Bahá’í World/Volume 1/Extracts from Mashriqu’l-Adhkár Report
JUNE 15, 1925
AT the Convention called by the Secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly to discuss ways and means for raising funds necessary for the construction of the first story of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár, which was held in Chicago, October 19-20, 1924, the Temple Committee was instructed to draft a complete report on the status of the Temple work to be submitted to the National Spiritual Assembly for approval and to be sent to the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada.
It is the purpose of this report to deal specifically only with matters that have transpired since the selection of the design of the building, but in order to refresh the memories of the friends regarding the wonderful accomplishments of the previous years, we are presenting a brief resumé of the various early stages of the work.
EARLY HISTORY [edit]
The inception of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár in the West dates back to the spring of 1903, twenty-two years ago, at which time the corner-stone of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár in ’Ishqábád, Russia had been laid and photographs of the event sent to the members of the House of Spirituality in Chicago, inspiring that body to arise for the erection of a Mashriqu’l-Adhkár in America. In response to their supplication, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá granted permission for the undertaking in the following wonderful Tablet:
“I send you the glad-tidings of the erection of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár (The Bahá’í Temple) in 'Ishqabad, with all joy and great happiness. The friends of God assembled together with rejoicing and conveyed the stones themselves upon their backs, while attracted by the love of God and for the glory of God. Soon that great Temple will be completed and the voice of prayer and praise shall ascend to the Sublime Kingdom.
“I was rejoiced through your endeavors in this glorious Cause, made with joy and good interest. I pray God to aid you in exalting His word, and in establishing the Temple of Worship, through His grace and ancient mercy. Verily, ye are the first to arise for this Glorious Cause in that vast religion. Soon will ye see the spread of this enterprise in the world, and its resounding voice shall go through the ears of the people in all parts.
“Exert your energy in accomplishing what ye have undertaken, so that this glorious Temple may be built, that the beloved of God may assemble therein and that they may pray and offer glory to God for guiding them to His Kingdom.”
Since that time the work has progressed intermittently. During the first six years the members of the Assembly in Chicago strove enthusiastically so that in the spring of 1909 when the first Convention met in Chicago, having been called by the House of Spirituality for the purpose of establishing the work of the Temple on a national basis, the Chicago Assembly was able to report the acquisition of two lots at a cost of $2,000.00, and a cash fund of $3,666.44.
PURCHASE OF SITE [edit]
As before stated the purchase of two lots in the main tract had been completed by the House of Spirituality of Chicago, the deeds for which[Page 72]
were in due time turned over to the Bahá’í Temple Unity when it was organized just after the first Convention. The remainder of the main tract bounded by Linden Ave. on the south, Sheridan Road on the north and east, and by the property of the Sanitary District of Illinois on the west was purchased at a cost of $32,500.00. The final payment on this was made on October 1, 1912. The purchase of the lake shore tract was completed February 2, 1914. It cost $17,000.00. There also is a small triangular plot of land across Sheridan Road, north of the main tract included in these purchases.
The main tract measures on its south boundary, Linden Ave., 607.55 ft., on its west boundary where it adjoins the property of the Sanitary District of Illinois, from Linden Ave. north to a point where the line strikes a slight angle, it measures 257.80 ft.; on the same boundary another angle 135.52 ft., still another angle on this line measures 138.06 ft. The Sheridan Road line also turns slightly several times, the sections of the line beginning at the northwest measuring east and south are 129.92 ft., 219.47 ft., 166.46 ft., and 271.46 ft. The triangular section measures on Sheridan Road 141.49 ft., on the east 131.78 ft., and facing the Canal 141.49 ft. The lake shore tract on Sheridan Road measures 291.40 ft.; 3 ft. at the south end of this line are in dispute, depth at that point is 168 ft., and at the north end it is 183 ft. to the water edge.
