HomeMy Public PortalAbout3. Chapter 3 - American Rural Architecture Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 37 CHAPTER 3 AMERICAN RURAL ARCHITECTURE Farmstead Planning The relationship of the farmhouse to the barn and othe r farm buildings was generally determined by five factors: topography, weather conditions, convenience and labor efficiency, land survey organization, and, most importantly for some settlers, ethnic or re gional tradition. A south facing orientation secured maximum light; an orientation toward the east allowe d a barn to place its back against west prevailing winds. Local snow accumulation also influenced barn locations. In much of the Midwest, the geometric grid of roads and survey lines was basically aligned with compass directions, a nd farmers often lined up their barns and farm buildings in conformity. Wher e the terrain was more rugged, farmers followed the contours of the land in laying out buildings. In terms of labor efficiency, the barn did not need to be near the house except in areas where winters were cold and ha rsh. It was desirable to locate the barn closer to the field and other outbuildings than to the house. Mi dwestern farmers usually laid out their farmsteads in several basic patterns influenced by the five fact ors listed above. The most common site plan was one with all of the buildings in the same orientation in a courtyard arrangement, where the house and barn formed two sides of an open square and smaller ou tbuildings and roads formed the other two sides. Another pattern was a more free form arrangement in which buildings varied in alignment, but generally followed the contour of the land.112 Development of Balloon Framing The initial settlement of Will and Kendall Counties co incided with one of the most revolutionary developments in American building construction: th e introduction of the balloon frame. Referred to as “that most democratic of building technologies,”113 the balloon frame allowed the construction of a house with a minimum of labor and a moderate amount of ca rpentry skills: the key to the success of the balloon frame was the proper construction and erection sequence of its components. Prior to the development of the balloon frame, builders using timber for the construc tion of houses and other structures used structural systems such as the box frame or braced frame. It utili zed heavy timbers to form posts, girts, girders, braces, and rafters, all fastened together with traditional carpentry joining such as mortise and tenons, splices, dovetails, and others. This type of structural sy stem required builders to have a crew of five or six men to raise and set the heavy timbers.114 The materials used in the construction of a balloon frame structure consisted of milled lumber that was much lighter in weight than heavy timbers.115 Credit for the development of the balloon frame is usually given to George Washington Snow of Chicago,116 although others give note that the originator of the system was a carpenter, Augustine Taylor, 112 Allen G. Noble and Hubert G.H. Wilhelm, “The Farm Barns of the American Midwest” in Barns of the Midwest, Allen G. Noble and Hubert G.H. Wilhelm, ed. (Ath ens, Ohio: Ohio Univers ity Press, 1995), 9–10. 113 Michael P. Conzen, “The Bi rth of Modern Chicago,” in 1848: Turning Point for Chicago, Turning Point for the Region (Chicago: The Newberry Library, 1998), 22. 114 For a thorough discussion of the early architectural history of Illinois, see Thomas Edward O’Donnell, “An Outline of the History of Architecture in Illinois,” Transactions of the Illinois State Historical Society (Springfield, Illinois, 1931); and Thomas Edward O’Donnell, “Recordin g the Early Architecture of Illinois in the Historic American Buildings Survey,” Illinois State Historical Society, Transactions for the Year 1934 (Springfield, Illinois, 1934). 115 Advances in milling techniques in the early 1800s and the invention and development of machinery to produce nails from iron in the late 1700s and early 1800s preceded the development of the balloon frame. 116 Paul E. Sprague, “Chicago Balloon Frame: The Evolution During the 19 th Century of George W. Snow’s System for Erecting Light Frame Buildings from Dimension Lumber and Machine-made Nails,” in The Technology of Historic American Buildings, H. Ward Jandl, ed. (Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Preservation Technology for
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 38 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey who with Snow built the first structure using ballo on frame construction, St. Mary’s Church, in 1833.117 At that time Chicago lacked a sawm ill to produce the cut lumber, mills were present in Indiana and in Plainfield.118 However, these mills were relatively far away , and transportation of milled heavy timbers difficult and expensive. Therefore, it was necessary to develop a more economical construction system. The classic balloon frame consists of the following elements:119 A sill, made from a large section of milled lumber (e.g., 4x8) or two or more smaller pieces (two 2x8s), set on a masonry or concrete foundation, Floor joists (2x10, 2x12, etc.), typically at 16 inches on center,120 reinforced by diagonal bridging, nailed to the sill and nailed to: Studs (2x4 or 2x6), also set at 16 inches on center, running the full height of the building wall, to which is nailed: Ledgers to support the second floor joints, Exterior wall sheathing, consisting of wood boards (1x8), often set at a diagonal to create a structural diaphragm, A top plate on the stud wall, on which are set: Roof rafters (2x10, 2x12, etc.) set at 16 to 24 inches on center, to which roof sheathing consisting of wood boards are nailed, followed by wood roofing shingles, Exterior wall siding, Flooring nailed to the wood joists, consisting of two layers of wood boards (a rough board subfloor followed by a finished wood strip surface, Interior wall finish, consisting of w ood lath nailed to the wood studs, covered by two to three layers of plaster. Since a carpenter with one or two helpers could fra me and sheath a small one story house in one week, the balloon allowed a settler to have a dwelling on their land in a short amount of time. In addition, there was a 40 percent savings in the amount of material to enclose the same volume as compared to the braced frame.121 Additions were as easy to construct as the orig inal house, and easier to frame into than if braced framing was used. Another benefit of the balloon frame’s light weight was that it allowed a structure to be moved more easily to a new site, if more room w as needed on a property for other buildings or if additional land was obtained. the Association for Preservation Technology, 1983), 36. 117 Fred W. Peterson, Homes in the Heartland: Balloon Frame Farmhouses of the Upper Midwest, 1850–1920 (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1992), 14. 118 Sprague, “Chicago Balloon Frame,” 37. The Plainfield mill was the first James Walker mill, built between 1830 and 1832. A mill also existed in Na-Au-Say Township in the 1850s. See Chapter 2. 119 As with any new system or technique, there was a period of transition in which older framing methods were used along side balloon framing. This is discussed in Sprague, “Chicago Balloon Frame.” 120 Platform framing, also called Western framing, developed from balloon framing, allowing floor joists to be spaced up to 24 inches on center. Pl atform framing involved setting each floor level as a platform on the stud walls, allowing the use of shorter stud walls. 121 Peterson, 9 and 11.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 39 The balloon frame derived its name from the lightweight framing that allowed a la rge volume of space to be enclosed economically. The drawing shown above is from was published nearly 60 years after the system was developed (Masonry, Carpentry, Joinery , International Library of Technol ogy Volume 30 (1889, reprint Chic ago: Chicago Review Press, 1980), Carpentry section, drawing between pages 101 and 102). Below right is a drawing of balloon framing from 1894 (William E. Bell, Carpentry Made Easy, or the Science and Art of Framing (Philadelphia: Ferguson Bros. & Co., 1894), plate 5). Below left is a drawing of platform or Western fram ing construction, a developmen t from balloon framing, pub lished in the 1930s (Charles George Ramsey and Harold Reeve Sl eeper, Architectur al Graphic Standards , Third Edition (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1941).
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 40 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Farming trade publications touted the benefits of the balloon frame to their audience.122 All of its inherent advantages led American farmers to adopt it as the st andard structural framing system for houses by the end of the century. Although many ethnic groups brought their own techniques of constructing farmhouses and farm buildings with them to the United States, they often adopted balloon framing techniques in whole or in part and adapted it to their traditions.123 As different architectural styles were introduced, the balloon frame was easily modified to create the forms and spaces required. Albert Britt of Illinois, in his book An America That Was, describes his family’s new farmhouse that “cost nearly a thousand dollars”:124 Farmhouses were built without benefit of architect or reference to a particular style or period. Such plans as existed were principally in the head of the local carpenter who bossed the job. Ours was named Perkins and he came from Alexis, all of six miles away. . . . A model of our house could have been made easily with a set of child’s building blocks, but it was roomy and comfortable without dormers, turrets, or scrollsaw orname ntation, which were unpleasantly common on dwellings of that time. Prime consideration was enough interior space to suit a family’s needs, and if the house was leakproof through rain and snow and windproof for anything short of a cyclone, all hands were satisfied. Houses were painted white, window blinds green. Barns were always painted red and as the color weathered some of the barns were beautiful. If a barn was in sight from the road it usually had the year of construction painted on it in large white numerals.125 With the completion of the new farmhouse, Britt goes on to describe how the older farm structures were adapted for new functions: “with the building of a ne w home the little old one became a stable for horses, and the lean-to kitchen the family smokehouse.”126 This shows the flexibility that the framing system allowed, since these new functions required new or larger openings, relocating the structure, or construction of additions. 122 Peterson, 15–24. 123 One example was German-Russian farmers from East ern Europe: “German-Russian s eventually combined Batsa brick with balloon-frame construction, placing clay brick in walls between the studs to stabilize and insulate the dwelling.” (Michael Koop, “German-Russians,” in America’s Architectural Roots: Ethnic Groups that Built America, Dell Upton, ed. (New York: Preservation Pr ess, John Wiley & Sons, 1986), 131.) 124 Albert Britt, An America That Was (Barre, Massachusetts: Barre Publishers, 1964), 33. 125 Ibid. 126 Ibid.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 41 Masonry Construction Brick Historically, brick masonry construction was so mewhat uncommon in the survey area. (Masonry construction using locally quarried limestone was more common.) A few distinctive and well preserved historic brick houses exist in the survey area, as well as a small number of brick outbuildings. Two examples are the Dague House in Wheatland Townsh ip and the Gilbert Gaylord House in Oswego Township. The Dague house (left) in Section 26 of Wheatland Township , constructed 1870, and the Gilb ert Gaylord House (right) on Plainfield Road in Section 35 of Oswego Township are two of th e relatively few examples of br ick masonry construction in the rural survey area. Concrete Although concrete was used by the Romans in anti quity, its use in recent times dates from the mid-nineteenth century. In 1860, S.T. Fowler patented a t ype of reinforced concrete wall construction, but it was not until the 1870s and 1880s that examples ha d actually been constructed. By 1900 numerous systems of reinforced concrete construction had been patented.127 Concrete was seen as a material with great potential for use on the farm. Farmers were given guidance in using concrete on the farm, recommending its use in a variety of structures: Concrete can be used on the farm for residences, barns, poultry houses, garages, piggeries, stalls and mangers, milk houses, machine sheds, ice houses, silos, all kinds of tanks and troughs, vats and wallows, manure pits, septic tanks, piers and foundations, sidewalls, steps, driveways, hen nests, pump pits, fence posts, etc. ——— Of all the buildings on the farm, which should be built of concrete, probably none is more important than the silo. Here is a structure in which it is essential to keep the silage fresh in order that the stock may be keep thrifty and growing all winter. The silo prevents a waste of corn stalks, which contain about one-third of the food value of the entire crop, and it enables a large number of animals to be maintained on a given number of acres. The concrete silo is ratproof, windproof, fireproof and will withstand cyclones. It will not dry out in the hot summer months, keeps the silage in perfect condition and can be constructed at a moderate first cost. There are four types of silos: Monolithic, cement block, stave and cement plaster construction. What has been said regarding concrete for piggeries is also true in connection with poultry houses. Concrete buildings contain no crevices in which to harbor vermin, and this freedom from lice 127 William B. Coney, “Preservation of Historic Concre te: Problems and General Approaches,” National Park Service Preservation Brief 15, 2.