em erreme mes fotierpese Ww + NVLLVHNVW YHMOT HO SONIGTINd YHTIVL TIHLS GNV TIVL 4HL PCSEcecc Crecelic i Bis i reeereor bee 6 ee ae ee geenet® PK HOR 0 amas I = — COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS AND RESTRICTIONS FINAL REPORT JUNE 2, 1916 NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN CITY OF NEW YORK BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT COMMITTEE ON THE CITY PLAN 1916 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS AND RESTRICTIONS Epwarp M. Bassett, Chairman Lawson Purpy, Vice-Chairman Epwarp C. BLuM ALFRED E. MARLING James E. CLonin GrEoRGE T. MorTIMER Orto M. Erpuirz J. F. Smita Burt L. FENNER WALTER STABLER Epwarp R. Harpy FRANKLIN S. TOMLIN RicHarp W. LAWRENCE GEORGE C. WHIPPLE Atrick H. Man WILLIAM G. WILLCOX Rozert H. Wuirtten, Secretary COMMITTEES BoroucH oF MANHATTAN—WALTER STABLER, Chairman; Otto M. Er1i7z, ALFRED E. MARLING, GEORGE T, MORTIMER. BoroucH oF THE Bronx—RricHarD W. LAWRENCE, Chairman; Epwarp R. Harpy, ALFrep FE. Martine. BorouGH OF BRooKLYN—FRANKLIN S. TomMLin, Chairman; Epwarp C. Bium, Lawson Purpy. BoroucH oF QueENS—Atrick H. Man, Chairman; James E. CLonin, Burt L. FENNER. BoroucH oF RICHMOND—WILLIAM G. WILLCcox, Chairman; J. F. Situ, GEORGE C, WHIPPLE. STAFF Rosert H. WuitTtTen, Secretary GEORGE B. Forp, Consultant Joun P. Fox, Transit Expert Hersert S. Swan, Investigator GeEorGE W. Tutte, Assistant Engineer Epwarp M. Law, Assistant Engineer © MERTZ LIBRARY R KEW YORK f BOTANICAL GARDEN CONTENTS CHAPTER JESHIN ATI RXONDNOKCANIOUN ae eco cep pod on See Cae aCe eI ee CHAPTER II—NECESSITY FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF (GLARE PSOE LAD IUNK Cy: Seeicncig Gini cra CUO OSCR oc SE eas CHINE Reps) TW Sib DTS aeRMl CAS = pee yer coer savsocine sniereve ecvayare victsee CHAPTER IV—APPROPRIATE INTENSITY OF THE USE OF TS gANINFID ease ero Gree te ists Le EEE NCL eT I oe SU he Pee CHAPTER WES ela Clelils IDUS ML SaUKCANS) hs Oa cae ddn d Gob tOni a acme OTE e CHAPTER NA SeNRUevay. WB ITSKIDI SCARS Soeaandapocees yb REED OO eMeEE oOo noES CHAPTER VII—FUTURE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT OF DIS- USOC INIEN (Cr 2] GENIN Meme aad cen oticc ta canoe nereno cade APPENDIX I SCBUNRINGIR IPIROWUSIOINS: gcoasaccoscovsc0cggouenbG0000 APPENDIX II—ZONING SURVEY .<...........- ST EReE Geshamee Gen atts APPENDIX III—DISTRICTING (REPRINT FROM HEIGHTS OF IBUIUILIDIUNGS IRIGIAOIRIL)) sococenscacop000000d0000000 APPENDIX IV—RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO NECESSITY FOR DISTRICT- JUNG PIN og Sa cen Aol aotdic mod alana eRa Home PAGE dr@arns, WVereeAS sooooscaqcous Td IKkeloay, Clareaes Ilssconcodcantoue Belli, Avmeell Jel; sosacccoccgo000 0) Isqalloin, Oa sossoccocscvcceccuce Baral Niles Socaccocoocacoun Gil Kssielksos, Alkimeeal Io occooocancan0nce : Bassett, Edward M........... 2 IS, IDR Ss Alon. 5 accccccd Beymer, IL, Ioooo0qccc000500 Gi) Ilene, INGlsom IPsccagacoscncased0 Beragieim, Io cooonono0ccoo0n0s &} iLewmisolan, Sama Acsccasccocooc0ce IBbialtcerm@l, IRE Soscdcccaccdc O3bilvordkesbranks cee tnel ce ecier eiocn te Boehme, Dr. Gustave F., Jr... 94 McMillan, Dr. Marion B.......... IBbicely Io. Jelgoooqodosonoeneds Co} Marsa, IRemiEvri Csccscoccsac0000 Calder, Hon. Wm. M......... C7 Moshi, Islemny sooccoao0enc0d Case, MiG Iscsocccosnsdsoo8 C8 Mpa, Jol Woocoonocovesu00e0e Cormier, lhemese IX coocacacces OOS Mi ryt Vee AG ene acta ccy sine Cisinion, JOM IB.csoccoscccc 100 Reeratheaneden CbEmeener ener ac IDyyyarsoye, Ieyabsatbbal Gooaccconcnce Il leyexee, Iie, George Wlsscccsovcbace iktisseElonseAtbrarni lene ener 102 IPawrahy, WEWSOM socooccccopsccsauen macrsom, ID, IBIS ooccooune 105 ikopmdkes, IMlawtiin Soocoscocescbcocce Emerson Valliam ieee neni 10S) Sclaerier, AGROS o6o caccsssvced0an Ralleomer, IirbeS Wlososcoccacce 110° Schieffelin, Wm. Jay............. Hetherstonsa Ohne heeeeeen ete ZO: Seurag, ILOWIS sesccospsoccabcncns (Gebtiardeohne Gaeeeereeeeeee Zi Suewerin, Wailbern ooccsasccesocuc Goodrich tehineste > eeeeeeee 123 Swan, Herbert S., and Tuttle, Geo. Gireyme, IMIEGhIXOIN 5osnaccccoocas 127 NGS og Suan iCc OnlRRCRT RE RE REET art Inlaralee, Jreihiig cosancosomodecc iz” Sywam, Islernst? Socacccccascoocese Isleyechy, IWalyerl IR, ooccocscose 123 Wormer, Del Wssscoscuscoccccss dlexames, IRowleiaGl j.ccccsc0ccs 132 Whipple, George C......:........ loyal, JOSAH oonscoscesneo 14) Wyllie, Theale 1Boncocsccccnobee Ingersoll, Raymond V......... 135 APPENDIX V—SOME RESULTS OF HAPHAZARD DEVELOP- MENT AS RECORDED BY THE CAMERA....... APPENDIX VI—REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF THE BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPOR- TIONMENT, JULY 18, 1916 211 HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMISSION PAGE APPENDIX VII—BUILDING ZONE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTION- MENT JULY 125; 1916 Aicicn snics cieiee oisiceielentteem aces 232 APPENDIX VIII—MAP DESIGNATIONS AND MAP DESIGNATION RULES ACCOMPANYING BUILDING ZONE RESOLUDION ADOPTED ULY) 25 19loneeeeeeee 245 APPENDIX IX—DISTRICTING RESOLUTION ANNOTATIONS...... 255 ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1 The Tall and Still Taller Buildings of Lower Manhattan.. FEA SRG C opp. p. 1 fe 2 Use of Artificial Light in Offices on Exchange Place, from Broad Street to Broadiways fiz o.s © «sje loaisiss eleivielesnisininiole a eS follow p. 9 s 3 Use of Artificial Light in Offices—On New Street, looking south sees Wall Street; On Exchange Place, from Broad Street sich oveye (oro. ufhs kl tn a soa us seve so tosses ipeeaceedotel atone lav co a’o) ote eee follow p.9 : 4 aces Building Cutting Off Light and Air from Tenements..... follow p. 12 v 5 Unimproved Property in Brooklyn, 1913........................ follow p. 14 2 6 Docks and Terminals in New York City and Vicinity............ follow p. 16 +4 7 Map Showing Place of Work of Factory Employees, 1913....... follow p. 16 £ 8) Bactories am Residence ‘Streets icc cie elector ebateielalobeticieletsiclars lela ene follow p. 18 c QO) Bitthr Atventie: eat «cleo etotetotedererelesetetorer-toreleielevevatejsfectovercinsioye tate kertienes follow p. 18 “10 Congested Side Streets with Combined Traffic of Business and igh: Wott wil dimes srereleemtelctereratelelelefeteeiniceicelereteteiaciate er ieee follow p. 18 ©) ie “ihe: Binvironments om the rome crete yepitererleteiotelteeietteieierer aaa follow p. 20 «! 12. Noise and ‘the Homes..22sssccce cceisaeene ae e eee Gennes follow p. 20 “13 Part of Map Showing Locations of Fatal Accidents Caused by Automobiles, Surface Cars and Horse-Drawn Vehicles in the Borough! of Manhattans 190 Gneeer caesar see eeter follow p. 20 « 14° ‘Dhe Streetasa Playoround ey yaacteccctesicitersiicteieele sioiste yore eee follow p. 22 “15. junk Shops anyG@ongested’ Menements cee eect ieee ree follow p. 24 16 Horseshoeing in Congested Tenement Streets...............-... follow p. 24 «17 Stores) Invading; Residence |Streetsin -- cee ciel seein follow p. 24 “ 18 Sidewalk Obstructions Incident to Business Use................- follow p. 24 « “19. Windows: on’ Lot (hinesy. «acc. citccciosiem a cir essistota sicteete renee follow p. 26 “ 20 Part of Population Spot Map—U. S. Census 1910............... follow p. 30 Zit all Biildings Ovenrtaxe Street. Capacithyeen see nacre eee eres follow p. 38 “22 The Apartment House Invading Detached House Sections....... follow p. 42 “23 Part of Map Showing Contours and Street Grades, 1916.......... follow p. 46 “24 Part of Use District Map for the Area shown on Opposite Page. . follow p. 46 “25 Existing and Future Rapid Transit Lines and Stations, Lower Man- hattan; 1915: Bieta ate con ee eee eerie follow p. 46 “ 26 ‘Time ZoneiMapiot New, MorklGityoe neem eee eens citer follow p. 48 “27 ~Part of Map Showing Main Trucking and Automobile Routes with TraftietGounts: 91S. ew aee aicine ccc: cciee co ene eee follow p. 48 “28 Map of City of New York Showing Population Centers Based on Police’ \Gensus:. JOUS a rece ree ote oo en nas eee follow p. 48 “30 Typical Block from Atlas Showing Existing Building Development.follow p. 48 “31 Part of Map Showing Building and Transit Development, Manhat- tan, 1914 0.2 cca cicmienleterketn gerne srsioionn iciore oo saci Eee ae follow p. 48 “32 Part of Map Showing Building and Transit Development, Manhat- tan, 1885. ook casahacn cava naternenisienSicnien pierre: ihooanies Ge eee follow p. 48 “33 Part of Map Showing Heights of Existing Buildings, 1915........ follow p. 50 “34 Height District Map for Section Shown on Opposite Folder...... follow p. 50 “35 Part of Map Showing Percentage of Lot Covered by Existing Build- ings, TOUS ©. ic abisrifec ere raeietinoe mtclee ie eieicic eee ae follow p. 50 “36 Area District Map for the Section of the City Shown on Opposite Bolder vi.nsstiss nos says ee ee eet hoe aleceion eee eee follow p. 50 ve 3/7) Map’ Showing Land!) Valuesi 19) 5 semen ee ae eee eee eens follow p. 50 <~ 47 Districting: in Boston)... s0se nie ene re ee eee follow p. 60 + (48, Districting: in Washington’ reassert eee eee follow p. 62 =. S49 Districting in, Minneapolis..:..ctoors onder ee eee eee follow p. 64 CONTENTS : V PAGE IDreimaciongs wa INIT RAUECS. ocoolsnoconcvsdo000dccodbaacbassnnoosne follow p. 66 IDistrictinewink ZosmAne eles peeEereE PEE rete re errcit caer arr follow p. 68 DIStrictine wil hnanktonlene eee eee ee erk erect renner acre follow p. 72 Lunch Hour Crowds of Factory Workers..............++00++eeeeeees 117 Congested Side Streets in Fifth Avenue District...................... 119 Part of Map Showing the Number and Location of Fires in the Bor- ough of Manhattan During the Years 1910, 1911 and 1912......... 130 Volume of Sunshine Admitted by Window...........-.......00.00005 180 Cross-section of Bundle of Sun Rays Entering WYitaG@lOnooaccaccca0e0n 180 Sunshine Admittediby wWindowaneeaeenceren cee ceereennneceeneaaceees 181 Hourly Percent of Maximum Possible Sunshine in New York........ 183 Daylight Illumination on Street Surface and on Building Facade...... 183 Flux of Direct Daylight Entering Given Window..................... 187 Mae oniromimemn’ Or We IBIOWMEs cccocccsscccncd0uccecunDGDOuDNDND follow p. 214 The Impnirommene Or Wae IIOWME., .occocosssacacenn500cau0000G000 follow p. 214 INoisexandithemelomemtep cn acta ave retmire acre eee rane aeiace follow p. 214 INoisenandisthemblomesenyaa scree noo ol ete eeaeian ae follow p. 214 Stabless in Gongestedlenement Streetss-s4. sees aces follow p. 214 Sizlnles im Comeegued! Wemememe SWC. oocccncnscae0n0cc000000 follow p. 214 GaracespAmonemerivateMomesee eran aerate follow p. 214 Carages Amnon lire lalomneS, oacagncocbancososd00d0000000006 follow p. 214 Garages in Congested Tenement Streets....................-0-- follow p. 214 Garasespine Apartment sElouses Streets-peme nee ieee neice follow p. 214 Roadway Obstruction Incident to Stable and Garage Use....... follow p. 214 Swipe amal Gamage IWiloGkS.coccocosapcancsccacnocdcnss0GnGde0DD follow p. 214 Homes Exposed to Increased Fire Dangers.................... follow p. 214 Junk Shops in Congested Tenement Streets.................... follow p. 214 Junk Shops in Congested Tenement Districts.................. follow p. 214 Horseshoeing in Congested Tenement Streets.................. follow p. 214 Swomes Ihnpevhines Iesilenee SisrSStSooo0cccccceaccococdououounce follow p. 214 Stores Invading, Residence Streets......:.....3------+s------: follow p. 214 Stores lnvacdimossiesidencemotheetseerenemee tomate secon a follow p. 214 Stores Iknyaching; Iesclemee SwRreaiSoosccocccscccccoasnoagngn00s follow p. 214 Partial Conversion of Dwelling to Business Use................ follow p. 214 Residential Blocks Invaded Beyond Recovery.................. follow p. 214 Sidewalk Obstructions Incident to Business Use.........-.....- follow p. 214 Sidewalk Obstructions Incident to Business Use...............- follow p. 214 Sidewalk Obstructions Incident to Business Use................ follow p. 214 Sidewalk Obstructions Incident to Business Use................ follow p. 214 Sidewalk Obstructions Incident to Business Use................ follow p. 214 Sidewalk Obstructions Incident to Business Use...............- follow p. 214 Storage Warehouse in Residence Street....................... follow p. 214 INES Ge IResicemes Sere occccsouccopecv0bsnoadovubocdgauone follow p. 214 HORUS MOMMIES a tedey shiney jurist Se Am Lena ete follow p. 214 Tne hivirommear OF ae SEn@Olcascoscnv0gcaccs00doaccc00sGG06 follow p. 214 Mine Wayiromment oi tne San@COl, scooocoosceneoscqsouuasvonsdss follow p. 214 Tine Emyiromment OF ine SOHO. .occocooscososscaoavcoconcsceee follow p. 214 Hnvironmentsons Ciunchand sl ospitalaenmeseerceaaeeaere recs follow p. 214 IP esailS) Gir, Wevd” Sualeyyalken. oo lseoaaaoedosos pepbe cbuaeos bon coaseaoE follow p. 214 eri swoupolteeSidewallemmee mrp ere cee tere caesar tite follow p. 214 RerilspotuthnesSidewalle escape tees cio eee ody ee ae ee follow p. 214 Tyorcall IkaGhnowrey! IDIGUACIS.ocaccooapcccpscoc ng gs0000D0D ee DNDK follow p. 214 Typical Iackassrell IDIGEICHS>occ000cnbccoudcgcpac0dgncdcc000RbE follow p. 214 Pasian Cars aime Giseeer ComgessOm. ooocccc9c0couacoas9nuc0ccnsaes follow p. 214 RusheCaxtsyands Street. Congestionese asset eda eee aaa follow p. 214 Pag Carcis aimel Sireet COMGEHTON. s5000ccn000n4500ncas0ueseGnOr follow p. 214 Wiiindowsmonwalvotwlein emery rir cicrcricer exer titecie ine Os aor follow p. 214 MWindowsmongivotmlineren sserce nmin casera trates rss follow p. 214 Factory Buildings Cutting Off Light and Air from Tenements. . follow p. 214 Rear Yards of Tenements Used for Industries................. follow p. 214 Use District Map of the Borough of Manhattan................. follow p. 244 Use District Map of the Borough of The Bronx................. follow p. 244 Use District Map of the Borough of Brooklyn.................. follow p. 244 Use District Map of the Borough of Queens..................... follow p. 244 Use District Map of the Borough Ox ING oMO MG oscogqcc0asancacoe follow p. 244 Height District Map of the Borough of Manhattan............. follow p. 244 vi Fig. 129 130 131 132 133 HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMISSION PAGE Height District Map of the Borough of The Bronx............. follow p. 244 Height District Map of the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. . follow p. 244 Height District Map of the Borough of Richmond.............. follow p. 244 Area District Map of the Borough of Manhattan................ follow p. 244 Area District Map of the Borough of The Bronx.............. follow p. 244 Area District Map of the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens....follow p. 244 Area District Map of the Borough of Richmond follow p. 244 Heighthof a Ballding .cmecctmerinccenerchti: aone noes * svevelseststetete 256 Goutt and Yard ‘Definitions: <... 2a: wcie sense coeiee ee ee eee 256 Heightjot a Yard lor a. Court... ...,5: onesie one ee eee 257 Chart Showing Height Limits at the Street Line for all Street Wadths: infall Height) Districts: /-).ncescer is Zz > 0 PROPOSED IMUNICIPAL RAILROAD: AND TERMINAL CITY OF NEW YORK BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT SANDY HOOK COMMITTEE ON THE CITY PLAN MAP SHOWING DOCKS and TERMINALS NEW YORK CITY EXUSTING DOCKS Ao TERMINALS SHOWN IN SOLID BLACK mmm AND PROPOSED = = = = BFOKENLINES mmm VICINITY La aSGeans 34 MILES. Fic. 6-DOCKS AND TERMINALS IN NEW YORK CITY AND VICINITY. MAP SHOWING PLACE OF WORK OF FACTORY EMPLOYEES, 1913 Data Supplied by Division of Industrial Directory, State Department of Labor. Each dot represents 250 employees. WR es ULES OO > a5 é ee Ri nm” AR CNN Aah It will be observed when comparison is made with the population spot map, Fig 20, that the area west of Broadway between Chambers Street est Thirty-third Street, which houses a dense factory population, has comparatively few people living therein. Large numbers of the facto tion evidently live in the densely populated area on the east side within walking distance of the factories. ra = e : Hae WoL IN oo JIG BIEINENEK NE cian G0 Fic. 7. Lyf and W popula USE DISTRICTS 17 less ground area per industry without greatly changing the aggregate require- ment for ground area. The segregation of factories will directly reduce production costs. It will make it possible to have the best rail and water terminal facilities and the best express and mail facilities. It will reduce trucking and thus improve street traffic conditions. It will tend to the segregation of heavy trucking from other classes of street traffic and thus further tend toward the improve- ment of street traffic conditions. Furthermore, the segregation of factories along the rail and water terminals and their consequent exclusion from the residence sections will improve living conditions throughout the city. A factory is usually a nuisance in a residence section. It is often directly injurious by reason of noise, odor, dust or smoke. It always brings heavy trucking with attendant noise and danger to the safety- of the children, especially in crowded tene- ment districts. It often subjects the neighboring residents and property owners to increased risk from fire and explosion. The problem of congestion of population is closely related to the loca- tion of trades and industries.1 Employees working long hours at low wages can afford neither the time nor the money to live far from their work. It has been shown that a very large proportion of such employees will live within walking distance of their work, even though this necessitates their living in the most congested and unwholesome quarters. While the pro- posed plan for residential and industrial districts will not cure existing con- ditions it will help to prevent an extension of such conditions. This is insured by providing adequate housing areas adjacent to the factory areas and preventing for the future the encroachment by the factories on areas required for housing. While economic forces are quite effective in securing the segregation of industries of the heavier type close to the water and rail terminals, there are in New York City an unusually large proportion of industries that are not subject to this segregating influence. New York City is pre-eminent as a light manufacturing center. Of the 680,510 persons employed in indus- tries in New York City in 1909, 422,769 were employed in the following light industries : Artificial flowers, feathers and plumes............. 9,759 IBGOOtSFATIGESNOES a5 Late esc cere Naa os ue SE eA 9,177 JBXOS. GSS), (Gr d'd east EOE Groene So oe rH nd reg ee 9,414 Isreal aime! THIET (ROGINES, coogagacdccscc00000Gce 20,401 JEXUNMHCOFOKSN ies & aban gles 0h eye eeae ae aaa Ren ee Nan Cea 3,635 GClothintomsmienssi treme paris cia ete ee cet 77,543 Clotting ms womenssimpree seein ac unsere yeaa tcl 110,567 Comfection enyer. tan were etnias ceca ae 7,641 _ See Figure 7 and Figure 20. A comparison of these two spot maps, showing resident and factory population, indicates graphically the relation between congestion of factories in lower Manhattan and congestion of population in the lower East Side. 18 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS Fancy) articles. 3c)j- tek aoe a elstd select eit 3,649 Fur goods si biss hahtoeetne ee ae oaks cei pee 10,719 Furnishing) goods,amenisae are eee aa eee eee 8,051 Hair work.: st Ash cate t rh he ese eee eee 2,704 Hats and scapswy.tioinanit. ha otis iciegisaeteeenteie 5,815 Elosiery. andiknitscoodsa.e ameter eee 6,082 Jewelry 0.108 diets SA hateste pro een 6,668 Mallinery and lace! s00dSes. 3-11-15 -0tieitee tenereets 24,712 Patent “medicines ys ssi oe ies ae ee 5,450 Printing and jpublishings-.ri secre einer 74,118 LObaccO! 4s Seas Rees OL Se eee Ee eee 26,664 422,769 The above enumeration includes only the larger groups that may be classed as distinctly light manufacturing. Fully two-thirds of the industrial employees of the city are employed in industries that do not find direct con- nection with water and rail terminals a necessarily determining factor in the selection of a*factory location. For these industries the questions of labor supply and market for goods are much more important. The New York Metropolitan District with a population of over 7,500,000 is itself the largest consumer of the output of its factories. Moreover, Manhattan is the great jobbing center for the entire country and this gives its manufac- turers special advantages in the marketing of their goods. In addition the city has the largest and most varied labor supply. Being the principal port of entry for immigrants, it has an unlimited supply of the cheaper class of labor from which the employees of the clothing trades and various other light industries are recruited. These light industries are scattered indiscriminately over © the entire city throughout the business and residential sections. One good residence section after another has been progressively invaded and destroyed by the coming of the sporadic factory. This the proposed plan will prevent. The great manufacturing section of Manhattan is not, as one might presuppose, along the waterfronts of the North and East Rivers, but lies in a narrow belt through the center of the Island from Canal Street to about 38th Street.1 The northward progress of the factory zone during the past sixteen years above 14th Street has been attended by tragic consequences. The city’s chief hotel and retail center was invaded and_ substantially destroyed. It was compelled to move north to 34th Street and is now again in danger of destruction. The simple fact is that under New York City conditions, with high loft buildings and congested streets, the chief hotel, club, theater and shopping center cannot exist in close proximity to the factories. In the side streets along the lower portion of Fifth Avenue the number of employees is so great that the surrounding streets are necessarily “See factory employee spot map, Figure 7. Note the narrow black belt from Canal street north to about 38th street. < South 4th Street, Factory among Near Berry Street. residences. Thompson Street, Near West Hous- East 9th Street, Between ‘Avenues & ton Street—Factories in heart of and D—Sawmill near tenements. a tenement house district. j _, Prospect and 11th Avenues—This steam laundry has retarded development in this entire section. Fic. 8-FACTORIES IN RESIDENCE STREETS. ~ Factories in residence streets are detrimental to the public health and welfare because they obstruct light and ventilation, disturb the peace and quiet of homes, often emit dust and noxious odors and convert sidewalks into dangerous loading platforms. / lec ec ener CeCe Sst Fifth Avenue at 34th Street. ‘Fic. 9—FIFTH AVENUE. West 35th Street, near Fifth Avenue. Fic. 10—CONGESTED SIDE STREETS WITH COMBINED TRAFFIC OF BUSINESS AND HIGH LOFT BUILDINGS. USE DISTRICTS 19 congested with pedestrians during the hours when the workers are going to or returning from work. At the noon hour when the workers come out from the factories for a stroll along Fifth Avenue they monopolize the sidewalks to the exclusion or serious inconvenience of those having business on the avenue. An intensive factory use on the side streets is fatal to the business use of the avenue. The sidewalk space is needed by the workmen and the roadway space is needed for the trucking incident to factory use. On the other hand, all the available roadway and sidewalk space would be unduly congested if reserved solely for business use. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, and even if there were more space available it would be difficult to harmonize an intensive use of roadways and sidewalks for two such widely different purposes. Traffic conditions are the crux of the situation. It is vital to the exist- ence oi the city that it maintain such conditions of street traffic that the city’s chief hotel, club, theater and shopping center may permanently be maintained in the sole location that is suited for it. The plan proposed will protect the entire Fifth Avenue and Broadway section south as far as 23d Street and between Fourth Avenue and Sixth Avenue. The exclusion of future factory lofts from the above section will also result to the economic advantage of the manufacturing industries concerned, to the welfare of the workers and to the relief of the city’s congested transit facilities. The factories will be located on cheaper ground, nearer to rail and water terminals and nearer to an adequate labor supply. They can, if they find it desirable, maintain salesrooms in the restricted district. The workmen will be able in greater proportion to live within walking distance of their work. This will be a boon to the workers who walk, in that it will save them carfare and the necessity of spending about an hour and a quarter a day on the cars under conditions of overcrowding that are a menace to health, comfort and safety. And just to the extent that they do this will this condition of congestion be relieved for those who will still have to ride on transit lines during the rush hours. Retail business naturally tends to segregate. The grouping of a few of the neighborhood stores and business buildings on the main avenue or thoroughfare creates the center that attracts other stores and makes that particular street the most desirable place in which to do business. In spite of this strong trend toward segregation, unless prevented by law, the occa- sional store will come into the midst of a residential community, to the detriment both of the residential section and of the natural local business street. In residential neighborhoods the plan has been to preserve the side streets wherever possible for strictly residential use. The avenues along the ends of the block and main thoroughfares have usually been included in the business districts. The business use on the avenue is permitted to extend 100 feet back along the residential side streets. In the less developed sections it has often seemed feasible to indicate only every second or third 20 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS avenue for business use and thus secure a larger and more self-contained residential area. This, it is believed, will improve living conditions and will conserve values on both the business and residence streets. The amount of space needed for retail business purposes depends a good deal on the economic condition and habits of the population. Gen- erally speaking, the smaller the average income per family the larger the proportion that will be spent in the purely local stores. In the case of the very poor, practically the entire income is spent in the local stores. On the other hand, the well-to-do make a very large proportion of their purchases outside of the local area, The local retail section of a well-to-do neighbor- hood may be conhned to a very limited variety of shops. Consequently, a tenement section requires a much larger allowance of retail business space than an elevator apartment section. It is believed, however, that even in the most crowded tenement sections, if business had been confined to the avenues along the ends of the blocks, sufficient business space would have been provided and living conditions in the side residential streets would have been very greatly improved. In an elevator apartment section a busi- ness street every second or third avenue is ample. . The protection of the home environment is vital to the welfare of the state. It needs no argument to demonstrate that a business or industrial street does not furnish the most favorable environment for a home. Quiet is a prime requisite. The zone plan, by keeping business and industrial buildings out of the residential streets, will decrease the street traffic in the residential sections and thus reduce to a minimum noise incident to street traffic. Aside from the increased vehicular traffic the business and industrial uses disturb the quiet and peace of the residential street by the crowds of employees and others incident to a business or industrial use. The above evils are present even though the business or industry is in itself entirely unobjectionable from the standpoint of noise. Dr. Gustave F. Boehme testified that business and industrial uses on a residential street and the noise and confusion incident thereto made such streets much less healthful and desirable for residence purposes. He said that such conditions tended to produce and intensify all kinds of nervous disorders. The efficient cleaning of the streets and the collection of refuse are of great importance to the health and welfare of the city. The segregation of uses will make it possible to adopt more efficient and economical methods for each particular street or section. It is recognized that for sanitary reasons a residential street should be kept cleaner than a business or indus- trial street. If, however, there is a mixed occupancy, residential, business and industrial, the traffic, trade wastes and litter incident to business and industrial use may make it physically or economically impossible to keep the street in the good sanitary condition demanded for residential use. John T. Fetherston, Commissioner of Street Cleaning, testified on this point as follows: “Tt is well known that where different public conditions exist in any particular locality, it is impossible to adopt a single uniform ~ East 5th Street, near Avenue D—Wetwash laundry, saw- dust factory, planing mill, near tenements. Lafontaine Avenue, corner 179th Street West 166th Street, between Audubon —Hat factory and tenements. and Amsterdam Avenues—Beer bot- tling works near tenements. Fic. 11I—THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE HOME. The Commission believes that the environment of the home should be guarded and protected in every possible way. ° Elizabeth Street, Corner Broome Street— Ice plant in a tenement district. The noise of this plant continues all night. 3lst Street and Eleventh Avenue — Railroad yard surrounded by tenements. BS VIENNA BAKERY IB (WEN tow Milk Depot—Corner 180th Street and Park Avenue. Showing proximity of apartment houses. Fic. 12—NOISE AND THE HOME. The noise and confusion always more or less in evidence in congested sections are bad even under the best conditions, but when aggravated by heavy trucking in the ‘streets and by the machinery of nearby factories they become a serious menace. When these noises continue throughout the night, as in the case of public garages, ice plants and milk bottling and distributing stations, the evil is enormously increased. Fre. 13—PART OF MAP SHOWING LOCATIONS OF FATAL ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY AUTOMOBILES, SURFACE CARS AND HORSE-DRAWN VEHI- CLES IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, 1915 PREPARED BY THE CONSULTING ENGINEER, BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS SHOWN THUS............-+- SURFACE CAR ACCIDENTS SHOWN THUS.............. HORSE-DRAWN VEHICLE ACCIDENTS SHOWN THUS.. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 FT. a This map shows a large proportion of accidents in streets having a considerable amount of vehicular traf- fic in congested tenement districts where children play in streets. The freedom from fatal accidents at some of the most congested street crossings, due to traffic regulations, is also noteworthy. == ae faa] mi a a | re YE 7 5 < ee ma ACs fmm a ae ———lh al =] a == ale a =| | =s)\2/ a lS : ap aA 5 ea, a | Cee, SY =) (ES as SS — =r. ld - = aa i PCF Ae z oe | ee | es || eee SS 7 5h SS Sata lewizal = oa} USE DISTRICTS Zil system for cleaning streets as well as collecting refuse in that locality. On the other hand, where the district is of a mixed type, involving industry, manufacturing, as well as a residential section, it is not possible to plan the most economical system of street cleaning and refuse collection, because conditions will differ in various parts of such intermixed districts. I would say, in general, that the develop- ment of the zone system, involving an orderly development of build- ing zones, should ultimatel? tend to economy in the cleaning of streets and in the collection of refuse, as well as providing a plan and a system which will meet particular conditions of each district or section dependent upon the uses to which the section or district is put. The demand for sanitation varies with the type of building occu- pants. A residential street requires at least a higher standard of street conditions than would a business or a mixed type of street, and a great many complaints come to the Street Cleaning Department from streets where mixed business and residential occupancy is in force. If stores could be segregated, plans in that connection could be adapted to that particular type of street, whereas, if conditions are mixed, you can only compromise. “There are some streets in lower Manhattan where it is hardly possible to clean the streets during the day time on account of the procession of vehicles which prevents the cleaners from collecting the street dirt. On that type of street the same sanitary conditions can- not be maintained as would be required in a residential street. In that, respect traffic conditions in a residential locality also adversely affect the street because there may be a residential street which con- nects with a traffic street, and it is not possible to keep that residential street in as good a condition as other similar streets in the same locality, because the men cannot work advantageously while traffic occupies the street. Even in the case of mixed occupancy of a par- ticular block, residence, business and factory use, the factories and business places in that particular block tend to bring heavy traffic into the block and make it difficult to keep it in the best sanitary con- dition.” In a residential street the number of street accidents, chiefly to children, varies directly with the vehicular traffic. Stores, garages, factories and other business buildings increase the amount of vehicular traffic. Most side streets that have no business or industrial buildings have little traffic. Very often a single business building in the midst of a residential block will so increase traffic as greatly to increase the number of street accidents. This will be particularly true if it is a congested tenement district. Here the streets swarm with children. They must have some place to play and unfortunately there is no place but the street. A very large proportion of ‘street accidents occur to children while playing in the streets in front of their homes. The zone plan will, as to the future, segregate the business 22 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS and industrial buildings from the residential streets and thus tend to reduce the enormous toll of street accidents. In the crowded tenement districts having stores on the ground floor, the roadways are congested with vehicular traffic and push carts and the sidewalks with business encroachments and pedestrians. There is absolutely no place for the child to exercise natural play instincts. Play is as necessary to the child as food and clothing. It is this thwarting of the boy’s craving for play that leads to a large proportion of the juvenile delinquency cases that come before the Children’s Courts. Ernest M. Coulter, for ten years clerk of the Children’s Court, testified he had found by investigation that this thwarting of the play instinct was responsible for at least 40 per cent. of the delinquency cases. While the population of the city is largely recruited from the country, the city’s criminal population is largely bred right within its own congested centers. The moral influences surrounding the homes are of the greatest im- portance. The sordid atmosphere of the ordinary business street is not a favorable environment in which to rear children. Immediate and continual proximity to the moving picture show, dance hall, pool room, cigar store, saloon, candy store and other institutions for the creation and satisfaction of appetites and habits is not good for the moral development of the child. Influences and temptations resulting from the proximity of such business to the homes may affect seriously the morals of the youth of the community. Under such conditions it is difficult to cultivate the ideals of life that are essential to the preservation of our civilization. Rowland Haynes, an expert on recreation facilities and secretary of the Committee on Recreation of the Board of Estimate, testified to the practical impossibility of providing enough playgrounds for the children in the crowded tenement sections and to the relief to this situation that the districting plan will afford by creating residential districts from which busi- ness and industry will be excluded and which can therefore be used as tempo- rary play spaces. Mr. Haynes said: “The advantage to the whole recreation problem lies in having reserved residence streets. By having streets reserved for residence purposes it is going to be possible, since the delivery traffic in such streets will be comparatively light, to use some of them for tempo- rary play places, as was done by the Police Department in about 25 locations last Summer. The only thing I wish to emphasize is the urgency and importance of such possibilities which are opened up by the action of your Commission. “In the first place, we have to realize that through some studies which we had previously made we have found that wherever the density of population exceeds 37.5 per acre, about 80 per cent., in fact, somewhat over 80 per cent. of the children have to play away from home, either because there is no place in their own back yards ‘UIIP]IYD ay} IO} punoisAryd we se jooI]S dy} JO Siasuep ay} IsvaIOUT AT}eaIS Ajlyessaoau ][IM sn ssouisnq 10 A1OJOe} B 0} JUAPIOUL BuTyONI, oy T, “Usspryo oy} Jog aodeds Avid ATUO ay} ud}JO st JooIS ay} suOT}D_aS pejsasuod uy ‘sasodind Avid 10} Sowiosaq }f snotasuep pue Ajyup ‘ozer1dosddeur s10uW 9y} 399I}s JY} UO St 919Y} SsauIsSnq d10W ay], ‘GNNOUDAV Id V SV LHAMLS AHL—$¢1 MA ‘Jo21}S JoyTeyY Teou 4oo13g Aruap *sj0011G YeOQ pue UosIpey{ UdaMjoq ‘Ja0I}5 JIAO *S}9911G JOATO pue sowef usamyoq “490135 YeO ‘JOoIJG Siosyny Teo ‘yoo1WG AtUaTT he x 7 r ‘G ote be ; USE DISTRICTS 23 or because that space is so small that they have no chance to play any of the larger space games. Out of the 54 wards in Manhattan and Brooklyn, all but seven exceed that density. If we take the city as a whole, including all of the boroughs, we find that 84 per cent. of the population of New York live in districts where the density exceeds this figure of 37.5 per acre. Some neighborhoods in New York go up to 18 times that density. If we take 84 per cent. of the whole number of children in this city between 5 and 15 years of age as the number living in these more densely populated dis- tricts, and if we then take 80 per cent. of this 84 per cent. as the number who will have to play away from home, we find about 680,000 children in New York City who have got to play away from home. The average daily attendance last summer at all the playgrounds in New York City was less than one-third of 680,000. This includes the average daily attendance at park playgrounds, school playgrounds and playgrounds conducted by settlements and other philanthropic agencies. In other words, all the public and private agencies which we now have are reaching only about one-third of the child popu- lation who must play away from home. Seventy-five per cent. of these playgrounds close after the summer season. This means that larger opportunities for play are urgently needed. To purchase enough additional places to reach the remaining two-thirds of the children who must play away from home would bankrupt the city. Hence we must use more intensively the land that the city already owns. Hence the method which was introduced last summer by the Police Commissioner of using streets reserved for play for certain hours in the day in certain districts, it seems to me, must for some time to come be extended. My only purpose in accepting the invita- tion of your Commission to speak thus briefly is to point out that, while this plan of use districts is worked out for a different purpose, it is going to be of very genuine and fundamental value to conditions which we don’t like but which we have got to face in the playground and recreation situation here in New York. “The restricting of residential streets against factories and against stores and’ against public garages make those streets better for play use, first, because it reduces the amount of traffic in those streets. It makes the traffic in those streets simply delivery traffic for household necessities, which is much less than any through traffic or traffic to garages, or delivery traffic to and from stores. It re- duces the amount of traffic and thus makes the burden of reserving a street for play purposes much less. In the second place it makes possible the reservation for play purposes of residence streets which are near those on which the children are living. In short, it makes possible the reservation of play streets without burden to traffic and near where they are needed.’ 24 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS Fire insurance rates recognize the distinctly greater risk of the tene- ment with stores on the ground floor as compared with the tenement with- out stores. Increased fire risk for the tenement with stores must necessarily mean increased fire risk for all neighboring buildings. The menace to neighboring residential buildings in the case of an ordinary store is multiplied in the case of a theater, garage, warehouse or factory. Even where in the case of a tenement with a store on the ground floor the firemen succeed in preventing the fire from spreading to the tenements above, it may cause serious loss of life from smoke or panic. Chief Kenlon testified to the desirability from the standpoint of fire prevention and safety of providing for the establishment of residence districts from which stores would be excluded. Edward R. Hardy, assistant manager, New York Fire Insurance Exchange, produced statistics and evidence of the increased fire risk to tene- ments having stores on the ground floor. Mr. Hardy said: “ The rate of insurance in a store and dwelling building reflects greater insurance risks. The ordinary private dwelling, now accepted as a building occupied by not more than two families, if it changes its character so that the first floor or basement is occupied for a store, with one family above, the insurance rate is about twice as much as when it was occupied wholly for dwelling pur- poses. This is due to the fact that the store brings always an unknown quantity of waste material, poor protection to stoves, gas lights, care of ashes and ordinary accumulations—the risk is about two to one. Even if special precautions are provided to prevent the spread of fire from the business building to the tenement above there is great danger, especially on the ground of safety to the occupants of the tenements. The proposition frequently advanced that the first floor is so protected that there shall be no communication when there is a store in the basement with the floors above, overlooks the fact that in a fire the smoke will always seek any exit available. It will ascend naturally if there is a way. If not, it will pour out of the doors and windows and follow up the side of the building and enter the living floors in that way. Some of the most serious panics have been due not to fire, but purely to the smoke condition.” _ That the invasion of the residential street by trade and industry is generally recognized as a serious evil by the residents themselves, has been conclusively demonstrated by experience. With the coming of trade and industry those residents who can afford to do so leave the street, rents fall and the lending institutions call their loans. The combination of re- duced rents and higher interest rates leads to many foreclosures and places most owners in such a precarious financial position that they are unable to make needed repairs and improvements. It becomes difficult or impos- . sible for the city authorities to enforce even minimum standards of public health and safety. Goerck Street, Near Rivington Street—Junk shop near tenement, barber shop and “stoop nursery.” Note the mother sweat shop* worker sewing coats at the stoop. No. 16 Morton Street—Rag and junk shop next to tenement. East 4th Street, Near Lewis Street — Scrap iron yard in rear of tenements. Fic. 1I5—JUNK SHOPS IN CONGESTED TENEMENT STREETS. Junk and rag shops menace home life in tenement districts as does perhaps no other line of business. The habitues of these places are not an asset to any street in which children must play, nor is the storage of disease-laden rags and junk in street and yard a desirable feature of these districts. 378 Broome Street—Horseshoer and West 24th Street, between 10th and 11th Ave- wagon builder near tenement. nues—Horses on the sidewalk being shod. East 92nd Street, be- tween First and Sec- ond Avenues—Horse- shoer and stables near tenements. 238 East 85th Street— Wagon builder in tenement house dis- trict. Fic. 16—HORSESHOEING IN CONGESTED TENEMENT STREETS. Horseshoeing is especially objectionable in congested tenement districts, because it brings horses upon and across the sidewalk and is the source of much noise and of a particularly obnoxious odor. 807 Bedford Avenue. Be mer 1038 Bedford Avenue. 112th Street,. west of Lexington Avenue—Soda fountain supplies and carbonic gas. Fic. 17—STORES INVADING RESIDENCE STREETS. The usual objections to business in the midst of residences are accentuated when extensions to residences are made to project beyond the fronts of others, thus obstructing light and view. HSN SSHNISOWY OL LNACGIONI SNOILONYLSAO MIVMAGIS—8I “9 - ‘ “190015 al esajoyu \\—) snuvAY Ivo J9a14S pag ysey ‘QIN}IUINJ—y snusAy tJeou *JQ911S Up sey “ronbiy ayesajoy \\— D) anusay jvou ‘Jv014G pag ysey o 12) = ie) n wn dIdXY—3991]S yg Jesu ‘Aempeoig j4seq eae CHAPTER IV—APPROPRIATE INTENSITY OF THE USE OF LAND For city building it is not alone necessary that there shall be a plan that will segregate buildings according to use, but it is also necessary that there shall be a segregation according to intensity of building development. This is essential in order to secure to each section of the city as much light, air, safety from fire and relief from congestion, with all its attendant evils, as is consistent with the most beneficial use of the land. Intensity of use should be so regulated that assuming that the entire section should be built up uniformly with buildings of the maximum height and extent allowed the section as a whole would be appropriately improved. The maximum beneficial use of any given block or area is dependent on a certain measure of uniformity in its development as regards height, yards and open spaces. Such use would, in general, be enhanced if the property owners could enter into an agreement uniformly restricting the height of buildings and fixing the minimum area of courts and yards. The size of courts and yards is in most cases of as much benefit to a man’s neighbors as to himself. It is therefore appropriate that each should con- tribute in substantial equality to the common stock of light and air. There can be no maintenance of healthful conditions of light and air and no stability of values if each individual owner is at liberty to build to any height and over any proportion of his lot without regard to his appropriate and reasonable contribution to the light and air of the block. The speculative builder puts up the first high building in a block. The windows are on property lines or on narrow courts. Perhaps a five-foot rear yard is provided. But with all the free space on the adjacent lots the building is light and airy, is attractive to tenants and shows a good return to the purchaser. Other buildings follow and their builders see no reason why they should keep down lower or provide larger yards or courts than the first. The result is tragic from either a private or a public point of view. All this has been conclusively demonstrated by costly experience in the recent history of the office and loft building sections of Manhattan. Whole areas have been built up piecemeal with towering buildings having inadequate courts and yards without much thought of ultimate consequences. Such areas are in process of being smothered by their own growth. The streets are inadequate to handle the traffic induced by the multiplication of floor area to be served, and the buildings constructed without reference to the width of the streets, yards and courts on which they abut shut out light and air essential to health and to rental on a basis that will permit of a reasonable return on the investment. The social and economic desirability of limited height and minimum court and yard provisions has been clearly established by apartment house construction under the Tenement House Law. Had similar reguiations 26 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS been applied to the office and loft buildings, great loss would have been prevented. All agree that the Tenement House Law accomplished a most desirable reform in the interest both of owners and tenants in establishing regulations as to height, area covered, yards and courts. In exclusively residential blocks in certain of the more intensively developed sections light and air conditions have been standardized and property values stabilized by ensuring that each owner shall make a reasonable contribution to the light and air of the block. : Only by a complete districting plan can the mutually advantageous principle contained in the Tenement House Law be applied to all kinds of buildings, in all parts of the city. There must first be a partial segregation of buildings according to use, and second, a gradation of height, court and yard provisions, particularly as affecting residential buildings, in accordance with the present and prospective intensity of use in the various sections of the city. The intensity of building development appropriate for each district is dependent on the character of occupation and use in that particular district. Certain trades and industries require structures of unusual size and shape. A comparatively high degree of concentration is important for the facilita- tion of business in an office district. The demand for housing varies with the differing tastes and necessities of the inhabitants of the city. There is a demand and a need for single-family dwellings, as well as for hotels and apartment houses. In building a city it is sometimes assumed that we should start with a certain model type of residence and seek to make that type universal. If a density of not exceeding eight families to the acre is desirable, build- ing regulations should be devised to prevent a greater density. The problem is not so simple. The problem of housing accommodations and desirable densities cannot be profitably considered without reference to a par- ticular city, with a known topographic, transit, commercial and social organization and an assumed probable rate of increase in population. We cannot annihilate time and space, and as long as these factors are appreciable the problem of the appropriate intensity of the use of land must always remain relative. There can be no absolute standard. Most men in choosing a home in a large city must weigh various diver- gent considerations and strike the balance that gives a maximum of satis- faction. They have to sacrifice a desire for open space and isolation in order to save time and money and avoid great personal inconvenience. Many iamilies prefer Manhattan apartments for social reasons or because of proximity in time and space to clubs, hotels and theatres, or because of nearness to place of business or work. In choosing a home the business man who works from 10 A. M. to 7 P. M. at his office, and the laborer who works in a Manhattan factory from 7 A. M. to 6 P. M. are both likely to sacrifice the numerous advantages of a suburban villa for the convenience of a Manhattan apartment or flat. = Semana Soa Se eee An Sa oneal =. Basaae — < a c—* en Ae he MMe SoS } EQASSARBDHRS ASS 9 West 40th Street, Broadway to Sixth Fourth Avenue, between 24th and Avenue. 25th Streets. West 40th to 41st Streets, West of Sixth Avenue. Fic. 19—WINDOWS ON LOT LINES. A thousand windows to catch a neighbor’s light. Most of the windows here shown are on the lot line and subject to obstruction at the will cf the adjoining owner. The possibility of erecting buildings such as these artificially inflates certain values which are violently depressed by the erection of a high building adjoining. The proposed height and area restrictions will tend to stabilize values. APPROPRIATE INTENSITY OF THE USE OF LAND 27 That considerable areas near the heart of the city should be very inten- sively used for tenements and apartments is natural and probably inevitable. The demand for housing is naturally greatest in the most favorable locations. Were it not for the ability to multiply housing area by placing one dwelling on top of another, rents would be prohibitive in these favored locations for practically all of those who now occupy apartments or flats. It is natural that the intensity of the demand for housing should vary in the different parts of a given city, the general tendency being, starting with the highest intensity of demand near the center, for this demand to fall rapidly toward the periphery of the city. Beyond the central zone of the more intensive housing, the provision of light, air and open space, may be rapidly increased. Radiating from the common business center, the amount of land available for development rapidly increases. When it is necessary to use a rapid transit line to get to the business center a few minutes more or less on the train is unim- portant. Beyond this central housing zone, therefore, regulations requiring much more adequate courts, yards and open spaces, may properly be required. The assumption that an individual owner in a city should have un- limited liberty to cover his entire lot to any height is incompatible either with the interests of owners generally or with that of the public. It is not possible to secure the light and air that is essential both to the profitable use of land and to the health and comfort of the public unless the height and area covered by buildings is limited. As Professor Whipple has well stated: “ While in general rights in the use of land are bounded by vertical planes, it must not be forgotten that the sun’s rays fall slantingly upon the land while the wind movements are chiefly horizontal. These natural elements are interfered with by excessively high and crowded buildings, hence there are rights in land ownership which extend beyond the vertical planes.” In a memorandum submitted to the Commission, Professor Whip- ple discusses the importance of light and air in part as follows: “Considered from the standpoint of light the sun’s rays pro- foundly affect the lighting of rooms. This is a matter of common knowledge, but quantitative relations have been shown by many photometer tests made at points located at different distances from windows, and by similar tests made at the windows of different stories in tall buildings the exterior lighting of which is influenced by ad- joining buildings. Sunlight likewise causes movements of the air. This is due to unequal heating in different places. The air currents thus set up are gentle and desirable. Places which never see the sunlight are more likely than others to contain stagnant air. The sun’s rays have a marked disinfecting action and prevent the growth of molds and fungi, thereby eliminating odors of certain kinds. They also destroy bacterial life, whether the bacteria are floating in the air or are attached to the exposed surfaces of pavements, floors or bo ~ COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS walls. To the extent to which this occurs the danger of infection from certain disease germs is lessened. Sunlight has both a physio- logical and psychological influence on human beings. “ By daylight is meant the indirect lighting from the sun, that is, lighting received from the sky or clouds and reflected from various surfaces. While it is possible for human beings to exist without direct sunlight and even without daylight, it is the experience of the race that both sunlight and daylight in sufficient amounts are highly desirable. Daylight is necessary not only for health and comfort but for economic reasous. ‘Too little light causes eye-strain with its train of physiological disturbances and decreases the productiveness of work. It unfavorably influences the mental condition. Light pro- motes cheerfulness, while gloomy rooms depress vitality. Lack oi daylight limits the length of the working day in some industries and increases the amount of artificial light required. Artificial lighting with oil or gas tends to vitiate the air by increasing the carbonic acid and moisture, and even by increasing the poisonous carbonic oxide. Artificial lighting also increases fire risks. Lack of exterior light- ing increases the amount of window space required and this in turn increases the heat loss in buildings in winter. In these and other, ways insufficient lighting not only results in inconvenience to human beings but may be a positive menace to the health, safety and morals of the people. The amount of daylight received in buildings is greatly affected by adjoining buildings, by their positions, their height, and by the character of their walls, both in color and material. “The necessity of adequate ventilation need not be argued but it is not as fully realized as it should be that the air which enters a building, both in amount and quality, is influenced by the surrounding buildings. If buildings are too close together there is likely to be a stagnation of the air between them. The ventilation of streets, alleys, courts and interior spaces between buildings is as much a matter of public importance. Street ventilation is influenced not only by the orientation of the streets and the prevailing wind movements, but by the height, size, shape and character of buildings, and their dis- tance apart. In cavernous streets there are excessive air currents near the ground, and at times great air movements, especially ob- jectionable in winter. On the other hand, at times of gentle air move- ments there may be no currents at all near the streets and pavements between high buildings because the friction of the air passing through the narrow channels prevents them. In other words, narrow streets lined with high buildings tend to produce extreme conditions of air movement and both extremes are objectionable. In regulating the size and height of buildings with reference to the streets the city is to a considerable extent controlling street ventilation and the ventilation of courts and interior spaces, and thus indirectly, the ventilation of indoor quarters. APPROPRIATE INTENSITY OF THE USE OF LAND 29 “ Quite as important as the volume of air taken into buildings is its cleanliness. One of the difficulties in cities is to obtain proper air inlets for ventilation systems. The amount of smoke and dust, foul odors on the streets, bad smells from buildings, from passing ve- hicles, from exposed refuse and from other sources are matters properly subject to the control of the health department but the con- centration of dust and smoke and foul odors is greatly influenced by street ventilation. The regulation of buildings is a regulation of the amount of dilution of colors and is therefore a public health factor.” Exposure to a vitiated atmosphere, especially if it is of long duration, tends to break down the individual’s power to resist disease. The suscepti- bility to respiratory affections, tuberculosis, pneumonia and colds, is par- ticularly increased. In the treatment of disease pure air is of the greatest curative value. The importance of direct sunlight on health is hard to over-estimate. It serves as a beneficial stimulant to the nervous system. In the destruction of bacteria it is better than many artificial disinfectants. An increased supply of sunshine in an apartment means decreased dampness. The highest medical authorities all agree that the action of the sun’s rays upon air is prophylactic, rendering the environment more healthy. Good natural light and ventilation alone are not enough, direct sunlight is also important. Light and air are so important that their provision should be required in every section of the city up to that point at which their benefits as to that particular section tend to be outweighed by other needs and require- ments of city life. Under New York City conditions the upper limit would probably be the single detached house on a forty or fifty-foot lot with ample open spaces about it. This the proposed E district regulations would in large measure secure. At the other extreme the minimum provision .of light and air assuredly should not be less than that required by the present Tenement House Law. For large areas in New York City neither of the above extremes furnishes an appropriate standard. The one and one-half and one times height districts and the C and D area districts will supply the demand and need for light and air standards between these two extremes. From the point of view of public advantage the distribution of popula- tion is very important. Most of the evils of city life come from congestion of population. In precisely the measure that the city’s population can be distributed will those evils be mitigated. As the number of families housed per 50-foot lot increases : (1) The provision of light and air, so essential to health, vitality and comfort decreases. } (2) The opportunities for personal contact and thus for the spread of communicable disease increase. (3) Noise and confusion incident to increased street traffic increases. 30 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS (4) Each family suffers more and more from the noises from neigh- boring families. (5) Privacy is diminished. ‘ (6) The children have less and less opportunity for outdoor play. (7) The danger from fire, both to life and property, is increased. (8) The transit lines become more and more congested during the rush hours. It is therefore essential in the interest of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare that a housing plan be adopted that will tend to distribute the population and secure to each section as much light, air and relief from congestion as is consistent with the housing of the entire population for a considerable period of years within the areas accessible and appropriate for housing purposes. In order to provide the’ people of the city with the kinds of homes that they desire, are willing to pay for and that will bring the maximum advan- tage from the point of view of public health and safety, it is absolutely necessary to district the city in such a way as to encourage and conserve particular types of building in particular sections. The control of the intensity of use of land cannot safely be left to economic forces. Unless for each section standards of height and area covered are fixed, the tendency will be to build up solidly to the extent per- mitted by the Tenement House Law. The real demand for single family houses and for multi-family houses with adequate yards and open spaces will not be supplied because builders and investors have learned that such developments are in danger of being ruined by the erection of a few neigh- boring buildings of a different and more intensive type. Tenants move away from the congested centers in order to secure better light and air. But if after a few years the bright, sunny building to which they have moved becomes surrounded by buildings similar in height, yard and court provisions to the building in the congested center in which they were formerly located, the desirability of the new location for this class of tenants disappears and rentable values are likely to be seriously impaired. A proper districting plan will insure that wherever probable intensity of demand will permit, a certain measure of the improved light and air con- ditions that have attracted tenants to the new location shall be permanently retained. Private developers in suburban residence districts have found that in order to attract purchasers it is necessary to place uniform restrictions on the land against improvement by multi-family dwellings. The surround- ings and neighborhood are all-important in securing desirable home con- ditions. Unless the private residential character of the section is fixed for a considerable number of years no one can afford to build a home. This method of private restriction frequently fails either because the territory covered is not sufficiently inclusive or because the restriction is limited to a short term of years. In recent years the development of detached house oy x ¢ Ke 4) Lis Le g \ \ Ue. \S x at \\ SAS WA IN ratte nen SS eS DS aX fi LS TLL, f LLLP JEREZ, La Hl Ul ih i 0 Broo IT vases ON x G, FANS) a eaialth Zell] cee eine ACEI SA rai eat eat tee un i eh 0 1 SA i GEL OO TE LEC SiO CORE) \ SS l PRRs ae IIL Et iit TTL TUT > Saertic heal nat neeresem ROR SOMA TTB Seo ae QED MIA GEG Wal ce NCC OL AGG Te TAR ii aut ti (0 alae te Pest FD ESE == AOE ngnagase gaa f CAO 14. O0RGE GUO. OABBEnD “RUD MM OSCE GBROGNENTUIY ee nT alin SAR fo roe ie an 7 NS = i" \) We moe WX ‘ars SOUT tase os OY WA Fr eaa al ; : USE) ei WMS Es AGEN BG Unt rR a Ae Es = li wlll 72 We “ roy wel BUGg ssl a : Ka Ne ¢eg [= a ann aos OOSGOOROOUGtoN SZ NNGSUGO00Q0cK Np » nntcuponenneee ) ZS. =I, (ll PART OF POPULATION SPOT MAP THE POPULATION AND ITS DISTRIBUTION IN EACH BLOCK 1S SHOWN BY DOTS...EACH. DOT. DENOTES.25.RERSONS APPROPRIATE INTENSITY OF THE USE OF LAND 31 sections has been greatly retarded by the fate of many such sections where by the coming of a few apartment houses the entire section has been de- stroyed for private house purposes. Often in such sections the apartment house is a mere parasite. There would be no economic reason for its con- struction were it not for the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the private dwelling character of the neighborhood. Many men and women would be unable to stand the strain of city life were it not possible for them to live in the more quiet, less densely popu- lated sections. A detached house with yard and garden has kept some from breaking down under the nervous strain and has contributed to the efficiency and vitality of many others. It is important from the standpoint of citizenship as well as from that of health, safety and comfort, that sections be set aside where a man can own his home and have a little open space about it. It makes a man take a keener interest in his neighborhood and city. It has undoubted advan- tages in the rearing of future citizens. The setting aside of sections for this detached dwelling type is necessary in order to retain within the city many citizens who would otherwise move to the suburbs. The retention of the citizenship of a greater proportion of this class of its business men is of great importance, not only as regards the city’s taxable values, but also.as regards civic interest and civic leadership. CHAPTER V—HEIGHT DISTRICTS The districting resolution herewith submitted, together with the ac- companying height district maps, provide for five classes of height dis- tricts limiting the height of the building at the street line to a varying mul- tiple of the street width. The districts named in accordance with the multiple applied are: one times districts, one and one-quarter times districts, one and one-half times districts, two times districts and two and one-half times districts. In limiting the height of all buildings in relation to the width of the streets on which they abut, the Commission has adopted a principle which for a great many years (since 1885) has been applied to tenement house con- struction in New York City. The Tenement House Law limits the height of tenement houses throughout the city to one and one-half times the street width. It has also been extensively applied in European cities. This rule has evident advantages over a flat limitation that operates without regard to the width of the street. A height limit based on street width is seen to have a direct relation to street congestion and to light and air conditions. The Commission has modified the strict application of the multiple of street width rule by providing that for the purpose of computing the limit- ing height on the multiple of street width basis a street less than 50 feet wide shall be considered to be 50 feet wide, and a street more than 100 feet wide shall be considered to be but 100 feet wide. In other words, the multiple of street width rule is not applied to very narrow streets, nor is it applied to streets of more than a prescribed width. There is for each district a minimum height that will be permitted and a maximum height that may not be exceeded, regardless of the width of the street. This modi- fication is customary in building height regulations based in general upon street width. It is clear that a general multiple if applied to all narrow streets in the business center might seriously interfere with an appropriate and reasonable use of the land. On the other hand if the general street width multiple were applied without limit to very wide streets and open spaces, it would result in an excessive and inappropriate height for a few buildings that would be a serious injury to the light of the neighbors on the sides and in the rear. Moreover, in the interest of safety in case of fire and of the prevention of street congestion in the side streets, it is appro- priate that a maximum height at the street line be established for each district. The multiple of street width rule limits the height of a building at the street line only. Above such height limit at the street line, the building may be carried higher by means of mansards or vertical walls provided such extended portion is set back in a prescribed ratio. In the one times district the setback rule is one foot horizontally for each two feet of height above the prescribed height limit at the street line. Similarly in the one and one- HEIGHT DISTRICTS 33) quarter times district the setback rule is one to two and one-half; in the one and one-half times district 1 to 3; in the two times district 1 to 4 and in the two and one-half times district 1 to 5. This secures, except for streets less than 50 feet or more than 100 feet in width, a constant ratio between the height of the street wall at any point and its distance from the center of the street at such height. In other words, no part of the building may be carried above a plane formed by the intersection of a horizontal line through the center of the street and a line at right angles thereto drawn through the limiting height at the street line. This will permit greater freedom of building construction than a flat limitation of height and at the same time will preserve a uniform angle of light down into the center of the street. At the intersection of a narrower with a wider street the height limit on the wider street governs for 100 feet back on the narrower street if such narrower street is not more than 60 feet wide. For each one foot by which such narrower street exceeds 60 feet the influence of the height limit on the wider street extends one and one-half feet further back on the narrower street. Thus, if the narrower street is 80 feet wide the height limit of the wider street will extend back 130 feet on such 80-foot street. This will apply to all buildings within the 130-foot stretch whether they front on the wider or the narrower street. The distance back on the side street that the height limit of the wider street should go depends on light conditions on the narrower street as influenced by its intersection with the wider street and by the width of such narrower street as compared with that of the wider street. Both of these factors are taken into consideration in the rule applied. As an exception to the general height and setback rule special regula- tions are provided for dormers and towers. Above the height limit on the street line dormers and head-houses may, with the approval of the building superintendent, be erected on the street line provided their aggregate front- age length on the street line be not greater than 60 per cent. of the street frontage and provided that such percentage Shall be reduced by one for every foot of height above the height limit on the street line. This will permit the erection of one large dormer or a number of small dormers in a mansard above the height limit on the street line. On a 100-foot front- age this will mean that the dormer on the street line at the height limit can be 60 feet wide; but at a height of 10 feet above the height limit the dormer can be only 50 feet wide; at 20 feet, 40 feet wide and so on until at 60 feet of height the width of the dormer is reduced to a point. (See Figure 144.) It is also provided that the percentage of the total frontage to be devoted to dormers may be increased by one for each four inches that such dormers are set back from the street line.2 On a 100-foot frontage this will *This proposed rule is modified in important particulars by sec. 9, par. (b) of the Resolution of July 16, 1916. See page 237. *This proposed additional percentage allowance is omitted in the Resolution adopted. See sec. 9, par. (c), page 237. 34 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS permit a dormer set back 5 feet from the street line to occupy 75 feet at its base and to come to a point 75 feet above the height limit at the street line. This rule will weave in with the general set-back provisions and whichever are less drastic in any particular case will govern. If the area of a building is reduced so that above a certain level it covers only 25 per cent. of the area of the lot, a street wall above such level may be carried to any height provided it is distant 75 feet from the center of the street; but for every one per cent of its full possible length that such street wall is decreased, it may come 4 inches nearer to the center of the street. This will permit a building on an interior lot facing a street or open space of 150 feet or more in width to build a tower across the whole front of the building provided it does not cover more than 25 per cent. of the lot. Similarly on a street 100 feet wide a tower can be built across the whole front of the building provided it sets back 25 feet from the street line. Or if a building has a 200-foot frontage on a 100-foot street, a tower with a 50-foot frontage can be built on the street line. If a building is on a corner each street wall of the tower is governed by the width of the street on which it faces. A tower on the corner of a 150-foot street and a 60-foot street would have to set back 45 feet from the 60-foot street line. If, however, the tower frontage on the 60-foot street were only one-quarter of the total building frontage on such street the tower could be erected within 20 feet of the street line. This exception in favor of towers applies to street walls only and other walls of the tower must conform to the gen- eral yard and court provisions wherever applicable. (See Figure 146.) Where a building would be pocketed between buildings in excess of the prescribed height within 50 feet on either side or directly across the street, its height may be increased by the average excess height of such surrounding buildings. This will permit a building thus pocketed to secure a fair portion of the light and air that would otherwise be monopolized by the buildings already erected. (See Figures 147, 148.) The only district in which a height of two and one-half times the street width is proposed is in the office and financial section in lower Manhattan.? A height of two times the street width is allowed for the remaining por- tions of the more intensively developed commercial and industrial sections in a broad belt through the center of the Island from the lower office and financial section to 59th Street. An exception is made for a portion of the Fifth Avenue section where limits of one and one-quarter and one and one- half times the street width are proposed. A height of two times the street width is also allowed for a narrow belt along a large portion of the water- front of Manhattan and along the East River waterfront of Brooklyn, Queens and The Bronx; also for a small area around the chief office and business center of Brooklyn. In the two-times districts on a 60-foot street the building can go up to 120 feet or about 10 stories at the street line and 1The Resolution adopted July 25, 1916, also creates a small two-and-one-half times district on the Brooklyn waterfront. HEIGHT DISTRICTS 35 above that height by setting back 12 feet can go 4 stories higher. On a 100-foot street the building can go up 200 feet, or about 16 stories at the street line, and above that height with a 12-foot set back can go 4 stories higher. The high building problem in lower Manhattan was carefully studied by the Heights of Buildings Commission. The existing conditions and the reasons for limitation are stated by that Commission in part as follows: “The high building problem is at present confined chiefly to a comparatively small portion of the lower half of the island of Man- hattan. The average building height in the Borough of Manhattan is 4.8 stories. Ninety per cent of the buildings do not exceed a height of 6 stories. The buildings over 10 stories in height constitute only a little over one per cent of the total. Out of a total of 92,749 build- ings, there are but 1,048 buildings over 10 stories in height; 90 build- ings over 17 stories; 51 buildings over 20 stories, and only 9 build- ings over 30 stories. “The Building Code requires that all buildings over 150 feet in height be thoroughly fireproof. The buildings themselves cannot burn because there is nothing combustible in their construction. All high buildings are equipped with standpipes and ample tanks at various levels and many of them with automatic sprinklers. Doors and windows between rooms and between rooms and corridors are fireproof so that fire can be confined to a single room. There are many interesting examples of such fires. “The fact remains, however, that tall buildings are not neces- sarily safe. The rooms are often filled with highly inflammable ma- terial. Unless doors are closed, fire may easily spread to other rooms. The draft up the chimney-like elevator wells may pull the flames across the corridor, and the flames, fed by the grease on the elevator guides, may be carried to upper floors. Under such conditions the danger of panic among the employees of the building would be very real, and the higher the building the greater the danger. “The fire department cannot fight a fire from the outside more than 85 to 100 feet above the ground. Above that they must rely on the standpipes in the building. If the standpipe does not work, or if the fire is so near the standpipe as to render its use impracticable, the fire department becomes helpless. No fatal fire in a modern high building has yet occurred, but it is not an impossibility. “In case of general panic or catastrophe causing the occupants of all offices in all buildings in the high building district to seek the streets at once, a serious situation would present itself. It would be impossible for all the occupants of all the buildings abutting on certain streets to move in the street at one time, even though the street were cleared of all other traffic, pedestrian, vehicular and sur- face car, and absolutely free from all obstructions so that the entire 36 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS width of the street might be used. The minimum space required by a crowd moving in one direction is five square feet per person. Com- puted in this manner, Broadway could hold but 96.3 per cent of its occupants; Trinity Place and Church Street 86.6 per cent; Nassau Street 69.3 per cent; New Street 44.5 per cent, and Exchange Place only 37.5 per cent. This being the situation to-day, the question arises as to what might happen in case of a general panic should the entire district be solidly built up with buildings of the present extreme heights. “Tn areas where high buildings are crowded together most of the rooms even on the street front are inadequately lighted and many are decidedly dark. On New Street and Exchange Place, where the office buildings range from 10 to 22 stories high, on a bright sunny day at noon in midsummer it was found that in almost all of the street rooms artificial light was being used next to the windows. The conditions in the interior courts in parts of the tall building district are even worse. “ Even with modern artificial lighting of the most approved type, the dark offices have caused a great deal of eye strain. Nothing but adequate natural light seems to prevent it. Tuberculosis experts testified to the Commission that they had found many cases of tuber- culosis directly traceable to working in dark offices. A noticeable increase in sick leave has been found among the employees of firms that have moved from light to dark offices. “A number of streets in the high building district are already so congested that pedestrian and vehicular traffic is greatly impeded. Assuming that pedestrians will use sidewalk space only and will move in one direction only, there is room on Trinity Place and Church Street for but 56 per cent of the occupants of the buildings located on those streets; on Broadway, 50 per cent; on Nassau Street, 32 per cent, and on New Street, but 19 per cent. If these same streets should be uniformly built up to an average height of 30 stories, the above percentages would be reduced to 26 per cent on Broadway; 20 per cent on Trinity Place and Church Street; 11.9 per cent on Nassau Street; 8.9 per cent on New Street, and 8.4 per cent on Exchange Place. It is quite clear that under such conditions the street capacity would be entirely inadequate to take care of the morning, afternoon and noon hour crowds.” Chief Engineer Lewis in his testimony before the Commission spoke of the possible fatal consequences from panic in congested lower Manhattan. Mr. Lewis said: “It is obvious to anyone that in certain portions of the city, notably in lower Manhattan, the enormous day population of the office buildings, most of whom come to their work in the morning and leave ia the afternoon within a very limited time, now overtaxes the public streets and, while we are reasonably free from earthquake shocks, or even tremors, HEIGHT DISTRICTS 37 you will recall that in 1884 and again in 1886 there were violent vibrations which caused a very panicky feeling. You may remember the explosion in the Tarrant Building, perhaps twenty years ago, which created a great panic in the neighborhood. It is easy to see what would happen if, in the office building district down-town, a violent explosion or earthquake tremor were to occur, which would result in a mad rush from office buildings to the streets. The panic in the streets would be almost inconceivable, and would, under existing conditions, be about as serious and fatal in its results as those which occur when people try to leave a theatre in case of an alarm of fire.” Tenement and apartment houses throughout the city are now limited to a height of 1% times the street width. The proposed plan takes the 1%4-times rule of the Tenement House Law and applies it to substantially all the residential portions of the city that are now intensively built up and to all the commercial, industrial and waterfront sections not included in the 2% or 2 times rule and where a somewhat intensive future development is anticipated. (See Figure 141.) Other residential sections where a fairly intensive apartment house development seems not inappropriate, are placed in the 14-times district. This will permit a 6-story elevator apartment on the ordinary 60-foot street and a 10-story apartment on a 100-foot street. By taking advantage of the set-back provisions, two or more stories of additional height may be secured. Under the 114-times rule of the Tenement House Law 9-story apartments are now built in certain sections of Manhattan on the 60-foot streets. The 1% districts will prevent the development of this type, and this will be a distinct gain from the point of view of better light and air and the dis- tribution of population. All other portions of the city, including those in which a 2, 3, 4 or 5 story development seems appropriate, are placed in the one-times district. This will permit of a 5-story building on a 60-foot street and an 8 or 9 story building on a 100-foot street. By taking advantage of the set-back pro- visions, one or more stories of additional height may be secured. CHAPTER VI—AREA DISTRICTS The districting resolution herewith submitted, together with the accom- panying area district maps provide for five classes of area districts, A, B, C, D and E, with varying regulations as to size of yards, courts and other open spaces. Except in A districts, any building that is back to back with the rear of another property and is more than 55 feet back from the nearest street must have a rear yard. The requirement for a rear yard is reciprocal. No building is required to have a rear yard unless a similar obligation could be imposed with respect to any building hereafter erected on the plot immedi- ately behind such yard. The 55-foot exemption is inserted on the assump- tion that a building running back but 55 feet from the street can be lighted in its most used parts directly from the street. A corner building is seldom back to back with the rear portion of another building and consequently would seldom require a rear yard.1 (See Figure 156.) If, however, a build- ing runs through the middle of a block from street to street and between lots for which rear yards are required it will be required to leave uncovered in some part of its extent courts equivalent in size to the space that its neighbors are required to devote to rear yards (See Figure 157.) The depth of the rear yard at its lowest level must be at least 10 per cent. of the depth of the lot, but need not in any case exceed 10 feet at such level. For any building not within a residence district the rear yard may start from a level 18 feet? above the curb. This permits all buildings in the business, unrestricted and undetermined districts to cover the entire lot for the first floor. For any building in a residence district the rear yard must start from the curb level, except that the usual one-story accessory buildings may cover 40 per cent. of the prescribed area of the yard. In addition to the percentage requirement as to the depth of the yard at its lowest level, the yard must increase in depth with the height of the yard being not less than one inch, two inches, three inches, four inches or five inches in depth for each one foot of its height, according as it is located in the A, B, C, D or E district. The increased depth of yard required as the building increases in height may be secured by stepping back at each story or at each two, three, five or more stories. The purpose of the regula- tion is to preserve a reasonable angle of light for the lighting of the lower windows. In every building hereafter constructed in which a room in which per- sons live, sleep or work receives its light and air in whole or in part from a court or yard, at least one court or yard having a window opening’ from such room shall be of the size prescribed for a required court. The least * Under the Resolution of July 25, 1916, a corner building is specifically exempted from the rear yard provision. See sec. 16, par. (a), page 240. ? Modified by Resolution of July 25, 1916. See sec. 16, par. (d). *23 feet in Resolution of July 25, 1916. See sec. 16, par. (b). ‘yNOuIp pue Mojs apeut snjeredde 14 FO JUSMIOAOU oY} pue paseasoUr st o1ued Jo AyIqissod ay} UoseSu0d jo s1oSuep [ensn oy} Sapisoq ‘jYysloy ssoq Jo SSUIP]ING OF Pousisap 19M YOIYM sjooI]s soxejIVAO UOOS SSUIP]INq YSIy AIIA FO UorjIIa oy} Aq vore JOOH Jo UOROTdyINW sy, “ALIOVdVD LHAYUYLS XVLIYAAO SONIGTING TIVL—I2 9M “20JO ysOg 94} Woz YI0U surjooyT — AeMproig "younyy API, Worf yyNoS subjooyT — Aempeoig yo001S jlopyuely ye MOY YyIeg “yoany) APUIIT, WoIZ YON suryooy — AeMpeoig Bs i AREA DISTRICTS 39 horizontal dimension of a required court shall be not less than four feet. The court must increase in width with the height of its enclosing walls, being not less than one inch in least dimension for one foot of height, in an A or B district, one and one-half inches in a C district, two inches in a D district and two and one-half inches in an E district. This gives an outer court with a least dimension at any height just one-half as great as that for a required yard at the same height. The area of an inner court at any height must be not less than the square of the depth of a required yard at such height. The length of such required inner court for its minimum area may not be more than twice its width. (See Figure 152.) The width of an outer court besides being governed by the height of such court is also governed by the length of the court. An outer court gets its light and air both from above and from the end of such court opening on the yard or street. It is appropriate therefore that the width of the outer court should bear some relation to its length. An outer court accordingly must increase in width with the length of such court being not less than one inch in least dimension for each foot of length from the closed end in an A district, one and one-half inches in a B or C district, two inches in a D district and two and one-half inches in an E district. The A district is essentially a warehouse district and is confined to a narrow belt along the navigable waterfront and along the rail terminals. Light is not required for most storage buildings. The A district is estab- lished so that storage buildings that do not require light and air will not need to provide unnecessary open spaces. The Districting plan makes it possible to give such buildings a place to locate where they will be exempt from all yard requirements. Any building in an A district, however, that is required to have a court to light its workrooms must provide courts of -at least one inch in least dimension for each foot of height, as now provided in the Building Code. This does not mean that a building covering the entire plot may not be located outside of an A district, for in a B, C or D district a department store, for example, not back to back with another building and with no rooms that have to face on a legal court, could occupy 100 per cent of the lot for its entire height. In a B district rear yards must be at least two inches in least dimen- sion for each one foot of height, and outer courts and side yards at least one inch in least dimension for each one foot of height. This will require for all buildings slightly deeper yards above 90 feet in height than are now required under the Tenement House Law. This will only affect elevator apartments above eight or nine stories in height fronting on the long side of blocks, and the increased width of yard will not have to be carried down to the ground, but can be provided in a set back above the 90-foot limit. In the B districts the important change, as compared with existing con- ditions, is the requirement of a rear yard for business and industrial build- ings as well as tenements wherever they are back to back with the rear of another property. The rear yard for a building 120 feet high or about 40 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS 10 stories would be 20 feet in depth, and for a building 150 feet high, or about 12 stories, would be 25 feet in depth. ‘This is not in excess of the best economic standards and practice, and will greatly insprove light and air conditions in the loft building and office building sections of the city. In case the yard started 18! feet above the curb, as permitted for buildings not in residence districts, the width of the yard at any heiglit above the curb would be three feet less than indicated in the above examples. (See Figure 151.) In the C districts rear yards for all buildings must be at least three inches in least dimension for each foot of height and outer courts and side yards must be at least one and one-half inches in least dimension for each one foot of height. The prescribed minimum size of yards and courts remain about the same as under the Tenement House Law up to and includ- ing five stories in height. Above that height, however, they gradually become more stringent than under the Tenement House Law. In a building five stories, or approximately 56 feet in height, a rear yard under these pro- visions would have to be 14 feet wide, or two feet wider than required under the Tenement House Law. An outer court would have to be seven feet wide, or one foot wider than required under the Tenement House Law. However, as buildings on interior lots are limited to 70 per cent of the lot under the Tenement House Law, this is apt to require increases in the minimum depths and widths of courts and yards, and for most floor plans and plots a five-story tenement house covering 70 per cent of the lot could be built under the C district regulations. On account of difficulties in planning suitable buildings for small plottages a special exception is made in the court requirements for a lot 30 feet or less in width. On such lots outer and inner courts are subject to the regulations provided for such courts in the B districts. (See Figure 153.) For all buildings in a D district rear yards must be four inches in least dimension for each one foot of height and courts and side yards two inches in least dimension for one foot of height. A building on an interior lot in a residence district may not cover more than 60 per cent of the area of the lot; on a corner lot it may cover 80 per cent of such area. Ina residence district the depth of a rear yard at the curb level shall be 20 per cent of the depth of the lot, but need not exceed 20 feet at such level. The restrictions provided for the D districts are especially appropriate for one and two-family house districts, especially where houses occur in rows. They are also appropriate for multi-family houses, provided they are built with more adequate courts and open spaces than is now customary. The minimum dimensions of yards and courts are double those required for buildings in the B districts. A tenement or an apartment house on an interior lot in a D district covering 60 per cent of its lot, four stories, or 44 feet in height, would have to have a yard 20 feet deep and an outer court at least seven feet four inches wide. For lots of 30 feet or less in *23 feet in Resolution of July 25, 1916. See sect. 16, par. b. AREA DISTRICTS 41 width outer and inner courts are subject to the less restrictive regulations provided for such courts in C districts. (See Figure 154.) The E district regulations are particularly appropriate for detached or semi-detached houses on lots 40 feet or more in width. In a residence district a building on an interior lot with its porches, wings and accessory buildings may not occupy for the first story more than 50 per cent of the area of the lot, and may not exceed 30 per cent of the area of the lot above the first story. For a corner lot these percentages are increased to 70 per cent and 40 per cent respectively. For all buildings rear yards shall be at least five inches in least dimension for each one foot of height and courts and side yards at least two and one-half inches for each foot of height. For a lot 50 feet or less in width courts and side yards shall be not less than two inches in least dimension for each foot of height. In a residence district the depth of the rear yard at the curb level shall be at least 25 per cent of the depth of the lot, but need not exceed 25 feet. If the building is set back from the street the required depth of the rear yard may be correspondingly decreased, but not below ten feet. On at least one side of every building in a residence district there shall be a side yard along the lot line for the full depth of the lot. For any building not within a residence district the depth of the required rear yard at its lowest level must be at least 15 per,cent of the depth of the lot, but need not exceed 15 feet at such level. (See Figure 155.) It is so important to secure some segregated open space for the joint play and recreational use of the residents of every section that is built up with tenement or apartment houses that it is well worth while to grant developers the option of building under less restrictive provisions as to courts and yards if as a substitute they supply areas suitable for recreational use. An arrangement is accordingly provided whereby an individual de- veloper or group of property owners in a D or C district can by setting aside 10 per cent of their land for joint recreational use, be relieved of the court and yard requirements of the district in which they are situated and have the right to follow the requirements of the next less restricted district. The 10 per cent set aside for common recreational use must be equal to at least 5,000 square feet and must be at least 40 feet in its least dimension. This common space may be left in the center of the block or it may be made up of any lots in the block or in an adjoining block that are approved by the superintendent of buildings! as suitable for the joint recreational use of the residents. *Changed to Board of Appeals in Resolution of July 25. See sec. 13, par. (b) and sec. 14, par. (d). CHAPTER VII—FUTURE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT OF DISTRICTING PLAN The Legislature by a recent amendment to the districting provisions of the Charter (sections 242a, 242b) has provided a definite method, under appropriate safeguards, by which the Board of Estimate may amend and supplement any general districting plan that it may adopt. This amendment was drafted by the Commission and approved by the Board of Estimate. It is essential to the success and future development of any districting plan. The districting plan submitted has been evolved after a careful study of existing conditions and tendencies and a careful estimate of probable future needs and requirements, both of the city as a whole and of each particular section. There is no thought, however, that the plan now pro- posed can be complete and final for all time. There are doubtless errors and omissions that will be brought out only by actual operation. Moreover it is recognized that any plan of city building must be modified and supple- mented with the growth of the city and the changes in social and economic conditions due to the progress of invention and discovery. “No limit can be set to the growth and expansion of the city. No amount of planning can avoid the necessity for a considerable amount of reconstruction and change. Regardless of the requirements of an increas- ing population, the city structure must change to conform to the changes in the economic and industrial world. The city is but an expression of the existing economic, commercial, industrial, social and political organiza- tion. When invention and discovery are changing the methods of work and of living throughout the world, it is idle to think that we can so judge the future that our present plans for the city’s development will not require change and modification. The ‘once for all’ method of city planning is therefore impractical. We cannot adopt a plan and make that the Pro- crustean mold for all future time. The plan must develop and change with the advance of civilization. City planning to be effectual must be sustained and continuous. It is never completed.” 