THE BOURGEOIS DESIGN [edit]
The facts regarding the selection of the model of the Temple by the believers at the 1920 Convention are too well known to require much elucidation; it might nevertheless be well if some points regarding this are mentioned.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá directed that the believers should select the design at the 1920 Convention. A number of architects submitted designs, some in the form of drawn plans and Mr. Charles Mason Remey and Mr. Louis Bourgeois submitted plaster models. After careful deliberation and discussion, after hearing the opinion of disinterested men of standing in the architectural profession, the Bourgeois model was chosen. Mr. Remey, who had submitted the other model, made the motion that made the choice unanimous. The selection of the Convention was confirmed by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in numerous Tablets. We qoute one of these written to Mrs. Corinne True, as follows:
“Thanks be unto God that this Convention was supported by the confirmations of the Kingdom of Abha. Praise be unto God that the model of Mashriqu’l-Adhkár made by Mr. Bourgeois was approved by his honor, Mr. Remey, and selected by the Convention. The model of Mashriqu’l-Adhkár is, however, too big. It needs several million dollars for the cost of construction. If possible Mr. Bourgeois may reproduce the same model on a smaller scale, so that one million dollars may suffice for its construction. This should be reconsidered only if possible.”
The design of the Bourgeois model being a new and unique conception
does in its main character depart somewhat from recognized architecural standards, chiefly in the manner in which the upper stories connect with the lower part of the building. It is usual for the main ribs of structure to ascend directly from the ground. In this design the main ribs of the upper stories and dome were shifted so that they connected midway between the main or first story buttresses, immediately above the doorways. This caused considerable adverse criticism from laymen and architects, so that the Executive[Page 73]
Board of Bahá’í Temple Unity ordered Mr. Bourgeois to prepare a set of drawings altering this particular feature. This work was in the nature of an experiment to assure the members of the Board in whose hands the responsibility rested, that the Bahá’ís were not making a mistake in building a structure that thus radically departed from recognized architectural standards. The result of the experiment justified Mr. Bourgeois, for it was found that the life and beauty of the original model was not in the building shown in the experimental drawing. “It became a rigid structure and lacked motion.” (Bourgeois).
The Executive Board also felt it necessary to submit the design to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and since it was obviously impossible to send the model to Haifa they directed Mr. Bourgeois to prepare drawings showing a front elevation and a cross section of the building intending that the architect himself should take these to Haifa and there receive ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s instructions regarding the building. This was done. About the middle of January, 1921, Mr. Bourgeois sailed to the Holy Land. The drawings were left with ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and they now hang in the shrine of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.
It will also be noted that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in the Tablet just quoted directed that if possible the size and cost of the building should be considerably reduced. To comply with this instruction the Executive Board directed Mr. Bourgeois to make experimental drawings to determine whether or not the design would lend itself as it stood to the necessary reduction. It was in the main found to be feasible, the only notable change in the building being in the number of windows on either side of the entrance doors. All of this work was done in the period intervening between the Convention, which was held in April 1920 and the first of January 1921. The size of the structure was reduced from 450 ft. in diameter to 153 ft. in diameter, and the estimated cost reduced to about $1,200,000.00. This includes a rough plaster interior, an ornamental iron rail on the balcony, but no decorations for the interior.
ENGINEER’S REPORT [edit]
“My contact with the Bahá’í Temple project in Wilmette started in the fall of 1920. I met some members of the Board at that time in connection with the discussion of some municipal plans of the Village of Wilmette in their relation to the Temple project. I also conferred with Mr. McDaniel regarding the foundation plan, which he was preparing at that time, and gave some assistance to the Board in securing bids and letting the contract for the caisson foundations which supported the central portion of the building. This contract was let to Mr. Avery Brundage on the 17th day of December, 1920.
“On January 5, 1921, I entered into a contract with the Bahá’í Temple Unity to serve as its structural engineer and superintendent of construction. By this contract I undertook to prepare the structural, mechanical, electrical and sanitary engineering plans and specifications and to supervise the entire construction. This contract is still in effect. It was stipulated in the contract that I was authorized to proceed with the preparations of the plans for the foundations and basement structure and that should not prepare any plans of the superstructure until further authorized.
“It was further contemplated that it would not be necessary for me to make plans of the caisson foundations so that on this item my compensation would
be for supervision only. However,[Page 74]
a modification of this arrangement was made soon after because it became necessary to make certain structural plans of the superstructure in order to get a building permit and in doing this work it proved necessary to revise the caisson foundation designs which had been made previously.
“Only so much additional work was done as was necessary to serve the two purposes cited.
“As stated above, a contract was let to Avery Brundage on December 17, 1920, for nine caisson foundations under the central portion of the building with the intention of proceeding immediately with this portion of the work.
“An informal application was made to the Village of Wilmette for a permit on December 21, 1920. No action was taken but on the contrary some opposition developed and it was necesary to file a formal application for permit, which was done on January 7, 1921. Permit was refused at this time because plans of the building structure were not submitted as required by ordinance. This situation made it necessary to proceed with preparation of general structural plans sufficient to comply with the ordinances of the Village.
