Empire Building

This is a preservation story. The building at 35 Broad St NW in Atlanta stands there today as a symbol of resilience and persistence, two traits with which does not normally associate the city of Atlanta, and its architecture, with. 

Let’s begin the story by setting the scene. What was the city of Atlanta like in 1901 when the Empire Building was completed? Roughly 90,000 people resided there. It had solidified its status as the capital of the South, with a “Central Business District that resembled, in miniature to be sure, those of Chicago and New York.”  ^[1]   Naturally, as a city that turned to other influential cities to model its urban landscape off of, its architects did the same. The new Empire Building lay right in the middle of all this new construction that was always trying to connect and compare itself to somewhere else. Atlanta had not found its identity, and local architects in this major period of growth stuck to what they knew best instead of developing a new character. But one characteristic Atlanta’s leading architects sought to convey through city building was modernity. Here was Atlanta, the South’s new beacon of hope and progressiveness, but there was nothing in the city to match that slogan. This story will chronicle how the Empire Building transformed and the preservation efforts its architects undertook, shaping it into this beacon of Atlanta’s future.

The architect Thomas Henry Morgan entered the Atlanta scene in the late 1800s. Although he was not Georgia-born, Morgan greatly facilitated the formation of an early architectural landscape for the city, spurred by his studies of early skyscrapers in Chicago of the “Chicago” or “Commercial” Style.  ^[2 ]  The Equitable Trust Building of 1892, composed somewhat of steel framing in the interior but not a complete steel frame on the exterior, was introduced into Atlanta by architect John Wellborn Root to meet commercial needs and paved the way for skyscrapers like the Empire to be constructed ultimately.  ^[3]   The new era of fully steel framed architecture was then ushered in by architects like Morgan, who, before he built the Empire Building, completed a similar ten-story Chicago style W.D. Grant Building in 1898, mere blocks away from 35 Broad St NW.  ^[4]  

Morgan began the designs for the Empire Building in 1898, when the Grant was already finished, and only thirty-four years after Sherman’s March to the Sea during the Civil War left the city in ruins. At the time Morgan was working in the city, Atlanta was in dire need of rebuilding as only 400 of its 3,800 buildings remained.  ^[5]   Having only been founded in 1847, Atlanta as a city had not yet found its architectural voice in late 1864 when the destruction occurred. Something needed to change in the city if it wanted to achieve the status of a metropolis and capital of the South it so badly yearned for. Morgan’s early skyscrapers triggered the progress and modernity needed in Atlanta to achieve the status of a metropolis, and his firm led the charge to design and build large commercial structures in Atlanta. As is shown in the images of the Empire Building in construction, this architectural style employed steel beams, giving the entire building a fully skeletal steel frame (Figures 1 & 2).

As a result of this steel grid structure, which allowed for big open windows at the base, the Empire Building looked light. These architectural elements highlighted the modernity of the material and aligned with Atlanta’s desire to market itself as the city of the future. Interestingly, with how revolutionary the Chicago Style was in terms of architectural progressiveness, -the large windows and curtain walls- non-loading bearing walls made possible by the steel frames-, it found ways to pay homage to ancient architecture. The original plans of this building from all the way back in 1898 feature classical detailing and decorative cornices (Figures 3 & 4). So, the Chicago Style becomes a beautiful blend of the new and old, making way for the future and this building’s redevelopment.

“...additions and renovations have entirely changed the old building rendering it unrecognizable- in fact, very little besides the steel frame work remains of the Atlanta Trust Company Building.” ^[6] 

The quote above is pulled from an article published in Atlanta periodical The City Builder in December of 1931 and perfectly summarizes the effect of a 1929 renovation of the Empire Building.

So, what happened in 1929? The Empire Building, at the time home to the Atlanta Trust Company, was purchased by Citizens and Southern National Bank, who planned to relocate their headquarters there. However, the building’s architectural expression, as designed by Morgan, was no longer suitable for the tenants. In the midst of the Great Depression, the bank knew they had to be strategic in how their headquarters building outwardly presented itself. Should it look light and skeletal? No. It needed to come across as sturdy and established, stable and permanent.  ^[7]   Famed Atlanta architect Philip Trammell Shutze took on the challenge, choosing to classicize and strengthen the pre-existing architectural masterpiece instead of tearing it down and starting anew, as would have been typical in Atlanta. Shutze retained the majority of the building but focused on “conveying the solidarity of the organization it was to house, image of stability and permanence,” in the midst of financial insecurity.  ^[8]   He was creating “the Roman sense of vast space”  ^[9]   within the walls of the new bank, achieved so through detailed marbled elements and “Roman” fixtures. Shutze would have become familiar with the classical style from his time abroad under an architecture fellowship.