4 Even now it is clear that the present plan must be supplemented and changed when plans for certain fundamental factors affecting the physical structure of the city have been definitely worked out. Among these factors are, a comprehensive plan of port and terminal development, a plan of park development in Brooklyn, Queens and Richmond, a plan for future exten- sions and surface line feeders for the dual subway system. Moreover the present plan has been developed along quite broad general lines with the belief that after its adoption it would be further sup- plemented by more restrictive provisions in various areas. A more intensive 1 Robert H. Whitten, in Development and Present Status of City Planning in New York City, p. 18. East 23rd Street, be- tween Avenue D and Clarendon Road, Flat- bush — Apartment house in private house district. Fifth Avenue, corner 74th Street—Private house making way for 12-story apartment house. East 19th Street, near Cortel- Beverly Road and East 18th you Road, Flatbush—Apart- Street, Flatbush—A partment ment house in exclusive house extends to the street private house district. line in private house district. Fic. 22—-THE APARTMENT HOUSE INVADING DETACHED HOUSE SECTIONS. Even as apartment districts are invaded by business so is the high-class private detached house district invaded by occasional tenements which cut off light and depress values for private residence purposes. In districts designated “E” on the Area maps, the erection of apartment houses will be discouraged by the requirement that a large percentage of the lot be left unoccupied. FUTURE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT OF DISTRICTING PLAN 43 study of particular sections will doubtless show that some streets now unre- stricted or restricted to business may with advantage be included in the residence class. The owners interested will doubtless in many cases petition that this be done. Similarly and even to a greater extent the area districts contained in the present plan will be supplemented in order to conserve existing developments and extend the safeguard of the E and D restrictions to other sections. The method of amendment contained in the proposed districting reso- lution is as follows: “ Whenever the owners of 50 per cent or more of the frontage in any district or part thereof shall present a petition duly signed and acknowledged to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment requesting an amendment, supplement, change or repeal of the regulations prescribed for such district or part thereof, it shall be the duty of this Board to vote upon said petition within 90 days after the filing of the same by the petitioners with the Secretary of this Board. If, however, a protest against such amendment, supplement or change be presented, duly signed and acknowledged by the owners of 20 per cent or more of the frontage proposed to be altered, or by the owners of 20 per cent of the frontage immediately in the rear thereof, or by the owners of 20 per cent of the frontage directly opposite the frontage proposed to be altered, such amendment shall not be passed except by the unanimous vote of the Board.” The above provisions in relation to a protest of 20 per cent. of frontage affected are identical with the provisions for amendment added by the recent Legislature to the districting sections of the Charter. Under this method it will be possible for the owners in any block frontage between two intersecting streets to petition for the kind of restriction that will best conserve the type of improvement most suitable for that block. We believe that this process of amending, supplementing and perfecting the general plan is essential to its full success. Under the districting resolution submitted the enforcement of the plan is vested in the superintendent of buildings in each borough, the fire com- missioner and the tenement house commissioner under the rules and regula- tions of the Board of Standards and Appeals. The chief control will be exercised through the building permit and the certificate of occupancy issued by the superintendent of buildings. The fire commissioner’s jurisdiction will be confined to subsequent enforcement of provisions in relation to the use of buildings. The tenement house commissioner will have juris- diction over the application of the provisions of the resolution to tenement houses. The future amendment and development of the districting plan will doubtless entail some added work for the Board of Estimate. It should be carried on as part of the general work of comprehensive planning that the Board’s Committee on the City Plan has in hand. It is very important for the permanent success of the districting plan that all detailed amend- 44 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS ments should be correlated with a comprehensive plan of city growth and development. Respectfully submitted, COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS AND RESTRICTIONS, Epwarp M. Bassett, Chairman, Lawson Purpy, Vice-Chairman, Epwarp C. Bium, James E. Cronin, Otro M. Enzrtrz, Burt L. Fenner, Epwarp R. Harpy, Ricuarp W. LAWRENCE, Arrick H. Man, Atrrep E. Martine, Grorce T. Mortimer, J. F. Smits, WALTER STABLER, FRANKLIN S. TOMLIN, Grorce C. WHIPPLE, Witii1am G. WILLcox. Rosert H. Wuitten, Secretary. APPENDIX I—CHARTER PROVISIONS Sections 242a anp 242p or GreaTER New York CHarTer, AS ENACTED BY CuHaptTer 470 or Laws oF 1914 anp AMENDED BY CHAPTER 497 oF Laws oF 1916. § 242a. The board of estimate and apportionment shall have power to regulate and limit the height and bulk of buildings hereafter erected and to regulate and determine the area of yards, courts and other open spaces. The board may divide the city into districts of such number, shape and area as it may deem best suited to carry out the purposes of this section. The regulations as to the height and bulk of buildings and the area of yards, courts and other open spaces shall be uniform for each class of buildings throughout each district. The regulations in one or more districts may differ from those in other districts. Such regulations shall be designed to secure safety from fire and other dangers and to promote the public health and welfare, including, so far as conditions may permit, provision for ade- quate light, air and convenience of access. The board shal! pay reasonable regard to the character of buildings erected in each district, the value of the land and the use to which it may be put to the end that such regulations may promote public health, safety and welfare and the most desirable use for which the land of each district may be adapted and may tend to conserve the value of buildings and enhance the value of land throughout the city. The board shall appoint a commission to recommend the boundaries of districts and appropriate regulations to be enforced therein. Such commission shali make a tentative report and hold public hearings thereon at such times and places as said board shall require before submitting its final report. Said board shall not determine the boundaries of any district nor impose any regulation until after the final report of a commission so appointed. After such final.report said board shall afford persons interested an opportunity to be heard at a time and place to be specified in a notice of hearing to be published for ten consecutive days in the City Record. The board may from time to time after public notice and hearing amend, supplement or change said regulations or districts, but in case a protest against a proposed amendment, supplement or change be presented, duly signed and acknowl- edged by the owners of twenty per centum or more of the frontage proposed to be altered, or by the owners of twenty per centum of the frontage imme- diately in the rear thereof, or by the owners of twenty per centum of the frontage directly opposite the frontage proposed to be altered, such amend- ment shall not be passed except by a unanimous vote of the board. § 242b. The board of estimate and apportionment may regulate and restrict the location of trades and industries and the location of- buildings designed for specified uses, and may divide the city into districts of such number, shape and area as it may deem best suited to carry out the purposes of this section. For each such district regulations may be imposed designat- 46 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS ing the trades and industries that shall be excluded or subjected to special regulations and designating the uses for which buildings may not be erected or altered. Such regulations shall be designed to promote the public health, safety and general welfare. The board shall give reasonable consideration, among other things to the character of the district, its peculiar suitability for particular uses, the conservation of property values, and the direction of building development in accord with a well-considered plan. The board shall appoint a commission to recommend the boundaries of districts and appropriate regulations and restrictions to be imposed therein. Such com- mission shall make a tentative report and hold public hearings thereon before submitting its final report at such time as said board shall require. Said board shall not determine the boundaries of any district nor impose any regulations or restrictions until after the final report of a commission so appointed. After such final report said board shall afford persons interested an opportunity to be heard at a time and place to be specified in a notice of hearing to be published for ten consecutive days in the City Record. The boar may from time to time after public notice and hearing amend, supple- ment cr change said regulations or districts, but in case a protest against a proposed amendment, supplement or change be presented, duly signed and acknowledged by the owners of twenty per centum or more of the frontage _ proposed to be altered, or by the owners of twenty per centum of the front- age immediately in the rear thereof, or by the owners of twenty per centum of the frontage directly opposite the frontage proposed to be altered, such amendment shall not be passed except by a unanimous vote of the board. PART OF MAP SHOWING CONTOURS AND STREET GRADES 1916 Contours at 20-foot intervals are shown thus.............. Street grades 0% to 3% inclusive are shown thus...... eee H 3.1% “ 4.9% oe oY ss 5% “ 9.9% 10% and upward 2 ey Zo baw A FZ a ce it his =) 1 ea. Pee i as ie & \ eb — r, COP rer 7S | ml ail | ws j | I ; I s& = e | 2 ey 7 fen | HY \ y 4 I : 7 a Vz q ame Ws Vs Vis Ul A I oY bet PEE =e iar | ' ~/Z, ‘ q ee |_ : = > ao | pee bees nd CU ¥ fer = = ier | eal} fad eS iT] eae =o yal It will be seen by comparing the preceding Contour and Grade map with the Use District map below, that the lower levels near the water- front are unrestricted and that the higher levels and steeper grades are generally in business or residence districts. The latter districts as a rule meclude the steepest grades and the greatest elevations ; for example, the residence districts near the southerly end of the Concourse and north of McCombs Dam Park. PART OF USE DISTRICT MAP FOR THE AREA SHOWN ON OPPOSITE PAGE 7 BIG B= ces: ae mugen ET Ete eT if e Se 8 Ag 5 OS Pe A , eas So pie was : BS ow nee a itil = | OL at aah oneal Elevated lines and stations are shown thus — — =e — - Subways and stations under construction are shown thus —- as AAeUg S82 mMEgos So es sé oo 2 Se Ge M5 oa, oc x, 0 2 Oen +¥ OS xaos A we tS to Q.8OS & vo S — ESE SS of 3 ae $a ae = wUg a2 SUM & =i} ae Bo Ow ~ ave So shod Loe BHkKYK gy Baits| =—aal, BO oS ..364 a sk Vvaes baler SP soha Bra vo ayn 42g 6.2 ues op an ao 8 oh Seow - 00 ur Ow + eae vo erage Ry eel 28 fie & as $4a.98 80 8H. - HOoTDTO Nn ee on ov ss Leos Gis ah am Te = ee ai Sank 2 sh .at eee EL Poves On ante eoscoOngrs Ske Sait, + Sic.8 onU & nao B wosts SOBs ewe re oy n 3) S Su =] vo 3 USHOTTR ‘Fic. 25—EXISTING AND FUTURE RAPID TRANSIT LINES AND STATIONS, LOWER MANHATTAN, 1915. APPENDIX II—THE ZONING SURVEY The Commission directed its staff to secure all data essential to a knowl- edge of existing conditions and tendencies, and to an estimate of future growth and development. This data, supplemented by personal inspection on the ground, was used to assist the expert. knowledge and experienced judgment of the members of the Commission in laying down the actual district boundaries and the regulations to be enforced therein. It was essential that the data collected should be both detailed and comprehensive. There must be detailed information in relation to the buildings and physical characteristics and immediate environment of every individual block and also comprehensive or bird’s eye views of the entire borough or city. The comprehensive view is indispensable to the determina- tion of the number and characteristics of the various kinds of districts to be established and also for the determination in a general way of the logical boundaries for such districts. The detailed examination street by street and block by block is necessary to determine the exact boundaries and also to determine whether there is need for the exemption of certain small areas within the boundaries of a larger district. Topographic features Especially in the undeveloped areas, the existing lay of the land, the rivers, hills, valleys, marshes, highways, railroads and other physical features, give the best indication of the probable future use of the land. The topographic and hydrographic charts of the national government were used, as were also the more detailed topographic and grade maps prepared by the topographic bureaus of the boroughs. From these a map was pre- pared showing by colors the grade percentage in each street. Twenty- foot contour lines were also drawn covering practically the entire city with the exception of the Borough of Richmond. A steep street grade will often mark the boundary line between different kinds of use or between different types of the same kind of use. It often serves to separate the waterfront industrial or warehouse use from a busi- ness or residential use or a business use from a residential use. A study of the grades is helpful in determining the future traffic streets and hence the future business streets. Steep grades in certain sections make it reasonably certain that they will be used for residential purposes—they are unfitted for either business or industry. A bird’s eye view of any city discloses the fact that industry of the heavier type seeks the waterfront and lower levels. Cheap transportation, and sometimes also cheap land, are the attractions that bring the heavy industries to the low levels. The railroads follow the low levels in passing through the city, and the waterfront, as the place at which rail and water transportation meets, naturally has the best terminal facilities. Low-lying 48 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS land bordering deep water constitutes in a city an almost certain dedication to future terminal and industrial use. (See Figures 6, 23 and 24.) Rapid transit system While the location of the rail and water terminal facilities fixes the location of industry of the heavier type, the passenger transportation system is the chief factor in determining the location of business centers and sub- centers and in determining the building up and the intensity of use of various residential districts. The rapid transit system at present in operation or under construction will necessarily determine the general lines of city growth and development for many years to come. Owing to the automobile and electric suburban railroad service, the local centers will continue to increase within a radius of 50 miles or more of New York; but the great bulk of the population of the city will continue to be housed within a five-cent fare and a 40-minute ride of the chief business center. (See Figure 25.) A time zone transit map was carefully worked out, showing the time from every part of the city to the City Hall and to 14th Street. This time includes the time required to walk from any given location served by a transit line to the nearest station and the running time from that point to the City Hall or to 14th Street. As a rule only the five-cent fare routes are considered. Areas beyond half a mile or a ten-minute walk from a transit line are not dealt with, as a half-mile belt is considered the limit of any considerable influence of a transit line. The time zone map includes lines planned and under construction as well as those now in operation, and is based on estimated running time when the new dual subway system is in full operation. (See Figure 26.) This time zone map was in constant requisition to assist the judgment of the Commission in its determination of the appropriate use and the appropriate intensity of use of particular areas. Vehicular traffic The main roads and thoroughfares are also of great importance in determining the lines of future growth and development. The main roads often fix the location of future transit lines and local business streets. To determine the relative importance of existing traffic routes, traffic counts obtained from the various boroughs were plotted on the city map. (Fig. 27.) Distribution of population The figures of the 1900, 1905 and 1910 censuses were charted on maps by enumeration districts. These enumeration districts in Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn are generally very small areas including one or more city blocks. The 1910 figures were even more carefully analyzed and dis- tributed within each enumeration district according to the existing housing accommodations. A spot map was then prepared with each spot representing twenty-five people. This is probably the most intensive study that has —_— — me TIME ZONE MAP “eae, OF ee NEW YORK CITY GIVING TIME OF TRAVEL, 7 ee ON COMPLETION OF THE DUAL SYSTEM ras ; FROM 14"STREET, MANHATTAN, BY fi SUBWAY, ELEVATED, AND SURFACE LINES, = TO ALL PLACES REACHED BY A 5 CENT FARE EXPLANATORY NOTE to each station platform from Figures inside station circles are times 14th Street, Manhattan. One minute is allowed to reach the street surface and then walking time is used at three miles per hour led in a ten-minute The a It is assumed that transit lines serve an area ca tributary to or half mile walk from stations or surface lin while a sur a rapid transit line is a succession of overlapping diamon to more frequent face line serves a belt of territory a mile wide owing stops. For existing lines, rush hour schedule time is used. For uncompleted /~ speeds lines, the running time is estimated on the basis of ' Proposed changes in locations of existing stations have been indicates as far as ascertainable For transferring between cars or trains on the same level, one minut ne UR } TAD \ Je > ae . INCLUDING WALKING FROM LINES AT 3 MILES PER HOUR has been allowed; two minutes for different levels. = K 4 oA re Il yi 3 “. : / ’ J J: Ne COLNE LLDPE DISTANCE SCALE ~~ tL vba A comparison of this map with the corresponding height district map will show that the height of buildings allowed in business districts, other circumstances being equal diminishes with the time from the Manhattan busine 2 WALKING SCALE To center, and similarly the area which can be built upor shown by the area district maps, diminishes as the time from the Manhattan business center increases. It will also be seen that the districts permitting the more intensive \ EXPLANATION 0 To 10 MINUTE TIME ZONES =f 40 To So MINUTE TIME ZONES r oT 2 - : MB oro . . SEB www + - 60 MINUTES AND OVER development generally extend farthest away from the busi ness center along rapid transit lines The Height District Map Section 22, for example shows a one and one-quarter times district along the Fourth Avenue subway extending to a considerable distance from the Manhattan business center, while areas on either side srea districts in Section i i BLANK AREAS OTHER THAN THOSE IN MANHATTAN WITH: * \ te AWE : Ae IN 10 MINUTES OF 14TH STREET CANNOT BE REACHED FROM yOUAY S ‘ 14TH STREET BY A FIVE-CENT TRANSIT LINE AND A TEN: ry MINUTE WALK FROM SUCH LINE Similarly the ¢ 22 along the lines ¢ the Fourth Avenue ubway and the Utrecht Avenue ele vated line, extend further from the Man s hattan busir center than other C dis tricts under otherwise similar circumstance * Bean TAGRTTTCG END LOA Sine ; = * + EXPRESS STATIONS SURFACE LINES TRANSFERRING TO TRAINS FOR 5 CENTS —————_ 5 MINUTE TIME ZONE LINES 10 « - . . ——— UMIT OF 10 MINUTE OR HALF MILE WALK FROM TRANSIT LINES COMMITTEE ON THE CITY PLAN BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT ohm P Fox— Transit Exreter| WNC SA ae \\se aa f Ma NN) a : a 6t “ge e Dee i AUN Oe ON Ny LIES 2 UK RIE SOG Se Lg PART OF MAP Bere, y 4 SHOWING 1 ff Ki MAIN TRUCKING AND AUTOMOBILE ROUTES WITH TRAFFIC COUNTS ar ecesienpet™ 1915 eat at RED FIGURES ON MAP BELOW STREETS INDICATE AVERAGE NUMBER PER HOUR OF TRUCKING OR TRADE VEHICLES. BLACK FIGURES ON MAP ABOVE STREETS INDICATE AVERAGE NUMBER PER HOUR OF AUTOMOBILES OR LIGHT PASSENGER VEHICLES, BROKEN BLACK LINES INDICATE AUTOMOBILE ROUTES RECOMMENDED BY THE OFFICIAL AUTOMOBILE BLUE BOOK OF 1915, Ta ee pm 3 TRUCKING AND ¥}/ TRADE VEHICLES AVERAGE NUMBER PER HOUR BOTH WAYS. ee a AUTOMOBILE S AND =] a MN LIGHT s 2 + PASSENGER VEHICLES, AVERAGE NUMBER q PER HOUR BOTH WAYS. Business and industry generally follow traffic routes and it will be seen that the use district maps include the traffic arteries in business or unrestricted districts Compare with Use District Map Sections 9, 10, 13 and 14 MAP OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK SHOWING POPULATION CENTERS (CENTER OF GRAVITY OF POPULATION) BASED ON POLICE CENSUS 1915 Population in each borough and its center of population is shown OLN ror aia ox bss ncaioie sie Ove Jaane Sapte nteleret --» 0 649,726 Population of Manhattan and Bronx and their center of population 18 GHOWS1 CHUN sie sic nals dicleivib nie Be OE ORE Ot OE OAAOROC Onin a 2,945,208 Population of Brooklyn and Queens and their center of population is shown thus.....cccscerserrees Oe. Fo nu tactics < s Q < fe) hg a San ROS Zi s Sta BEA SAy/ight (wire glass) 9 50 He oP FT. By Courtesy of Sanborn Map Co. Fic. 30. The Commission has on file atlases of all the boroughs except Rich- mond, which show in detail on a scale of 50 or 60 feet to an inch, the use, height, and approximate dimensions of all buildings as well as many other details concerning them. These atlases are kept up to date by frequent revision and were constantly referred to in preparing the dis- tricting maps. Only the data given in the atlases of greatest value in districting is shown above. ple My Ag oh ae as ee fhe tes ane 3 ila. PART OF MAP SHOWING BUILDING AND TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT MANHATTAN—1914 Improved waterfront......--.+..+.-.+- SSS] Railroad: Hints. «/.(e'sts an 2 Factory and warehouse......--.-.s+++- c (aae| Surface Janes: o..1eeceene : Business exclusively...-.-+--+-++-e2e+e0% hee Elevated and subway lines.. an Residence. «25s <.ccc ci cecine cleanse eines [eae] Business on first floor.......-+.ee+e++08 foc Base map by courtesy of the Ohman Map Co. a Fic. 31. PART OF MAP SHOWING BUILDING AND TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT MANHATTAN—1885 It will be seen on referring to the Use District Map Section 8 that it provides a large business district in the ‘vicinity of Broadway where the 1914 Development map shows that most of the business buildings are located, an unrestricted district west of Amsterdam Avenue and south of 72nd Street where there is a considerable warehouse and factory development, and residence districts west of Broadway north of West 70th Street and east of Columbus Avenue north of 66th Street, where many residences and apartment houses are located. : The 1914 and 1885 Development maps when taken together indicate the great increase in intensity of development of all kinds in the area during the last 29 years. Note—Scale and key are the same as for the map on the opposite page except that no separate classification was made in 1885 of business on first floor; a store and dwelling is classed under residence. i a L al Be a Baeee qed ecu | [eet] F a) ee ] Hi Base map by courtesy of the Ohman Map Co. Fic. 32. iy 4 oy >, aryl | 4 3 ‘ j ‘ - THE ZONING SURVEY 49 been made of the distribution of the population of the city. The spot map was of great assistance in comprehending at a glance the distribution of population throughout the city and in estimating the relative effect of various kinds of transit facilities on the distribution of population. (See Figure 20.) Supplementing the census data as to distribution of population in their places of abode, data was obtained and charted to show the distribution of factory workers in the places in which they work. At the request of the Commission, the State Labor Department compiled from its records a block census for all factory employees throughout the city according to place of work. With this data the Commission prepared a spot map of factory employees—one spot for each 250 employees. This map was valuable in laying out the unrestricted or industrial districts and in studying the exist- ing and possible future relation between congestion of factories and con- gestion of population. (See Figure 7.) The results of the police census of 1915 were plotted by census districts and the center of gravity of the population of each district obtained, and from these the center of gravity of the population of each borough. These were combined to obtain the center of gravity of the population of the entire city. This map enables one to see the relation of these several centers of population to existing business and traffic centers. (See Figure 28.) Existing building development The entire zone plan as proposed by the Commission is based on a frank acceptance of existing conditions. The zone plan not only does not affect the continued use of any existing building, but it ordinarily does not attempt to radically change the character of new buildings from the type with which any considerable area is at present built up. It was very important, therefore, that the Commission should have before it a detailed record of the existing building development in every part of the city. (Fig. 30.) Distribution of buildings according to use In order to study the location of existing residential, business and industrial buildings and areas, borough maps were prepared showing in colors industrial buildings and use, business buildings, store and dwelling buildings and residential buildings, including under the latter head schools, churches and institutional buildings. These maps enabled the Commission to determine the general boundaries of the residence, business and unre- stricted districts, in so far as such boundaries could properly be based on the existing building development. The Commission based its work, however, not entirely or chiefly on existing building development, but also upon its judgment of future growth and requirements. In order to better judge the future growth and change of the business, residence and industrial areas a careful study was made of such growth and change in the past. Based on information given in the 50 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS atlases of the various boroughs published at various intervals during the past fifty years, borough maps were prepared showing in colors the location of industrial, business and residence buildings. In order to note the effect of freight and water terminals and of improved transit facilities on the location and growth of building development, the rail and water terminals and the transit lines were carefully noted on the building development maps. These historical maps show from period to period the expansion of the built-up area of the city and the development and change of the industrial, business and residence areas. (See Figures 31 and 32.) Distribution of existing buildings according to height and area covered In order to aid in the determination of the number and character of the height districts to be established and the general boundaries of the various districts, so far as they would be affected by the height of existing buildings, maps were prepared showing in colors the height of each build- ing throughout the city. Similarly, for the purpose of assisting the judg- ment of the Commission in laying out area districts, maps were prepared showing graphically the area covered by each building throughout the city. (See Figures 33-36.) Land values Comparative land values are a most important and accurate measure of differences in the kind and character of use appropriate for various areas. Values are particularly important in determining that particular intensity of use that is consistent with the most beneficial use of the land. They are, therefore, particularly useful in the determination of the bound- aries of the various height and area districts. It is fortunate for this purpose that for the past few years sectional maps have been published by the City Department of Taxes and Assess- ments giving the assessed value per front foot of all land throughout the city. In this case the unit of value is the value per front foot of an interior lot 100 feet in depth. From these sectional maps a map of the entire city was prepared showing in colors the various ranges of value per front foot. This enables one to compare at a glance, e. g., values in Flatbush with values in Bay Ridge and values in The Bronx with those of Brooklyn. It also shows the blighting effect on certain sections of an invasion by inappropriate or nuisance uses. (See Figure 37.) PART OF MAP SHOWING HEIGHTS OF EXISTING BUILDINGS 1915 BUILDINGS UP TO % OF THE STREET WIDTH IN HEIGHT ARE SHOWN THUS......... =x " \ N\A) “ PROM %T01 TIMES OF THE STREET WIDTH IN HEIGHT ARE SHOWN THUS =) 1 1% tr WA iw" 1% AS CF} ~ wy" 2 => e 4: Aeky mae OVER 2% ie BLE au tl Haul 1000 . 1000 2000 FEET It will be observed on comparison with the height district map for this area— shown on opposite page, that the boundary line of the two times district includes in general the present higher building development, while the lower buildings on he outskirts of this higher building development are in a one and one-half times istrict. L - mje) = Dea ASAT: a : SSS s3= iV it ) ‘| L er q ale (0 riauneaul TG UUEESaeNele Miata! x eat atch a\ (IF 3 0 uu 3 \\ aT LAHAALE ee M CANA MAY es GAO v0 oO | WU WE Fe Se or COE ES Ce UVa WA ee ill AV, WS: (Ser i : Ol cea i WSieseenil: Gao =e Se go ee = ‘2 SSeS : a ae) 1 Bee Fic. 34—HEIGHT DISTRICT MAP ‘FOR SECTION SHOWN ON OPPOSITE ; FOLDER. ae Se Eee a, Ps STH a ica + pee fist = peor “ oe * v eérue i ner eur 1 ‘a 4 4 i 16 i] La) . : hae a . ' re s ‘ ; a « 7 ‘ ‘ ‘ 5 “ ‘ . ate a B igsh: 2 ee : ‘ ed utp iets a é 3 » _* ; ; 7 « . + ate 4 e a > t . « a - ne - if : 5 tu. . y ' CL . : ; A A * ‘ = y é My % € . , WY tia & i cP Bl i< m . : oan a . . Le he . a 7 r - - * ; . 5 ¥ <4 » > “ dyes \ a : e 7 > ne aa - ‘ aS x A \ =~* ¥ > 7 ane . - eS > + iS > * _ . > “ . . © ’ - y. . y cl n goes d et i way * ; fe ' s », Ley a = - ‘ ~~ ee 7 Y <¥ L é W. : 3 Eye . [ * a ae + * »! a 7 a are “s . += wf " , a he bs - 7 ~ vd 4 A ~* > y PY * & : o ie j Lea i" * ¢ 7; ¥ , el ¢ ca 4 - n Se a ‘ . P < pe i= i A (a ‘ ‘ ¥ al a ‘s, az, ) “ ' “i. Aa ‘ oe ; ‘ Wy _ ‘ M \ ‘ ) = =F ‘ ¥ Wi} 4 aS » Y r Wy ~ ‘ . i i € Py it " thee Fae, PART OF MAP SHOWING PERCENTAGE OF LOT COVERED BY EXISTING BUILDINGS 1915 Sheds and shed-like construction, usually one story, and storage yards are shown thus...... oe i Isolated buildings occupying up to 30 per cent. of rea of the lot are shown thu (usually in rows) occupying from 30 per area of the lot are ouses Se Les é cent. to er cent. of the own Ai ae ae : . Aas Bs usua. lly new- a tenemen i eae rom er t er cer the area o the | toe } Seah. as, ,, = Buildings (i t house d s, usually old ten nd in b districts, business buildings) occupying from 70 per t. to 90 of the ar f the lot are BRLTR WIA MOULIN Boo. ctectpiscaes vies f7a cio /a\ cra a(cialptn pretweia aye/aaela Building occupying from 90 per cent. to 100 per cent. of the area of the lot are shown thus.... / 1000 ° 1000 2000 FEET — PS | ~ i = The area districts as laid out on the area district 2 = > _— fy ap opposi te) m quite closely the character ilvces ~ . 4 he present building developr Tk he A LWA districts on the South Brooklyn waterfront and along the Manhattan Beach Division of the L. I R. R., include areas now occupied to ent by industrial buildings, covering 90 per cent. to 100 per cent. of the area Ce oe The D district south of S t Park, th I of Bay Ridge Avenue and f Seventh A hat t of Old New Utrecht Road and north of he Mant n Beach div rthe L. L. RAR nd that t Greenwood Cemetery and i I e will be s o include dwell i ore or less developed with building Il pying not more than 50 per cent. of th area, and hich apartment houses entered to any considerable extent. Similarly the E districts on the Narrows south of 75th Stree e east of 10th Avenue 1 } Bist S d the eral E distric f J ll be seen t lude localities in which the isting building lly oP 4 " é- S é cover less than 30 per cent. of the area of the lot on PA it SSNS a ae +> SR te which they are built and in which districts few or no HNN j =a) : 4 e B*) x8 4 gx p SS ss Vi apartment houses are to be found. x= : = : nn . cS ls aE: N TN tilaX em | ae Tears se ee SS to tS Wass Leb S eae SLA ey sts. s lees ac ade 2S == | i alee ~ at Mh meee ee i" Sana ical! \ ee tp \he KY “Y/N Sa YQ CSE TERCERA EESTI TY (; y) Any Dw, anf I-Ie i ms a MAP SHOWING LAND VALUES PREPARED FROM TENTATIVE LAND VALUE MAP OF THE DEPARTMENT OF a Na. Da ES <= wy Ie, e MW, . =n ay 7 A OOS oe mle an a TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS SOS) : ea 1915 ~ mn ila ey fs] $5,000 AND ABOVE, VALUD PER | FT. FRONT 100 FT. IN DEPTH SHOWN TRUS cS Br 1,001 - $5,006, CE gh iI Tce AIT ce uy 4 Fo si oe Cy, \y 501- 1,000, aay Pz Ss 251- 500, = ¢, (A 101- 250, Vereres & Cy 51- 100, my 10 50, = 7K 1000 ° 1000 2000 FEET The map in its entirety shows in a striking way the diminution of land values as the distance from the chief business center decreases, modified, how- ever, by an increase of values at local centers and from other special circumstances. The Height and Area maps governing the intensity of use are seen to follow the same law, that is, the districts per- mitting the least height and requiring the largest iS) courts and yards, other circumstances being equal, : /} AN are those most distant from the chief business cen- /| = x ter. The two-times district which includes the busi- Rey i if N? ness center of Brooklyn, shown on Height district | see Ce map sections 12 and 16, it will be seen includes : lands of relatively high value, on Pierrepont, Rem- sen and Montague Streets, lands near the East River on John, Plymouth and Water Streets, lands on Fulton, Livingston and Schermerhorn Streets, as well as the area of high values between Fulton Street and Flatbush Avenue, northwest of the Long Island Railroad Terminal. APPENDIX III—DISTRICTING From THE REporT OF THE HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMISSION DeEcEMBER 23, 1913 As applied to building restriction there are two general types of dis- tricting. Certain localities may be set off as residential or business or indus- trial districts. Industry and business may, for example, be excluded from the residence districts. The restrictions may go further and attempt to sectire a certain type of residence district. The district may be restricted to one family or two family houses. Another type of districting is where different general height and area limitations are applied to all buildings in a particular district. Any thoroughgoing plan for the control of building development must make use of both of these types of districting. The general scope of constitutional regulation It is clear that such restrictions as are enacted must justify themselves as a reasonable exercise of the police power of the state. Under eminent domain the individual is compensated for the taking of his property. Under the police power there is also a constructive taking of property in certain cases, but without compensation to the individuals injured. It is theoretic- ally conceivable that a general plan of building restriction and regulation might be entered upon by resort to the power of eminent domain, but, practically, such a solution is out of the question. The expense and burden of condemnation proceedings and litigation in multitudinous cases would create a tax burden that would increase rather than compensate for the injury to property interests. Moreover, the kinds of regulation under con- sideration are not such as to justify individual compensation. While they restrict individual liberty to a certain extent they do it in such a way as to conserve individual and public interests and rights. They subject the use of urban land to such restrictions as are appropriate and reasonable in the nature and history of this class of property. The police power may be used to promote the public health, safety, order and general welfare. Protection of public health, safety and order constitute the police power in the primary or narrower sense of the term.1 It is a power so vital as to be undoubted when reasonably and justly applied. The exercise of the police power for the promotion of public comfort and convenience and for the promotion of general social and economic interests under the head of “the general welfare,’ while upheld by competent authority, will nevertheless be subjected to more careful scrutiny and more strict construction. The position of the United States Supreme Court in regard to the scope *Freund, Police Power, sec. 10. 52 HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMISSION of the police power is well stated by Justice Harlan in C., B. & Q. Railway v. Drainage Commissioners, 200 U. S. 561, 592, decided March 5, 1906: “The learned counsel for the railroad company seem to think that the adjudications relating to the police power of the state to pro- tect the public health, the public morals and the public safety are not applicable in principle to cases when the police power is exerted for the general well-being of the community apart from any question of the public health, the public morals or the public safety. We cannot assent to the view expressed by counsel. We hold that the police power of a state embraces regulations designed to promote the public convenience or the general prosperity, as well as regula- tions designed to promote the public health, the public morals or the public safety. . . . And the validity of a police regulation must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the Chemeter of the regulation, whether arbitrary or reasonable and whether really designed to accomplish a legitimate public purpose.” Again in Welch v. Swasey, 214 U. S. 91, decided May 17, 1909, the same court through Justice Peckham concurs, at page 106, in the conclusion of the Massachusetts court “that regulations in regard to the height of buildings, and in regard to their mode of construction in cities, made by legislative enactments for the safety, comfort and convenience of the people and for the benefit of property owners generally, are valid.” Finally in Eubank v. City of Richmond, 33 Supt. Ct. 76, decided December 2, 1912, Justice McKenna reiterates that the police power extends “not only to regulations which promote the public health, morals and safety, but to those which promote the public convenience or the general prosperity.” The New York Court of Appeals has taken substantially the same view of the scope of the police power. In People v. King, 110 N. Y. 418, Judge Andrews says (at page 423): “ By means of this power the legislature exercises a supervision over matters involving the common weal and enforces the observance, by each individual member of society, of the duties which he owes to others and the community at large. It may be exerted whenever necessary to secure the peace, good order, health, morals and general wel- fare of the community. . . . In short, the police power covers a wide range of particular unexpressed powers reserved to the state affecting free- dom of action, personal conduct and the use and control of property.” It is thus seen that the police power is broad and comprehensive. Yet it is by no means unlimited. A controlling limitation is that every resort to it should commend itself to the sober judgment as necessary, appropriate and reasonable, the infringement of private right being not disproportionate to the real public gain. Freund in his treatise on the Police Power well states that a study of the various cases in which the police power has been applied “ will reveal the police power not as a fixed quantity but as the expression of social, DISTRICTING 53 economic and political conditions. As long as these conditions vary, the police power must continue to be elastic, 7. e., capable of development.” If an informed and deliberate public opinion becomes educated to the neces- sity for the exercise of greater control over the planning and over the building of the city, and that such control cannot be effectively exercised except through the police power, it is clear that the police power is suffi- ciently elastic to meet the situation. The courts, while naturally conserva- tive, have shown a strong disposition to favor all reasonable regulations for the control of the height, size and arrangement of buildings. As the public necessity for such regulations becomes more clearly apparent, we may expect the position taken by the courts to become more and more clearly defined in support of such control. Bearing in mind the purposes and objects which justify a resort to the police power our study of the problem of controlling building development will be based chiefly on the following considerations : (1) Public safety—Protection of property from fire and protec- tion of the occupants of buildings from injury due to fire or panic. (2) Public health—Importance of light, air and the prevention of congestion to health and sanitation. (3) General welfare—(a) The comfort and convenience of the occupants of dwellings, offices and factories, through more adequate provision for light and air and in the case of dwellings through the maintenance of the essentially residential character of the neigh- borhood. (b) The safeguarding of existing and future building investment values and the encouragement of an appropriate and orderly building development by such regulations as will prevent the taking from an existing structure of its minimum allotment of light and air and as will tend to maintain the character of a district. (c) The prevention of street congestion. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DISTRICTING While the desirability of districting is generally recognized by all students of this subject there is a fear on the part of some that it may be held void as an infringement of the constitutional guarantee of equality. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws constitutes one of the most important limitations upon the police power. It means that the government shall not impose particular burdens upon individuals or corporations to meet dangers for which they cannot in justice be held respon- sible, and that all legislative discriminations or classifications shall be jus- tified by differences of status, act or occupation corresponding to the differ- ence of legislative measures.1 The idea of equality excludes in principle both particular burdens and special privileges, but admits of reasonable classification.? *Freund, Police Power, page V. *Tbid., sec. 611. 54 HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMISSION The question of what constitutes reasonable classification comes up chiefly in connection with districting. To what length is it permissible to go in the division of the city into districts with varying regulations as to the height, size and arrangement of buildings? Other forms of classification have received quite general acceptance. Thus tenement houses have often been put in a separate class and subjected to more stringent regulations. This has been justified on the ground of greater importance in relation to public health or safety. Likewise height regulations have been adopted varying according to the width of the street. This is in effect a districting plan. The district changes with each variation in street width. This sort of districting is usual and approved. It may be justified directly on the ground of health and safety. A general plan of districting such as seems needful cannot be justified solely on such grounds. We cannot justify more stringent regulations for dwellings in the suburbs than in lower Man- hattan on the ground that light, air and comfort for the residents of the suburbs are of greater public importance than for the residents of Lower Manhattan. It seems, however, that such districting can be justified if it can be shown to be essential to the general welfare. If regulations ad- mittedly appropriate and reasonable for suburban areas are admittedly inap- propriate and unreasonable for congested areas, the public importance and necessity for districting is clearly shown. Classification or districting for the purposes of regulation must either be based directly on the purposes for which the police power may be exercised or it must be justified by difference in injury to vested interests. In order to justify more stringent regulations for dwelling-houses in the suburbs than for dwelling houses in lower Manhattan it must appear either that such regulations for the suburbs are more important to the public health, safety or general welfare than for lower Manhattan, or that while equally important for one or more of these purposes in both districts the suburban regulations would if applied to lower Manhattan interfere so seriously with existing property values as to render them of doubtful expediency or con- stitutionality. The courts will insist that there be some fair relation between the public good to be secured by the regulations and the private injury suffered. Building regulations must be reasonable in order to be constitu- tional. There is no absolute standard for all conditions. There must be a reasonable relation between the public object to be gained and the loss of property and liberty suffered. It is clear that any deprivation of indi- vidual liberty is a real public loss that must be justified by some greater public gain. It is also clear that extended injury to property interests may cause widespread public loss and consequently should have for its justifica- tion as an exercise of the police power some greater public gain. In order to be reasonable there must be a proportionateness of means to ends. This point is dwelt upon at length by Freund in his treatise on the Police Power. He says (sec. 63): “Leading courts have stated very distinctly that reasonableness is one of the inherent limitations of the police power; so the Supreme DISTRICTING 55 Court of Mass.!: ‘ Difference of degree is one of the distinctions by which the right of the legislature to exercise the police power must be determined. Some small limitations of previously existing rights inci- dent to property may be imposed for the sake of preventing a mani- fest evil. Larger ones could not be without the exercise of the right of eminent domain.’ And the Supreme Court of the U. S2: “A Statute or a regulation provided for therein, is frequently valid or the reverse, according as the fact may be, whether it is a reasonable or an unreasonable exercise of legislative power over the subject matter involved, and in many cases questions of degree are the con- trolling ones by which to determine the validity, or the reverse, of legislative action,’ and in Plessy vs. Ferguson,* in answer to the con- tention that the principle of separation might be carried to the length of assigning to black and white different quarters of the city for living or different sides of the street for walking, the Supreme Court said: ‘The reply to all this is, that every exercise of the police power must be reasonable.’ * * * There are few forms of control that cannot become unreasonable by an excess of degree: and there are many cases where no other principle of limitation is discoverable than that of reasonableness.” The districting of a city for building restriction purposes is made neces- sary by the fundamental characteristic of “reasonableness ”’ which is the essential feature of a valid exercise of the police power. Especially in a city like New York it becomes necessary that building regulations should vary according to the character of the district and according to the type and use of the building. In certain districts suburban conditions of light and air can be maintained with great public advantage and with slight private loss; in other districts such favorable conditions of light and air, while theoreti- cally just as desirable, are entirely impracticable, and any law that attempted to enforce them would be clearly unreasonable and void. A classification based on proportionateness of means to ends is recog- nized in practically all building regulations. General maximum height regu- lations, for example, apply only to buildings hereafter constructed. In doing so they discriminate in favor of the owners of buildings already constructed. A lopping off of existing buildings in excess of the prescribed height is of no less importance to the health, safety and convenience of the public than the restriction of the height of an equal number of buildings hereafter to be erected. A discrimination in favor of buildings already constructed cannot be justified directly on the grounds for which the police power may be exercised. Such discrimination or classification finds abundant justification, however, when we apply the controlling principle of reasonableness and pro- portionateness of means to ends. The reconstruction of existing buildings ~ Sigart vs. Knox, 148 Mass., 368. *Wisconsin M. and P. R. R. Co. vs. Jacobson, 179 U. S., 287 (1906). “IG3 Wo Sa, S84 56 HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMISSION would impose burdens on private owners disproportionate to the public gain. Such regulations would therefore be unreasonable and void. It seems that classification or exemption essential to the reasonableness of a regulation is itself reasonable. This principle constitutes an adequate justification for districting. While a specific regulation taken by itself may not seem to have a very direct relation to the purposes for which the police power may be invoked, yet when taken as a part of a comprehensive pian for the control of building development throughout the entire city, its relation to such purposes may be unmistakable. Grant that a comprehensive system of districting is essential to the health and general welfare of the city and it follows that every specific regulation that is an essential part of such comprehensive system is justified under the police power. NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING In this country comparatively little use has been made of districting. It has been carried out most fully in certain European cities. It is coming to be recognized as essential to well ordered, purposeful, economic and socially beneficial city growth. Haphazard methods of city construction result in a minimum of convenience with a maximum of cost to the public, and in general, to the individual as well. The welfare of the people of a city is very largely dependent on the skill and foresight with which the city has been built. Upon this depends their opportunity for agreeable and remunerative occupation, for the enjoy- ment of leisure and the creation of a home. If factories and offices are dark and poorly ventilated, the worker suffers in health and comfort. If dwell- ings are huddled together without adequate provision for open spaces and if dwellings, stores and factories are thrown together indiscriminately, the health and comfort of home life are destroyed. It will pay a city to attempt by every available means to conserve the health and general well-being of its inhabitants. This means increased productivity and increased productivity means higher wages for the laborer, higher profits for the employer and higher rents for the real estate owner. The need for the creation of special restrictions for special districts is most clearly exemplified in the case of suburban residence districts. Here real estate developers have often found it profitable to secure control of large areas in order by restrictive covenants to insure to intending pur- chasers of homes the creation and maintenance of a residence section of a certain desired type. The surroundings and neighborhood are all important in securing desirable home conditions. Unless the general character of the section is fixed for a considerable period of years no one can afford to build a home. If he does build, a change in the supposed character of the neigh- borhood through the building of apartments, stores or factories may render the location undesirable for a home of the character he has built and thus greatly depreciate his investment. se DISTRICTING 57 Another general social factor that demands the zoning or districting of the city for building purposes under the police power is the recognized evil of congestion of population as exemplified on the lower East Side. All students of the subject recognize that such congestion of population is a real detriment to the health and civic fitness of the population of the district and a real menace to the welfare of the entire city. The problem is to prevent the repetition of these conditions in other parts of the city. Restrictions that would be upheld as reasonable for the present congested area would be clearly inadequate to prevent the repetition in other districts of conditions almost as bad as those now existing on the lower East Side. The only method by which this can be accomplished is by permitting the creation under the police power of different restrictions for different sections. Surely the prevention of undue congestion of population is a matter of such vital importance to the general welfare that it will justify any reasonable classification of buildings according to type and district; especially if the injury to vested interests resulting from such classification is comparatively small. Manhattan with its skyscrapers is comparatively undeveloped. It is a fact that a large proportion of the area of lower Manhattan is now so poorly developed that the existing improvements are reckoned of no value for purposes of purchase or sale. The bare value of the land is all that is considered. This means that a large portion of the land of Manhattan is very inadequately utilized. Where space is so scarce this inadequate utiliza- tion is a great social and economic loss. This partial development and poor utilization of the land is even more apparent in all the other boroughs. A considerable percentage of the land even in what are considered built up districts, is either vacant or very inadequately utilized. In the suburbs the sprawling character of building development is everywhere apparent. The natural result of a poor utilization of its land area by a city is high rents for occupiers and low profits for investors. It may seem paradoxical to hold that a policy of building restriction tends to a fuller utilization of land than a policy of no restriction, but such is undoubtedly the case. The reason lies in the greater safety and security to investment secured by definite restrictions. The restrictions tend to fix the character of the neighborhood. The owner therefore feels that if he is to secure the maximum returns from his land, he must promptly improve it in conformity with the established restrictions. For example, he will not be deterred from immediate improve- ment by the consideration that while a detached house is at present an appropriate improvement it is probable that in 10 years an apartment house would be appropriate and that by waiting he will not only be able to reap the advantage of greatly increased land values, but will save great deprecia- tion in the value of the detached house due to the fact that it has become an inappropriate improvement for the lot. The same principle applies in the case of most types of buildings. Asa general rule, a building is appropriately located when it is in a section 58 HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMISSION surrounded by buildings of similar type and use, all of which have been constructed with reference to that particular use. Anything that will tend to preserve the character of a particular section for a reasonable period of years, will tend to bring about the uniform improvement of the section. A large proportion of the land of New York City that is now unimproved or poorly improved is in that condition because the owners feel that the char- acter of the section is changing, is bound to change in the near future or that the permanent character of the section is unknown. If restrictions were imposed so that the general character of particular sections could be forecasted with reasonable certainty for a period of years, owners who had been holding back on account of the uncertainties of the situation would find it clearly to their advantage to improve their holdings. The result would be that these restricted sections would be more quickly built up with build- ings of similar type and use. This should have the effect of improving living conditions, reducing the cost of living and maintaining real estate values. Any growing city that fails to control building development must in- evitably suffer enormous loss due to building obsolescence. Obsolescence may be defined as lack of adaptation to function. It results from changed conditions and surroundings that render the building an inappropriate im- provement for the particular location. The total social loss does not consist merely of the great cost of building reconstruction or of the great decline in the rental value of the inappropriate buildings that are not reconstructed, but there is added to this the social loss due to the retardation of real estate improvements owing directly to the obsolescence hazard. In a memorandum submitted to the Commission by Frederick L. Acker- man, the importance of districting and its superiority over private restrictive covenants, is clearly pointed out. Mr. Ackerman says: “We should not confuse the term ‘zoning’ with the ideas sur- rounding the present use of the word ‘restriction.’ It is true that restrictions upon property are a necessary part of any scheme of zon- ing, but there is a fundamental difference in the nature of the re- strictions. When a group of individuals restrict a section of the city, it is done for the purpose of conserving that section for a particular use. In practice, this object is rarely attained for the simple reason that there are parcels of property within that section which, for one reason or another, are withheld with the result that sooner or later these pieces are used for a purpose detrimental to the adjacent prop- erty, causing the restricted property to depreciate in value. Oft times the restrictions made by individual owners hamper seriously the growth of a section, and in practice, instead of conserving the sec- tion to a better development of the particular activity for which it was intended, these restrictions simply serve as a check upon its de- velopment owing to the fact that owners know that sooner or later the restrictions will be removed, when other activities will enter and DISTRICTING 59 disintegrate the values. , When the city places restrictions over a sec- tion, these apply to all properties, with the result that there imme- diately begins a more permanent development along the lines for which the section is to be used, and properties increase in value. “We have given too much weight to the ideas surrounding geo- graphical location and have not considered seriously the idea that the value of property depends upon the degree to which a certain section is developed for a certain use. Values appreciate in sections where it is known that the development is to be maintained along definite and well established lines. For instance, the values in office building sec- tions are dependent upon the degree of the development of that sec- tion for that particular use. This idea holds in loft, factory and resi- dential sections, shopping districts, and the like, and experience has taught us that as soon-as new elements are introduced into these sections of a nature tending to lower the standard of the section, the values of the properties are correspondingly reduced. There is no economy in the present method of continually shifting geograph- ically the various interests of the city. We should rather foster the idea of developing various sections for a particular use and place a premium upon the erection of permanent, well designed structures within that section, to be used for that particular purpose for which the section is restricted.” HeicuHt Districts IN AMERICAN CITIES The chief American examples of districting as applied to the height of buildings are furnished by Boston, Baltimore, Indianapolis and Wash- ington. Boston In Boston the entire city has been divided into two districts—-District A and District B. In District A, the business section of the city, buildings may not exceed 125 feet in height. In District B, the residential area of the city, buildings may not exceed 80 feet in height except on thoroughfares over 64 feet in width. On such streets, buildings may be erected to a height equal to 144 times the width of the street, but no buildings in District B may be erected to a greater height than 80 feet unless its width on each and every abutting public street is at least one-half of its height. No build- ing, however, in either District A or District B may be of greater height than 2% times the width of the widest abutting street. This districting has been done under authority of a special act of the legislature through the agency of a commission appointed for the purpose. The regulations, which are considered in detail in Appendix IV, have been upheld by the highest court, both of the State and of the United States. In regard to the constitutionality of districting, the Massachusetts court! points out that any police regulation must be reasonable “not only *Welch vs. Swasey, 193 Mass., 364; 79 N. E., 745, January 1, 1907. 60 HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMISSION in reference to the interest of the public, but also in reference to the rights of landowners.” If these rights and interests are in conflict “ the opposing considerations should be balanced against each other and each should be made to yield reasonably to those upon the other side.” The court indicates that this consideration makes it necessary in considering the height limita- tion to have reference “ to the use for which the real estate probably will be needed.” The court calls attention to the fact that the value of land and demand for space in the business district is such as to call for buildings of greater height than in the residential district. The case was carried to the Supreme Court of the United States and the constitutionality of the act again affirmed. (Welch vs. Swasey, 214 U.S. 91, 29 Sup. Ct., 567, decided May 17, 1909.) It was contended by the appellant that the real purpose of the act was to preserve architectural sym- metry and regular sky line, and that the police power could not be exercised for such a purpose. It was further contended that the infringement upon property rights was unreasonable and disproportional to any public necessity and that the distinction between 125 feet for the height of buildings in District A and 80 feet to 100 feet for buildings in District B was wholly unjustifiable and arbitrary, having no reference to public safety or to any purpose appropriate to the police power. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, stating that the reasons contained in the opinion of the State court were, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, sufficient to justify the validity of the regulations in question. Justice Peckham, in delivering the opinion of the court, refers to the justification of the districting provision based on the greater value of land in District A, presented by the State court. He also finds an additional reason for the districting provision in a greater danger in case of fire from tall buildings in a residential district. He says (at pages 106-108) : “Tn this case the Supreme Judicial Court of the State holds the legislation valid, and that there is a fair reason for the discrimination between the height of buildings in the residential as compared with the commercial districts. That court had also held that regulation: in regard to the height of buildings, and in regard to their mode of construction in cities, made by legislative enactments for the safety, comfort or convenience of the people and for the benefit of property owners generally are valid. Attorney General vs. Williams, 174 Mass., 476. We concur in that view, assuming, of course, that the height and conditions provided for can be plainly seen to be not un- reasonable or inappropriate. “Tn relation to the discrimination or classification made between the commercial and residential portion of the city, the State court holds in this case that there is reasonable ground therefor in the very great value of the land and the demand for space in those parts of Boston where a greater number of buildings are used for the pur- pose of business or commercially than where the buildings are situ- [) T @ T £ MAP OF THE CITY OF BOSTON DIRECTORY SAMPSON & MURDOCK CO., SQUANTUM f REPORT OF NOVEMBER 1913 TO THE HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK Hom. Geonar MAncny, CHAIRMAN ay He ADVISORY CONIMISSION KDWAND M BASSETT, Caummun GEORGE @, FORD, Beunevar RESTRICTIONS HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS BOSTON Cor BIN a Ss og CoMEEREVEE YE ise Map reproduced by courtesy of Sampson & Murdock Co. € B Fic. 47—DISTRICTING IN BOSTON. [ DISTRICTING ol ated in the residential portion of the city, and where no such reasons Sat for high buildings. “We are not prepared to hold that this limitation of eighty to one hundred feet, while in fact a discrimination or classification, is so unreasonable that it deprives the owner of property of its profitable use without justification, and that he is therefore entitled under the Constitution to compensation for such invasion of his rights. The discrimination thus made is, we think, reasonable, and is justified by the police power . . .. The reasons contained in the opinion of the State court are in our view sufficient to justify this enactment.’ Baltimore A special act of the Maryland Legislature, passed in 1904, limited the height of buildings within one block of the Washington Monument in the City of Baltimore to 70 feet. At that time the general maximum height limit for the entire city was 175 feet. The districting act was held to be constitutional by the Court of Appeals of Maryland in a decision of June 24, 1908 (Cochran vs. Preston, 70 Atl., 113). The appellant in this case claimed that the regulation was an infringement of the constitutional guar- antee of equal protection of the laws and due process of law. The statute applied a special rule to a certain small district, and as to that district, provided an exemption in the case of churches. Moreover, the limitation was not uniform for the district, inasmuch as the district was hilly and the statute provided for a uniform limit of height, not exceeding 70 feet “above the surface of the street at the base line of the Washington Monument.” Under this restriction a higher building could be erected on lower ground than upon higher ground within the district. The appellant claimed also that the restriction was for the purpose of preserving the beauty and architectural symmetry of the environment of Washington Monument, and that, in the exercise of the police power, property rights cannot be impaired for purely aesthetic purposes. In sustaining the consti- tutionality of the statute, the court held that its purpose was not purely aesthetic, but for the purpose of protecting from fire handsome buildings and works of art in the locality. The court overruled the objection raised on account of lack of uni- formity of application. Owing to the hilly condition of the prescribed territory, persons owning property on lower ground would be able to con- struct higher buildings than those whose property was located on higher ground. This discrimination was also justified on the ground of protection against fire. The exemption of churches from the restriction was also upheld, on the ground that churches “ do not present the same danger from fire to the surrounding buildings as many other structures do, chiefly because they are not liable to become very numerous in any one locality.’ On the general subject of regulation, the court states that the use of land must be subject to reasonable regulation, in the interest of the general welfare. 