“These plans were drawn as rapidly as possible and were filed with a formal application on March 4, 1921, and the building permit was issued on the 19th day of March. This permit covered not only the work then under contract but the construction of the entire building. Under the ordinances of the Village this permit would probably be considered as still in effect, although the Village authorities could require the taking out of a new permit on account of the long suspension of operations.
“Two contracts of considerable amount have been carried out from my plans and under my supervision, namely, with Avery Brundage for nine caissons, amounting to $76,350.00, and with McCarty Brothers for the general basement section, amounting to $108,500.00. In addition to these, there have been several miscellaneous items which are shown on your records and which, with the above aggregate a total of $187,876.35. Payments made to me amount to $8,000.00, which includes payments to apply on account of the extra work of preparing plans for permit and for caissons.
“The Brundage contract for caissons was completed early in the summer of 1921, having been quite sericusly delayed because of the large amount of water encountered in digging the wells for these foundations. These wells were approximately 120 ft. deep and extended about 90 ft below the level of the water in the lake and the drainage canal near by.
Soon after the completion of the caisson contract, plans were submitted to contractors for the basement structure. This covered the foundations other than nine caissons which were required for the outer portions of the building and the complete enclosure of the basement structure up to and including the first floor. It did not include the basement floor, the subdivision of basement space, the finishing of basement nor the installation of any of the mechanical appliances.
“A contract was made with McCarty Brothers of Chicago for this work on August 24, 1921. The starting of the work was somewhat delayed by the time required to get the necessary signatures to the contract. Also the work occupied considerable more time than was anticipated but was finally completed in the fall of 1922.
“Since the completion of the basement contract, no work of importance has been done on
the structure. As it now
stands, the structure comprises
the entire basement enclosure,[Page 75]
which consists of the main enclosing wall of concrete, about 200 ft. in diameter and 20 ft. high; the sloping concrete deck, which is to support the steps encircling the main structure; and the reinforced concrete deck which will be the first floor of the main structure. Within this enclosure are all of the supporting columns required for superstructure and beneath it are all of the foundations required for the entire structure.
“Some work has been done to make the interior of the basement partially usable, such as the installation of water, temporary lights, sewer connection, furnaces, floor in the central portion and other miscellaneous items. Some of this has been under my supervision.
“Some filling material has been obtained from other operations in the neighborhood without expense, but so far it amounts to only a small fraction of the total filling that is required.
“The structure in its present condition is rather unsightly and has recently been the subject of some adverse comment. This is probably a continuance of the opposition which was in evidence when the work was started. The structure has necessarily deteriorated somewhat on account of exposure in its unfinished state, but this has not developed to a serious extent and can be overcome when the general work proceeds, or sooner if need be.
“The Board authorized Mr. Bourgeois, Architect of the Bahá’í Temple to proceed with his plans in 1921. He did so and carried them to completion in 1922 to such extent as they could be completed without having the structural plans to co-ordinate with the architectural plans. Inasmuch as I was not authorized to proceed with the structural plans, I did only such work on them as was absolutely necessary to permit carrying on the architectural plans. This consisted principally in determining some of the governing dimensions and in some instances the relation of the structural members to the architectural members. The plans which were made for permit purposes were very useful for the architect in this connection.
“The architectural plans show all of the exterior treatment of the building and in large measure the interior arrangement. There are some details that could not be completed on account of the absence of the structural plans, as mentioned, and also because the exterior material had not yet been determined.
“No specifications have been written.
“The architectural plans are in such condition that the essentials are all given so that the work could be carried on by some other competent architect in case Mr. Bourgeois should be incapacitated.
“At the request of the Board I examined the architectural plans and reported substantially as above.
“Before work can proceed with the superstructure, it will be necessary first to make the structural plans for it. The plans which were made for permit purposes, having been developed from only preliminary architectural drawings, will not be serviceable. They will have to be done over and completed in very much greater detail. Then it will be necessary for a number of additional drawings to be prepared in connection with the architectural work in order to correlate the architectural, structural and mechanical elements. Also some additional work may be necessary on the architectural drawings, dependent upon the selection of exterior material. This will not effect the design of ornamentation but will affect the jointing of the masonry materials. When these outstanding questions are settled, the
[Page 77]
specifications can be written. A large part of the specification work will fall to my lot but some of it will be architectural.