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 42 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey makes it possible for the birds to retain more flesh at the end of the setting period and therefore more strength. Poultry can withstand dry cold when housed, but cannot endure dampness or drafts from below, and a concrete floor will also keep out rats. Instances are known where concrete is used successfully for nests, dropping platforms and roosts, thus greatly simplifying the problem of cleaning. The first requirem ent of a milk house is that it is scrupulously clean, and the construction should be such as to eliminate br eeding places for germs and cracks or crevices for dirt to collect, making cleaning difficult or impossible. A milk house properly constructe d of concrete fulfills these requirements, and concrete floors are re commended for sanitary reasons, with proper provisions for draining. The milk house should be located with reference to other buildings, such as stables and manure pits.128 The survey area contains numerous examples of cast-in -place concrete structures, including silos, milk houses, pump houses, and of course building foundations. Concrete Block Beginning in the early 1900s, mass production of c oncrete block units succeeded after several earlier developments failed to lead to widespread production.129 Harmon S. Palmer patented a cast iron machine with a removable core and adjustab le sides in 1900, allowing companies and cottage industries to spring up across the country. Palmer founded the Hollow Building Block Company in 1902, selling $200 block machines. Other manufacturers who flooded the ma rket with similar machines (without directly infringing on Palmer’s patent) led to increased u se of concrete block in building construction. The blocks were produced by mixing Portland cement , water, sand, and gravel aggregate; placing the mixture in the machine and tamping it down to eliminate voids; and pulling a lever to release the block from the machine. Newly made blocks were stacked un til the concrete cured, typically for one month. Blocks were made with a variety of face textures and even color, with “rockface” block being one of the most popular styles.130 Although early block machines and block manufacturers produced units relatively larger than contemporary units, by the mid-1920s standards were in troduced by concrete pr oducts organizations that included fabrication of units 8 by 8 by 16 inches in size. Other standards, produced by the National Association of Cement Users, the Concrete Producer s Association, and the C oncrete Block Manufacturers Association, promoted testing to improve quality.131 However, concrete block be gan to fall out of favor as a building facing material during this same peri od. During the 1930s, smooth-faced block began to dominate the industry as architectural styles changed. Also by the later 1930s, mass production of block units began to supplant the use of earlier concrete block machines. Just as with concrete, farmers were encouraged to u se concrete block for their structures. At the annual meeting of the Illinois Farmers’ Institute in 1913, one lecturer discussed concrete block for silos: It is clear that the cash outlay for material b ecomes of the first importance and cost of labor becomes second. To illustrate, a man in such circumstances might have gravel on his farm. Also, he might have lumber, which he could use temporarily for the scaffold. The cost of cement block molds is slight, and if this man were somewhat of a mechanic, he would find it advantageous to secure a mold or molds and make his own cement blocks at odd times. In this way a cement block silo could be built with less cash outlay than any other form of silo.132 128 “The Use of Concrete Work on the Farm,” Building Age (February 1917), 102–103. 129 Pamela H. Simpson, Cheap, Quick, and Easy: Imitative Architectural Materials, 1870–1930 (Knoxville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee Press, 1999), 11. 130 Ibid., 24. 131 Ibid., 21–22. 132 M.L. King, “Planning the Silo,” in Eighteenth Annual Report of the Illinois Farmers’ Institute, H.A. McKeene, ed. (Springfield, Illinois: Illinois State Journal Company, 1914), 64.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 43 The survey area has many fine examples of concrete block st ructures, ranging from Foursquare farmhouses to utilitarian farm structures. At top left is a farm house in Section 28 of Plainfield Township fa cing Illinois Route 59; at top right is an illust ration from Wm. A Radford’s Cement Houses and How to Build Them (circa 1910). At middle are three ex amples of concrete block crib barns and water towers in the survey area: left, Na-Au-Say Town ship, Section 13; center, Oswego Township, Section 25; right, Na-Au-Say Township, Section 14. At bottom left is a two-level pl ank frame barn with first floor walls constructed of concrete block, located in Section 35 of Oswego Townsh ip. A detail view of typical rock face concrete masonry units is at bottom right.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 44 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Building trade journals also promoted the use of concrete block on the farm: If one may judge from the demand and the variety of uses to which it is put, the concrete block is the most important of all cement products. When properly made it has not failed to give satisfaction as a building material and much of its popularity has resulted from the pleasing architectural effects that have b een brought about. Hollow blocks represent a considerable saving in cost, without reducing the strength so as to impair the safety of the building. The use of facings to bring about pleasing exterior treatments has its advantages while the interior air chambers allow them to conduct heat or cold but slowly. This fact makes buildings of this material warm in winter. The survey area has many good examples of the use of concrete block. Most of the houses are American Foursquare types, since that was the most popular styl e of rural residential construction in the first two decades of the twentieth century. By the 1910s, farmers had several choices of silos using concrete bl ock. Both advertisements are from the farm journal Hoard’s Dairyman , 1909. Limestone One building material dating from the earliest period of European settlement in the survey area was limestone quarried from the Fox and DuPage River valle ys. These same regions later provided gravel for use in concrete construction in the Chicago area. Th e numerous quarries east of Plainfield in the DuPage River valley were utilized first for their limestone r eserves but are primarily used today as sources of gravel. The following is an overview of the history of the stone industry in the region. The area surrounding Joliet contains abundant suppli es of limestone, derived predominantly from the Niagaran strata. Owing to oxidation of ferrous minera ls contained in the stone, the color of the stone ranges from buff near the surface to gray tones at deeper levels. Its surface is a hard, compact and slightly porous, brittle dolomite. The stone has thin seams of greenish clay (chert) running through the whole
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 45 mass, which upon long exposure in alternately wet a nd dry conditions causes the solid calcium carbonate layers to delaminate.133 A prosperous period for quarrying stone in the Jolie t area began during the 1830s and lasted until nearly the end of the century. D.H. Demmond was the first to quarry stone in the Joliet district, most likely on the bluffs west of Des Plaines River overlooking the fledgling Joliet settlement. His was the first stone house in the area, built in 1835. Stone quarrying spr ead quickly and by 1850 a chain of quarries was developing against the bluffs on the western bank of the river. William Davidson and his brother opened the first of several quarries in 1845, one mile sout h of Joliet at a point where the canal turns west-southwest with the curve of the river. By the mi d-1850s tracks for the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad had been laid within the same curve, between ri ver and canal, affording this quarry access to good transportation facilities. By 1897, it had grown to c over about 60 acres and employed about 130 men, and shipped to customers up to 500 miles away. The quarry produced flagstone, dimension stone, rough stone, dressed stone, cut stone, and rubble for use in constr uction and ornamentation of buildings and for the roadbeds of highways and railroads.134 Meanwhile in Lemont, a canal contractor named Br own bought up land along the canal’s margin and established a quarry. A few years later Boyer and Corn eau opened a quarry a mile further west of town.135 Other early quarrymen around Lemont included Horace M. Singer and Edwin Walker.136 Lime was also a significant product of the stone industry, especially with numerous masonry structures erected due to the economic development after the openi ng of the I&M Canal in 1848. In that year Dr. J. F. Daggett, a local physician, bought a considerable amount of land south of Lockport and approximately three miles north of Joliet where he opened a quarry . Daggett and Hiram Norton owned a kiln for making lime for mortar used in building construction. Around 1852 James Bruce established his quarry just to the south. He had already established quarries in Romeo a nd Drummond in 1848. By the turn of the century, his son Robert C. Bruce operated a large quarry owned by his father’s estate just east of the Illinois State Penitentiary. In March 1851, Oak Hill Quarry was op ened by Isaac Noble and G. A. Cousens Company, just south of Lockport village and adjacent to the Bruce quarry. These quarries provided dimension stone, flagging stone, bridge stone, and rubble stone, shippe d by rail and canal from their location approximately one mile north of the Illinois State Penitentiary at the north end of Joliet. Another early quarryman was William Kronmeyer who opened a stone yard near th e lock, one and one-half miles north of downtown Joliet.137 The limestone industry grew steadily, both in number a nd acreage size of firms. By the beginning of 1856 there were 8 quarries in operation near Joliet, the sma llest of which employed 5 men and the largest of which employed 48. The total number of men employed by the quarries during that year was 120. Of these 23 worked for Francis Schwalm and 48 for A. H. Taylor and Company, the largest quarries in operation at that time. In July of 1865, W. A. Steel, together with his father-i n-law, Colonel Lorenzo P. Sanger, opened Sanger and Steel. In early 1871, Stee l purchased Sanger’s interests and became the sole proprietor of the Joliet Stone Quarries. Steel furnis hed stone for the United States Custom Houses in Des Moines, Iowa, and Madison, Wisconsin, as well as th e Michigan State Capital. Moreover, he supplied stone for about sixty courthouses and jails in Illinoi s and Michigan and for the St. Louis courts and government buildings at the Rock Island Arsenal. Jolie t Stone Quarries began the largest quarry in the 133 Linda Ponte, “The Celebrated Joliet Marble Field,” in An Historical Geography of the Lower Des Plaines Valley Limestone Industry, Time and Place in Joliet, Michael Conzen, ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1988), 15. 134 Ibid., 17. 135 They stayed in business for n early 30 years, with the majority of sales in the Chicago area. 136 Ponte, “The Celebrated Joliet Marble Field,” 19. 137 Ibid.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 46 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey United States.138 Lockport native Julius A. Boyer opened the Lemont Stone Quarries in 1869. From these quarries he furnished dimension, flagging, and r ubble stone. He supplied limestone for stone-fronted buildings on the west side of Chicago.139 The Great Chicago Fire of 1871 provided enormous s timulation to the stone quarrying industry. Not only was stone needed at once to replace destroyed buildi ngs, especially in the city center, but new building ordinances created a “fire” zone in which wood constr uction was in theory prohibited. Many new quarries were started to cater to the increased demand. One ex ample is the Joliet Stone Company, incorporated in 1872.140 As the quarry industry peaked in the 1880s, many smaller businesses were bought out by much larger operations or forced by competition to abandon thei r sites. The consolidation of established quarries changed the methods of the business. Tools to crush, cut, rub, and saw stone became more advanced and raised production, while some of the old established quarries saw themselves eclipsed by newer and larger enterprises. Lemont quarries developed branch offices and storage yards in Chicago as early as the 1870s; those of Joliet and Lockport quarries appeared in th e 1880s. It was reported in the 1880s that “the amount of stone accessible here is almost unlimited.”141 Quarries were removing only the top 12 to 15 feet to supply building stone, since it was unnecessary to go any deeper: Possible quarry sites are abundant along the De s Plaines Valley, but favorable locations are limited to areas near some railroad where the over burden is not too great and water will not be too abundant. In general, the higher the elevation of a quarry, the less difficulty with water will be encountered.142 However, the development of smoother business links with customers in metropolitan areas could not offset competition from alternative sources with superi or building stone. The availability of more durable Indiana limestone and the discovery of the lack of long-term durability of the Joliet stone, in addition to the introduction of other building materials such as conc rete, led to the decline of the Joliet, Lemont, and Lockport stone industry. Throughout the first two decades of the twentieth centur y, the industry continued to decline. In 1913, the Western Stone Company, which had bought out many smaller companies during the boom years of the later nineteenth century, closed its doors.143 In an Illinois Geological Survey report of 1925, it was reported that “the main uses of dolomite from this area are for road material, concrete, flux, agricultural purposes, building stone, and sidewalks.”144 The report also stated that building stone or flagstone (for sidewalks) was no longer a major product of the quarri es, and that “with the present tendency towards the use of brick and artificial stone, it seems fairly certain that the dimension stone industry of this area is not a growing industry.”145 Also in 1925, the National Stone Comp any, controlling about 30 acres, became the largest quarry in Will County. This quarry reflected a new emphasis on crushed stone and the 138 Ibid., 22. 