62 HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMISSION Indianapolis In 1912 the City Council of Indianapolis passed an ordinance limiting the maximum height of all buildings erected in the city at 200 feet. An ordinance of 1905 limits the height of buildings erected on Monument Place at 86 feet. Monument Place is the circular street encompassing the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Monument. It has a diameter of about 600 feet and an outside circumference of about 1,880 feet. The constitutionality of the ordinance has never been tested in the courts. Washington Washington is districted for height limitation purposes under an act of Congress applicable to the District of Columbia. The regulations are more stringent than those of any other city in this country, with the possible exception of Boston. ‘The limitations in the business section are a trifle more lenient than those in Boston, but in the residence section they are more rigid. All streets are designated as either business streets or residential streets. No building may be erected on a business street to a greater height than the width of the widest abutting street increased by 20 feet, subject, however, to an absolute limit of 130 feet. An exception to this regulation is made in two instances. Buildings on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue, between First and Fifteenth Streets, are allowed an extreme height of 160 feet. Buildings fronting or abutting on the plaza in front of the new Union Station may not exceed a height of 80 feet. On the resi- dential streets the maximum height limit is 85 feet, subject to certain pro- visions. The height may not exceed the width of the street diminished by 10 feet on streets more than 70 feet in width. The height may not exceed 60 feet on streets between 60 and 70 feet in width. The height may not exceed the width of the street on streets less than 60 feet in width. The constitutionality of these regulations does not appear to have been tested. REGULATION OF OPEN SPACES IN RICHMOND, VIRGINIA By an act of the General Assembly of Virginia, passed March 14, 1908, councils of cities and towns are authorized, among other things, “to make regulations concerning the building of houses in the city or town, and in their discretion . . . in particular districts or along particular streets, to prescribe and establish building lines, or to require property owners in certain localities or districts to leave a certain percentage of lots free from buildings, and to regulate the height of buildings” (Acts, 1908, pp. 623, 624). By virtue of this act, the City Council of Richmond passed an ordi- nance “that whenever the owners of two-thirds of the property abutting on any street shall, in writing, request the committee on streets to establish a building line on the side of the square on which their property fronts, the said committee shall establish such line, so that the same shall not be less than five feet nor more than thirty feet from the street line.” TIPIM Joors “YM F4a0F CQ-OO ‘TAPUSALT + Joo QB ‘OMI !Jo0F YG ‘Ud2IS ‘Jaz GG ‘MOTTE SJo0F YET “pat ‘3007 YOT ‘aayO :SUOHRUUNT JYSIOF] 0} Ady] ‘NOLONIHSVM NI DONILOIMLSIG— 8p DISTRICTING 63 The validity of a building line regulation under the above ordinance came before the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia in Eubank v. City of Richmond, 110 Va. 749, 67 S. E. 376, decided March 10, 1910. In deliv- ering the opinion of the court Judge Whittle refers to the case of Welch v. Swasey and concludes as follows: “In the present case the statute is neither unreasonable nor unusual, and we are justified in concluding that it was passed by the Legislature in good faith and in the interest of the health, safety, comfort or convenience of the public, and for the benefit of the property owners generally who are affected by its provisions, and that the enactment tends to accomplish all, or at least some, of these objects. The validity of such legislation is generally recognized and upheld.” The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (Eubank vy. City of Richmond, 33 Sup. Ct. 76, decided December 2, 1913). Justice McKenna in delivering the opinion of the court first comments generally on the police power as follows: “Whether it is a valid exercise of the police power is a question in the case, and that power we have defined, as far as it is capable of being defined by general words, a number of times. It is not sus- ceptible of circumstantial precision. It extends, we have said, not only to regulations which promote the public health, morals and safety, but to those which promote the public convenience or the general prosperity. But necessarily it has its limits and must stop when it encounters the prohibitions of the Constitution. A clash will not, however, be lightly inferred. Governmental power must be flexible and adaptive. Exigencies arise, or even conditions less peremptory, which may call for or suggest legislation, and it may be a struggle in judgment to decide whether it must yield to the higher considerations expressed and determined by the provisions of the Constitution.” The court found the regulation unconstitutional, its finding being based on the fact that under the ordinance a building line must be established whenever two-thirds of the property owners abutting on any street shall petition the committee on streets to establish such a line. The court holds that an important power of this kind cannot be vested in any number of property owners with power to use as they see fit and presumably in their own interest and not in the interest of public comfort or convenience. Though the particular ordinance in question was held to be unconstitutional, the opinion of the state court and the general treatment of the case by the Supreme Court of the United States give considerable ground for the hope that building line regulations properly based will be held constitutional. This is clearly the view of the matter taken by the city of Richmond, for, following the above decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, it passed another ordinance (April 22, 1913) prescribing the procedure by 64 HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMISSION which building lines may be established in the discretion of the council in particular districts or along particular streets. RESIDENTIAL AND INpDusTRIAL Districts IN AMERICAN CITIES The legislation of the past few years shows a distinct trend toward the creation of specially restricted residential districts. Legislation has been enacted by New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maryland and Virginia. Ordinances have been passed in Richmond, Milwaukee, Min- neapolis, Seattle and Los Angeles. New York cities of the second class The new housing law for cities of the second class, passed by the New York legislature in 1913 (ch. 774), authorized the common council on petition of two-thirds of the owners affected to establish residence dis- tricts within which no building other than a single family or a two family dwelling may be constructed. A residence district once created shall con- tinue as such until a like petition shall be presented to and approved by the common council. The unit of area for the residence district consists of the lots fronting on one side of a street between two intersecting streets. Massachusetts In 1912 the legislature of Massachusetts passed an amendment to the general municipal act (chapter 334, laws 1912) that permits every city and town in the state, except Boston, to regulate the height, area, location, and use of buildings and other structures within the whole or any defined part of its limits for the prevention of fire and the preservation of life, health and morals. The power extends to all buildings and other structures except bridges, quays and wharves and structures owned or occupied by the na- tional or state government. Minnesota The legislature of Minnesota at its last session (laws 1913, ch. 420) passed an act empowering the cities of Duluth, Minneapolis and St. Paul to establish residential and industrial districts. The city council, when petitioned by 50 per cent. of the property owners in a district, may by a lishment, no matter what its character, may be excluded from a residential district. The erection and maintenance of any industrial or business estab- lishment, no matter what its character, may be excluded from a residentia! district. Even tenements, apartment houses and hotels may be excluded from such a district. In the designation of industrial districts, the city council is authorized to classify the various industries and in its discretion to restrict each class to a definite and limited area. Upon a petition of 50 per cent. of the property owners in a district, the council may set aside its original restrictions, and establish an industrial district out of a residen- tial district, or vice versa. MPN FROM EY NOLL Souk MINNEAPOLIS Base Map reproduced by permission of the Hudson Publishing Co. Fic. 49—DISTRICTING IN MINNEAPOLIS. Darker shading indicates industrial districts. Lighter shading indicates residential districts. DISTRICTING 65 Minneapolis has already taken advantage of this act on several dif- ferent occasions. The city council has passed ordinances classifying and designating certain buildings, business occupations, industries and enter- prises as business industries and defining and designating certain districts in the city as industrial and residential districts, within which such build- ings, occupations or enterprises may or may not be maintained or carried on. The question of the constitutionality of these ordinances has not as yet come before the courts. Wisconsin The legislature of Wisconsin at its last session passed an act (laws 1913, chapter 743) authorizing cities of 25,000 inhabitants or more to set aside exclusive residential districts. There are at present eight cities in the state of this size—Milwaukee, Green Bay, La Crosse, Madison, Oshkosh, Racine, Sheboygan and Superior. The common council may set apart portions of the city to be used exclusively for residential purposes and may prohibit the erection and maintenance of factories, docks or other similar concerns within such dis- tricts. The council may also restrain the encroachment of business houses upon purely residence districts, and require the consent of the majority of landowners and residents of such districts, before such business is per- mitted. The power granted may be exercised upon the initiative of the common council, or upon the petition of ten or more residents in the dis- trict or block to be affected. The enactment of ordinances excluding fac- tories, docks or other similar concerns from residential districts shall be a final and conclusive finding that factories operated in such districts are detrimental to the health, comfort and welfare of the residents of the city. Milwaukee is at present mapping out residential districts in accordance with this act. On January 13, 1913, several months prior to the passage of the above act, the common council of Milwaukee passed an ordinance making it un- lawful to maintain slaughter houses, rendering plants or rag shops anywher: inside the city limits. This ordinance also established what is known as “the business sec- tion.” Businesses within the business section are subject to no restrictions, but outside the business section the ordinance forbids the maintenance of certain businesses unless such business shall first obtain the written consent of two-thirds of all the real estate owners within 300 feet of the space proposed to be occupied. The businesses coming within the prohibition are: Livery, boarding or sales stables, gas reservoirs or holders, paint, oil or varnish works, salesrooms or storage rooms for automobiles and garages for the keeping of automobiles for hire. When outside the business section these businesses must be maintained in buildings that conform to the require- ments prescribed within the fire district. An ordinance passed on January 11, 1913, imposes similar conditions on garages maintained in certain blocks 66 HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMISSION in the Business section that are of a residential character. No garage may be maintained in a block where two-thirds of the buildings in a block are devoted to exclusively residential purposes without the written consent of the property owners on both sides of the street or alley in such block. Baltimore In 1912 the state legislature of Maryland passed an act (ch. 693) regu- lating the erection of dwelling houses in that part of the city of Baltimore known as Forest Park. ‘The dwelling houses constructed in this district, the area of which is about a half mile square, must be separate and unat- tached buildings. Frame dwellings must be at least 20 feet apart; stone and brick dwellings at least 10 feet apart. The constitutionality of the act has not come before the courts. The most important classification of buildings according to character and use in the city of Baltimore, as a whole, is that found in section 47 of the building code. This section (subdivisions 12 and 13) limits the location of certain buildings. These buildings are: (1) hospitals and buildings for treatment of the feeble-minded; (2) sanatoriums; (3) livery stables; (4) sale and boarding stables; (5) garages; (6) blacksmith shops; (7) junk shops; (8) brick, tile and terra cotta factories; (9) stoneware and earthen- ware factories; (10) paint factories; (11) soap factories; (12) candle fac- tories ; (13) wood-working factories; (14) the storing and altering of pack- ing boxes on any lot or in any building; (15) lumber yards; (16) planing mills; (17) iron mills; (18) foundries; (19) breweries; (20) distilleries; (21) packing houses ; (22) gas works; (23) acid works; (24) the manufac- ture of fertilizers. No permit for the erection of any of the above buildings is given by the inspector of buildings except by the approval of the mayor. In granting his approval, the mayor incorporates such regulations in the permit regard- ing the location of the building as may, in his judgment, be necessary to sateguard the interests of the public. Permits for such buildings are issued only after 10 days’ public notice of the application therefor. If protests are filed against the granting of the permit, the building inspector holds a hearing. After hearing the protests and considering the rights of the surrounding property owners, the building inspector makes a presentation of the facts to the mayor. Where there is a protest, the per- mit requires the joint approval of the inspector and the mayor. In granting or withholding their approval to a permit, the building inspector and the mayor are prompted by three considerations: (1) the fire hazard of the proposed building: (2) the effect of the proposed building on surrounding land values, and (3) the effect of the proposed building on the general welfare of the residents in the immediate vicinity. Seattle Under the Seattle building code adopted in July, 1913, no building not now used for such purposes may be reconstructed, altered or repaired to STWAUKE Sai listed be By courtesy of Wright Directory Co. Fic. 50—DISTRICTING IN MILWAUKEE. Industries are unrestricted in shaded area. DISTRICTING 67 be used for any of the following purposes without the consent of the city council and the mayor: (1) confinement of insane children or adults; (2) manufacture of cotton wadding, laps or bats; (3) refining of petroleum or any of its products; (4) distillation of spirits of turpentine or varnish ; (5) manufacture of explosives; (6) rendering of fats, lards and like pro- ducts; (7) hair factory; (8) lime kiln; (9) tannery; (10) refinery; (11) abattoir ; (12) glue factory; (13) manufacture of roofing materials of chem- cal composition; (14) pulverizing charcoal; (15) stockyards; (16) poud- rette works; (17) asphalt plant; (18) manufacture of fertilizers; (19) smelter. . Before any ordinance shall be passed authorizing the construction, alteration and repair of any “ prohibited ” building at least 10 days’ notice shall be given by the party applying for the passage of such ordinance by a publication to that effect of at least four insertions in two or more daily newspapers. This notice must specify the lot upon which such building is to be erected, altered or repaired, and the purposes for which it is intended to be used in sufficient detail to apprise the property owners in the vicinity of the exact location and nature of the proposed improvement. Notice of such application must, however, be conspicuously posted on the property. In addition to the above, the following buildings are limited as to loca- tion: (1) hospitals and buildings for treatment of the feeble minded; (2) sanatoriums; (3) dairies; (4) dog pounds; (5) blacksmith shops (6) junk shops; (7) rag shops; (8) brick, tile and terra cotta factories; (9) stone- ware and earthenware factories; (10) paint factories; (11) silk factories; (12) candle factories; (13) woodworking factories; (14) lumber yards; (15) planing mills; (16) iron mills; (17) foundries; (18) breweries; (19) distilleries; (20) packing houses; (21) gas works; (22) acid works. No permit is issued for a “limited” building until. at least 10 days’ notice of the application has been published four times in two or more daily papers and until notice of such application has been conspicuously posted upon the property for a like period of time. If any owner of property within 500 feet of the proposed location files a protest with the superin- tendent of buildings, the matter is referred to the board of public works for determination, after hearing. Special regulations govern the location of stables and public garages. Los Angeles The first districting ordinance in Los Angeles was passed in 1909. The entire city, with the exception of two suburbs, is divided into industrial and residential districts. There are twenty-five industrial districts and one residential district. The residential district comprises the whole districted territory exclusive of the areas within the several industrial districts. It therefore encircles and surrounds many of the industrial districts. The so-called industrial districts do not fairly indicate the extent of the industrial area of the city. In addition to the industrial districts there are 68 HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMISSION fifty-eight districts, known as “ residence exceptions,” in the residential dis- trict that are exempt from the regulations applicable to the residential dis- trict and in which business is permitted subject to certain conditions. The industrial districts vary considerably in shape and size. The largest district has an area of several square miles. At its greatest dimensions, it measures five miles in length and two miles in width. The smallest district comprises one solitary lot. The combined area of the several industrial dis- tricts aggregates not more than one-tenth that of the residential district. The industrial districts are, on the whole, pretty well grouped in one part of the city. The “ residence exceptions * ’ are all small. The largest is about a half mile square. With this exception no “ residence exception ” covers a greater area than two city blocks. In most instances these districts do not occupy more than one or two lots. The combined area of the fifty-eight “ residence exceptions” is probably not more than one per cent. of the residential dis- trict. The “residence exceptions” are, however, scattered more widely throughout the residential district than are the industrial districts. In general the distinction between the industrial districts and the resi- dential district is this: All kinds of business and manufacturing establish- ments are unrestrained in most of the industrial districts, while certain specified businesses are excluded from the residential district. Those bus: nesses not especially excluded are permitted in the residential district. All but the very lightest manufacturing is prohibited in the residential district. The less offensive business and manufacturing establishments excluded from the residential district may be carried on in the “ residence exceptions.” The owners of sixty per cent of the neighboring property frontage must give their consent to the creation of any “ residence exception.” The constitutionality of the industrial and residential districts in Los Angeles was sustained by the Supreme Court of California in October, 1911, in the case of Ex Parte Quong Wo, 161 Cal. 220, 118 Pac. 714. When the city had been districted about 110 Chinese and Japanese laundries found themselves in the residential district. The city immediately undertook to remove them to the industrial districts.) The present mayor, Mr. H. H. Rose, then a police judge, upheld the ordinance and sentenced a Chinaman, Quong Wo, to pay a fine of $100 or to serve 100 days in jail. Wo appealed to the Supreme Court of the State, and the ordinance was sustained. The petitioner, a native and citizen of China, was charged with having maintained and carried on a public laundry and wash house within the residential district. He had conducted such laundry and wash house at said location, occupying the premises under a lease which had two years yet to run. The court stated that it could not take judicial notice that there had been unjust discrimination in excepting small parcels from the residential district of the city as established by ordinance, and adding them to the Fic. 5I—DISTRICTING IN LOS ANGELES. Dark shading indicates industrial districts and “ residence exceptions.” Unshaded portion above panhandle, residence district. DISTRICTING 69 industrial district; the presumption being in favor of the legality of the action of the legislative body. That small parcels, consisting of only one city lot, were excepted by the city council from the “residence district ” of a city as fixed by ordinance, within which district certain occupations could not be followed, and added to the industrial district, when such parcels were surrounded on all sides by parts of the “residence district,’ did not of itself show unjust discrimination in excepting territory from the resi- dence district. The court held that lawful occupations, such as laundry business, might be confined to certain limits in the city wherever such restrictions might reasonably be found necessary to protect the public health, morals and comfort. An ordinance prohibiting the maintenance of public laundries and wash houses in those parts of the city designated as the “ residential district ” could not be said to be unreasonable and invalid, though large parts of such districts might be sparsely built up, in the absence of the facts showing unjust discrimination. Whether restrictions upon the opera- tion of a business in certain portions of a city are reasonably necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, the court con- strued as being primarily for the determination of the city council. Such action by the city council, the court held, would not be disturbed by the court, unless the regulations had no relation to the public health, safety or welfare, or unless they clearly invaded personal or property rights under the guise of police regulations. In Ex Parte Montgomery, 163 Cal. 457, 125 Pac. 1070, the Supreme Court rendered a decision that was almost identical with that in Ex Parte Quong Wo, this time ejecting a lumber yard from the residential district. In Ex Parte Hadacheck, 132 Pac. 589, decided May 15, 1913, the Supreme Court again sustained the constitutionality of the Industrial and residential districts. In this case, the petitioner owned a brick yard in the residential district. He had acquired the land for this brick yard in 1902, before the territory to which the ordinance was directed had been annexed to Los Angeles. The land contained valuable deposits of clay suitable for the manufacture of brick, and was more valuable for brickmaking than for any other purpose. The petitioner had during the entire period of his ownership used the land for brickmaking and had erected on it the kilns, machinery and buildings necessary for such manufacture. In upholding the constitutionality and ejecting the brick yard from the residential district, the court held that the police power is not restricted to the suppression of nuisances, but extends to the regulation of the conduct of business and to the use of property to the end that public health or morals may not be impaired or endangered. The court also held that the right of the legislature, in exercising the police power to regulate or in proper cases to prohibit the conduct of a given business, is not limited by the fact that the value of investments made in the business prior to any legislative action will be greatly dimin- 70 HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMISSION ished. A business which, when established, is entirely unobjectionable, may by the growth of population in the vicinity become a source of danger to the health and comfort of those who have come to be occupants of the surrounding territory. If the legislature should then prohibit its further conduct, the proprietor can have no complaint upon the mere fact that he has been carrying on the trade in that locality for a long time. The power to regulate the use of property or the conduct of a business is, of course, not arbitrary. The restriction must bear a reasonable relation to some legiti- mate purpose within the purview of the police power. Where a region surrounding a brick yard has become primarily a resi- dential section, and the occupants of neighboring dwellings are seriously discommoded by the operations of the yard, the court held that a pro- hibition of the business in the district is not objectionable, as being an arbitrary invasion of private right, but is a valid exercise of police power to prevent injury to others. Where there are reasons justifying the prohibition of a business within an area described in an ordinance adopted by a city, the court states that in determining the validity of the prohibition, it will not consider whether conditions in other parts of the city require a like prohibition, as that pre- sents a legislative question. Ontario, Canada The councils of cities having a population of not less than 100,000 may under section 410 of the Ontario Municipal Act pass by-laws prohibiting, regulating and controlling the location or erection of apartment or tenement houses and of garages to be used for hire within any defined area or on land abutting on defined highways or parts of highways. An apartment or tenement house is a building that provides three or more separate suites or sets of rooms for separate occupation by one or more persons. Toronto has, in accordance with these provisions, restricted the character of the develop- ment of a large portion of its territory. Apartment houses and garages are excluded from most of the residential streets of the city. The Municipal Act of Ontario (Sec. 409) empowers the council of every city in the Province to pass by-laws preventing, regulating and controlling the location, erection and use of the following buildings: livery, boarding or sales stables; stables in which horses are kept for hire or kept for use with vehicles in conveying passengers, or for express purposes; stables for horses for delivery purposes; laundries, butcher shops, stores, fac- tories, blacksmith shops, forges, dog kennels and hospitals or infirmaries for horses, dogs or other animals. The erection or use of buildings for all or any of these purposes may be prohibited within any defined area or areas or on land abutting on any defined highway or part of a highway. By-laws of this character may not be passed except by a vote of two-thirds of all the members of the council. Such by-laws, moreover, may not apply to a building which was on April 26, 1904, erected or used for any of these purposes so long as it is used as it was used on that date. DISTRICTING 71 Districting in German cities’ i Districting is most fully developed in German cities. There it is known as the zone system. The term zone was particularly appropriate in Germany where special regulations were applied to the successive belts of building development surrounding the central walled city. At present, however, in many German cities the districts are not concentric zones, and the system might more appropriately be called the “ district system.” The district system is a method of regulating buildings as a part of a general city plan. It has two characteristics: it groups buildings of different classes and it limits the density of buildings progressively, allowing build- ings to be higher, and to cover more of the lot in the centers where land values are greater and business needs require more concentration, and making the requirements more and more severe as the distance from these centers increases. Under the German rules the height of buildings is invariably regu- lated with relation to the width of the street upon which the building is situated ; and also, usually, by a maximum which, irrespective of the width of the street, it must not exceed. In many cities, in the zone or zones of greatest concentration, a height a little in excess of the street width is allowed; in the other zones it must not exceed that width, and in the outer zone or zones the maximum limits it to less. Usually, too, there are minimum courts, and all rooms constructed for the residence or long con- tinued business use of mankind must have a window upon a court of at least a specified size. The proportion of the lot that may be covered by buildings, also, is almost invariably limited progressively, buildings on cor- ner lots in each zone being allowed to cover more than those on inside lots. The ordinances in the different cities differ in detail, but in general the system is the same. The provisions of the Frankfort ordinance illustrate 4t as well as any other: The older inner city is the first zone or district. Here the highest build- ings are allowed. They must not exceed the width of the street, plus about 10 feet (three meters). Or in any case, however wide the street, about 66 feet (20 meters). This is to the cornice; the roof above this is restricted by an angle, and in no case may exceed about 30 feet (nine meters). The roof is more than mere roof; it is a roof story, in which there are rooms, which, however, may not always be used for residence. The number of stories is also restricted; in this zone it must not exceed five, and the roof story. Here in the inner city, also, the greatest proportion of the lot may be covered with buildings, three-quarters—for corner lots, five-sixths. Factor- ies are allowed but are not numerous. Solid blocks are permitted. The city here presents the appearance of being fully built up to a fairly uniform height. *A_complete report on “The German Zone Building Regulations,” prepared by Frank Backus Williams, is contained in the Report of the Heights of Buildings Com- mission, 1913, at page 94, NI bo HEIGHTS OF BUJLDINGS COMMISSION The outer city is divided into an outer, an inner, and a country zone, in which the height of buildings allowed progressively decreases, and the amount of the lot that must be left free of buildings progressively increases. In each of these zones are residence, factory and mixed sections. In the residence sections, factories are so discouraged as to be practically forbidden. In the factory sections, situated along the railroads, the harbor, and out of the city in the direction so that the prevailing winds will blow the smoke away from the city, residences are forbidden. In the factory sections, the restrictions on height and amount of lot covered do not become progressively greater. The mixed sections are near the factory sections, and there, too, under certain mild restrictions, many sorts of manufacturing are permitted. In the residence section a space between neighboring houses of about 10 feet (three meters) in the inner zone and a third more in the outer zone is required. Groups of buildings are, however, allowed with a somewhat less proportionate amount of free space for the group as a whole. Certain parts of the newly added territory of the city, beyond all the other zones, and forming a zone by itself, have been reserved for a villa section, in which only country houses are allowed. In all these zones the amount of the lot that must be left free pro- gresses, until, in the villa section, it is seven-tenths of the entire lot. Thus, also, the permissible height decreases to about 53 feet (16 meters) and the number of stories to two. This does not include the roof story and the ac- tual roof, which together, in this zone, must not exceed about six feet (1.8 meter) in height. In no case, however, may the house exceed in height, except for the roof story and roof, the width of the street on which it stands. Bauzonenplan von Frankfurt a. M DISTRICTING IN FRANKFORT. 2 Fic. 5 a = ex a | = waorer | gure ae rere eenoemria, | OCT ow monic MORO aig UNS (rah wa OMAE OAICMD BOBO vO ae = « a edd | p= Ri a oe = | = | | 7 Wii warmers i ee ee See cad a car APPENDIX IV—RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN The intimate relation existing between. a comprehensive districting plan and public health, safety and general welfare was testified to by numerous experts at the various public hearings held by the Commission. Public hearings were held on March 27th, 28th; 29th and 30th, and April 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 17th and 18th. Adjourned hearings were held on April 20th, May 4th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 15th, 18th, 22d, 24th, 25th and 31st. In addition to the testimony taken at these hearings nu- merous statements were presented to the Commission. Only so much of this testimony as shows the relation of districting to the police power of the State is here reproduced. Originally much of the testimony was in the form of questions and answers. ‘To economize space such testimony has been put in narrative form. In this new form it has in each case been submitted to and approved by the witness or author. Organizations approve districting plan Not a single organization opposed the adoption of a districting plan. Most of them adopted resolutions specifically endorsing the proposed plan. Others confined their activity to the recommendation of specific amendments to more adequately protect their particular localities. Most of these recom- mendations were for more stringent restrictions than those proposed. The following organizations either submitted resolutions endorsing the plan or were represented at the hearings: Advisory Council of Real Estate Interests Atlantic Avenue Business Men’s and Taxpayers’ Association of East New York Automobile Dealers’ Association Bath Beach Taxpayers’ Association Bay Ridge and Fort Hamilton Citizens’ Association Bayside Park Civic Association Bensonhurst Park Preservation Association Broadway Board of Trade, Brooklyn Bronx Board of Trade Bronx Builders’ Association Bronx Taxpayers’ Alliance Brooklyn Board of Real Estate Brokers Brooklyn Civic Club Brooklyn Committee on City Plan Brooklyn Heights Association Central Fifth Avenue Association Central Mercantile Association Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York Chelsea Neighborhood Association Citizens’ Union City Club City Hotels Association Cloak and Suit Manufacturers’ Association Commerce Club of Brooklyn Congestion Committee 74 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS Ditmas Park Association Douglaston Civic Association Dyckman Taxpayers’ Association East Side Neighborhood Club Kast Tremont Taxpayers’ Association Erie Basin Board of Trade, Brooklyn Evergreen Board of Trade Fifth Avenue Association Fiske Terrace Association Flatbush Taxpayers’ Association Flatlands Board of Trade Flushing Association Flushing Business Men’s Association Greater New York Taxpayers’ Association Greenpoint Neighborhood Association Greenpoint Taxpayers’ and Citizens’ Association Greenwich Village Improvement Society Harlem Bridge Betterment League Harlem Neighborhood Association Highland Park South Civic Association Kensington and Parkville Improvement League Kings Highway Board of Trade Improvement Association of City Island Investment Builders’ Association Merchants’ Association Midwood Manor Association Midwood Park Property Owners’ Association Murray Hill Association New York Board of Trade and Transportation New York Building Managers’ Association New York Society of Architects North Manhattan Taxpayers’ Association Parade Park Association Park District Protective League Progress Society, Far Rockaway Prospect Heights Citizens’ Association Prospect Park Property Owners’ Association Prospect Park South Association Queens Chamber of Commerce Real Estate Board Real Estate Owners’ Association of the 12th and 17th Wards Save New York Committee South Brooklyn Board of Trade South Midwood Residents’ Association Taxpayers Association of Dyker Beach Park Tenement House Committee, Brooklyn Bureau of Charities Throgs Neck Taxpayers’ Association Tremont Taxpayers’ Alliance Tuberculosis Committee United Real Estate Owners’ Association United Civic Associations, Queens Washington Heights Taxpayers’ Association Washington Square Association West End Association RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 75 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN West End Board of Trade West Side Children’s Conference West Side Taxpayers’ Association Women’s City Club Wyckoff Heights Taxpayers’ Association Financial institutions approve plan Building operations are largely financed in New York by the life insurance companies, the fire insurance companies, the title companies, the trust companies and the savings banks. That these institutions strongly favored the districting plan is shown by the following petition to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment : Whereas, The present almost unrestricted power to construct buildings to any height, over any portion of a lot, for any desired use and in any part of the city has resulted in injury to the health, safety and general welfare of the city and also to real estate and business interests, and Whereas, Light, air and access have been impaired by high buildings, by failure to provide adequate courts and yards, by the proximity of inap- propriate or nuisance buildings and uses, and Whereas, It is recognized that there are strong social and economic forces that tend to a certain degree of order and segregation in building development, yet it is apparent that these natural forces are not strong enough to prevent haphazard development or to ensure the building of the city in a stable and orderly manner and with some regard for the amenities of city life, and Whereas, Through haphazard construction and invasion by inappro- priate uses the capital values of large areas have been greatly impaired, not only in the central, commercial and industrial sections of Manhattan, but also throughout the residence sections of the five boroughs, thus affect- ing the market value of real estate for investment purposes and creating an economic depreciation that is a hazard which must be considered by every investor in real estate, and Whereas, This extra hazard decreases the net earning basis required to induce investment, consequently lessening the capital values thr oughout the city and affecting not only the individual owners of real estate, but the large lending institutions, the municipal finances, and the general welfare and prosperity of the city, and = Be It Resolved, That with the some eight billion dollars already invested in New York City real estate and the certainty of added billions in the coming years, the lending institutions of the city, in conjunction with the property owners, endorse a plan of city building that will tend to conserve and protect property values because of the permanence and stability that can only be secured by a far-sighted building plan which will harmonize the private interests of owners and the health, safety and convenience of the public, and further Be It Resolved, That it is the sense of those present at this meeting representing financial institutions, as well as such other representatives of the financial institutions as may wish to endorse this resolution, that the work and plans of the Commission on Building Districts and Restrictions be accorded hearty support. The institutions which approved of this resolution are as follows: Astor Trust Company Bank for Savings in the City of New York COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS Bankers’ Trust Company Bowery Savings Bank Citizens’ Savings Bank Columbia Trust Company Commonwealth Insurance Company of New York Commonwealth Savings Bank Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburgh Dry Dock Savings Institution East Brooklyn Savings Bank Emigrants’ Industrial Savings Bank Equitable Life Assurance Society of the U. S. Excelsior Savings Bank Fidelity Trust Company Franklin Savings Bank Franklin Trust Company German Savings Bank of Brooklyn Germania Fire Insurance Company Germania Savings Bank Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance Company Greater New York Savings Bank Guaranty Trust Company of New York Harlem Savings Bank Home Life Insurance Company Home Insurance Company Hudson Trust Company Imperial Assurance Company Irving Savings Institution Italian Savings Bank Jamaica Savings Bank Lawyers Mortgage Company Lawyers Title & Trust Company Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company Long Island City Savings Bank Manhattan Life Insurance Company Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York New York Life Insurance Company New York Savings Bank New York Title Insurance Company North British & Mercantile Insurance Company North River Insurance Company People’s Trust Company Postal Life Insurance Company Royal Insurance Company South Brooklyn Savings Institution Sumner Savings Bank Title Guarantee and Trust Company Transatlantic Trust Company Union Square Savings Bank United States Mortgage & Trust Company West Side Savings Bank Williamsburgh Savings Bank N RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 7 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN STATEMENT BY THOMAS ADAMS, Town PLANNING ADvisoR, COMMISSION oF CONSERVATION, OTTAWA, CANADA—ApRIL 5, 1916 Effect of New York’s example on other cities In Canada we feel that New York has been responsible, owing to the example which it has set, for the high buildings in our cities. We are look- ing to-day to the new tendency in New York in the hope that our cities will follow your example of providing greater restrictions on height. We have not the excuses for high buildings that you have in New York. Town planning in Great Britain and Canada is one of those questions that grows stronger in its appeal to the business man as it is taken up by local authorities, and as research progresses. Undoubtedly the latter starts out to study it with the assumption that it is purely an aesthetic question— the proposal to use the police power to restrict the rights of private property in the interests of the public. But it does not take him long to discover that both public and private interests are closely identified and that reasonable restriction of the use of property is in the interest of all parties. Importance of restricting vacant areas The question of controlling development in those parts of your city which are only partially developed is of importance and requires serious consideration. I do not know whether it would be possible for your pro- posals to be carried out over wider areas so as to include land which is not yet subdivided. So far as our town planning work in Britain and Canada is concerned we are dealing primarily with areas that are still undeveloped and with those that are “in course of development.” We proceed on the principle of the Jesuit who in his wisdom said, “If you give me a child until he is eight years old you can have him for the rest of his life.’ We feel that the really important thing is to get hold of the suburb before it is developed. Much of the older portion of the city can only be improved over long periods of time by gradual reconstruction. Your proposals are needed to help in directing that reconstruction. But I think your work should be extended to wider areas in order to get the restrictions applied to vacant land before building is begun. In getting hold of the suburbs that are starting to develop and applying the same principles to the open land that you apply to the built-on land in the city, the result will be that you will be able to apply restrictions which will accomplish something nearer to your ideals. It is easier to prevent than to cure. You will not be required to compromise with existing vested interests. Owners of real estate them- selves will not only be anxious to agree to something that gives safety and health but even to what we in Britain, call “ amenity ” in plan and surround- ings. I am glad to give expression to our interest in the work you are doing and am sure that the influence of your work is not confined to New York. Town planning law in Canada When our parliament passes a law it does so with recognition of the English Bill of Rights. The whole constitution of Canada is framed on what you perhaps would call the unconstitutional constitution of Great Britain. It is not a fixed constitution, but a constitution capable of readjust- ment and alteration by parliament itself. Parliament in Britain and Canada recognizes the principle that private property shall not be taken for public use except with just compensation. But it does not necessarily allow an abuse of private property and permit a 78 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS claim to be made for compensation because of an owner being prevented from deriving advantage from that abuse. There are cases in which land is used for building development to such an extent that it becomes—not use of land—but abuse of land—or abuse of the right use of land. I think those who advocate the single tax say there are two uses of land, one is “non-use ” and the other is “ use.” We have, however, three forms of use— one is use, the other is non-use and the third is abuse. What we call “improving ” land or “ developing” land may actually result in an injury to the public. We have to recognize the rights of the man who claims com- pensation for restrictions on his use of property; but he should not, for instance, be permitted to demand air space from other property abutting thereon as a right. He ought not to be allowed to claim compensation on the ground that he is prevented from using the public space on the street or open space on an adjoining site to provide him with light. Surely he may properly be required to use his own property for the purpose of providing his own air space and light. I speak of what appears to me to be equitable although it may be without regard to what is legal. Our Parliament recognizes constitutional guarantees of the equal pro- tection of the laws. I don’t think there is very much distinction between your treatment of private interests in property and our own, except that probably we are able to secure by general law what you have to secure by police power and you have probably to educate your courts with regard to the interpretation of the matters that come within the scope of the police power. You do not appear to have the same power to revise and remodel your law to suit changing conditions. In Great Britain and Canada a person cannot obtain compensation for being prevented from doing anything to contravene a town planning scheme after a given date. There is no appeal in that matter above the department of the government. The following subsection which appears in our town planning acts shows how much jurisdiction is vested in the department, and therefore the reason why the matter does not come before the courts. “Property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected by reason of the making of any provisions inserted. in a scheme, which, with a view to securing the amenity of the area affected by the scheme, or any part thereof, or proper hygienic conditions in connection with the buildings to be erected thereon, prescribe the space about buildings, or the percentage of any lot which may be covered with buildings, or limit the number of buildings to be erected, or prescribe the height, character or use of buildings, and which the department,! having regard to the nature and situation of the land affected by the provisions, considers reasonable for the purpose of amenity and proper hygienic conditions.” The right of our town planning authorities to name restrictions has never been contested in the Courts, but town planning is still in its infancy. Where I think we seem to have an advantage in our town planning acts in Canada is that the provinces have full power to deal with municipal matters and questions affecting land. They pass an act and there is no appeal from that act to any federal court. There is, however, an appeal to the provincial Parliament to decide differences between the municipality and the owner. For instance, in a town planning act a ministerial depart- ment of the province—say the department of municipal affairs—becomes the controlling authority in regard to planning in that province. The municipalities have to apply to that department for the right to prepare their 1 Provincial Department of Municipal Affairs or Local Government Board. RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 79 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN town planning schemes and for approval of the schemes. As already stated (see quotation above) compensation cannot be claimed and there can be no appeal on the question of restricting the number of buildings to an acre or in fixing the character or height of buildings if the provincial department is ERS that the restriction is reasonable for the puispose of “amenity ” “hygienic conditions.” Districting regulations in Canada There are districting regulations in one or two cities like Toronto and Hamilton. This is a matter that is subject to the owners presenting a peti- tion and the majority being in favor of the proposal. It is done on the initiative of the owners who may apply to have restrictions placed on prop- erty. But we have no proper or adequate system of districting. Objects of town planning Both in Britain and in Canada, town planning legislation has for its principal objects, health, safety from fire, convenience, amenity and general welfare. Safety from fire is particularly important in Canada. We pay, I think, six or seven times as much for fire prevention and insurance in Canada as in England. The cost of maintaining fire appliances and fire insurance, | think, is two dollars per capita more than in England. This is largely due to the absence of the control of the character of buildings and the regulation of space surrounding buildings. For instance, in an English city you must put a certain amount of space around your building and that must be paved.or graded with fireproof material. Progress of legislation in Canada Four out of nine provinces have town planning acts. One of these has a compulsory act for the whole province, and no future development can take place there unless it is part of a scheme. In Manitoba they have just passed an act. In Saskatchewan the Town Planning Bill has passed its first reading. I expect that by this time next year the whole of Canada will have town planning acts. These acts will enable local authorities in all parts of the Dominion to control the use and development of vacant land and also land “in course of development,” in a way which will effectively secure health, convenience and amenity. The acts do not apply to land already built upon unless such land has relation to vacant land or partially developed land. We use the words “land in course of development” to distinguish it from vacant land on the one hand or fully built upon land on the other. Land already “built upon,” 7. e., fully developed, has usually to be dealt with outside of town planning schemes, under what are known as improve- ment schemes. There is a scheme being prepared for St. John, New Brunswick, cover- ing twenty thousand acres, which includes ten thousand acres inside the city and ten thousand outside the city. The City of St. John has prepared the whole scheme and it is going outside its own territory. If you restrict a city such as New York in order to prevent bad development within its limits, you may indirectly encourage bad development just over the boundary of the city unless you also restrict the area outside. That is why we insist on co-operation between adjacent municipalities under our acts. If in St. John, after a certain date, a few months notice being given, any owner builds a house which contravenes the proposed scheme he has 80 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS no claim for compensation if the authorities require him to pull down the building or alter it to fit in with the scheme. In England a man erected four shops under a scheme. It was stated that he should put his shops seven feet from the edge of the street, instead of which he put them only three feet from the edge. He had a compara- tively shallow lot. The shops projected four feet in front of the building line. I had to report on that scheme and reported that he should pull them down to the extent of four feet. He appealed first to the Local Government Board, then to Parliament, and it was finally settled that he had to pull down to the four feet, but they gave him twelve years to do so, so that he could draw the rental for that period to compensate him for his loss. There is no intention to allow any owner to defeat the principles of these acts. In this case the authorities were specially generous because it was the first offense under a new statute. I would like to see more done to improve both cities of Niagara Falls. In the matter of Victoria Park, we in Canada have done a great deal, but I would like to see more effort made on both sides of the river to improve and beautify the surroundings. It requires co-operation between our govern- ments. The British town planning acts have not been long enough in operation to allow a scientific study of the effect of town planning on health. But in Bourneville, Letchworth and elsewhere it has been shown that the death rate need not be higher than nine per thousand. The children on the average as compared with those of the same age in the slums are proved to be heavier and of greater height. The proportion of eligible men fit for military service in Britain is greater in the healthy districts than in the unhealthy areas. There is a well known case, which will probably be remembered, in which 8,000 out of 11.000 were rejected in one instance for the army on account of physical defects due very largely to the social conditions under which they lived. This happened in Manchester, and there are conditions on this continent as bad as those in Manchester. Proof of the deteriorating influence of the slums is not needed at this time of day. In Britain serious efforts are being made at great public expense, to insure that the mistakes handed down to the present generation as the result of haphazard development in the past, may be avoided in the future. It is essential to prepare plans and schemes on an economic basis so that the remedy they provide may be effective and can be made of general applica- tion. To have a fanciful plan that is too expensive to carry out is worse than having no plan; the stimulus it provides to the imagination does not have a sufficiently lasting effect to enable it to be of real benefit and may end in a reaction against any form of planning. You are starting in the right way in New York so far as the built upon areas are concerned, but I hope you will next take up the question of preparing a scheme for the thousands of acres of vacant land within ten miles of Manhattan Island. STATEMENT By ANCELL H. BALt, CHAIRMAN, Boarp oF Directors, FirrH AVENUE AssocIATIOoNn, Marcn 28, 1916 Protection of Fifth avenue The Fifth Avenue Association, of which I am one of the representa- tives, has a membership of over six hundred, representing millions and mil- lions of dollars of real estate in the retail section between 23d and 59th streets. The membership is formed of the largest property owners, retailers, RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 81 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN hotel owners and jewelers in the City, as well as other prominent business men. New York as a city is looked upon by the whole country as one whose example should be followed in matters of commercial interest as well as in civic affairs, and the example we set will have its effect upon the whole country. What is now done by us will leave its imprint on the future de- velopment of most of the large cities in the West. The section alluded to is probably the greatest retail section in the world. Already haphazard building has tended to reduce taxable values for the City and to largely destroy the same values for the owners of property. It is high time that some real constructive idea of development for a city such as this should be adopted. To permit the selfish interests of an individual to interfere with the growth of the City as a whole is entirely unreasonable. Such selfish interests should be subordinated to the interests of the majority. No business man would consider seriously today attempting to run his busi- ness successfully without some-well defined and preconceived idea as to what he wished to accomplish. No more can a city like New York grow as it should without some such definite purpose in mind. I noticed in the papers this morning that a few individuals opposed the plan proposed by your Com- mission, but such opposition seems so individual and entirely personal that in my mind little consideration need be given it. If New York is to maintain its supremacy it must be developed along constructive lines, and this cannot be done, if not done under the proper control. It is of vast importance to the City that the value of real estate be conserved, and already we have many examples showing how entire dis- tricts and areas may be depreciated. If the ideas as laid down by your Commission are followed values will return and the consequent increase in revenue from taxes is an assured result. This is of immense benefit to every dweller in the City of New York whether he leases, or owns property, or pays rent. Manufacturing and factories should absolutely be confined to one area, and in this area modern loft buildings suitable for the workers as well as the owners should be erected. Buildings in which the workers could live could be built in the immediate vicinity, affording greater conveniences to everyone and lessening the constantly increasing congestion in our subways and surface lines. It is inconceivable to me that anyone who has the interests of New York at heart could, under any circumstances, be in favor of haphazard building as com- pared with that along constructive lines. I sincerely hope that the people of New York will make it their per- sonal affair to do everything that they can to aid this great constructive work that your Commission is endeavoring to have made a law. STATEMENT BY ALBERT S. Barn, Secretary, THE Municipar Art Society, Marcu 29, 1916 Districting necessary for orderly development Of the general plan to district the city into residential, business and industrial districts, the Society has no criticisms to make. It believes that the principle of specialization by regulation lies at the foundation not only of any orderly development of the city, but of a conservation of property values and the creation of satisfactory living conditions. We especially approve of the creation and protection of exclusively residential districts. 82 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS Safeguarding of parks As to whether the particular regulations proposed go far enough, we would like to reserve our opinion for the present. We are inclined to be- lieve that certain of the restrictions should be substantially increased, where present developments do not seem to block the way. In this connection, we would urge particularly a more careful safeguarding and regulation of property surrounding parks, and especially small parks, wien find their highest values as residential neighborhood centers. Aesthetic considerations This society greatly regrets that the present constitutional situation prevents the Commission from giving weight to aesthetic considerations, and that the proposals are necessarily based wholly upon considerations of public health, order, convenience, and the stabilizing of property values. This society recognizes, however, that the introduction of orderly develop- ment in place of the present chaos will have a tendency to improve the appearance of the city, both directly and indirectly, and that to that extent the proposed system is better than the existing lack of system also from the aesthetic point of view. We think it, however, a great misfortune that the city is not in a legal position to make a direct attempt to conserve aesthetic values in places of exceptional beauty like Riverside Drive, the neighbor- hood of parks and the like, where aesthetic values are in fact large factors in the desirability of the locality. But we recognize that that effort must wait. Americans generally are far behind many other nations in realizing the value of beauty as a municipal asset expressible in dollars, to say nothing of its daily contribution to the happiness of the citizen., STATEMENT BY Epwarp M. Bassert, May 31, 1916 Ineffectiveness of restrictive covenants The history of private contractual restrictions in the State of New York has not been such as to warrant the hope of permanent help there- from. Private restrictions are effectual only between the landowners who enter into such covenants with one another, or, as is more usually the case, the owner of a considerable tract of land will sell portions subject to restric- tions enumerated in the deeds. In the latter case the covenants run with the land, as between owners who derive their title from the same source that imposes the restriction. These restrictions have usually been imposed to preserve localities from nuisances, or from the invasion of business of any sort in residential locali- ties ; to prevent the invasion of industry and business in residential localities ; to prevent the sale of liquor, and more latterly to insure the permanence of private residence neighborhoods, in some cases requiring detached resi- dences. In developments that are intended to be for high-class residence only, there have sometimes been restrictions requiring set-backs, and one- family detached residences of a cost not less than a certain amount. Restrictions against flat roofs have been common. Restrictions imposed in Kings and Queens Counties thirty-five or forty years ago were often put into the form of conditions; for instance, a deed would provide that the land was conveyed on the condition that liquor should never be sold on the premises, or that the premises should never be used for business. As the violation of a condition is forfeiture, these con- ditions rendered land almost unsaleable. After the title companies began their work, they, as a rule, required the release of these conditions, or their RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 83 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN change into covenants before they would sanction the title. During the past twenty-five years, in both of the above counties, restrictions have been by covenants running with the land. A violation of these covenants can ordi- narily be prevented by injunction, or, after a building in violation of them has been constructed, damages can be obtained against the violator. These covenants have sometimes been in perpetuity. The trouble with perpetual restrictions has proved to be that the original owners could not foresee the growth of the city or the tendency of controlling uses. Sometimes a locality that has been perpetually restricted for residences has become surrounded with business, so that the character of the locality has changed; in such cases the courts have frequently held that restrictions have become in- operative because of the change of character of the neighborhood. The process of change has produced a turmoil in every case where the supposed protected landowner has for a series of years been uncertain whether his property would be protected by the courts or not. This has led to lack of improvements, lack of proper upkeep, and to the removal of people from the locality who would have stayed if the prospect was more certain. More frequently, however, the restrictions have been for a certain number of years, the date being expressed when they would lapse and become void. The courts have not been so ready to set aside these time- limit restrictions because of change of character of neighborhoods. They have, however, been an uncertain and incomplete protection for a permanent class of structures. If the locality is a small one, the surroundings some- times grow up in a way that renders a small locality unable to carry out the restrictions to advantage. Then, too, one owner will violate the restrictions in a slight degree, the next owner violates them a little more, and when a gross violation occurs the property owner applying for an injunction will be met with the allegation that he has acquiesced in the violation of restric- tions in former cases to such an extent that he has now lost the equitable assistance of the court. In this way, restrictions are sometimes virtually abolished before the time limit has run. While this gradual change is going on the locality is in a chaotic condition and owners are afraid to build in a permanent way. Another drawback of time-limit restrictions is that within the last five or eight years of the restrictive period people who have vacant land will hold it out of the use required by the restrictions, hoping that when the restrictions expire they can build in a way that will exploit the land which is already improved. When, therefore, prospective purchasers come into a restricted locality and see corner lots or desirable locations unimproved, they are thereby warned not to buy or build in that locality because they foresee that the land that is being held out of use will prob- ably be built up with structures that will be injurious to the surrounding buildings. Exploitation of restricted areas by unscrupulous developers A tendency has grown up within recent years for land developers to place short-time restrictions on their land, hoping that they can bring about a high class of dwellings on that which is sold. Then the developer him- self holds part of the property until the restrictions expire, expecting to get a higher price for the parcels which he has retained, thus exploiting his own prior customers. This method is akin to the method adopted by some developers who have sold parcels to purchasers who will covenant to erect high-class detached one-family dwellings. When the owner has sold prac- tically all of his property except the corners, holding those entirely unre- 84 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS stricted, he will sell the corners for apartment houses, obtaining higher prices, because the surrounding property is built up with a large amount of open space. In one case this practice went so far that the owners of the corner apartment houses claimed that their predecessor in title placed de- tached house restrictions upon the surrounding land for the benefit of the future apartment houses, and that the owners of the private houses could not, on the ground that the character of the locality had changed, build up their land with apartment houses in place of the detached houses. Short term private house restrictions have throughout Flatbush and certain portions of Queens been an invitation for the premature building of sporadic apartment houses. In some cases the apartment house has actually been built before the neighborhood had reached an apartment house stage, because the unbuilt-up corners now freed from restrictions offered an opportunity to exploit the detached house locality. Many people will go a long way out into the suburbs to live in an apartment house if they can have the surroundings of detached houses, when they would not go to apartment houses in a locality so far away that was entirely built up with apartment houses. Therefore, I say that, on the whole, private restrictions have failed in preserving localities for designed uses during the life of the structures that are erected under those restrictions. Their helpfulness is only temporary. Probably it will be the effect that if no method of municipal restriction is put into force by the city to preserve to some extent what has been accom- plished by private restrictions, the effect of private restrictions, as thus far practiced in parts of the city, will be negligible. In general, the main drawback cf private restrictions as practiced in this city ts that the surroundings of the restricted locality is built up quite regardless of the required growth of the restricted district; then the edges of the restricted district are gradually hurt and in some cases the restrictions result in a financial loss to those whom they were intended to help. Under the zoning as seught to be done now under charter amendments, entire localities that are suitable for a given use will be appropriately restricted, so that the constant encroachment of unsu'table uses on the edges will be largely prevented. It has come to be the common saying in the four outlying Boroughs of The City of New York that private restrictions do not restrict. To my personal knowledge many Brooklyn and Queens residents have moved out- side of the city, because they say the only protection of their home is to buy a fair-sized plot of ground outside of the five-cent-fare zone. There is a gradual and constant migration of well-to-do people to counties and states near Greater New York on this account. Some say that a man is a highly speculative person who will build a private house in Greater New York that costs over $30,000. Damages against a violator of a covenant are collected by an action at law by the landowner within the restricted district who was injured by the landowner within the district who violated the covenants. These damages are very hard to prove and extremely uncertain. Almost no cases are brought on this ground in the City of New York. The cost of taking such a case into court would, in most instances, exceed the damages that might be collected. There is no machinery for enforcing private restrictions except through the watchfulness of surrounding property owners. The city government gives no help. The only procedure for enforcing such pro- visions is by an appeal to the court on behalf of property owners who consider themselves injured. RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 85 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN Advantages of municipal over private restrictions One of the decided advantages of a districting plan, such as is now proposed by the Commission, is in the fact that it is watched and enforced by organized machinery which has facilities for inspection and follow-up work. The courts will be less likely to set aside individual parts of a general plan of restriction throughout the city than they would be to set aside individual private restrictions which bear no relation to one another. In general, the plans as proposed by the Commission will provide many of those things which private restrictions have attempted to provide in the way of safety, general welfare, comfort, amenity, convenience, agreeable- ness of surroundings, etc., and in a way which is likely to be permanently satisfactory. In particular, the general restrictions to be imposed under the police power, as proposed by the Commission, will solve the problems which arise from the failure of private restrictions as described above, in a satisfactory way. STATEMENT By L. E. BAuMANN, REPRESENTING THE GREENPOINT NEIGH- BORHOoD Association, Aprit 19, 1916 Need of protecting parks from factories The streets immediately adjoining McCarren Park should be restricted to the use of residences, churches and public buildings. I represent an organization that for years has been doing a philan- thropic and social work in Greenpoint. We find in our summer playgrounds, where we have 300 children per day, that the factories immediately adjoin- ing are a detriment to our work; notwithstanding the fact that they extend to us the most hearty co-operation, there is danger in the trucks that must pass to and fro. There is a certain spirit of just simply “beat the game”’ that gets into the children. That develops when you have a factory there. When you can get children apart in their games and with their whole attention on their games, an attitude of respect and co-operation develops among them. McCarren Park has become the greatest center for social work in the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn. The Park Commissioner has done a great deal for us, and games are played there in the open in summer. This recreation center is maintained all winter, and it has become a great factor in the social and philanthropic work of Greenpoint. It seems to us that the work ought to be backed up and kept in all its value for that district. Now, there are girls who come there evenings, two and three hundred girls, who work all day in a factory. I know from long experience in settle- ment work that girls and men and boys, all of them, while they go to their work willingly, like to quit their work and get away from it at nights, and if you have the factories looming up around this park where they are going for their recreation, it detracts from the value of that pleasure. It is bound to. Greenpoint must be industrial for years to come. Still there are tracts of land lying available in sections of Greenpoint that would provide for all of the additions to industrial work for years and years to come, and it seems to me that there is no necessity of these factories congregating about McCarren Park. Streets as play spaces The Commission’s plans provide a considerable number of the side streets restricted for residential purposes. This restriction will be of great 86 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS advantage on account of the fact that it leaves the streets more free as play spaces for the children. This is a very important provision. We ran a street playground last summer and are contemplating one this summer, and we unfortunately decided on a street that had a large manufacturing plant located on it and before the summer was out we had to change that street playground. There were streets all around us that were given over to residences and those streets were filled with children. There was not nearly the danger to life and limb on those residence streets. An association such as ours can pro- vide for only a few of the thousands of children on the streets of Green- point, and I think the restrictions on these streets very excellent indeed from the standpoint of protecting the children. STATEMENT By J. BERNSTEIN, TRAFFIC Expert, FirrH AVENUE AssoctaTIon, Marcu 30, 1916 Traffic counts in Fifth avenue section I wish to state with the utmost emphasis that all the statistics and facts quoted here have been gathered with no thought to use them as arguments for or against the limitation of building heights or the restriction in use of buildings. All this material was collected solely from the point of view of traffic study. Some of the figures quoted are part of a traffic count taken during the month of November, 1915, by the traffic division of the Police Department. Other counts were made by the New York Railways Co., and by the Citizens’ Street Traffic Committee ; while the detailed traffic statistics contained herein were gathered under my direction and supervision, to be used in determining the advisability of street widenings, the removal of building encroachments, the regulation of traffic and the possibility of sub- surface crossings for pedestrians. These counts have been taken at various times during the last three years. Traffic conditions at various important points are reflected by the following figures ascertained by the Police Department between the hours of 8:30 A. M. and 6:30 P. M.: FIFTH AVENUE . Vehicles Pedestrians iBiithsAve: andeldth: Stash steerer 11,927 45,525 Bittht Awe: cand uZOthists senate eeeieeioen 13,240 73,100 RittheAverandi2od St ae eae: 11,392 48,411 BiitheAverandwolst Stan kaei crete cee 13,490 72,000 Bitty Avetcand *s2dim Stine. se eae eine 13,760 74,610 Jodo yAKiCes: eunkal Siyal, Syes atau oc sodasdaodar 14,120 78,200 BitthyAve nan dies4theStaricrsaces ee ete nie 14,360 146,300 MibthAW enanGdeocthe Staessen ieee eee en 15,460 124,250 Biith Ave vande4Ade Stes. ee ace ont 18,800 137,780 PuitthsAvermand: 59thestry. ieee aire 14,220 24,888 SIXTH AVENUE Vehicles Pedestrians Sixth Awerran cal ath ae een ee eee 8,662 51,875 Sixth Avenand 25d St-scoe es pieiees creer ie 8,020 106,829 Sith Averamdescthnoteengecs iia ora aera 9,441 102,480 RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 87 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN BROADWAY Vehicles Pedestrians Broadway amcl Z3al Stoccosccsocsocccod6ae : 1,964 85,800 Broadwasy aml 24k Stogocsascsccueecsende 9,000 62,900 Broachwary amcl Zot Sitococcoscsccccacou0ce 4,760 63,310 Biroachweny emngl S4hin Sitcssgesnocsodaeoboone 12,800 101,000 Broadway ghacl 42Gl: (Sito gcoenoeuosvococesor 19,650 90,370 While these figures do not show the direction in which traffic moved, they do present a sufficiently vivid picture of the congestion which is the rule at these points. It is noteworthy that near the streets where the num- ber of high loft buildings is either small or where they are not tenanted or only partly tenanted, the number of vehicles and pedestrians passing the observer is considerably smaller than where the side streets house loft- buildings filled with factories. Compare the traffic on Fifth Avenue and 14th Street, Fifth Avenue and 23d Street with that on Fifth Avenue and 20th Street or Fifth Avenue and 32d Street and you will see the difference. Busiest corners on Fifth avenue To visualize the crowds finding their way during ten hours to given spots on Fifth Avenue we must realize that the 146,360 people counted on Fifth Avenue at 34th Street exceed the whole population of the City of Worcester, Mass. The 124,250 counted at 38th Street exceed the total population of Omaha, Neb. The population of Grand Rapids, Mich., is less than the number of pedestrians passing Fifth Avenue at 42d Street. On January 26, 1916, between 8:30 A. M. and 6:30 P. M. 8,662 vehicles went south on Fifth Avenue at 42d Street, while 7,138 went north; 4,716 went east, and 3,567 went west. Of the vehicles on Fifth Avenue less than 4 per cent are of a commercial nature; on 42d Street 33 per cent are 2H a commercial character. Proportion of light and heavy vehicles South from 42d Street on the side streets this ratio of commercial vehicles gradually increases. On 38th Street for instance, the ratio is 40 per cent; on 35th Street 42 per cent; on 33d Street 54 per cent; on 32d Street 58 per cent; on 26th Street 61 per cent, and on 20th Street 70 per cent. How much delay is caused by the trucks delivering and receiving goods to the high loft buildings can be seen by considering the fact that out of a total of 1,425 commercial vehicles passing through 32d Street between Fifth Avenue and Broadway, 612 stopped either parallel to the curb or backed up against it. Perhaps the delays can be measured by comparing the total number of vehicles counted in this block with the total number of vehicles passing through 46th Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenues. The count on 32d Street showed exclusive of omnibuses, 1,204 passenger vehicles and 1,425 commercial vehicles. The count on 46th Street showed, exclusive of omnibuses 4,814 passenger vehicles and 478 commercial vehicles. Although 46th Street is of the same width as 32d Street it accommodates easily double the number of vehicles without crowding and without the supervision of a traffic police- man. But 46th Street has no high factory loft buildings, while 32d Street has a large number. A comparison of 38th, 37th and 35th Streets with 47th, 48th and 49th Streets shows the same situation. Instances like these could be multiplied. It is, however, sufficient to call attention to the fact 88 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS that wherever there are tall buildings used as factories the police commis- sioner finds it necessary to designate as many men as are available for duty in the side streets in order to prevent the snarls and jams of vehicular traffic. Street car congestion The street car, elevated and subway congestion in the evening rush hour has given much concern to the Department of Health. A single trip along Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Avenues between 6 and 6:45 P. M. between 24th and 30th Streets for instance, will reveal hundreds of human beings pushing and shoving and actually fighting inspectors, motormen and con- ductors of the street cars in an effort to board the already packed cars. The same condition exists on 8th and 14th Streets west of Sixth Avenue, and on 14th Street and 8th Street on Fourth Avenue. A mere glance is sufficient to identify these crowds as employees of the garment factories located between Fourth and Seventh Avenues from 24th to 30th Streets. Elevator congestion As to crowding in elevators, consider for a moment that some of these loft buildings employ as many as 3,000 to 3,500 people. All of these factory employees are compelled to ride in the freight elevators—usually two, exceptionally three in number. It does not take much imagination to conjure up before one’s eyes the scenes at the beginning and the end of the lunch hour, or at the hour when all of them stop work for the day. In this connection it is to the point to narrate an incident which oc- curred on October 9, 1915, Fire Prevention Day. The building in question at 105 Madison Avenue is a new 20-story loft building of the best type. The Joint Board of Sanitary Control which exercises well defined authority over the garment factories located in that building, had decided to have a fire drill on some floors of that building. Let me interpolate right here, that on no occasion has the attempt been made to have the fire alarm signal sounded throughout the whole building. On the 9th of October it was proposed to have a fire drill on one or two floors. The subject was broached to the proprietors of these shops and they promptly declared that unless they were indemnified and reimbursed for any and all liabilities, which they might have to assume in case of an accident happening to any one of their several hundred employees, they would not consent to have a fire drill, because they considered it too dangerous for their employees to descend the stairs in large numbers. Naturally no fire drill was held. What would happen if the 3,000 factory workers in that building should try to get to the street by means of the stairs I leave to your imagination. STATEMENT oF J. Bernstern, Trarric Expert, FirrH AVENUE Association, Aprit 29, 1916 Congestion of factories in New York City Factories tend to congest in New York City because the greater part of European immigration comes to this port and cheap foreign labor is plentiful. This is especially true in the garment industry in which about 80 per cent of the operatives are Russian Jews and 20 per cent Italians. A few of the foremen and cutters are of other nationalities, but the vast majority of the employees have been in this country a relatively short time. The industry was originally organized on the cheap-labor, sweat-shop sys- tem, but in late years there has been a tendency on the part of the better RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 89 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN class of manufacturers to provide, and on the part of the unions to demand, reasonable wages and sanitary shops. Distance factory workers must travel The workers in the factory districts of Manhattan do not as a rule live within walking distance of their work. A large number of the artificial flower and feather factories are located within walking distance of their employees in the vicinity of Washington Square and during the last three or four years clothing factories have been erected east of the Bowery where the workers live. Also of late with the removal of the big printing plants to the west side, considerable tenement house space has been let to employees in the printing trade on Eighth and Ninth Avenues and in the side streets from 25th to 42d Streets on the west side. When the garment industry was organized some 15 or 20 years ago the factories were located on and around Broadway between Bleecker and Canal Streets. In those days the employees of these factories all lived within walking distance of their places of work and it was customary for them to go home for their lunches. The multiplications of garment factories and their gradual removal northward diminished the chances of the opera- tives to live near the places of their employment. When the garment factories congregated around Fifth Avenue in the center of the City, there remained, of course, no possibility for the workers to live within walking distance of their factories. To-day, the bulk of garment workers live in the Bronx, on the lower East Side, Williamsburg, and even as far away as Brownsville. The removal of garment factories to the district below 14th Street would save a great deal of traveling by the workers on street cars and elevated trains and about 40 per cent of the garment workers would live within easy walking distance of their places of work. About 40 per cent would save two carfares per day and could reach their places of work within the average of 15 minutes’ walk. The ones living in the Bronx or Wil- liamsburg would save on the average a walk of one mile—the distance they have to walk to-day from the elevated or subway stations on the East Side of the city to the factories west of Fifth Avenue. Unsatisfactory luncheon and recreation facilities There are not and cannot be adequate luncheon facilities in the crowded factory districts near Fifth Avenue. There are about 50,000 factory em- ployees in that district and as a rule they visit restaurants only during the lunch hour from 12 to 1 p.m. At other hours there is practically no demand for the service of food. The average expenditure of money for lunch on the part of the garment workers is less than 15 cents—a sum inadequate to give a fair return on the cost and investment of a restaurant. The item of rent alone is prohibitive and the only lunch places patronized are of the type which provide no seats for their customers. The workmen buy cheap and insufficiently nourishing food or bring some food with them from their homes. In both cases they are compelled to eat their food on the sidewalks or in the roadway and even with utmost care the streets are littered with refuse. All luncheon places are overcrowded. It is not an infrequent occur- rence that in a place where 50 chairs are provided for the lunchers as many as 200 crowd the place, packed tightly awaiting their chances of getting something to eat. 90 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS Some of the operatives could get satisfactory food in the better class restaurants of the vicinity. But, as a rule, they are either unable or unwill- ing to spend the 35 cents for which a satisfactory luncheon is served in the restaurants which are patronized mostly by office and retail store employees. The food sold in the cheap places is of inferior quality and it is this food which 1s mostly bought by the operatives. In connection with the lunch question, it is important to note that those factory employees—like cutters, pressers, etc., who have to stand at their work do not get either proper food or rest during the lunch hour. Insufficient space in the restaurants where seats are provided, necessitates the hustling out of the lunchers at a rapid rate. The men, in order to smoke, have to stand or walk on the streets. While this is a relief to the machine operator who sits at his work the cutter and the presser get fatigued and according to some of the observant manu- facturers their work in the afternoon falls below the standard of their work in the morning. A great deal of friction is caused by this between employees and employers, the former insisting upon a day wage, while the latter, in order to shift the consequences of the decreased efficiency of the workers, prefer a piece wage. Neither the employee nor the employer is really responsible for this decrease in efficiency—it is brought about solely by the overcrowding of the factory district. Congestion on transit lines at rush hours Work in all garment shops starts promptly at 8 in the morning and ends at 6 in the evening except on Saturday, when work stops at 12 o’clock noon. During the busy season, overtime work is performed from 7 to 9 in the evening. Thus it will be seen that of necessity all the employees use the transit lines about the same time and since they congregate within a few blocks in their respective home districts the transit lines carry them all practically the whole distance together. On this account the cars are crowded to the limit of their capacity morning and evening. The Board of Health has encountered great difficulty in attempting to prevent even greater overcrowding. Actual timing along Sixth Avenue and Fourth Avenue has proven that 15 minutes’ wait is the average for the individual would-be passenger be- tween 6:15 and 7:15 o'clock. At the 14th Street and 8th Street intersections, the workers waiting for the crosstown cars to take them to the lower East Side or Williamsburg stand occasionally for half an hour. Twenty minutes is the average wait between the hours of 6:30 and 8 in the evening. Sidewalk congestion According to a count taken on September 14, 1915, the only one of which I have knowledge, 2,454 persons passed the observers on the east side of Sixth Avenue from 26th to 27th Streets in the half hour from 12:20 to 12:50 p. m. To this number should be added 617 persons who were counted standing still, making a total of 3,071. Unfortunately I have no corresponding figures for the congestion in the factory districts. None of the large factories in Manhattan, except perhaps the National Cloak and Suit Company of 207 West 24th Street, has any data showing the places where their factory employees live nor have any maps been prepared to show such facts. Rest rooms and welfare work in factories In the waist and dress industry most of the better class manufacturers provide rest rooms, lunch rooms and facilities for preparing simple food RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 91 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN for their employees. The bulk of the employees are women, and the Labor Laws prescribe certain definite rest room and dressing room facilities. There is practically no follow-up work for convalescents. In a very few rare instances the employers contribute a share to the sick benefit funds of the employees. Perhaps half a dozen concerns furnish the services of a trained nurse in the shops and for visits to the homes of the operatives; but on the whole the efforts of the manufacturers along these lines are a negligible quantity. In justice, however, it must be said that the Labor Unions do not look favorably upon any sort of welfare work on the part of the employers. The Unions themselves furnish medical attendance, hospital or sanitorium treatment to their members; they take care of their sick and provide free periodical medical examinations of the workers. As far as the male operatives are concerned, except perhaps in one or two instances, absolutely nothing is being done by the manufacturers to provide lunch or rest rooms or any kind of welfare or educational advantages. The Manufacturers’ Association and the Unions of the garment workers maintain conjunctively and on equal terms the Joint Board of Sanitary Control, an organization which looks after sanitary conditions in the shops and has done a great deal toward raising the standard of hygiene, ventila- tion and lighting of the garment factories. No data has been prepared so far as I know to show the relationship between fires in the factories and the congestion of factory workers in such buildings, but it is possible that the greater the congestion, the more danger there is from illicit smoking. No time studies have been made to show how long it would take to get operatives out of tall factory loft buildings in case of fire or panic. The prevailing opinion of fire chiefs and other fire experts is that in order to prevent loss of life a building should be emptied in a maximum interval from between three to five minutes from the discovery of the blaze. Garment factories are filled with highly inflammable and dense smoke- producing materials. According to Dr. Price’s experience it would need from five to ten minutes to empty a 12-story building where there are at least two or three exits—a condition which is rather the exception, as the majority of buildings are not provided with three exits. It is, therefore, probable that in case of fire or panic the danger to the garment operatives would be very great. In the more modern buildings provided with increased elevator facili- ties, and where the factory employees are permitted to ride on the pas- senger elevators at the end of the working day, and where special employees’ elevators and freight elevators are also engaged in the transportation of employees from the working floors, the whole building is emptied in between 10 and 20 minutes, depending upon the height of the building and the number of people employed therein. In the older buildings, however, the elevator installation is woefully inadequate. A large percentage of the employees are compelled to wall: down the stairs, and 25 to 35 minutes usually elapse before the last employee reaches the street. : In factory buildings erected within the last three years, however, it is the exception that anyone walks down from the fourth or fifth floor, but in the older buildings people come down by way of the stairs even from the tenth floor. The average height from which people wall down is about six stories. The time it takes to get all the operatives out of a building by means of the elevators alone depends entirely upon the type of building. 92 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS The Waldorf Building, for instance, on West 32d street and West 33d street, has been emptied by using all elevators in less than 8 minutes—the average lapse of time there is 14 minutes. The older buildings with highly insufficient elevator capacity take from 20 to 40 minutes, if the elevators alone are used. In the modern building the elevators are of the rapidly moving type, have roomy cars, while in the old buildings the elevators move slowly and do not accommodate more than ten persons on each trip in each car. Freight elevator congestion and traffic delays In modern buildings the freight elevators are more than adequate to handle the raw materials and goods in the garment industry, but blockades occur when freight is delivered to or shipped from various floors simul- taneously. No freight can be handled in the morning hour or during lunch time because all the freight elevators are crowded with operatives going to their places of work or going out for lunch. Truckmen wait from 15 minutes to one hour and a half, according to the time of the day when they make their deliveries. It is impossible to use the freight elevator before 8:15 A. M. and between 12 M. and 1:15 P. M.