Elizabeth Anne Mack Lyon refers to the renovated space of the Citizens and Southern National Bank as the “epitome of a great banking house.” In Building the Bank of England: Money, Architecture, Society 1694-1942, Daniel M. Abramson includes a thorough description of the Bank of England’s physical plan and the architectural elements that were important to convey its status within England. 

These bank plans by architect George Sampson from 1732-34 share an important element with the Citizens and Southern National Bank; the center of action is the “pay hall” (circled) (Figure 5). The visitor is first welcomed into an entry hall or lobby. Passing through the lobby, they enter the main hall that was for commercial use, followed by the director’s rooms, then, if they continue, would find themselves in the private administrative areas.

An incredible rendering of the first-floor plans for remodeling the C&S bank shows these same spatial relationships (Figure 6). Many more rooms have been added to this bank than would have been found in the Bank of England, but the same spatial premise holds. A visitor enters through the vestibule into the public lobby, then turns left into a separate bank lobby and finally into the massive commercial banking room. Just as with the Bank of England, the administration offices -President and Vice President offices, etc.- are considerably separated from the public spaces. It is worth noting, however, that this would only be the path for visitors entering Broad Street. Those entering Walton Street to the north or Marietta Street to the south would step directly into the banking room. 

Abramson applauds the classical architectural style employed by Sampson for the Bank of England for “masking” and centralizing capitalism, so the elements have an ideological function as well as aesthetic. The reasoning is that a building’s physical appearance could and should convey an idea, whether an accurate one or not. In Sampson’s case, he was altering the narrative, and Shutze presumably had a similar agenda with his remodel. A classical look would present a more secure Citizens and Southern National Bank to the public than perhaps was the reality. As previously stated, Shutze was no stranger to works of the classical nature, having studied in Rome in 1915 under an architecture fellowship. Having intensively studied and sketched ancient Roman wonders such as the Pantheon, Shutze infused this material into a “Pantheonesque” remodeling of the C&S Banking Room,  ^[10]   achieving the effect with grand columns, cornices, intricate detailing, and arched windows (Figures 7, 8, 9, 10). Essentially, Shutze changed the message the building conveyed. In Morgan’s time, the Empire Building was the epitome of the “Atlanta Forward” slogan,  ^[11]   a term coined much later in the city’s life but nonetheless applicable here. Morgan’s architectural masterpiece sought to demonstrate progressivity in the new southern metropolis, but three decades later, the city needed a new structure that communicated solidity and Shutze dug into the past to give it just that.

Shutze’s Italian influence is in full effect in photographs taken for the 1977 National Register of Historic Places nomination (Figures 7, 8, 9, 10). In fact, Thomas Morgan’s favorite style was reportedly classical, which is why the original decorative elements—pilasters, moldings, and capitals—of the Empire Building had notes of classical.  ^[12]   It is almost as if the building was waiting to be transformed. Morgan laid the groundwork, and Shutze let it blossom. 

This ninth-floor plan shows a typical upper-floor plan of the Empire/C&S building (Figure 12). Shutze left the rest of the building, outside of the first three floors, relatively untouched, but as noted in The City Builder, there were various new additions, like a barbershop and tearoom, that contributed to making the new office spaces more comfortable for tenants. ^[ 13 ]  Shutze modernized American office culture, as one would expect to find these conveniences in an office building today, but during his time, this was a shock. His influence in classical architectural elements gives the base of the bank tower the physical embodiment of strength and stability while preserving the beauty of Morgan’s light, skeletal framing in the floors above.

Atlanta’s rocky start to development in the 1800s was never forgotten by the people who built it up. Resurgens. That motto became Atlanta’s guiding force, a principle to live and work by. After great devastation, the city came up out of the ashes like a phoenix and became a great force in the American South.  ^[14]   It is somewhat humorous that the two organizations currently occupying 35 Broad St NW are a bank and a business school, the same type of organizations that, and this is generalizing, often advocate for the demolition of buildings like the one they work in.

