim the month of
April, 1964, to be AUDITORIUM RESTORATION MONTH IN
CHICAGO and urge that all members of the community give
full support to this worthy and important project.

Dated this Slst day of March, A. D. , 1964.

 

Figure 32

168

l.’ . “f . 169
é/zw my (Vii/Z //////ee

Figure 32.

...... n... RESTORATION

Alfred S. Alschuler, Jr.
Friedman, Alschuler & Sincere, Architects

Pietro Belluachi
[lean of the School of Architecture and Planning,
.Massachnsetts Institute of Technology

Boris Blai
Dean, Stella Elkins 'I'yler School of Fine Arte,
Temple University

Lester B. Bridaham
Director, Chicago Historical Society

Leon Chatelain, Jr.

President, American. Institute of Architects

Thomas H. Creighton
Editor, Progressive Architecture

Richard 8. Davis
Director, M innea polls Institute of Artx

John Entenza
Editor, Arts & Architecture

John R. Fugard, Jr.
President. ('hicago ('hnptcr, American Institute
of Architects

Walter Gropius
The Architects Collaborative and Professor
Emeritus, Harvard 1 'uiversity

René d’Harnoncourt
Director, Museum of Modern A rt

Wallace K. Harrison
Harrison and Abromoritz, Architects

Douglas Haskell
Editor, Architectural Forum

Henry Russell Hitchcock
Profeesor, Smith (‘olteqe

Richard H. Howland
President, The National Trust for Historic Prexrrmtitm

Samuel T. Hurst
Dean, School of Architecture and the Arts,
Alabama Polytechnic Institute

Philip Johnson, Jr.
Philip Johnson Associates

Edgar Kaufmann, Jr.
New York, N.)'.

Alan K. Lalng
Chairman, . of Architecture,
University of llinow

Henry Marceau
Director, Philadelphia Museum of Art

Samuel A. Marx
('hicago, Illinois

Carroll L. V. Meeks

President, Society of Architectural H istu'iane
and Professor, Departments of Architecture and
History of Art, Yale University

Mies van der Rohe
Chicago, Illinois

Hermon More
Director, Whitney Museum of American A rt

Hugh Morrison
Prnfessor, Department of A rt and Archeology,
Dartmouth t'ollege

Charles Nagel
Director, ('ity Art .lluseum of St. Louis

Nathaniel Alexander Owings
Skidmore, Owing.» & .llo rrill, Architects

Lawrence B. Perkins
Perkins & H'rll, Architects

Buford L. I’ickens
President, Assmtation oft‘ollegiute Schools of
Architecture and Director, Campus I’lmmmo,
Washington l'vuwrmty

Ralph Rapson
“Pa". St'lltml of Architecture, (WI/'rt'v'sttu of .‘l’ttnt‘s‘nlr

Perry T. Rathbone

Ih‘rector, .llnxeum of Pine A rts, Boston

Earl 1!. Reed
(‘hairmm National A.I .4 ('omnuttre on Preservation
of Historic Buildings

Daniel Catton Rich
Director, Art Institute o_t‘t‘hn-o.,vo

Edgar P. Richardson
Director, The Detroit Institute of A rte

John Wellborn Root
Holabird &- [toot &- Htttgt‘t‘, A rt‘ltttrr‘ls

James J. Rorimer
Ih'reetor, The .Metropolitrm Must nm of A rt

Eero Saarinen
Eero Saarinen and Assormtm

Jase Sert
Dean of the Faculty of Design and t‘huirnwn of
the Department of Architecture, Harvard l'mperxity

Alfred Shaw
Shau', Met: & Dolio, Architects

John Knox Shear
Editor-in—(‘hief, Architectural Record

Robert C. Smith
Professor, The School of Fine Arts, l’nirer.~uty
of Pennsylvania

Crombie Taylor
('hicago, Illinois

William W. Wurster
Deon, ('olteoe of Architecture, l'm‘rersity of (”olifornta

Frank Lloyd Wright
Spring Green, Wisconm'n

170
AUDITORIUM THEATRE COUNCIL

Mayor Richard J. Daley - Honorary Chairman

Mrs. John V. Spachner Harold W. Norman
Chairman Co-Chairman

Roy Tuchbreiter John I. Jones
Treasurer Assistant Treasurer

Dr. Otto Wirth Eric L. Kohler
Secretary Controller

EXECUTIVE BOARD

Robert Ahrens Otto Emil Geppert
Harland H. Allen Ferd Kramer

Mrs. Alfred S. Alshuler, Sr. Robert B. Mayer

Mrs. Laird Bell Albert Pick, Jr.