— the freight elevators are then busy transporting the workers. Outside of these periods the fact that the incoming and outgoing freight is of relatively small bulk, but comes from a variety of sources and goes to a multitude of destinations, leads the individual truckman to consider it quick work if not more than 45 minutes elapses from the time he is ready to transact his business until he has finished it. There are occasionally from half a dozen to a dozen truckmen waiting at the same place to deliver or to receive goods, the number usually depending upon the height of the building and the num- ber of concerns doing their manufacturing there. Traffic blocks, lasting from five to twenty minutes, occur quite fre- quently. As far as there are men available special traffic posts are main- tained by the Police Department in the streets lined with tall factory build- ings. These policemen are kept busy straightening out the multitude of traffic tangles caused by the large number of trucks engaged in receiving or delivering goods to and from the factories. Since most of the warehouses and practically all railroad and coast- wise steamship freight terminals are located at the waterfront in the lower part of Manhattan the length of haul would be materially reduced by having the factories farther downtown and nearer the waterfront instead of having them centrally located as they are now. Percentage of floor area devoted to manufacturing Regarding the percentage of floor area usually required for manufac- ture, | might say that I know of no department store which uses even as much as 15 per cent of its aggregate floor space for factory purposes. Dressmakers and milliners often need 25 per cent. of their floor space for manufacturing; custom tailors use a little less. In a few instances dress and millinery houses, doing exclusively a retail business, occupy at the present time more than 25 per cent of their floor space for manufacturing. This holds good particularly in the case of about eight concerns, most of whom are the sole occupants of their respective buildings. However, the tendency is growing to devote more and more of the available space to selling and to locate the manufacturing department away from the selling department, retaining only enough help in the building to do the necessary fittings or alterations. RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 93 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN If the existing loft buildings above 27th street and east of Sixth avenue were not to be used in the future for manufacturing there is no reason why these buildings could not be used for salesrooms, for wholesale job- bing houses or as manufacturers’ sample rooms. Quite a number of them could be altered at relatively small expense into office or mercantile buildings. SraTEMENT By Ropert S. BINKERD, SECRETARY OF THE Crry CLuB oF New York, Marcu 28, 1916 Importance of districting It is hardly necessary for me to appear before you to say that the work _ of your Commission has the hearty support of the City Club. You know that in every step we have given all the assistance in our power. The suc- cessful accomplishment of your work is not only by far the biggest thing before the City of New York, but it is the most momentous step in city planning undertaken in this country. It is something toward which the minds of intelligent and far-seeing men throughout the country are already directed. Protection cf small parks What I have to say deals with a few of the large questions. With regard to details we will file a brief. We have already stated that your preliminary plans in our judgment do not sufficiently protect the surroundings of the small parks of the City so as to make them the sustaining hearts and, in the future, the real neigh- borhood centers of residential districts. In your present proposal you have made great progress in remedying this situation. This progress, however, still seems insufficient, as it is very important that the streets which are immediately behind these small neighborhood parks shall also be restricted to residential purposes. If residential streets have a park in front of them and business and manufacturing pressing immediately behind them, their situation will be exceedingly precarious. We appreciate that there will be small parks in which you will not be able to follow out our recommendations. The discovery of these parks will be a matter of considerable moment. Wherever you cannot protect a small park as the heart of a residence district, there is a prima facie case that a park has been located where one ought not to be. This knowledge will be of great usefulness to the city authorities, not only in the question of any possible sales of such parks, but also ‘in the location of new parks. As rapidly as we can, we are making a survey of all the small parks of the city, which will be filed with you for your assistance. Business on first floor of residential buildings We think you would be able to accord fuller protection to the sur- roundings of the small parks if you would establish a fourth classification, which would recognize the wide-spread combination which consists of a store upon the ground floor and of apartments and living quarters above. We earnestly urge the creation of this fourth classification. Protection of the suburbs There is a natural tendency to look upon the outskirts of a city as something which is going to more or less take care of itself. Generally not much attention is given to the restrictions imposed upon this part of a city. 94 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS A reading of Mr. Graham Taylor’s account of the “ Satellite Cities ” is very illuminating on this point. There are great centrifugal forces working in our large cities to-day which are throwing a larger and larger amount of manufacturing out toward the city’s perimeter. Every betterment of transportation facilities apparently accelerates this movement. A very con- siderable number of the workers of this city are going to work and be housed in the future on the outskirts of the city. We earnestly urge you to bear this in mind, and to give to the provisions for the outlying districts the same degree of care and attention which are given to those nearer the heart of the city. STATEMENT By Dr. Gustave F. Borne, Jr., Nrurotocist, Ciinic ASSISTANT, MANHATTAN STATE HosPITAL FOR THE INSANE, May 24, 1916 Nervous effect of high buildings I have looked at the deleterious influence of high buildings from two aspects, one from the attitude of the persons living in the high buildings, and, second, from the attitude of the persons living outside of the high buildings in neighboring structures. Persons within high buildings, and particularly those in the upper stories, if they tend to be heart patients, or tend to be persons given to certain fears, or neurasthenic individuals, are prone to suffer from the alti- tude of high buildings. There are certain types of nervous patients, for instance, who cannot stand working at heights. If they are employed in buildings, say 15 or 16 stories in height, the effect on such persons is that they are going to be more or less afflicted with a wrecked nervous system which will unfit them for other work. Another element that enters into it is the question of the elevator. While I was studying this problem I took the blood pressure of a number of people before ascending the elevator, and at the top of the elevator I took their pulse rates. I was surprised to find out that there was a marked increase in the pulse rate, and that their blood pressure had risen. Now, dealing with the heart patients, those who have heart trouble, for instance, that sudden transition in the change of the blood pressure and in the pulse rate would be very injurious. Besides, if a person who is suf- fering from neurasthenia, or a hysterical girl is employed on the twentieth story of a high building, the constant trip, for instance, of twenty flights, the elevator shock with a change of pulse rate and everything else would be harmful to her, and in a great many instances, some of the nervous disorders that girls in the upper stories are afflicted with, can be attributed to the elevator trip. Then, of course, there comes the question of people who necessarily cannot live in high buildings owing to respiratory diffi- culties. That is also to be regarded. The rise of 150 feet in a 12-story apartment house would certainly affect the individual living there. In fact, in Forsheimer’s statement atten- tion was called to the fact that neurasthenics ought not to be taken to high altitudes unless they are very careful and under the study of physicians. We figure that the people in office buildings are all of a neurasthenic variety. The effect of the altitude on such people aggravates their condition. It is very hard to give any definite statement as to the number injuriously affected. In later years there has been a marked increase in nervous dis- orders and troubles. ; There is a type of patient who cannot stand height, and if they are RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 95 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN all of that type you can do them a tremendous amount of damage even toward suicidal impulse from high windows: Court apartments unhealthy The lack of natural light in rear apartments has a bad effect on the health of tenants. First of all, I find a great many women suffering from anemia due to the fact that the apartment is not properly aerated by sunlit air. Then, because of the congestion, the noise, and the fact that the purity- ing influences on the air of the court is not present, we find many who suffer from marked nervous conditions. In any of the side street apartments where there are no facilities for natural light, practically every inhabitant is below par as an individual unless he takes care of himself, goes out and plays golf or tennis, and so gets away from the bad influences due to non- sunlit air. Importance of sunlight. Air that is not aerated by sun light is absolutely injurious to health. If you place a tubercular patient in a room lit by artificial light—gas light— as in a typical apartment in New York City, and let no “sunlit air come through, you can obtain specimens of tubercular bacilli for a long time afterward, but if the apartment is open to sunlit air two weeks afterwards you will find a perfectly sterile atmosphere, insofar as tuberculosis is con- cerned. The tubercular bacilli is destroyed. Of course, it is manifestly impossible to get sun light during the whole day. At most it is perhaps only possible to get it for an hour or two during the day. The sun light shining on the floor during those one or two hours each day would be sufficient to accomplish that purpose, but it would take a little longer time than if more sun light was available. In Switzerland they put patients per- fectly nude where the sun light can play on them, and they brown up and become perfectly tanned, and these patients clear up more rapidly than people who don’t undergo such treatment. In other words, air combined with sun light becomes very beneficial. They leave them lying there with- out a stitch of clothing on for a long time. Any law or ordinance which will restrict multiple dwellings within the City of New York yet to be built to five or six stories, will be a positive benefit to the city from the viewpoint of health. If the unoccupied area of yards and courts be made more extensive than at present, giving more light and air to those who dwell in multiple dwellings, 1 would look upon that, too, as a distinct advantage to health. I would go so far as to say that there is urgent necessity, in view of the present rapid extension of nervous disorders in New York City, for a change in the laws which will bring about lower buildings and wider and more extensive unoccupied areas. Aside from the healthful effect of sunlit air there is a peculiar value from the standpoint of preventing nervous troubles or disorders, in giving a man having a chance to work in a garden, to take care of a lawn, or to take care of trees and shrubs. In fact, we frequently are forced to have city dwellers cease living in the city and send them to such places to give them an opportunity to get next to nature. You assist them in this way. We live in congested houses with all kinds of noises about us. We live with the tension of having our neighbors continually spying upon us. Now, take a man living under such conditions, and place him—if he is of a nervous type—in a house and garden of his own. The restraint is lost, and 96 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS he feels himself as a separate individual, allowed to work out his own salvation in his own space. I go occasionally into the private home section of the Bronx, and I noticed there a short while ago that the people are usually feeling better than people living in congested districts. They seem to be able to go to work fresher in the morning, purely because of the fact that they have plenty of room and the section is not built up solidly. Car-sickness From a health standpoint, there is a very marked and particularly harmful effect in the daily travel back and forth on the subway. I have a patient who lives in Brooklyn—she comes to me all the way from Brooklyn. She happens to be a stenographer downtown and travels back and forth on the subway. The effect on her nervous system is such that every time she comes to my office she vomits. There are certain other types of patients who have car-sickness. They suffer from traveling on the cars in the city. There are other people who suffer from the noise in the subway. I have patients who simply cannot travel back and forth in the subway on account of the noise. Then also comes the proposition of the irritable individual due to the jostling and constant noise. J happen to have a patient of a neurasthenic type, for instance, who lives in the Washington Heights dis- trict. I order such patients to come down on the elevated railroad or by the bus in preference to the subway. I would look upon any plan for the distribution of population during home hours and working hours, and which will cut down the time that people spend in the subway, as a positive health advantage to the City of New York. Noise as a cause of nervous disorder I feel that if it were possible for those who suffer from nervous dis- eases, to live on a quiet residential street, it would practically amount to living in a little house in the country, and take away a great many of the things that produce the symptoms of nervous disorder. If they could live there they would be away from those things. In building a sanitorium in New York, you must look around for just such a street. I recall specifically an instance of this kind, Lloyd’s Sani- tarium, 155th Street and St. Nicholas Place. At the time the Manhattan subway was under construction a great big hammering plant was in use in front of the sanitarium. Some patients treated in that building almost went into spasms with that plant pounding away from eight o’clock in the morn- ing until six at night. STATEMENT By J. H. Burton, CHairMAN, SAve NE TORK M) EE, St N Vig tals 18) i N, SAvE New YorK COMMITTEE Marcnr 28, 1916 Elimination of factories from Fifth avenue The plan of the Zoning Commission is of vital importance to the City of New York as it affects its very existence and future welfare. I represent the movement which has received the name of the Save New York Movement, which has for its object the elimination of factories in the localities north of 32d Street. We heartily endorse the plan of this commission. When this Save New York Movement started, the basic idea was to keep the factories from destroying the vast wealth in real estate, in business RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 97 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN and in homes, north of 32d Street, without benefiting anyone. But since this movement has assumed its present proportions, speaking for the Com- mittee who started it, we consider that success not only means a great deal for the section of New York above 32d Street, but a great deal more for all the rest of New York as far down as Worth Street. It will tend to bring back the deserted section. It will add to the values of the tenement houses in the lower part of this city. It will improve conditions in Greene Street, of which the statement has been made that from Canal Street north there is hardly a single building that has not a “for sale” or “to let” sign on it, with the exception of the United States Post Office. It will mean more in ultimately increasing the assessed value of New York real estate, and therefore in reducing future taxes than any other plan; and further, it will mean a great deal to the cloak and suit manu- facturers and those kindred manufacturing interests, because it will tend to reduce their overhead charges, as they can secure space for manufactur- ing purposes downtown at 30 or 40 cents per square foot, as against 80 to 90 cents uptown, and it will mean a great advantage to the working men if the factories they work in are in sections near their homes so they do not have to spend an hour every day in subways and also spend money in car fares. We believe that in the end the plans of your Zoning Commission will mean more to the City of New York than any civic movement that has ever been undertaken, and that what our “ Save New York Committee ”’ is appealing for applies to the heart of the city, and, unless you help the heart of the city you cannot help the rest. I wish to repeat that when this “ Save New York Movement” started a few months ago we had in mind only the preservation of the section north of 32d Street, but we realize now that our obligation is towards every part of the city, and the preservation of this section accomplishes that object. I have received, as the chairman of this committee, three hundred letters a day from every part of New York, from people on the Bowery, on Washington Square, and people who have had no interest whatever in the future of the city, and they seem to think that this move- ment is going to mean a great deal for this city in the future—a great deal more than anything that has ever been undertaken. Prominent business men through the West have written to us and said that it was of the utmost importance, and that they take just as much pride in New York City as anyone that lives here. We feel it would be dangerous to allow factories to come in and destroy the heart of New York. We wish to endorse, in every way, the plan of the Zoning Commission. STATEMENT By Hon. Wittiam M. Carper, Aprit 11, 1916_ Residential values depreciated by invasion of laundry Mr. Calder stated that the erection of the Pilgrim Laundry at Prospect and 11th Avenues had done more than any other thing in that part of Brooklyn to depreciate the value of residential property. This laundry, he thought, had in that section reduced the taxable value of real estate by 50 per cent. 98 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS STATEMENT By Mitts E. Case, Secretary, Potice DEPARTMENT, Jury 24, 1916 High buildings congest streets I would respectfully report that after careful study of the data at hand I am convinced that high buildings are important factors in causing street accidents and that the presence of business houses and factories in a resi- dential district increases the probability of street accidents. Street accidents increase with congestion There are so many factors tending to cause accidents that it is a matter of some difficulty to state fairly how much or how little any one factor should be blamed. I have not had as much time as I should like for the study of this interesting problem in its details, nevertheless I believe that the main points are well established and trust that the following considera- tions will make this clear. I have selected ten precincts in Manhattan which fall into three groups: I—Precincts with factories and business with a large population: 35th, 39th, 43d, 7. e., the Upper East Side above 79th Street, population 416,000. Il—Precincts with very considerable business and a large population: 7th, 13th, 15th and 17th, i. e., the Lower East Side from Manhattan Bridge to 14th Street, population 458,000. I1I—Residential districts with a small amount of business: 36th, 40th and 42d, 1. e., the West Side above Cathedral Parkway (110th Street), population 213,000. In the first group the number of accidents per 1,000 of population during the first half of 1916 was 1.70; in the second group, 2.21; in the third group 1.43. The population in thousands per mile of street in these groups is approximately 7, 10 and 12, respectively. From this it appears that accidents per 1,000 inhabitants increases rapidly as congestion (popula- tion per mile of street) increases; hence, increase of height of buildings increases accidents. Mixed occupancy increases street accidents ~ The question of mixed use is complicated with that of congestion, but a study of the individual precincts in the following table will help to dis- entangle it: Population Accidents, Accidents, Miles of Population Per Mile First Half Per M Precinct Street (000 Omitted) of Street 1916 Population Bb lnattee mete 14.5 127 8,760 163 1.28 BO Leake heen 23. 192 8,350. 363 1.89 ABs heeteets 17. 97 5,700 182 1.88 54.5 416 7,140 708 1.70 RRO o iil ss 2 6,340 128 1.78 Bese mets 10. 112 1,200 325 2.90 SR esata ches 15 155 10,300 372 2.40 L7jesee Cee 11.28 119 10,600 187 157, 47.61 458 9,820 1,012 vail SOspreieng cee 25 87 3,480 142 1.63 AQ) dite cence 30. _ 66 2,200 76 eS 42 tee eee 51.28 60 1,170 86 1.43 RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 99 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN The 35th precinct lies between 79th Street and 96th Street and is , distinguished from the other two precincts in Group I by the existence of high class residences in its western half. This reduces its accident rate from 1.88 or 1.89 to 1.28. The 17th precinct has proportionately less business than the 15th precinct, though it has a greater density ; this reduces its accident rate from 240 to 1.57. The 7th precinct is similar. It may be objected that the 36th precinct with a density of only 3% thousand per mile has an accident rate of 1.63, as against 1.57 in the 17th. The explanation lies largely in the fact that the streets run at dangerous angles and that there is considerable business on Broadway, Amsterdam Avenue and Manhattan Street. Now compare the 43d precinct and its factories with the 7th, which is slightly denser, and note that the accident rate is 1.88, as against 1.78. TSS, I think, measures the effect of factories. STATEMENT OF Ernest K. COULTER, SUPERINTENDENT, NEw YorK SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN, May 24, 1916 Juvenile delinquency Congestion of population is a, large contributing cause to juvenile delin- quency. Some years ago, while in the Children’s Court, I made an extensive study of the matter. As a result of that investigation, I would say that at least 40 per cent. of the charges of juvenile delinquency result from the thwarted desire of children to play. This desire in a child is God-giver. But in the denser districts the opportunity to play properly and normally is denied these children. The result is that often they give vent to their pent-up energies by doing things which infringe on the rights of others. The bigger the crowd the less the rights of the individual. To play ball, cat, or shinny in the street is against the law, and yet any one of these games 1s wholesome for a child under proper conditions. Being denied the opportunity to play wholesome games, the suggestion is made to the boy in the crowded districts that it is great fun to steal something from a pushcart. He goes into it chiefly to gratify his desire for adventure and activity. There is the excitement of the chase and that means more to him than the value of the trifling piece.of property he has taken. In time that boy is led to more serious stealing and perhaps becomes a pickpocket. It is in those districts where the greatest congestion of population exists that the more serious delinquencies are found. Crime, delinquency and disease thrive in the dark. Where there is serious congestion, darkness and bad living conditions exist. Of course, not all delinquency nor cruelty to children is confined.to the congested districts. Exclusion of stores from residential streets Something has been said about exclusion of stores from_ residential streets. I believe that if stores could be kept out of tenement houses, con- ditions would be improved. Dr. Price has testified regarding herding people in the back rooms of these stores. That is a serious thing. The families of the proprietors and often boarders are crowded into rooms that have little light or air. Physical and moral conditions in such surroundings cannot but be bad. Then there is another factor—the obstruction of the street space that the children and residents need. The sidewalks are cluttered up, 100 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS pedestrians are often forced into the roadways, litter is thrown about and conditions are generally bad. I look upon any plan that will result in a greater distribution of popula- tion as most desirable. To attempt any radical reconstruction of buildings that now exist, would, perhaps not be feasible, but I feel strongly that meas- ures should now be taken by the city to prevent further growth of the con- gestion which now exists on Manhattan Island and some places in the Bronx. Some years ago it was found that there were more than forty blocks on Manhattan Island where the density of population was greater than 1,200 to the acre. In places it ran as high as 1,600 to the acre. I do not mean to say that all of the 40 blocks were together, but most of them were on a narrow area of the island. The congestion in the Bronx is becoming quite serious. Tenement cellars as living places As to the use of tenement cellars as living places, according to figures which I obtained some years ago, there were 25,000 tenement cellars used in Greater New York for tenant purposes. I remember where twenty persons lived in one cellar. Of the 25,000 tenant cellars used for living purposes, a little less than 15,000 were on Manhattan Island alone. If we are to take any thought for the future of this city, we must do something now to bring about a more reasonable and wholesome distribution of population. STATEMENT BY JOHN B. CreigHron, PResmpent, Fiske TERRACE AssocraTion, Brookityn, Aprit 17, 1916 Preservation of private house districts As representing the Fiske Terrace Association I can say that no asso- ciation in the whole City.of New York has followed with greater interest the movement for the restrictions which you have before you. Our organi- zation is assessed for two and a half million dollars. We pay $50,000 a year to the city treasury. We have one hundred and sixty-five families in that association. We are bounded on the east by Ocean Avenue, on the west by the Brighton Beach Railroad, on the north by Avenue G and on the south by the Long Island Railroad, a very compact and well-organized com- munity. We are spending $1,500 a year in paving streets and keeping up the parks and lawns. Fiske Terrace is one of the beauty spots of Flatbush and we are very much interested in these districting regulations and we have actively sup- ported them ever since they have been discussed in our meetings. We wish to commend as an association, the efforts of your Commission as second in importance only to the dual subway contracts. As the dual subway con- tracts represented the first scientific and broad constructive work in laying out a rapid transit system, so districting is a broad and scientific effort to conserve the city and to lay it out as a great and growing city should be laid out. We have canvassed one hundred and sixty-five families and we have got ninety-five per cent. of them to sign for an unlimited restriction. Our restrictions ran out in 1915 and immediately two apartment houses were erected on Ocean Avenue which we regard as rather spoiling Ocean Ave- nue. We feel that Ocean Avenue is destined to be an apartment house street and probably never can be saved from apartment houses, but that it even- tually will be like Lenox Avenue in New York, one solid mass of apartment houses from Prospect Park to Sheepshead Bay. RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 101 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN We want you to classify in the “E” section everything inside of the Ocean Avenue frontage. We have there to-day exactly what you planned to place in an “ E” section everywhere else. The fact that there is a possi- bility of apartment houses being erected on these interior plots has had a tendency to cheapen values. A house that was bought originally when the Ackerson development was made for $16,000, was sold last week for $12,000 because the parties in interest were afraid that an apartment house would be built on a vacant lot next to it. This is a criterion of values dropping from a fear of apartment houses going in there. Now you will conserve the values to the extent of $4,000 per house by restricting, and you will also actually relieve the taxpayers from the greater fear of what might come to them. I think that is in brief the story of Fiske Terrace. We can show you a map with ninety per cent. of the property owners asking for unlimited restrictions there. STATEMENT BY Epmunp Dwicut, Resmpenr Manacer, THE EMPLoyers’ Lrapiniry AssuRANCE CorporaTION oF Lonpon, May 18, 1916 Districting will reduce number of accidents T heartily approve of the program of the Commission. From the stand- point of accident prevention and accident reduction, any legislation which will reduce congestion is of the utmost importance. I have been for thirty years the New York Resident Manager of the Company that began the business in the United States, of insuring against liability arising out of personal accidents, and during that period there have been reported to my office more than 200,000 accidents, the majority of which have occurred in New York City. These have included accidents to the public caused by the use of elevators, and in the streets from vehicles, as well as from many other causes in buildings and in streets. My experience has indicated that accidents increase as congestion increases, and any plan which will reduce congestion of population in build- mgs or in areas of the city will reduce the number of accidents. The proposed limitation of heights of buildings will reduce congestion m elevators, which is one of the prolitic causes ot elevator accidents. Elevator accidents are due in far larger proportion to crowding, tc carelessness on the part of passengers, and to unskillful handling which is itself frequently caused by crowded cars, than to defects in mechanicai appliances. The number of street accidents also in large measure follow increase in density of population, and it is strikingly the case that the proximity of manufacturing operations to crowded residential districts constitutes a peril, because heavy trucking express and similar traffic has to be conducted through streets which are crowded with children. There is no question in my mind that limitation of building heights and districting for different classes of use, so that manufacturing operations would be carried on in zones with a minimum residential use, would each tend, in large measure, to the reduction of accidents, and to the safety of the people of New York. As an owner of property in various parts of New York, I am satisfied that while in individual cases there might be some hardship, resulting from the proposed system, it should work as a whole to the enhancement and stability of real estate values, and to the great welfare of the community. The plan of this commission provides for certain residential streets 102 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS from which trade and industry will be excluded. This, in my judgment, will undoubtedly tend to reduce the frequency of street accidents. Manufac- turing operations carried on extensively in sections of the city which are also used for residential purposes and which involve an extensive use by truck, vans and express wagons, in residential streets, increases the number of accidents in the street. I believe that the same would be true if the mer- cantile use of the streets could be eliminated or reduced in residential sections. No general statement can be made as to the time necessary to take tenants out of high buildings by means of the elevators, because the condi- tions in each of the buildings vary. There are, undoubtedly, some buildings of more than twenty stories in height in which it would require considerably more than half an hour to take the occupants out by means of the elevators There are others, in which this could probably be accomplished in approxi- mately a quarter of an hour. The higher the building, the longer the time necessary, in proportion to the number of floors. As a very rough test, I think that upon the average, it might be stated that an office building was well equipped which could discharge its occupants by means of the elevators, at the rate of a minute a floor. Ina loft building, the time required to clear the building of occupants by means of the ele- vators is greater than in an office building of the same size, because the elevator equipment is less complete in proportion to the number of persons occupying the building. The fact that elevators used by the employees in loft buildings are also used for freight purposes, makes the danger from panic more serious in the case of loft buildings, than in the case of office buildings. Freight elevators, or combined freight and passenger elevators, cannot be made as satisfactory for the quick movement of passengers as elevators used solely for passengers. STATEMENT BY ABRAM I. Etkus, UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY, May 24, 1916 Work of the State Factory Commission I was counsel for the State Factory Commission. The work of this Commission, which occupied between three and four years, covered factory conditions in cities of the first and second class, and in some other parts of the State and also industrial conditions in mercantile businesses, and then there was an investigation into wage earning conditions, upon which a report was made to the Legislature with reference to a minimum wage commission. The results of our investigations were published in a report of thirteen volumes. Districting a great benefit to city Knowing conditions as I do, particularly in the factory and working districts of the City of New York, I would say that the plans proposed by the Commission are an urgent necessity at the present time from the stand- point of health, safety, convenience, comfort and general welfare. It would be a very great benefit to the whole community to have it districted, not only to those who do the work, but to the general citizenship. I look upon most of these things as having an economic value besides merely a health benefit to the persons directly involved, for the reason that it has been proved over and over again, if you adopt measures which make for the safety of life and the preservation of the health of the people, you RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 103 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN lessen the number who are likely to become public or private charges, and that redounds to the benefit of the taxpayers. It is so all along, and was illustrated before the Factory Commission by a number of men. For instance, | remember very well in one of the cities up in the State that a gentleman came before us and said that he had already installed various improvements in advance of what we were going to compel factory owners to do, not from motives of philanthropy or because it was a good thing he said, but because he thought it was the best thing to do since it would pay him to do it. And he said it is purely a matter of dollars and cents. I can get more work out of the employees and better work! I have not the slightest doubt that I will save my own city in taxes by preventing these people from becoming sick or ill and being public charges. That has been proved to be true in a great many instances. T have not the slightest doubt that with these districting regulations you are going to furnish people with not only a better place to work in, and better situated buildings to work in, but improved conditions surrounding their work. You will find that they will do better work, and do more work and a higher class of work, and that you won’t find so much sickness. In other words, it is the old case of prevention, that is better than cure. Of course, it is going to hurt in the transition. That is the great danger to be avoided, by making the transition as easy as possible. If we could rebuild the City of New York, I presume the ideal thing to do would be to put the factories all along the waterfront, where you have transportation right at the door, and then put the dwellings for the workers on a line inside next to the factories so that the employees can walk to their work, and then put the retail shops in the center of the city. I don’t suppose you can do that. I take it that this Commission is going to do the next best thing, and restrict the future use of the streets so that they will be of the utmost benefit to the great majority of the people. Co-ordination needed in building regulations Many of the advantages of the factory law are lost by reason of the fact that its scope is limited to the particular building in which the factory or workshop is located, and not to the locality of the factory. Many of the advantages, for instance, of having large windows, well ventilated rooms, are lost by persons who are next door to the skyscraper buildings which shut off their light. The same may be said of the Tenement House Law. It does not regulate any structures but tenements and therefore it does not control other buildings which are erected adjacent to tenement houses. Any measure that brings about a co-ordination in these laws or in the buildings covered by these laws, distributing them in districts, where buildings of certain types may be located, would be a distinct benefit to the city from the standpoint of health and safety. As a matter of fact the modern high building is much better built than the old buildings. Of course, | am not a physician. I do not pretend to say anything about the results to people working in high buildings, but as a matter of fact the modern loft building, which is usually for factory pur- poses, and which is more than six or seven stories in height, is built much better as far as safety in case of fire, and sanitary conditions are concerned, than the old law buildings. Old buildings converted to new uses The worst factory buildings were found to be those which were con- verted tenements or warehouses. They are patched up in order to try to 104 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS comply with the law. They had no light, no guard against fire, no extra means of exit, and the sanitary conditions were very poor. We ought to try to make permanent certain localities in the city to be used for certain purposes and that would permit of buildings being erected adapted for such purposes, or altered for such purposes permanently, instead of requiring changes to be made periodically, and instead of permitting the old buildings to be changed and changed rapidly. It does seem to me at times that it is a very great hardship if a man erects a building and complies with the then existing law and does everything he can do to make it comply with the law, to then have the Legislature come along, for very good reason I will say, and decree that he should change it or alter it at great expense to himself and with no apparent benefit, and then, of course, to have another man come along and construct a building complying with the new law right next to him, which is far superior to his—sometimes I feel really that the State ought to compensate the man for his building. Greater safety in low buildings Any plan that proposes to reduce to six and seven stories in height the kind of buildings that formerly were permitted to go as high as twenty-one stories, would be a positive benefit from the standpoint of safety. Our whole Factory Law shows that. We increase the safety guard as the build- ings become higher. They must be of a certain kind of construction above a certain height. They have to have a sprinkler system above a certain story. They must have all sorts of restrictions and means of escape as the buildings become higher and house more people. But, if you could cut off the buildings and make them all lower you would certainly conduce to safety. There is no question about that. Now, take present conditions in the old buildings. Personally I say I would rather be in a twelve-story or a twenty-story modern fireproof building that has a sprinkler system and all of the modern conditions for safety, than I would in a five or six story building that was not under the same conditions. Manufacturing in tenements All manufacturing, to my mind, ought to be taken out of homes, for economical reasons, as well as for health reasons. We have made a very thorough investigation of manufacturing in tenements, and the results showed very bad conditions, not only to health, but as I have already said, for economical reasons which ought to be established. They are due to the extension of the factory to the home without any of the requirements which cover factory work being extended to it. In other words, if a man employs people in his factory he must have a certain number of safeguards and give his employees a certain amount of air space. He must have all sanitary arrangements. He has to do a great many things for their safety and for their care—perhaps not enough—nevertheless he has to do a great many things ; but, in the home that same man can send the very same article to be manufactured, and none of these conditions that I have mentioned have to be complied with. Manufacturing is done in the living rooms of tenements with all the family present, because labor conditions do not have to be observed there. You can’t do anything in that matter just now. I don’t think you can be too strong about this home work proposition. RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 105 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN STATEMENT BY Dr. Haven Emerson, CoMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF Hearty, City or New York, Fepruary 10, 1916 Regulation of cornices Not only do cornices, as used in the past in New York City, generally detract from the simplicity, beauty and architectural attractiveness of the buildings and the streets, but by their overhanging they deprive the passing citizen and the neighboring and opposite dwellers or occupants of light and heat from the sun, to which they are entitled and which are of value to the health of the community. Further, it is a matter of common observation that the dripping of rain water and melted snow and ice inconvenience the foot passengers and main- tain the kind of nuisance from wet pavements which is forbidden from other kinds of projections, such as hanging flower boxes, food safes, etc. Actual bodily danger is suffered as the result of icicles hanging in some cases over one-third of the width of the sidewalk. In permitting cornices on the set-back walls to have a greater width of projection than those on the street wall, I trust some provision can be inserted which will prevent such cornices from encroaching on the line established by projecting the line from mid street to top of street wall upward and backward. STATEMENT BY Dr. Haven Emerson, ComMissioNer, DEPARTMENT OF Hearty, May 4, 1916 Sanitary conditions of office buildings Dr. Emerson stated that the Health Department had made a survey of the health conditions of the persons employed in the office buildings within the block bounded by Broadway, Nassau Street, Liberty Street and Cedar Street. This block is immediately north of the Equitable Building, which has a height of 36 stories. This is a representative business block in the downtown section, containing buildings of both the older and more modern types. The air used in these buildings, which is generally supplied through an artificial system of ventilation, is generally far below normal in its humidity and above normal in its temperature. Artificial light is used practically every hour in the day and every day in the year by 85 per cent. of the occupants of these offices. A census showed this block to be inhabited by an office population of 2,400 persons. The number of persons visiting this block each day to transact business is about 16,000. The total number of persons accommodated in this block daily is therefore 18,400. The absence of natural light, and the abnormal conditions of the temperature and humidity in office buildings constitute, according to Dr. Emerson, a situa- tion that is detrimental to health, not that it causes disease, but that it promotes lack of resistance and lack of proper physical and mental vigor. Tuberculosis in old law and new law tenements An investigation made by the Health Department of the patients suf- fering from tuberculosis in the twenty-fifth census district, which is bounded by Broadway, East Houston Street, West Broadway, Waverly Place, Sixth Avenue, 14th Street and the Hudson River, clearly demonstrated that, not only are there fewer cures among those living in old law than in new law tenements, but the ratio of secondary to primary cases is higher 106 CQMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS in the old law than in the new law tenements. Secondary cases are those which have been acquired through contact with primary cases. In the new law tenements the incidence of secondary cases is decidedly lower than in the old law tenements. About 45 per cent of the tuberculosis patients in this district shared the same room and the same bed with other people. This intimate personal contact, of course, encourages the spread of the disease. Of the rooms occupied by patients with tuberculosis 6 per cent were absolutely dark; 16 per cent dimly lighted; and 78 per cent lighted by windows in such a manner that artificial light was not required all the time. Necessity for districting Adequate and effective standards of light and air in the interest of public health, in Dr. Emerson’s opinion, can be obtained only through a comprehensive districting plan. [ would say, that the opinions of physicians have been expressed in reports which are almost identically worded, dating back at least one hun- dred years, with exactly the same conclusions and recommendations which might be considered parallel with those now arrived at by this Commission ; also that the report of 1832 and previous one of citizens committees on con- ditions of health in this city indicated the necessity of providing for the future. These recommendations were made when the development of New York City had not vet reached 14th Street. We are still without the neces- sary relief, which nothing but this plan of yours can provide. These health conditions have not improved and the demands for reform have not yet been met. There is no control at the present which would prevent the re-creation of exactly the same unsanitary conditions that have resulted from previous lack of control. One of the difficult things, aside from the present sanitary inconvenience and danger, is the condition that was met with in providing space {or offensive trades, such as chicken slaughter houses. The device that was used by the Department of Health to protect adjacent owners and still give the property owners the right to select their own neighbors has never met with entire public approval. A great many of the advantages created through sanitary and housing reform have been lost by reason of the fact that these various laws, which were an improvement over what went before, were not co-ordinated with one another. Street cars and communicable diseases Another point in which health authorities foresee benefit to public health by a consistent plan for the control of the future growth of the city is in the improved conditions of occupancy of traffic conveyances. It is appre- ciated and acknowledged that the more congested is a traffic conveyance the more dangerous does it become as a means of transmitting communicable disease to others, and there is a constant proportionate increase in infectious organisms found in the air of traffic conveyances as their congestion increases. Observations made in the subway from the Atlantic Avenue station to 96th Street and back through the subway during the rush hours has shown a constant increase of disease breeding organisms, such as were responsible for the epidemic of infectious colds during last December, January and February. Observations show the presence of these bacteria in such amounts as to constitute a serious public menace. The epidemic cost the city two thousand RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 107 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN lives, over and above the usual death rate, as it prevailed a year ago and for the previous five years. Those deaths were due to organisms which were found constantly in the air of the subway cars, as it was examined in our laboratory. That epidemic extended over a period of from eight to ten weeks, during which time it prevailed in our large centers of population in this country, and it occurred at the time of the maximum crowding of stores and places of amusement and traffic conveyances and at a period of maxi- mum of fatigue and exposure, owing to weather conditions and the holiday trade, and it is at such times that we may expect an annual wave of increased respiratory disease. We may expect a repetition of it annually in a greater or less degree as the period of the year comes around when the windows are shut because of the lowering of the temperature, and respiratory dis- eases begin and steadily increase. There are two large episodes in the death rate, one infant mortality—deaths in July and August, and the other the increase in respiratory diseases during the cold months of the year, and that is ascribed by sanitarians to the crowding of people within confined spaces so inadequately provided with means of ventilation that personal resistance becomes too low to avoid infection. To indicate the extent to which the Board of Health has considered public danger through the crowding of cars, I would call your attention to orders which were issued to forbid the crowding oi cars on certain lines m the city where traffic conditions would permit of such control being put in force. The most noticeable instances were the cross-town lines in Manhattan, at 86th Street and 59th Street, where the companies admitted that service could be provided sufficient to avoid the crowding of cars to over 50 per cent of their seating capacity, and on Staten Island a similar condition prevailed. When it was called to the attention of the street railways companies that infection of humans occurred as the result of persons crowding in conveyances, they accepted the orders of the Board and complied. This aroused opposition on the part of people whose real estate development was predicated upon permission to carry the crowds tegardless of congestion. The Board of Health has thought that the time has come when such crowding should be forbidden, not as a matter of personal convenience, but as a matter of community danger—community health hazard. Importance of sunlight The causes that take off a large percentage of the lives in a great city, particularly New York City, could be summed up in the words, opportunity tor personal contact and diminished personal resistance. Congestion is a term that can be twisted variously. Diminished resistance of humans, as with vegetation, depends upon the artificiality of their environment. You cannot raise babies any more without light and air than you can raise plants, and where you cannot prove that a disease has followed congestion you can almost always show diminished resistance. We should expect less communicable respiratory disease in detached houses than in tenements, but inasmuch as the reporting of respiratory disease is not compulsory, there is no record anywhere in this country of the incidence of respiratory diseases other than tuberculosis. We have no morbidity statistics of the City as a whole and there are no comparative figures to prove it. It is proved that sunlight in the living room and the sleeping room 108 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS materially aids in providing resistance against diseases like tuberculosis. The sun has a destructive effect upon disease breeding bacteria. Direct sunlight is a most effective disinfectant. Direct daylight—even though not direct sunlight has a powerful influence in destroying pathogenic bacteria. In addition to that people who are able to live in well lighted apartments have a physical resistance which is superior to that of people who live in dark rooms. That has been proved under exact experimentatal conditions in laboratory tests and is a matter of common observation among human beings. The morbidity of tuberculosis in the old law tenements is twenty per thousand of population, and in the new law tenements it is fifteen per thousand of population. The morbiditity of tuberculosis in the twenty-fifth census district is ten per thousand, and for the entire city one-tenth per thousand. It is the popular impression that all artificial light is detrimental to the nervous system and causes a deterioration of nervous control; but the damage to people’s individual resistance is probably a more important factor than the actual damage to special senses, except where the light is obviously insufficient or excessive. As much damage has been caused by an excessive supply of light in certain places as has been by the absence of sufficient light in other places. One can stand a superfluity of sunlight and benefit from it. In a room where there is the same amount of light supplied by an artificial means, very serious nervous disabilities result, owing to the entirely different physical qualities of most artificial light. Effect of vegetation on humidity and temperature Continuous high temperature of a hot spell in the city is higher and more prolonged in areas where stone or brick or concrete construction is continuous, than where there are open spaces. Radiation during the night does not permit of the same reduction of temperature in densely built-up areas as occurs in other parts of the city where those conditions do not exist. Our general experience is that most of the heat prostrations occur in districts where there are few or no open spaces. Humidity is maintained more nearly the normal point in the vicinity of open spaces where there is a vegetation. Other things being equal, the temperature tends to be lower in the neighborhood of parks. Relation of stair climbing to health Iexcessive stair climbing and excessive standing when fatigued in crowded conveyances unduly aggravate certain disabilities from which women suffer. Climbing stairs is not per se any more dangerous for women than for men, but the disabilities from which they commonly suffer are apt to be aggravated more than the disabilities from which men suffer. The class of people who suffer much more than women is the large army of children with cardiac diseases, and there are 16,000 children in the public schools of this city who have now such damage to their hearts as will probably permanently handicap them. At least two per cent of the children in the public schools have organic diseases of the heart, resulting either from infection acquired congenitally, or acquired as the result of scarlet fever, tonsilitis, rheumatism, chorea, etc. These children, if they live in such places as one and two family houses, for instance, or premises where they have but little stair climbing to do, are going to be able to adjust themselves and compensate for their physical RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 109 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN defects during their early years, so as to become fit and effective self- supporting citizens; whereas, if during this period their only possibility of residence is where they have to do much stair climbing, the chances of their permanent injury is considerable. Dust Probably the danger of dust is not so much in its carrying the actual germs of disease as in irritating the respiratory passages and making them more accessible to invasion. The amount of dust which people inhale makes the nose and throat more accessible to the invasion of infection when crowded in traffic conveyances immediately after coming from the street, so, with that proviso, I should say this: That where there is excessive dust or excessive draught and spreading of dust through crowds of people in the streets, there is going to be a diminished local resistance of the respira- tory tract to such diseases as people are commonly exposed to in crowded premises, such as moving picture theatres, traffic conveyances, and many places of public assembly. Effect of congestion on health The infant mortality rate is usually higher in the most congested places, except for certain characteristic racial differences. The congested colored section gives an infinitely higher rate—I should say three or four times, as I recall the infant mortality statistics, than an area similarly congested occupied by Jewish people. There are racial differences involved, so that I cannot make a very broad general statement. The colored infant mor- tality would be three hundred and the Jewish ninety per 1,000 living births, with similar congestion in similarly constructed buildings. I should say we could anticipate with perfect certainty a diminished sick rate, a diminished incidence of infectious disease, and a diminished death rate, in all areas of the city limited to residence developments. The portions of the city which have the small family house development show a lower death rate than prevails elsewhere in the city, under equal economic conditions. Children who are brought up in single or two family houses, where there is plenty of land about, are more likely to be healthy than those brought up in an apartment or a tenement house. STATEMENT BY WILLIAM Emerson, ArcuiTect, Marcu 28, 1916 I take pleasure in expressing my hearty approval of the purpose and work of the Commission on Building Districts and Restrictions. This approval is based on the following convictions : 1. That those occupying houses or apartments or carrying on legiti- mate business will be safeguarded in a continuance of their occupations. 2. That it will result in establishing and standardizing real estate values, thereby insuring fair activity and profits and eliminating excessive profits or losses resulting from sudden changes. 3. That such an assurance enables citizens to devote their time and energies to the fullest development of their business and civic interests with- out anxiety for the future. 4. That it will give to each citizen a proper share of light and air and prevent the monopolization of these essentials to health and happiness. 5 That the proposed legislation will upset to the least extent estab- lished values, keeping in mind the general benefit that will inevitably result from its enactment. 110 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS The only anxiety is concerning the surest means to guarantee the per- manence of these benefits while at the same time leaving open the necessary field for improvement and development. STATEMENT By Bruce M. Fatconer, ATTORNEY FOR THE FrrrH AVENUE AssociaATIon, May 18, 1916 Approval of regulations proposed by the Commission On June 19, 1913, the Fifth Avenue Association submitted to the Heights of Buildings Commission of New York City, the predecessor of the present Commission, a full statement of its arguments in favor of the limitation of building heights, which was printed in the report of that Com- mission at pages 211-223. With the exception of the height rules prescribed for one district, which it regards as too liberal, the Fifth Avenue Association is in hearty accord with the height limitations prescribed by the present Commission, and as to this exception the association has already submitted to the Commission in writing the restriction desired by the association. The recommendations as to area are entirely in accord with the views of the association. The necessity for some such reasonable rules as those prescribed by the Com- mission and the desirability of providing to some extent for courts and yards appear so obvious and the regulations in this respect have, to our knowledge, been so entirely unopposed as to need no argument here for their support. This statement will be confined, therefore, entirely to the limitation of the use of buildings. History of the factory invasion of Fifth avenue Up to twenty years ago Fifth Avenue was exclusively a residential thoroughfare, with the exception of a few retail stores located between 14th and 23d Streets. With the advent of these few retail stores specula- tive builders conceived the idea of buying a few lots on Fifth Avenue and erected a few office buildings. These buildings were rather flimsily and cheaply constructed. The building laws at that time were not stringent enough to prevent the erection of flimsy buildings. The space in these buildings was quickly rented. The residents in that part of Fifth Avenue began to move further uptown and more speculative builders secured land and proceeded to erect more office buildings. About 1900 the supply of office buildings had so far outstripped the demand for space that the owners of a number of these buildings found themselves without any income, because of their inability to rent the space in the office buildings. They then looked around and decided that cloak manufacturers would take the vacant space. To this end they procceded. These manufacturers were told that the Fifth Avenue address, in itself, would be a great asset to their business. They were also told that the nearer they were to the retail trade the better would be their business, and by giving more similar promises the speculative builders induced a few of the cloak manufacturers to move from the neighborhood of Broadway and Spring Street to Fifth Avenue between 15th and 18th Streets. It so hap- pened that the first three or four of the manufacturers who moved into that region did increase their business. This was taken for proof that in order to succeed in the manufacturing of cloaks and suits it was necessary to be on Fifth Avenue. Very quickly after this practically 70 per cent of the space in the office buildings on Fifth Avenue below 22d Street was taken by cloak and suit manufacturers. RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 111 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN As time progressed new loft buildings were erected east and west of Fifth Avenue in the side streets and by 1910 the section lying between 14th and 23d Streets was practically given over to cloak and suit manufacturing. Because of street congestion on the part of employees and the consequent absence of shoppers and loss of business and for other reasons outlined below, due te the presence of factories, the retail stores were forced to move. The offices in that district became equally undesirable and cloak- making was really the only industry or business which flourished there at this time. After 1910 the gradual march northward began. The cloak and suit manufacturers crept up to 25th, 26th and 27th Streets and by 1914 their northern limit was 32d Street. During the last two years they have kept on going up and up, until to-day some of them are located as far north as 38th Street. Even above this point and for a half mile or so there have of late become located many wholesale jewelry manufacturers employing hundreds of persons. Arguments in favor of the limitation of the use of buildings for factory purposes in the Fifth avenue district. Sidewalk and street congestion caused by employees Between the hours of 11.30 A. M. and 2 P. M. the sidewalks on Fiith Avenue become thoroughly congested with multitudes of employees from the factories in the side streets up to 34th Street. In some places there are merely groups of four, six, eight or twenty men standing on the sidewall and the roadway debating in strange tongues conditions of labor and other kindred subjects and stopping the free movement of the pedestrians along the sidewalks. At other places, notably between 27th and 33d Streets, the crowds marching four abreast north and four abreast south at a snail’s pace are so dense that it is impossible to wallk on the sidewall unless one is prepared to shove and fight one’s way through crowds. As many as 1,500 people have been counted on one block congregated on the sidewalks. Almost touching each other front and back they usually move at the rate of about one mile an hour or less up and down in stretches of from four to six blocks, and continually stop to exchange greetings with their friends. The Police Department finds it extremely difficult to keep them moving even at such a slow rate of speed. It becomes utterly impossible for any- body to enter a store or a building, where these crowds block the sidewalks, with any kind of physical comfort, and these conditions are particularly unpleasant for women, who constitute the great majority of shoppers. It naturally follows that customers will not trade in the stores so obstructed. Under such conditions the value of the property for business purposes is slowly but surely reduced and the tenant is forced to move. In addition to the above described discomfort caused by these crowds it has become customary on the part of the clothing manufacturers to use ° the streets as an employment office. It is a frequent occurrence that during the hours of the greatest congestion a foreman will run out and ask for a number of workers. In the slack season hundreds of them promptly organize a rush into the building carrying everything and everybody who happens to be on the sidewalk with them into the building. If it is realized that, according to the census of the State Labor Depart- ment, nearly 4,300 people are employed in one particular block in the lower part of the district and that practically all of them are men who come out during the noon hour for fresh air, a smoke and a meeting with their friends, it can vividly be pictured how the sidewalks look. Some photo- graphs furnished by the Fifth Avenue Association to the Commission por- 112 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS tray the conditions in such a plain manner as to make further comment superfluous. Conditions are of course also very bad in the morning and evening at the beginning and end of the working day. In the afternoon especially the sidewalks on the side streets are crowded with tens of thousands of workers scurrying eastward, all leaving work about the same time. Congestion of vehicular traffic There is a very close relation between the presence of factories in such a limited area and the presence of traffic congestion. Why this is so is at least im some respects quite obvious. The manufacturer’s goods, when finished, must be transported elsewhere in trucks. But this close relation- ship need not be surmised at or reasoned out. The entire point of Vehicular Congestion is so fully covered in the statement relating to traffic, dated March 30th, submitted by the Fifth Avenue Association to the Commission, as to require no further restatement here. Congestion in factories The factories themselves are crowded to the utmost capacity. Rents and overhead charges are high in the Fifth Avenue district, and the manu- facturers must use every inch of floor space in order to produce the neces- sary income. The height of the factories varies from ten to twenty stories ; and the number of those employed from 150 to 200 people on a floor. The elevator facilities provided for this large number of employees consist merely of the freight elevators, and, of course, receiving and shipping freight takes precedence over the transportation up and down of the em- ploy ees. How much time is lost to the individual employee is plainly shown by the fact that at the noon hour the majority find it more convenient and quick to walk down the stairs even as high as from the ae floor in order to reach the street promptly. Very often one elevator will be out of com- mission at lunch time, because the elevator boy is out to ici Pushing, shoving and actual fighting for a place in the elevator is a daily occurrence in some of the buildings. In the morning the employees dribble in. It takes about three-quarters of an hour for ‘them to come. In the evening, all of them leaving at the same time, every exit facility, elevators and stairs alike, are taxed to the utmost. In spite of this, however, 45 minutes elapse before the tall buildings are emptied. What a contrast is found in the factories further west, near and beyond 7th and 8th Avenues, where rents are cheaper and the necessity for economy of floor space not so vital! Whereas in the Fifth Avenue factories there are generally only two elevators or less, in the district further west the average number per factory building is four to five. In the Fifth Avenue district there are practically never over two elevators per factory, while only two or three blocks west there are practically never under two Reduction in values When the speculative factory movement began the market value of real estate between 14th and 23d Streets on Fifth Avenue increased and kept on increasing until it struck the high level about 1906. Since that time the decrease. has been gradual but ‘constant. The same thing holds good for the side streets. When loft buildings replaced private dwellings used for boarding houses assessed valuations were raised, but afterwards the assessments were slowly reduced and are still on the decline. The question of decreased assessments is a very complicated one. Asa rule assessments were on the increase below 23d Street up to about 1910. RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 113 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN The increase from 1895 to 1910 amounted to about 45 per cent, roughly speaking. Since 1910 the decrease in the assessed valuation has been at the rate of 10 to 25 per cent a year in some years, and five per cent in other years. Today the decrease in assessments is about 40 per cent from that of 1910. Above 23d Street the assessments were gradually raised until in 1912 they reached the maximum in the district between 23d and “30th Streets. During seven years assessments were increased by from 20 to 60 per cent, according to location, averaging about 35 per cent for the block square. The first cut in assessed valuations berween 23d and 28th Streets appeared in 1914, and 1915 and 1916 present some more cuts im assessed valuation. On the average, the reduction in assessment for taxation purposes amounts to about 28 per cent per square block, and specific cases of decreased assessments are to be found everywhere. Prac- tically none of the buildings erected prior to 1910 is today assessed at more than about 65 of 70 per cent. at the utmost of the assessed valuation in the period from 1910 to 1912. According to the Real Estate Record and Guide land value maps in 1911, five years ago, the front-foot value for assessment purposes of lands along Fifth Avenue ranged from $8,500 at Twenty-sixth Street (Madison Square) to $17,000 at Thirty-fourth Street. Today they are appraised by the same authority, the Tax Department, at from $6,300 to $14,000. Owing to the factory invasion and the decline in values the Fifth Ave- nue real estate market has been stagnant below 34th Street. There has been little change in the owners of property during the last two years in the region lying between 14th and 34th Streets. But during the last three years at least eleven parcels of land with the buildings erected thereon were sold at auction in proceedings to foreclose the mortgage. The equities in the properties, after deducting the first mortgage, which amounted to about 50 to 60 per cent of the assessed valuation, were wiped out. Let us take a few specific instances of reduction in assessments. The building at 34 to 46 West 23d Street, the old Stern Brothers building, de- creased in valuation from $3,330,000 in 1908 to $1,119,000 in 1915. The property at 27 to 29 West 16th Street, on which there is a practically new factory building, in 1908, before the improvements had been put in, was assessed at $118,000, and in 1909, after the improvements, at $248,000, stood on the tax books in 1915 at $190,000. The building at 186 Fifth Avenue, southwest corner of 23d Street, assessed at $620,000 in 1908, stands now at the assessed value of $220,000. General desirability of stability of use in districts In this city, as in any other city, stability in use of certain geographical sections makes for stability in values and stability along certain lines of business. The downtown section, for instance, which has been now for nearly a century the financial center of the city has as a district undergone few vicissitudes from the point of view of property and rental values. As an example of the contrary policy, we have the district lying around Canal and Walker Streets, west of Broadway, which today is practically empty and unused. This is a great detriment not only to the owners of the property there, but also to the city on account of the loss of taxes. Wherever there is any district where any attempt of permanency is made values are apt to be stable or to rise and the district has an architecture of its own suitable to the uses to which the buildings are put. An incentive is also given to builders to put up as good buildings as can be profitably erected. On tha 114 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS other hand where districts jump from one part of the city to the other values and appearances must necessarily suffer. Everybody wants tu get the bene- fit of the new district right at the start. Speculative and cheap buildings are encouraged and ultimately both the city and the property owners sustain losses. And what of those whose security for loans is real estate, the thou- sands of smaller investors in mortgage loans, the scores of great financial and insurance institutions who hold mortgages? Why, the future of their investments may be as insecure and unstable as water, as has been instanced and mentioned above with regard to lower Fifth Avenue, where many equities have been completely wiped out and more, as has been pointed out above. What chances has the holder of a second mortgage got under pres- ent conditions in some districts? And of what use are the best brains, the most expert judgment, the largest experience, and the fullest foresight on the part of officers and directors when they are up against an unregulated, haphazard, kaleidoscopic condition of affairs such as has resulted in the Fifth Avenue district? New York is now like a picture puzzle, the pieces shaken up in a bag and thrown on a table, with the pieces placed alongside each other just as they happen to fall out of the bag. We cannot even now have the perfect picture, but what we can do is to try to fix at least some of the pieces where they belong, and keep them from being shaken up in the bag again. Transportation of workers Transportation of the workers is greatly hindered by having the gar- ment factories on and near Fifth Avenue. No workingman can live within walking distance of his employment. From the far outlying districts like the Bronx and Williamsburg, as well as the lower east side, the workers come in crowded cars, elevated and subway trains, jammed to such an extent that the Board of Health has found it necessary to interfere. In most cases it means two car fares on each trip. In good weather the employees may in some cases save one car fare by walking. In bad weather thousands of these are compelled to walk on account of insufficiency of transportation mediums. Lunch rooms are not provided and cannot be provided for in sufficient quantities near the places where these people work. The relatively high rent makes it impossible to utilize a lunch room merely during the noon hour. As a result of the lack of accommodations a great many of these factory employees do not get sufficient or proper food for the noon meal. A large number of them bring their lunches with them and eat them on the streets, adding to the litter thereon by throwing the refuse on or near the curb. Transportation of goods If we are correctly informed a large majority of the goods manufac- tured in the Fifth Avenue district are shipped to points outside of tlie city and principally in the west. Consequently the factories in the Fifth Avenue district are most unfortunately located from the point of view of their dis- tance from the freight terminals. This handicap is greatly accentuated by the fact that the avenues and streets in the district are already the most heavily congested thoroughfares anywhere in the world, because of the mer- cantile, shopping and pleasure traffic necessarily concentrating there, and be- cause Fifth Avenue, owing to its central location, freedom from elevated and surface car lines, and for other reasons, is the main traffic artery of the city. This vehicular congestion is infinitely worse above 23d Street than RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 115 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN below it. From the point of view of this long and difficult haul the fac- tories would be best off near the waterfront, but if they are to remain near the avenue they are far better off below 23d Street than above it. Not only would their presence in the other locations benefit the manufacturers, but it would be a tremendous relief to the traffic situation. The finished garments are transported from the factories, first of all, to a packing house located in the district. It is not often that any one man- ufacturer ships a car load or even three or four cases to the same destina- tion. In order to receive more favorable rates it has become customary for the various manufacturers to ship their goods in small quantities to one of the several packing houses which specialize in this kind of freight. In this packing house are delivered the goods of three or four or even two dozen manufacturers, where they are repacked again and finally delivered to the receiving stations of the railroads or the steamships, on the North or East River, where most of the receiving stations are located. All this means double handling and double hauling and a double strain on the traffic situation. ; Proximity of buyers It has been said that one reason that the factories located in the Fifth Avenue district above 23d Street was that manufacturers of garments must have their factories located within easy reach of the hotel district and the retail stores; that no buyer coming from out of town will go very far from his hotel to buy his goods; and that in order to buy intelligently the buyer must be close to the retail district in order to see the variety of styles. This argument sounds plausible, but a little investigation will quickly show the futility of it. Of course, in the old days, the buyers who stayed in uptown hotels were a long way from the factories. But referring to the present, in the Fifth Avenue Building, to speak only of one instance, there are a number of salesrooms maintained by garment manufacturers who make their. goods hundreds of miles away from New York. They find no difficulty in getting buyers to come down and look at their goods. Strange to say, the very New York retail houses, in whose vicinity garment manufacturers are located, find it to their advantage to buy their goods as far out of town as Cincinnati, Rochester, Baltimore, or Cleveland, not to speak of Philadelphia. There is no sound reason why a manufacturer cannot logically do all his manufacturing where the rent is cheaper, where a workingman can live closer to his work, and where his overhead expenses are greatly lowered. If need be, should the manufacturer be too far away from the general vicinity of the buyer, there is nothing to prevent him from having a salesroom and office on or near Fifth Avenue. Difference between garment-factory workers and office and retail-store employees There is a decided difference in the character of the employees working in offices, retail stores and factories. By habit and training the employees in offices are courteous, mindful of the rights of others and not prone to interfere with the orderly and regular use of the streets. To a degree the same holds true of employees in the various retail stores. They are mostly the products of our public school system and have learned their lesson in behaviour. When we come to the garment factory employees we are confronted with the fact that the vast majority of them are relatively recent immigrants and not many of them are familiar with the English language. They do not readily fit themselves into the conditions which are so different from those under which they have lived in their native coun- 116 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS tries. But among the garment workers a distinction must be made between the younger generation and the older. The women in the trade are of a better fibre than the men. As a rule, in their contact with other people, they are less prone to make themselves offensive. As a matter of fact certain particular trades, in which the majority of the employees are women, are not objectionable from the point of view of the noon-hour con- gestion. As a rule these women eat their lunches in places set apart for them in the factories. Quite a number of employers have provided sanitary and healthy, even attractive, lunch rooms for their female eniployees, and at the present time the Labor Law prescribes lunch rooms and rest rooms in every factory which employs more than 20 women. Of course, even at the best, the women add to the congestion of the streets in the morning and in the evening. They form a material percentage of the crowds which seek transportation in the street cars, subways and elevated trains and they are seriously endangered by the risk of fire or panic in any of the tall buildings. The men, however, do not find lunch or smoking rooms provided for them in the factories. They are compelled to go out in the street. A few experiments have been tried along the line of using the roofs for these men. In each instance, however, the experiment has failed. The roofs are not capable of accommodating the large mass of men who work in one of these buildings. At the best, the expense of strengthening and properly safeguarding the roofs to make it possible for a large number of the men to congregate on them is costly, and they would in addition have to be roofed over to protect them from the elements. So the attempt to take the men off the streets and have them congregate on the roofs has met with no success. Necessity for preservation of the Fifth avenue district as the retail center The high-class retail stores which have been forced, by the invasion of factories, to move further north on Fifth avenue have now reached the limit of their northern migration. When the sections below 23d Street, and then in turn between 23d and 32d Streets, were invaded by factories there was a stretch from 34th to 59th Streets into which the retail stores could move. This section, however, is now fairly well built up. Incidentally it may be remarked that this is the only section of the city where assessed valuations have been rapidly increasing during the last three years. Should factories be erected to encroach further on this territory the retail stores must look for an entirely new section in the city. Central Park is a barrier to all trade. On the east side of Fifth avenue, facing Central Park, are the very costly homes of our citizens, and still more costly apartment build- ings are now being erected there. These two barriers prohibit the migration of retail stores above 59th street. It is hard to think of any locality which would be available should the territory from 34th to 59th Streets be further endangered by factories. This is not a local question—it is a matter affecting the entire city, yes, the whole country. It is in the interest of all that this district shall be preserved as the great retail district of the city and country. It is impossible to foresee or prophesy what will happen if the northerly spread of factories is not checked in the immediate future. Hundreds of millions of dollars are invested in the greater and smaller retail businesses in this district, and hundreds of millions have been spent in the erection of beau- tiful store buildings intended to be permanent, as well as on churches, clubs, hotels, public buildings and residences. To endanger these investments, to ee EO — Fifth Avenue, at 3lst Street—12:30 P. M. Sixth Avenue and 27th Street. Fic. 53—LUNCH HOUR CROWDS OF FACTORY WORKERS. 118 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS alter the character and ruin the beauty of this section would be a public calamity affecting not only the whole city, but it would be felt and deplored by the entire nation, which is bound up to this retail centre of the country by many commercial ties and which has a just pride in its most famous and historic thoroughfare. Other districts more suitable for factories The logical place for factories would seem to be in the neighborhood where the workers live. New York City is fortunate in having a tremen- dous waterfront where shipping facilities are of the best. Whether it be possible to move the factories to or near the waterfront is doubtful, but it is unquestionably possible to have factories near the places where the people live. The great east side, parts of the west side, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens, as well as Richmond, give plenty of opportunities for the erection of factories at not too great a distance from the workers. It is quite possible to have the various industries located in groups. Let the clothing industry be in one section of the city, the printing industry in another, the leather industry in still another, and so on. This has been accomplished in certain European cities. In our own cities, trades and businesses already congregate in groups. We find the wholesale district, the silk district, the coffee district, the drug district, the leather district, and so on, in well defined localities, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the industries could be grouped in a similar way. If the garment factories are to remain in the Fifth avenue district at all they are far better off below 23d street, assuming that proper buildings will be constructed there, than they are above it, in the district from which the Fifth Avenue Association has requested that they be excluded in future, for the following reasons, among others: 1. Because they would be arousing no opposition or hostility on the part of the public, the city and the business interests from 23d to 59th Streets. 2. Because they could not do any harm there to values, appearances and in other ways that has not already been done. 3. Because they would fit in with the general city plan and there have a district of their own. 4. Because it would help to solve the problem of the transportation of employees and a very large percentage of the workers would be within walking distance of their homes. 5. Because the vehicular congestion is infinitely less there than in the district above, and the transportation of goods to terminals could be more easily and quickly effected. 6. Because rentals are cheaper below 23d Street. Between 12th and 23d Streets buildings used exclusively as offices or salesrooms bring the rental of about 85 cents per square foot on the avenue and 70 to 75 cents on the side streets. Manufacturers pay between 65 and 75 cents per square foot. From 23d to 34th Street, office buildings and salesrooms pay about a dollar to $1.20 per square foot on the avenue. Police power It requires but little thought or study to see that every one of the argu- ments covered above, save that of “ Proximity of Buyers,” is based directly on one or more of the elements of the police power, such as the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare. They may be grouped roughly as follows: Y i lt = Elen i718 21% ima 2 17468 ao _pee oy e etane c a oP 74 BS tee 4-11-10 N 6~7-, 2H 16458 nS 4 * ‘ m2 @ elo 1587 ~ h) ls ao 8 eonnce > L E|N/O,x eS 2 z Lig E117" ST. 1666 z £. 167" ST. s cerry () Be 238 aia RL 4-7-4 eweet? ) erry (a7) q BS rus > g 0 aN 3 = 1622A eoeeseree NL es tevecten oe) 1596 A comparison of this map with the Building and Transit Development map prepared by the Commission, shows that the blocks between Fifth Avenue and Lexington Avenue in which a large number of fires occurred had many stores on the ground floor of the tenements, and that where such stores were absent the number of fires was much less. This deduction is confirmed by a careful study of the entire map and indicates the importance of districting in such a way as to exclude stores from tenements. RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN 131 Bureau or Fire [Nvestication, Ciry or New York, Quarrer Enpinc Marcu 31, 1916 Character of Stores in Which Fires Occurred mo} pe S 2 is) & bn n Ba 2 C= 4, 2 3S 3S n 3 “s} is m & mo Gee Be a a Ors u ur an +=} BS eR ES Be 8 Re Teale a SS Gol ee ts Balan ahts) (a) (a) fy ex aay © op) I (a Automobile Supplies ......... Ne 1 Ws 20 ae 1 2 IBAKErIeSp 5 a.tresner wether onmiouins 3 x ae Be ee 7 10 Rarer SMOMS coascccccc00cc0 2 1 1 5p A 4 8 BilliardwandmPoolkeer ceric: : zh Go wa oe wis 1 1 BitchenmShopsmereeeeereee 2 Me ee a 1 7 10 Cafe, Liquor Stores.......... 5 4 be ae 2 Wy Cigars and Stationery Stores. 6 4 2 ZA 5 30 47 Chenilks aracl SitiSsccoacccuccae 1 Be 1 2 1 7 10 GContectionenysesaeeeie eee: 1 a He ee se 9 10 Cotton Goodsmeny- ena ae ae is fe 2 2 DWelicatessSeneeeea see dees 2 es me 1 6 9 ID SPIES esl ocho Cho McheERS Re eI DCO 1 if 1 1 3 6 Day (Coeds. gacacnsccsnggcnada 2 is a 4 8 14 Dyeing and Cleaning......... a oo i 1 1 Embroideries and Laces...... se 1 1 2 4 lDNiaa Tusa pe sotaricicondoeets af a aa Ee re IEWBUHERS cocoodacco0s0b00008 2, on 1 5 8 Furnishings (Men’s) ........ 1 1 a 1 3 Furnishings (Women and Children) aseiccee cic ecules KS 1 3 1 as vs Se 2 4 Groceries and Dairies........ ae 10 a ste os 1 4 37 52 Hair Dressing and Hair Goods ef ee AG Oe aS az Be 2 2, Hardware, Housefurnishings. Be 1 ee ae at i 1 7 9 Hats and Caps (Men’s)...... a ca Se ce aie hs an 9 a ILEMAGIEES gp gboooboncboooueKnc oe 4 ay BS she ae 1 3 8 Millinery and Feather........ Bi Be a 1 ae 1 1 2 5 Notions and Novelties........ Pe 1 a Be ae ae 4 4 9 RaintswandalOilseemeeeeneeee a 1 via 1 ie 1 2 5 Plumbers and Tinsmiths..... Be 1 Fe Ns bie us 4 5 IRCHENETAMIS Go oag06009g00000c 1 3 1 6 2 1 6 12 32 Rucsmands Garpetsaeeeeneas ie a. me ie ae 6 Se 2 ae he Shoe and Leather Goods..... 3 1 1 ae 8 13 Sporting Goods ............. 1 Ap x3 oe a 1 Malorsm @Mlents) mereeeeeeeeen 2 1 AG 4 13 20 Tailors (Women’s) ......... 1 ae a a 9 10 Tailors (Trimmings) ....... uh oe a BS a Be (Wpholsterersmep eee ore: ue Ne a 1 wy 1 Mpscellaneousieaance eee ec 5 2 1 5 11 24 Woolen and Worsted Goods. Hy ae ae oe 1 1 IGmiini Chie: lanapee Man sca serdosa 1 1 MRotalitasaes myer eee 1 62 1 25 6 6 Al 27) S55 132 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS STATEMENT BY RowLAND HayNEs, SECRETARY, COMMITTEE ON RECREATION, Boarp oF Estimate, Aprit 18, 1916 Residential streets as playgrounds The advantage of use districting to the whole recreation problem lies in having reserved residence streets. Thus it is going to be possible, since the delivery traffic in such streets will be comparatively light, to use some of them for temporary play places, as was done by the Police Department in about 25 locations last summer. The only thing I wish to emphasize is the urgency and importance of such possibilities which are opened up by the action of your Commission. Great need for additional playgrounds In the first place, we have to realize that through some studies which we have previously made we have found that wherever the density of popula- tion exceeds 37.5 per acre, about 80 per cent, in fact, somewhat over 80 per cent of the children have to play away from home, either because there is no space in their own back yards or because that space is so small that they have no chance to play any of the larger space games. Out of the 54 wards in Manhattan and Brooklyn, all but seven exceed that density. Ii we take the city as a whole, including all of the boroughs, we find that 84 per cent of the population of New York live in districts where the density exceeds this figure of 37.5 per acre. Some neighborhoods in New York go up to 18 times that density. If we take 84 per cent of the whole number of children in this city between five and fifteen years of age as the number living in these more densely populated districts, and if we then take 80 per cent of this 84 per cent as the number who will have to play away from home, we find about 680,000 children in New York City who have got to play away from home. The average daily attendance last summer at all the playgrounds in New York City was less than one-third of 680,000. This includes the average daily attendance at park playgrounds, school play- grounds and playgrounds conducted by settlements and other philanthropic agencies. In other words, all the public and private agencies which we now have are reaching only about one-third of the child population who must play away from home. Seventy-five per cent of these playgrounds close after the summer season. This means that larger opportunities for play are urgently needed. To purchase enough additional places to reach the chil- dren who must play away from home would bankrupt the city. Hence we must use more intensively the land that the city already owns. Hence the method which was introduced last summer by the Police Commissioner of using streets reserved for play for certain hours in the day in certain dis- tricts must be extended for some time to come. My only purpose in accept- ing the invitation of your Commission to speak thus briefly is to point out that, while this plan of use districts is worked out for a different purpose, it is going to be of very genuine and fundamental value in improving condi- tions which we do not like but which we have got to face in the playground and recreation situation here in New York. Districting will reduce traffic on certain streets The restricting of residential streets against factories, stores and public garages makes those streets better for play use, first, because it reduces the amount of traffic in those streets. It makes the traffic in those streets simply delivery traffic for household necessities, which is much less than any through traffic, or traffic to garages, or delivery traffic to and from stores. RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 133 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN It reduces the amount of traffic and thus makes the burden of reserving a street for play purposes much less. In the second place it makes possible the reservation for play purposes of residence streets which are near those on which the children are living. In short, it makes possible the reservation of play streets without burden to traffic and near where they are needed. Streets the only playground for most children Certain types of stores, namely, those where much loafing is done, have a very undesirable moral effect on the children living nearby. I do not think, however, that the restriction of residence streets against stores will make much difference on that score, because the stores will not be very far away. The corner drug store will not be very far away, even in a residential district. So I think we cannot assume that it will reduce very much the harmful influences that come from some stores. In a locality that is built up with apartment houses and business places covering from 70 to 90 per cent of the land, where there are no play- grounds, the children are compelled to play in the streets. About 90 per cent or more of the children in the crowded districts play in the street now, if they play outdoors at all, during the seasons when most of the public playgrounds are closed. We feel that it is vital that children should have places in which to play. Ten per cent or more of the school investment in New York City is wasted because children outside of school hours or after school years form habits which waste what they get in school. A very lengthy investigation would be necessary to find the exact amount of the educational loss in this way. Studies which have been made in cities throughout the country show that about 40 per cent of the children, even in cities only one-tenth as big as New York, who are outdoors outside of school hours, are idle because there.is no place for them to play. Children ‘who are doing nothing are not developing habits of push and initiative that they must develop in order to use their school training. The wholesome use of out of school time is a big asset to any city. Dedicating every part of the city to apartment houses would have two effects. First, it would reduce the amount of open space, and second, it would increase the number of children per acre. It would reduce the amount of open space because it would be possible to build up to 70 per cent of the lot. Then, by piling up the homes, the number of children per acre would be very largely increased. Thus the play conditions would become more and more acute and more and more difficult to handle. I should not be advocating play streets 1f we could afford anything else, but we cannot afford enough play places at present to reach all the children. We must provide some temporary expedient. Tenement yards not desirable playgrounds The rear yards provided by the Tenement House Law are neither adequate nor desirable as play spaces. The noise from the playing in such narrowly enclosed areas would be intolerable. One great problem which we have to face, even in a reserved street, which is much larger than the tiny back yard wells you have described, is how to overcome the noise of play. Minimum play space standards In London the school board is reported as having set apart a minimum of 30 square feet of play space for each child as a standard. Most 134 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS American schools are trying to get 40 and 50 square feet per child for their play use. There comes in the problem of the times in which the play areas are used. That is the reason why we are interested in a duplicate school plan in New York City. With the present system, a large number of chil- dren are thrown on small play areas at half past three in the afternoon. If the duplicate school system is extended, it makes possible the use of the small area over and over again. If you have 30 square feet reserved for each child all the time, it uses up a great deal of space, but if you can use that amount of space over and over again by different sets of children through the day, you have an opportunity to make that 30 square feet really adequate and you will not require the 50 square feet which some cities are trying to get. I usually say that you can handle about 300 children per acre at one time, but that you can count on an acre’s handling a thousand children adequately during the day since it is shown that there is a flux back and forth even without the regulated flux which comes with duplicate schools. When I spoke of duplicate schools I was not referring to school problems. I am particularly interested in the duplicate school plan, not from the stand- point of the educational problem, but from the standpoint of the recreational problem. Such a plan makes possible, by co-operation between the School and the Park Departments, the wider use of both school and park play- grounds. For the park playgrounds, it means that instead of having park playground leaders who are more or less unemployed part of the day, we should have park playground leaders who would be employed all day because of the different shifts of children coming to them on the park playgrounds from the nearby schools. Studies in four or five cities indicate that the average child of twelve years will not go more than a quarter of a mile to play. However, a slight modification comes in time; that is, after a playground becomes established, after the parents become confident of its good management, the children are drawn from a little wider area. But it is true that little children won’t go more than from two to six blocks, sometimes less. STATEMENT By JosEPH J. HoLWELL, PRESIDENT, GREENPOINT TAXPAYERS’ AND CrtizENs’ AssocrIATION, ApRIL 10, 1916 Need of protecting parks from factories I feel that McCarren Park ought to be made a great playground. It is the only big public breathing spot we have in the Eastern District. We as a community are not a community of men and women who are able to get out of Greenpoint for recreation purposes. You who are familiar with Brooklyn and particularly the Eastern District know that a manufacturing center is a tenement house center, and that the people who reside in those tenements have not the wherewith in most cases to get out of such a section for recreation purposes. It is considered a great boon once or twice each vear for these people to go to Coney Island or Rockaway Beach. There- fore, we must bring recreation centers to them, and inasmuch as the City has paid over $1,300,000 for McCarren Park, I think it should be developed into a great public playground and park. It can be made such by prohibit- ing the erection of factories in the future on private property fronting on the park. RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 135 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN STATEMENT By RaymMonp V. INGERSOLL, CoMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF Parxs, Brooktyn, Aprit 10, 1916 Injury done parks by factories The factories already located on the borders of McCarren Park, and particularly one of them—the Kings County Iron Works—have been in- jurious both to vegetation and to the recreation activities in that park. The Board of Health has taken action a number of times, but we have not yet obtained satisfactory results. There is one factory that emits smoke and fumes which darken the sky and which leave a heavy deposit of soot, so that within 24 hours after a snowstorm you will often find the snow almost black with this soot. Now, that does not tend to promote the healthfulness of McCarren Park as an outdoor play space, and it seems to me that it would be feasible to put this within your district restricted for resi- dences and business, and exclude industry for the future. Of course, the result of that would be that there will be some industry around the border of the park for some years to come, but some of those industrial plants are gradually becoming obsolete, and if they move away for any reason, we will gradually approach the condition which we would like to have there. STATEMENT BY Raymonp V. INGERSOLL, CoMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF Parks, Brooktyn, May 25, 1916 Effect of districting I believe that, without doing any violence to existing conditions, this plan, 1f it goes into effect, will check the unnecessary growth of congestion of population in certain sections, diminish the fire hazards, decrease unneces- sary street congestion and the dangers from street congestion, particularly to children who have to play in the streets; that it will be a very great aid to the City in properly locating its schools and libraries and other public buildings by its tendency to make the growth normal and to make it possible to anticipate it; in other words, a general substitution of harmony and plan for chaos and ugliness. Importance of protecting small parks As the members of this commission know, I have been particularly interested in this plan in relation to the surroundings of the parks and parkways and particularly to the small parks and playgrounds scattered in the various parts of our borough, and I have been in touch with the Com- mission for a good many weeks on that subject, and I must say that I have been very much gratified that the Commission has seen its way clear to meet the park point of view to so great an extent in regard to the surroundings of these small parks. We have a very wholesome tendency now, noticeable in Brooklyn, to build public and semi-public buildings along the borders of these smal! parks, helping to embellish them and to make them more attrac- tive and impressive, to protect them from smoke and noise and to make them what they are intended to be, genuine centers of recreation and civic centers for these various neighborhoods. The Commission has met our views in most respects with the exception of one or two small parks located in indus- trial sections. I think it is extremely important that we should have a few attractive residence areas around these little parks and playgrounds. It is the natural 136 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS place for the best residences in that particular section to line up along the parks and playgrounds, and it is valuable from many points of view. Streets as play space The child spends a great deal more time out of school than in school. The time the child is out of school is at least double the time it is in school. If we do not develop, protect and make attractive the small neighborhood places for playing, the child will play in the street, exposed to the dangers of street accidents, also exposed to moral danger, through lack of super- vision, such as we have on the playgrounds. The natural tendency of such children is to gather together in small gangs and to develop the ethics of the street gang, the fundamental point, as I take it, in which is solidarity of feeling in opposition to the government, that is, in opposition to the police. That’is the one prevailing point of view which you find in a gang of street boys. ~ As the policeman is obliged to restrict their play activities and ask them not to play ball for fear the ball will break windows, constantly sup- pressing some of the natural play instincts these boys have, and prevent them doing things which, if out in a lot and playground, would be the natural and right thing to do, they very soon, even the best of them, develop a feeling of resentment against the policeman, and to their minds he repre- sents organized adult society and this fosters in the minds of the children a very dangerous and unwholesome attitude towards society in general, and a great many of them grow up with it. That is just one point of view in regard to the moral aspects of the question. The physical side of it seems to me rather obvious. The street is no place for children to play either for safety, comfort, health, or for their moral and mental development. It is desirable to preserve the exclusive residential character of streets so as to provide safer and healthier places for children to play until ade- quate space can be provided. I think there are ten children playing in the streets in Brooklyn to one playing in the playgrounds. Now, that is a very conservative statement. That is simply because our supply of playgrounds is so inadequate. The old law that no schools shall be built without a play- ground has not been observed. Now we have not a sufficient supply of these playgrounds. Land has become so expensive that there is no immediate prospect for years to come, of our having an adequate number of play spaces distributed through the various parks of the borough. So I believe the Commission is warranted in taking that situation into account and it can- not be answered even by saying “ Well, the thing to do is to supply these playgrounds.” The cost of doing that on a sufficient scale would be entirely beyond the present financial ability of the city. It would be a project com- parable to the building of the subways to start out to get sufficient neighbor- hood spaces for play throughout the city. While we wish to get these spaces as far as we cat, we shall be grateful for any wise consideration in the making of this plan which will help to make the streets where the children actually do play a little more safe than they now are, and I believe that end can be furthered by separating industrial from residence districts, and, in so far as is compatible with the convenience of the residence sections, to separate the stores also, keep them off as many blocks as conditions will warrant. Distribution of population I admire the work of this Commission and its report most profoundly. I think if any mistake has been made as applied to Brooklyn it has been RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN kELATION TO 137 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN in the direction of too great moderation and it is unnecessary, it seems to me, to assume that with the opening up of future transit lines—all of this fan-like system spreading in every direction-—it is unnecessary to assume that it will be natural to have anything like a repetition of the building development which took place up in The Bronx when that was the only line of rapid transit connecting up with the central part of the city; and I am sure that the Commission has been very moderate in its height and area restrictions so far as the Borough of Brooklyn is concerned. I believe it could safely go a little farther in that direction, and while that is not the subject directly connected with my official work, it has to do with housing conditions, to which in the past I have given quite a little attention. Stores on residential streets objectionable I think that a reasonable degree of separation of stores from residence districts is desirable. Take for instance, the rattling through the streets of delivery wagons. Of course, there always must be delivery service from the stores to the residential districts, but if you have stores scattered indis- criminately through the residence sections there is just that much more noise and that much more danger of accident from the traffic that has to go through those streets, and it seems to me that your Commission has shown a very great deal of discretion in trying to separate the stores from the residence districts, and yet not to put them too far away, but always have them within reach, which, of course, is important. STATEMENT By CLARENCE H. Kesey, PRESIDENT, TITLE GUARANTEE & Trust Company, Marci 30, 1916 ; Need for districting I have no doubt that ithe city has a right to direct future building de- velopment in accord with a well considered plan, and believe that it ought to exercise it immediately and firmly. If it does not do so, it is failing to protect itself and property values as well. Its present policy of allowing every owner of real estate to do as he pleases with his own, is a policy of self-destruction. I do not wish to discuss the plan in detail, and I do not think the Com- mission should attempt to hear a vast number of property owners’ individual views as influenced by the effect of the plan on their properties and attempt to reach a conclusion by reconciling these conflicting views, for the more property owners discuss the details, the more confused the situation will become. The Commission, if it is to succeed, will ultimately have to decide for itself, on broad general principles, what is best for the city’s future development and adopt it without expecting to get the approval of a majo- rity of the individual property owners. The conclusion should be based on the general good and made effectual by right of the power of the city government to do what is best for the city at large. I have no doubt that a great many property owners will see their particular properties limited in usefulness and somewhat depreciated in value, but if the plan is not adopted, I believe there will be a far greater depreciation affecting a far greater number of people. On values as a whole, I have no doubt of the favorable effect of this proposed control of the improvement and use of real estate. There has been a great recession in values during the last five years, and it has affected not only those who have gone counter to the new regulations sought to be 138 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS established, but those who have not; and those who may complain of the effect of these regulations on their particular properties and who think that they should be left free to build as high as they please and use as they please, may, if nothing is done, and they do anticipate their neighbors and make a greedy improvement, find a much greater loss confronting them in the future depreciation of their new buildings. I believe such depreciation is sure to come from a continuance of the present policy, and such owners will lose less by the adoption of the restrictions now proposed. These restrictions will tend to steady values and enable all real estate owners to make reasonable use of their property. This is certainly better for the city as a whole than to continue to allow a few out of many to make unfair use of their property and depress still further the value of the remaining prop- erty and ultimately their own as well. STATEMENT BY JOHN KENLON, CHIEF OF THE Frre DEPARTMENT, May 18, 1916 Traffic congestion an obstacle to movement of fire apparatus In the thirty years that I have been connected with the Fire Depart- ment, lower Manhattan has changed from a five-story to a twenty-five story city. There is great congestion there at the present time; during the day time it is difficult to move apparatus in response to fire calls in the lower end of Manhattan Island. Increased congestion of people and traffic in this section will cause very serious delays in getting apparatus to work around the scene of a fire. Even at present it is very difficult until the police reserves arrive and establish fire lines at a safe distance from the scene of the fire. The same condition prevails in the uptown section from 23d to 45th street, particularly at certain hours. The men who laid out the old part of the city 250 years ago had very little conception of the con- ditions that obtain today. Those gentlemen could not possibly see the great 10-ton and 15-ton motor trucks running around on our streets. Downtown today it is almost impossible to get through the streets. In ten years from now horses will be a very rare sight on the streets of New York. The small buggy has been superseded by the Packard, which takes four times the space. The streets are too narrow in the lower part of Manhattan to take care of the traffic. It is a serious matter; it requires a great deal of ex- perience, a good hand and a strong arm to drive fire apparatus through the streets of lower Manhattan. Any plan that will in a measure prevent the increase of congestion in the central portions of the city, is a plan in the right direction. Fire fighting in high buildings We never attempt to fight fires from the street level in very high build- ings, except where the fire occurs between the curb and the sixth floor. Such buildings must have the means of controlling fires from within; that is, they must be furnished with standpipes, pumps, hose, and all other auxiliary fire appliances necessary to combat a fire. From the sidewalk we can not combat a fire at a greater height than 100 feet. The Fire De- partment is better equipped to fight fires in the heart of the city than in the outlying sections. We have provided more powerful apparatus and stronger equipment there. But I would not use that as an argument for limiting the height of buildings. We can change our equipment to meet changing conditions, the difference being in the cost. High buildings, tf 1 RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 139 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN constructed along safe lines, have no terrors for me; subdivide floor areas with horizontal fireproof partitions, equip the building with an up-to-date automatic sprinkler equipment and put in smokeproof fire towers. Do that, and I care not how high you go. Segregation of buildings will lessen fire danger T should like to have hazardous trades, especially the storage, transporta- tion and sale of all explosive and combustible materials segregated in dif- ferent parts of the city. Segregating business of a hazardous kind would lessen the fire danger; we would not get what we call a conflagration breeder stuck in among a lot of other buildings. It would also facilitate the fighting of fire. If you can confine stores to broad avenues and good substantial build- ings, and reserve side streets for residences, there would be a great deal less danger from fire. I think you are on the right line for the health and safety of the people in establishing residential and industrial districts. I am heartily in accord with the plan of the Commission. I have seen New York grow, and grow very rapidly. Take Harlem, for instance, north of Central Park. I re- member very well when there were very few houses on that great plain. At the present time it is solidly built up, and at night is one of the most congested parts of the city. 133) Segregating buildings according to occupancy in different sections of the City will restrict the area in which a conflagration can occur. It will be a help to the Fire Department in laying out and equipping fire houses. I think it will greatly lessen the cost of fire protection. Wider yards and courts would prevent fire If we can apply to the outlying sections provisions that will prevent so great a percentage of the lot being covered by buildings, by laying out wider yards and courts, the safety of the city will be promoted. Such a plan would tend to prevent the spread of fire. Where the area of the yard is increased on both sides and the courts are larger the danger of the spread of fire is considerably less. The proposed plan requires a rear yard for every building back to back with another building. This yard must increase in width with the height of the building, being generally in Manhattan a yard of 10 feet for a five-story building and one of 20 feet for a ten-story building. This requirement in my judgment, would, in many cases, prevent the spread of fires and make it less difficult to fight fires. STATEMENT By ALFRED R. Kirkus, Aprit 17, 1916 Need for districting The slogan of “ safety first” is heard on every side, except in a man’s own dwelling, and there he seems to forget it. The necessity for preserving health and safety in living conditions is frequently overlooked in the struggle for dollars and cents. It is, therefore, particularly interesting to examine the magnificent work already done by the Commission on Building Districts and Restrictions, and every effort should be made to carry out, or improve upon, the comprehensive plan which they have suggested. We are so used to herding, in our travel, our business, and, alas, often in our homes, that anything that will wake us up to the value of restricting this habit and 140 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS give us light, air and safety should be welcomed and supported. There is no question that the regulations suggested by the Commission are absolutely necessary to public safety and he aith, and the proposed restrictions should be adopted : an early date, subject to some slight modifications. The Borough of Manhattan has been ser iously injured by the promis- cuous erection of buildings. Buildings equal to four or five times the height suited to the width of the street have been built, stealing from the adjoin- ing owners light and air, and, at the same time, destroying the light and air of that owner. It is quite apparent now that if the high: building in Manhattan had been prevented several years ago, our acreage of compara- tively unproductive property would have been built upon, the congestion along certain lines would have been prevented and travel distributed over broad areas, instead of concentrated into narrow ones. The plan your Com- mission has adopted will prevent in the future this result, and large sections will be saved from the destroying elements that have existed in the past, but the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens must be saved now from the calami- ties which are apparent in Manhattan. Residing as I do in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn, and owning other property than my own residence, I am, therefore, vitally interested in the proper restricting of that most beautiful section of Greater New York. Con- sequently I wall take up, as briefly as possible, requests for amendments to the plans of the Commission strengthening the restrictions in certain locali- ee where I do not think they are made strong enough. My residence is on the south side of Bev erly road, within two hundred feet of a station from which within two years I shall be able to reach the centre of Manhattan in fifteen minutes for 5c, and from which I can reach the ocean front in fifteen minutes for 5c. I not only want my neighbors restricted from destroying my home, but | want to be restricted from de- stroying theirs. In front of me to the north is a section, Prospect Park South, that is an example of what, restricted for homes, a section can be made. Filled with beautiful detached houses, surrounded by gardens, it is unique in its close proximity to the business places of the owners. Few cities can boast of such garden spots so near to, and yet so completely de- tached from, the noise and turmoil of a great city. This section is re- stricted against apartment houses, of no matter w hat quality, for nine more years. Is it not utterly unreasonable that I, directly across the street, by having my property unrestricted, can erect tenements, or cliff dwellings, as I call them, facing this beautiful location; and why should I, having pur- chased for the purpose of maintaining a private individual house, be men- aced by the possibility of those on either side of, or behind, me putting up tenements. I would recommend that the “ E” district area limits be increased slightly so that the building above the first story shall not exceed 40 per cent (instead of 30 per cent) of the area of the lot and 60 per cent on corners. Exploitation of private home sections The idea seems to exist that great pecuniary gains can be made by the owners of property by abandoning their homes and erecting apartments. I think this is not only a mistake but a most selfish one. My personal opinion is that lots located within fifteen minutes’ travel from the centre of Man- hattan will be in great demand for many, many years; that if the present houses are inadequate for the land values they can be replaced on the “ JE’ RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 141 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN district plan and produce a profitable investment and.a large return on the original investment. This entire section put under the “C” plan would permit of buildings, practically governed simply by the tenement house law. Rows and rows of solid buildings, occupied by hundreds of families, could be erected upon these lots and throughout the entire neighborhood, and the advantages of the property, as laid out originally, could be destroyed by one or two vandals, who, being the first, might reap a pecuniary advan- tage at the expense of the neighboring owners. This must be stopped and absolutely prevented now. We must not wait until the neighborhood has been spotted with the excrescences that have defaced certain adjacent sec- tions already, and if a person wants to take his property and erect a multi- family house let him do it under the restriction of the amended “ E” dis- trict plan, and he can still retain or enhance the value of his property, but do it in a way that will harm no one. No owner in this garden spot need be afraid of accepting this ““ E” district plan. It only needs a few figures and a little information to prove that property will not deteriorate by this plan. A first-class apartment house, with a fine garden and court space around it, will bring much more, permanently, than buildings with their walls abutting or with little alleyways between and no trees or gardens. All the people in New York have not yet become cliff dwellers, and anyone who has moved to this section from even a three or four-story house in the ordinary old sections of Manhattan or Brooklyn, has immediately real- ized the enormous benefit to health by having windows all around instead of simply front and back. How often do you find people going from these detached houses back to the old style. The move is generally to still more suburban or country life. I do not include in these those individuals who prefer to-'sleep in a box and spend their time in cabarets and places of amuse- ment, because they are never home makers. I am talking now of the respon- sible citizen, the citizen who wants to rear and bring up properly a family of future citizens, and who takes an interest in the progress and improve- ment of the community generally. A large electric sign has just been erected, through the influence of the Flatbush Chamber of Commerce, at Flatbush Avenue and Malbone Street as follows: “This is the Entrance to Flatbush—The Garden Spot of the City of Homes.” How long will the sign mean anything if the majority of the “ garden spot’ can be covered with apartment houses under plan “ C”’? Exception may be taken to this district plan because of the exceptional transit facilities, but these facilities are largely provided for through travel from Manhattan to the ocean front, and would not have been provided otherwise, and as industrial or factory development is not included in the Commission’s plans in this section, the districting as proposed will accom- modate all the population likely to inhabit same in a healthy and safe manner. SraTEMENT By S. AporpHus Kwnopr, M. D., Marcr 24, 1916 Tall buildings A tall building, fifteen to twenty stories high, with all the modern im- provements and conyeniences and sufficient fire protection, situated on a public square, park or playground, which does not take away the light or air of neighboring buildings, is a monument to man’s ingenuity and archi- 142 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS tectural skill. The same building, no matter how handsomely built, situated’ in a narrow street with buildings close to it on either side, or at the front or rear, so that those living in less high buildings are deprived of light and air, is a manifestation of man’s thoughtlessness or, what is worse, selfishness and greed. Sunlight Sunlight and air are as essential to man’s well-being as water. If I shut off water so that my neighbors cannot procure any, I should be prose- cuted as a criminal, and justly so, for thus I take away what does not belong to me. In that case I should be a thief pure and simple. Yet I may con- struct in any narrow street as high a building as my means and the builder’s skill will permit, thereby depriving a great number of my fellow-men of the light and air which are necessary to, hee health. In other words, I may steal from them the sunlight and air which God has given all his children, and to which all should be entitled by right of being free-born American citizens. There is as yet no law which will punish me for this crime, for that is what it is. Deaths from tuberculosis Tuberculosis, which is propagated by bad air, foul air and lack of sun- light, causes annually a loss of 200,000 citizens to the United States. In the City of New York during the last statistical year it was responsible for 10,000 deaths. This disease could be largely prevented if we lived and worked in pure air, in air relatively free from mineral and vegetable dust, and, last but not least, if we were to construct the buildings in which we live and labor so as to allow sunlight to enter more freely. Tuberculosis is far more prevalent among the workers in our downtown tall office build- ings than is generally known and much more than should be the case when one considers the wealth which is represented there and the relatively good pay the bookkeepers and clerks receive as a rule.” Tuberculosis among garment workers Carefully gathered statistics show that in the City of New York the garment workers are afflicted more frequently with tuberculosis than any other class of workers. The majority of these workers do not, as is often thought, work in their homes. They work in the tall crowded buildings, situated in congested districts, ten, twelve, twenty, or more stories high, where every floor masses hundreds of workers. Many are tuberculous without knowing it. Others know that they are tuberculous, but, perhaps fearing discharge, hide their disease as long as they can; but in the mean- time they disseminate the germs of tuberculosis by coughing in their neigh- bors’ faces or over the clothing they manufacture, or, what is still more frequent, spread the disease by careless expectoration on the floor. During luncheon hour they crowd the streets and avenues, and those afflicted with the disease expectorate freely on sidewalks and streets. The infectious sputum dries and pulverizes and is inhaled with the dust and causes tuber- culosis in any susceptible individual who may frequent that street. Fifth avenue And now, not content with the many altogether too tall buildings already lining the part of Fifth Avenue south of Tw enty-third Street and the ad- joining streets, some (let me hope not greedy but only thoughtless) capi- talists wish to increase the number of disease-breeding and death-trap sky- RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 143 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN scrapers and erect them in the one principal and most beautiful street of New York City, where there are as yet relatively few of these unsanitary and unsafe structures. A second danger, although not purely medical, but which as a citizen and physician I nevertheless have the right to call attention to, is that of fire. Standpipes have not proven sufficient protection for most skyscrapers. It is for this reason no less than for the others already mentioned that the time for limiting the height of buildings in our crowded streets has come. Too many lives are sacrificed directly and indirectly through the erection of too tall buildings. ' The section of Fifth Avenue between Twenty-third Street and Fifty- ninth Street is bound soon to be lined with business structures. Let these business structures be sanitary, beautiful and safe and limited in height. Let us not make a canyon of this section. It is not merely a question of beauty or aesthetics but of danger to property in the event of fire that there should be a limitation to the height of buildings, on what is left of Fifth Avenue. This limitation is an urgent necessity because it will help to diminish the danger from infectious deadly diseases and fires. There is one more danger arising from allowing factory buildings to be located in the zone above mentioned. I refer to the danger from con- gestion in strikes or other labor manifestations, as was clearly shown only yesterday when there was a stoppage of all traffic for nearly an hour near 34th Street—the center of the shopping district of New York. STATEMENT By Netson P. Lewis, Cu1ErF ENGINEER, Boarp or ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT, May 4, 1916 Effect of high buildings on street traffic S It has seemed to me that in considering the control of the height and arrangement of buildings, their use and occupancy, consideration should be given to the effect upon street traffic of the uncontrolled and unrestricted development of the city through building operations, and the entirely uncon- trolled location of industries and business. It is obvious to anyone that in certain portions of the city, notably in lower Manhattan, the enormous day population of the office buildings, most of whom come to their work in the morning and leave in the afternoon within a very limited time, now over-taxes the public streets, and while we are reasonably free from earthquake shocks, or even tremors, you will recall that in 1884 and again in 1886 there were violent vibrations which caused a very panicky feeling. You may remember the explosion in the Tarrant Building, perhaps twenty years ago, which created a great panic in the neighborhood. It is easy to see what would happen if, in the office building district downtown, a violent explosion or earthquake tremor were to occur, which would result in a mad rush from office buildings to the streets. The panic in the streets would be almost inconceivable, and would, under existing conditions, be about as serious and fatal in its results as those which occur when people try to leave a theatre in case of an alarm of fire. I am speaking now only of pedestrian traffic, but the vehicular traffic which will result from the over-intensive use of land in the city must also be considered. Use districts will segregate different kinds of traffic Perhaps there are.those who might fear that the result of a segregation of heavy manufacturing, of light manufacturing and business, and of resi- 144 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS dences might aggravate present traffic conditions. I think there need be no fear on that score, whereas the greatest delays and dangers incident to public traffic are those resulting from the indiscriminate mixture of traffic of various classes. In heavy manufacturing districts we will have heavy trucking with slow movement and, if the traffic is nearly all of that class, the speed would be fairly uniform and confusion would be much less than in the case of mixed traffic. Similarly, in districts devoted to light manu- facturing or business, the extraordinary dev elopment of the motor vehicle will result in greater flexibility of the traffic and its separation, to a large extent, from the very heavy traffic which will frequent the industrial districts and the pleasure traffic which will be found in the residential districts and on pleasure drives. It appears to me that the entire problem of traffic control will be sim- plifed rather than aggravated by such a limited degree of segregation as I think the Commission has in mind. Effect of automobile on traffic conditions Let me further point out that the extraordinary development of the motor vehicle which lately has taken place, while increasing the number of vehicles, may actually simplify some of the problems which might be expected to result from the segregation of business and industries. The Secretary cf State’s office advises me that in the New York district, which includes not only the city, but the Counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland and Putnam, the registration for the entire year of 1915 of motor vehicles for pleasure traffic was 82,751 vehicles; for commercial uses, 13,640. That was for the twelve months ending February 1, 1916. For the first three months of the present year, from February Ist to May Ist, the registration in that district of pleasure motor vehicles was 9214 per cent of the total for the preceding twelve months, while the registration for commercial vehicles was 14 per cent greater than for the entire twelve months of the preceding year. You may think this is irrelevant, but it indicates to me very clearly that the sub- stitution of the motor vehicle for the horse-drawn truck, through its shorter length and less occupation of street space, through its greater speed and greater flexibility, will result in a far greater capacity, and that you can dismiss as groundless any fear that the “segregation of industries involving very heavy trucking, of light manufacturing or business using light com- mercial vehicles, or of residences, will aggravate the traffic “problem, I think it will actually tend to simplify it. The net result to the city of this simplification will be a greater traffic capacity in our existing streets, a more intelligent and economic arrangement of the streets, so far as subdivision into roadway and sidewalk is con- cerned and greater safety to the public using the street by avoiding in a large degree “the mixed traffic which we have to-day, and which, I think, is a greater source of danger than intensive traffic of any one class. Need for districting While I am thoroughly convinced, not only by my own reasoning, but by what I have seen in other cities and in other countries, of the great need of some such control as the Commission proposes to recommend, I feel that if it is to be done, it should be done quickly, as there is no question but that there will be a rush to the Bureau of Buildings to get plans approved as far in advance of actual construction as possible, before any restrictive ordinance goes into effect. I fancy that if these building plans are once ap- RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 145 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN proved under existing ordinances, the approval will be good and valid and that you could not prevent the carrying out of building plans which have been approved by competent authorities. Consequently, the effect of a delay of many months m applying the zoning plan would be very serious and would nullify in no small degree the very purposes which your Commission has in mind. I think that the city has suffered seriously from the lack of such a plan in the past, and with the increasingly rapid growth of the city the plan becomes all the more urgent. Meaning of garden city movement We have heard a good deal about the garden city movement which, I think, is quite generally misunderstood. It is not so much bringing the garden into the city, or taking the city into the country, as it is a protest against further centralization. Its real purpose is decentralization and the avoidance of the aggravated conditions which we find in Manhattan Borough, and in some other parts of the city to-day, and that would be in no small degree avoided by-such regulation as the Commission proposes. Lack of districting increases cost of streets I may say that one of the serious problems confronting my office in passing upon street plans has been the need of providing what may be an excessive width of streets where land is cheap, for fear that the building of a new transportation line, putting this land in close touch with the busi- ness centre, will result in an intensive development by apartment houses, so that we have been obliged to guard against conditions which formerly prevailed on the east side of Manhattan and to insist upon a minimum street width, which is more than the real need of the territory if reasonably restricted. If such development were confined, for instance, to two or three story houses, or in some cases to detached houses, we would not have been obliged to impose upon the property owners the cost of acquiring and then improving streets of a greater capacity than they would need, if there were some sane, reasonable plan for preventing over intensive development. The present extension of the rapid transit system is another reason why the plan should be adopted now. It is the present extension of the rapid transit system that makes me refuse to recommend what, were it not for the danger of intensive development along these lines, would be a sufficient and reasonable street plan for a suburban development with detached houses or houses of limited height. I think districting is a necessary concomitant or supplement to the rapid transit plan, unless the city is going to have a distorted, unbalanced growth, with strips of intensive development along the transit lines. Development of slum areas Within the last two decades there has been a great influx of European immigration of constantly increasing volume. The racial tendency of these people on arriving in New York is te segregate in certain quarters. This is true not only of New York, but every other industrial centre. [ven though employees in mills and factories have received compensation which would really permit them to live decently, they have been disposed, in many cases, if quarters were available, to herd in a few rooms, cutting dawn their rental to a minimum, in order that they may within the shortest possible time save enough money to go back home. If it is possible to crowd together in tenements, they will take advantage of the opportunity. 146 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS Stores on residential streets undesirable As I have already pointed out the greatest danger from traffic is where there is a mixed traffic—commercial and pleasure traffic—moving together along the same limited roadway at different speeds and constantly stopping. I think that it is obvious to anyone that where there are stores in tene- ment quarters, stores with four or five or six stories of apartments above them, the streets become dangerous for children to play in. Land subdivision and districting It would be a more desirable condition if the ordinary house could be put on a lot more nearly square, so that it would have light on all sides. I would like to give you an illustration showing an alternative method of subdivision of an indentical area in the Borough of Brooklyn. RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 163 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN I have invariably found that the workers in those buildings are much worse in respect to their nervous and digestive condition than in the buildings that are less than twelve stories. I ascribe this to their apprehension of danger of fire and also to inadequate facilities and bad lunches. Elevator sickness A great many of our girls—and 75 per cent of the workers in the dress and waist trade are girls—suffer from what they call elevator- phobia. They cannot ride in the elevators. The sudden jar of the start and the ascent or descent in elevators has a certain effect upon their nervous system. As a result of that a great many girls prefer to walk down. Of course, they can hardly walk up, but they can walk down. Some of them have a feeling of nausea. I believe we had two or three cases of fainting. I know of one factory—a 20-story building—where there were 200 workers on the top floor, and at a certain time a number of the women workers were pregnant. It was very bad for them to ride up and go down in the elevators. This condition was fraught with so much danger that fire drills in that shop were discouraged for fear they might produce a sudden panic. Fire drills may have a very bad effect upon women in the condition mentioned. The fire drills, therefore, were discontinued during that time. Several times when we have had fire drills in these high buildings we have been com- pelled to station men on that floor to ask those women workers not to go down. We practically control all the buildings in our trade and all the shops in those buildings are wholly under our control. Fire drills We are at the present time conducting fire drills in 800 shops, prac- tically the only fire drills that are conducted in the city, with the exception of a very few conducted by the Croker Company. We have found when people are called out on these fire drills that there is tess trouble in build- ings up to twelve stories in height then in buildings above twelve stories in height. Even though the latter may have more exits, and even though they are more completely fireproof, and even though they may have fireproof towers, there is more apprehension and more nervousness and more evi- dences of panic among the employees in such buildings than among those in the lower buildings that I have mentioned. It frequently happens that during the drill someone drops or someone faints. The result is that we very often have stoppages and obstructions, which in the case of a real fire would be fraught with a great deal of danger. We have several times been compelled to send away girls in ambulances. I have always instructed our men to watch out for such cases. As soon as they see that a girl drops and faints they remove her and take her upstairs or downstairs, whichever may be best. Even in fireproof towers there is danger of smoke getting in and adding to the panic. They are supposed to be Cy but they cannot be smoke-proof for whenever a door is opened the smoke will come in. Data gathered by the experience of three years of our Fire Drill Divi- sion, which at present operates in about 780 shops in the cloak and suitsand dress and waist industries, throws some light on the problem of getting operatives out of tall factory buildings in case of fire or panic. These drills, however, show only the time which it requires operatives to leave the floor where they work and not the building as a whole. Our records show that an orderly exit off the floor is usually made in from about thirty seconds 164 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS to two minutes. There have been very few fire drills conducted simul- taneously by all the shop owners in a building and therefore the time in which buildings may be emptied cannot as yet be determined. The several experiments which we have made in emptying buildings show that where the whole building is drilled by us and where the individual shops have been previously instructed and drilled, and where the exits are at least two or three outside of the fire escapes, which we do not consider as exits, a twelve-story building may be emptied within five to ten minutes. Lunch facilities in factory loft district A great many people suffer from gastric troubles. This is due in the first place to the fact that the people are compelled to eat a dry lunch, sand- wiches, etc. They live too far from their residences to get something warm to eat. It is also due to the fact that they have a comparatively short period for lunch and they are obliged to eat their food very quickly. It is also due to the congestion. It is hardly possible for a great many of the factory employees, especially on the higher floors to have the time to go down and eat their lunches in a neighboring restaurant and then have time to come back again to their work in the high buildings. They might have time if there were not such congestion. But at the noon hour the congestion in buildings is very great. All want to go down the elevators at one time, and it is manifestly impossible for them to go down all together and have time for lunch and then come back in time for their work. The time the employees have to wait at noon or at night for an elevator depends, of course, on the building, on the employees and upon the shop. The girls have frequently asked to be allowed to begin to dress themselves half hour or twenty minutes before the time of closing. They claim that if they all go out at six o’clock they will lose fifteen or twenty minutes standing near the doors of the elevators in the jam and after a day’s work it is quite a hardship upon those girls and the men as well to compel them to lose fifteen or twenty minutes of their time waiting until the elevator takes them down. We have in some buildings made arrangements for the employees by which the workers have been divided into squads. Some are allowed to go five minutes earlier and they come so much earlier in the morning, so that they all don’t go out at the same time, but that is only in single instances and cannot be done throughout all the buildings and shops. Daylight in factories The light in the shop depends very much, not only upon the window itself, its character, size, etc., but upon where the window opens to— whether to street, courtyard, etc.; also upon the height of adjoining build- ings and the story in which the shop is located. In garment factories with average windows opening upon a street of ordinary width, the operatives may work without artificial light, as a rule, between 10 A. M. and 4 P. M. to about twenty-four feet from the window. This refers to garments of light shades; on black or red garments artificial light will be necessary beyond fifteen or eighteen feet from the window. As a rule, the light is adequate in the better class of shops lighted with electricity or well-arranged gas lights. Eye trouble We have found that one-third of our shops use artificial light during the day time on account of the defective illumination. A special study was made of the lighting and illumination conditions in our shops by the United RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 165 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN States Public Health Service. It was found in their report that the illumi- nation was inadequate in one-half of the buildings. We have also investi- gated eye conditions and have found a great many eye defects among the workers due to the strain and to the defective lighting. In 69 per cent of 3,000 workers defective vision was found.. In 11% per cent the eyesight was corrected by glasses. The defective vision in so large a number of people was due to the defective illumination of a great many of our shops. Our shops are gen- erally in buildings 50 to 100 feet wide, running from street to street. The front part of such buildings is occupied by showrooms. The best ilumi- nated part of the building is occupied by the showrooms while the rear part of the building is occupied by the workers. They have high partitions between the front and the rear part that entirely separates the two. The result is that the workers are almost always in the dark part of the building. There is no limitation as to the ground area that may be covered by fac- tories as is the case in tenement houses. You can build on 100 per cent of the lot and the most of the factory buildings are so built. In many instances they run through the entire block. Fire hazard in loft buildings A great many of the benefits that are calculated to flow from the Labor Law are lost by reason of the fact that there is no co-ordination between the Factory Law and other laws on the construction and occupancy of buildings. Moreover, it is one thing to put a law on the books and another to administer and enforce it. We found 91 per cent of the buildings had violations. The law was violated as far as the fire-alarm system was con-- cerned. Eighty-nine per cent were violating the law of fire egress, and 38% per cent were violating the law in relation to automatic sprinklers. We have found that out of 928 buildings 747 have only a single stairway, and 186 of these stairways are of a winding type, which, in our Opinion, is a dangerous form. We have found one stairway only 20 inches wide, which is hardly sufficient for a stout man to pass through. I have said many times that under present conditions if a fire should occur in some of the twenty-story buildings that have a single or even a double exit and even with the fire-alarm system that some of them have, I believe the calamity would be so much greater than the Triangle or Dia- mond factory fire that it would be appalling. This possibility is due pri- marily to the height of buildings and to the insufficiency of exits which is usual in these high buildings. Tenement house manufacturing We have at present 300 stores on the east side occupied by the cloak and suit and dress and waist shops. These shops are mostly in tenement houses. The rear of the shop or store is generally used as a workshop. There are from two to fifteen and even twenty workingmen in these shops. The conditions there are abominable more particularly because of the place, which is not intended for manufacturing purposes; also because of the lack of light, the unsanitary conditions, etc., and the danger of contagion on account of families living together. There are also at present 200 cellars on the east side which are used as places to work in by clothing and other industries. We have eliminated most of them in the two industries which we control. I would prohibit all manufacturing in any residential building. I only want manufacturing done in buildings erected for that specific purpose. 166 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS So far, however, as factories can be located near residential zones, it would decrease the rush-hour congestion on our transit lines, and, what is more important, it would give the factory workers more time to sleep, more time for lunch, and more time for themselves, instead of spending their time as they do now in the cars, the subways and the elevated. STATEMENT By LAwson PurpDy, PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS, May 8, 1916 Value of real estate depreciated by haphazard development I have been President of the Department of Taxes and Assessments since 1906, and during that time there have been an average of eight to ten thousand applications for the reduction of the assessed value of real estate filed annually with the department. I have personally examined and been familiar with more than fifty per cent of such applications. These applications gave reasons in behalf of the owner of the property for his conclusion that the assessed value is more than the actual value. By the examination of these applications I have become familiar with many of the causes for the decline in value in real estate in various parts of the city. A very large proportion of such applications contain allegations to the ef- fect that the value of buildings has been depreciated by the erection of buildings in the neighborhood, sometimes adjoining, which covered too large a proportion of the area of the lot, or are too high, or both. Many applica- tions have stated that the character of the neighborhood has been depreci- ated through the erection of buildings of great height and housing a very large number of factory workers. This intense use of the land has re- sulted in street congestion, both for vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic. It has, moreover, so darkened the streets and the interior of blocks as to render neighboring buildings unprofitable. As a result of my experience I am confident that in order to preserve the value of land, which is another mode of expressing the idea of pre- serving the opportunity to put land to its most profitable economic use, and to preserve the value of buildings, it is essential that no building should be permitted which would not serve as a suitable type, both as to height and as to area of land covered, for the development of all the territory suitable for the erection of such buildings. The proper height and area of land to be covered must depend upon the character of use. There must be room for vehicular and pedestrian traffic on streets. And there must be adequate light and air for every building without stealing light and air from neighbors. Depreciation of values in loft section The evil effects of failure to protect property owners from the ill- considered action of their neighbors, is well illustrated by the decline in the value of the land between Union Square and Madison Square, and between Seventh Avenue and Broadway. In 1911 land on Twenty-third Street, on the south side between Fifth Avenue and Sixth Avenue, was assessed at $285,000 a lot; in 1916, at $80,000 a lot. In 1911, between Fourteenth Street and Twenty-third Street, on Sixth Avenue, land was assessed from $85,000 a lot to $175,000 a lot; in 1916 the same land is assessed at $50,000 a lot to $80,000. In 1911, the lowest assessment on Fifth Avenue, between Fourteenth Street and Madison Square, was $100,000 a lot, rising to over $200,000 a lot. In 1916, the assessment ranges from $75,000 to $90,000. In the intervening cross streets, from Fifteenth Street to Twenty-second Street, loft buildings were erected, twelve stories ‘high, and when first RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 167 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN erected paid so well because they stole light and air and street space from their neighbors, that owners were induced to build similar buildings, or builders were induced to pay extravagant prices for land and erect sim- ilar buildings on the theory that 1f one twelve-story loft building was profit- able any twelve-story loft building in that zone would be profitable. Experi- ence has shown that when the first leases for three or five years expired, and similar loft buildings had blanketed the first building, leases could not be renewed at the old figures, and often could not be renewed on any terms that would pay carrying charges. The supposed values were a delusion. The erection of loft buildings drove neighboring owners to erect loft build- ings, for their old buildings were no longer suitable for the neighborhood, the value of such buildings was destroyed, and the value of the land seemed to have acquired double its former value or more. Today the assessed value of lots in some side streets has declined to a sum less than the land was worth prior to the boom. The old buildings although often so well con- structed as to last for one hundred years have practically no value at all. Depreciation of values in downtown office section Somewhat similar results have followed in the office building zone from the iailure there to protect the owners of buildings of reasonable height irom deprivation of light, air and access, by the erection of neighboring buildings of monstrous heights, and covering all the land the law allows, which is substantially all there is. I suppose I have heard applications for reduction of the assessed value of at least three-fourths of all the buildings of more than ten stories high south of Chambers street. The reasons for the requests have been similar to the reasons for the requests for the re- duction of the assessed value of many of the loft buildings in the middle of the borough. An office building which was profitable when it stole its light and air was rendered unprofitable when there was no longer light and air to steal. The value of land has been inflated on the theory that on certain streets the appropriate improvement is a building approximately thirty stories in height. It must be obvious that the land cannot be covered with buildings thirty stories in height and profitably rented, even if there were people enough who wanted to do business in that territory to fill the buildings. There would be no room for the people to walk in the streets. They would all work by artificial light, and ventilation would be wretched, except when we had violent gales which obtain around lofty buildings when there is a moderate breeze. I have in mind one parcel of land on which there is erected a twelve-story office building of good construction, not more than twenty years old, it is full, at fair rentals. The gross rent is-$55,000. The assessed value of the land is $500,000. The building was assessed last year at $150,000. One of the best appraisers of the city ap- praised the property for the owner at a total sum of $550,000, of which $50,000 was assigned to the building. I asked him what sort of a building he would erect if that building now on the property were destroyed by fire. He said he could not erect a better building than the one that stands there now, that it would not be profitable to erect a higher building. I then asked him whether such a new building could earn four per cent on its cost and four per cent on the value of the land that he had assigned to the lot after paying operating expenses and taxes. without any allowance for depreciation. He said it certainly could not. After some discussion we both concluded that while it is necessary to appraise the land as having a value of about $500,000, based on sales of neighboring property, and on the opinions of 168 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS those best informed, and on the rental values obtained in buildings within a few hundred yards, which were more than twenty stories high, and still can steal light and air from their neighbors, that nevertheless, such a land value was a mirage and an illusion; that no use to which the land could be put would yield a return of four per cent on such a value. There are many such cases and I| describe this in detail to illustrate what I ‘call a fic- titious value that comes to land based on the erroneous theory that all land in a given neighborhood can be put to as an intensive use as the most intensively used land. And again we come back to the proposition that no building should be permitted which would not serve as a suitable type for the development of the entire area appropriate for such buildings. I have known a number of cases where office buildings, when first erected, were profitable, and subsequently they were hemmed in by other buildings to such an extent that the rentals were seriously reduced on account of the lack of light and air. I have in mind a building on the corner of two streets, which for some years enjoyed the light and air that belonged to its neigh- bors on the south for about sixteen stories of its height. It also had a similar advantage on the east. A few years ago an office building of equal height, about twenty-two stories, was erected south and east of it, and the owner thereupon requested a reduction of the assessed value and made the allegation that as to a large percentage of the rooms having windows to the south and east the rent was reduced by two-thirds, because the windows were in most cases entirely closed up, and in others the windows were on a court, to small to give any light and ventilation to amount to anything below three stories from the roof. I knew the building in its condition prior to the erection of the building adjoining and I know it well now, and if it were not for very good management I can hardly see how the southerly rooms could be rented for anything but storage. Effect of Equitable Building on surrounding property values A notable illustration of the evil effect of the erection of a building that is too high and covers too much of the land is that of the new Equitable Building, at Broadway, Pine and Cedar streets. After the old Equitable Building was destroyed, the owners of some of the land that surrounds that block negotiated with the Equitable for the purchase of an easement of the light and air from a point above eight stories from the ground; in other words for a limitation upon the Equitable to the construction of a building eight stories high. JI am informed that for two and a half million dollars the Equitable Corporation was willing to sell such an easement and that the owners of the surrounding property subscribed two and one-quarter million dollars to buy that easement. The project failed because the owners who would have been required to contribute the additional quarter of a million were not in a favorable position to make their proportionate con- tribution and were unable or unwilling to do so. One of the owners who had agreed to contribute a large part of the sum required told me that he regarded the advantage to the property that he represented as being at least twice as valuable as the sum he had agreed to contribute. Since the commencement of the present Equitable Building, a structure about forty stories high, the owners of practically all the property sur- rounding it have asked for and obtained a reduction of the assessed value of their property. on proof of loss of rents due to limitations of light and air and other advantages they enjoyed when the Equitable Building was only nine stories high. RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 169 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN Need of protection against reckless building An illustration of the evil effect of the failure of the city to protect the owners of property from the erection of improper buildings is found in the territory lying near Broadway between 59th Street and 125th Street, and on West End Avenue, Riverside Drive, and the east and west streets lying between. The Tenement House Law, which limits the height of a building to one and a half times the width of the street, and imposes some slight limitations on the area of ground that may be covered, has been of value, but these limitations are entirely insufficient and have been insufficient so far as tenement houses themselves are concerned. The limitation upon hotels is only a limitation of area, and has proved wholly inadequate. There are today a few apartment hotels in the territory described which are but twenty-five feet wide and rise to a height of thirteen stories. The intrusion of these wretched buildings has depreciated the value of the neighboring single family dwelling houses, and I am informed that they themselves are regarded as such extra hazardous investments that their value cannot be predicated upon rentals secured while they steal light and air for nine stories of their height. Should these buildings be blanketed by others they would probably, with a reasonable regard to the health of the occupants, be uninhabitable, and it is clear that the same restrictions as to height and pos- sibly more onerous restrictions as to area should apply to hotels as apply to any other buildings for human habitation. A hotel should no more be allowed to steal its neighbors’ light and air and street area than any other building. And the same principle applies in this territory as applies in all other sections—that no building should be permitted which would not serve as a suitable type as to height and area for the complete development of the whole district, leaving to all adequate light, air and access, and safety from fire. Invasion of private house sections by apartment houses Tenement houses, more euphoniously called apartment houses, built to the full limit allowed by law, have intruded into. a territory beautifully de- veloped with single family dwellings at great cost, well constructed, in con- dition to last for a hundred years, and have destroyed their value in large measure. The first tenement house when it can freely steal its light and air is profitable. When it must depend on the light and air it furnishes for itself, on its own lot, it frequently becomes unprofitable. When a wide street is developed from end to end with buildings one hundred and fifty feet high, the buildings on the street to the rear are deprived of light and air to such a degree that they are no longer profitable as a rule and fre- quently must be unhealthful. The servant problem, ever with us, is com- plicated and rendered impossible of decent solution by the fact that in such blocks there is not one single light kitchen—not a kitchen into which a direct ray of sunlight ever enters. Fictitious land values In the whole territory just described we have cases again of fictitious land values—values predicated upon the possibility of the erection of a twelve-story tenement house that steals light and air as I have shown. When that larceny is prevented profit is not there, and land values prove to have been a mirage. The pathetic instances of single family dwellings sandwiched between buildings of ninety feet and one hundred and fifty feet appeal to one who knows what sacrifice of value has resulted and what ‘ 170 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS miserable conditions of human habitation exist. Any sixty-foot street that may fully be developed with nine-story apartments ninety feet high, is in my opinion unfit for human habitation, and exercises a like influence upon the adjoining parallel street. On the other hand, a street sixty feet wide, developed with six-story apartments, is a reasonably fair street. Personally, I think the height is too great, and that were it now possible, it would be infinitely better to restrict the height to once the width of the street. An angle of forty-five degrees produced by the rule of once the width of the street is insufficient to give direct sunlight on short winter days to the lower stories. Surely, that should be the limit. > THe Districting a benefit to real estate Not only will the plans as tentatively submitted by this Commission not work any general hardship upon owners of real estate, but I shall be greatly surprised if there is any hardship anywhere of any consequence, and I am profoundly convinced that the future welfare—financially—of the owners of real estate is dependent upon the speedy enactment of restrictions as to height, area and use, at least as restrictive as those now presented by the Commission. In my opinion the isolated cases wherein an individual owner may suffer some hardship because of the peculiar location of his property will be very few. Some such possibilities have been presented to the Commis- sion, and it seems possible that in some few localities a certain relaxation of the rules will be made. Such relaxations, if any, should be made solely to meet the improper conditions that have been produced by the failure to impose proper restrictions in the past. The failure to impose proper restrictions upon uses to which buildings may be put has caused enormous loss to the owners of real property, and has in many cases rendered buildings of good character hardly suitable for human habitation by reason of the deprivation of adequate light, air and access, as well as the objectionable noises and other like incidents of a manufacturing industry. There are many instances where the owners of adjacent properties have erected artificial structures to shut off the light from the windows of build- ings erected adjacent to their property. In other words, individual owners have conducted schemes of retaliation in defense of their property. Some- times such structures have not been erected as schemes of retaliation, but solely to shield tenement houses from obnoxious sights and odors. In practically every case where there are tenement houses or single family dwelling houses, and a stable or a garage is erected in proximity to them, there follows a request for a reduction of assessed value of the property near by, which is almost always injuriously affected in its value by the proximity of such a building so used. Lack of regulation harmful to city owned property The shifts and changes of populated centres which come about from the reasons already described, that is, intrusion of factories into residential territory, cause direct loss to the city through rendering unsuitable for the location, schools erected at large expense and also court houses. _ Little parks that have been acquired for breathing spaces, or playgrounds, become useless for the purposes for which they were designed when the residents of the neighborhood move away in consequence of the destruction of the tenement houses and their replacement by factories. This sort of change usually comes because of the intrusion of one factory which starts the pro- RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 171 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN cession. The only way to deal with it is by laws excluding factories; and this is only a protection of the rights of the property owners themselves. The plan proposed by this Commission is absolutely necessary to save the city in the matter of its own public buildings inestimable loss as well as the frustrating of the full fruit and results of the purpose for which a large portion of these public buildings have been erected. We have seen such destruction of value happen in the past, and it will come in the future in the same way to a greater degree unless we speedily adopt appropriate restrictions, and the restrictions now proposed seem appropriate for the purpose. Assessed value of city owned property The assessed value of the property owned by the City of New York in 1915 was $1,502,000,000, while the aggregate assessed value of all the real property that is taxable was $8,108,000,000. Of this great investment of a billion and a half by the city, $123,000,000 represented the assessed value of school sites, schools and other property under the jurisdiction of the Board of Education. The assessed value of parks was $673,000,000. The assessed value of the property under the jurisdiction of the Departments of Charity and Correction, which includes numerous hospitals, amounted to $54,000,000. Property of a semi-public character, owned by private cor- porations and exempted from taxation because of its semi-public character, was assessed in 1915 for $392,000,000. That sum included $36,000,000 for hospitals, $46,000,000 for colleges and schools, and $192,000,000 for churches, parochial schools, and their usual adjuncts. For 1915 the aggregate number of buildings that were assessed as taxable was 386,000. Of this total number 338,000 buildings were devoted to human habitation, of which 153,000 were houses constructed for single family dwellings, 78,000 were two-family dwellings, and 103,000 were tene- ment houses. It will be noticed that the number of buildings devoted to human habitation is about 88 per cent of all the taxed buildings in the city. The assessed value of all the structures that are subject to taxation was $2,884,000,000. It is apparent, therefore, that the conservation of the value of these buildings is of immense importance to the general welfare of the community. : From what I have already said in regard to the effect upon the value of the land of the intrusion of inappropriate uses and inappropriate struc- tures, it must be clear that to conserve the financial stability of the city and its power to incur indebtedness and pay its debts, it is most important to conserve the land value. The value of ordinary land, that is, land other than special franchises, and the right of way of public service corporations, was assessed in 1915 for $4,643,000,000. STATEMENT BY Martin S. Rourke, REAL Estate AND INSURANCE, APRIL 29, 1916 Effect of gaseous fumes on vegetation Mr. Rourke stated that the gaseous fumes emitted by the chemical com- panies in the vicinity of Newtown Creek destroyed the paint on neighboring buildings within forty-eight hours of its application. Truck gardening in this locality he stated was just as impossible as in the Desert of Sahara, the gaseous fumes killing all vegetation. Ve COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS STATEMENT By AMOS SCHAEFFER, CONSULTING ENGINEER, BorouGH OF Manuattan, May 15, 1916 Sewer systems All sewer systems for carrying off domestic sewage and surface drain- age from cities are generally divided into two classes, namely, combined and separate. In the combined system, sewers are built to take both the storm water drainage and the domestic sewage, which is usually discharged into some adjacent stream or harbor. In the separate system there are two independent systems of sewers, one of which carries off the storm water and the other the domestic sewage. The latter system is generally installed when it is intended to purify the domestic sewage before it is finally dis- charged. Inland cities and towns which discharge their sewage into fresh water streams usually are required to treat their sewage to a high degree of purity before discharging it, because the same stream is frequently used as a source of water supply by some other municipalities. Operation and final disposition The combined system of sewers practically requires no attention for its operation with the exception of seeing that the sewers are cleared of obstruc- tions and are kept in proper repair. The sewage from the separate system of sewers is usually purified to a sufficient degree of refinement so as not to pollute the waters into which the effluent is discharged. These purification plants generally consist of grit chambers, screens, sedimentation tanks and filters. One or all of these processes are used according to the degree of purity required in the final effluent. Development of the sanitary system Before the introduction of a water supply into cities, the domestic sewage is usually allowed to flow into cesspools. When a municipality has increased sufficiently to require a general water supply, the sanitary condi- tions also require improvement and cesspools are usually superseded by sewers built in the public highways, which serve all the property fronting on them. In the case of seaboard cities, these sewers usually discharge into the adjacent harbors without any purification. Condition of sewers in New York City Sewers were constructed in this city as early as 1840 or thereabouts. At that time cement was not available and the mortar used in their construc- tion consisted usually of oyster-shell lime and sand. Due to the chemical action of the sewage, the mortar has deteriorated to such an extent that a great many of the sewers have practically none left in the joints, as a con- sequence of which they are collapsing. At the time these early sewers were constructed the science of sewer design had not advanced to the degree of accuracy of to-day. The conditions under which these sewers were designed were also dif- ferent from the present. The pervious area was very much larger than it is to-day, in consequence of which a considerably smaller quantity of rain water reached the sewers and a much larger quantity was absorbed by the soil. The roadways of the streets were usually paved with a waterbound macadam or with some other material which was much more pervious than the present pavements, and sometimes they were not paved at all; and the sidewalks were frequently paved for a width of only four feet. The build- RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 173 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN ings usually occupied a smaller percentage of the lots and the portion not occupied by buildings was cultivated as a garden or a grass plot, whereas at present the back ‘lots, in the most populated sections of the city at least, are paved with an impervious material such as bluestone, cement or asphalt. It was, therefore, quite proper that the sewers should have been designed for a considerably smaller run-off of rainwater than at present. In consequence of these conditions and the more or less inaccurate theory of sewer design based upon them a great many of the sewers which were built at that time are inadequate for present requirements, so that during heavy storms property is frequently damaged on account of the backing up of the sewage through house drains. In fact, there are some locations in the city where in excessive storms the sewers overflow on the surface of the street and over the sidewalks. Need of reconstruction of sewers Tt will be seen, therefore, that there is need of reconstruction of sewers in the older portions of the city for the two reasons hereinbefore described, namely, on account of deterioration and on account of inadequacy. Redesign of drainage areas Before a general reconstruction of the sewers can be undertaken it will be necessary to redesign the drainage areas and provide for sizes and grades of sewers in accordance with the changed conditions and the present science of sewer design. This practically means the installation of a new sewer system, because it will readily be seen that very few of the older sewers can be incorporated in the new system. Of course it is not the purpose, when the reconstruction of sewers is undertaken, that all existing sewers should be dug up regardless of their physical condition, but it is the purpose to bring about this change gradually, as the sewers deteriorate or are inadequate. Pollution of the harbor Since the time that New York City has used the present water carriage system of sewers, the sewage has been discharged into the adjacent w aters of the harbor without any treatment, with the “exception of a few installa- tions in the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. The purification plants in these boroughs have been constructed comparativ ely recently and they treat a very small percentage of the total volume of sewage w hich is discharged, so that their influence upon the pollution of the harbor is comparatively insignificant. ~The harbor waters, therefore, are more or less saturated with the sewage which has been discharged into them during the last 75 or 100 years. In some of the more confined portions of the harbor, such as the East River and the Harlem River, where the tidal movement does not extend to the purer waters of the Sound or the ocean, this pollution is so great that offensive putrefaction is liable to set in at any time under ‘favorable conditions. Purification of the sewage In the design of a new sewer system it will therefore also be necessary to take into consideration the purification of the sewage before it is dis- charged into the harbor. The City of New York is practically committed toa “general purification of its sewage, although this may not be ;necessary 174 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS at every individual outlet. In order to treat the sewage under the tidal conditions which exist in the harbor waters, it will be necessary to install a separate system of sewers, at least in certain portions of the drainage area, to take the place of the combined system which has been generally in use up to the present time. Sewage purification plants will be installed to purify only the domestic sewage and a small quantity of the storm water. To purify the domestic sewage in the combined system it is necessary to construct a weir or some other device to divert all the domestic sewage to the purification plant. By this device the early run-off from the street, which contains a ‘considerable quantity of street sweepings, is also carried to the disposal plant. It is only after a rainfall of two or three times the volume of domestic sewage that it overflows directly into the harbor without purification. In the latter case, however, the sewage is very much diluted and therefore carries a com- paratively small quantity of organic matter into the harbor. Effect of height of buildings on sewage purification While the quantity of domestic sewage from even very tall buildings does not exert a very marked influence upon the size of the sewers required under the combined system, it adds very materially to the quantity of sewage which has to be purified. It can be seen readily that while the area still governs the quantity of storm water which reaches the sewer, but which will not be purified, the quantity of domestic sewage which will be purified depends entirely upon the consumption of water, which in turn generally depends upon the population and the height of the buildings and also upon their use. In order, therefore, that a purification plant may be designed of proper capacity to treat the sewage from a certain area, it should be known in advance what the development of that area will be, both as to the population which will occupy the buildings, which is directly dependent upon their height, and also upon the use to which they are put. The segregation of factories to certain areas is, therefore, very desir- able, from the standpoint of sewage disposal, so that purification plants may be designed for the particular kind and quantity of effluent which manufac- turing industries contribute, because it is frequently necessary to adopt a method of purification adapted to the particular kind of trade waste which is produced. If it is known, therefore, what the quality of the sewage in the different sections of the city is, purification plants can be designed to treat it. It is my opinion, therefore, that the regulation of the use, height and area of buildings will have a large economical influence upon the design and installation of the sewers and purification plants. STATEMENT By WM. JAY SCHIEFFELIN, CHAIRMAN, Citizens’ Union, May 5, 1916 City should have been districted long ago The Citizens’ Union recognizes in the work of your Commission the first belated step on the part of the city toward an orderly development and the protection of property owners against their own short-sightedness. Your tentative report indicates the care and thoroughness with which the work has been conducted. The principles followed and the recommendations made in this report must, in the main, meet with the approval of every person RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 175 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN seriously concerned in the safeguarding of property values and a growth which will insure better and more stable working and living conditions. The districting of the city, as finally determined by the Board of Esti- mate, should represent the highest standards which can properly be estab- lished throughout the city, based upon a study of community conditions and a forecast of the character of future growth. It would manifestly be unfair to a locality to set its standards too low and attempt to raise them later after the mistake had become apparent as a result of extensive building operation. Under such circumstances the city would be placed in exactly the same position in which it now is with respect to much of its built-up territory. It is in the hope that this possibility may be reduced to a minimum that we urge your serious consideration of the recommendations of the City Club to your Commission, as contained in the communication of Mr. Frank B. Williams, Chairman of its City Planning Committee, dated April 11, 1916, in which we most earnestly concur. More stringent restrictions desirable We desire to emphasize briefly what we consider the three most serious defects in your proposals, knowing that your tentative report was made public primarily for the purpose of honest criticisms: (1) We believe you are inviting the defeat of your purpose to exclude industry from business districts by permitting the use of 25 per cent, or two floors, of any building in a business district for industrial purposes. Two-story factories are possible, in fact, common in outlying boroughs. To insure strictly “business districts,’ this allowance must be materially! reduced. (2) Examination of the height district maps convinces us that there are many districts, particularly in Brooklyn, where the height limit should be set at a much lower point. When an area is generally built up with two to four-story residence buildings, are you not encouraging an unnecessary invasion by permitting eight and nine story structures? The stricter standard should be established where possible. It is easier to lift a restric- tion than to impose it later if experience proves it to be undesirable. Moreover, we must not overlook the fact that the height restrictions imposed by your plan are not maxima. By stepping back higher buildings may be erected if they are economically necessary: But if there must be such additional congestion, some amelioration should accompany it. That is provided by the stepping back and increased court and area requirements. (3) The area limitation for residence buildings under Class “C” should be more stringent; especially for buildings under eight stories in height. The requirements should be increased wherever possible. We believe you will find it possible in a great many districts. We consider these phases of your report deserving of reconsideration ; in fact, we feel that a revision along these lines is essential if the principles underlying your work are to be carried out. STATEMENT By Lourts ScHrAc, Marcu 28, 1916 Car barns Car barns should be excluded from the business districts. A car barn not only ruins the block in which it is located, but also the block on either side of it. Car barns should be put in the unrestricted districts. 