“Early in 1921, the Board appointed a materials committee, consisting of Mr. W. S. Maxwell, Mr. E. R. Boyle, Mr. A. B. McDaniel, Mr. Louis Bourgeois and Mr. H. J. Burt, Chairman, to study the questions of materials to be used in the construction of the Temple, having particular reference to the exterior material.
“A preliminary report was made on April 22, 1921, and a final report on February 18, 1922. These reports are on file with the Board. Mr. Bourgeois and myself visited St. Louis and Nashville and I visited Washington and New York, as well as a number of points at and near Chicago, gathering information regarding materials. Some samples of terra cotta and artificial stone have been exposed to the weather at the Temple site since 1922.
“There are a number of miscellaneous items in connection with the work that are worth recording:
“About the time construction was started, the Village of Wilmette was contemplating a change in the location of Sheridan Road in order to partially eliminate the dangerous curve along side of the Temple property. A shifting of the Road approximately 30 ft. westward at the maximum point was substantially agreed upon by all parties at interest but was not put into effect. The Temple building was located, however, to provide for the possible contingency of this change being made at some future date, so that when made, it would not detract from the general plan of the Temple grounds.
“It was desired that the most used entrance to the Temple should be toward Acca. In order to establish this accurately, astronomical observations were made to establish the true meridian through the center of the Temple and from this the correct position of this entrance established.
“The original model of the Temple was exhibited by special permission in the Art Institute of Chicago from March 8 to April 5, 1921, and by shifting its location the exhibition period was extended from April 5 to May 2.
“A common field stone to mark the location of the Temple building was planted at the site by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá at the time of his visit to Chicago in 1912. The location of the stone has been carefully preserved so that a suitable marker can be placed at the spot in the completed structure.
“It should be borne in mind that a considerable amount of work is required to prepare plans for proceeding with the construction and that I am not at this time authorized to proceed with this work so ample notice should be given.
“I think I need say nothing regarding the desirability of proceeding with the work as soon as arrangements can be made for so doing, for I know that all connected with it, as well as the residents of the North Shore district, are anxious to see this magnificent structure carried forward to completion.
ARCHITECTS STATEMENT [edit]
“Regarding the work done on the plans for the Temple. I would say that I have drawn a full set of plans as follows: Floor plans, basement and gallery sections; a full set of detail drawings three-quarters inch (3/4”) scale for one-ninth (1/9) part, first, second, third story and dome. Also all section and profile for one-ninth (1/9) part of the Temple from floor to top of dome, full size. Comprising altogether about thirty-six (36) rolls of drawings that vary in size from ten feet[Page 78]
(10’) long to one hundred and nine (109’) feet.
“For instance, one twenty-seventh (1/27) section of the dome is drawn on two rolls of paper four feet six inches (4’6”) in width by forty-five (45’) feet in length. All of this work, because of the unusual size, had to be laid out and drawn on the floor. It required a space two hundred and fifty (250’) feet long by forty (40’) feet wide.
“The full size drawings of the outer structure of this building were required because all of the design and tracery on this structure are entirely new. From these drawings the modellers under by supervision will have to make the original moulds from which the various sections of the building are cast.
“This required considerably more drawing and of exceptional difficulty because of the large size that is done on even highly ornamented buildings where more or less stock ornamentation is used.
“The Mashriqu’l-Adhkár will require much more supervision than any other building of even greater size or cost because the character of the ornamentation is entirely new and the modellers will have to be instructed constantly. The drawings clearly show full size detail of the design, but the depth and pitch of the modelling will have to be determined by me as construction proceeds.”
ESTIMATED COST TO COMPLETE STRUCTURE [edit]
Caisson | $50,000.00 |
Basement | 175,000.00 |
First Story | 375,000.00 |
Second Story | 275,000.00 |
To top of Dome | 325,000.00 |
| $1,200,000.00 | |
Actually expended on Caisson | 76,350.00 |
Actually expended on Basement | 108,500.00 |
EXPENDITURES APRIL 1, 1909—MARCH 31, 1925 [edit]
| Land (purchase price) | $51,500.00 | |
| Improvements to land | 5,706.76 | |
| Temple Building: | ||
Construction | $204,825.46 | |
Model | 8,932.50 | |
Plans for Temple | 8,728.10 | |
Louis Bourgeois—On Contract | 36,700.00 | 259,189.06 |
| $316,395.82 | ||
