Fisher Building vs Pittsfield Building

Comparing the Fisher Building and the Pittsfield Building is interesting because they both rise in Chicago, IL, yet they were conceived by two different design teams, D. H. Burnham & Company and Graham, Anderson, Probst & White, and were completed at different points in time. They were finished over two decades apart.

This contrast within the same city allows us to see how different creative minds interpreted the evolving needs of Chicago across time.

Let's take a closer look!

The Pittsfield Building is clearly the larger tower of the two, both in terms of height and number of floors. It rises to 551ft (168m) with 38 floors above ground, while the Fisher Building reaches 443ft (135m) with 30 floors above ground.

Of course, each project may have faced different briefs or regulatory constraints, which we don't really know about and could also explain the outcome.

Both the Fisher Building and the Pittsfield Building were designed in line with the aesthetic conventions of the Neogothic style.

Both buildings were completed when the Neogothic style was already past its peak. This makes them feel like late echoes of the movement, more reflective of continuity or nostalgia than of cutting-edge design at the time.

Both the Fisher Building and the Pittsfield Building are primarily commercial towers, serving similar roles in the urban fabric.

Originally, the Pittsfield Building was designed for medical, but over time it was converted to commercial. The Fisher Building by contrast has maintained its original role.

The Fisher Building offers 184 residential units.

The Fisher Building also provides 964 parking spaces.

Both the Fisher Building and the Pittsfield Building rely on a Frame structural system.

A frame structure uses a grid of columns and beams to carry the building's loads. This frees the walls from structural duties, allowing for flexible floor plans and larger windows.

They also employ the same type of facade, a Masonry facade.

A masonry facade gives the building a heavier, more traditional appearance. It often conceals a frame structure behind it, creating the look of solid walls without carrying the main loads.