Had the Empire Building not been nationally protected in 1977, would it still stand today? Or would it have joined the Carnegie Library (1902-77), Terminal Station (1905-72), and the Grady Hotel (1924-72), among countless others in Atlanta’s graveyard of historic architecture?  ^[15]   Early in Atlanta’s commercial growth, until about the end of the twenties, many older buildings were saved from demolition due to the need for office space to accommodate the influx of new companies moving into Atlanta. Buildings with great functionality, like the Empire, were then demolished for locational reasons. If they moved too far away from where the new center of Atlanta business was, they were deemed superfluous and neglected, like in the case of the Atlanta National Bank building.  ^[16]   The Terminal Station was deemed useless and destroyed the very same year the Empire Building became listed on the National Register.

Compare these two images from 1955 (Figure 13) and 2004 (Figure 14). Unlike the building across the street, the Empire Building, which already at this time was occupied by the Georgia State University J. Mack Robinson College of Business,  ^[17]   remains in the same condition, unchanged and preserved in its 1932 form (at least on the outside). This comparison is exceptionally valuable for understanding how quickly and incessantly Atlanta buildings are demolished or altered.

In 1977, the Citizen’s and Southern National Bank was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. The nomination form argues for its registration on the basis that it represents two distinct periods of Atlanta’s growth, a physical intersection of two distinct eras of Atlanta skyscrapers, the first being from 1893-1918.  ^[18]   Morgan and Shutze looked to two very different methods of architecture, “one looked to the progressive new aesthetic of the Chicago School; the other personified the Beaux-Arts classical tradition,”  ^[19]   and what ultimately became of this Atlanta masterpiece has been spared from demolition, indefinitely remaining part of the city skyline. Additionally, the newly remodeled C&S banking room was not only a testament to the success of the Morgan and Dillon and the Hentz, Adler, and Shutze firms that built it but also to the banking industry as a whole, making it synonymous with architecture that is lavish and grand.

Perhaps the Empire Building was preserved because it is the clear epitome of what historians deem Atlanta to be. The city’s identity somewhat lies in the fact that it draws inspiration from elsewhere and looks to recreate it, just in the American South. That is not to discredit the skillful visions of both the architects, as all art is inspired, but it is simply interesting to make the connection. At the end of its construction, the Empire Building clearly draws from different, revolutionary eras of architecture, becoming a symbol in the city of Atlanta precisely because of it.

Mia Blavatnik is a recent Emory Art History graduate, residing in New York before she plans to attend graduate school for Arts Management and one day run her own museum.

Keywords: Preservation, Modernity, Identity, Classical, Chicago Style

City of Atlanta, GA. "C & S National Bank Building." Accessed March 4, 2024.  https://www.atlantaga.gov/government/departments/city-planning/historic-preservation/property-district-information/c-s-national-bank-building 

Craig, Robert M. "J. Mack Robinson College of Business Administration Building.” In SAH Archipedia, edited by Gabrielle Esperdy and Karen Kingsley. Charlottesville: UVaP, 2012.  https://sah-archipedia.org/buildings/GA-01-121-0042 .

Dowling, Elizabeth Meredith, “Philip Trammell Shutze: A Study of the Influence of Academic Discipline on His Early Residential Designs,” The Atlanta Historical Journal 30, no. 2 (Summer 1986): 33-53.

Lyon, Elizabeth Mack. "Business Buildings in Atlanta: A Study in Urban Growth and Form." PhD Diss., Emory University, 1971.

National Parks Service. “Citizen's and Southern Bank Building.” Accessed March 4, 2024.  https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/77000426# .

“New Citizens and Southern National Bank Building Second Largest in Atlanta.” The City Builder, (Dec. 1931): 10.  https://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/digital/collection/ACBuilder/id/10113 

Rogers, Ian Michael. “Historic Preservation and Progress in Atlanta: Opportunity Knocks.” Journal of Comparative Urban Law and Policy 2, no. 1 (2017): 215-248.

Rutheiser, Charles. Imagineering Atlanta: The Politics of Place in the City of Dreams. London: Verso, 1996.

 “Thomas Henry Morgan,” The Atlanta Historical Bulletin 7, no. 28, (Sept. 1943): 87-88.  https://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/digital/collection/AHBull/id/10581