176 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS Stables and garages Livery stables and public garages should also be prohibited in the business districts. Both depreciate property values. The Concourse in The Bronx is an illustration of a thoroughfare laid out as a fine residential boulevard, which has been ruined by the invasion of public garages. This is particularly the case in the vicinity of Fordham Road, where a half dozen public garages have been built. Here, instead of the fine residential develop- ment which was expected, cheap tenements are being built. Public garages and stables should be obliged to go into the unrestricted districts. The unrestricted districts are so situated that this limitation would not incon- venience the business of either stables or garages. Private garages and stables need not, however, be restricted to the unre- stricted districts. They do not interfere with business. STATEMENT BY THE REVEREND WILLIAM J. STEWART, MANAGING DrreEcrTor, ALLIED CATHOLIC CEMETERIES, APRIL 18, 1916 Injury done by chemical factories Chemical factories should be restricted in the vicinity of Calvary Cemetery. We know that they do irreparable damage to bronzes, to Carrara marble statues, to granite foundations, to grass and trees. We know that for a fact, but when we go to the authorities of these factories to make a protest and ask if they cannot do something and get their chemists at work, the same as they did in some other chemical factories, and use the wastage over again that comes from the chimneys, they say, “ well, prove to us that we do it and we will stop it.” Well, now, they ought to be able to prove it. We can see the damage done. We know that on the bronzes there is a verdigris and there is a peculiar scale on the vegetation. We have difficulty in making the grass grow. All our trees are dying. We cannot make it what we would like to make it, park-like and a breathing place for the people. It is really dangerous for people to travel at certain times of the day to Calvary Cemetery on account of those acid fumes. STATEMENT By HERBERT S. SWAN AND GEORGE W. TUTTLE OF THE STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE ON City PLAN, Marcu 15, 1916 Relation of height and area regulations to sunshine The building requirements in Manhattan have in the past been so lax that it is safe to say that a preponderating majority of rooms in the existing shops, factories, offices and apartments receive absolutely no direct sun- shine on the shortest day in the year. The height and area regulations now being considered will have the tendency of remedying this condition. By limiting the height of buildings with reference to the street width and by requiring all windows to open out on either streets or open spaces of a prescribed size the zone plan will provide a larger supply of direct sunshine not only in the interior of all new residence and business buildings but also in the streets. The following paper shows the relation of these provisions to the dura- tion and quantity of direct sunshine obtained under different conditions at New York City (40° North Latitude) as on December 21st. Length of shadow cast by different skyscrapers At noon on the shortest day in the year the shadows of different sky- scrapers envelop large areas. The Adams Express Building, which is 424 RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 177 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN feet high, casts a shadow 875 feet in length; the Equitable Building, which is 493 feet high, one 1,018 feet in length; the Singer Tower, which is 546 feet high, one 1,127 feet in length and the Woolworth Tower, which is 791 feet high, one 1,635 feet in length. The effect of skyscrapers casting shadows from a sixth to a third of a mile in length on surrounding property is well illustrated in the case of the Equitable Building. Its shadow, which at noon on December 21st is about one-fifth of a mile in length, completely envelops an area of 7.59 acres. The area of the Equitable Building is only 1.14 acres. The shadow cuts off all sunshine from the Broadway facade of the United States Realty Building, which is 21 stories high. The Title Insur- ance Company Building, 14 stories high, and the Washington Life Insur- ance Building, 19 stories high, though in the next block, are both completely shaded. The south side of the Singer Tower is shaded to a height of 27 stories. The nearest part of the City Investing Building 400 feet away is in shadow for 24 of its 26 stories. Even part of the New York Telephone Building north of Cortlandt Street is shadowed by the Equitable Building. For almost a fifth of a mile this giant skyscraper casts its shadow. The area cut off by it from all noonday sunlight extends to within 100 feet of Fulton Street. Cedar Street, the street immediately north of the Equitable Building, has an average width between Broadway and Nassau Street of 34 feet. The height of the Equitable Building is 1474 times the width of this street. On a north and south street of this width in New York, uniformly im- proved on both sides with buildings having a height equal to that of the Equitable Building, only 9.31 ver cent of the windows would receive any direct sunshine at noon on the shortest day in the year. On north and south streets only the windows nearest the top for a distance equal to 1.35 times the width of the street would receive direct sunshine at noon on December 21st at New York (40° North Latitude). The windows in the first 34 stories nearest the ground would receive absolutely no direct sun- light. Direct sunshine would only enter those windows in the four stories nearest the top. Not a single window within 447 feet of the street level would receive a ray of direct sunshine! Per cent of windows receiving direct sunshine with buildings of different heights The Equitable Building is, of course, an extreme case. But even in much lower buildings a considerable number of the windows on north and south streets receive absolutely no direct sunshine at the winter solstice. Up to a height equal to 1.35 times the width of such a street all the windows (assuming they fulfill the standard requirements described below) receive some sunshine. If the street, however, is improved with buildings one and one-half times the street width in height only 90 per cent of the win- dows obtain direct sunshine. If the height be increased to two times the street width the proportion receiving direct sunshine is reduced to 67.5 per cent. The number of windows receiving direct sunshine on north and south streets with buildings of different heights is as follows: two and one- half times, 54 per cent; three times, 45 per cent; four times, 34 per cent; five times, 27 per cent; and six times, 22.5 per cent. Duration of sunshine period in rooms In this connection it must be remembered that all windows receiving sunlight do not obtain the same amount. Even though there be no buildings 178 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS on the opposite side of the street 28 per cent of the sunshine period on a north and south street is cut off by the thickness of the wall in which the window is set. Where the opposite buildings rise to a height above the window equal to .2 times the width of the street, 35 per cent of the sun- shine period is cut off; where it rises to a height .4 times the width of the street, 44 per cent is cut off; .6 times, 54 per cent; .8 times, 65 per cent; 1.0 times, 77 per cent; and 1.35 times, 100 per cent. This is for a wall 14 inches thick. For a thicker wall the percentage would in each case be more; for a thinner wall less. A window in a north and south street situated in a position where the height of the buildings opposite it is .2 times the width of the street above its center level receives direct sunlight for a period the length of which is only 72 per cent of that received by an unobstructed window; where the height of the buildings opposite is .4 times, 50 per cent; .6 times, 33 per cent; .8 times, 21 per cent; and 1.0 times, 12 per cent. The duration of the sunshine period on the facade and in the rooms on a north and south street at the winter solstice is shown in the following table for different points below the top of the opposite buildings: SuNSHINE Periop oN NortH AND SourH Srreer at NEw York, DeceMBeER 21sr (40° Norra Larirupe) Per Cent of Period That Height of Op- Minutes of Per Cent of Sunshine En- posite Build- Minutes of Sunshine En- Sunshine Pe- ters Window ings Times Sunshine Strik- tering Window riod of Street at Different Street Width ing Entire in Wall Four- Facade Cut Off Heights in Above Center Street Facade teen Inches From Window Terms of That of Window Thick at Each Height Entering Un- obstructed Window 0 275 198 28 100 al 247 170 31 85 a2 219 142 35 72 a 195 118 40 60 4 175 98 44 50 a5 156 79 49 40 6 142 65 54 33 Bh 129 52 59 26 8 118 41 65 21 a) 108 31 71 16 1.0 100 23 77 12 1.35 77 0 100 0 — Sunshine obtained on the street A north and south street at New York improved with buildings on only one side of the street receives at least four hours and 35 minutes of sunshine at the curb level on all parts of its surface on December 21st. If buildings are erected on both sides to a uniform height of one-half times the street width the entire surface of the street at the curb level receives but two hours and 36 minutes sunshine. If the buildings are in- creased in height to one times the street width the pavement receives only one hour and ten minutes sunshine. In case of buildings two times the street width the sunshine period is one hour; two and one-half times, 47 RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 179 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN minutes; three times, 41 minutes; four times, 34 minutes; five times, 30 minutes; and six times, 27 minutes. To obtain a half hour sunshine on the entire surface of the street at the curb level on a north and south street in New York on the shortest day in the year, the buildings must be limited to 3.7 times the street width in height; 45 minutes, 2.4 times the street width; one hour, 1.8 times; an hour and a quarter, 1.4 times; an hour and a half, 1.1 times; an hour and three-quarters, ._9 times; and two hours, .8 times. Volume of sunshine entering windows The volume of sunshine received in rooms is of just as much impor- tance as the sunshine period. A room, for instance, may enjoy direct sun- shine for-a considerable period and yet have a comparatively small portion of its cubic contents aerated by direct rays from the sun. The best unit for measuring the effect of sunshine entering rooms is the cubic foot sun hour, that is, a cubic foot of space illuminated by the sun for one hour. The amount of direct sunshine entering a window decreases far more rapidly with increased height of buildings than does the sunshine period. The data given below for the amount of sunshine is calculated for a window with a pane 32 inches wide and 61% inches long, the opening be- tween the stop beads being taken as 36 by 66 inches and the inside dimen- sions of the masonry being taken as 40 by 70 inches. The room considered is one 14 feet square. The distance between the center of the window and the south wall of the room used in the computation is five feet and the height of the window sill above the floor of the room two and one-half feet. The volume of sunshine entering the room through this window, whether obstructed or unobstructed, is shown graphically by the curve in Figure 56. The amount of sunshine in cubic foot hours entering the window is shown by the curve in Figure 58. The cross section of a bundle of sun rays entering this window is shown by the curve in Figure 57. At the winter solstice a standard window on a north and south street in New York fulfilling the above requirements and set in a 14-inch wall and situated at a point equal to one-tenth the width of the street down from the top of the buildings on the opposite side of the street enjoys a sunshine period 85 per cent as long as that enjoyed by an entirely unob- structed window. The amount of sunshine enjoyed is, however, only 71 per cent of that obtained by an unobstructed window. This disparity be- tween the sunshine period and the sunshine quantity increases with added height of buildings. At a point equal to one times the width of the street below the top of the buildings on the opposite side of the street the sun- shine period enjoyed by a window is 12 per cent of that enjoyed by an unobstructed window though the amount of sunshine is only about one per cent. Here again the thickness of the wall is to a large extent the con- trolling factor. Where the opposite building obstructing the window is a low one the disparity between the sunshine period and the sunshine quan- tity is not very much greater in a thin wall than it is in a thick wall. This disparity, however, increases considerably in the case of high opposite buildings. The quantity of direct sunshine admitted by a window. set in a wall 8 inches thick on a north and south street and situated at a point equal to one times the street width below the top of the opposite buildings is 6.5 times that admitted by the same window similarly situated but in a 14-inch wall. : DISTRICTS oa I Ft dt COMMISSION ON BUILDING +—1. a & S © § Ba shen po! * =. N & $ = LL 8 Seat putk “hee Ww “GYPIM J924S GIDIM faaL{S JO SUI2{ U/ buypying jo fyb1ay wail hg pasdijja s/ UNF YoIyM {oO alll] 29/18/08 Ja{UIM N.O% BUHOT (29L{S Y{N0S PUD yssou uo buivedo MopUuIM UaAlb JoJ pafopng/O) MOONM OMA ZLNI SAVE NNG 10 TTONNG SO NUILITS SSOLI 180 S S$ 3 ® S, g 3 iy S| S$ % > Ss Ss 2 SS YIM f2aHe “YLPIM {92ad{8 JO SUID, UT buipping Jo bY uohe ith oadyoe S/ UNS _YOIYM £0 OIL N.OF @PNII{OT [29ANS Y{N0S PUD Y{sOU UO bul -U3d0 MOpUIM YIM Wood UaAIB 404 pajojn2jop MOGNIM AG CFILLINGY FMIHSNNS SO TIWNTOA 181 RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN DISTANCE BELOW TOP OF BUILDINGS IN TERMS OF STREET WIOTH AMOUNT OF SUNSHINE IN CUBIC FOO ~ > in) Sy S 7 HOURS 00£ Abs OGf EL Ht ! a 4 oi [ia el | =o aie mae MOUNT, OF SUNSHINE ADMITTED BY WINDOW\— Calculated for given room With window ope Sl - aons ing on Cae and south street, Latitude 40N. a {| Winter solstice. BSS ac it | ae ceeeee, | i mi BE: | | | 1 | Png dame Fic. 55 SUNSHINE ADMITTED BY WINDOW. 182 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS The quantity of sunshine admitted in terms of cubic foot sun hours by our standard window, the center of which is located at different distances below the top of the opposite buildings is indicated in the following table. This table shows the quantity of direct sunshine admitted by a window set in a wall 14 inches thick, one eight inches thick and one of infinitesimal thinness. Wrinpow OPENING ON NortH AND SoUTH STREET Cubic Foot Sun Hours Admitted by Standard Window ——— Distance of Center So of Window Below In Wall In Wall Top of Opposite Fourteen Eight In Wall Buildings in Terms Inches Inches of Infinitesimal of Street Width Thick Thick Thinness x0) 267 ol 312.9 391.2 pil 189.2 232.8 316.9 ae, 138.4 168.1 248.0 5c} 84.1 132.0 184.2 4 54.4 88.7 158.4 45) SoeZ 62.4 135.2 6 24.0 47.9 108.8 Y/ 14.6 33.6 84.8 8 9.2 24.5 63.9 9 a8) 19.2 552 1.0 2.8 18.2 46.2 | | STATEMENT By Hersirt S. Swan AND GeorcE W. TUTTLE, OF THE STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE City Pian, Marcu 31, 1916 In the lighting of buildings, daylight is more important than sunshine. Daylight is the sunlight diffused and reflected by the sky and clouds as dis- tinct from that received directly from the sun. Sunshine is obtained from but one point, viz., the sun. Daylight, on the other hand, is obtained from the whole visible sphere of the sky. Professor O. H. Basquin, of the American Luxfer Prism Company, in 1907 made a series of observations with a flicker photometer recording the intensity of the zenith skylight at Chicago under varying conditions. These measurements which were taken daily at 9 a. m., 12:30 and 4:30 p. m., covering a two year period, showed the mean annual brightness of the zenith sky at Chicago to be 500 foot candles per square foot. The intensity taken as a working minimum was one-half of the mean annual brightness or 250 candles per square foot. This amount was generally available as a daily average except on one or two days a month—on days with either a clear blue sky or a stormy sky, both of these conditions giving a minimum illu- mination. The sky at various altitudes gave substantially the same illumi- nation as at the zenith. The curve showing the brightness of the sky follows quite closely the mean daily and yearly sunshine curve. The per cent of annual sunshine to the maximum possible varies in different cities of the United States all the way from 36 to 84 per cent. In New York it is 58 per cent. The hourly per cent of the maximum possible sunshine in New York is shown by the curve in Figure 59. Assuming that Prof. Basquin’s data for Chicago is true for New York after allowing for the difference in the per cent of annual sunshine the mean annual brightness of the zenith sky in New York is 560 candles per RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN as|_ HOURLY. PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POSSIBLE eal SUNSHINE INNEW YORAC | #0, + AVERAGE 1894-190. + |e = yy 7? T SI he Sea Ls S 55 R50 Sep 8 + x 25 20 | 15 Ss IR | : pose ee ees aa = TEESE aay. Fic. 59. pS Pecal| DAYLIGHT ILLUMINATION IN FOOT CANDLES. 183 002 SasE gears wee an DISTANCE BELOW TOP OF BUILDINGS /N TERMS OF STREET W/DTH. Fig. 60. 184 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS square foot and the corresponding working minimum 280 candles per square foot. The illumination received at an unobstructed point on the surface of the earth is 880 foot candles. The illumination on the side of a building at the ground level where half of the sky is obstructed is 440 foot candles. Illumination on street Increasing the height of buildings reduces the amount of daylight fall- ing on both the street level and the street facade. A street improved with buildings once the street width in height receives only 71 per cent as much illumination from the sky at the curb level as one improved with buildings half the street width in height. For a street improved with buildings twice the street width in height the direct illumination from the sky is only 42 per cent; thrice the street width, 29 per cent; four times, 22 per cent; five times, 18 per cent; and six times, 15 per cent. Illumination on street facade The illumination on the street facade diminishes even more rapidly with an increased height of buildings than that at the street surface. A point on the facade once the street width below the top of the opposite buildings receives only 53 per cent as much direct daylight illumination as one situated half that distance down from the top. At a point twice the street width below the top of the opposite buildings across the street the illumination is only 19.2 per cent of that one-half times the street width down from the top; three times the street width, 9.4 per cent; four times, 5.5 per cent; five times, 3.5 per cent; and six times, 2.5 per cent. The illumination in foot candles in the street and on the street facade due to direct skylight is shown in the following table for different points below the top of the buildings assuming the street in each case to be uni- formly improved on both sides with buildings of different heights. The curve in Figure 60 presents this data in graphic form. ; Foot Candles Height of Buildings . c <3 Times Street Width On Street Level On Street Facade Ov Wa.loaa Rs aeirnd lock en tena 880. 440. MBS cove tye ayo chicka s oer eres 486.8 243.3 Wey Se act ao nuance aheteteeeet Uaacena ates 345.2 128.9 At a eee oe “Aspapee tees 296.4 96.5 LA ee acc oe Oe eee 258.1 73.9 CARA Ar MER SEH OC ey OLS 204.0 46.6 DIE Ss Se ietoia, 0, ak steele 16755 31.6 RM erc.o oon mot kee 141.6 22.9 1 AE ET, ce co 107.7 13.2 iat en aA eres oy eve aeons 86.6 8.6 Oe lay et eee Ws) 6.2 Illumination in inner courts The minimum size prescribed by the Tenement House Law for an inner court on the lot line in a tenement 60 feet high is 12 feet by 24 feet. The law contemplates that this court should be complemented by a court of similar size on the adjacent lot, but it does not enforce this provision. Let us assume that the adjoining building when erected does not have its courts RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 185 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN co-ordinated with those on the lot considered. Then if this building is also 60 feet high, our tenement, which is once the width of the street if built on a 60-foot street is served by a court only half as large as that con- templated by the law. In that event the direct illumination obtained from the sky at the bottom of the center portion of the side wall is only 2.1 foot candles while that at the center portion of the end wall is only 3.8 foot candles. The street facade, assuming the street to be uniformly improved with 60-foot buildings, receives at the bottom 128 foot candles. In other words the direct illumination received at the bottom of the court is only from one and one-half to three per cent of that received at the correspond- ing point on the front facade of the tenement. Assume that the complementary court 12 feet by 24 feet is provided on the adjoining lot, making a combined court 24 feet by 24 feet, the direct illumination at the bottom of the wall would still be only 7.5 candles or 5.8 per cent of that obtained at the bottom of the street facade. The direct daylight illumination obtained in an inner court the length of which is twice its width and the height of which is expressed in multiples of its width is stated in the following table. The illumination given is that received on a vertical surface at the bottom of the court wall half way be- tween its ends. Illumination in Foot Candles Height in Terms of , r ; ~ Width of Court On End Wall On Side Wall Ilse cC aS Re CRE ALA nce ey a 103.9 109.9 DEE wih epee ct cba ae nk M43 25.9 Sscasatal aia oih cached NOnG CHOC COA itt ates 14.2 9.0 AV ES SATs eee ena Ny Ra 7.0 40 Sr RE Ns Ve ace ar Men eae i ore Lane 3.8 Beil OA SRA eae cscs onan liaks Dn® il Daylight entering windows The quantity of daylight entering an.ordinary front window is between 40 and 75 per cent of that falling on the street facade. From 25 to 60 per cent of the daylight received by the facade is cut off from penetrating into the rooms by the frame in which the window is set. ‘This is the situation with an unobstructed window. If there are buildings on the other side of the street opposite the window the percentage of daylight received by the room is, of course, much smaller, the exact amount depending upon the height of the obstructing buildings. Barring obstructions, it is the size of a window with reference to the thickness of the wall in which it is set that determines the amount of daylight admitted into a room. A small window in a thick wall admits propor- tionately less daylight than a large window in a thick wall. Thus an unob- structed window two feet wide and four feet high set in a wall one foot thick has 53 per cent of its light cut off by the thickness of the wall while a window-twice as large, four feet wide and four feet high, set in a wall one foot thick, has only 40 per cent of its light cut off by the thickness of the wall. For an unobstructed window of a given size the proportion of the daylight received which passes through the window diminishes with the 186 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS thickness of the wall. For a given thickness of wall it increases with the height and width of the window. In all the calculations relating to the amount of daylight entering windows in this paper it has been assumed that the window pane would fill the entire window opening. In an unobstructed window two and one-half feet wide and six feet high set in a wall one foot thick the flux of daylight admitted is equal to only 76.1 per cent of that through a window set in a wall one-half foot thick. If obstructed by buildings on the opposite side of the street one-half times the width of the intervening space in height the window set in the one-foot wall would admit only 71.6 per cent as much daylight as the one set in the half-foot wall. For obstructing buildings different times the street width in height above the level of the window the amount of daylight received by a window set in a one-foot wall as compared with that in a half- foot wall would be as follows: one times the street width, 65.6 per cent; one and one-quarter times, 61.6 per cent; one and one-half times, 59 per cent; two times, 52.2 per cent; two and one-half times, 45.3 per cent; three times, 34.3 per cent; and four times, 18.7 per cent. The curve in Figure 61 shows that obstructing buildings are more detri- mental to the lighting of rooms than the thickness of walls. Inordinately thick walls cut off a considerable portion of the direct daylight, but excess- ively high buildings cut off more. An unobstructed window receives some direct light even though it is set in an extremely thick wall but a window set in a comparatively thin wall receives absolutely no direct skylight illumination when obstructed by a high building. The exact point at which all such illumination is eclipsed depends upon the thickness of the wall in relation to the height of the obstructing buildings. Thus, a small window say two feet wide and four feet high set in a one-foot wall receives absolutely no skylight if situated at a distance three times the street width below the top of the opposite buildings. A window two and one-half feet wide, six feet high and set in a wall of the same thickness-on the other hand receives direct illumination from the sky even though it is situated four times the street width below the top of the opposite buildings. This latter window if placed in a wall one-half foot thick would receive some direct light even at a point six times the street width below the top of obstructing buildings. The following table shows the flux of daylight in foot candles per square foot admitted by a window two and one-half feet wide and six feet high when set in a wall of different thicknesses and obstructed by buildings of different heights: Height of Obstructing Building in Terms of Street Width Se Thickness of ‘ Sy Wall in Feet None One-Half Once Oneand One-Half Twice 0 6,600 3,649 1,933 1,110 699 5 4,976 1,440 375 114 41 1 3,784 1,029 246 68 21 2, 2,280 540 102 20 3 3 1,485 299 54 3 0 In all of these calculations only the direct illumination obtained from the sky has been considered. The actual illumination in any particular case exceeds that stated here on account of the reflected light received. When RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN. RELATION TO NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN Flux of Wight errering WINDOW Lstt wide and brt high Foor Canales 8 : eal eal | FLUX OF DIRECT DAYLIGHT ENTERING GIVEN WINDOW. Calculated for window 8ef Ip walls oF Wer el ICKNCSSES ONG ObSIT UCTED Ly ouildings of aUirerent helgnis. \ | | | | ! Helglt Of OOSTKUCTIG BUMONGE. | No obsifUucrion. : One half Fires He street Wid? Once the strech width qQAWY mice ihe streel widhe One arr On € POUT TMCS ME SIC 1G 8 Ss DS Ss 8 a +—— = 0 Cig 7-0" 176" 2:0" . 26 Thicrness of wall lp WhiCh Window 18 Ser Fic, 61. 187 188 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS the walls are light in color the reflected light is a considerable part of the total illumination. The importance of light colored walls in the daylight illumination of buildings cannot be too strongly emphasized. STATEMENT BY Herpert S. Swan, Expert INvestiGAtor, COMMITTEE ON City Pian, May 19, 1916 Relation of high buildings to street congestion Buildings in the downtown section of Manhattan have been erected without any reference to the street width. The average frontage height on Trinity Place and Church Street, between Morris and Chambers, is 9.18 stories; on Nassau Street, between Wall and Frankfort, 9.21 stories; on New Street, 12.24 stories; on Broadway, below Chambers, 13.92 stories; and on Exchange Place, 14.90 stories. On Trinity Place and Church Street this is 1.8 times the average street width; on Broadway, 2.5 times; on Nassau Street, 3.0 times ; on New Street, 4.6 times, and on Exchange Place, 5.6 times. The effect of these extreme heights is to render the street width absolutely inadequate to care for the traffic accompanying such heights. The ordinary lot in New York is 100 feet deep. The average net rentable floor space per occupant in an office building is about 75 square feet. The approximate number of occupants on any given street, assum- ing the street to be used entirely for office purposes with a rentability of 100 per cent may be ascertained by using these factors in connection with the average frontage height in stories. Proper allowance must, of course, be made for the progressive diminution of net rentable floor area accom- panying each increment in height. To make one street comparable with another, proper allowance must also be made for any space occupied by parks, public spaces, public build- ings, churches and cemeteries. In making these estimates, the portion of the street frontage devoted to such purposes has been deducted from the total frontage. The street intersections have, however, been regarded as belonging exclusively to the street under consideration in each case. These might more appropriately have been apportioned between the particular street under consideration and its bisecting streets, but the difficulty encoun- tered in doing this made it infeasible. Each street is considered as a unit. The inclusion of the street intersections makes the congestion appear smaller than is actually the fact. Estimated on this basis, New Street has at present an office population of 16,952; Exchange Place, 18,401; Nassau Street, 26,109; Trinity Place and Church Street, 37,702, and Broadway, below Chambers Street, 55,540. The total office population of these five streets is 154,704. What the office population on these five streets would be at different average frontage heights may be summarized as follows: Broadway, Increase Height Trinity Place Below Over in Nassau andChurch New Chambers Exchange Total Present Stucries Street Street Street Street Place Population Population 15 40.230 58,080 20,415 59.580 18,525 196,830 42,126 20 51960 75,000 26,360 76.940 23.980 254.240 99,536 25 62.525 90,275 31.725 92.625 * 28,875 306,025 151,323 30 72,150 104,190 36,630 106,860 33,33C 353,160 201,840 RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 189 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN The investigation shows that it would be impossible for all the occu- pants of the buildings abutting on these streets to seek the street level at one time, since the street—even- though it were cleared of all other traffic, pedestrian, vehicular and surface street car, and absolutely free from all obstructions so that the entire width of the street might be used—would be unable to hold them. The minimum space required by a crowd moving in one direction is five square feet per person. Computed in this manner, Broadway could hold but 96.3 per cent of its occupants; Trinity Place and Church Street, 86.6 per cent; Nassau Street, 69.3 per cent ; New Street, 44.5 per cent, and Exchange Place, 37.5 per cent. Stated in other words, the crowd on Broadway, below Chambers Street, would be 1.1 persons deep; on Trinity Place and Church Street, 1.2 per- sons deep; on Nassau Street, 1.4 persons deep; on New Street, 2.2 persons deep, and on Exchange Place, 2.7 persons deep. New Street and Exchange Place, it will be noted, would barely afford adequate standing room for their respective occupants. For practical purposes, however, the street must be divided into road- way and sidewalks. The entire street cannot be used exclusively by pedes- trians ; it must be used by both pedestrians and vehicles. If the crowds were to keep on the sidewalks, moving in one direction as above with a minimum space allowance of five square feet per person, the occupants on Trinity Place and Church Street would be piled up 1.8 persons deep ; on Broadway, 2.0 persons deep; on Nassau Street, 3.1 persons deep; on New Street, 5.2 persons deep; and on Exchange Place, 6.6 persons deep. If the average frontage height on these streets were increased to 30 stories, the occupants would be piled up 4.0 persons deep on the sidewalks on Broadway, below Chambers Street; 5.1 persons on Trinity Place and Church Street; 8.5 persons on Nassau Street; 11.4 persons on New Street ; and 11.9 persons on Exchange Place. These estimates are based on the assumption that the sidewalk width would remain unchanged. The follow- ing table shows the estimated sidewalk congestion on these streets if im- proved with buildings of different average frontage heights, the figures showing the number of persons deep the occupants would be on the side- walk, each occupant being allowed five square feet of sidewalk space: Height i in Trinity Place and Broadway, Below Exchange Stories Nassau Street Church Street New Street Chambers Street Place 15 4.8 2.8 6.3 2.2 6.7 20 6.2 8.7 8.1 2.8 8.6 25 7.4 4.4 9.6 3.4 10.4 30 8.5 5.1 11.4 4.0 11.9 The sidewalks are incapable of caring for more than 56 per cent of the present office population on Trinity Place and Church Street; 50 per cent on Broadway; 32 per cent on Nassau Street; 19 per cent on New Street, and 15 per cent on Exchange Place. If the buildings on these streets were increased to a uniform height of 30 stories, then the sidewalks on Broadway would afford sufficient space for but 26 per cent of the occupants; 20 per cent on Trinity Place and Church Street; 11.9 per cent on Nassau Street; 8.9 per cent on New Street, and 8.4 per cent on Exchange Place. 190 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS STATEMENT BY Danie L. Turner, Deputy ENGINEER OF SUBWAY Construction, Pusiic SERvicE Commission, First Disrict,* May 11, 1916 Increase in subway congestion The subway was originally expected to develop a traffic of from 400,000 to 500,000 passengers per day. It commenced operation the latter part of 1904, and carried 72,723,000 passengers in 1905. The next year, 1906, the traffic had increased to 137,917,000 passengers. That is practically double, an increase of 100 per cent within one year after operation. This increase was contrary to the expectations of a great many who felt that embarking upon subway construction was a hazard from a financial standpoint for the reason that people would object very seriously to riding underground in subway lines. It was thought that the business would be very slow in developing. On the contrary, the growth was astounding. The figures constantly increased of course, but not at such a rate of increase as in the first year of operation until we are now carrying 345,- 586,000 people a year. That is an average of very nearly a million a day. Of course, the business during the year has fluctuated exceedingly. There is a daily fluctuation in business. I will speak of that later on. There is a monthly fluctuation in business dependent upon traffic conditions. At the busiest time of the year, around the holiday season, in December, the number of passengers carried per day is over a million and sometimes nearly a million and a half per day. The exceedingly rapid development of business and the popularity of subway travel is indicated when you consider the fact that all the elevated lines in Manhattan, that is, the Second, Third, Sixth and Ninth Avenue lines, in 1915, only carried 301,793,000 people, as against 345,586,000 for the subway. The subway is now carrying more passengers per year than all of the four elevated lines in Manhattan combined. Another comparison that is interesting is that in 1905, the first year the subway was in operation the several elevated lines in Manhattan carried in round figures 266,000,000 passengers, as against 73,000,000 passengers on the subway. In the period which has since elapsed the number of pas- sengers carried on elevated lines has increased from 266,000,000 to 302,000,- 000 per year, whereas the number of passengers carried in the subway has increased from 73,000,000 to 346,000,000 per year. This tremendous increase has been taken care of without any increase in the number of lines, simply by increasing the length of the trains and decreasing the train intervals. The schedule at the start was two minutes for the express service. Now the schedule for the express service has been reduced to one minute and forty seconds. Besides this considerable decrease in the interval there has been an increase in the length of trains—the express service has been increased from eight to ten cars for each train. Of course, overloading has increased enormously. At the beginning there was an overloaded condition, but it was nothing comparable to the overloading that is carried now. I have known counts to be made in subway cars, carrying close to 200 passengers. We figure as a rule about 125 persons to a car as the number for a load, whereas the seating capacity is a little under fifty—we put it at fifty. The seats are nineteen inches wide. The 1914 * This statement has been compiled from answers made to questions asked Mr. Turner. RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 191 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN increase in the 181st Street station business over 1913 is 385,000 passengers. The total business at that station during 1914 was 6,133,000. That is an average of about 18,000 a day. .1 count 340 days to a year. During 1913 it was 16,000 a day, 1912, 14,000, 1911, 12,000. This is an increase of 50 per cent in three years. This is a station where the only means of getting to the surface from the subway platform is by elevators. The unusually large business at 181st Street is due to the extensive building around that point. The same result is bound to come at any point along the route of the rapid transit system if there is any sudden building. On the Broadway branch from 96th Street north before the subway went into operation there were no rapid transit facilities. There was abso- lutely no population in that area. The traffic during 1914 on the Broadway branch was 44,000,000 passengers. That is more than 10 per cent of the total business of the whole subway. The territory traversed was absolutely virgin territory before this rapid transit line was located there. These figures show the tremendous effects that transit facilities have in developing a new section. If there is no control or regulation over tenement buildings, the distri- bution of the population which the transit lines are designed to effect will be to a large extent nullified, and the tenements in favored sections will continue to pile up on top of each other. If there is no control over housing or building regulations such as proposed generally in the program of this Commission the provision of additional transit facilities simply increases congestion. In fact, I would say, just at this particular time that the new rapid transit facilities are about to be opened up, that this is the psychological time for the adoption of a program such as is proposed by this Commission. In fact, if you do not adopt a program such as is proposed by this Commission or a similar one you will lose the benefit of the rapid transit facilities. Air space per subway passenger The subway cars are nine feet wide and fifty-one feet in length, includ- ing the platforms. The height of the subway cars is twelve feet above the base of the rail. The body of the car is about eight feet high. These dimensions give the subway car a cubic content of approximately 3,672 cubic feet. Counting 200 passengers to the car each person would have an air space of eighteen and a half cubic feet. Standard for limiting subway congestion My theory is that rapid transit lines, or any municipal transit lines, ought to be permitted a capacity at the rush hour, of about fifty per cent over the seating capacity. The rush hour of course, is not the peak—the peak, where the load is very much in excess of the average for the hour, is fifteen or twenty minutes only in duration. I arrive at this carrying capacity during the rush hour from the standpoint of permitting free circulation in the cars. That has no bearing on the health standpoint. I had a talk with Dr. Emerson, the Commissioner of Health, and he arrived at the same conclusion from the health standpoint—about fifty per cent overload. You understand that we could not accommodate, or take care of the business of New York on such a basis. We have to carry to business in New York City, over all lines—surface, elevated and subway, somewhere in the neighborhood of half a million people in one direction in one hour. 192 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS A seating capacity standard is financially impossible. Neither would it be a physical possibility under present conditions. Rush hour traffic The proportion of daily travel in New York during the rush hours is a very variable proposition. The rush hour traffic, that is, the traffic in one hour in one direction past the maximum load point varies all the way from four to five per cent in the subway to twenty per cent on some of the surface lines—of the total daily business in both directions. I have no doubt that people let three or four trains go by before getting on at the Grand Central Station during the rush hour. You can get com- fortably into a train at the Brooklyn Bridge during the rush hours. Every- body at this station bound for a certain destination is able to get into the first train to that destination which arrives. They may not all get a seat, but undoubtedly they all get in. There may be some little waiting at 14th Street. There was a time when 14th Street was simply a swarming mass of people. They frequently had to wait five or six minutes before they could get on a train. Now the waiting has moved up to 42nd Street, in my judg- ment. This is just a general observation that I am speaking of. I have not had any actual count made. Average length of time spent in subway I should not think that the length of the average trip would amount to much more than twenty-five or thirty minutes. I made some careful obser- vations some time ago, and the average ride on the subway was then about five miles. I think it may be a little greater than that now. This average is for the whole day. The average for the rush hour ride would run some- where around thirty-five to forty minutes. The time spent in the subways by those who travel during the rush hour, therefore, average about eighty minutes per day. Possible increase in subway capacity I would not say that the limit has been reached in the present subway with respect to the length or number of trains. I think that the terval may yet be reduced somewhat. At the peak of the rush our new contracts as a matter of fact, require a minute and a half interval, forty trains an hour. Some of the operators maintain that we are not going to be able to quite accomplish this. From the best evidence that could be obtained, after careful study of the situation, the contracts were drawn to require that the equipment be provided to maintain the necessary speed and that a signal system be provided which would permit that interval. Now if the traffic can be controlled so as not to congest the lines, but can be distributed so that cars are not excessively over-loaded, then station stops will be reasonably short. I believe under such conditions that the 114-minute interval may be accomplished. That is our feeling anyhow. I know that we could do better in the present subway if we could reduce the time of the stop. The Grand Central station stop which is practically a controlling stop on the present subway runs close tc a minute, when really it ought not to be more than half a minute—that stop stalls everything on the line behind. When the subway was originally put into operation the stop then necessary retarded the operation for the reason that the signals did not permit the trains to approach the station because they had to maintain a running distance and the result was that the train in the station got a clear signal to go ahead and the other train not only had to get into the station and stop, but had to travel some distance from behind. RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 193 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN After the congestion became intense the condition was improved by installing the speed control signal which permits a train to come right up, behind the other train, to the station, so that when it does get a clear signal to go ahead it has only a short distance to run into the station. With the signal development of the present time it may be practicable to maintain such operation and thereby decrease the interval between trains. Districting as a remedy for subway congestion You not only have to distribute the workers but you have to distribute the places of abode and also distribute the places where they work. This is the prime essential. The difficulty to-day is that one part of New York City is the objective point of so many people. As it stands now, practically everybody wants to go somewhere between 42d Street and the Battery during the peak of the rush. Practically all the lines are built in order to carry people to that one location. I do not think there is any necessity for such a condition. j There ought to be localized business centers surrounded by residentiat areas, away from the one general center, which would be traversed by those transit lines which connect the outer sections with the general center. There would then be created a two-way traffic movement to such localized centers from the contiguous residential areas. Unless a very careful housing and districting regulation, such as you are trying to carry out, is adopted, it will be absolutely impossible for the City to cope with its municipal transportation problem. These two problems have got to be taken together. They are absolutely related to each other. We can provide facilities up to a maximum of the street-ca- pacity, but we are rapidly coming to the actual capacity of the streets so that housing and manufacturing sites and working sites ought to be con- trolled with a view to having the population distributed over the whole area and in that way develop a two-way business on all lines to the very utmost. I think districting is absolutely essential to the transportation problem of this city. That is the only way in which the excessive rush hour conges- tion can be eliminated. To illustrate what I have just been saying, the transit plan, as it has been laid down, is to distribute the population throughout the whole city. It is essential, however, in order that the plan may be effective that there may be some control over housing regulation near the business center, for the reason that 1f you permit tenements to be piled up near a business center, thereby reducing the ride to twenty minutes or half an hour, people are going to insist in living in these areas rather than going out into the undeveloped and new areas which the rapid transit system has made ac- cessible. Tf there were cross-connections between Long Island City and the resi- dence portions of Brooklyn, it would tend to draw factory workers out of Manhattan into the outlying boroughs and make it easy for them to get back and forth to places of work which would not have to be in Manhattan. I think that the traffic conditions I have pointed out will undoubtedly continue even after the new subways are completed, unless a districting plan is adopted. Unless you have your districting plan or something similar to it carried out, the transit problem of the city will come to such a point that it will be impossible for the city to cope with it. {94 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS Anything that would tend to restrict the available factory area in cen- tral Manhattan and to increase the residential areas in central Manhattan would undoubtedly tend to decrease excessive congestion on the rapid tran- sit lines, especially if the residential area is located within a short distance. It might intensify congestion if a segregated manufacturing district was more than walking distance from a segregated residential section. I think that the location of homes within walking distance of workshops is usually the condition abroad which makes the per capita ride so much less. The per capita ride in 1910 on the rapid transit lines was 161, to-day itis 176. The total per capita on all lines in 1910 was 321. To-day it is 358. These are fare passengers. When you consider the transfer riders the figures enormously increase. There is no other intensity of riding com- parable with ours anywhere else in the world. On the average an individual rides 358 times every year. That means practically everybody rides once every day. It is an indication of the in- tensity of the use of the municipal transit lines which is very much greater than any other lines, simply because of the general conditions that indus- tries are not located near home sections for the workers so that many may walk. Length of walk from subway stations The average person will walk about one-quarter of a mile to a rapid transit station. I don’t believe that you will get many people to walk half a mile to a station. That is particularly during the rush hour. During non- business hours they will easily walk more. There are very few people compelled to walk more than half a mile in Manhattan or Bronx to get to a station. Capacity of dual subway system On the dual system we have doubled transit facilities and by doubling the facilities we have trebled the capacity and this has been done chiefly by utilizing the two-way movement through business centers. I mean by this that the trunk line that is built through a business center has a branch or feeders at both ends of it, so that all trains originating, we will say, in the Bronx in the morning come down town fully loaded, go through the busi- ness center, lose their loads, go over to Brooklyn, fill up and come back through the business center again, so that we have a four track trunk line through the congested part of the city where most of the people want to go every track of which is utilized by a fully loaded train. There are twelve tracks in the existing rapid transit system, five utilized by empty trains and seven by full trains. When I say the existing rapid transit system, I do not mean to include the Brooklyn elevated lines, be- cause they are not city transit lines—they simply serve Brooklyn. They do not bring people through the business center. I mean Manhattan ele- vated lines and the subway lines. Under the dual system we have increased the capacity to nineteen tracks, five of them empty and fourteen utilized by full trains. In other words, we have doubled the number of full train move- ments through the business center. We still have a potential capacity for increase by running some more branches to Brooklyn without building hardly another foot of subway through Manhattan. RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 195 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN STATEMENT BY GEORGE C. WHIPPLE, PROFESSOR OF SANITARY ENGINEERING, Harvarp University, May 29, 1916 Building restrictions and the public health The Commission on Building Districts and Restrictions of New York City, has formulated tentative regulations governing the area and height of buildings which may be erected in different parts of the city and the uses against which the buildings in each district may be restricted. Authority for doing this was granted by the State Legislature. The Legislature has delegated to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment the power to put such regulations into effect. This is clearly an exercise of the police power which resides primarily in the State. The right to so delegate it is un- questionable. It is of vital importance, however, to ascertain whether the proposed regulations do as a matter of fact fall within the proper scope of the police power. This is a matter for the courts to decide, but the de- cision of the courts should be anticipated as well as possible by considering the relation of the facts to established legal precedents. Do the restric- tions of the bulk and the use of buildings in a city like New York mate- rially involve the health, safety or morals of the people? If they do the action comes within the accepted scope of the police power, and is con- stitutionally sound. I believe that there is a vital relation between the public health and the buildings in and about which people spend their lives, and I believe that in a City a reasonable restriction of the height, area and use of buildings is a justifiable exercise of the police power. The proof of this cannot, in the nature of the case, be direct or sus- ceptible of support based on definite experiment. Public health is a matter which is influenced by so many things that it is almost impossible to select one factor and consider its effect apart from all others. The proof of the relation between housing and health must necessarily be axiomatic in charac- ter and based upon the accumulated experience of mankind generally ex- pressed. Studies of the statistics of disease and death for people who live or work in buildings of different kinds and under different conditions have been collected by sanitarians in various places in the world, but these lead to no definite conclusion, for the very good reason that housing is only one of the factors, and not the principal factor, which influences disease and death in the community and for the further reason that disease and death are not a complete index of health. Nevertheless the fragmentary statistical studies which have been made point to a relation between housing and health which hygienists and sanitarians have not hesitated to accept. Health At the outset it is important to get a full conception of what is meant by health. At the present time public health activities are coming to be dominated by the bacteriologist and epidemiologist. Attention has been focused especially on communicable disease. All the world knows that the efforts of the new public health movement in reducing the suffering and misery of mankind have been the most remarkable in the world’s history and must long be continued. The results have been measured in terms of death rates and sickness rates. Naturally enough health has come to be re- garded by some as the absence of disease. But that is not a complete conception of health. Health is more than the absence of disease. It is something positive, and involves physique and vitality, and it is mental as 196 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS well as physical. The inherent difficulty at the present time is the absence of scientific methods of measuring this positive element in health. Yet the world knows as a matter of human experience that it is real and vital. The expression, ‘health and comfort of the people,” is centuries old, and these two ideas are inseparable. Public health, of course, is the sum total of the health of the con- stituent individuals. We measure public health inversely in terms of death-rates because at present we have no means of measuring health-rates. We take a part as an index of the whole. Fundamental concepts Light, air, water, food and shelter are essential to life. Modern sani- tarians would perhaps qualify this statement by adding the idea of cleanli- ness, and say that clean air, clean water, clean food and clean human beings are essential to healthy life. The regulation of buildings is intimately connected with the factors mentioned—light, air, water, food, sanitation—and is therefore itself a factor in public health. Relation between internal and external conditions In cities people live an indoor life to a greater extent than they live out-of-doors. During the last fifty years cities have increased greatly in size and indoor life has become correspondingly more common and more important. The advent of steel construction has changed the shape of many buildings, increasing height and producing congestion. It has also had a tendency to reduce the size of rooms and has led to what is termed a cellular type of housing for dwellings and offices. As far as health is concerned indoor conditions are on the whole more important than outdoor conditions in a city like New York. Indoor con- ditions are dependent largely upon the plan and construction of buildings and upon occupancy, all of which are well recognized as coming within the control of the police power. But indoor conditions are also and to a large extent controlled by the conditions out-of-doors. It is the outside en- vironmental conditions to which the tentative regulations of the Commis- sion are chiefly directed. The amount of. daylight which enters a building depends upon the amount of sunlight which falls upon the exterior, and upon the proximity of other buildings, their height, and their bulk. The amount of air which enters a building is also influenced, and sometimes very greatly, by the surrounding buildings. The purity of the air is likewise affected by outside conditions. Thus while spoken of, and properly so, as the regulation of buildings it is the regulation of the space between buildings which is the object in view, a system of regulations designed to prevent one lot owner from interfering with the light and air required by his neighbor. While in general rights in the use of land are bounded by vertical planes, it must not be forgotten that the sun’s rays fall slantingly upon the land while the wind movements are chiefly horizontal. These natural elements are interfered with by excessive high and crowded build- ings, hence there are rights in land ownership which extend beyond the vertical planes. The following are some of the points to be considered in connection with this subject. Sunlight The rays of the sun bring light and heat to the earth and both are absolutely necessary to man’s existence. Considered from the standpoint RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 197 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN of heat the sun’s direct rays are beneficial or prejudicial according to cir- cumstances. Heat is absorbed by walls of brick, stone or concrete, with the consequence that the air near them is heated; heat is also transmitted through building walls to the rooms. In winter this is an advantage in this climate, but in summer it may be a disadvantage. Walls shaded from the direct rays of the sun tend to make houses cooler. In summer this is desirable but in winter undesirable. The direct rays of the sun influence the moisture of the air as well as its temperature. The evaporation of water is increased, but as the capacity of air for holding moisture is also increased by heating the relative humidity may be decreased. At all events the sum total of the effect of sunlight is to raise the sentient temperature, that is, the temperature shown by the wet bulb thermometer. It is this sen- tient temperature coupled with air movement which affects the health and comfort of human beings. Sunlight likewise causes movements of the air. This is due to unequal heating in different places. The air currents thus set up are gentle and desirable. Places which never receive the sunlight are more likely than others to contain stagnant air. Considered from the standpoint of light, the sun’s rays profoundly affect. the lighting of rooms. This is a matter of common knowledge, but quantitative relations have been shown by many photometer tests made at points located at different distances from windows, and by similar tests made at the windows of different stories in tall buildings the exterior light- ing of which is influenced by adjoining buildings. The sun’s rays are re- flected in various ways from exterior surfaces of buildings so that the exterior conditions materially influence the interior lighting, and the nearer the buildings are together the greater is the importance of this factor. The sun’s rays have an effect on vegetation, as will be mentioned later. Sunlight tends to remove moisture from particles of dust in the air thereby improving a foggy atmosphere. It tends to dry pools of water which might otherwise become breeding spots for mosquitoes. The sun’s rays have a marked disinfecting action and prevent the growth of molds and fungi, thereby eliminating odors of certain kinds. They also destroy bacterial life. whether the bacteria are floating in the air, or are attached to the exposed surfaces of pavements, floors, or walls. To the extent to which this occurs the danger of infection from certain disease germs is lessened. Sunlight has both a physiological and a psychological influence on human beings. To these may be added the aesthetic effect of light and shade produced by sun- light. In these various ways sunlight is desirable for the health and comfort of human beings, while the complete absence of sunlight is correspondingly detrimental. Daylight By daylight is meant the indirect lighting from the sun, that is, lighting received from the sky or clouds and reflected from various surfaces. While it is possible for human beings to exist without direct sunlight and even without daylight, it is the experience of the race that both sunlight and daylight in sufficient amounts are highly desirable. Daylight is necessary not only for the health and comfort but for economic reasons. Too little light causes eye-strain with its train of physiological disturbances, and de- creases the productiveness of work. It unfavorably influences the mental condition. Light promotes cheerfulness, while gloomy rooms depress vitality. Lack of daylight limits the length of the working day in some 198 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS industries and increases the amount of artificial light required. Artificial lighting with oil or gas tends to vitiate the air by increasing the carbonic acid and moisture, and even by increasing the poisonous carbonic oxide. Artificial lighting also increases fire risks. Lack of exterior lighting in- creases the amount of window space required and this in turn decreases the heat loss in buildings in winter. In these and other ways insufficient lighting not only results in inconvenience to human beings, but may be a positive menace to the health, safety and morals of the people. The amount of day- light received in buildings is greatly affected by adjoining buildings, by their positions, their height, and by the character of their walls, both in color and material. Ventilation The necessity of adequate ventilation need not be argued, but it is not as fully realized as it should be that the air which enters a building, both in amount and quality, is influenced by the surrounding buildings. If build- ings are too close together there is likely to be a stagnation of the air between them. The ventilation of streets, alleys, courts, and interior spaces between buildings is as much a matter of public importance, as the ventilation of rooms is a matter of individual importance. Street ventilation is influenced not only by the orientation of the streets and the prevailing wind move- ments, but by the height, size, shape and character of buildings, and their distances apart. In cavernous streets there are excessive air currents near the ground, and at times great air movements, especially objectionable in winter. On the other hand, at times of gentle air movements there may be no currents at all near the streets and pavements between high buildings because the friction of the air passing through the narrow channels prevents them. In other words, narrow streets lined with high buildings tend to produce extreme conditions of air movement and both extremes are objec- tionable. In regulating the size and height of buildings with reference to the streets the city is to a considerable extent controlling street ventilation and the ventilation of courts and interior spaces, and thus indirectly the ventila- tion of indoor quarters. Quite as important as the volume of the air taken into buildings, is its cleanliness. One of the difficulties in cities is to obtain proper air inlets for ventilation systems. The amount of smoke and dust, foul odors on the streets, bad smells from buildings, from passing vehicles, from exposed refuse and from other sources are matters properly subject to the control of the health department, but the concentration of dust and smoke and foul odors is greatly influenced by street ventilation. The regulation of buildings is a regulation of the amount of dilution of odors, and is, therefore, a public health factor. Vegetation It is becoming more and more recognized that vegetation is very desir- able in residential districts for reasons of health and comfort. Vegetation cannot thrive without sunlight and it is a matter of history that the increas- ing height of buildings has driven out the trees from streets, while the extension of buildings over large percentages of the lot have left little chance for vegetation of any kind. Trees, shrubs, and grass tend to cool the air during hot weather. Trees produce desirable shade, and yet in winter they do not obstruct the sunlight. Trees therefore furnish a shade which is automatically adjustable, increasing when it is most needed and decreasing when objectionable. In this respect the shade of trees differs from the shade of buildings. RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 199 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN The effect of vegetation is local. Trees and grass concentrated in parks cannot take the place of vegetation on streets and individual house lots. ; Protection of the senses In addition to furnishing essential living requirements such as air, light, water and food (the last two not here considered), it is necessary for the health and well being of human beings to have their natural senses properly protected. Sight, sound and smell are all influenced by housing conditions and come within the proper scope of building restrictions. The relation - between odors and street ventilation has been mentioned. Sound is likewise influenced by the proximity of buildings to each other, by their height, and by the character of their walls. Large high buildings placed near together greatly increase the amount of noise in the street. Buildings of stone, brick and concrete reflect sound and produce echoes. Wooden buildings are less likely to reflect sound. The character of the pavement is of course an important element. Noise greatly increases fatigue, notably the fatigue of mental workers. It is especially objectionable in ‘residential districts because there it may affect the very young and old, and the infirm, as well as all people during their hours of needed repose. The importance of outlook, the psychological effect of view, especially sky view, is a matter closely connected with public health. Here again the aesthetic influence of vegetation is important. Nervous diseases in cities are on the increase. The protection of the nerves of the people by preventing offense to the senses is a matter which properly comes within the bounds of public health administration. Need of districting Tt may be. argued by some that while all of the foregoing statements are admitted the regulations governing buildings should be general throughout the city and not different for different districts. This, however, is not the case. Ina city like New York there must be buildings of different character suited to all sorts of uses, and even in residential buildings there are bound to be differences due to the vauyins financial ability of the people to provide homes for themselves. Granted that indoor eondigions are more important than outdoor condi- tions, but to a considerable extent dependent upon them, it is obvious that architects cannot design buildings so as to obtain the best interior conditions unless the exterior conditions are definitely established. Nothing in the history of housing has been more distressing than the objectionable condi- tions which arise from the changes which take place in entire districts. The residential section of to-day becomes the business section of to-morrow; houses are vainly altered to meet the new conditions, the results being almost always unsatisfactory. Individual houses built to secure the maximum amount of light and air suddenly find their windows blanketed by high walls on adjoining property. Had this been known in advance the original building would have been constructed on different plans. It is so obvious that it need not be emphasized that the more permanent the space between buildings, the better can the architect adapt the interior to the exterior con- ditions. This is in itself a sufficient justification for the regulation of the height and area of buildings, and for the imposition of different restrictions on different districts. Residential districts need more severe restrictions than other districts ; industrial regions need less severe restrictions than business districts. It is 200 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS to be granted that restrictions are needed from the standpoint of residence; it is in the interest of conservation to divide the city into different districts in order that all of the land may be fully used to its proper limit. But the regulation of the bulk of buildings is not enough. Their use must also be regulated within limits, for the use of buildings also affects the health, morals and safety of the people. The best use cannot be made of any building unless the use which is to be made of adjoining buildings is also known. It is not possible, however, to regulate the use of buildings too minutely, and the divisions suggested by the tentative regulations pro- posed by the Commission offer a reasonable solution of the problem, namely, restriction of districts to residential, business or industrial uses. Without going into detail, attention may be called to the fact that the use of buildings in a district may influence the public health, in ways similar to those already mentioned. Certain industries produce smoke, dust, fumes or odors, which are objectionable and which tend to make these industries undesirable in a business or residential district. The nature of the industry or business controls the volume and character of the traffic on sidewalks and streets. It may affect the nature of the pavement required and the noise of vehicles and the odors from the streets ; it may also affect the safety of those using the streets. The location of residential, business and industrial areas also influence transportation and the manner of transportation has an in- fluence on public health. Mention might be made of churches, schools, hospitals, public buildings, the relation of business and industrial establish- ments to the homes of the people, but it would be going too much into detail to pursue the subject further. In many individual instances the public health authorities have been called upon to abate individual nuisances. The tenta- tive regulations proposed by the Commission are directed not to the abate- ment of nuisances, but to their prevention. While these regulations are likely to have their greatest use in increasing and stabilizing real estate values in the city, a more vital reason for their adoption is that they will enhance the health, safety, comfort and morals of the people. Congestion We now come to what from the standpoint of disease transmission is the most important benefit to be derived from a districting of the city; namely, the relief of congestion. If there is any one thing which has been definitely established by the new science of public health it is that com- municable diseases spread through a community in proportion to the oppor- tunities for personal contact, or, to be more specific, for the excretions of one person to be conveyed to other persons. This personal contact may occur in the home, in the school, in the place of business, in public convey- ances, or on the street, or wherever people meet. Crowding tends to increase opportunities for contact, and overcrowded cars and overcrowded rooms are both objectionable. In proportion as people are divided into groups so that the members of each group do not come in contact with the members of other groups the opportunities for contact are lessened. It is not difficult to see how segregation of industries, with provision for people to live relatively near to the places where they work, will tend to reduce the opportunities for the spread of disease by contact. Districting will therefore tend to prevent the spread of disease. Data collected With the assistance of Professor James Ford, of Harvard University, I have collected a large number of references taken from well known RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 201 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN authorities which emphasize and confirm what has been said in regard to the relation between housing and public health. These are so voluminous that it has not seemed best to attempt to include them in this memorandum. STATEMENT BY FRANK B. WILLIAMS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON CITY PLANNING, City Crus, Marci 4, 1916 Preservation of residential areas In the districting of cities, the provisions with regard to residential districts, closely related as they are to human comfort, health and life, are especially important. Districting includes segregation and relation or con- nection. Thus, residential districts should so far as possible be free from buildings to be devoted to alien and disturbing activities; and there should be such districts within easy reach of all of the business and industrial activities of the city. The entire absence of regulation in this city heretofore has made this problem extremely difficult. Industry and business have “affected ” large areas that they have made only slight use of. The problem for your commission therefore has often been to find and “ save” residential areas, especially in Manhattan. That this has been your point of view your statements and plans would seem to indicate. It is our belief that in one connection you have not applied your principle as fully as is possible and highly desirable ; and it is this matter, to which we have given special atten- tion, that we desire to call to your attention at this time. Need for protecting parks from business and industry The preservation of residential areas requires not only that they be made secure from invasion of business and industrial interests, so far as possible; but also that in these residential areas now existing, recreation parks, and elements of a similar nature, not to be replaced if lost, be main- tained. This can be done only by restricting, so far as possible, to residential uses the areas immediately surrounding these recreation parks. Thus, not only are the parks saved; but residential areas, in parts of the city much needing them, are kept suitable for residence and made permanent. This does not mean necessarily that we shall prohibit a certain amount of business occupancy, but it must be subordinated to such an extent that it will not invade and change the character of the district. There are very few recreation parks in Manhattan. Especially is this true when we compare the number to the total residential area and also to the areas given to such parks in other cities. It therefore seems all the more important to preserve those which we now possess. Under the present conditions the congested areas are not adequately provided for in this respect. The original expense of providing these various recreation centres was very great. They were created for a definite purpose and need, and experi- ence has shown that their usefulness to the children in a residential district does not extend much beyond one-half mile diameter. The destruction of the residential areas about these parks means that we destroy the actual and the social value of these centers which the city has created at considerable expense. Business not materially benefitted by parks We believe that it is generally assumed that property used fer business and industrial purposes has a greater value than property used for any but “high grade” residential purposes, and that this thought has dominated 202 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS the classification of the areas immediately surrounding these recreation parks. To a certain degree, business and industrial interests have crept in to the very edges of these parks. This assumption that business and indus- trial values are in these districts higher than residential, has led to the classification of many of these areas adjacent to the parks as either business or industrial. This assumption may well be questioned and it is our belief that if the areas around these parks were intensively developed to the maximum along residential and social lines, that values would be produced which would greatly exceed the values which would come through the use of such property for business or industrial purposes. The park is.a material asset from the social standpoint which affects the value of property used for that purpose. The parks do not materially add to the value of property around parks when the same is used merely for business or industrial purposes. Value of parks harmed by business and industry Increasing the number of factories and industrial buildings within these neighborhoods decreases the value of these parks through augmenting vehicular traffic m the parks and rendering the parks of very little value. The introduction of these buildings decreases the number of families that can live within a useful radius of the playground. The present state of the tentative plan which classifies the majority of these areas adjacent to the parks and playgrounds as “industrial” directs the development of these areas along unnatural lines and tends to retard, if not prohibit, the full development of these areas for appropriate use and therefore defeats the end sought, namely, of providing for the development of property to a maximum of value. Parks as social centers We recognize the limitations under which the Commission is working, that they must not decrease or destroy values. The emphasis seems to have been placed upon an assumed business or industrial value which might eventually accrue in these various districts. It seems to us that the tendency is in quite the opposite direction. Parks have been created for a specific purpose and therefore the emphasis in the plan as a whole should be placed upon conserving this value by conserving that element in the plan for which the parks were created. The actual conditions regarding business and industrial buildings surrounding these playgrounds in most cases is such as to suggest to the Committee that too great a value has been placed upon them and that these areas do not show any appreciable tendency toward a business or industrial development. There is, however, a distinct tendency toward the development around these parks of improved tenements, together with social, religious and educational buildings. It is this tendency which the Commission should recognize upon the plans and in so doing provide foundations for the development of community centers. STATEMENT BY FRANK B. WiLLIAMs, CHAIRMAN, CoMMITTEE oN City PLANNING, City Crus, Marcu 28, 1916 Districting in Germany In 1913, as official representative of the City of New York, it was my privilege to make an investigation in Germany and Austria of the methods and results of the zone or district system of building regulation in those , RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 203 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN countries. In that capacity every facility was given me by city and state officials freely and fully to obtain the official facts and the official point of view. My official mission and unofficial introductions made it easy for me to make the acquaintance of those in private life interested and affected by these governmental regulations and the methods of enforcing them. My knowledge of German, acquired as a boy in Germany, made it possible for me to obtain all available information. | devoted several months to the task. Under the circumstances, I consider it my duty, as well as my priv- ilege, to give this Commission the results of that investigation. Districting was first introduced into Germany in 1884, and began to come into common use at about 1894. It is now the prevailing system ot building regulation throughout Germany and Austria. From these countries the system has spread to Scandinavian countries, to both French and German Switzerland, and to some extent to England, Canada and several of the United States. It is, however, in Germany that this system has prevailed more extensively and for a greater length of time than anywhere else and can best be investigated. The systems of districting employed in the different cities of Germany and Austria differ in many particulars. In general, however, the principles underlying that districting are the same throughout Germany and Austria. The