139 Ibid., 23. 140 Ibid. 141 A.H. Worthen, Economical Geology of Illinois, Volume II (Springfield, Illinois, 1882), 482. 142 Fisher, 118. 143 Ponte, 23. 144 Fisher, 118. In the mid-1920s, Illinois State Penitentia ry at Stateville (now Stateville Correctional Center) was under construction and utilized concrete extensively. Gravel for the concrete mixing was quarried by inmates in the region. But the primary involvement of the Illinois prison system with the De s Plaines valley limestone industry was the quarry at the “old prison” at Joliet (now Joliet Correctio nal Center). The quarry at the prison, using inmate labor, produced stone material for construction, although use of this stone began to be restricted to state agencies after the early 1900s. 145 Ibid., 119.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 47 declining demand for building stone. A number of quarries remained in business, depending on the demand for crushed stone to keep their sites open and active.146 The DuPage River Valley stone quarry locate d in Section 2 of Plainfield, west of the site of the John Spangler farmstead, was t he largest quarry in the region outside of the Des Plaines River valley. In recent years the site has been us ed as an automobile salvage yard. 1999 photograph. DuPage Valley Limestone and Gravel Like the Des Plaines River valley, the DuPage Rive r valley also supported quarr ying operations, first for building stone and subsequently for gravel from la rge tracts of land to the east and northeast of the Village of Plainfield. Stone quarryin g operations date back to the 1850s . Numerous surviving structures in the survey region were constructed with Du Page River valley limestone. One quarry has been identified in Section 2 of Plainfield Township, w est of the site of the John Spangler farmstead.147 146 Ibid. 147 Michael A. Lambert. Preliminary Study Map – Wheatland and Plainfield Township Stone Building District. 1 June 1992.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 48 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey DuPage River Valley Limestone. Top: Sect ion 2, Plainfield Township. Bottom: Section 35, Wheatland Township. Historic limestone structures in the survey area are typically located close to the DuPage River. The western half of Wheatland and Plainfield Townships, and the portions of Na-Au-Say and Oswe go Townships in the survey area, do not have the same concentration of historic limestone stru ctures, other than some building foundations. The quarrying of sand and gravel in northeast Plainfie ld Township dates from at least the 1840s, when the farmstead of Benjamin Norton was reported have gravel “held in high repute among builders since 1846.”148 In the first decade of the 1900s, the Chicago Gr avel Company began excavations east of the town of Plainfield Township. Th e resultant opening in the ground fille d with water and was named Lake Renwick, after Frank W. Renwick of the Chicago Gravel Company. By the mid-1920s, the lake was a half mile in length.149 The gravel layer extended down approxi mately 25 feet below the level of the ground plain at the north end of the lake and almost te n feet more at the south end. The gravel that was quarried by the Chicago Gravel Company was reported to be 40 percent sand smaller than 1/4 inch in diameter.150 Gravel quarrying operations have continued to the present, with much of the quarry work in progress in Wheatland Township (pri marily in Sections 23 and 26). 148 Souvenir of Settlement and Progress of Will County, Illinois, 379. 149 Fisher, 120. 150 Ibid.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 49 The top photograph show Lake Renwick ci rca early 1920s (Fisher, 93). The bottom right photograph shows a crane from the gravel quarries east of Plainfield that was located in Se ction 14 until it was dismantled in the early 2000s. The land is now owned by the Forest Preser ve District of Will County. At bottom le ft is an illustrati on of Iper’s gravel quarry in Section 2 of DuPage Township, located some ten miles to the north east of the Plainfield gr avel pits (Fisher, 80).
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 50 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Classification of Farmhouses Most built structures can be grouped into one of three categories of stylistic classification: “high style,” where the building clearly relates to a defined architect ural style in form and detail; vernacular of “folk architecture,” where builders or owners without formal architectural training construct buildings based on regional or cultural customs, and where stylistic el ements derived from style books are applied or mixed within the same structure; and utilita rian, where style is entirely secondary and efficient use of materials is the primary factor in the design. Most buildings fall into the categories of vernacular and utilitarian. Farmhouses were usually built by a builder or carpenter , and reflect general types of houses popular at the time. A discussion of the utilitarian types of farm buildi ngs is covered later in this chapter. The discussion below first describes the architectural styles found to some degree in the surv ey area. This is followed by an outline of the types of farmhouses, since most of these structur es are better categorized by this means, with only the applied ornament being classified by style. Some houses in the survey area have undergone extensive renovations, making identification of a style or type difficult. In these situations, an assessment has been made as to possible original style or ty pe with notes made in the comment portion of each survey form giving additional information on additions or alterations. Architectural Style In the second half of the nineteen th century, architectural styles were disseminated through style books promoting not only aesthetic features of houses but also the orderly qualities for a proper domestic environment.151 Another source of building ideas was agri cultural journals. Although carpenters and builders rarely followed such books and journals ex actly, these publications did influence the types of houses being constructed (as discussed in the next sec tion) as well as the stylistic elements applied to those houses. Although it is unlikely that many of the buildings in the survey area were built using designs or supervision of academically trained architects, many of th e farmhouses were built by carpenters and builders competent at applying f ashionable architectural styles in their work. Greek Revival The Greek Revival style was popular in the United States beginning in the 1820s and continued in some regions until the 1870s. Inspired by archaeological ex cavations and measured drawings of ancient Greek temples, the style was developed by America’s first trained architects and spread by pattern books that influenced carpenters and builder s across the relatively young United States. American culture found an identification with the democracy in Ancient Greece. Greek Revival buildings have simple rectilinear forms, prominent classical ornament, molded corni ces and window lintels, and other ornamental motifs inspired by Classical architecture. The style’s simple massing and details went along with the sometimes limited materials and resources of rural areas. Several of the buildings in the survey area have Classical details. Two of the houses that best relate to the Greek Revival style are the Coe-Cheeny farmhou se in Plainfield Township and a farmhouse in Na-Au-Say Township. Several other farmhouses have the basic rectilinear form inspired by Classical architecture although they do not have dominant Greek Revival detailing. 151 Peterson, Homes in the Heartland, 68.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 51 Shown at left is the Greek Revival style Coe-Cheeny farmhouse, located on Wood Farm Road in Plainfield Township (PIN 03-09-300-004). At right is the Foulston–Wheeler farm house in Section 12 of Na-Au-Say Township. Gothic Revival Gothic Revival was roughly contemporary with Greek Revi val, although with very different inspiration. It utilized late Medieval Gothic forms that have vertica lly oriented massing with steeply sloped roofs, and detail features such as pointed arches, narrow la ncet windows, decorative bargeboards and finials, battlemented parapets, and clusters of chimney st acks. Like Greek Revival, pattern books guided architects and builders. Andrew Jackson Downing’s The Architecture of Country Houses helped popularize this style. Gothic Revival architecture is not strongly present in the rural survey area, although some buildings have ornamental features inspired by the style. The Gothic Revival style is exemplified by this house (at left) on Eastern Avenue in the Village of Plainfield (not part of the rural survey project). At right, a detail of th e bargeboard ornament of the Herzog farmhouse in Section 34 of Wheatland Township, which is similar to Gothic Revival patterns. Second Empire One of the fashionable styles in the middle of the ni neteenth century was the Second Empire style, which took its name from the public buildings with mansar d roofs built under French emperor Napoleon III. (The first empire was the reign of his uncle, Napol eon). The style was transformed and applied in the United States to domestic as well as institutiona l buildings. In addition to the mansard roof and architectural features often present on Italianate build ings, Second Empire buildings often feature rich classical or baroque detailing and dormer windows with moldings or hoods. No true examples of Second Empire are extant in the rural survey area. Italianate Italianate, or Italianate Victorian, was one of the most popular and fashionable building styles in the mid-1800s, popular from about 1850 to 1880. Inspired by Italian Renaissance architecture, Italianate style
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 52 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey houses feature rectilinear massing, low pitched roofs, overhanging eaves with bracketed cornice, and tall rectangular windows. Other features often present ar e moldings or hoods around window lintels (which are sometimes arched) and polygonal or rectangular bays or towers. There are several farmhouses with Italianate detailing such as window hoods or brackets in the survey area. The survey area has several examples of It alianate or Italianate-influenced buildings . Examples include the house at the Smith farmstead in Section 25, Na-Au-Say Township (left), and the G ilbert Gaylord house in Section 35 of Oswego Township (right). Queen Anne Popular in the last two decades of the nineteenth cen tury, this building style in its purest form utilized irregular, asymmetrical massing and floor plans, sever al types of building materials, and extensive ornament to create an eclectic architectural tapestry that was often picturesque and entertaining. None of the farmhouses in the survey region reflect all of the primary elements of Queen Anne, although the massing and details of some of them show Queen Anne influence, likely due to the influence of the style on builders and carpenters. Queen Anne examples. Both of these houses are in Section 25 of Oswego Township. Colonial and Georgian Revival After the comparative excesses of the Italianate, Sec ond Empire, and Queen Anne styles, the Colonial and Georgian Revival styles are more restrained and utilize stricter use of ornament and proportion. Introduced on the east coast at the en d of the nineteenth century, the Col onial Revival style spread to the Midwest over the next decade and became an influentia l style for larger homes and public buildings into the 1930s. The rectilinear forms of Colonial Revival structures are often symmetrical and have gabled roofs with dormers, classical columns and ornament, and ornamental window shutters. Georgian Revival