Julian Bentley Mrs. Samuel G. Rautbord
Joseph Creanza Reuben Thorson

Mrs. Clifton Utley

COUNCIL
Fran Allison William R. Kemper
Albert L. Arenberg George P. Kent
Ira J. Bach Philip M. Klutznick
William Balaban Mrs. Everett Kovler
Ross J. Beatty, Jr. Harold Lachman
Edward H. Bennett, Jr. Jerrold Loebl
Morton Bodfish Dr. Louise Mann
Judge Augustine Bowe Jonathan Pugh
Mrs. Milton H. Callner Sterling C. Quinlin
Mrs. Charles S. Clark Mrs. Frederick Roe
Abel E. Fagen Norman Ross
Mrs. Marshall Field III Arthur Rubloff
Walter S. Frazier Erwin A. Salk
William J. Friedman Mrs. Edith Sampson
Paul Fromm Harry J. Scharres
John R. Fugard Mrs. George L. Simmonds
Dr. Rudolph Ganz Mrs. Faith Beye Smeeth
Mrs. Charles B. Genther Mrs. Frederick W. Specht
Elmer Gertz Frederick Steinway
Oscar Getz Mrs. Gardner H. Stern
Gerald Gidwitz Joseph L. Strauss, Jr.
Mrs. Florence Heller George W. Traver
Conrad N. Hilton Edward S. Weil
Patrick R. Roy Harold X. Weinstein
Dr. Percy Julian Edward H. Weiss

Meyer Kamin Themas F. White, Jr.

8:3 <3 .858 .... 8820

853.. 588.3 5.5m 2m

8888 ..oéaaw .> sion. ...2

8550 .388. 5:383. 2F
.3 8:385 as» 822;.

88.8“ ................... 7:88
83. .................... 928
88.2 ........ m8<em 5mg:
88.8 3 83. 9282.853 norm
88.2. .............. 88233
88.2 ............. 805888
88.8 ........... mood. mofim
88.8 2898958 .0888
88.8 a ..................... .84:

figgmm ham

3&8 as. 88.88%
2: 3 883:. B 8:. a... 85.. <

.883 18385 5. 5... 8838......
B. 8 38— 2: a 8282 8858
.83 3 83 8388.8 8 38:5 8 .82
828 no.» 088 05 .8 «88: 88>

TL.

mm masmflm
68.8H ..... 02220229200 5....
6863 ..... gas/mam @085
ogasfi ............. mmpmmmomm

.888 .886 3...qu 222
.888 9284833 858 xom

.§.om 3 086m ........... 2E8
.9565 ........ WDWEWOWMAwfiflW
68.nm gm ZOHEOMHOKAH
686... 023.205 ME<§E
686m 3029200 EOHA "mu/ah
.8063» ......... Bum <Emmmomo

.388 .8

.8588
8:85 as. 38888 a a 8.8
.3888 3 :3 m: 5.5 .883 o: 28
38— a ..5 .8858882 Ho 3.88 a .8
3898988 3825886 32 «o 28 .98
2:888 .3 .385 2: as... 83
.8: on .38 483338 .8 .3388 a

6868 ...... EDEMOmomm
cg.” ........... mo H<mo 2

88.8 Zoom mzamoo
88.88 .............. ”8.35
88.88 ...... >83 22:
88.8. .288 824.8532
.88.... © mzoom ozmmmmmo
88.8 3 88.2 ........ mmxom
88.2 8 83:. 88.5828
88.“
.88 ...8382 3 «8:83..
.83» ,
8.8m

.288 .388 .8 88.89 m8; 4..

838683..
3820 8888 E83 05 no 83
-8388 85 5525 8388.8
.8 393.5 u§$~ a €588 8
383.898 28 a 26; =o>

3433.343: 1.81 0.33334 ‘34 nujfiaduDLm—D

 

 

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

CITY OF CH ICAGU

RICHARD J. DALZY

MAYOR

Fellow Chicagoans:

A theatre, acclaimed as the greatest hall for the performing
arts in the world, lies dark in our city.

For more than half a century, the Auditorium Theatre echoed
with the sounds and glowed with the brilliance of the world's leading
singers, musicians, actors, statesmen, orators, and evangelists.
Challapin, Caruso, Melba, Mary Garden, Helen Terry, Sara Bernhardt,
George M. Cohan, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight L. Moody are some of
the names emblazoned on the Auditorium Theatre programs.

This theatre's exceptional versatility and diversified service
to the community lent vitality and excitement to Chicago. But when
the depression came, its lights dimmed and its stage was empty. The
hundreds of thousands of Chicagoans who each year had found enjoyment
and beauty in the Auditorium came no more.

But now there are new sounds in the Auditorium - the sounds of
construction. Men are at work restoring what is recognized as one of
the great architectural accomplishments of the twentieth century.

To duplicate this hall today would cost $20,000,000, but for
only $3,000,000 the sons and grandsons of the foresighted Chicagoans
who built the Auditorium can recreate an incomparable cultural center,
and reclaim its tradition and magnificence.

Here is a project of consequence to everyone, to those who want
the meaning and beauty of great architectural achievement to survive
and endure and to those who wish to see and hear the performing arts
in an incomparable setting.

As a great heritage entrusted to all Chicagoans by their fore-
fathers, the Auditorium Theatre represents an obligation and an oppor-
tunity. I know the citizens of this great city will reSpond to the
Opportunity and shoulder the obligation. I urge you to support the
Auditorium Theatre Council in this worthy effort.

Figure 34

172

 

 

 

 

 

"lljlllljlljlllllllgllelllllllllllllll ES

088852