official opinion throughout Germany and Austria is universally in favor of districting. This is also the popular opinion. In no city in which it has ever been adopted has there been any attempt to abolish it. Every- where it is regarded as a proved success. There were in the cities of Germany and Austria in 1913 many indi- vidual groups and organizations of individuals who were keenly alive to their social and financial interests and the effect of the acts of city officials on these interests ; and these individuals and organizations were at that time expressing their opinions on these matters with freedom and vigor. It was therefore perfectly possible to become acquainted with all shades and varieties of opinion and all facts relating to this subject. I devoted several months to the task of doing so. There are many unofficial criticisms of districting methods made in Germany and Austria. These crtiticisms are directed either to its admin- istration, which in some particulars seems to be arbitrary and unjust, or to the location and boundaries of particular districts, or- to particular height and area limitations as applied to particular localities. On only one or two occasions did | hear any criticism of the system itself, or of the prin- ciples underlying it. These adverse criticisms were those of theoretical students of the subject, and had no general support. Effect of districting In my judgment, the Heights of Buildings Commission and the Com- mission 9n Burlding Districts and Restrictions are correct in their statements made in their reports of the probable advantages to the City of New York which will ‘result from the adoption of the districting system and are borne out in them by its results in Germany and Austria. It does, in my opinion, lessen congestion in overcrowded Germany; it does make city land more useful and valuable ; it does tend to prevent the useless and costly changes in the character of localities; it does stabilize values; it does make living conditions more comfortable and convenient and business more economical and efficient. Conditions in Germany and Austria are no doubt different from con- 204 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS ditions in New York; but, after all, there is a general similarity in cities in civilized western countries the world over; and the results of districting in Germany and Austria cannot safely be ignored by us in our effort to decide upon the wisdom of ourselves adopting it, but, on the contrary, these results in these countries where it has had such a thorough trial should be given our careful consideration. Zone plan based on health and safety One of the arguments for districting in German cities was the decrease in fire hazard by segregating factories, but more emphasis was laid on greater efficiency and decrease in risks to health. As buildings are much more substantial in Germany than here, the argument for districting on account of diminished risk of fire would apply with much greater force in New York than in Germany. ' The districting ordinances in Germany have been passed upon by the courts. In 1894 the question was brought up whether the building police had the right to issue the zoning or districting ordinance for a part of Greater Berlin passed in 1892, and the decision of the court was that the building police had the right to issue that regulation, because it tended to increase the public security and health. It has also been determined that the zoning regulations as they affect the city as a whole must be considered in the decision of the court; that it is not fair to pick out, for instance, the district where the regulations are most severe and pass upon that by itself, the entire plan must be regarded. STATEMENT By FRANK B. WILLIAMS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON City PLANNING, City Cius, Aprit 11, 1916 Purpose of districting The City Club has already expressed its hearty approval of the main purposes and principles underlying the work of your Commission in its districting of this city as expressed in your tentative report, and of the application of those principles in the various boroughs as exhibited in your tentative resolutions and the plans carrying them out. In a pioneer endeavor of this magnitude and difficulty it would be most remarkable if there were not mistakes which, if uncorrected, would most seriously mar the finished work. It is because you fully realize this fact that in your many public hearings and private conferences with regard to this huge task you are devoting so much time and such patient attention to criticisms and suggestions. It seems to be the universal feeling that never has there been a commission more hard-working, more patient, more open-minded, or more fair. It is your hope and belief—indeed the object for which you are work- ing—that the district regulations which you are drawing up and applying shall produce in each of the individual districts of the city a type of devel- opment which, when once it has occurred, will of itself render it difficult, if not impossible, to erect types of buildings in these districts alien to that typical development; and therefore make it equally difficult or impossible to change the regulations underlying that development. For this reason any but minor mistakes in these regulations at this time are likely to be irreparable. Criticism of tentative plan We believe that there ave mistakes in your tentative resolutions and plans ; but that, fortunately, these mistakes may be remedied, not by radical RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 205 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN changes, but partly by readjustments, partly by logical extensions of your work along the lines already laid down by you. ‘The various detailed criticisms of what you have, in general, so well done are, as we shall show, related parts of a general criticism. That criticism, although applying in different degrees to the districting in all parts of our city, relates specially to its outlying portions, where districting, seemingly easier, is really quite as difficult as in a section already developed, and much more effective and important. Our suggestions, therefore, relate not so much to Manhattan as to the other boroughs. We wish to express our admiration of your tentative resolutions and plans for districting this city according to use. Little as we have to suggest im this part of your undertaking, we do feel that our criticisms may enable you to carry out this branch of your work more in ACeORE with the general principles you have stated in your report. Exclusion of industry from business districts To provide for industry in so far as it is mecessary as an incident to business, you suggest that the employment for industrial purposes of (1) twenty- five per cent., or (2) in any event two floors of any building in a business district, be permitted. Unquestionably industry as such with its trucking, its street and sidewalk congestion, its smoke and inevitable noises, is destructive of the essential characteristics and advantages of business districts. We agree with you, however, that, as an incident to business, and to the extent to which it is incidental, industry must be admitted into these districts. We feel that the percentage of permissible industry which you have fixed as incidental is too large and would permit great congestion in business districts. Be that, however, as it may, we think that to allow two floors of industry, no matter how low the building, is a grave mistake. In the central portions of the city where buildings are high, this provision would doubtless have little effect on the type of buildings erected. In the outlying sections, however, factories not perhaps exceeding two stories are commercially possible, and there is no reason to suppose that they would be temporary. [Even if they were temporary, they would hinder or lower the character of permanent improvements; if they were permanent, they would create a development totally different from that which your Com- mission in your wisdom has decided is most advantageous in the district; or else produce that confusion and disorder which it is one of the main purposes of districting by use to prevent. In a word, instead of allowing incidental industry in your business districts, you have allowed industry there pure and simple to the exclusion of business. Nor is this the most serious phase of the matter. Since the business districts are also districts which will be used for residence by many of our citizens of limited means, you have brought intensive industry with all its perils to health and life to the doors of the class most needing protection, because least able to protect itself. In allowing in all cases two floors of buildings in business districts to be used for industry, your Commission may have been influenced by the calculation that as a rough average, the use of two floors for this purpose in a low building of a given area ‘would produce the same amount of street traffic and congestion as the use of twenty-five per cent in this way in a high building. ‘In so far as the “two-floor ” provision would produce the factory pure and simple, instead of permitting merely industry incidental to business, it may be doubted whether this is altogether correct. In any 206 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS event traffic is not the chief, much less the only consideration, in districting. If the amount of land that could be or has been tentatively devoted to industry were insufficient for such use, there would be more reason for this provision in spite of the confusion it introduces in business districts. It is, however, the general opinion that your Commission has been unable to confine industry within areas sufficiently limited to avoid those sudden changes which in the past have done us such injury. We therefore ask you to reconsider this provision. Shops on ground floor of residential buildings In a former communication to your Commission we have already adyo- cated the creation of a fourth use class—that of shops on the ground floor, with residences above. The employment of this use class, although it does not remove all the objections to the “two-floor” provision, of which we have just been treating, would remove many people from its evil effects. We have also heretofore urged upon you the advisability of placing streets near small parks in the residential use class. With this new classification you will, in many cases where it would be difficult to apply the strictly resi- dential classification, be able to accomplish much the same results. The plans which we have filed with you, showing in detail the present use of buildings near certain typical parks, and the printed information of like nature with regard to many other parks in the several boroughs which we have been glad to furnish you, not only tend strongly to prove the possibility and wisdom of this method of saving and increasing the usefulness of our small parks, but also the expediency of creating and employing this fourth use class in many other parts of the city. Criticism of tentative height and area provisions Let us now turn to your tentative height and area limitations. Here again we are in general in hearty accord with you. We feel, however, that here also the failure to remedy certain defects—as may be done without departure from the principles already laid down by yourselves and your predecessors, the Heights of Buildings Commission—would entail grave consequences to the city for all time to come. Stated briefly, our criticism is that, with the possible exception of Man- hattan, your districting in its allowance of height and area is so liberal as to fail to accomplish the results which your report, your entire attitude and the frame work of your plans themselves show that you wish to obtain. Does not your treatment of Brooklyn clearly illustrate the truth of this statement? For instance, over large areas of Brooklyn you have allowed buildings to be constructed to a height equal to one and one-half times the width of the streets on which they are to be erected. On a typical 60-foot street this is the equivalent of eight or nine stories. But, with the probable exception of the Heights, Park ‘Slope, and perhaps Eastern Parkway, and of course the Borough Hall! district, the waterfront and a few other indus- trial districts, the present development in Brooklyn—always excepting ter- ribly congested Williamsburg, with its six stories—is three or four-story tenements, or one and two-family houses. It may be true—indeed we are inclined to think it is—that height other- wise excessive may be allowed if in compensation area is sufficiently limited. This, which it would seem that your Commission intended to do, you have not in fact accomplished. For instance, but for Section 19 of your resolu- tions, which brings in the existing tenement house area limitation of seventy per cent, a five or six-story building in a C district on a 50 by 100 foot lot RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 207 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN might occupy over seventy per cent of the lot, and an eight-story 80-foot building only the fraction of a per cent less than seventy. It is only, therefore, in the case of the fireproof building above eight stories, that your C provisions limit the total area of residential buildings, and in the case of these buildings, the limitation is slight. It must also be remem- bered that it is not so much the well-to-do tenant of the better class of building with his many comparatively large rooms that needs protection as the poorer man in his five, or perhaps six, story walk up. Congestion in Brownsville Again, in your tentative report you say that the D district “is intended generally for one and two-family houses, either singly or in rows. Apart- ments, however, are not excluded but are handicapped by the restrictions as to percentage of lot that may be occupied and size of yards and courts.” This handicap, as provided in your tentative resolutions, is altogether too slight to accomplish the purpose intended. We have calculated that in a D district a five-story tenement may be built covering sixty per cent of the lot, accommodating with 600 square feet each twenty-five families. In Brownsville and East New York, as you know, structures four stories in height, covering seventy per cent. of the lot, housing with 583 square feet of floor space twenty-three families, are being constructed in great numbers. The differences between the proposed and the Brownsville type are dan- gerously small. li, therefore, there is any efficacy in, or need of, districting and the creation of types of buildings in different districts, and if your Commission desires to accomplish what your tentative report states as your purpose, you will be obliged greatly to change the D provisions. What we have just stated with regard to C and D districts, and pre- viously with relation to height limitations, was not intended to apply solely in those connections, but to illustrate the amount and character of amend- ment of your plans, which, after careful study of the wealth of material which you have collected and charted, we so earnestly urge your Commission to make. Change of the sort we urge involves, however, as land becomes cheaper, and its present use less and less intense, not only the strengthening of your height and area provisions, all along the line and for all the outlying bor- oughs, but some additions to and extensions of them. This may be done simply by creating districts of the same type as those already suggested, but with severer height and area limitations. A better method would be to establish a somewhat different type of district suited to and made pos- sible by the different conditions. More stringent restrictions desirable The types of district which so far you have provided for are, on the whole, much better suited to Manhattan than anywhere else in the city. After the medical and engineering testimony which you received at your hearing Thursday, March 30th, you no doubt feel the urgent need of tighten- ing the restrictions with regard also to Manhattan, if only you are able to see how it may be done. Careful study will surely reveal differences in development and land values sufficient to enable you to rescue parts of uppet Manhattan from the B-1™% proyisions to which you are about for all time to condemn it. In any event, it seems evident that your present regulations are suited to a typical congested tenement house development such as will no doubt prevail very extensively in Manhattan. We believe that whatever 208 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS may be true of Manhattan, such regulations are not necessary in the other boroughs. In Brooklyn, for instance, the single house is holding its own, more land being developed with this type of building each year than with tenements. That the Heights of Buildings Commission believed in provid- ing for rather than preventing types of building other than that of the con- gested tenement is shown by their suggesting in their report a district in which height should be limited to 50 feet, and another in which it should be restricted to 36 feet, at the street line. These were, of course, mere hints of districts and not fully developed districting provisions; but they at least indicate the point of view that we believe should, and in reality, does, prevail in your Commission. There is much cheap land in this great city; there are enormous areas in it which, fortunately, are still undeveloped. There, at least, we can still not only permit but aid our people to do pleasant things, and do them in their own way. There, it is still possible to give people more freedom in the use of. their land than seems to have been feasible in the parts subjected to minute codes for areas congested with endless tene- ments, all much alike. It has been done elsewhere under similar conditions. In Forest Hills, Boston, for instance, are to be found three-story buildings, covering not more than twenty-five per cent. of the lot, furnishing light, air, view, gardens, tennis courts and recreation space of many kinds to all the tenants at a moderate cost. Might not the giving to a land owner of the option in these outlying districts to go up higher than some low limit like 36 feet, if he covered a less proportion of his lot, be one of the many ways which study will reveal of accomplishing a variety of results somewhat like these, if your Commission desires them? In a later memorandum we may be able ourselves to suggest other methods of limiting height and area in most parts of the city which will allow the builder greater freedom with- out endangering the public welfare. Here, however, as elsewhere it is in the skill, industry and wisdom of your Commission that we are glad to trust. True principle of districting To what we have urged in the districting of this city as to height and area, your tentative report contained but one answer, and that is the impli- cation to be found in many parts of it that land the same time distance by the new dual transit system from City Hall should receive the same district- ing provisions. With any such principle we most emphatically disagree. No such principle, so far as we are aware, has even been suggested before in the history of districting. The true principle, we believe, was stated by the Heights of Buildings Commission in the chapter of its report entitled “ Conclusions and Recommendations,” as follows: “ Profiting by past experience, we can do much to safeguard the future. We can prevent the repetition all over the city of conditions and evils now confined to comparatively limited areas. Regulations, however, must be carefully devised so as not to interfere unduly with existing property values. “The Commission believes that any complete system of height and court restriction necessitates the application of different regula- tions to different parts of the city. The city should be divided into districts, and the restrictions for each district worked out with reference to the peculiar needs and requirements of that particular district. * * * The blanket restrictions which we have recom- mended for immediate adoption have, as a matter of fact, been de- vised with reference to the needs of the downtown office and financial RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 209 NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN district—the area of maximum congestion. They have been worked out with a view to securing as much light, air, relief from congestion and safety from fire as is consistent with a proper regard for business requirements and existing land values in this area of maximum congestion. * * * We believe that the needs of each district should be studied in the same way that we have studied the central office and financial district and restrictions worked out that will best serve the peculiar needs of each district.” It is this principle of height and area restriction so stated by the Heights of Buildings Commission as the result of their investigation and delibera- tion—the principle of the greatest protection against growing and spread- ing congestion that is consistent with due regard for existing conditions and values, the principle that you have more nearly followed in Manhattan than elsewhere, which we urge you to follow in Brooklyn and the other outlying boroughs. Instead, you are permitting eight and nine stories where three or four now prevail; and the crowded Brownsville tenement where the one and two-family house is now being built, or development has hardly begun; thus allowing at the very outer limits of our great city the typical central Bérlin tenement. Vacant land in city It may be said that Manhattan congestion is necessary within Man- hattan distances from City Hall in order to provide housing within the five-cent transit limit by the new dual subway and elevated system for access to City Hall and its environs. To this there are many answers. There is a vast area still available in Brooklyn, Queens and The Bronx. Surface cars and transfers will provide transportation to these areas as need for them gradually arises. Better still, decentralization of industries essential for so many reasons will develop subsidiary centers. Much of Jersey is still near; or, if local patriotism forbids such a suggestion, Staten Island, almost unoccupied and large enough to hold all New York City, can be brought by subway within twelve minutes of City Hall. Even the land speculator should know by this time that the greedy do not always become rich. If the skyscraper does not pay, why should the use of an excessive proportion of the lot continue to do so in these days when we are beginning to demand light, air, sun and space for outdoor life? Suggested amendments to tentative plan These are the principles which with earnestness and full conviction we urge you to follow. For the putting of these principles into effect, we make the following recommendations : 1. The establishment of a fourth use class, to consist of shops, with- out industry, on the ground floor, with residences above. 2. The application of the residential classification, or the fourth use classification, to streets in the neighborhood of parks, especially the smaller ones. ; 3. The study of the needs of the small park as a neighborhood center. For instance, the large theatre should be excluded, but not the neighborhood theatre; all the minor public buildings, too, should be allowed. 4. The further study of the problem of the garage, so unpleasant and dangerous near residences, and so destructive of business values on the block front on which it is situated; with a view to excluding the garage so far as possible from these neighborhoods. 210 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS ’ 5. The abolition of the “two floor” provision with regard to inci- dental industry in business districts; and the change of the twenty-five per- centage to a lesser proportion. 6. In outlying A districts surrounded by C or D districts (insofar as such conditions are actually recommended by you) the provision that resi- dences instead of being subject to B provisions should be governed by C or D regulations; such fact being appropriately indicated by a double letter designation of the district, such as AC or AD. 7. A restudy of upper Manhattan with a view to the establishment there of C or D area districts, and * one time” height districts. 8. The elimination of C districts in Brooklyn, Queens, Richmond, and perhaps The Bronx. The substitution of D districts for most of the B and much of the C districts. The establishment and employment in the remain- ing parts of these boroughs of districts more restricted than D, or of other types of district, with options and generally greater freedom to the land owner in the use of his land. 9. A change in the height regulation in all of the boroughs except Manhattan, so that most of the territory in “ one and one-half times ” dis- tricts shall be limited to a less height, either the “ one-times ” or a stricter limitation. The stricter limitation of parts of the “ one-times”’ districts. The establishment for application to outlying territory of other types of district, with options and generally greater freedom to the land owner in the use of his land. APPENDIX V—SOME RESULTS OF HAPHAZARD DEVELOP- MENT AS RECORDED BY THE CAMERA The Commission secured for its record several hundred photographs showing the results of unregulated, haphazard city building. A consider- able number of these photographs are reproduced in the following pages. The subjects were selected and the photographs taken by Benjamin Lorber of the staff of the Committee on the City Plan. They have been edited for this report by Francis P. Schiavone, also of the staff of the Committee. The photographs are classified according to their chief features into more than a score of divisions. Certain pictures show typical conditions in residential streets, in business streets and in industrial districts; here each is unmistakably of one class, an appropriate development free from the unfortunate admixture that characterizes most of the other streets de- picted. A series of pictures show the invasion of private house streets by the apartment house. Other pictures show the first or incipient stage of that transformation which in its unregulated ravages has caused such great loss to the city’s real estate value, the encroachment of business upon purely residential blocks. Business, however, is not all, for a series of pictures show garages in this stage, another factories, another junk shops. When a business or industry gets a footing, its influence is shown by the conver- sion of nearby residential buildings into a like use. This is usually done not in line with a sane profitable development but as a desperate move by the property owner to avoid total loss. Practical structural difficulties and the lack of funds usually lead to unsightly and inefficient hybrids. After such a beginning it is to be expected that one class of use will often oust another entirely, that business will supplant residence and that warehousing and industry will supplant business. This change is not ac- complished easily or quickly because buildings often have a long term of usefulness which, while constantly decreasing, may still be sufficient to dis- courage their demolition. Consequently many streets show factories and tenements side by side, noisy, ill-odorous, overtowering industrial piants that deprive the homes of the poor of the quiet, fresh air, light and safety they so much require. The photographs show factories in private districts as well as among tenements and storage warehouses, lumber and building material yards among both. Most of these photographs show that more regrettable condition—the invasion of residence districts—but a few pictures “tell an eloquent story, in crowding “loft-to-let” signs, of the loss that follows when retail and other business has abandoned a district and industry has not yet established itself. That garages constitute a great problem is evidenced by the number and character of the photographs showing these buildings in private house districts, among apartment buildings and in the most congested tenement streets. A series show also that stables and horseshoeing shops, while not multiplying so rapidly as garages, are even a greater menace to the health of the communities in which they are established. The congestion of street and sidewalk was a condition that could not escape even the most casual camera but often the very intensity of conges- tion made a representative photograph impossible. The series show, how- ever, street and sidewalk crowding and obstruction due to business use where goods are stored on the walks -and the loading and unloading of trucks hampers vehicles and pedestrians. Garages, stables and horseshoe- 212 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS ing establishments are shown to present a grave danger not only in the storage of automobiles in the streets themselves, but especially in their unrestricted use of the sidewalks as grade crossings. _ Push carts are shown in hundreds upon streets on the lower east side of Manhattan and in The Bronx. Another cause of sidewalk and even street congestion is shown to be the multiplication of tall buildings, both manufacturing and office, in which by the multiplication of floor space it is possible to house many more than can crowd into the street at any one time. The environment of schools, churches and hospitals is shown to have suffered by the uncontrolled liberty of location that has been enjoyed by business and industry and as a great indictment against this very freedom are pictured the hundreds and thousands of children whose only playground is the street. Most of the photographs relate principally to the Use restrictions, but one interesting series shows the old practice of opening windows upon the lot lines. s A study of the pictures will reveal the fact that although they have of necessity been placed in certain classes, they each contain a comprehensive indictment of the present lack of common sense regulation and a demand for such a remedy as the use, height and area districting proposes to offer. East 12th Street, Between Ave- nues C and D—Gas tanks, stable and purifying house in tenement district. West 66th Street and Amster- dam Avenue—Gas tanks in tenement house district. East 14th Street, Between Avenues B and C—Gas tanks next and opposite to tenements. Note tene- ment children playing near them. Fic. 62—THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE HOME. The Commission believes that the environment of the home should be guarded and protected in every possible way. ‘pavzey oY pasvarour JO uosvat Aq AjopRS oyqQnd OF sdvUaW B SI JUdUIUIA} B OF JxoU PABA JdquIn], Y HINOH HHL HO LNHNNOUIANY AHL—E£9 YH ‘Juouiaua} wou pad syeiioyeul Surpyingq—) esnusay ¢oz oy wand a osu AG NOLS inoue TIAYND ONVS ‘sosnoy oayeAtid suowue piva JOAQUIN ]T—S}92-4S YIGZT PUB YISZT VooMjod ‘onusAYy ANYIIV =. all *s}UOUL -9Ud} Avou pared sjeliayBVU SUIp[INgG—jo0S Yip, sey ‘JUAWIAU] 0} }xXoU piv Jaquiny—uozsurxeyT JO som ‘JooS WIZIT Sey East 22nd Street—Milk station near tenements. Note wagon entering station. Waverly Avenue, Brooklyn—Milk wagons waiting outside of bottling establishment. Madison Street—Bottling establishment near tenements. Fic. 64—NOISE AND THE HOME. The noise and confusion always more or less in evidence in congested sections are bad even under the best conditions, but when aggravated by heavy trucking in the streets and by the machinery of nearby factories they become a serious menace. When these noises continue throughout the night, as in the case of public garages, ice plants and milk bottling and distributing stations, the evil is enormously increased. Clermont Avenue, Brooklyn—Milk station details. Clermont Avenue, Brooklyn — Front of milk station. Adelphi Street, Brooklyn—Rear of the milk station shown above. Loading and unloading of trucks is done here. The assessed value of land per front foot is $100 in this block, while in the block immediately north the assessed value is $175 per front foot. Fic. 65—NOISE AND THE HOME. These three photographs of the same milk station show it to be a large industrial plant. This fact added to its stable character constitutes a strong argument for its exclusion from a business or residence district. \eabs\ Nace § SrA 525 East 11th Street—Stable near tenements. Ludlow Street, between Houston and Thompson Street, south from Bleecker Stanton Streets—Stables near tene- Street—Stable near tenements. ments. Fic. 66—STABLES IN CONGESTED TENEMENT STREETS. The congested tenement districts, noted for the number of children who must play in the street, are the most inappropriate location for stables. 413 East 10th Street—Stables near tene- ments. Note condition of sidewalk. East 12th Street, between Avenue A and First Avenue—Stable next to tenements and opposite children’s playground. 312 East 102nd Street—Stable near tenements. 7—STABLES IN CONGESTED TENEMENT STREETS. SHNOH ULVAINd DNOWV SHDVAVD—89 OA “Aqivou ‘soumoy azyeAtid Jo 4sprur ‘SUIZIUBIINA ‘AIJSUPUL PeIpPULY dy} BION ‘saumoy oyearid a4} UL ISvIVV—J991}G UPUIAYS TsuIOD ‘APMYIVG uvxdQ_Q, 0} }XoU 95vIvH—anUDAY Ysnqiepy Jesu ‘peoy uopuoseyy ‘JOLSIp dUIpIsol ouy ev uO dn yovq saseieyj—proy weysurong pure onudaa yoinu LSB ! 8 + Pier: I 1191 Bedford Avenue— Garage near private homes. eal East 23rd Street, be- tween Avenue D and Clarendon Road— Garage next to pri- vate houses. Fic. 69—GARAGES AMONG Halsey Street, east of Bedford Ave- nue. Brooklyn — The homes on the right conceal a_ one-story garage occupying §& city lots in the in- terior of the block. PRIVATE HOMES. 65 West 118th Street—Garage in a East 2nd Street, between First and Sec- tenement house street. ond Avenues—Five-story garage near tenements and a church, and oppo- site the LaSalle Academy. West 90th Street, near Amsterdam Avenue—Garage, storage ware- house and stable in a block of tene- ments. Fic. 70—GARAGES IN CONGESTED TENEMENT STREETS. The injustice of locating a garage in a tenement district where it is a nuisance and a danger is he ghtened by the fact that the users of the garage are very seldom residents of the tenements. a e41@) West 124th Street, opposite Mt. Morris Park—Garage between high-class C1 a) vam Jug) 400) ee) apartment houses and private houses. Note the public library nearby and the pigeon coop atop the garage. Park Avenue and 59th to 60th Streets—Five-story garage next to a million dollar apartment house 12 stories high. Cathedral Parkway, near Seventh Avenue—Garage oppo- site Central Park and in a high-class apartment house district. Fic. 7I—GARAGES IN APARTMENT HOUSE STREETS. The City’s powerlessness against the garage and stable nuisance is nowhere better illustrated than in the high-class apartment districts, where although values are greatest, rents highest, and residents best able to protect themselves, no effective defense has been found, East Houston Street, corner of Columbia Street—Motor and horse drawn moving vans lined up in the street. East Houston Street, near Columbia Street—The hitching up is not done inside the stable but on the street. East 9th Street, between Second and Third Avenues— Autos lined up along the curb. Fic. 72—ROADWAY OBSTRUCTION INCIDENT TO STABLE AND GARAGE USE. Streets in the neighborhood of stables and garages are seldom free from obstruc- tion and congestion. In many cases the street becomes a hitching and storage yard and a place for washing vehicles. Such conditions are intolerable in business and residence districts. Eldridge Street, near De- lancey Street—Scrap iron piled nearly as high as the third story of an adjacent tenement. 112th Street, west of Lexing- ton Avenue—Junk shop in an extension of residence. svomse at a East 112th Street and Park Avenue—Wagon storage, poultry market, junk shop and _ horseshoer. Fic. 75—JUNK SHOPS IN CONGESTED TENEMENT STREETS. No restrictions are placed upon the location of junk shops or junk yards, and every vacant lot is a potential nuisance. Junk is one form of a city’s refuse and should not be stored near residences while awaiting ultimate disposal. ‘Joos dy} UL SyonI} uO APEMOPIS 9} OF UO MOYAIAO Jnq ‘sSurpyinq 10 syzoy dy} UIYYUA PouyuUod oq JouuRs ATSurusas sdoys yun( osnjot ATIY} 9108 pue SLOTILSIC LNAWANAL GALSADNOD NI SdOHS MNNA[—92 “914 “quesvetd ing SuryjAuE St e494} peyoayjoo yunf syy JO 3eyy YIM Sut |-XTUL Saanjonajs peuinqg 941 wou jjoms ;94} pue ‘petimoso Apjusced vay B Yyoryas Ut SotjuBYsS JO Mod & UI st doys oy 490235 a4) JO BPIS 7euU] Uo Ssed 0} ppEazeE |aae pooysoqyuSieu 944 jo uauIOm oY, “5 “suryoid “Suruuna a : : i talus Uses Wosq BAY SBI BTART 9SBY] JO jNO sel puke yunf—sonusay pry | Due Ul pus ‘H[eMepIs a4} JO eBpa ay}, uo PUR pUuodIg U9IMJoq ‘Joa14G YQ Iseq usty paid vie seded jo sajeq saw, yy! ‘YOOTG B Z{CY ALOT 4994}S puve ypemapis ayy | S10}}1, Coys yunl B sleyMm “Saay AjluUrAy, |pue «aayseuoseAA JO Jausoo sanyynos (8 ye souesinu 943 Sutpiedas 02 paryead | | -de Qoaq Sey yIpBeay sO puvog au | | pete i | @SUDSIN A], D Si anuszay ABISAYIISA LA UO ald set be ‘QdeIOS SCI 0} pouopueqe Jdzr1enb -9uo =4Nq_ = [eljuaprsar ApatyQ— e215 PUTTY (Surddy) 1sdedsman ) ‘sjusuaud} 0} Jxou doys YUN(—}99.13G AdjsoPY Iwou Jaan ayshiyy 477 Central Park West— Tailor in high-class apart- ment house. No. 989 Bedford Ave- nue, Brooklyn. Central Park West and 98th Street—Loft building and carpet cleaning works. Fic. 77—STORES INVADING RESIDENCE STREETS. Even the most valuable apartment sections where rentals are dependent upon the maintenance of high-class residential conditions have been unable to prevent the damaging inroads of business and industry. Lee Avenue and Keap Street— Conversion for business. Lee Avenue, corner of Keap Street—Stores in residence district. West 8th Street—Basement of private West 8th Street, between Fifth and house converted into public laundry. Sixth Avenues—Conversion into stores. Fic. 80—STORES INVADING RESIDENCE STREETS. The English-basement or high-stoop type of residence is so easily converted into stores that it is almost an invitation for business to invade residence streets. Hillside Avenue, Jamaica —Antique furniture shop in private house 26 Herriman Avenue, Ja- maica—Undertaking es- tablishment in a private house. —) ES RAT Pa HN meaaey pneener i} Regent Place, between Flatbush Avenue and East 21st Street, Flatbush—Photo studio in a private house (This condition is aggravated by the building of a one-story studio extension in the rear.) Fic. 8I—STORES INVADING RESIDENCE STREETS. Bathgate Avenue, Bronx—Private house having a one-story store extension. 181st Street, corner of Park Avenue, Bronx —One-story extension in residential block. Bathgate Avenue, Bronx —Private houses con- verted into extremely cheap stores. Fic. 82—PARTIAL CONVERSION OF DWELLING TO BUSINESS USE. Where business has once secured a foothold in a residence district, there is little to prevent that wasteful condition in which buildings are half converted—undesirable as homes and unprofitable as stores. East 10th Street, west of Third Avenue—Converted pri- vate houses PRRRRRRRE EOE DOOCY 2 188 Suffolk Street—Upholsterer in hase- East 22nd Street, west of Fourth Avenue— ment of private house. Private house district invaded by business and industry. Fic. 83—RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS INVADED BEYOND RECOVERY. When one of a row of residences has been converted for business its neighbors are usually forced to follow suit. WNW &@ 0} paonpa. SE UO IN.ASqO A[LMIpPIs OF JWIPIOUL ]IAD OY} ISVI oY} SL SIY} LYM PU SUOI}IIS dPRSaTOYM ATOAISHJOXO ay} UL pajyeSoisas AyIueUIpsO 91¥ SOSSOUISNG YING “UOHIasS ddUapIsot B UT pazutsod oq Jou pyhoys puv sueraysapod 0} 19Suep pue sdUaTUaAUODUL JwaIs JO ddINOS B SI SII, ‘a8e10}s Av1OdwW9} 10} pur Surpeoyun puv Surpeoy ur xyeMapis oy} ozv1adoadde 0} Aressooau yt puy ‘odd} SursnoyoieMm pure opesojoyM oy} Jo Ayjeroodsa ‘ssoursnq Jo spun, Auvwr yey} JUNODIe OJUT soyR} SJOLAYSIP ddUpIsa.1 WOT ssEjD v se SsouIsnq Sutpnyoxe ur uejd ouoz oy, ‘ASN SSHNISNA OL LNYCIONI SNOILOONLSAO MIVMAGIS—+r8 OM “DINFUANY [IVJOY—JoG pag awou “vy onuaay ‘roded jrejay—AvMprosg ysvqy 6Z] TOANPIUANG = [PCJ —SONUDAY YIXIG PUL YY UsaMjoq oasis pagz is9A\ ‘AIOIOAS [leJoY—anudaAy Uosipry Avou YooryS pach yseq East Broadw ay—Express of- fice. East Broadway, near Market Street—Wholesale drygoods. East Broadway, near Essex Street— Attorney Street, between Houston and Wholesale herring store. Stanton Streets— Wholesale fruit dealers. Fic. 85—SIDEWALK OBSTRUCTIONS INCIDENT TO BUSINESS USE. ‘ASN SSHNISNA OL LNACIONI SNOILONUYLSAO MIVMACIS—938 MH ‘sJUaWI9Ua} Ivau safqvjaSoa pur ‘souvIg—oanuesaVy YIXIS Ivou 4a0I1S IST WMAP opesapoy AA —anuday Jsatyy Ivsu 49917 Puzo, sey ‘ ‘JoIt}G Puzo, Jesu onUdAY 4SAly ‘ASN SSHNISNA OL LNAGIONI SNOILONULSAO MIVMACGIS—Z8 ‘14 "SSRIS JNO oRSajOyUA\—Ioa11S psgz SIM “AvaMJapUN a[esajoyA\—AeMproirg qsey (ZI ‘NUDAY YNOY pue yoo4S YIZT $J2211S) PUd PUe 4sii¢ Wsemjeq: snusAy YA ~90 East Broadway— Wholesale drygoods. Attorney Street, between Stanton and Houston Streets—Wholesale fruit dealers. East 2nd Street, between Avenues C and D— Wholesale grocer. Fic. 88—SIDEWALK OBSTRUCTIONS INCIDENT TO BUSINESS USE. “SorypIoey Surpeoy 9Atsuajxa o1mba1 sa10js Juswjiedoq ‘ASN SSHNISNA OL LNAGIONI SNOILONUYLSAO MIVMACIS—68 ‘O17 0) ADV BETES “‘SIOYJOIG Jaquitry ‘Soyo joquiry East 10th Street—Storage warehouse Carlton Avenue—Storage warehouse t=) * 6 . next to private houses. South Portland Avenue—Storage warehouse and West 127th Street, looking east from stables near private houses. Lenox Avenue—Stables and storage warehouses in residential section. Fic. 90—STORAGE WAREHOUSE IN RESIDENCE STREET. The storage warehouse rears its bulk high above surrounding buildings and 1s permitted to be built on the extreme lines of the lot, exempt from the laws that require residential buildings to provide yards and courts. In addition to cutting off their neighbor’s light, many storage warehouses have the nuisance features of a large stable, and all are objectionable on a residence street on account of trucking and the danger and noise incident thereto. 63rd Street, between Fourth and Fifth Ave- nues, Brooklyn. Washington Square North. i Te fags a 4 ff — hsseee Chae East 19th Street, near Third Avenue. 62nd Street, between Fourth and Fifth Ave- nues, Brooklyn. Fig. 9I—TYPES OF RESIDENCE STREETS. Any of these streets may be ruined by a sporadic store or industry unless pro- tected by a zone plan. Lafayette Street, near Houston Street. Howard Street, near Broadway. Mercer Street, near Grand Street. Fic. 92—LOFTS TO LET. The “uptown” movement of factories has had tragic economic consequences not only for the Fifth Avenue section but for the old loft district between Canal Street and Washington Square. ‘QsN [LIJSNPUL 0} JWEploul asiou pue siaSuepP jaaI}s BY} WOIF 9dIJ 9q P[MOYS JOoYDs ay} JO JUaMUONAUD oY J "IOOHOS AHL HO LNHNNOUIANY AHL—%6 9 [Ip ey Ur uerpyrys OoyIsS 0} pazwupe [WUN Joos UO Suriem udapyryo Jooyss ayqug—joajG oye] wou “JaatyG = uO A] UdJIVSIOPULY[—Ja911G YICOT Jeus10d ‘anusaAy Uo}sUIXIT B 490148 ‘Inoy Youn], sy} Sutinp jaaajs ayy uo Arjd 991}S JOANO pue Aruaypy skog—}oaS YISg JsaA\ ‘BdIOWIUIOD FO JOOYIS Ys] East 104th Street, near Second Avenue—Wholesale hardware and woodenware house near public school. West 59th Street, near Amsterdam Avenue— Gas tanks next to DeWitt Clinton High School. West 101st Street, between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues—Garage and auto repair shop next to public school. West 58th Street, between Amsterdam and Eleventh Avenues—Gas tanks next to and factories opposite DeWitt Clinton High School. Fic. 94—THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE SCHOOL. Sheriff Street, near Broome Street— Broome Street, near Clarke Street— Machine shop, stable and storage next 5-story stable, 5-story loft building to public school. and 6-story machine shop near public school. Note children passing the stable. Mangin Street, corner Stanton Street No. 33 East Broadway—Loft buildings —Saw mill and loft building next next to public library. to public school. Fic. 95—THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE SCHOOL. Washington Avenue, near Tremont Ave- nue—Garage between a private house and a church. 1001 Bedford Avenue—Garage between a syna- gogue and a private house. Se i i a tees 80th Street, corner West End Ave- nue—Garage next to church parish house. East 77th Street, between Lexington and Park Avenues—Garages and stables opposite German Hospital. Fic. 969—ENVIRONMENT OF CHURCH AND HOSPITAL. Churches and hospitals have always been recognized as requiring a certain amount of isolation from the noise,and bustle of business. There should be sections where they could locate free from the public garage or other undesirable neighbors. North 11th Street, Wil- liamsburg—Barrels of paint stored on the sidewalk for the en- tire length of block. East 5th Street, near Lewis Street—Lum- ber yard and plan- ing mill. Note lumber stored on sidewalk and road- way. Java Street, Greenpoint—Lumber yard. Fic. 97—PERILS OF THE SIDEWALK. Whether the usurpation of the sidewalk has some justification in necessity or not, the fact that many kinds of industry are guilty should cause their exclusion from business and residence sections, essential to civic welfare. in both of which the freedom of the sidewalk is » usurpation is unavoidable, the exclusion is imperative. East 2nd Street, be- tween Avenues C and D—Monument works in tenement district. Children and teachers attending the two pub- lic schools nearby are forced to take to the roadway. East 2nd Street, be- tween Avenues C and D. 412 East 85th Street— Stone cutter between private houses and tene- ments. The City was held liable to the extent of $1,400 for an injury caused to a child by the fall of one of these monuments. Fic. 988—PERILS OF THE SIDEWALK. Monument works hold a grim menace for the pedestrian and for children who play near the headstones. West 24th Street, between Tenth and Eleventh Ave- nues—Horses being shod on the sidewalk. 339 East 107th Street, near First Avenue—Wet wash laundry next to tenement. 427 East 13th Street—Wet wash laundry. Fic. 99—PERILS OF THE SIDEWALK. In some cases industrial buildings are not satisfied with the sidewalk as a loading platform, but add an aerial danger to the pedestrian’s perilous course by extending chutes or slides across his path so that trucks may be loaded from the second story windows *S}UDWIIUD} OU} JOJ pOOS PUL SaT1OJIVJ ay} OF POOS st uoNeSaiS9G “joors oy} ul SurArid udsapyrys Aq PosoustusAUOSUT Jou st Suryons, Aavay 10F 490.198 ay} JO 9sN Alay], “UONONAIsqO xPeMapis puv sowing ‘osrou 0} UONR[ot UT SJUIL{dWIOD [eNUTWUOD pUdfap O} Payjaduod jou a1e Ady, ‘“UoTWaS dUApIsal & UL poyafqns oq JYStur Ady} YIYM OF SOoUdIUDAUOSUL PUL S]UILIJSI1 9Y} WOAF ddIF 91e AD} PoyeBo1Sas a1v sars0joV} as9y\\ SLOTALSIG TVIMLSNGNI TVWOIdAL—OOl PA ‘SYAOM SULLUd},J—JULOdUdIIFNV “OD [IQ Pavpurys “S3]1OM [VOTLUat) “ALOJILJ XO™—JuIodusda.15 ‘anu —juodusa1y, ‘fanuaaAy yuroduasig ¢77 “OAV ISPIV| JO AaUIOD Yoa4G purpyeOQ East 14th Street, near the East River. (Courtesy of Frank B. Williams.) Brooklyn Waterfront, opposite Houston Street, Manhattan. Gowanus Canal. Fic. 10I—TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. The above are typical of sections that are included in the proposed Zone plan as unrestricted districts. Orchard Street, corner of Rivington Street. Avenue C, looking north from East 5th Street. East Sth Street, near Avenue C. Fig. 1022—PUSH CARTS AND STREET CONGESTION. Stores on the ground floor have brought these push carts with a consequent con- gestion of sidewalk and street. Tenants are deprived of their legitimate use of the street and children are robbed of the only “playground” they might have. Drivers of fire apparatus dread these streets. ama ae] TTA = = a\ B "3 S - Cy 2a See ee ee ee ee ee er ee ATERUAIBRARIES Awe | teamHeE t Lie ———— cioh Fourth Avenue and 25th Pt elle LA EB) Jaded (odd [ical Taf lea, — by at te eed Le Street. ® © is >} mr. 1 ft at Rt wm annem ns wmm | 1am Tm mo (ia) om om 1 i n Avenue and 21st Street. Fic. 126 West 73rd Street. 105—WINDOWS ON LOT LINE. NN NN ni MARY ba Adams Express Company Building— When the American Express Com- pany’s building is completed nearly all the windows in this side wall will be blocked up. Adams Express Company Building— Windows being blocked up by the new American Express Company building. Fic. 1066—WINDOWS ON LOT LINE. Vanderbilt Avenue, Brooklyn—Brass_fac- tory in rear of private homes. West 165th Street—Beer bottling. Prospect Avenue, between 181st and 182nd Streets—This factory is built up to its rear lot line. If a tenement it would have had to leave a yard space. Fic. 107—FACTORY BUILDINGS CUTTING OFF LIGHT AND AIR FROM TENEMENTS. East 6th Street, between Second and Third Avenues—Marble cutting, fur picking and sorting in rear of tenements. Suffolk Street, near Houston Street—Granite cutting works occupy the whole of this tenement yard. Fic. 108—REAR YARDS OF TENEMENTS USED FOR INDUSTRIES. Tenement yards are a development of the garden space which was a valuable adjunct of the old private residence. Its importance as a playground free from the dangers of the street is emphasized by its very inadequacy for the hundreds who live in the tenement. Its usurpation then by business or industry is doubly reprehensible and the location of dangerous and noisy trades in these breathing spaces should be prohibited. APPENDIX VI—REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF THE BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT ON THE BUILDING ZONE PLAN July 18, 1916. To the Board of Estimate and Apportionment: On June 2, 1916, the Commission on Building Districts and Restrictions, appointed pursuant to Sections 242a and 242b of the Charter, presented its final report recommending the boundaries of districts and appropriate regu- lations to be enforced therein for the purpose of regulating the height of buildings, the area of courts, yards and other open spaces, and the use of buildings and premises throughout the city. The general support that has been given the proposed plan by every interest effected is proof both that it serves an urgent need and that it has been worked out with care, discrimination and moderation. The real estate, lending and building interests are united in their support of the plan; as are also the commercial and civic associations. Not a single organization of any kind has opposed the general plan. Two or three individuals have registered their unalterable opposition to the principle involved. li the plan had been presented only a few years ago the protestants would doubtless have been legion. A great change has come about in the way that people look at this question. Zoning instead of being regarded as confiscatory, unconstitu- tional, arbitrary and impractical, is now generally regarded as reasonable, obvious and absolutely necessary for the preservation of the city and of the property interests affected. The Board of Estimate and Apportionment has control of the develop- ment of the physical plan of the city: the street and block layout, park and recreation system, sewerage system, transit and transportation system, and port and terminal facilities. As the Commission has pointed out: “ No plan for the development of public facilities can be complete and effective unless | there goes with it a comprehensive plan for the control of building develop- ment on private property.” The Board also has under its financial control the activities of the various departments that have to do with sanitation, housing conditions, fire prevention, street traffic and the public health and safety generally. Your Committee is impressed with the necessity, for the more efficient functioning of these various public interests and activities, of adopting a comprehensive plan of city building such as has been pre- sented by the Commission. To consider the proposed plan in its relation to other plans for the physical development of the city, a subcommittee was appointed, consisting of Nelson P. Lewis, Chief Engineer of the Board, the consulting engineer of each of the five boroughs, the landscape architect of the Park Department and the consultant and secretary of the Committee on the City Plan of the Board. A copy of this subcommittee’s report is appended. The report states that : “ All of the members of the committee are convinced of the great need of restrictive regulations governing the height of buildings, the ues to which they may be put and the proportion of the plots which may be occupied by them. All of them have had ample opportunity to observe the manner in which the different boroughs and the city as a whole have lately been developing, and they keenly appreciate BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT the unfortunate results of the lack in the past of such regulations as as are proposed and the need of them to insure better control of future growth. They believe that the results of such control will be: “To prevent undue congestion of population. “To insure better sanitary conditions. “To simplify the problem of traffic regulation. “To lessen the danger and delay of movement in the city streets which is due to mixed traffic. “To simplify the transit problems of the city. “To prevent the over-intensive development of property contigu- ous to the new transit lines now being constructed. “To render possible a more economical development of city streets through a decrease in the width of streets and roadways where the size and consequently the number of buildings are re- stricted. “To insure the permanency of character of the districts when once established, and, “Finally, to make the city a more orderly and convenient place in which to live and do business. “The committee realizes the magnitude and difficulty of the task imposed upon the Commission and is impressed by the results which have been accomplished by it within the time which has elapsed since it was created, by the thoroughness of its investigation of existing conditions and by its obvious efforts to avoid anything which would seriously affect present values. It has not attempted to correct the mistakes of the past, but to avoid the repetition of similar mistakes in the future, so that its efforts have been wholly constructive.” A subcommittee was also appointed to consider the administration and technical features of the proposed plan as affecting building development. This subcommittee was composed of Rudolph P. Miller, Chairman of the Board of Standards and Appeals, the building superintendents of the five boroughs, the Tenement House Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, John P. O’Brien, Assistant Corporation Counsel, and the Consultant and Sec- retary of the Committee on the City Plan. A copy of this report is appended. The subcommittee states: “Your subcommittee is convinced that a well considered plan of building development is essential to the health, safety and pros- perity of the city. Such a plan involves both the creation cf resi- dential, business and industrial districts and the regulation of the height of buildings and the area of courts and yards differently in different parts of the city. The plan presented by the Districting Commission seems admirably adapted to secure this result. We endorse generally the following principles which are fundamental in the Commission’s proposed plan: “1. Provision for light and air is a prime essential in building regulation. “2. Building regulations in each section of the city should be adapted to the requirements of that section. “3. It is desirable as a general rule to treat all buildings in a given block according to a uniform rule. There should be a sub- stantially uniform contribution from each owner to the light and air of the block. Block ventilation is essential to well ordered develop- REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 215 ment. Rear yards should be required wherever buildings come back to back. “4 A building is usually appropriately located when it is sur- rounded by buildings of similar type and use. Order in building development is essential to the health, safety and comfort of the public, and far from depressing values or working hardship to property owners generally, will actually conserve and enhance values. “5. The residence sections should be protected against un- necessary invasion by commercial and industrial uses. “6. The present congested condition in lower Manhattan con- stitutes a serious danger to life and property. Street congestion may interfere seriously with the movement of fire apparatus. The occu- pants of high office and loft buildings may be endangered by fire and panic. “These and other considerations advanced in the Commission’s report prove the urgent need for the adoption of a districting plan. The official duties of the members of this subcommittee bring to their notice the irreparable injury that, almost daily, is being brought about by the erection of inappropriate buildings or the establishment of business uses in residence sections. The remedy proposed is timely and appears to have been most carefully worked out.” The Districting Commission is composed of men eminently qualified for the important problem given them to solve. They have brought to the accomplishment of their task experience, expert knowledge and a willing- ness to give of their time and energy to a degree seldom equaled in an unpaid commission of this kind. The Commission’s membership includes the very highest expert knowledge in real estate matters and building con- struction as well as in general civic interests, including public sanitation and safety. The plan that the Commission has presented is comprehensive and thorough-going, while at the same time it is moderate and practical. The Commission has adhered strictly to the only purposes for which the police power may be properly exercised, 7. e., the public health, safety, convenience, comfort and general welfare. On June 19th, 21st, 27th and 29th the Board held hearings on the final report and plans of the Commission. At these hearings everyone who appeared and desired to be heard was heard. The hearing was con- tinued until July 25th, so that at that time an opportunity might be given to any one objecting to any changes in the final report of the Commission which might be recommended in the report of this Committee. Your Committee has carefully considered the final report of the Com- mission and every protest and criticism in regard thereto which has been presented to the Board. The moderation exercised by the Commission in its plans is evidenced by the fact that a large proportion of the criticisms made by property owners directly interested were that more restrictive regulations should be applied than those proposed. A list of the more im- portant changes in district boundaries approved by your Committee is attached to this report (see Exhibit 1). New maps showing the districts approved by your Committee have been prepared and have been opened to public inspection in the office of the Committee on the City Plan. The Districting Resolution submitted with the final report of the Com- mission has also been carefully considered. Here there were numerous criticisms of details particularly with reference to its relation to the pro- visions of the Tenement House Law. Your Committee submits a Dis- 216 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT tricting Resolution for consideration which, while it does not differ in principle from that submitted by the Commission, contains numerous changes in detail and in form of expression. JOHN PURROY MITCHEL, Mayor. FRANK L. DOWLING, President, Board of Aldermen. WM. A. PRENDERGAST, Comptroller. RALPH FOLKS, Acting President, Borough of Manhattan. LEWIS H. POUNDS, President, Borough of Brooklyn. DOUGLAS MATHEWSON, President, Borough of The Bronx. MAURICE E. CONNOLLY, President, Borough of Queens. EXHIBIT I—PRINCIPAL CHANGES MADE IN USE, HEIGHT AND AREA DISTRICT MAPS SUBMITTED BY DISTRICTING COMMISSION 1. Use District Map (a) BorouGH or MANHATTAN 1. Indian Road from 100 feet west of Isham Street to Isham Park. Changed from residence to business. 2. 158th Street from 430 feet west of Riverside Drive to the railroad. Changed from residence to business. 3. 146th Street between Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 4. 131st Street between Lenox Avenue and Seventh Avenue, and Fifth Avenue between 131st Street and 126th Street. Changed from busi- ness to residence. 5. 57th Street between Madison Avenue and Lexington Avenue. Changed from residence to business. 6. 57th, 56th and 55th Streets between Eighth Avenue and Ninth Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 7. Sixth Avenue from 29th Street to within 100 feet of 31st Street. Changed from business to unrestricted. 8. 23d Street between Ninth Avenue and Tenth Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 9. 16th Street between Sixth Avenue and Seventh Avenue. Changed from unrestricted to business. 10. West 8th Street from Fifth Avenue to within 100 feet east of Macdougal Street and the west side of University Place between Waverley Place and Eighth Street. Changed from business to residence. 11. 13th Street between Eighth Avenue and Hudson Street; Ganse- voort Street between Hudson Street and 13th Street; Fourth Street be- tween Gansevoort Street and Horatio Street, and Eighth Avenue between Greenwich Street and Horatio Street. Changed from business to unre- stricted. 12. Madison Avenue, west side, from 35th Street to 37th Street, and from 38th Street to 39th Street. Changed from business to residence. 13. West 3d Street and Macdougal Street. Intersection and four corners changed from business to unrestricted. 14. Patchin Place and Milligan Place. Changed from residence to business. 15. 84th Street from Lexington Avenue to Third Avenue. Changed from residence to business. REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 217 (b) BoroucH or THE Bronx 1. Van Cortlandt Park South from Broadway to Bailey Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 4 2. Mosholu Parkway North between Jerome Avenue and Gun Hill Road. Changed from business to residence. 3. Bailey Avenue between 230th Street and 233rd Street except at the intersection of 23lst Street; Bailey Avenue between 238th Street and Van Cortlandt Park South; Putnam Avenue East between 238th Street and Van Cortlandt Park South; Putnam Avenue West between 238th Street and Van Cortlandt Park South, 239th Street between Broadway and Putnam Avenue West; and Review Place between West 238th Street and Van Cortlandt Park South. Changed from business to residence. 4. 233d Street between Webster Avenue and Bronx Boulevard. Changed from residence to business. 5. Bedford Park Boulevard from the Concourse to Decatur Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 6. 184th Street between Aqueduct Avenue and Jerome Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 7. 18st Street from Boston Road to within 100 feet of Bryant Ave- nue. Changed from residence to business. 8. 183d Street between Grand Concourse and Webster Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 9. 177th Street and 176th Street between Jerome Avenue and the Concourse. Changed from business to residence. 10. Morris Avenue between 174th Street and Belmont Street. Changed from business to residence. 11. 172d Street from Jesup Avenue to within 100 feet of Plimpton Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 12. Cromwell Avenue from 169th Street to Macomb’s Road. Changed from business to unrestricted. 13. Shore Drive between Layton Avenue and Lafayette Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 14. Whittemore Avenue between Fort Schuyler Road and Balcom Avenue. Changed from residence to business. 15. 153d Street between Mott Avenue and Gerard Avenue, and Walton Avenue between 153d Street and the railroad. Changed from busi- ness and unrestricted to residence. 16. 142d Street and 143d Street between Willis Avenue and Brook Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 17. 145th Street and 146th Street from Brook Avenue to St. Anns Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 18. Mott Avenue from 153d Street to 156th Street; 156th Street from Sheridan Avenue to Mott Avenue. Changed from residence to unrestricted. 19. Mott Avenue and Walton Avenue between 144th Street on the south and the railroad on the north; 146th Street, 150th Street and 151st Street between Walton Avenue and Mott Avenue; 149th Street between Gerard Avenue and Mott Avenue, and Cedar Lane, between 150th Street and the railroad. Changed from unrestricted to business. 20. West 242d Street from Spuyten Duyvil Road to a point 450 feet east. Changed from business to residence. 21. Pelham Parkway South. from Wilson Avenue to Neill Avenue. Wilson Avenue, from Pelham Parkway South to Neill Avenue. Neill Avenue, from Wilson Avenue to Pelham Parkway South. Changed from business to residence. 218 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT 22. East 205th Street, from Webster Avenue to the New York Cen- tral R. R. Changed from residence to business. 23. Esplanade, along both sides of the New York, Westchester and Boston Railway, from Laconia Avenue to Astor Avenue. Changed from’ residence to business. (c) Borough or Brooklyn 1. Hicks Street, from 100 feet south of Cranberry Street to within 100 feet of Poplar Street. Changed from residence to business. 2. Clark Street, from 100 feet east of Henry Street to within 100 feet of Fulton Street. Changed from business to residence. 3. Grace Court Alley. Changed from residence to business. 4. Evergreen Avenue, between Himrod Street and Cedar Street. Changed from unrestricted to business. 5. East 21st Street, from Lincoln Road to Parkside Avenue; Parkside Avenue from Ocean Avenue to Flatbush Avenue; Ocean Avenue, from Parkside Avenue to Woodruff Avenue, and Woodruff Avenue, from Ocean Avenue to Flatbush Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 6. Albany Avenue, from Eastern Parkway to Union Street. Changed from residence to business. 7. Jamaica Avenue, from east side of Schenck Avenue to west side of Dresden Street. Changed from business to residence. 8. Arlington Avenue, from Linwood Street to Shepherd Street. Changed from residence to business. 9. 66th Street, from Fifth Avenue to Ninth Avenue. Changed from unrestricted to business. 10. 13th Avenue, from 79th Street to 86th Street. Changed from residence to business. 11. 17th Avenue, from 53d: Street to 55th Street. Changed from business to residence. 12. Avenue M, between East 91st Street and East 93d Street and Avenue N, between East 92d Street and East 93d Street. Changed from residence to business. 13. Emmons Avenue, easterly end, and streets between Emmons Ave- nue and waterfront. Changed from residence to business. 14. 47th Street, between 18th Avenue and Washington Avenue; Lawrence Avenue, between 47th Street and Gravesend Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 15. Coney Island Avenue, from Johnson Street to Park Circle. Changed from unrestricted to business. 16. Caton Place, from Coney Island Avenue to East 8th Street and East 8th Street, from Caton Place to Henry Street. Changed from busi- ness to unrestricted. 17. Nostrand Avenue, from Atlantic Avenue to Fulton Street. Changed from residence to business. (d) BoroucH oF QUEENS 1. Eighth Street, between Jackson Avenue and East Avenue. Changed from business to unrestricted. 2. Laurel Hill section. Columbine and Cassel Avenues. Changed from residence and business to unrestricted, including intervening cross streets. REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 219 3. Babbage Street, between St. Ann’s Avenue and Richmond Street, on the north side of the railroad and Bessemer Street on the south side of the railroad. Changed from business to residence. 4. Ray Street, one block north of Jamaica Avenue, and Essex Place (Charles Street), one block to the east of Ray Street. Changed from resi- dence to business. 5. Beach 129th Street, in the block north of Newport Avenue. Changed from unrestricted to business. 6. Beach 117th Street, from Channel Drive to Ocean Promenade. Changed from business to residence. 7. Beach 116th Street, from Channel Drive to Rockaway Beach Boulevard. Changed west side from unrestricted to business. 8. Area between bulkhead line and Channel Drive and between Beach 117th Street and Beach 124th Street. Changed from residence to business. 9. East of Calvary Cemetery—Congress Avenue and Townsend Ave- nue, from Hobson Avenue to Montgomery Avenue; Waters Avenue and Joy Avenue, from Laurel Hill Boulevard to Hobson Avenue. Changed from residence to business. (e) BoroucH or RicHMoND 1. North side of Richmond Terrace and Jay Street, from Westervelt Avenue to South Street. Changed from unrestricted to business. 2. Central Avenue, from Hyatt Street to Richmond Turnpike (Wiener Place). Changed from business to residence. 3. St. Marks Place and Carroll Place, from Westervelt Avenue to Nicholas Street; Tompkins Avenue and St. Marks Place, from Nicholas Street to Hyatt Street; Nicholas Street, from Carroll Place to St. Marks Place; Wall Street and Hamilton Avenue, from Carroll Place to Tompkins Avenue; Carroll Place, from Hamilton Avenue to Wall Street; Fort Place, from Tempkins Avenue to Montgomery Avenue, and Montgomery Avenue, from Fort Place to trolley right of way at head of Hyatt Street. Changed from business to residence. 4. Richmond Avenue, from Castleton Avenue to Richmond Terrace (Ann Street) ; Richmond Terrace (Ann Street), from Richmond Avenue to Jewett Avenue, and Jewett Avenue, from Cary Avenue to Richmond Terrace. Changed from unrestricted to business. 5. Bennett Street, Vreeland Street, Edison Street (Elizabeth Street), Cedar Street (New Street), Bond Street, Rawson Street (Broadway), Heberton Avenue, Cottage Place, Brunswick Street (Avenue B), Stafford Street (Simonson Place), bounded by Richmond Avenue, Richmond Ter- race (Ann Street), Jewett Avenue and Castleton Avenue. Changed from unrestricted to residence. 6. Anderson Avenue, Albion Place, Rawson Street (Broadway), Heberton Avenue, Degroot Place (Washington Place) and Stafford Street (Simonson Place), north of Catherine Street, bounded by Richmond Ave- nue, Castleton Avenue, Jewett Avenue and Cary Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 7. College Avenue, Manor Road to Jewett Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 8. Richmond Terrace, south side, 100 feet east of Clove Road to Taylor Street. Changed from unrestricted to business. 9. Bodine Street and Dongan Street; Castleton Avenue to Richmond Terrace; Cedar Street, Clove Road to Taylor Street; Taylor Street; Cas- tleton Avenue to Trinity Place; Henderson Avenue; Taylor Street to Drake 220 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT Place; Dongan Street and Taylor Street, from Cary Avenue to Castleton Avenue, and White Place. Changed from business to residence. 10. Taylor Street, from Trinity Place to Richmond Terrace, and Trinity Place, from Vaylor Street to Barker Street. Changed from unre- stricted to residence. 11. First Street, from Clinton Avenue to Franklin Avenue; Clinton Avenue and Lafayette Avenue, from First Street to Richmond ‘Verrace, and Franklin Avenue, from Second Street to Richmond Terrace. Changed from unresiricted to business. 12. Second Street, from Clinton Avenue to Franklin Avenue; Clinton Avenue from Second Street to Third Street; Lafayette Avenue, from First Street to Third Street, and Franklin Avenue, from Second Street to Third Street. Changed from unrestricted to residence. 13. Clinton Avenue, from First Street to Second Street. Changed from unrestricted to business. 14. Rosebank Avenue (Center Street), east side, from Young Street to Vanderbilt Avenue. Changed from unrestricted to business. 15. Rosebank Avenue (Center Street), west side, Vanderbilt Avenue to Marathon Avenue (Simonson Avenue). Changed from business to residence. 16. Rosebank Avenue (Center Street), east side Vanderbilt Avenue to Marathon Avenue (Simonson Avenue), Talbot Street and Albemarle Street (Cross Street), Farragut Avenue to Marathon Avenue (Simonson Avenue), Vanderbilt Avenue, Norwood Avenue and Townsend Avenue, Rosebank Avenue (Center Street) to Albemarle Street (Cross Street). Changed from unrestricted to residence. 17. Indiana Avenue, from Jewett Avenue to Wooley Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 18. Area bounded by Van Pelt Avenue, Orange Street, Morningstar Road and Washington Avenue. Changed from residence to unrestricted. 19. Jewett Avenue, from Purvis Place (Maple Avenue) to Washing- ton Place. Changed from business to residence. ‘ 2. Height District Map (a) BoroucH or MANHATTAN 1. Madison Avenue, between 34th Street and 40th Street. Changed from two times height district to 1% times height district. (b) BoroucH or BrookKLyN 1. Area on Brooklyn Heights, bounded by Furman Street, Middagh Street, Hicks Street, Clark Street, Fulton Street, Clinton Street and Joralemon Street. Changed from 1% times height district to two times height district. 2. Area on Brooklyn waterfront between Atlantic Avenue and Degraw Street, and between the bulkhead line and Columbia, Harrison and Van Brunt Streets. Changed from two times height district to 21% times height district. (c) BorouGH oF QUEENS 1. Elmhurst section bounded by 18th Street, Broadway, Corona Ave- nue, Parcell Street, Junction Avenue and Burnside Avenue. Changed from 1% times height district to 14 times height district. REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 221 2. Elmhurst section bounded by Broadway, Corona Avenue, Parcell Street, Junction Avenue and Norton Street. Changed from 1% times height district to one times height district. 3. Area District Map (a) Boroucu or THE Bronx 1. New D District, Bedford Park, bounded as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the east side of the Grand Boulevard and Concourse with the west side of Mosholu Parkway South; thence south along the south side of Mosholu Parkway South; south along the west side of Decatur Avenue; east along the south side of EX. 201st Street; south parallel to and 100 feet east of the east side of Decatur Avenue; west parallel to and 100 feet north of the north side of Bedford Park Boulevard; south along the west side of Decatur Avenue; west parallel to and 100 feet south of the south side of Bedford Park Boulevard; south parallel to and 100 feet east of the east side of Marion Avenue; west parallel to and 100 feet north of the north side of E. 198th Street; south along the west side of Marion Avenue; west along the north side of E. 198th Street; north along the east side of Bainbridge Avenue; west parallel to and 100 feet south of the south side of Bedford Park Boulevard; north along the east side of the Grand Boulevard and Concourse to the point of beginning. 2. New D District, University Heights, bounded as follows: Begin- ning at the intersection of the south side of 183d Street with the west side of the Old Croton Aqueduct; south along the west side of the aqueduct; west along the north side of W. 180th Street and W. 180th Street pro- longed; north along the easterly property line of the New York Central Railroad to a point just north of the intersection of Cedar Avenue and Harlem River Terrace; north parallel to and 100 feet west of the west side of Cedar Avenue to the prolongation of the south side of W. 182d . Street; east along said prolongation and the south side of W. 182d Street ; north along the east side of Sedgwick Avenue; east along the south side of E. 183d Street to the point of beginning. 3. New D District, Riverdale, bounded as follows: Beginning on the west side of Riverdale Avenue 900 feet south of the south side of W. 246th Street ; west 110 feet; south parallel to and 110 feet west of the west side of Riverdale Avenue and Spuyten Duyvil Parkway; west parallel to and 100 feet north of the north side of W. 239th Street and its prolongation towards Riverdale Avenue; south parallel to and 200 feet west of the west side of Independence Avenue; east parallel to and 100 feet south of the south side of W. 237th Street; north along the west side of Spuyten Duyvil Parkway to the south side of W. 237th Street east across Spuyten Duyvil Parkway in line with the south side of W. 237th Street; north parallel to and 100 feet east of Spuyten Duyvil Parkway to and across Johnson Avenue; east along the north side of W. 238th Street to and across Riverdale Avenue; north parallel to and 100 feet east of Riverdale Avenue to a point approxi- mately opposite the place of beginning. Changes in E District, Riverdale: The foregoing D District has been taken out of the Riverdale E District and the boundaries of the E District have been slightly altered so as to conform to the petition of the Park Dis- trict Protective League and other owners. The revised boundary line is as follows: Beginning at the shore line of the Hudson River 750 feet north of the north bulkhead line of Harlem River; east perpendicular to the shore line of the Hudson River; east along the north side of Spuyten Duyvil 222, BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT Road; east and south along the north side of Johnson Avenue; north along the west side of Kappock Street; east parallel to and 100 feet south of the south side of Netherland Avenue; east parallel to and 100 feet south of the south side of W. 227th Street; north parallel to and 100 feet east of the east side of Edgehill Avenue; north along the west side of Johnson Avenue ; west along the south side of W. 232d Street; north along the west side of Fairfield Avenue; north parallel to and 100 feet east of the east side of Spuyten Duyvil Parkway; north along the east side of Netherland Avenue; west across Spuyten Duyvil Parkway along the line of the south side of W. 237th Street; south along the west side of Spuyten Duyvil Park- ‘way; west parallel to and 100 feet south of the south side of W. 237th Street; north parallel to and 200 feet west of the west side of Independence Avenue; east parallel to and 100 feet north of the north side of W. 239th Street and the north side prolonged towards Spuyten Duyvil Parkway; north parallel to and 110 feet west of Spuyten Duyvil Parkway and River- dale Avenue; east to a point 900 feet south of the south side of W. 246th Street and the west side of Riverdale Avenue; east across Spuyten Duyvil Parkway ; east and south parallel to Spuyten Duyvil Parkway and 100 feet south and west of the south and west sides; east across Fieldston Road and along the north side of W. 242d Street; east along the line of the public park out into Waldo Avenue; north along the center line of Tibbett Avenue prolonged; east along the north side of W. 244th Street; north along the west side of Cayuga Avenue; west along the south side of W. 246th Street; north along the west side of Tibbett Avenue; north along a line drawn between the center of the north end of Tibbett Avenue and the center of the south end of Valles Avenue to the south side of W. 253d Street; west along the south side of W. 253d Street; north parallel to and 100 feet east of Iselin Avenue; west along the prolongation of the south side of W. 256th Street and along the south side of the same street; north along the west side of Mosholu Parkway; west along a line parallel to and 500 feet north of W. 256th Street; north along the west side of Netherland Avenue; west along the south side of W. 261st Street and its prolongation to the shore line of the Hudson River; south along the shore line of the Hudson River to the point of beginning. 5. New D District, Edenwald, bounded as follows: Beginning at t»> city line 100 feet south of Nereid Avenue; west parallel to and 100 fect south of Nereid Avenue; south through the middle of the block between Ely Avenue and Bruner Avenue; west parallel to and 100 feet south «* Pitman Avenue; south through the middle of the block between Wickham Avenue and Gunther Avenue: south parallel to and 100 feet east of Pauld- ing Avenue; east through the middle of the block between E. 226th and 227th Streets; east parallel to and 100 feet north of Schieffelin Avenue; north through the middle of the block between Edson Avenue and Baychester Avenue; east parallel to and 100 feet north of E. 233d Street; north parallel to and 100 feet west of Pratt Avenue; north along the city line to the point of beginning. 6. New E District, around the Country Club, bounded as follows: Beginning at the east end of the southern boundary of Pelham Bay Park at the shore of Eastchester Bay; west along the southern boundary of Pel- ham Bay Park; south parallel to and 100 feet east of Eastern Boulevard ; east parallel to and 100 feet south of South Road; south parallel to and 100 feet west of East Road; east along the north side of Fairmount Avenue and the same prolonged to Eastchester Bay; north along the shore of East- chester Bay to the point of beginning. REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 223 (b) BoroucH or BRooKLYN 1. Bay Ridge E District. The northern boundary has been moved two blocks south so as to lie in the center of the block between 75th Street and 76th Street, extending from the bulkhead line west of the Shore Road to the existing line 100 feet east of Ridge Boulevard; whence it continues as at present east to a point 100 feet west of Third Avenue; south parallel to and 100 feet west of Third Avenue; west in the middle of the block between 77th and 78th Streets ; south parallel to and 100 feet east of Ridge Boulevard; east in the center of the block between 79th and 80th Streets ; south parallel to and 100 feet west of Third Avenue, and so on as before. 2. Dyker Heights E District. The easterly boundary of this district has been moved from 100 feet east of 13th Avenue to 100 feet west of 13th Avenue, leaving both sides of this avenue wholly in D. 3. New E District, Ditmas Park West, bounded as follows: Beginning on the south side of Dorchester Road at the western boundary of the Ditmas Park E District; west along the south side of Dorchester Road; south along the east side of Stratford Road; east parallel to and 100 feet south of the south side of Ditmas Avenue; south parallel to and 100 feet west of the west side of Westminster Road; east parallel to and 120 feet north of the north side of Newkirk Avenue to the east property line of the Brighton Beach line, from which point the southerly boundary of the Ditmas Park E District has been moved north to a line 120 feet north of and parallel to the north side of Newkirk Avenue to the east side of E. 17th Street. 4. New D District, Highland Park South, bounded as follows: Begin- ning at the intersection of the south side of Jamaica Avenue and the west side of Dresden Street; south along the west side of Dresden Street; east along the south side of Etna Street; south along the west side of Force Tube Avenue; south along the west side of Hale Avenue; east along the south side of Ridgewood Avenue; south parallel to and 100 feet east of the east side of Hale Avenue; west parallel to and 100 feet north of the north side of Arlington Avenue; south along the west side of Elton Street; west parallel to and 100 feet north of the north side of Fulton Street ; north parallel to and 100 feet west of the west side of Miller Avenue and Miller Place; west parallel to and 100 feet south of the south side of Sunnyside Avenue; north parallel to and 100 feet east of the east side of Vermont Avenue; west along the north side of Sunnyside Avenue; north along the east side of Vermont Avenue; south and east along the Borough line; south along the west side of the National Cemetery; west along the north side of Jamaica Avenue to the line of the west side of Dresden Street and the point of beginning. 5. New A District, Coney Island, bounded as follows: Beginning at the bulkhead line of the Atlantic Ocean on the east side of W. 37th Street, north along the east side of W. 37th Street; east along the south side of Surf Avenue to the west side of W. 5th Street; south along the west side of W. Sth Street to the Atlantic Ocean, and west to the point of beginning. Both sides of Surf Avenue are now A between the east side of Stillwell Avenue and the west side of W. 5th Street. (c) BoroucH oF QuEENS 1. Flushing E District. The northern boundary of this district has been shifted from north of Jackson Avenue to a new line to the south, making a C District along both sides of Jackson Avenue from Whitestone Avenue and Bowne Avenue to Ziegler Avenue (Central Avenue). State 224 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT Street is now in D from a point 100 feet east of the east side of Whitestone Avenue to a point 100 feet west of the west side of Ziegler Avenue (Centrai Avenue), the boundary line between C and D being located 150 feet south of and parallel to State Street. The northern boundary of the E District now begins at a point 100 feet west of Bowne Avenue and 150 feet south of Jackson Avenue, running east parallel to Jackson Avenue and 150 feet south to the west side of Parsons Avenue; crossing Parsons Avenue, the line is parallel to and 100 feet south of the south side of Jackson Avenue until it meets a line extending north from and perpendicular to the north side of Burcker Street (Washington Street), distant 415 feet from the west side of Percy Street; east on the north side of Burcker Street (Washington Street) ; crossing Percy Street, the line is parallel to and 150 feet south of Jackson Avenue to the existing E boundary line 100 feet west of the west side of Central Avenue. 2. Powell’s Cove Section. This has been changed from D to A by extending the A District at College Point as follows: Beginning on the south side of Fletcher Avenue at the west side of Scranton Street; east along the south side of Fletcher Avenue; north along the east side of Vinton Street; west along the north side of Draper Avenue; north along the east side of Torrington Street; west along the north side of Brackenridge Ave- nue; north along the east side of Scranton Street; west along the north side of Audubon Avenue; north along the east side of Rockville Street to the East River; east along the bulkhead line of the East River; south along the west side of Chesterfield Boulevard ; west along the north side of Yancey Street; south along the west side of Yancey Street; west along the north side of Tolland Street to the existing A District line on the west side of Torrington Street. 3. New C District, Rockaway, bounded as follows: On the west by the easterly boundary of the E District, which has been moved one block east, so as to be in the center of the block between Beach 116th Street and Beach 117th Street, instead of between Beach 117th Street and Beach 118th Street; on the east the line is in Beach 75th Street, making the boundary line 100 feet east of and parallel to Beach 75th Street; on the south by the shore line of the Atlantic Ocean; on the north by the existing boundary of the A District, viz., east along the north side of Beach Drive from the center of the block between Beach 116th Street and Beach 117th Street; south along the east side of Beach 116th Street; east along the north side of St. Mark’s Avenue; south along the east side of Beach 103d Street; east along the north side of Rockaway Beach Boulevard; north along the west side of Beach 87th Street; east along the south property line of the Long Island Railroad; south along the east side of Beach Street; east along the north side of Finnard Street; north along the west side of Beach 80th Street; south along the south property line of the Long Island Railroad to the east- erly boundary in Beach 75th Street. 4. Woodhaven. Owing to the discontinuance on the City map of Ridgewood Avenue, between Herald Avenue and Cedar Avenue, the south- ern boundary of the C district near Jamaica Avenue now leaves Ridgewood Avenue at Oxford Avenue and is located in the center of the following streets: Oxford Avenue, Fulton Street, Herald Avenue, Fulton Street, Bed- ford Avenue, Fulton Street, Stoothoff Avenue to Ridgewood Avenue. (d) Borovucu or RricHMOND 1. Clifton. The boundary of the A district has been changed from Townsend Avenue and Rosebank Avenue and is now located on the east REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 225 side of Bay Street, from Townsend Avenue to Marathon Avenue, and on the south side of Marathon Avenue, from Bay Street to Rosebank Avenue. The western boundary of the B district is continued south in the center of Rosebank Avenue, from Townsend Avenue, joining the A boundary at Marathon Avenue. 