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 53 buildings differ in that they adhere more closely to symmetrical floor plans, have strong cornice lines, Flemish bond brick coursing, watertables, and other el ements of traditional Colonial period architecture. The survey area does have a few farmhouses that have the same massing and proportions of Colonial and Georgian revival models, although without much of the detailing present in “high style” examples. The farmhouse on the Stewart farmstead in Section 30 of Wheatland Township (demolishe d in fall 2005) was a simple example of early twentieth century Colonial Revival architecture, with a five-bay-wide front el evation, cornice returns, window shutters, wide clapboard siding, and a pedimented entry porch. Craftsman or Arts and Crafts Style The Arts and Crafts movement originated in Englan d in the mid-nineteenth century, although it did not become fashionable in the United States until the fi rst two decades of the twen tieth century. The style favored simple designs with natural materials, lo w-pitched roofs, battered wall treatments, exposed rafters, and casement and double hung windows. Alt hough there are no true examples of Craftsman or Arts and Crafts farmhouses in the region, there ar e a few Bungalow and American Foursquare type houses with elements influenced by this style. Prairie Style The Prairie Style was developed by several architect s in the Midwest but originated chiefly from the Chicago area, where Frank Lloyd Wright, Walter Burley Griffin, Marion Mahony Griffin, William Purcell, and George Elmslie (among others) formulated a set of principles uniquely suited to and inspired by the American suburban and rural landscape. In ma ny ways this style developed from the Arts and Crafts movement, although it was a distinct style with its own characteristics. Prairie Style structures are characterized by broad, horizontal massing, hipped and gabled roofs with deep overhangs, asymmetrical floor plans, and geometric detailing based on nature motifs. Natural and earth-toned materials such as wood, stucco, and brick predominate, and windows of ten have leaded glass windows that repeat and develop nature motifs. The style was fashionable from around 1895 to 1920. The survey area does not have any “high style” Prairi e Style houses, although there are a few that shows its influence. Bungalows often have architectural massi ng or ornamental elements that relate to the Arts and Crafts Style and the Prairie Style, although b ungalows developed from somewhat different origins (see “House Types” below). Tudor Revival From about 1910 to 1940, Tudor Revival was one of sev eral fashionable revival styles in practice. Based on English late medieval architecture, the style was adapted to unique American building forms created by the balloon frame. Although Tudor Revival buildings were also built in stone, the use of wood and stucco to imitate a half-timbered appearance was a predominant feature. Often times only the ground or first floor was clad with stone while the upper story was clad with wood and stucco “half-timbering.” The
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 54 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey style also utilized asymmetrical floor plans and massing, narrow multi-paned windows, prominent masonry chimneys, and steeply sloped roofs. The original Jacob Fry homestead was extensively renovated in the 1920s to create this eclectic Tudor Revival home (PIN 01-26-300-001). The garage structure to the left of the house (behind tr ee) was the original stone “se ttlement” house on this site da ting back to the 1850s. (Information as related by Michael A. Lambert of the Plainfield Historic Preservation Commission.) In February 2006, both of these structures we re relocated to the west side of Naperville-Plainfield Road; see photographs on pages 99–100.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 55 House Types Vernacular residential dwellings are not always suited to classification by architectural style because style is not the primary organizing pr inciple in their design. Most vernacular houses relate to a type that describes or classifies their massing and floor plan. This section discusses the different types of housing found specifically in the survey area. Additional types and subtypes do exist but have been excluded because they are not pertinent to the discussion of northwest Will County. During the survey, few structures could be readily identified that date from the earliest period of settlement (approximately the 1820s to the 1840s).152 House types dating from the earliest settlement may have used configurations known as single pen or doubl e pen, which basically are one or two room houses respectively. A double pen dogtrot consists of two ro oms with the space in between covered by the roof. A saddlebag house is similar to the double pen except fo r the inclusion of a central chimney between the two rooms. The house types classified below ar e those that are typically found in the survey area. As with any classification system, alternate systems could be uti lized. Most of the definitions provided below were derived from How to Complete the Ohio Historic Inventory by Stephen C. Gordon.153 Building forms followed the movement of settlers from New Engla nd westward through the Ohio Valley to Illinois.154 However, a significant number of the settlers in th e survey area were new immigrants to the United States. Their influence on the region’s buildings is vi sible in some of the extant house types, but more readily visible in the barns and other farm structures. Hall and Parlor The Hall and Parlor house is a simple rectangular plan dwelling one to one-and-a-half stories in height, with a side oriented gable roof. In plan, these types of houses have one larger room for the kitchen and daily living and a side room used as a more formal parlor or a bedroom. There is often an addition at the rear of the house extending from the parlor side. Chimne ys are often placed at each end of the house. The type was used less often after the late 1800s.155 No Hall and Parlor houses were identified in the survey area. Other houses in the survey may have started as Hall and Parlor types, but through renovations and additions have evolved into other forms. I House The name “I House” was first recognized in 1930 as a hous ing type in Indiana that had originated in the Middle Atlantic states. The form was later identified in the other Midwestern “I” states of Illinois and Iowa.156 The form consists of a two story, one room deep plan that is at least two rooms wide. Chimneys 152 One exception was the original building on the Clow farmstead in Section 22 of Wheatland Township, outside the limits of the present study within the municipal limits of Naperville. 153 Stephen C. Gordon, How to Complete the Ohio Historic Inventory (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Historic Preservation Office, 1992). 154 The settlers discussed in Chapter 4, if they were not new immigrants to the United States, mainly originated in the New England states. For overviews of this pattern of diffusion, see Fred B. Kniffen, “Folk Housing: Key to Diffusion,” in Common Places: Readings in Amer ican Vernacular Architecture, Dell Upton and John Michael Vlack, ed. (Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1986); and John A. Jakle, Robert W. Bastian, and Douglas K. Meyer, Common Houses in America’s Small Towns: The Atlantic Seaboard to the Mississippi Valley (Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1989). Jakle, et al., provide another classification system for house types as well. Yet another system of house type classification is provided by Fred W. Peterson in Homes in the Heartland: Balloon Frame Farmhouses of the Upper Midwest, 1850–1920 . 155 Gordon, 125. Since the form can be confused with later cottage types of houses, one feature that can date it properly is the height to width ratios of the window open ings: tall window openings usually date a house to the 1800s. 156 Kniffen, “Folk Housing: Key to Diffusion,” in Common Places: Readings in Am erican Vernacular Architecture, 7–8.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 56 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey were often placed at each end of the floor plan. Th e I House type is not strongly present in the survey area. Above: One of very few I House type hous es in the survey area is on Heggs Road in Section 19 of Wheatland Township. Side Hallway Side Hallway houses are typically simple rectilinear vol umes, two stories in height, and often with gable roofs oriented to the front or the side. In plan the entry is at the end bay of the front elevation, opening into the main stair hall. Adjacent to the hall is the ma in parlor with additional rooms at the rear of the house. The form was popular until the 1880s.157 The Side Hallway type is not common in the survey area. The Side Hallway type is not common in the survey area; one example is on Hegg s Road in Section 19 of Wheatland Township. 157 Ibid., 126.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 57 Upright and Wing The Upright and Wing is the second most pr evalent house type in the survey area.158 The Upright and Wing was popular in the mid to late 1800s. The type consists of an upright portion with a gable end, usually one-and-a-half to two stories, and a one to on e-and-a-half story wing. The gable end of the wing is usually at or below the eave of the upright. Uprigh t and Wing type houses have T- or L-shaped floor plans. Inside, the wing contains a kitchen and one or two bedrooms and the upright a parlor and additional bedrooms.159 Upright and Wing farmhouses are common in the survey area. Above left: Na-Au-Say Township, Section 12; above right: Plainfield Township, Section 17 (abandoned); below left: Plainfie ld Township, along Illinois Route 59 in Section 21; below righ t: Wheatland Township, Section 21. 158 Peterson groups the Upright and Wing with the Gabled Ell type (both being forms of L- or T-plan houses), making it “the most numerous and familiar farmhous e type in the Upper Midwest…” (Peterson, Homes in the Heartland, 96.) Peterson also notes that many L- and T-plan houses are the result of additions being constructed to existing rectangular house forms (Ibid., 99). 159 Gordon, How to Complete the Ohio Historic Inventory, 132.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 58 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Gabled Ell The Gabled Ell type of farmhouse is the most prevalent type in the survey area. This type of house usually dates from the two decades after the Civil War.160 It has an L-shaped plan, sometimes with additions to form a T-shaped plan, and usually is two stories in hei ght with a gabled roof. Within the main “L” there is often a porch. In most arrangements, the gable end of the shorter of the two wings faces the street or main approach with the broad side of the other wing at the side. The Gabled Ell farmhouse type is very comm on in the survey area. Above left: Wheatl and Township, Section 19; above right: Na-Au-Say Township, Section 10; below left: Oswego Township, Se ction 35; below right: Plainf ield Township, Section 6. 160 Ibid., 136.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 59 Four-over-Four The Four-over-Four basically consists of a central ha llway flanked by two rooms on each side in a house two to two-and-a-half stories in height. This house type usually has a gable roof, with the ridge line running parallel to the front face. Exploiting balloon frame construction, the form was popular in the middle 1800s, although it returned during the vogue of th e Colonial and Georgian Revival styles. Four-over-Four type farmhouses are relatively common in the survey area. Left: The Coe–Cheeny house on Wood Farm Road in Section 9 of Plai nfield Township is a mid-nineteenth century example of the Four-over-Four type. Right: The Stewart house in Section 30 of Wheatland Township s howed the revival of the Four-over-Four type for Colonial Revival style hous es in the early twentieth century. Th is house was demolished in fall 2005. Gable Front The Gable Front house describes a variety of house types dating from the mid-1800s through the 1920s. It is similar to the Four-over-Four, except that the main entrance at the gable end facing the street or main approach. It is also similar to the Side Hallway ty pe, and usually has a rectangular floor plan. The Gable Front type is relatively uncommon in the rural survey area. The Gable Front farmhouse has m any variations. This house is on Simons R oad in Section 36 of Oswego Township.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 60 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey American Foursquare The American Foursquare 161 was introduced around 1900 and continue d to be popular until the 1920s. It consists of a two to two-and-a-half story block with a roughly square floor plan with four rooms on each floor. Roofs are hipped or pyramidal, with dormer windows (hipped and gable) on at least the front elevation and sometimes the side and rear elevations . Foursquares usually have front porches, but they may also have bay windows (some extending both stories) and one story rear additions. Many Foursquares were built from plans developed by local lumber companies or mail order sources that advertised in farm journals; others were purchased whole and delivered as pre-cut, ready-to-assemble houses from Sears, Roebuck and Company or home manufacturers. The American Foursquare is another farmhous e type that is very common in the su rvey area. Above left: Oswego Township, Section 35; above right: Na-Au-Say Township, Section 22; below le ft: Na-Au-Say Township, Section 1; below right: Na-Au-Say Township, Section 3. Bungalow The term bungalow derives from the word bangla, an Indian word adopted by the British in the nineteenth century for a one story house with porches. The American house form descended from the Craftsman movement, using natural materials a nd simple forms to create an informal domestic environment. Popular from approximately 1905 to 1935, there are two basic types of bungalows (and numerous subtypes), each deriving its name from the dominant roof forms. The Dormer Front Bungalow (also called the Shed Roof Bungalow) has a gable or shed roof turned parallel to the front elevation and a single large dormer. The Gable Front has a front facing gable, with the ridge of the roof running perpendicular to the main 161 The term “American Foursquare” was coined by Clem Labine, former editor of the Old-House Journal. (Gordon, How to Complete the Ohio Historic Inventory, 137.)
