152 Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency 



THE NEW BUILDING PROJECT 



About ten years after the erection and occupancy of this 

 building, some members of the Board began discussing the ad- 

 visability of providing for either an extension to the old building 

 or the construction of a new administration building. The out- 

 side advice secured seems to have consisted (at least as far as 

 the records of the Board disclose) of a report by the architects, 

 D. H. Burnham & Company, which reads as follows : 



"Chicago, June 30, 1909 

 "Mr. Henry G. Foreman, President South Park Commissioners, Chicago, 



"Illinois : 

 "Dear Sir: 



"Replying to your inquiry regarding the advisability of extending 

 the present South Park Administration Building by the addition of wings 

 sufficient to take care of your needs : 



"We beg to advise you that some time in the early part of 1908 

 we made studies for such a building. It required a ground area of 14,- 

 500 square feet to give you approximately the required amount of space 

 for the offices and rooms, and we estimate the cost of this building opera- 

 tion to be $60,000. The total ground area of the new Administration 

 Building, by reason of the more economical layout that is possible, is only 

 12,560 square feet. 



"We strongly recommend the erection of the entire new building, 

 for the following reasons : 



"1. The total area of the old Administration Building is 3,156 square 

 feet, or 20 per cent, of the total area of the project when complete. This, 

 however, would not effect a saving of 20 per cent, of the entire cost, for 

 the reason that very little of the old building could be saved. It would 

 probably not average more than 8 per cent, or 10 per cent, of the entire 

 cost of the operation ; in fact, we think $5,000 would be an outside figure 

 for the actual saving in using this old building. 



"2. By starting with the old building, it would be impossible to make 

 a dignified and symetrical composition. 



"3. For the reason that the old building is not rightly situated, 



"4. For the reason that the old building can be occunied without dis- 

 turbance until the new building is completed and ready to be moved 

 into. 



"5. The plan of the entire new building is very much more con- 

 venient and straightforward than any plan could be made extending the 

 old building. 



"6. The new building, with the exception of the roof, is of fire- 

 proof construction. The old building and additions would be non-fire- 

 proof. If the additions were built fireproof, the cost would exceed 

 $60,000. 



"7. Owing to its proposed location on a terrace, the new building 

 has a large area in the basement which could be used for storage pur- 

 poses. The addition to the old building is figured without a basement. 



"In conclusion we would say that the old building is not suitably 

 placed in regard to the park and the other services, nor in accordance 

 with good precedent established in other places. Such a building is al- 



