The Strange Return of Art Deco in America

These two towers, the radiator building on the left and Rose Hill Tower on the right, are both called Art Deco. One was built in 1924 and the other a little over a hundred years later. When I think of Art Deco skyscrapers, I think of the ornate tops of iconic structures from the 1920s and 30s built as offices for the corporate giants of the time. The Chrysler Building, the Empire State Building, or the Carbon and Carbide Building right here in Chicago. But today, we're witnessing a sort of renaissance of the style. In just the last five years alone, the Rose Hill Tower has been joined by the likes of 180 East 88th Street, 45 Broad Street, and the Brooklyn Tower. And like this one, One Bennett Park here in Chicago. It was also designed in the last five years. This one by the architect Robert Stern, who's known for his high end historical recreations. It's located in the neighborhood called the Gold Coast. The listing states that One Bennett Park has taken its place among Chicago's most elite residences. You too can live like Jay Gatsby. The penthouse right up at the top is currently for sale for only 15 million dollars. All of these new towers dusted off that Art Deco label, and I would assume some of the same design features. So I want to dig a little bit deeper into how Art Deco and this new version of Art Deco 2.0 relate. Why would this style of architecture that ultimately led us into the Great Depression, why would it be making a comeback? I did some investigating into the motivations of both Art Deco 1 and 2.0, did some comparative analysis, and spoke with an expert. The reasons for this rebirth are probably a little more complicated and more interesting than you think. In the aftermath of World War I, a design revolution emerged, reflecting the rapid social and technological changes of the time. This was the origin of Art Deco, a style that combined luxury with the promise of modernity. Born in the roaring 20s, Art Deco was a stark contrast to the delicate swirls of its predecessor, Art Nouveau. It drew inspiration from the bold geometric forms of cubism, the machine-like aesthetic of futurism, and the exotic motifs of African, Egyptian, and Asian art. In a world recovering from war and heading towards industrialization, this style represented the epitome of sophistication and technology. It didn't apply to only buildings either. Furniture, fashion, jewelry, cars, and graphic design could all hop on an Art Deco train. It took over so completely because the hallmarks of its look could be applied broadly to lots of materials and situations. Rounded edges, geometric shapes like zigzags and chevrons were a staple. The color palette was rich with bold and dramatic contrasts. Luxurious materials like gold, ivory, and jade adorned buildings alongside chrome and glass, reflecting the era's fascination with industry and technology. This was a departure from, say, other modernist architecture, which looks stark by contrast. I feel like modernist towers have a levity to them. The glass reflects the sky. They almost disappear, right? But Art Deco is very planted, very grounded with the stepping form. Among the most iconic examples of Art Deco are New York's Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building. Their towering forms, rich ornamentation, and the underlying structure made of industrial steel embody the spirit of the age. Since the rapid generation of wealth of the era meant more construction, you can find examples of Art Deco towers across the United States, with some of the best examples in lesser-known locations. Almost every city across the United States has at least one of these buildings from this building boom that happened in the 1920s and 30s. Here in Chicago, you have examples like the Board of Trade and the Carbide and Carbon Building. These are certainly local favorites, especially the story about how the green and gold carbide and carbon building was designed to look like a champagne glass. To learn more about the current thinking of Art Deco, I reached out to Chris Haitha from our Skyscraper Tops video. He has a new book featuring his images of Art Deco skyscraper tops. So I decided to create this collection of Art Deco skyscrapers across the country using a drone to create orthographic photos, essentially, of their facades. Taking a photo at each floor level and stitching them together to create kind of a flattened, elevational photo, you could say. And he built a huge, incredible model of the Carbide and Carbon Building. I've been thinking for a long time about building a model, and then, you know, I started doing this project. I fell in love with these Art Deco skyscrapers. And the Carbide and Carbon Building in Chicago is on the cover of the book. I had a big print on my wall, and I just was looking at it. And one day, just a building technique kind of clicked, and it all made sense how I could put it together. And I wanted to build a model so bad, so once I figured out how to do it, I just got my basswood sticks and started cutting. Just the model-making process for the top of this structure shows how intricate something like this is to design and build, even with today's latest technology. I think one of the fascinating things that I thought about through the course of building the model was just the legacy of this building, and thinking about the draftsmen a hundred years ago, working on those giant tables, drawing every one of these details. They end up being constructed, and then I come along a hundred years later, and their work impacts me enough that I spend a month of my life building a little, you know, tiny miniature of the building. Let's compare the original two examples of old and new that I started with at the beginning of this video, the Radiator and Rose Hill. Look at this, the new one was even drawn as if Hugh Ferris, the famous art deco artist, had drawn it. It looks all heroic, standing strong in the dramatic lighting at night. Anyway, they both feature stepped forms. The kind of form is often called a ziggurat, because it looks like an ancient pyramid-like structure built in Mesopotamia. This kind of stepping does a few things to how these buildings look and perform. Part of this is just practical, now that buildings are being built taller than they were before. During the 20s, steel construction was just coming into its own, and this happened coincidentally when the style was popular. With tall buildings, stepping allows the structure to remain at 90 degree increments, while the still remaining smaller at the top than it is at the bottom. A smaller top also means that it catches less wind, and it allows more light inside and around the building. Inside because the floor plate is smaller at the top. The style seamlessly integrates the 1916 zoning resolution in New York that tried to prevent the canyon-like effect that you get with wall-to-wall tall buildings. But in the case of Rose Hill, it also provides luxurious balconies. The stepped form also emphasizes the visual extension of the building upward. This is a kind of a forced perspective thing that's happening here, where because the top is smaller