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 61 elevation. The relatively few examples of the Bungal ow type in the rural survey are somewhat simpler than those found in city and suburban neighborhoods, and they lack stylistic features such as exposed roof beams, ornamental wall trim, or shingle siding. Two Gable Front Bungalows. Both of th ese houses are on 111th Street at the Wheatland Presbyterian Church crossroads. Cape Cod The Cape Cod was a popular house type in the quarter century after the mid-1920s. The type was inspired by eighteenth century cottages in Massachusetts and Virginia.162 The Cape Cod has a simple rectangular plan, one story in height with dormers and a gable ro of. Very few Cape Cod type houses exist in the rural survey area. The Cape Cod is a simple rectangular bloc k with a gabled roof, often with a pair of gabled dormers. At left is a farmhouse in Section 19 of Wheatland Township. Ranch Because it is a relatively recent domestic architect ure development (it generally dates from the post-World War II era), ranch style houses were recorded in the rural survey only when they are part of older farmsteads. The ranch houses on these sites likely replaced the original house on the site or provided an additional dwelling on the property. Ranch style hous es are typically one story and have rambling floor plans and relatively low-pitched hipped or gabled roofs. Although much of the contemporary housing under construction in the rural survey area has featur es and elements reminiscen t of older architectural styles (Colonial Revival, Dutch Colonial, or even Qu een Anne), its true architectural lineage traces back to the ranch houses of the 1950s and 1960s. 162 Ibid., 140.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 62 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Development of the Barn The barns of the American Midwest have several t ypical functions: animal shelter, crop storage, crop processing, equipment storage, and machinery repair. However, barns also have specialized functions designated by adjectives such as “sheep” barn or “d airy” barn. In some instances a substitute term was used such as hog house or implemen t shed, especially if a larger multi purpose “barn” is also on the farm. Nonetheless, these structures shared some similar forms and structural systems.163 Pioneer settlers, faced with clearing virgin forest or br eaking sod, usually had little time to do more than erect a roughhouse and perhaps a crude animal shelter in the first years of settlement. Not until after some ten years on a homestead, or perhaps not even until th e second generation, did the pioneer have the means to construct a large barn.164 The need for large barns necessitated the development of structural systems to enclose large volumes of space. As the frontier of settlement passed into the Midwest, many early barns were constructed of logs by settlers who either possessed log-building skills or gained these techniques by association with other ethnic or cultural groups. Although the eastern Mi dwest was well forested, providing sufficient log materials, the prairies of the central Midwest (inclu ding Illinois) had less forested land to supply log construction. Therefore, other solutions were required.165 The skeletal framework of barns consists typically of sill timbers resting directly on the foundation (usually stone, although concrete was introduced in the early 1900s). The sills also form the substructure for the floor joists and wall framing. The barn’s jois ts sometimes remained round, except for the top side, which was flattened to accommodate floorboards. Most ear ly barns had a gable roof composed of rafters, rough sawn boards, and wooden shingles. Vertically a ttached boards, some as large as fourteen inches wide, ran from the sill to the top plate of the wall for siding on timber frame barns.166 As discussed earlier in this chapter, light fra ming techniques and advanced wood milling machines influenced the development of Midwestern farmhouses. However, barns continued to be built with heavy timber. As these large framing members became scarce and expensive in the early twentieth century, new innovations were sought, such as plank framing that f eatured the substitution of plank lumber for heavy long, square timbers.167 163 Allen G. Noble and Hubert G.H. Wilhelm, “The Farm Barns of the American Midwest,” in Barns of the Midwest, Allen G. Noble and Hubert G.H. Wilhelm, ed. (Ath ens, Ohio: Ohio Univers ity Press, 1995), 9. 164 Hubert G.H. Wilhelm, “Midwestern Barn s and Their Germanic Connections,” in Barns of the Midwest , 65. 165 Ibid. 166 Ibid., 48–50. 167 Lowell J. Soike, “Within the Reach of All: Midwest Barns Perfected,” in Barns of the Midwest, Allen G. Noble and Hubert G.H. Wilhelm, ed. (Athens, Ohio: Ohio Univer sity Press, 1995), 147. Two major forms of plank framing developed. The first took dimension plank lumber and imitated heavy timber framing, carrying the loads through posts and beams. The second type opened up the center of the barn by using a truss for the framing bents. This was followed by an adaptation of the balloon framing for barn construction. Stud walls replaced posts and girts for handling loads; roof loads were carried by trusses made from lighter weight lumber (Ibid., 155–156).
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 63 A drawing of heavy timber barn framing from 1894 (William E. Be ll, Carpentry Made Easy, or the Science and Art of Framing (Philadelphia: Ferguson Bros. & Co., 1894), plate 7). The ni neteenth century barn on Paydon Road in Section 36 of Oswego Township (right) shows similar fram ing and bracing at the gable end wall. At the beginning of the twentieth century, new ba rn building ideas emerged from a growing field of experts: agricultural engineers, experiment stati on researchers, and commercial farm planning services. The American Society of Agricultural Engineers (A SAE) soon contained a committee on farm structures after its formation. The result of these efforts widene d the variety of barn building plans available to farmers and encouraged im proved building standards.168 At about this time, manufacturers and marketers of pre-cut, ready-to-assemble houses (such as the American Foursquare house type discussed above) entered the market for barn construction. Two majo r Iowa firms, the Louden Machinery Company of Fairfield and the Gordon-Van Tine Company of Davenpor t, advertised plans for their pre-cut barns along with their pre-cut homes. Engineering research led to the development of frami ng for gambrel roofs, culminating in the Clyde or Iowa truss. (The shape of the gambrel roof allowed a larger loft space to store hay than the gable roof allowed.) The first step in this development was the work of John Shawver of Ohio, who developed a gambrel truss form using sawn lumber. The Iowa tru ss was developed by A.W. Clyde, an engineer with the Iowa State College farm extension service, around 19 20. It allowed construction of a stiff frame at far lower cost than the Shawver truss, whic h required expensive extra-length material.169 168 Ibid., 158. 169 Ibid. The open loft, free from interi or braces like those used in the Shawver and Iowa trusses, was finally achieved with the laminated gothic arch roof. The gothic roof was developed over a two decade period, with an early system using sawn boards 12 inches wide, 1 inch thick, and 3 to 4 feet long from which the outside edge was shaved to the needed curvat ure. Three or four plies were laminated together with nails, with splices staggered along the curve. These rafters were placed 2 feet on center. However, due to the material wasted in shaving the lumber and the labor consumed in sawing and nailing, farmers and builders were slow to adopt this system. Bent or sprung arches were the second major type of curved rafter construction, fi rst used in an experiment in Davis, California, in 1916. The perceived savings in material and labor required to produce the same contour by bending instead of sawing, made this system more popular. Bent-rafter gothic arch construction, although more economical in labor and material, proved less rigid that the more expensive sawed type. For this reason, many farmers adopted a combination of the two, with the sawed rafters spaced every 8 to 12 fe et and the bent rafters spaced between, twenty-four inches on center (Ibid., 161–2).
