VC Book Club: Devil in the White City

[IATTBYB]

I'm late replying to this, but I did want to say a few things.

 

First, yes, the whole concept of the fair was something that had to be pure hell for Olmsted. The idea of trying to create this landscape, virtually instantaneously, must have been a huge leap for him. Just thinking about the way he worked is so fascinating to me, the thought that you'd plan something with no expectations of it truly looking the way it's supposed to look for decades is insane, but beautiful.

 

The concept of the fair as something ephemeral is something else. I don't know that this was a new standard for this fair. I think he mentions later in the book, when Olmsted is touring the grounds of the Paris fair, that the Eiffel Tower and gardens were meant to be permanent, but the buildings were not? Or did I imagine that? Anyway, my understanding was that all worlds fairs were designed in that way, with mostly temporary structures. I'd say the difference here may have been that Chicago's fair was on such a grand scale, it's hard to imagine that anyone would go to all of that trouble for something that was designed to be temporary.

 

Which brings me back to the thing that I keep dwelling on here: could we do something like this today? The private financing, with oversight from the government, the incredibly tight design and construction schedule? Would anyone even attempt it? I think the only parallel I can see to this kind of achievement today would be in cities that are preparing for the Olympic games. The rate of construction, with a firm deadline, the huge amounts of money spent, the mandatory infrastructure upgrades, etc. And the scene where he describes the opening of the fair, with the electric lights flashing on across the grounds, the bands playing, the huge crowds, definitely reminded me of the pomp and spectacle of an Olympic opening ceremony.

If I recall correctly, the Grand and Petit Palais were also built specifically for the Paris fair and are still in existence. I'm not sure about any of the other buildings.

 

As for could something like this occur in this day and age, I agree that the only parallel would by the Olympic games. In the case for the Games, construction begins years before the actual Games. The fact that the Columbian Fair was built so quickly despite the setbacks encountered, including the naescent labor movement, is truly mind bending.

[jimmyjimmy]

I'm late replying to this, but I did want to say a few things.

 

 

The concept of the fair as something ephemeral is something else. I don't know that this was a new standard for this fair. I think he mentions later in the book, when Olmsted is touring the grounds of the Paris fair, that the Eiffel Tower and gardens were meant to be permanent, but the buildings were not? Or did I imagine that? Anyway, my understanding was that all worlds fairs were designed in that way, with mostly temporary structures. I'd say the difference here may have been that Chicago's fair was on such a grand scale, it's hard to imagine that anyone would go to all of that trouble for something that was designed to be temporary.

 

Earlier, I looked up the composition of Staff as a building material. With it's accuracy in question, I'd direct you to this wikipedia artice where it references the term "temporary buildings". Apparently not a very hearty material.

It is hard to understand given the size, scale and our vantage point all that effort with the mindset of destroying it later.

 

Which brings me back to the thing that I keep dwelling on here: could we do something like this today? The private financing, with oversight from the government, the incredibly tight design and construction schedule? Would anyone even attempt it? I think the only parallel I can see to this kind of achievement today would be in cities that are preparing for the Olympic games. The rate of construction, with a firm deadline, the huge amounts of money spent, the mandatory infrastructure upgrades, etc. And the scene where he describes the opening of the fair, with the electric lights flashing on across the grounds, the bands playing, the huge crowds, definitely reminded me of the pomp and spectacle of an Olympic opening ceremony.

 

 

If I recall correctly, the Grand and Petit Palais were also built specifically for the Paris fair and are still in existence. I'm not sure about any of the other buildings.

 

As for could something like this occur in this day and age, I agree that the only parallel would by the Olympic games. In the case for the Games, construction begins years before the actual Games. The fact that the Columbian Fair was built so quickly despite the setbacks encountered, including the naescent labor movement, is truly mind bending.

 

It's a good question, could it be done again and as quickly. Modern issues of infrasturcture, and a lack of regard for safety issues certainly give an advantage to the designers during the late 1890s. Our methods of construction today could expidite the process as could the means of delivering material in a more timely fashion.

 

I think you could get the money, and possibly build it as quickly or faster but the planning stage today would very possibly take a great deal longer.

[gogo]

I think you could get the money, and possibly build it as quickly or faster but the planning stage today would very possibly take a great deal longer.

I'm also questioning our will to do something like that. Maybe it could be done physically, but would anyone put themselves into Burnham's position, would any city take that kind of pride in the effort, would the political and social groups involved be able to pull together in that way? Which is not to say it was easy then, obviously Burnham had to pull some very intricate maneuvers to get it done, I'm just wondering if maybe they were on the descending edge of the era when those things were possible.

[Central Scrutinizer]

I'm late replying to this, but I did want to say a few things.