than the bottom, it looks further away than it actually is. This pointedness also creates a kind of natural termination of the design. The design wouldn't just like continue extruding upward, for instance. This visual emphasis upward is further expressed with unbroken vertical stripes. All skyscrapers had naturally have vertical elements like columns, and then horizontal elements like floors. And different eras and styles tend to express one over the other. Here the floors are actually set back behind the vertical elements, which may or may not be structural, it doesn't really matter. The verticals even extend upward beyond the horizontal breaks of the stepping and things to emphasize that vertical even more. At the bottom of the step structure, this is where the building feels the most heavy and massive. Art Deco skyscrapers really lean into this by having small openings and more solid surfaces. And then also entrances that feel really small in comparison to the grandiosity of the overall building. This makes you feel small, and the building then stands apart as a heroic object. Back to the overall form again. Another aspect that goes into this grandiose feelings, besides just the entrance, are the building's symmetry. Overall, both of these examples could be divided down their centers, and the left side would be a mirror image of the right side. Symmetry is like a cue that the building is formal and important. It's a design technique that tends to be reserved for more stately structures. Finally, craft is showcased with materials, patterns, and other forms of handmade ornament. Chevrons, for example, both point up and down and create texture and relief on the facade. And if you want that added flair, just add a little bit of gold. So what's at stake in revisiting Art Deco today? Is it a harmless or even interesting appropriation of historical elements? Is it a way for a building to fit in with its surroundings, which might have a fair bit of Art Deco structures? Or is there something else going on? To talk about that, I want to draw attention to a major difference between those towers of 100 years ago versus the ones today. Examples like the Chrysler Building, Empire State Building, Carbide and Carbon Building, were visions achieved by single developers creating an enduring monument to celebrate their wealth as buildings for offices and corporations. I think the function really is in creating a symbol for a company, for a bank, for an institution, where the building becomes an extension of them. It becomes a representation of their wealth and power and security. If your bank, where you keep all your money at, has this beautiful, shiny, you know, elegant, glamorous Art Deco skyscraper, it might give you some peace. The new ones, on the other hand, are created by developer corporations as high-end residential buildings, as apartments for condos for the wealthy to live. They're selling a lifestyle, the life of people like Jay Gatsby. I'm Gatsby. Just looking at these brochure images, you'll notice how they frame those original Art Deco buildings in both the background and in glass reflections. Today, the use of Art Deco is a way of creating exclusive properties for wealthy folks who wish to visually associate themselves with that prosperous era. Largely, this shift from commercial to these new residential Art Deco skyscrapers is kind of the same rationale as before, just packaged a little differently, convincing people of a lifestyle. And I don't think that there's anything inherently wrong with using or building new buildings that self-consciously incorporate elements of nearby buildings or even past styles. Nor do I condemn penthouses for the wealthy just for the sake of it. I mean, they have to live somewhere. But what I would like everyone to understand is how and why this embrace of Art Deco is part of it. I can appreciate the craft associated with the style as much as anyone else. The goal of Haitha's book, for instance, is to build appreciation for structures that can be found all across the United States, not just the typical urban centers like here in Chicago or in New York. And I absolutely love that cause. It's why I do this channel even. But the Art Deco 2.0 movement as it stands, however, feels a little bit more like a way of marketing high-end condos than it is about contributing positively to the city through architectural design. Of course, developers need to recoup their investments, and this isn't some capitalism is bad message, but fundamentally Art Deco is about showing off wealth and power. It's not about making buildings better for people or more efficient or more functional or inclusive. The Chrysler building sat empty for years after opening due to the Great Depression. And I have to admit that I'm a little bit superstitious, so take this with a grain of salt. But if there's any evidence that history repeats itself, it seems kind of prudent to me not to tempt fate by going all Great Gatsby when we have pretty solid data points that Art Deco 1.0 was a little bit misguided. Chris Haitha is a wealth of knowledge and insight around all things Art Deco and skyscraper tops. I talked with him for over an hour, but we could only fit in a few snippets into this video. If you'd like to get even deeper into the history and future of Art Deco though, the full interview is hosted by Nebula. For those of you that are unfamiliar, Nebula is a streaming platform owned by an invited set of creators like me. This also includes Sam at Wendover Productions, Real Engineering, Not Just Bikes, City Beautiful, and many more of the high-quality educational creators here on YouTube. It is by far though the best place for viewing our videos and to support me and us in making content like this. The viewing experience is silky smooth and it will never show an ad. Subscribers to Nebula get early access to our videos too. For instance, this is where you can watch Jet Lag before it drops anywhere else. A lot of us also make companion videos like the one that I made with Chris which aren't on YouTube because it doesn't really fit the YouTube algorithm or the pace of the normal videos on the channel. But it's still fascinating content that you won't get anywhere else. This is Nebula's specialty and it funds the creation of originals that remain exclusive to the platform like RealLifeLore's Modern Conflicts. Who knows, maybe I'll get to have one on there soon too. Speaking of exclusive, for the month of December we brought back Lifetime Memberships. They were super popular and if you're considering it a huge chunk of your one-time payment goes directly to supporting this channel when you use my link that's up here on the screen or down in the description. That Lifetime Membership is $300. I know that's a massive commitment and I also know that that's not for many of you. You can also gain access to this world of amazing videos for just $2.50 per month when you sign up for a year. Either way, you'll unlock the entire catalog of treasures of your favorite YouTubers and you'll also be supporting me to be able to produce content that explores the environment that we inhabit. Thank you so much for the support.