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 64 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey The Shawver, Iowa, laminated gothic arch, and sawn gothic arch barn roof rafters. (Deane G. Carter and W.A. Foster, Farm Buildings , Third Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1941), 136, 138, 140, and 141). During the 1930s, the Gothic roof entered the last phase of its evolution. At Iowa State Agricultural College, Henry Giese tested existing types of lamina ted bent rafters in an attempt to solve their shortcomings. Working in collaboration with Rock Is land Lumber Company, distributor of Weyerhauser Forest Products, he explored the potential of modern glues to yield a stronger bent rafter. Using Douglas fir, clear of knots and defects, glue-laminated und er approximately 100 pounds per square inch of pressure and shaped to an arch form, the rafter wa s stronger than those lami nated conventionally with nails and bolts (either the shaved- or bent-lumber techniques). Rafter performance was also improved with the use of hinge connections at the supports. Weyerhauser was marketing these factory-built rafters
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 65 under the trademark of Rilco by 1938.170 The United States Forest Products Laboratory also performed tests on glued laminated construction. Their laboratory tests showed that laminated rafters were two to four times stronger than ordinary bent and sawed rafters laminated with nails.171 The two-story loft barn ceased to be built after World War II.172 In the first half of the twentieth century the dependence on draft animals waned and mechanical power in the form of tractors increased, and farmers no longer needed loft space.173 Farmers began to build fewer custom wood frame structures, which were susceptible to fires, as manufactured buildi ngs using steel became available. Early metal-barn types, such as Quonsets, gained a notable measu re of popularity among some Midwestern farmers immediately after World War II. One of the leadin g manufacturers of Quonset barns and sheds was the Great Lakes Steel Corporation of Detroit, whose stru ctures were purported to be fireproof, rat-proof, and sag-proof. Corrugated metal was also a suggested cove ring for wooden barn siding, and organizations as the Asbestos Farm Service Bureau promoted the us e of asbestos-based cement boards for re-siding old barns.174 Because lofts were no longer needed, one story barn construction became more standard in the post-war years. The shift from loose to baled or chopped ha y reduced the need for haymows as many farmers adopted the “loose-housing” or “loafing” system for housing cattle. University of Wisconsin agricultural scientists argued that cows would be more content and give more milk if they were allowed to roam in and out of the barn at will. The loose-housing system resulted in the construction of one-story galvanized all-steel barns.175 The pole barn was a simple method for constructing the necessary enclosure for farm implements and the limited amount of hay still requir ed on the farm. Pole barns use round poles set into small, individual foundations, to which engineered roof trusses and wall girts and siding are attached. The structural concept for the modern pole barn was devel oped by H. Howard Doane of St. Louis in the early 1930s. He and George Perkins, his farm manager, used creosoted wood poles (which were commonly used for telephone poles) for the vertical structural members.176 Barn Types As with house types, several systems have been used to classify barns, either by function, shape and structural system; ethnic traditions and their infl uence; or regional characteristics and commonalties.177 The classification types developed below are ba sed on Allen G. Noble and Richard K. Cleek’s The Old Barn Book: A Field Guide to North Am erican Barns & Other Farm Structures and Allen G. Noble’s Wood, Brick & Stone. Classification is often by ethnic influence, which is appropriate to the region of the rural survey because of the Scottish, Irish, and German origins and ancestry of many of its settlers; or it is by the shape and configuration of the barn. 170 Ibid., 162–163. 171 Ibid., 164. 172 Ibid., 165. 173 In 1930, 61,000 combines were counted by the U.S. Census; in 1953, 918,000. One in six farmers already owned a tractor by 1932. In 1944, 14 percent of the nation’s hay was harvested with windrow balers; by 1948, the figure was 46 percent (Glenn A. Harper and Steve Gordon, “The Modern Midwestern Barn, 1900–Present,” in Barns of the Midwest, Allen G. Noble and Hubert G.H. Wilhelm, ed. (Ath ens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1995), 225.) 174 Ibid.,226. 175 Glenn A Harper and Steve Gordon, “The M odern Midwestern Barn, 1900–Present” in Barns of the Midwest, Allen G. Noble and Hubert G.H. Wilhelm, ed. (Athen s, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1995), 225. 176 Ibid. 177 Often there are more conflicts than agreements between different classification systems. The types defined herein seem to best describe the structures actually present and the social and ethnic origins of their builders.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 66 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Three-bay Threshing Barn The Three-bay Threshing barn (also called the Englis h barn) was introduced into North America through English colonial settlement in southern New England.178 The English and continental European immigrants of the early 1800s introduced this barn type to the Midwest. It was originally designed as a single function barn to store or process grain and was mo st suitable for small-scale, subsistence farms. It is a single level, rectangular structure divided into three parts or sections, each termed a bay. Large double doors are centered on both long sides of the structure. Hand threshing with a grain flail was done in the central bay, sometimes called the thresh ing bay. Following threshing, the large doors were opened to create a draft, which, during winnowing, w ould separate the chaff from the heavier grain, and carry it away. Flanking the central bay were the ot her two bays of generally equal dimensions. One was used during the fall or winter to store sheaves of ha rvested grain, awaiting threshing. The other bay was used for storing the threshed grain, commonly in bins , and straw, which was used as feed and bedding for horses and cattle.179 Early examples had steeply pitched (over 45 degrees) gable roofs and low stone foundations. They were sided in vertical boards wi th small ventilation opening s high on the gable ends. Windows are largely absent, although later versions included them at animal stall locations. Gable-end sheds were a common addition.180 Eventually as dairying replaced wheat production in the agricultural economy, the threshing/storage function of this barn type became less important. At first no animals were housed in the structure, although subsequently internal rearrangements were of ten made to introduce animal stalls in one of the two side bays. This effectively reduced the grain storage and processing functi on and only offered shelter for a modest number of animals.181 In some cases this barn type w as lifted up and placed onto a raised basement, which then could house th e animals, especially dairy cows.182 Three-bay Threshing barns are somewhat common in the survey re gion; many of the bar ns of this type which once existed have been demolished. The example above is in Section 14 of Na-Au-Say Township. 178 Fred B. Kniffen “Folk-Housing: Key to Diffusion,” in Common Places, Readings in American Vernacular Architecture, Dell Upton and John Michael Vlach, ed. (Athens, Geor gia: University of Georgia Press, 1986), 11. 179 Charles Calkins and Martin Perkins, “The Three-bay Threshing Barn,” in Barns of the Midwest, Allen G. Noble and Hubert G.H. Wilhelm, ed . (Athens, Ohio: Ohio Univer sity Press, 1995), 40–41 . 180 Allen G. Noble and Richard K. Cleek, The Old Barn Book: A Field Guide to North American Barns and Other Farm Structures (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutger s University Press, 1995), 77. 181 Allen G. Noble, Wood, Brick and Stone, The North American Settlement Landscape, Volume 2: Barns and Farm Structures (Amherst, Massachus etts: University of Massachus etts Press, 1984), 56–58. 182 Calkins and Perkins, “The Three-bay Threshing Barn,” Barns of the Midwest, 59.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 67 Raised, Bank, and Basement Barns The Raised or Bank barn originated in central New Yo rk as a shelter for dairy cattle. It was the first multi-purpose barn to gain widespread popularity. These ba rns are usually larger th an Three-bay Threshing barns and have a ground floor level fo r cattle and dairy cows with an uppe r level for hay and feed storage. This upper level is reached by an earthen ramp, bridge , or the natural slope of an embankment. Basement barns are similar to Raised barns, in that the foundation walls extend up to the bottom of the second floor. However, Basement barns do not have ramps nor are th ey sited to utilize the natural topography to access the second floor. The survey area has only a few Basement barns. Bank barn examples. Left: Oswego Township, Section 24; right: Steigle farmstead in Plainfie ld Township, Section 5 (1999 photograph). German Barn German barns, also called German/Swiss barns or Pennsylvania barns, includes a group of barns introduced into the Delaware valley by German-speaking settlers. It was one of the first American barn types to combine crop storage and animal shelter. It became a structure synonymous with Pennsylvania Dutch culture and its mixed grain-livestock agriculture . These barns had a lower story partially cut into the natural slope of the land and an upper level that was accessed from a slope or ramp. A forebay is formed by recessing the ground floor wall and enclosing it at each end with the masonry gable end walls. Another distinctive feature is the use of a combin ation of stone masonry a nd wood framed and sheathed walls: stone was typically reserved for ga ble end walls and/or north facing walls An open forebay is present on the south side of the barn (left) on the Herzog farmstead in Section 34 of Wheatland Township; th is barn is visible in the illustration from the 1873 Combination Atla s of Will County. The crib barn portion at the far end is a l ater addition. The main barn on the Fry-Stiegel farmstead (right) in Section 26 of Wheatland Township also has an enclosed forebay.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 68 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Other examples of German barns in the survey area include th e barn on the second John Spangler farmstead in Section 2 of Plainfield Township (left). The barn illustrated at right was c onstructed by Jacob Fry in 1867; it has been substantially alter ed on the interior to accommodate offices. Al l of these barns utilize stone walls, a feature common for barns built by German immigrants and their descendants. Barely visible in these tw o photographs are the narrow slits in the stone masonry for ventilation. Plank Frame Barn This relatively small barn type originated in the eastern Midwest around 1875.183 Plank frame barns can have gable or gambled roofs and are typically one stor y in height plus a large hay loft. They are multi-purpose, with small ground floor windows for animal sta lls and a large sliding door for equipment. Their floor plans are usually small, approximately 30 by 40 feet. Plank frame barns use small dimension milled lumber rather than the heavy timber framing of earlier barn types. Gambrel roof Plank Frame barn examples. Left: Na-Au-Say Township, Section 3; right: Oswego Township, Section 35. 183 Noble and Cleek, The Old Barn Book, 117
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 69 Gable roof Plank Frame barn examples. Left: Plainfield Township, Section 21;right: Oswego Township, Section 25. Three-ended Barn This barn type is a modification to the Thr ee-bay Threshing barn, adding a hay barn addition perpendicular to an existing barn. This addition, sometimes called a st raw shed, could have less height than the main portion of the barn or be taller than the main barn. The additions could also have an open bay at ground level into which a cart could drive to unload hay into the loft space. No three-ended barns currently exist in the survey area; the two examples illustrated in the 1999–2000 survey report have been demolished. Feeder Barn During the last two decades of the nineteenth century , Illinois and Iowa developed into the regional center for beef production. Farmers with rougher land, more su ited to cattle than crops, raised their cattle from birth to finished beef. They fattened their stock on surplus corn, alfalfa, and feed supplements, and sold them to the rail-connected beef-processing industry in Chicago. The industry was also aided by the introduction of the refrigerated box car. In order to build a barn to hold cattle and hay, the feeder barn (sometimes called the hay barn) was de veloped. Cattle are housed and fed on the ground floor with a loft above to hold hay. This Feeder barn is located in S ection 23 of Na-Au-Say Township.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 70 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Round Roof Barn Round Roof Barns came into existence with structural advances in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Although called round, roof shapes for this type are often gothic arch in form. The name describes the roof shape, although the configuration of their floor plans were usually based on more typical barn types such as Plank frame, Dairy, or Rai sed barns. Only one Round Roof barn is known to exist in the survey area. This Round Roof barn on Plainfield Road in Se ction 12 of Na-Au-Say Township is the on ly example of this type in the survey area. Pole Barn The latest major barn type, called the pole barn, e volved in the eastern Midwest. The walls of the building are hung on poles that are driven into individual footings buried in the ground below the frost line. The floor is typically concrete slab or dirt. There is no loft. Later versions us ually have metal siding, especially those erected after World War II.184 The pole barn is an example of economical construction techniques applied to modern agriculture. Pole Barn examples. Left: Na-Au-Say Township, Se ction 11; right: Na-Au-Say Township Section 14. 