 

First, yes, the whole concept of the fair was something that had to be pure hell for Olmsted. The idea of trying to create this landscape, virtually instantaneously, must have been a huge leap for him. Just thinking about the way he worked is so fascinating to me, the thought that you'd plan something with no expectations of it truly looking the way it's supposed to look for decades is insane, but beautiful.

 

The concept of the fair as something ephemeral is something else. I don't know that this was a new standard for this fair. I think he mentions later in the book, when Olmsted is touring the grounds of the Paris fair, that the Eiffel Tower and gardens were meant to be permanent, but the buildings were not? Or did I imagine that? Anyway, my understanding was that all worlds fairs were designed in that way, with mostly temporary structures. I'd say the difference here may have been that Chicago's fair was on such a grand scale, it's hard to imagine that anyone would go to all of that trouble for something that was designed to be temporary.

 

Which brings me back to the thing that I keep dwelling on here: could we do something like this today? The private financing, with oversight from the government, the incredibly tight design and construction schedule? Would anyone even attempt it? I think the only parallel I can see to this kind of achievement today would be in cities that are preparing for the Olympic games. The rate of construction, with a firm deadline, the huge amounts of money spent, the mandatory infrastructure upgrades, etc. And the scene where he describes the opening of the fair, with the electric lights flashing on across the grounds, the bands playing, the huge crowds, definitely reminded me of the pomp and spectacle of an Olympic opening ceremony.

Living south of Atlanta, the parallel of the Olympics there and the permanence of what was left is significant.

 

Olmstead is interesting, but I just wonder if we didn't see his thoughts and compulsiveness through a biased narrator. Maybe the problems that befell the operations when he wasn't around, the unreliable subordinates, the committees and peers that just don't understand his vision ... could it be that his vision was as fleeting? That he couldn't pin it down himself and that the "I know what is is when I see it" approach has been used by many who are in over their heads. I throw this out to be somewhat contrarian, but that this is not fiction, I think you need to look a bit deeper at the character. I think the author was quite sympathetic with Olmstead vs the grand planner, who received a much more thorough approach (likely because there was far more records available on him).

[LouieB]

I think the only parallel I can see to this kind of achievement today would be in cities that are preparing for the Olympic games.

It is very weird to be reading this and living in Chicago right now when we are going all out to land the Olympics. Strangely much of what may be constructed will be in the same general vicinity as the Columbian Exposition, the south lakefront possibly and Washington Park. They are proposing a temporary stadium in Washington Park, one that will be taken down after the event and hold 100,000 people.

 

We are also supposed to be getting an upgraded and larger Ferris Wheel than the one currently at Navy Pier.

 

Its like deja vu all over again.

 

LouieB

[turtlegirl37]

Earlier, I looked up the composition of Staff as a building material. With it's accuracy in question, I'd direct you to this wikipedia artice where it references the term "temporary buildings". Apparently not a very hearty material.

It is hard to understand given the size, scale and our vantage point all that effort with the mindset of destroying it later.

 

 

I recall reading that, in deciding what materials to use, they wanted not only cheap and quick construction materials/methods but also those that would lend themselves to salvage. It seemed that permanence of the buildings was not a factor, as they also considered just lighting them on fire at the end of the fair.

[Central Scrutinizer]

I recall reading that, in deciding what materials to use, they wanted not only cheap and quick construction materials/methods but also those that would lend themselves to salvage. It seemed that permanence of the buildings was not a factor, as they also considered just lighting them on fire at the end of the fair.

It reminds me of everything at Disney World. Temporarily permanent.

[LouieB]

It reminds me of everything at Disney World. Temporarily permanent.

And hence the reference to Walt Disney's father working on construction.

 

I like this book so far, but something about it bugs me....not sure what yet....

 

LouieB

[Leo]

I was also enjoying the book so far. That is, until the truck I was driving was stolen. With my briefcase in it. With the book in that. Not to mention my wallet, checkbook, phone, iPod, and on and on.

One aspect on the narrative that I found a little too clever and, as a result, annoying, was the author's habit of leading us through a scene where the conflict began to mount only to be quickly cut away; as if to say, "stay tuned;" or, "more on that later;" or, "story on the 11 o'clock news!" I had only made it through the first 80 pages or so. Maybe it became more fluid farther into the story.

[turtlegirl37]

I was also enjoying the book so far. That is, until the truck I was driving was stolen. With my briefcase in it. With the book in that. Not to mention my wallet, checkbook, phone, iPod, and on and on.

 

 

I can't believe someone would steal your truck just to get that book. Unreal!

 

Sorry, man, that really sucks.