184 Noble and Cleek, The Old Barn Book, 120.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 71 Quonset Shed Sometime referred to as Quonset “hut s,” this building type originated at the U.S. Naval Air Station at Quonset Point in Davisville, Rhode Island, in 1942. It s universal use in the military made Quonset sheds seem to be an ideal economical building type in the post-war years, finding use as storage facilities, offices, homes, and commercial ventures such as m ovie theaters. Military Quonsets often had steel framing members to support the corrugated galvanized metal sheathing, but civilian examples used wood framing as well. Where observable, the examples presen t in the rural survey area usually have wood framing. Their use in the survey area includes implem ent sheds, animal shelters, and other types of storage. Quonset shed examples. Left: Na-Au-Say Township, Section 13; right: Na-Au-Say Township, Section 24 Manufactured Building While pole barn structures use manufactured materials as sembled by a local builder or the farmer himself, manufactured buildings were developed as a complete system in the 1940s. Such buildings offer quick construction time and potentially lower cost because of the use of standardized components. The buildings also allow for large floor areas, giving farmer s flexibility of usage. This building type remains common for newly constructed agricultural buildings in the survey area. Typical manufactured buildings. Left: Plai nfield Township, Section 2, a manufacture d building constructed in this decade (2000s) adjacent to the German barn illustrated on page 68. Right: A somewhat older example from Oswego Township.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 72 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Grain Elevators Grain elevators began to be constructed alongside de veloping rail systems during the second half of the nineteenth century. Early elevators were often associated with the flour mills they served. They were usually timber-framed structures, as were the mills themselves.185 Concrete grain elevators and silos, usually constructed in banks of two to ten or more, were constructed in the early decades of the twentieth century. Besides the single concrete silo construc ted at Normantown (shown above) along the former route of the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railroad, a gr ain elevator is located on the eastern edge of Kendall County at the crossing of the railroad and Wolf’s Cro ssing Road. Located within Plainfield is the grain elevator of the Plainfield Grain Company. Normantown and the Plainfield Grain Company are discussed in Chapter 2. Corncribs Pioneer farmers frequently built log corncribs during th eir two centuries of migration into and settlement of the Midwest. Most crude frontier log cribs were little more than bins, loosely constructed of saplings or split rails and laid up with saddle notching to hold them together.186 Sometimes the logs were skinned to lessen the danger of infestation by worms and insect . The bin-like cribs were typically covered with thatch or cornstalks to help shed the rain; a board and shingle roof took more effort, required nails, and thus was more expensive. Unfortunate ly, thatch roof corncribs were more readily infested by rodents. Log construction of corncribs remained popular throug h the 1800s in areas where timber resources proved readily accessible. The invention of the circular saw in 1860 and its growing adaptation to steam power by mid-century made lumber cheap enough for general use on outbuildi ngs such as corncribs, enabling later versions to be built of narrow lumber slats.187 The corncrib usually rested on log or stone piers.188 In constructing a frame corncrib, two methods of attaching the slat sidi ng or cribbing were used. The slats were attached either horizontally or vertically; cribbing attached diagonally for extra strength seems to have come into practice about 1900.189 The size of the corncribs remained small, even as corn production rose, during much of the nineteenth century, in part due to the practice of corn shocki ng. Corn could be gradually “shucked out” as needed and hauled to the crib or barn for milling and feeding to livestock. Large corncribs were unnecessary since farmers could leave much of their corn in the field until spring.190 Crib width was influenced by the climate of a region; drier conditions allowed for wide r cribs with no increased loss of corn due to mold. As corn production outgrew the single crib in the developing Corn Belt, double cribs were formed by extending the roof over a pair of cribs to form a gable roof. If the gap between the cribs was then lofted over, extra space was gained beneath the roof for ove rflow storage of ear corn. Spreading the cribs apart not only increased the loft space but created a storage area below for wagons, tools, and implements. These structures, called crib barns, became common in the Midwest by 1900.191 The creation of larger corncribs and their overhead grain bins depended upon the invention of new methods to raise the grain and ear corn higher than a farmer could scoop it. High cribs were made possible by the commercial adaptation of continuous belt and cup elevators from grai n mills and by the portable grain elevator grain. 185 Keith E. Roe, Corncribs in History, Folklife, and Architecture (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1988), 176. 186 Noble and Cleek, The Old Barn Book, 170–171. 187 Roe, Corncribs in History, Folklife, and Architecture , 26. 188 Noble and Cleek, The Old Barn Book , 155. 189 Roe, Corncribs in History, Folklife, and Architecture , 27. 190 Keith E. Roe, “Corncribs to Grain Elevators: Extensions of the Barn, ” in Barns of the Midwest , 170. 191 Roe, Corncribs in History, Folklife, and Architecture , 60.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 73 In the early decades of the twentie th century, both concrete and steel were promoted as alternative construction materials for corncribs and grain elevators. The use of hollow clay t iles was also encouraged in those parts of the Midwest where they were manufactured, notably in Iowa, Illinois and Indiana.192 The most common variety of concrete corncrib was made of interlocking stave blocks, which had been cast with ventilating slots. In some cases, steel wires or rods were incorporat ed in the vents to keep rats out. The blocks were laid up in the form of a circular bin. These were encircled with steel rods, enabling the structure to withstand lateral pressures from the corn heaped within. Single and double bin corncribs of this type were most common, although four-bin co rncribs were not unusual. Between 1900 and 1940, concrete was promoted as a do-it-yourself material, p oured into rented forms, for building corncribs.193 Wood frame corn cribs are relatively rare in the rural survey area, or if they are present are often unused and in poor condition. Crib barns and silos are much more common. The structure painted red at left is one of the very few wooden corncribs still existing in the su rvey region. This structure is located in the southwest quarter of Sectio n 22 of Wheatland Township on 119th Street. 192 Ibid., 177. 193 Ibid., 176.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 74 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Crib Barns Crib barns are simple structures formed of pens or cribs that have a space between the cribs for implement storage. There are two basics types: crib barns with the gable or roofline parallel to the cribs, and transverse crib barns with the ro ofline perpendicular to the pens. The configuration of crib barns developed from practical limitations and needs, such as the height to which a scoopful of corn could be pitched from a wagon (which dictated the bin height) a nd the size of farm equipment (which dictated the spacing between bins). Later crib barns, including ma ny examples in the survey area, have mechanical elevators housed in a small projecting cupola at the ridge of the crib barn roof. Crib barns constructed of concrete block are also present in the survey area. Crib barns, usually with two bins , abound in the survey area. Illustrated at left are framing details of a crib barn (Smith & B etts Farm and Building Book (Chicago: The Radford Ar chitectural Company, 1915).
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 75 Crib barn examples. Top left, an unusual two-bay crib barn with th ree cribs oriented perpendicular to the ridgeline of the roof (Na-Au-Say, Section 10). Top right, a typi cally large crib barn with cross gable elev ator (Plainfield, Section 28). Middle left , a crib barn with a mechanica l lift connected to elevator (Na-Au-Say, Section 14). Middle right, an unusual crib barn with diagona l cribbing (Wheatland, Section 32). Bottom left, an unusual round roof example; the round roof profile is repeated at the elevato r (Wheatland, Section 30). Bottom right, a typica l crib barn in Oswego Township, Section 24.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 76 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Metal Bins Metal construction for corn storage came into use early in the twentieth century and was promoted by the steel industry during World War I as a crop saver fo r the patriotic farmer. Rectangular or hexagonal corncribs were constructed from flat, galvanized-steel sheet metal with ventilating perforations. Corrugated, curved sheets created the more common cylindrical bin type, which was usually topped with a conical roof. The steel corncrib had wall ventilation s lits and, most times, a roof ventilator at its peak.194 Steel was ideal for fabricating standard parts, as we ll as being vermin-proof. Proper design of metal bins included such factors as ventilation, consideration of st ructural loads from the feed to be contained, and use of a concrete or heavy timber foundation with the exterior walls anchored to the foundation. Roofs usually consisted of overlapping sheets to form a conical form.195 Corncribs made of steel rods or heavy wire mesh also became available in the 1930s. The wire mesh type was particularly popular after World War II because of its low cost, ease of filling, and low maintenance. Wire mesh type bins have fallen out of use since the 1980s, but the solid metal bins are still commonly used today. Metal Bin examples. Above left, Na-Au-Say Township, Section 11 (note tower used for filling bins); above right, Na-Au-Say Township, Section 12; below left, Oswego Township, Section 25; below right, Na-Au-Say Township, Section 14. In the two photographs below, note the wheeled lift used for filling the bins. 194 Ibid. 195 R.E. Martin, “Steel Bin Design for Farm Storage of Grain,” Agricultural Engineering (April 1940): 144 and 146.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 77 Silos Silos are structures used for preserving green fodder crops , principally field corn, in a succulent condition. Silos are a recent phenomenon, employed only after 1875 and not truly established until shortly before the turn of the century. The stored green fodder material is termed ensilage , which is shortened to silage. The acceptance of silos was gradual, but this type of struct ure eventually came to be enthusiastically embraced by farmers because it offered certain advantages. First, larger numbers of cattle c ould be kept on the farm because the food value of corn is greater than that of a combination of hay and grain. Second, less water was needed for stock in the winter, lessening labor requirements as frequent ice breaking and thawing was no longer required. Finally, because succulent green fodder could be fed throughout the year, cows produced milk during the entire winter season, increasing the income of the farm.196 The first silos were pits excavated inside the barn. The earliest upright or tower silos date from the late 1880s and were rectangular or square in form and constructed with the same materials and techniques as those used in the barn itself, with framed lumber walls.197 Many were constructed within the barn building.198 Later examples of this silo type had rou nded corners on the inside formed by a vertical tongue-in-groove lining. The rectangular silo appear ed in some areas as late as 1910. The octagonal silo type that followed attempted to achieve the advantages of a circular silo while keeping the ease of angular construction. In the 1890s circular forms began to be seen. A shift from the rectangular to the circular stems from the efficiency of the circular form in storing corn ensilage by eliminating air space and thereby reducing spoilage. The wooden-hoop silo was formed with wood, soaked a nd shaped into gigantic circular hoop forms and then fastened together horizontally in the tower shape. This style did not become popular because the hoops tended to spring apart. A more common type of wood silo was the panel or Minneapolis silo, also known by several other names. It was advertised in num erous farm journals in th e early twentieth century. It consisted of ribs set about 20 inches to 24 in ches apart and horizontal matched boards (known as staves) set in grooves in the ribs. Steel hoops were placed around silo to lock the boards in place. This type of silo was made with either single or double wall construction and was polygonal in plan. Masonry silos, constructed of hollow clay tile, brick, or concrete block, appeared in th e first decades of the twentieth century. In comparison with the other two types of silos, brick silos were more difficult to construct because of the time required to erect th e relatively small masonry units. There were many patents on concrete blocks for silo purposes, with some blocks curved and other finished with rock-faced building blocks. Some patented blocks had reinforcing sold with the bl ocks or integral with the block units.199 Concrete block silos were finished on the interior with a layer of cement mortar to seal joints that might otherwise leak air or water. The hollow clay tile silo, generally known as the “Iow a Silo,” was developed by the Experiment Station of the Iowa State College and erected dur ing the summer of 1908 on the college farm.200 Brick and tile companies manufactured curved blocks for silos, adve rtising them in farm journals. The main complaint regarding the hollow block silo was that the masonr y units were porous and leaked water. The mortar joints on both inside and outside of wall needed to be properly pointed as a precaution against leakage. Some silo builders washed the interior of the wa ll with cement mortar as a further precaution. Steel reinforcing consisted of heavy wire embedded in the mortar joints. 196 Noble, Wood, Brick and Stone , 71–72. 197 Noble and Cleek, The Old Barn Book , 158. 198 Ingolf Vogeler, “Dairying and Dairy Barns in the Northern Midwest,” Barns of the Midwest (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1995), 108 . 199 W.A. Foster, “Silo Types and Essentials,” Hoard’s Dairyman (21 February 1919) 201, 216, 217, and 232. 200 Ibid.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 78 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Cement stave silos were constructed as early as 190 4 in Cassopolis, Missouri, which used book-shaped staves.201 Several patents existed for cement stave silos, in cluding that of the Mason & Lawrence of Elgin, Illinois, dating from 1914.202 Farmers also could make concrete stav es or blocks to construct a silo or other farm structure using a block mix, either by th e dry tamp method or the wet cast process. The dry tamp method involved making a relatively dry concrete mix, which was compressed into blocks in a molding machine. The wet cast process used a concrete mix with more water added, which was placed in a series of molds for 24 to 48 hours. Curing of the staves (allowing the concrete mix to attain proper strength) was important with either method. It w as recommended that the staves be placed in a curing room for two or three days so the Portland cement coul d react with the moisture in the concrete mix. After removal from the curing room, the staves were periodica lly sprinkled with water until they were a week to ten days old. Further open air curing continued over an additional three weeks. Concrete staves could vary in size, but were often approximately 30 inches long, 10 inches wide, and 2-1/2 inches thick. One end of the block was concave and the other convex to a llow fitting the blocks in the assembled structure.203 The finished staves (or blocks) were th en ready for assembly. This excerpt from Concrete magazine from 1927 outlines the erection procedure for a concrete stave silo: Concrete stave silos are quickly and easily erect ed. Three men can easily erect two average sized silos each week and some crews can do better than that, especially when the proper equipment is at hand. The concrete window and door frames used are precast, made in the plant where the staves are made. A light, adjustable erecting scaffo ld is a necessary piece of equipment. Scaffolds are of two general types those supported by a center mast and those hooked over the silo wall. Staves are fitted to position by means of a light derrick, which comes as a part of the erecting equipment. Concrete staves are generally set up dry, no mortar being used in the joints. In some types a grove is molded entirely around the edge of the stave. . . . The hoops or steel rods, placed to reinforce the silo, are set as the erection of the wall progress ed. Hoops are usually composed of two or three sections, depending upon the diameter of the silo . The sections are joined by means of special lugs. After the hoops are placed in position th ey are drawn tight enough to hold them in position. . . . After the entire silo walls are co mpleted, the hoops are drawn tight, care being exercised to draw them all to the same tension. 201 Foster, “Silo Types and Essentials.” Patents were granted on this type of stave silo in 1908, and the type was known commercially as the Playfo rd patent cement stave silo. 202 “How to Make and Sell Concrete Silo Staves,” Concrete (October 1927): 32–35. In addition to their own manufacturing plant, Mason & Lawrence licensed seven other companies to produce their design for concrete staves. Other patents for cement stave silos included the Interlocking patent, with an interlocking end joint; the Caldwell patent, with a stepped end joint and a steel re inforcing bar embedded in the stave; and the Perfection patent, with a hollow side joint filled with cement mort ar upon erection (Foster, “Silo Types and Essentials”). 203 David Mocine, “Keep Workmen Busy the Year Round,” Concrete Products (January 1948): 161. The manufacture and construction of the Mason & Lawrence precast concrete silo was described as follows (Ibid., 161–162): Staves are formed in flat sections measuring 12 x 30 in. by 2-1/2 in. thick, with the curvature of the completed silo being taken care of by the slight angle made at the joint between each successive stave. Compressive strength of the concrete at 28 days is 70 p.s.i. and flexural strength of the completed stave at 28 days is 1400 pounds. Reinforcing is provided by 1/4-in. smooth round steel bars running the full length of the two vertical sides (concave and convex edges). Each course of staves in the silo is held in place and further reinforced by a 58 in. rolled steel ban around the outside. The stave design is so engineered that these bands pull the staves against each other, forming a true curve, which is a basic point of the patent, according to Mr. Lawrence. The completed silo may be from 10 to 18 feet in diameter, and any height up to 60 feet. Chutes, receiving rooms and doorways are also formed to reinforced concrete and designed to fit the silo.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 79 The number of hoops to be used depends on the size of the silo and the material it is to store. The silage or other material exerts and outward pressure which would burst the silo, unless the proper number of steel hoops was provided. This pressure increases in proportion to the depth of the silage. At the top of the silo, where the pressure is light, hoops are usually spaced 30 inches apart. Because the silo staves are 30 in ches high, this is the maximum spacing that can be used. A little farther from the top the silos are double hooped, that is, the hoops are spaced fifteen inches apart. Some silo manufacturers double-hoop the silo for its entire height, believing that this adds to its appearance as well as to its strength. The 9/16 inch rod with rolled threads is now most generally used for silo hoops. After the walls are erected and the hoops tightened , the interior walls are ready for a wash that seals the joints and produces a smooth, impervious surface. A cement wash, made of a mixture of cement and water and of the consistency of thick paint, is often used.204 A detail view of the steel hoops and tu rnbuckles on a concrete stave silo. Silos constructed with monolithic co ncrete walls also appeared in the early decades of the twentieth century. Concrete silos were built using “slip-forms,” with the forms usually about two feet high and lifted once the level below had cured sufficien tly, leaving cold joints between each level.205 Such silos could be expensive to construct since labor was re quired to prepare the concrete and lift the forms. However, forms could be rented from contractors or cement manufacturers. Farmers who chose to build a concrete silo could obtain guidan ce from farm and building trade journals. Qualities of the reinforcing steel and type, concrete components and mixing, fo rmwork, and concrete place ment were outlined, as stated in this excerpt from Hoard’s Dairyman from 1919: When used, the cement should be in perfect condition and contain no lumps, which cannot readily be pulverized between the fingers. Sand and gravel or broken stone should conform to the requirements of proper grading and cleanliness. . . . Water must be clean, free from oil, alkali, silt, loam, and clay in suspension. Steel used in reinforcement should be secured from one of the manufacturers specializing in steel for use in concrete construction. 204 “How to Make and Sell Concrete Silo Staves,” Concrete (October 1927) 32–35. 205 The presence of cold joints had the potential to allow air to enter the silo. Therefore, it was important to coat the silo interior with a layer of cement mortar. As with othe r silo types, this mortar layer needed to be renewed periodically.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 80 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey ——— Wire mesh fabrics may be used instead of steel bars but if used should contain an amount of metal equal in cross-section area to the rods for which substituted. Reinforcing rods must be properly placed to meet the stresses and strains that are to be imposed upon them. The quantity and placing of these cannot be stated withou t knowing the size of the structure, except that it may be said all reinforcements, whether mesh or rods, should be placed at th e center of the silo walls. ——— Materials should be mixed with sufficient water to produce a concrete which, when deposited, will of its own weight gradually settle to a flat mass, but not wet enough to result in a separation of the mortar from the gravel or broken stone. The most desirable consistency is generally described as “quaky.” Wall foundations of footings should be made of a 1:3:5 mixture. Walls should be made of a 1:2-1/2:4 mixture. Roof, floors, and walls, and floors of tanks should be of a 1:2:3 mixture. . . . Forms may be made of wood or metal but must be free from warp and sufficiently strong to resist springing out of shape when concrete is being placed. The soil will not exceed 3,000 pounds per square foot. . . . Walls should be uniformly 6 inches thick and in the doorways of block silos the horizontal bars should be bent around the vertical bars alongside the doorways and twisted back upon themselves.206 In 1913, farmers were lectured at the annual gathering of the Illinois Farmers’ Institute not only about the utility of the silo but also other issues to consider: The question of general arrangement of the farm buildings is too often neglected. This should be of second consideration, as there is beauty in utility. Often the upper portion of a well-built silo showing above the sloping roof of some of the other buildings adds very materially to the general appearance of the group of buildings . Also the side near the top of ten affords the best place for the farm name.207 Farm journals gave their readers information for constructing a silo with the “essential features. . . necessary to secure good, sweet silage,”208 focusing primarily on the silo walls. Wall stre ngth, smoothness of interior wall surfaces, and air and water tightness were considered essential features. The foundation for the silo typically consisted of a wall ten inches minimum in width extending below the frost line and six to eight inches above grade. Conical roof shapes were common on some early silos, but gambrel and, later, domical roofs became more prevalent.209 An essential feature of any roof was a snug fit to prevent birds from entering the silo. By the late 1940s, a new type of silo appeared: th e blue Harvestore silos. Constructed of fiberglass bonded to sheets of metal, they were first introduc ed in Wisconsin. The glass-coated interior surface prevented silage from freezing and rust from forming. Because the container was airtight, the silage would not spoil. Augers, derived from coal-mining equi pment, were used to bore the silage out at the bottom of the silo, a great change from the earlier top-unl oaded silos. A large plastic bag at the top of the structure allowed changes in gas pressure to be e qualized, and took up the space vacated by removal of silage.210 In 1974 the company launched another line of products for the containment of manure called Slurrystore. By 1999, over 70,000 of Harvestore structur es of various sizes (tall or short, narrow or stout) had been built.211 Silos are fairly common in the rural survey area. The vast majority use concrete stave construction. 206 H. Colin Campbell, “Concrete Silo Construction,” Hoard’s Dairyman (21 February 1919): 200. 207 King, “Planning the Silo,” in Eighteenth Annual Report of the Illinois Farmers’ Institute, 64. 208 W.A. Foster, “Silo Types and Essentials,” Hoard’s Dairyman (21 February 1919): 201. 209 Gambrel and domical roofs allowed for filling the silo to the top of the outer wall, maximizing the storage capacity. 210 Noble and Cleek, The Old Barn Book , 108–9. 211 Harvestore Systems, DeKalb, Illinois, www.harvestore.com
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 81 A few of the numerous silos in the survey area. At left, an abandoned concrete stave s ilo. At center, an actively used concrete stave silo with domical sheet metal roof, and a small Harvestore silo in the foregro und. At right, a grouping of concrete stave and Harvestore silos. Other Farm Structures We did much of our own carpentering as a matter of course. The farmer who couldn’t build his own henhouse or woodshed wasn’t much of a farmer.212 Farmhouses, barns, corn cribs, and silos make up approxi mately half of the buildings surveyed as part of this study. The remaining outbuildings include many of the building types illustrated below. They include chicken houses, hog houses, milk houses, smokehouses, water tanks and windmills. As implied by the above quote, many of these outbuildings likel y were built by the farmers themselves. Left: A milk house on Simons Road in Section 36 of Oswego Town ship. Right: A hog house on Plainfield Road in Section 35 of Oswego Township. 212 Britt, An America That Was, 127.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Page 82 Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Above left: A chicken coop on Plainfield Road in Section 1 of Na-Au-Say Township. Above right: A summer kitchen on Johnson Road in Section 10 of Na-Au-Say Township. Below left: A mach ine shed on Plainfield Road in Section 12 of Na-Au-Say Township. Below right: A root cellar at the Eaton Pr eserve on 135th Street in Plainfield Township.
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Plainfield Rural Structures and Farmsteads Survey Page 83 This windmill is on U.S. Route 30 in Section 32 of Wheatland Township.