[miss jayne]

I really loved the go for it attitude of so many of the characters. The Recessional was awesome. The demise of the ferris wheel, Bloom's quote "But one thing was quite clear being broke didn't disturb be in the least. I had started with nothing,and if I now found myself with nothing, I was at least even. Actually, I was much better than even: I had had a wonderful time."

 

Today, I was in the Mission and there on display at my favorite used book store was Forty Years of Landscape:Central Park by Olmstead...so gogo, I agree with you his way of working is fascinating. I looked up the San Francisco fairs history and this page and the Rhody issue blew my mind:

 

http://www.sanfranciscomemories.com/ppie/buildings.html

 

I know two gardeners that work on estate gardens and sometimes the perfection desired is crazy...good they both of a great sense of humor

 

Dear Leo I am so sorry to hear about your truck...I'll bet a better one is on the way

[turtlegirl37]

Bloom's quote "But one thing was quite clear being broke didn't disturb me in the least. I had started with nothing,and if I now found myself with nothing, I was at least even. Actually, I was much better than even: I had had a wonderful time."

 

Loved that quote, too. Thanks for pointing it out.

[gogo]

I looked up the San Francisco fairs history and this page and the Rhody issue blew my mind:

 

http://www.sanfranciscomemories.com/ppie/buildings.html

I've been thinking a lot about that fair, too. I was in Anaheim this weekend, and my hotel room overlooked Disney's California Adventure (a new-ish park, just next to Disneyland). Part of the representation of San Francisco in that park is a replica of the Palace of Fine Arts, from the Pan-Pacific Expo. So there's the Disney version of a permanently temporary part of San Francisco, made temporarily permanent in Anaheim.

 

Being in Disneyland after having read this book is a changed experience, too. One of the storefronts in the Main Street area, just where you enter the park, has "Elias Disney, Contractor -- Est. 1895" stamped on the window:

 

 

So that's kind of neat, but then, I found myself taking a closer look at the buildings in place there, how they're laid out, the "public spaces", the landscaping, etc., in ways I had not looked at them before. Not everything works the way it was probably meant to, of course, but it is fascinating to be in an entirely designed place, rather than in a city or town where buildings and parks are created at different times, by designers with conflicting priorities, or which may be built to work around specific problems in the existing landscape.

 

 

Leo, sorry to hear about your truck! If you get a chance to get back to the book, I think you'll find that you do get past the authorial tics that are definitely there, but don't really take away from the overall story once you're into it.

 

 

And Lou, I was thinking that about Chicago and the Olympics, too. That is mind-blowing to think that they're planning a temporary stadium. For most Olympics, those new stadiums remain in place after the games, don't they? Love it about the bigger Ferris wheel, though. I think Chicago should be trumpeting that bit of their history a lot louder, to me it's one of the coolest parts of this story.

[John Smith]

Nice Photo spread in the Trib...

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/pho...92.photogallery

[gogo]

Those are fabulous, thank you.

[Preferred B]

Full disclosure: I haven't read through this thread, and I read the book a couple of years ago.

 

But! One of my favorite things about it, which has endured, was teaching me more about architectural history and architects themselves. I like randomly recognizing the names and work of people I first learned about in the book. I learned that one of the libraries in my hometown was designed by Burnham:

 

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/618663

 

When I was a kid I just thought it was a cool old building, but now it's like, "Ooooh, I see." And I was at Biltmore earlier this year and read that the gardens were designed by Frederick Law Olmsted. You'd think I might have known him from designing Central Park, but no. I guess I haven't read any books about Central Park.

[IATTBYB]

More photos than you can swing a stick at from IIT

[LouieB]

I was also enjoying the book so far. That is, until the truck I was driving was stolen. With my briefcase in it. With the book in that. Not to mention my wallet, checkbook, phone, iPod, and on and on.

One aspect on the narrative that I found a little too clever and, as a result, annoying, was the author's habit of leading us through a scene where the conflict began to mount only to be quickly cut away; as if to say, "stay tuned;" or, "more on that later;" or, "story on the 11 o'clock news!" I had only made it through the first 80 pages or so. Maybe it became more fluid farther into the story.

Wow..sorry about your truck. As someone who has had 5 cars stolen I feel your pain.

 

I also sort of agree about the narrative flow of this thing. I am about 2/3 through this book and realized at a certain point that this is sort of a historical fiction, not a real history book. Okay sure the stuff about the fair is pretty factual and perhaps the actual interaction between the major figures is fairly real, but much of the murder narrative is fictional imaginings of what it must have been like. None the less I am enjoying it on that level, although it certainly isn't very gruesome, in fact not nearly as explicit as I thought it would be and in fact it seems to hold back just when it seems like things are going to get "good". I realize some of the more gruesome stuff comes later, but it sort of holds back on what happened to some of the earlier victims. Frankly it seems like there is way more about the fair than the murders.

 

LouieB