4. General Changes In order to define more clearly the boundaries of particular districts a number of detailed changes have been made. On the use district map many such changes have been made in the designation shown at street inter- sections. A number of short blocks with a residence district designation in the street between two business districts have been changed to business districts. This was to conform to a change in the resolution. The resolu- tion submitted by the Districting Commission gave the Building Superin- tendent discretion to change a residence district that had a street frontage of not more than 100 feet and was bounded on either side by business or unrestricted districts. This discretionary power is omitted in the resolution submitted by the Committee, but on the map submitted short residence blocks that would be pocketed in this way have been changed to business districts. SUPPLEMENTAL CHANGES Map CHANGES APPROVED BY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JuLy 25, 1916, SUPPLEMENTING AND AMENDING CHANGES INCLUDED IN REPORT OF Satp CoMMITTEE DATED Juty 18, 1916. Use District Map (a) BoroucH or ManuatTaNn 1. West 57th Street, from Ninth Avenue to Tenth Avenue. Changed from business to residence. 2. West 57th Street, from Eighth Avenue to Ninth Avenue. Changed from residence to business. (b) BorouGH oF THE Bronx 1. West 172d Street, from Macomb’s Road to Jerome Avenue. Changed from unrestricted to business. (c) BoroucH or BrooKLyNn 1. East 21st Street, from Lincoln Road to Parkside Avenue; Chester Court and Parkside Avenue, from East 21st Street to Flatbush Avenue. Changed from residence to business. 2. East 85th Street, East 86th Street, East 87th Street, East 88th Street and East 89th Street, from Avenue B to Ditmas Avenue, and East 84th Street, from Ralph Avenue to Ditmas Avenue. Changed from resi- dence to unrestricted. 3. Avenue B, from Remsen Avenue to Ralph Avenue. Changed from residence to business. Area District Map (a) BoroucH oF QuEENS 1. Changes in C district east of Flushing Creek and south of State Street. This district has been extended to the south. The new boundary line extends from the existing line in Rosedale Avenue, south in Rosedale 226 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT Avenue to 45th Avenue, west in 45th Avenue and Franconia Avenue to Parsons Avenue, north of Parsons Avenue to California Avenue, and west in California Avenue to Crommelin Avenue. The entire Flushing E district has been changed to a C district. 2. Change in D district between Newtown and Flushing Creek. ‘The | portion of this district west of Junction Avenue has been changed from Ditore 3. Flushing River A district. This district has been extended to the west between Jackson Avenue and Gunther Street, from the east side of Gilroy Street, to the east side of Peartree Avenue, between Gunther Street and Pell Street and to the east side of Pell Street between Peartree Avenue and Jackson Avenue. EXHIBIT II—REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON RELATION OF PRO- POSED PLAN TO OTHER PLANS OF CITY DEVELOPMENT June 15, 1916. To the Committee on the City Plan: Gentlemen—The Mayor, as the Chairman of the Committee on City Plan, has appointed a special committee consisting of the Chief Engineer of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, the five Borough Consulting Engineers, the Landscape Architect of the Park Department, and the Con- sultant and Secretary of the Committee on the City Plan to consider the recommendations and plans of the Districting Commission and report to the Committee on the City Plan. This committee has given such consideration to the recommendations and plans of the Districting Commission as the time at its disposal per- mitted. While the report and plans had been in the hands of the members of the committee for too short a time to enable them to make a thorough study of them, all of the members of the committee were quite familiar with the work of the Commission and most of them attended the public hearings which have been given, particularly those at which consideration was given to the boroughs represented by them. All of the members of the committee are convinced of the great need of restrictive regulations govern- ing the height of buildings, the use to which they may be put and the propor- tion of the plots which may be occupied by them. All of them have had ample opportunity to observe the manner in which the different boroughs and the City as a whole have lately been developing and they keenly appreciate the unfortunate results of the lack in the past of such regulations as are pro- posed and the need of them to insure better control of future growth. They believe that the results of such control will be: To prevent undue congestion of population. To insure better sanitary conditions. To simplify the problem of traffic regulation. To lessen the danger and delay of movement in the City streets which is due to mixed traffic. To simplify the transit problems of the City. To prevent the over-intensive development of property contiguous to the new transit lines now being constructed. To render possible a more economical development of City streets through a decrease in the width of streets and roadways where the size and consequently the number of buildings are restricted. REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 227 To insure the permanency of the character of districts when once estab- lished, and, Finally, to make the City a more orderly and convenient place in which to live and do business. The Committee realizes the magnitude and difficulty of the task im- posed upon the Commission and is impressed by the results which have been accomplished by it within the time which has elapsed since it was created, by the thoroughness of its investigation of existing conditions and by its obvious efforts to avoid anything which would seriously affect present values. It has not attempted to correct the mistakes of the past, but to avoid the repetition of similar mistakes in the future, so that its efforts have been wholly constructive. In some cases it has seemed to us that the restrictions could well have gone further, but in few, if any, cases does it appear to us that they have gone too far. The following instances are typical of those we have in mind: Along the easterly side of the unused part of Jerome Park Reservoir, in the Borough of The Bronx, Jerome Avenue is unrestricted between Bed- ford Park Boulevard and Van Cortlandt Avenue, and restricted to business north of Van Cortlandt Avenue to its junction with Bainbridge Avenue, while Mosholu Parkway South, forming the northeasterly boundary of the reservoir, is restricted to residences. ‘This seems to be an entirely reason- able plan, but we understand that it is proposed to establish a railroad ter- minal yard in connction with the Jerome Avenue elevated line on the north- erly portion of this unused easterly basin of the reservoir, so that the re- striction against anything but residences along Mosholu Parkway South could well be limited to a depth of 100 feet in order that such a railroad terminal might be established on this unused property. The Park Department has urged greater restrictions about Hudson Park, in the Borough of Manhattan. The report of. the Commission contemplates, a restriction to residences on the northerly and southerly boundaries of the park, but leaves the easterly and westerly boundaries, which are Hudson Street and the new Seventh Avenue extension, unrestricted. We understand that the character of the two streets last named has been so firmly established that a restriction to business only would be of little avail, in view of the fact that it is not planned to interfere with the uses which now exist. Along the northerly side of Bay Ridge Parkway, in the Borough of Brooklyn, the four blocks between 5th and 9th Avenues are entirely un- restricted, the reason for this, as explained by the Consultant and Secretary of the Committee on the City Plan, being that a gas receiver is already located on the most easterly of these blocks and the three others are so near the New York Connecting Railroad that they would be within the influence of the industrial development which will take place along the line of this road. The majority of the committee feel that the streets bounding this parkway, which is the main approach to the Shore Road, should be re- served for residential use, a use which has always been contemplated in the establishment of parks and parkways. Another instance in this same bor- ough where it appears that the restrictions might have gone further is that of Parkside Avenue, between Flatbush and Ocean Avenues, and East 21st Street, extending from Parkside Avenue northwardly. These are both indi- cated as business streets, and, while they are near a station of the Brighton Beach Railroad, which might be expected to attract a small amount of business, they are so near Flatbush Avenue, the main business street of this section, that they could well be restricted to residences, as this neighborhood promises to be almost entirely built up with apartment houses. 228 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT In the Borough of Queens eight short blocks at the westerly end of Queens Boulevard were shown as entirely unrestricted, the remainder of this great avenue being designated as a business street. It is true that there is one building at the extreme westerly end of this street now devoted to high class industrial use—that is, the assembling of parts of motor cars, and we understand that it is proposed to erect another building devoted to this same purpose on the next block to the east, and inasmuch as there are no railroad or shipping facilities within several blocks of any part of this street, such industrial development as may take place will be of an unobjectionable character, and yet the City has established the exceptional width of 200 feet for this boulevard and the elevated rapid transit line erected within its lines is of an ornamental character, designed to be in keeping with a street of this kind and it may be that the restriction of this part of the street to business only would be desirable. A further study of the plans would doubtless disclose other cases where the restrictions might have gone further, but we believe that the important thing is that the plan proposed by the Commission be put in force at the earliest possible date, and, unless some slight changes, such as those which have been noted, can be made, if upon further consideration they seem to be wise, without delaying the adoption of the Commission’s report and putting its recommendations into effect, we are not disposed to advise any modifica- tion of the present plans particularly in view of the provisions in the proposed ordinances which will render it possible to make such changes affecting certain streets or districts as may at some future time appear to be desirable. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the committee. (Sgd.) NELSON P. LEWIS, Chief Engineer of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. EXHIBIT III—REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE TO CONSIDER DIS- TRICTING RESOLUTION June 16, 1916. Committee on the City Plan, Board of Estimate and Apportionment: Gentlemen—Your subcommittee, appointed to consider the Districting Resolution submitted to the Board by the Commission on Building Districts and Restrictions in its final report of June 2d, begs to submit the following report: Your subcommittee is convinced that a well considered plan of building development is essential to the health, safety and prosperity of the City. Such a plan involves both the creation of residential, business and industrial districts and the regulation of the height of buildings and the area of courts and yards differently in different parts of the City. The plan presented by the Districting Commission seems admirably adapted to secure this result. We endorse generally the following principles. which are fundamental in the Commission’s proposed plan: 1. Provision for light and air is a prime essential in building regulation. 2. Building regulations in each section of the City should be adapted to the requirements of that section. 3. It is desirable as a general rule to treat all buildings in a given block according to a uniform rule. There should be a substantially uniform REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 229 contribution from each owner to the light and air of the block. Block ventilation is essential to well ordered development. Rear yards should be required wherever buildings come back to back. 4. A building is usually appropriately located when it is surrounded by buildings of similar type and use. Order in building development is essential to the health, safety and comfort of the public and far from depressing values or working hardship to property owners generally, will actually con- serve and enhance values. 5. The residence sections should be protected against unnecessary in- vasion by commercial and industrial uses. 6. The present congested condition in lower Manhattan constitutes a serious danger to life and property. Street congestion may interfere seri- ously with the movement of fire apparatus. The occupants of high office and loft buildings may be endangered by fire and panic. These and other considerations advanced in the Commission’s report prove the urgent need for the adoption of a districting plan. The official duties of the members of this subcommittee bring to their notice the irre- parable injury that almost daily is being brought about by the erection of inappropriate buildings or the establishment of business uses in residence sections. The remedy proposed is timely and appears to have been most carefully worked out. Your subcommittee was directed to consider the resolution with special reference to Article IV, containing the general and administrative pro- visions. The Committee has not had an opportunity to take up in detail the other articles of the resolution. The subcommittee recommends the approval of Article IV with the following changes: New words and phrases added by the subcommittee are in italics. Words and phrases recommended for omission are included in brackets. Section 14. Existing Buildings and Uses: Nothing herein contained shall require any change in the plans or construction of a building or in its designated use for which a permit has been heretofore approved or plans for which are on file im the office of the superintendent of buildings or of the Tenement House Department [with the building superintendent] at the time of the passage of this resolution and a permit therefor is issued within three months of the passage of this resolution and the construction of which is diligently prosecuted within a year of the date of [such] the permit issued by the building superintendent and at least the whole ground story of which shall have been completed within such year and the complete erection of the building as planned shall have been effected within five years from the date of passage of this resolution. Except as otherwise provided in Section 3-a, if a structure or building now existing shall hereafter be wholly or in part removed or destroyed whatsoever may be the cause, purpose or manner of its removal or destruc- tion, it shall not be rebuilt or restored unless it conforms with the pro- visions herein prescribed; but nothing in this resolution shall prevent the restoration of a building or industrial plant which is damaged less than 50 per cent of its structural parts or the restoration of a wall declared unsafe by the superintendent of buildings or by a board of survey as provided in the Bualding Code. No building now existing or hereafter erected shall be so altered or enlarged as to bring it in violation of any of the provisions of this resolution, nor shall any lot area be so reduced or diminished that the unoccupied areas shall be less than required by this resolution. When addi- tional stories for which plans have not been filed at the time of passage 230 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT of this resolution are added in the future to existing buildings, the require- ments of this resolution as to setbacks shall start at the top of the existing walls, if they are over the prescribed height limit, and the least dimensions of yards and courts shall be computed from the top of the existing yard or court walls as though they were of the prescribed sizes at such heights and the carrying up of existing elevator and stair enclosures shall be exempted from such provisions. Section 15. Unlawful Use; Certificate of Occupancy: It shall be un- lawful to use or permit the use of any building or premises hereafter cre- ated, erected, altered, changed or converted wholly or partly in its use until a certificate to the effect that said [structure] building or premises [or place] and the use thereof conforms to all of the requirements of this resolution shall have been issued by the superintendent of buildings of the bor- ough in which said building or premises are located. It shall be the duty of the superintendent of buildings to issue a certificate of use within [20] 10 days after a request for the same shall be filed in his bureau by any owner of a [structure] building or premises affected by this resolution, pro- vided said building or premises conforms with all the requirements herein set forth. It is provided, however, that in the case of tenement houses such certificate of occupancy shall be issued by the tenement house commissioner. Section 16. Enforcement, Legal Procedure, Penalties: This resolution shall be enforced by the tenement house commissioner, the fire commissioner and by the superintendent of buildings in each borough under the rules and regulations of the Board of Standards and Appeals. The superintendent of buildings shall in each borough enforce the provisions herein contained in so far as such enforcement can be effected through the issue of the building permit and the certificate of occupancy. The fire commissioner shall en force the provisions herein contained in so far as they relate to use of buildings or premises. The tenement house commissioner shall [subject to the rules and regulations of the Board of Standards and Appeals] have [exclusive] jurisdiction to enforce the provisions herein contained in so far as they affect or relate to tenement houses. Any and every violation of the provisions of this resolution or of the rules and regulations adopted there- under shall subject the owner, agent, contractor, lessee or tenant of a build- ing or premises where such violation has been committed or shall exist, and the agent, architect, builder, contractor, or any other person who has as- sisted in the commission of such violation or who maintains any building or premises in which such violation exists as to the same legal procedure and the same penaltes as are prescribed in any law, statute, or ordinance for the violations of the Building Code, and such violations shall be subject to the same legal remedies and prosecuted in the same manner prescribed in any law or ordinance for violations of said Building Code. Section 17. No change. Section 18. No change. Section 19. Interpretation; Purpose: In interpreting and applying the provisions of this resolution, they shall be held to be the minimum require- ments adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, con- venience and general welfare. It is not intended by this resolution to interfere with or abrogate or annul any rules, regulations or permits pre- viously adopted or issued or which shall be adopted or issued pursuant to law [by the fire department or health department] relating to the use of buildings or premises; nor is it intended by this resolution to interfere with or abrogate or annul any easements, covenants or other agreements between REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 231 parties; provided, however, that where this resolution imposes a greater restriction upon tle use of buildings or premises or upon the height of buildings or requires larger open spaces than are imposed or required by such rules, regulations or permits or by such easements, covenants or agree- ments, the provisions of this resolution shall control. Section 20. Omit as unnecessary. Renumber Section 21 as Section 20. On behalf of the subcommittee, respectfully submitted, (Sgd.) RUDOLPH MILLER, Engineer, Committee on Buildings, Chairman. [Nore—The membership of the subcommittee consisted of Rudolph Miller, Chair- man; the tenement house commissioner, the fire commissioner, the superintendent of buildings of each borough, John P. OBrien, assistant corporation counsel, and the consultant and secretary of the Committee on the City Plan of the Board.] APPENDIX VII—BUILDING ZONE RESOLUTION (Adopted July 25, 1916) A ResoLuTiIon regulating and limiting the height and bulk of buildings here- after erected and regulating and determining the area of yards, courts and other open spaces, and regulating and restricting the location of trades and industries and the location of buildings designed for specified uses and establishing the boundaries of districts for the said purposes. Be it resolved by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment of The City of New York: ARTICLE I—DEFINITIONS § 1. Definitions. Certain words in this resolution are defined for the purposes thereof as follows: (a) Words used in the present tense include the future; the singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular; the word “lot” includes the word “ plot ’”’; the word “ building ” includes the word “ struc- ture.” (b) The “ street line ” is the dividing line between the street and the lot. (c) The “width of the street’ is the mean of the distances between the sides thereof within a block. Where a street borders a public place, public park or navigable body of water the width of the street is the mean width of such street plus the width, measured at right angles to the street line, of such public place, public park or body of water. (d) The “curb level,” for the purpose of measuring the height of any portion of a building, is the mean level of the curb in front of such portion of the building. But where a building is on a corner lot the curb level is the mean level of the curb on the street of greatest width. If such greatest width occurs on more than one street the curb level is the mean level of the curb on that street of greatest width which has the highest curb eleva- tion. The “curb level” for the purpose of regulating and determining the area of yards, courts and open spaces is the mean level of the curb at that front of the building where there is the highest curb elevation. Where no curb elevation has been established or the building does not adjoin the street the average ground level of the lot shall be considered the curb level. (e) A “street wall” of a building, at any level, is the wall or part of the building nearest to the street line. (f) The “height of a building ” is the vertical distance measured in the case of flat roofs from the curb level to the level of the highest point of the roof beams adjacent to the street wall, and in the case of pitched roofs from the curb level to the mean height level of the gable. Where no roof beams exist or there are structures wholly or partly above the roof the height shall be measured from the curb level to the level of the highest point of the building. Where a building is a tenement house as defined in the Tenement House Law the height of the building on the street line shall be measured as prescribed in said law for the measurement of the:height of a tenement house and such measurement shall be from the curb level as that term is used in said law. : (g) The “depth of a lot’ is the mean distance from the street line of the lot to its rear line measured in the general direction of the side lines of the lot. BUILDING ZONE RESOLUTION 233 (h) A “rear yard” is an open, unoccupied space on the same lot with a building between the rear line of the building and the rear line of the lot. (1) The “ depth of a rear yard” is the mean distance between the rear line of the building and the rear line of the lot. (j) Lots or portions of lots shall be deemed “ back to back” when they are on opposite sides of the same part of a rear line common to both and the opposite street lines on which the lots front are parallel wiht each other or make an angle with each other of not over 45 degrees. (k) A“ court” is an open, unoccupied space, other than a rear yard, on the same lot with a building. A court not extending to the street or to a rear yard is an “inner court.” A court extending to the street or a rear yard is an “ outer court.” A court on the lot line extending through from the street to a rear yard or another street is a “ side yard.” (1) The “height of a yard or a court” at any given level shall be measured from the lowest level of such yard or court as actually constructed or from the curb level, if higher, to such level. The highest level of any given wall bounding a court or yard shall be deemed to be the mean height of such wall. Where a building is a tenement house, as defined in the Tene- ment House Law, the height of a yard or a court shall be measured as prescribed in such law. (m) The “least dimension” of a yard or court at any level is the least of the horizontal dimensions of such yard or court at such level. If two opposite sides of a yard or court are not parallel the horizontal dimension between them shall be deemed to be the mean distance between them. (n) The “length of an outer court” at any given point shall be measured in the general direction of the side lines of such court from the end opposite the end opening on a street, or a rear yard, to such point. ArticLte []—Use Districts §2. Use Districts. For the purpose of regulating and restricting the location of trades and industries and the location of buildings designed for specified uses, the City of New York is hereby divided into three classes of districts: (1) residence districts, (2) business districts, and (3) unre- stricted districts; as shown on the use district map which accompanies this resolution and is hereby declared to be part hereof. The use districts designated on said map are hereby established. The use district map desig- nations and map designation rules which accompany said use district map are hereby declared to be part thereof. No building or premises shall be erected or used for any purpose other than a purpose permitted in the use district in which such building or premises is located. § 3. Residence Districts. In a residence district no building shall be erected other than a building, with its usual accessories, arranged, intended or designed exclusively for one or more of the following specified uses: (1) Dwellings, which shall include dwellings for one or more families and boarding houses and also hotels which have thirty or more sleeping rooms. (2) Clubs, excepting clubs the chief activity of which is a service cus- tomarily carried on as a business. (3) Churches. (4) Schools, libraries or public museums. (5) Philanthropic or eleemosynary uses or institutions, other than cor- rectional institutions. 234 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT (6) Hospitals and sanitariums. (7) Railroad passenger stations. (8) Farming, truck gardening, nurseries or green houses. In a residence district no building or premises shall be used for any use other than a use above specified for which buildings may be erected and for the accessory uses customarily incident thereto. The term accessory use shall not include a business nor shall it include any building or use not located on the same lot with the building or use to which it is accessory. A private garage for more than five motor vehicles shall not be deemed an accessory use. $4. Business Districts. (a) In a business district no building or premises shall be used, and no building shall be erected which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, for any of the following specified trades, industries or uses: Ammonia, chlorine or bleaching powder manufacture. Asphalt manufacture or refining. Assaying (other than gold or silver). Blacksmithing or horseshoeing. Boiler making. Brewing or distilling of liquors. Carpet cleaning. Celluloid manufacture. Crematory. Distillation of coal, wood or bones. Dyeing or dry cleaning. Electric central station power plant. Fat rendering. Fertilizer manufacture. Garage for more than five motor vehicles, not including a ware- house where motor vehicles are received for dead storage only, and not including a salesroom where motor vehicles are kept for sale or for demonstration purposes only. Gas (illuminating or heating) manufacture or storage. Glue, size and gelatine manufacture. Incinerator or reduction of garbage, offal, dead animals or refuse. Iron, steel, brass or copper works. Junk, scrap paper or rag storage or baling. Lamp black manufacture. Lime, cement or plaster of Paris manufacture. Milk bottling and distributing station. Oil cloth or linoleum manufacture. Paint, oil, varnish or turpentine manufacture. Petroleum refining or storage. Printing ink manufacture. Raw hides or skins—storage, curing or tanning. Repair shop for motor vehicles. Rubber manufacture from the crude material. Saw or planing mill. Shoddy manufacture or wool scouring. Slaughtering of animals. Smelting. Soap manufacture. Stable for more than five horses. BUILDING ZONE’ RESOLUTION 235 Starch, glucose or dextrine manufacture. Stock yards. Stone or monumental works. Sugar refining. Sulphurous, sulphuric, nitric or hydrochloric acid manufacture. Tallow, grease or lard manufacturing or refining. Tar distillation or manufacture. Tar roofing or tar waterproofing manufacture. (b) In a business district no building or premises shall be used, and no building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended or designed to be used for any trade, industry or use that is noxious or offensive by reason of the emission of odor, dust, smoke, gas or noise ; but car barns or places of amuse- ment shall not be excluded. c) In a business district no building or premises shall be used, and no building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended or designed to be used for any kind of manufacturing, except that any kind of manufacturing not included within the prohibitions of paragraphs a and b of this section may be carried on provided not more than 25 per cent of the total floor space of the building is so used, but space equal to the area of the lot may be so used in any case, although in excess of said 25 per cent. The printing of a newspaper shall not be deemed manufacturing. No use permitted in a residence district by section 3 shall be excluded from a business district. §5. Unrestricted Districts. The term “unrestricted district’ is used to designate the districts for which no regulations or restrictions are pro- vided by this article. § 6. Existing Buildings and Premises. In any building or premises any lawful use existing therein at the time of the passage of this resolution may be continued therein, although not conforming to the regulations of the use district in which it is maintained, or such use may be changed or con- verted or extended throughout the building, provided, in either case, that no structural alterations, except as required by existing laws and ordinances, are made therein and no new building is erected, and provided further that: (1) In a residence district no building or premises unless now devoted to a use that is by section 4 prohibited in a business district, shall be con- verted to such use; and (2) In a residence or business district no building or premises unless now devoted to a use that is by paragraph a or b of section 4 prohibited in a business district shall be converted to such use. No existing building designed, arranged, intended or devoted to a use not permitted by this article in the district in which such use is located shall be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or structurally altered unless such use is changed to a use permitted in the district in which such building is located; except that such building may be reconstructed or structurally altered to an extent not greater than 50 per cent of the value of the build- ing, exclusive of foundations, for the purpose of continuing therein, without any extension thereof, a lawful use existing therein at the time of the passage of this resolution, and such use may be continued therein, although not conforming to the regulations of the use district in which it is maintained. §7. Use District Exceptions. The Board of Appeals, created by chap- ter 503 of the laws of 1916, may, in appropriate cases, after public notice and hearing, and subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, determine and vary the application of the use district regulations herein established in harmony with their general purpose and intent as follows: 236 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT (a) Permit the extension of an existing building and the existing use thereof upon the lot occupied by such building at the time of the passage of this resolution or permit the erection of an additional building upon a lot occupied at the time of the passage of this resolution by a commercial or industrial establishment and which additional building is a part of such establishment ; (b) Where a use district boundary line divides a lot in a single owner- ship at the time of the passage of this resolution, permit a use authorized on either portion of such lot to extend to the entire lot, but not more than 25 feet beyond the boundary line of the district in which such use is authorized ; (c) Permit the extension of a building into a more restricted district under such conditions as will safeguard the character of the more restricted district ; : (d) Permit in a residence district a central telephone exchange or any building or use in keeping with the uses expressly enumerated in section 3 as the purposes for which buildings or premises may be erected or used in a residence district ; (e) Permit in a business district the erection of a garage or stable in any portion of a street between two intersecting streets in which portion or block there exists a public garage or public stable at the time of the passage of this resolution ; (£) Grant in undeveloped sections of the city temporary and conditional permits for not more than two years for structures and uses in contravention of the requirements of this article. ArticLe JJJ—Heicut Districts $8. Height Districts. For the purpose of regulating and limiting the height and bulk of buildings hereafter erected, the City of New York is hereby divided into five classes of districts: (a) one times districts, (b) one and one-quarter times districts, (c) one and one-half times districts, (d) two times districts, (e) two and one-half times districts ; as shown on the height district map which accompanies this resolution and is hereby declared to be part hereof. The height districts designaed on said map are hereby estab- lished. The height district map designations and map designation rules which accompany said height district map are hereby declared to be part thereof. No building or part of a building shall be erected except in con- formity with the regulations herein prescribed for the height district in ~ in which such building is located. (a) In a one times district no building shall be erected to a height in excess of the width of the street, but for each one foot that the building or a portion of it sets back from the street line two feet shall be added to the height limit of such building or such portion thereof. (b) Ina one and one-quarter times district no building shall be erected to a height in excess of one and one-quarter times the width of the street, but for each one foot that the building or a portion of it sets back from the street line two and one-half feet shall be added to the height limit.of such building or such portion thereof. (c) Ina one and one-half times district no building shall be erected to a height in excess of one and one-half times the width of the street, but for each one foot that the building or a portion of its sets back from the street line three feet shall be added to the height limit of such building or such portion thereof. BUILDING ZONE ‘RESOLUTION 237 (d) In a two times district no building shall be erected to a height in ‘excess of twice the width of the street, but for each one foot that the building or a portion of it sets back from the street line four feet shall be added to the height limit of such building or such portion thereof. (e) In a two and one-half times district no building shall be erected to a height in excess of two and one-half times the width of the street, but for each one foot that the building or a portion of its sets back from the street line five feet shall be added to the height limit of such building or such portion thereof. $9. Height District Exceptions. (a) On streets less than 50 feet in width the same height regulations shall be applied as on streets 50 feet in width and, except for the purposes of paragraph d of this section, on streets more than 100 feet in width the same height regulations shall be applied as on streets 100 feet in width. (b) Along a narrower street near its intersection with a wider street, any building or any part of any building fronting on the narrower street within 100 feet, measured at right angles to the side of the wider street, shall be governed by the height regulations provided for the wider street. A corner building on such intersecting streets shall be governed by the height regulations provided for the wider street for 150 feet from the side of such wider street, measured along such narrower street. (c) Above the height limit at any level for any part of a building a dormer, elevator bulkhead or other structure may be erected, provided its frontage length on any given street be not greater than 60 per cent of the length of such street frontage of such part of the building. Such frontage length of such structure at any given level shall be decreased by an amount equal to one per cent. of such street frontage o1 such part of the building for every foot such level 1s above such height limit. If there are more than one such structures, their aggregate frontage shall not exceed the frontage length above permitted at any given level. (d) If the area of the building is reduced so that above a given level it covers in the aggregate not more than 25 per cent of the area ‘of the lot, the building above such level shall be excepted from the foregoing pro- visions of this article. Such portion of the building may be erected to any height, provided that the distance which it sets backs from the street line on each street on which it faces, plus half of the width of the street, equals at least 75 feet. But for each one per cent of the width of the lot on the street line that such street wall is less in length than such width of the lot, such wall may be erected four inches nearer to the street line. (e) When at the time plans are filed for the erection of a building there are buildings in excess of the height limits herein provided within 50 feet of either end of the street frontage of the proposed building or directly opposite such building across the street, the height to which the street wall of the proposed building may rise shall be increased by an amount not greater than the average excess height of the walls on the street line within 50 feet of either end of the street frontage of the proposed building and at right angles to the street frontage of the proposed building on the opposite side of the street. The average amount of such excess height shall be computed by adding together the excess heights above the prescribed height limit for the street frontage in question of all of the walls on the street line of the buildings and parts of buildings within the above defined _frontage and dividing the sum by the total number of puddings and vacant plots within such frontage. 238 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT (£) Nothing in this article shall prevent the projection of a cornice beyond the street wall to an extent not exceeding five per cent of the width of the street nor more than five feet in any case. Nothing in this article shall prevent the erection above the height limit of a parapet wall or cornice solely for ornament and without windows extending above such height limit not more than five per cent of such height limit, but such parapet wall or cornice may in any case be at least five and one-half feet high above such height limit. (g) The provisions of this article shall not apply to the erection of church spires, belfries, chimneys, flues or gas holders. (h) Where not more than 50 feet of a street frontage would otherwise be subjected to a height limit lower than that allowed immediately beyond both ends of such frontage, the height limit on such frontage shall be equal to the lesser of such greater height limits. (1) If an additional story or stories are added to a building existing at the time of the passage of this resolution, the existing walls of which are in excess of the height limits prescribed in this article, the height limits for such additional story or stories shall be computed from the top of the exist- ing walls as though the latter were not in excess of the prescribed height limits and the carrying up of existing elevator and stair enclousures shall be exempted from the provisions of this article. ARTICLE [V—Area Districts § 10. Area Districts. For the purpose of regulating and determining the area of yards, courts and other open spaces for buildings hereafter erected, the City of New York is hereby divided into five classes of area districts: A, B, C, D and E; as shown on the area district map which accom- panies this resolution and is hereby declared to be part hereof. The area districts designated on said map are hereby established. The area district map designations and map designation rules which accompany said area district map are hereby declared to be a part thereof. No building or part of a building shall be erected except in conformity with the regulations herein prescribed for the area district in which such building is located. Unless otherwise expressly provided the term rear yard, side yard, outer court or inner court when used in this article shall be deemed to refer only to a rear yard, side yard, outer court or inner court required by this article. No lot area shall be so reduced or diminished that the yards, courts or open spaces shall be smaller than prescribed in this article. $11. A Districts. In an A district a court at any given height shall be at least one inch in least dimension for each one foot of such height. § 12. B Districts. Ina B district a rear yard at any given height shall be at least two inches in least dimension for each one foot of such height. The depth of a rear yard at its lowest level shall be at least 10 per cent. of the depth of the lot, but need not exceed 10 feet at such level. An outer court or a side yard at any given height shall be at least one inch in least dimension for each one foot of such height. An outer court at any given point shall be at least one and one-half inches in least dimension for each one foot of length. But for each foot that an outer court at any given height would, under the above rules, be wider in its least dimension for such height than the minimum required by its length, one inch shall be deducted from the required least dimension for such height for each 24 feet of such height. A side yard for its length within 50 feet of the street may for the purposes of the above rule be considered an outer court. BUILDING ZONE: RESOLUTION 239 § 13. ©€ Districts. In a C district a rear yard at any given height shall be at least three inches in least dimension tor each one foot of such height. The depth of a rear yard at its lowest level shall be at least 10 per cent of the depth of the lot but need not exceed 10 feet at such level. An outer court or a side yard at any given height shall be at least one and one- half inches in least dimension for each one foot of such height. An outer court at any given point shall be at least one and one-half inches in least dimension for each one foot of length. On a lot not more than 30 feet in mean width an outer court or a side yard at any given height shall be nov less than one inch in least dimension for each one foot of such height, and an inner court at any given height shall be either (1) not less than two inches in least dimension for each one foot of such height or (2) it shall be of an equivalent area as hereinafter specified in paragraph c of section 17. (b) If the owner or owners of any part of a C district set aside per- petually for the joint recreational use of the residents of such part designated by them, an area at least equal to 10 per cent. of the area of such part in addition to all yard and court requirements for a B district, such part shall be subject to the regulations-herein prescribed for a B district. Such joint recreational space shall be composed of one or more tracts, each of which shall be at least 40 feet in least dimension and 5,000 square feet in area and shall be approved by the Board of Appeals as suitable for the joint recreational use of such residents. 14. D Districts. (a) Ina D district a rear yard at any given height shall be at least four inches in least dimension for each one foot of such height. The depth of a rear yard at its lowest level shall be at least 10 per cent of the depth of the lot, but need not exceed 10 feet at such level. If a building in a D district is located in a residence district as designated on the use district map, the depth of a rear yard at its lowest level shall be at least 20 per cent. of the depth of the lot, but need not exceed 20 feet at such level. However, for each one foot in excess of 10 feet of the depth of such rear yard at its lowest level, there may be substituted one foot of depth of unoccupied space across the whole width of the front of the lot at the curb level between the street line and the street wall of the building. (b) Ina D district an outer court or a side yard at any given height shall be at least two inches in least dimension for each one foot of such height. An outer court at any given point shall be at least two inches in least dimension for each one foot of length. On a lot not more than 30 feet in mean width an outer court or a side yard at any given height shall be not less than one and one-half inches in least dimension for each one foot of such height. On such lot an outer court at any given point shall be not less than one and one-half inches in least dimension for each one foot of length. On such lot an inner court at any given height shall be either (1) not less than three inches in least dimension for each one foot of such height or (2) it shall be of an equivalent area as specified in paragraph c of section 17. (c) In a D district no building located within a residence district as designated on the use district map shall occupy at the curb level more than 60 per cent of the area of the lot, if an interior lot, or 80 per cent if a corner lot. In computing such percentage any part of the area of any corner lot in excess of 8,000 square feet shall be considered an interior lot. (d) If the owner or owners of any part of a D district set aside per- petually for the joint recreational use of the residents of such part desig nated by them, an area at least equal to 10 per cent of the area of such 240 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT part in addition to all yard and court requirements for a C district, such part shall be subject to the regulations herein prescribed for a C district. Such joint recreational space shall be composed of one or more tracts, each of which shall be at least 40 feet in least dimension and 5,0U0 square feet in area and shall be approved by the Board of Appeals as suitable for the joint recreational use of such residents. $15. E Districts. (a) Inan E district a rear yard at any given height shall be at least five inches in least dimension for each one foot of such height. The depth of a rear yard at its lowest level shall be at least 15 per cent of the depth of the lot, but need not exceed 15 feet at such level. If a building in an E district is located in a residence district as designated on the use district map, the depth of a rear yard at its lowest level shall be at least 25 per cent of the depth of the lot, but need not exceed 25 feet at such level. However, for each one foot in excess of 10 feet of the depth of such rear yard at its lowest level there may be substituted one foot of depth of unoccupied space across the whole width of the front of the lot at the curb level between the street line and the street wall of the building. In an E district on at least one side of every building located within a residence district there shall be a side yard along the side lot line for the full depth of the lot or back to the rear yard. (b) In an E district an outer court or side yard at any given height shall be at least two and one-half inches in least dimension for each one foot of such height. On a lot not more than 50 feet in mean width an outer court or a side yard at any given height shall be at least two inches in least dimension for each one foot of such height. An outer court at any given point shall be at least two and one-half inches in least dimension for each one foot of length. (c) In an E district no building located within a residence district as designated on the use district map shall occupy at the curb level more than 50 per cent of the area of the lot, if an interior lot, or 70 per cent if a corner lot, and above a level 18 feet above the curb no building shall occupy more than 30 per cent of the area of the lot, if an interior lot, or 40 per cent if a corner lot. In computing such percentage any part of the area of any corner lot in excess of 8,000 square feet shall be considered an interior lot. § 16. Rear Yards. (a) Except in A districts, for lots or portions of lots that are back to back there shall be rear yards extending along the rear lot lines of such lots or portions of lots wherever they are more than 55 feet back from the nearest street. Such rear yard shall be at least of the area and dimensions herein prescribed for the area district in which it is located at every point along such rear lot line. Within 55 feet of the nearest street no rear yards shall be required. No rear yard shall be required on any corner lot nor on the portion of any lot that is back to back with a corner lot. (b) Where a building is not within a residence district as designated on the use district map, the lowest level of a rear yard shall not be above the sill level of the second story windows, nor in any case more than 23 feet above the curb level. Where a building is within a residence district the lowest level of a rear yard shall not be above the curb level, except that not more than 40 per cent of the area of the yard may be occupied by the build- ing up to a level 18 feet above the curb level. In the case of a church, whether within or without a residence district, such 40 per cent may be occupied up to a level of 30 feet above the curb level. BUILDING ZONE RESOLUTION 241 (c) Chimneys or flues may be erected within a rear yard, provided they do not exceed five square feet in area in the aggregate and do not obstruct ventilation. (d) Except in A districts, where a building on an interior lot between lots for which rear yards are required runs through the block from street to street or to within 55 feet of another street, there shall be on each side lot line above the sill level of the second story windows and in any case above a level! 23 feet above the curb level a court of at least equivalent area at any given height to that required for an inner court at such height and having a least dimension not less than that required for an outer court at the same height. (e) ‘When a proposed building is on a lot which is back to back with a lot or lots on which there is a building or buildings having rear yards less in depth than would be required under this article, the depth of the rear yard of the proposed building shall not be required to be greater at any given level than the average depth of the rear yards directly back to back with it at such level, but in no case shall the depth of such rear yard be less at any height than the least dimension prescribed for an outer court at such height. § 17. Courts. (a) If a room in which persons live, sleep, work or congregate receives its light and air in whole or in part directly from an open space on the same lot with the building, there shall be at least one inner court, outer court, side yard or rear yard upon which a window or ventilating skylight opens from such room. Such inner court, outer court or side yard shall be at least of the area and dimensions herein prescribed for the area district in which it is located. Such rear yard shall be at least of the area and dimensions herein prescribed for an inner court in the area district in which it is located. In an A district, such inner court, outer court, side yard or rear yard shall be at least of the area and dimensions herein prescribed for a court in such district. The unoccupied space within the lot in front of every part of such window shall be not less than three feet, measured at right angles thereto. Courts, yards and other open spaces, if provided in addition to those required by this section, need not be of the area and dimensions herein prescribed. The provisions of this section shal! not be deemed to apply to courts or shafts for bathrooms, toilet compart- ments, hallways or stairways. (b) The least dimension of an outer court, inner court or side yard at its lowest level shall be not less than four feet, except that where the walls bounding a side yard within the lot are not more than 25 feet in mean height and not more than 40 feet in length, such least dimension, except in an E district, may be not less than three feet. Where any outer court opens on a street such street may be considered as part of such court. (c) The least dimension of an inner court at any given height shall be not less than that which would be required in inches for each one foot of height for a rear yard of the same height, except that an inner court of equivalent area may be substituted for said court, provided that for such area its least dimension be not less than one-half of its greatest dimension. Tf an inner court is connected with a street by a side yard for each one foot that such side yard is less than 65 feet in depth from the street, one square foot may be deducted from the required area of the inner court for each 15 feet of height of such court. If the lot is not required under this resolu- tion to have a rear yard, an outer court, not opening on a street, shall open at any level on an inner court on the rear line of the lot and such inner court shall be deemed a rear yard in such case. 242 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT $18. Area District Exceptions. (a) The area required in a court or yard at any given level shall be open from such level to the sky unobstructed, except for the ordinary projections of skylights and parapets above the bottom of such court or yard, and except for the ordinary projections of window sills, belt courses, cornices and other ornamental features to the extent of not more than four inches. However, where a side yard or an outer court opens on a street a cornice may project not over five feet into such side yard or outer court within five feet of the street wall of the building. (b) An open or lattice enclosed iron fire escape, fireproof outside stair- way or solid-floored balcony to a fire tower may project not more than four feet into a rear yard or an inner court, except that an open or lattice en- closed iron fire escape may project not more than eight feet into a rear yard or into an inner court when it does not occupy more than 20 per cent of the area of such inner court. (c) A corner of a court or yard may be cut off between walls of the same building, provided that the length of the wall of such cut-off does not exceed seven feet. (d) An offset to a court or yard may be considered as a part of such court or yard, provided that it is no deeper in any part than it is wide on the open side and that such open side be in no case less than six feet wide. (e) If a building is erected on the same lot with another building the several buildings shall, for the purposes of this article, be considered as a single building. Any structure, whether independent of or attached to a building, shall for the purposes of this article be deemed a building or a part of a building. (f) If an additional story or stories are added to a building existing at the time of the passage of this resolution, the courts and yards of which do not conform to the requirements of this article, the least dimensions of yards and courts shall be increased from the top of the existing yard or court walls, as though they were of the prescribed dimensions at such heights and the carrying up of existing elevator and stair enclosures shall be exempted from the provisions of this article. ARTICLE V—GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE § 19. Interpretation; Purpose. In interpreting and applying the pro- visions of this resolution, they shall be held to be the minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare. It is not intended by this resolution to repeal, abrogate, annul or in any way to impair or interfere with any existing provision of law or ordinance or any rules, regulations or permits previously adopted or issued or which shall be adopted or issued pursuant to law relating to the use of buildings or premises ; nor is it intended by this resolution to interfere with or abrogate or annul any easements, covenants or other agreements between parties; provided, however, that where this resolution imposes a greater restriction upon the use of buildings or premises or upon height of buildings or requires larger yards, courts or other open spaces than are im- posed or required by such existing provision of law or ordinance or by such rules, regulations or permits or by such easements, covenants or agree- ments, the provisions of this resolution shall control. § 20. Rules and Regulations; Modifications of Provisions. The Board of Standards and Appeals, created by chapter 503 of the Laws of 1916, shall adopt from time to time such rules and regulations as they may deem BUILDING ZONE RESOLUTION 243 necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this resolution. Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carry- ing out the strict letter of the provisions of this resolution the Board of Appeals shall have power in a specific case to vary any such provision in harmony with its general purpose and intent, so that the public health, safety and general welfare mav be secured and substantial justice done. Where the street layout actually on the ground varies from the street layout as shown on the use, height or area district map, the designation shown on the mapped street shall be applied by the Board of Appeals to the unmapped streets in such a way as ‘to carry out the intent and purpose of the plan for the particular section in question. Before taking any action authorized in this section the Board of Appeals shall give public notice and hearing. $21. Unlawful Use; Certificate of Occupancy. It shall be unlawful to use or permit the use of any building or premises or part thereof here- after created, erected, changed or converted wholly or partly in its use or structure until a certificate fof occupancy to the effect that the building or premises or the part thereof so created, erected, changed or converted and the proposed use thereof conform to the provisions of this resolution shall have been issued by the superintendent of buildings of the borough in which such building or premises is located, or, in the case of a tenement house as defined in the Tenement House Law, by the tenement house commissioner. In the case of such buildings or premises it shall be the duty of the super- intendent of buildings or the tenement house commissioner, as the case may be, to issue a certificate of occupancy within ten days after a request for the same shall be filed in his office by any owner of a building or premises affected by this resolution, provided said building or premises, or the part thereof so created, erected, changed or converted, and the proposed use thereof, conforms with all the requirements herein set forth. Under rules and regulations of the Board of Standards and Appeals a temporary cer- tificate of occupancy for a part of a building may be issued by the super- intendent of buildings or the tenement house commissioner, as the case may be. Upon written request from the owner, the superintendent of buildings or the tenement house commissioner, as the case may be, shall issue a cer- tificate of occupancy for any building or premises existing at the time of the passage of this resolution certifying after inspection the use of the building or premises and whether such use conforms to the provisions of this resolution. § 22. Enforcement, Legal Procedure, Penalties. This resolution shall be enforced by the tenement house commissioner, the fire commissioner and by the superintendent of buildings in each borough under the rules ond regulations of the Board of Standards and Appeals. The tenement house commissioner shall enforce the provisions herein contained in so far as they affect or relate to tenement houses as defined by the Tenement House Law. The superintendent of buildings shall in each borough enforce the provisions herein contained in so far as they relate to buildings or premises other than tenement houses. The fire commissioner shall enforce the provisions herein contained, in so far as they relate to the use of completed buildings or premises, or part thereof, other than tenement houses. For any and every violation of the previsions of this resolution or of the rules and regulations adopted thereunder. the owner, general agent or contractor of a building or premises where such violation has been “Commniked or shall exist, and the lessee or tenant of an entire building or entire premises where such violation has been committed or shall exist, and the owner, general agent, contractor, 244 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT lessee or tenant of any part of a building or premises in which part such violation has been committed or shall exist, and the general agent, architect, builder, contractor or any other person who commits, takes part or assists in such violation or who maintains any building or premises in which any such violation shali exist, shall be liable to the same legal procedure and the same penalties as are prescribed in any law, statute or ordinance for viola- tions of the Building Code, and for such violations the same legal remedies shall be had and they shall be prosecuted in the same manner as prescribed in any law or ordinance in the case of violations of said Building Code. § 23. Amendments, Alterations and Changes in District Lines. The Board of Estimate and Apportionment may from time to time on its own motion or on petition, after public notice and hearing, amend, supplement or change the regulations and districts herein established. Whenever the owners of 50 per cent or more of the frontage in any district or part thereof shall present a petition duly signed and acknowledged to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment requesting an amendment, supplement, change or repeal of the regulations prescribed for such district or part thereof, it shall be the duty of the Board to vote upon said petition within 90 days after the filing of the same by the petitioners with the secretary of the Board. If, however, a protest against such amendment, supplement or change be presented, duly signed and acknowledged by the owners of 20 per cent or more of any frontage proposed to be altered, or by the owners of 20 per cent of the frontage immediately in the rear thereof, or by the owners of 20 per cent of the frontage directly opposite the frontage pro- posed to be altered, such amendment shall not be passed except by the unanimous vote of the Board. If any area is hereafter transferred to another district by a change in district boundaries by an amendment, as above provided, the provisions of this resolution in regard to buildings or premises existing at the time of the passage of this resolution shall apply to buildings or premises existing at the time of passage of such amendment in such transferred area. § 24. Completion and Restoration of Existing Buildings. (a) Nothing herein contained shall require any change in the plans, construction or desig- nated use of a building for which a building permit has been heretofore issued, or plans for which are on file with the building superintendent or with the tenement house department at the time of the passage of this resolution, and a permit for the erection of which is issued within three months of the passage of this resolution and the construction of which, in either case shall have been diligently prosecuted within a year of the date of such permit, and the ground story framework of which, including the second tier of beams, shall have been completed within such year, and which entire building shall be completed according to such plans as filed within five years from the date of the passage of this resolution. (b) Nothing in this resolution shall prevent the restoration of a build- ing wholly or partly destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God or act of the public enemy or prevent the continuance of the use of such building or part thereof as such use existed at the time of such destruction of such building or part thereof or prevent a change of such existing use under the limitations provided in Section 6. Nothing in this resolution shall prevent the restora- tion of a wall declared unsafe by the superintendent of buildings or a board of survey. § 25. When Effective. This resolution shall take effect immediately. . OR eee 2 seake UAC ee as Oe 7 had aN LN Je USE DISTRICT MAP DESIGNATIONS == = Resaence disirict veeeeeseecces Wihin_street Not within street Unresineted District j i Al Se 813/0055 0131/1! — Winin sireet Und eler mn ed Aree a, SNyIAets DISIter on side of sirect On deol street \ - SS CoRRERCESEROCE Unresiricied Distria For explanation of the designations and of the rules regarding them see Appendix VIII. re = APL mined FE erect = pio hI be an Le aoa a a3 LTT TT | Mate Uf ME Ai a Ny Phy t fo] a anne er se oe He Se Fic. 123—USE DISTRICT MAP OF THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, ADOPTED JULY 25, 1916. CITY OF NEW YORK BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT USE DISTRICT MAP OF THE “i BOROUGH OF THE BRONX 1) ar Aportep Jury 25, 1916 vi, : “M3 p sae =F My = ——— 7 " zs va , USE DISTRICT MAP DESIGNATIONS an ath = aT ae = Residence district COO Unrestricted Disiriet AW ; PRT Business District — \ pee pa. att " ween O5/N058 District On side of street ' On side of street i ama cane XW arene em Mol wiltin 0000 side of street Nol on side of street is ee SS We a ell arene of the designations and of SN AWNANN —1 i t? y RK ._« the rules regarding them see \ \\s Shi x TS Appendix VIII. S) i PIS \\ JOLT it ee = xy «Wy Alta OUI ZANT TT uate Bt CT ia { pf; £y/ peo I “fy 4 F I fa/ f { lA Y| lla aflay (Thal /// 8 Sy Pal 1) 97 ap Fe) SR. Ny | hs: SOON ij. Te LO KOSS ay =— Ge ol ae Ware at a ae : =| Nie © : rig ey mes “A “. Se s os Cc eg IT SEIT 2 ao ie Lone Ws an Lp. \, Wee \\ \¥\ ries: 4) Tye 194 CITY OF NEW YORK BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT t USE DISTRICT MAP : eet i +> Lao, : OF THE pe ‘ ; . Wy BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN See J = ‘ + ADOPTED JULY 25, 1916 —— USE_DISTRICT MAP OF SIGNATIONS ——= = = Aemaence Oiris sesseecsevees owesinnes Gane ‘Not minis street Business ovstnes AN ecrerained Are scsseu oxo Sonar sosaew one SSCS eermerews OR Unrenirieled Quine Wirt For explanation of the designations wet 2 2 . erty ath! 2 ALN, . S 5; = Eas RTE LL be |) and of the rules regarding them : aE: < : ay Spy y,, ys yi iV sy) see Appendix VIII. : Gy Oe gem : _ A = = Al Seri aXe | ti (BUSINESS DISTRICT) RUSINESS O/STRIGT) INDUSTRY CITY OF NEW YORK BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT USE DISTRICT MAP OF THE BOROUGH OF RICHMONI) ADOPTED JULY 25, 1916 ———S_—=. USE DISTRICT MAP DESIGNATIONS Residence Oisirict wee eases Unrestricted District MN street Suwaess distri asiaess Oise On side st ureet was one SSS mem Warentricted District For explanation of the designations and of the rules regarding them see Appendix VIII. I RIDE Ss Ne Sha Fic, 128, \ RE Mf) i . Hy yj Zae® AML f 3 7 Micah aN : & CITY OF NEW YORK BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT HEIGHT DISTRICT MAP OF THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN ADOPTED JULY 25, 1916 Heicuy Destaier UNDARY Lies ———= For explanation of the designations and of the rules regarding them see Appendix VIII. « AN a Ay TE D LAUDS OO) a EST l Fic. 129—HEIGHT DISTRICT MAP OF THE BOROUGH OF THE BRONX. Adopted July 25, 1916, by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. For explanation of the designations and of the rules regarding them see Appendix VIII. CITY OF NEW YORK BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT HEIGHT DISTRICT MAP or THE BOROUGHS OF BROOKLYN AND QUEENS Adopted July 25, 1916 For explanation of the designations and the rules regarding them see Appendix VIII ie tip if strad, ys aM Geo ieh Vy, big SSC) Diy, CH vegan I Sc uf Sas ‘wars ANS SUL Ny AN Me sw it Fic. 131—HEIGHT DISTRICT MAP OF THE BOROUGH OF RICHMOND. Adopted July 25, 1916, by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. For explanation of the designations and of the rules regarding them see Appendix VIII. a | i Fic. 132—AREA DISTRICT MAP OF THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN. Adopted July 25, 1916, by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. For explanation of the designations and of the rules regarding them see Appendix VIII. Fic. 133—AREA DISTRICT MAP OF THE BOROUGH OF THE BRONX. Adopted July 25, 1916, by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. For explanation of the designations and of the rules regarding them see Appéndix VIII. - sth pe cial ahs bah a *. mas Seep Veh cede een (Lip ria) ‘ » ae 4apes a, x CITY OF NEW YORK BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT AREA DISTRICT MAP OF THE BOROUGHS OF BROOKLYN AND QUEENS Adopted July 25, 1916 For explanation of the designations and of the rules regarding them see Appendix VIII. eae tT ait SAMUI We WG, TIS ibs d the mit MN i » bent) Tytitl Ma Ao (AL Nh or ew eae iS Tre 134 RA KIT AN Fig. 135—AREA DISTRICT MAP OF THE BOROUGH OF RICHMOND. Adopted July 25, 1916, by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. For explanation of the designations and of the rules regarding them see Appendix VIII. APPENDIX VIII—MAP DESIGNATIONS AND MAP DESIGNA- TION RULES ACCOMPANYING BUILDING ZONE RESOLU- THON, AIDOIPINSID) WIESE 25, ISH Usr District MAp DeEsiGNaATIONS =" — == Residence Ourstrict = Within street Ps Rg ess District Within street ~ Business District On side of street 2 BS GS Ge oe Ee Business District Not within oron side of street Feeoeeeeeoees 8 Unrestricted District Within street OO Oe Unrestricted District Not within street a0 Geeessecs 3 Co---- © u-— \ AK Undetermined Area On side of street QQ cerermined Area Not on side of street Use District Mar DersiGNATION RULES. (a) The use district designated within a street shall include the areas adjoining the portion of the street so designated on each side of such street, between such street and lines parallel to and 100 feet distant measured at right angles from each side of such street and limited at either end by lines Gprestricred Business Unrestricted Business Use, rule a” at right angles to such street at the termination of such designation ; except that where there is a cross street on either side at such termination, such limiting line shall follow the center line of such cross street. 246 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT (b) The use district designated on the side of a street shall include the area on such side of the street adjoining the portion thereof so designated between such side of such street and lines parallel thereto and 100 feet distant therefrom, measured at right angles thereto, and limited at either end by lines at right angles to such designated side of such street at the termination of such designation ; except that where there is a cross street at such termination the limiting line shall follow the center line of such cross street. STRELT “pj (c) The use district designated on the side of bulkhead lines, shore lines, boundary lines of a state, city, county, borough, United States reserva- tion, public park or cemetery, shall include the area on the side of such lines so designated and adjoining the portion thereof so designated between such lines and lines parallel thereto and 100 feet distant therefrom, measured at right angles thereto, and limited at either end by lines at right angles to such lines so designated at the termination of such designation ; except that where there is a cross street at such termination the limiting line shall follow the center line of such street. Bulkhead ZB (d) The use district designated on the side of a railroad shall include the area on such side of the right of way of such railroad adjoining the portion so designated between such side of such right of way and lines parallel thereto and 100 feet distant therefrom, measured at right angles passes a eos UPTCSITIClED Use rule d thereto, and limited at either end by lines at right angles to such side of such right of way at the termination of such designation ; except that where there is a cross street at such termination the limiting line shall follow the center line of such street. MAP DESIGNATIONS AND MAP DESIGNATION RULES 247 (e) Where a single use district designation is shown within the inter- section of two or more streets the district so designated shall include the areas between the sides of such intersecting streets and lines parallel to and 100 feet distant from the sides of each of any two intersecting streets, measured at right angles thereto. WH eCSITICTER STREET ee@800@ Use, rule & (e) (Continued) When, however, none of the intersecting streets con- tinue across the intersection-beyond one of said intersecting streets, the district designated in the intersection shall include the area adjoining the intersection on the uncrossed side of the latter street bounded by such side of such latter street and a line parallel thereto and 100 feet distant there- from, measured at right angles thereto and by lines at right angles to the crossed side of such latter street at the corners farthest from the intersec- tion of the areas at the street front on the crossed side which are governed by the above rule. Rule (e) shall control regardless of any designation within any of the intersecting streets; except that a designation on the side of a street shall control as provided in rule (b). BUSINESS Use, rule © (£) Where one use district designation is shown in one part of a street intersection and another designation is shown in another part, each designa- Residence | BUSINESS \@ Use, rule F tion in the intersection shall govern as provided in rule (e), but only within those blocks actually touched by such designation in the intersection. 248 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT (g) Where two streets cross each other at different levels and the use district designations within the two streets are different, the designation in the lower street shall govern the use of the adjoining areas according to rule (a), but if such use is less restrictive than that designated within the street at the upper level, the designation in the latter street shall govern exclusively above the curb level of the upper street, as provided in rule (a). Guswess(less PestRicrive|ip ro Core 44VER OF Sewer SrREeI- AIASIOENCE A8orE VENER os (Resiaence Desigrarre) BUSINESS UP To CAS 4484 oF MbAER STREET AESIDENCE AlBove ‘ 9 N ARESIOENCE ABOVE Cuvee LevEd, OF MIEHER STREET Aro ween 100 * THEREOF MIGHENP = STREET near aay Business YP Fo Ceres LEE of NISHER STREET Lower STREET SEY CIDA. a a (Cue Leven) FLELATION, Use, rule Gg (h) A single use district designation completely surrounding an area shall govern the use of such area, except where such area or a part thereof is otherwise specifically indicated. ‘ aot! STREET . Same as surrounding Pesigit?/!07 Jn Hus example residence. ere MAP DESIGNATIONS AND MAP DESIGNATION RULES 249 (i) An island not otherwise designated is an undetermined area. (j) The use of any part of an area bounded by two or more district designations, or any area or part thereof not governed by express provision of these rules, shall be governed by the district designation nearest thereto, except where otherwise specifically indicated. ((nrestricted) | Cx x xX) ( STREET ~~ Ss Si (business) STREET (residence) Use, rule 3 (k) Where under the preceding rules a use district of one class would overlap a use district of another class, the area that would be common to both districts under the above rules shall be included in the district having the less restrictive regulations, but the area so included shall not extend across a street within which a more restrictive district designation is shown. Business DENCE STRE.( -» f RESIDENCE _ S> BUSINESS STREET Use, rule “Kk ” Use, rule “k (1) The residence district designation is used within street lines only. A street shown by double, light, short, dash lines shall not be regarded as containing a residence district designation. Street lines with blank space within them do not constitute a residence district designation when located within an undetermined area. A blank space occupying the whole or a part of a street intersection shall be considered a residence district designation only when it is a continuation of a residence district designation shown 250 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT within a street entering such intersection, and only when no unrestricted district designation therein is a continuation of an unrestricted district desig- nation shown within a street entering such intersection. Hetcut District Map DESIGNATIONS HEIGHT District BOUNDARY LINES ee 977577 Mittin @ streer Boundary lire Rilaae On the side Of a sree! oundary Hie —__StneeT 3 Agproximately 100 feet from the SS * side of 2 siree/ Goundary ine Llc J ag@ueagaag = & Withoul reference fo Streers Boundary tine Hereut Districr Map DrstGNaTION RULES (a) An area surrounded by a district boundary line shall be in the height district designated therein, except as otherwise provided by these rules. (b) Where a district boundary line between any two height districts is shown within a street or streets, the district permitting the greater height shall extend across such street or streets so as to include the area between the further side of such street or streets and lines parallel thereto and 100 fe CS QUSITICT (permitting the greater Aerght )) ] 15 HIMES Sourndary L10e S1MNCS QUST ICT Height, rule b feet distant therefrom, measured at right angles thereto. But such extended area of such district shall be limited where such boundary line passes from MAP DESIGNATIONS AND MAP DESIGNATION RULES 251 within a street to outside a street by the center line of the cross street when such change takes place in a cross street, otherwise by a line at right angles to the side of such street with boundary line therein at point of change. (c) Where a district boundary line between any two height districts is shown approximately 100 feet from the side of a street or streets and parallel thereto, such boundary line separating the two districts shall be deemed to be 100 feet distant measured at right angles from such side of such street or streets and parallel thereto. district C4, district vy & times district extends 70 10079 from sve fires Os s1reers 5) Height, rule c (d) Where a district boundary line between any two height districts is shown along a railroad such boundary line shall be deemed to be the center line of the right of way of such railroad. (e) Any island not otherwise designated within the limits of the City of New York shall be deemed to be in a 1¥4 times height district. (£) Where under the preceding rules a height district of one class would overlap a height district of another class, the area that would be common to both districts under the above rules shall be included in the district per- mitting the greater height. S & wR 5 Je times astrict 2 STREET 2 times QSlt1cl deight, rule ft nN on bo BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT AREA District Map DesiGNATIONS AREA DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINES STRELT Hilbip 2 SiC Ufoundary de STREET Op the side of 3 stree/ Wounaary tre STREET 3 Aeeroximately 100 feet from the SE % Side of a steer Zourdary sine a eon ee ee Without reference fo sireers Boundary ine Area District Mar DesigNatTion RULES (a) An area surrounded by a district boundary line shall be in the area district designated therein, except as otherwise provided by these rules. (b) Where a district boundary line between any two area districts is shown within a street or streets, the district having the less restrictive regula- tions shall extend across such street or streets so as to include the area between the further side of such street or streets and lines parallel thereto and 100 feet distant therefrom measured at right angles thereto. But such extended area of such district shall be limited where such boundary line passes from within a street to outside a street by the center line of the cross street when such change takes place in a cross street, otherwise by a line at right angles to the side of such street with boundary line therein at point of change. (ess restricfed. /) D Ust1c/ BSI ICS Area,rule b Area, rule c (c) Where a district boundary line between any two area districts is shown on the side of a street, such side of such street shall be deemed the boundary line separating the two districts. MAP DESIGNATIONS AND MAP DESIGNATION RULES (d) Where a district boundary line between any two area districts is shown approximately 100 feet from the side of a street or streets and parallel thereto, such boundary line separating the two districts shall be deemed to be 100 feet distant measured at right angles from such side of such street or streets and parallel thereto. STREE K ay, ie & bk Cy kK 5 mo on 19) E eres district extends fo so0feef trom the side line of the street or stree/s. Area, rule d- (e) Where a district boundary line between any two area districts is shown along the side of a railroad, such side of the right of way of such railroad shall be deemed to be the boundary line separating the two districts. STREET C astrich STPEET Area, rule € (£) Where a district boundary line between any two area districts is shown and dimensions given locating it from recognized lines or points, the area designations on either side shall govern up to the district boundary as thus located. LZ GUSITICT OTPLLE 7 OTPLE | C OUVSITICT Area, rule € 254 BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT (g) Any island and any area on which buildings may be constructed in navigable waters outside shore or bulkhead lines within the limits of the City of New York which is not otherwise designated shall be deemed to be an A district. Any other undesignated area shall be deemed to be in the district nearest thereto. (h) Where under the preceding rules an area district of one class would overlap an area district of another class, the area that would be common to both districts under the above rules shall be included in the district having the less restrictive regulations. D astrict B QStICh STREET C district Area, rule “h APPENDIX IX.—DISTRICTING RESOLUTION ANNOTATIONS These notes and accompanying diagrams were prepared to explain or illustrate more fully the rules laid down in the resolution. They are not a part of the resolution. They indicate in certain cases the need of supple- mentary rules, which under the resolution may be adopted by the Board of Standards and Appeals. Sec. 1, Par. (b). The street line, as here defined, is virtually the same as “ building line” as used in the Building Code, except that here the street line is without exception the line dividing the public street or open space from private property. Even where there is a setback by law or by covenant in the deed, the street line remains as above defined. Sec. 1, Par. (c). Throughout the resolution where the word “ mean ” is used, it is intended that it should be taken in the sense of the arithmetical mean or weighted average and not in the sense of half the sum of the ex- tremes. The exact definition of “ mean” and the method of its determina- tion may appropriately be covered by a ruling of the Board of Standards and Appeals.. In determining the width of the street for the purpose of regulating the height of a building, advantage may be taken of public parks and other open spaces, but this advantage is strictly limited by Section 9, ' paragraph (a), which applies to streets of more than 100 feet in width the same height regulations that are applied to streets 100 feet in width. Sec. 1, Par. (d). This defihition of curb level is very nearly the same as the one in the Building Code and the one in the Tenement House Law. It will be observed, however, that in the last clause of Section 1, paragraph (4), the definition of curb in the Tenement House Law will govern wher- ever the building comes under the Tenement House Law. If a corner building faces on a 60-foot street and two 100-foot streets, the height of the building may be determined from the higher of the two 100-foot streets. A street or public open space wider than 100 feet will be considered to be 100 feet in width. Ifa building not on a corner runs through a block from one street to another each street wall will take its height from the street on which it faces, but the yards and courts will all be reckoned from the curb level of the highest street whether on a corner or not. Sec. 1, Par. (e). A street wall, as here defined, is not necessarily a wall on the street line. Here the street line is the dividing line between the public legal street and the private property regardless of whether there 1s a set-back easement or not. If a street wall or a portion of a street wall is set at an angle with the street line, it should be considered as set back at its average distance from the street line. Of course, this will not pre- vent the projection of ordinary dormers and bay windows beyond the street line as allowed in the Building Code, nor will it prevent the projection of wall signs, etc., provided that they keep within the height regulations. The street wall is also intended to include the front walls of set backs as they may occur above the height limit at the street line and will also include the front walls of dormers, towers and headhouses. The street wall will also include any other wall which is near enough to any street to be affected by the height limits upon such street. Sec. 1, Par. (f). The height of a building is virtually the same as defined in the Building Code. A roof sign or other structure on the build- ing would have to come within the height limit. Parapets, dormers, head- 256 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS houses, roof signs, etc., may be excepted from the above as set forth in the exceptions to the height provisions in Section 9. “HEIGHT OF A BUILDING Non-tenement Tenement Non- tenement SssssSssssss“Sssssssssg V Y . ] ASSSSSSSSS Sec. 1, Par. (g). The depth of a lot would be measured, where pos- sible, parallel with the sides of the lot, but if they were not parallel it would be measured in the direction of the bisectrix of the angle between them. Where there would be more than one bisectrix the resultant bisectrix would be used. Sec. 1, Par. (h). This differs from the definition in the Tenement House Law. There the rear yard is between the extreme rear line of the building and the rear of the lot. Here it would be between any rear line of the building and the corresponding rear line of the lot behind it. How- ever, it has been the custom of the Tenement House Commissioner to interpret that law in the manner here suggested. Street Inner‘court Street BiG. 1372 Sec. 1, Par. (i). This definition of the depth of a rear yard applies only to determining the depth of a rear yard as a percentage of the depth of the lot. It does not relate to the “least dimension” of a yard required at any given height. DISTRICTING RESOLUTION ANNOTATIONS Dy Sec. 1, Par. (k). The definitions of courts are approximately the same as those of the Tenement House Law. In the case of a building that is not required to have a rear yard, a rear open space equal in size to an inner court is required where 'an outer court or a side yard opens on it. Sec. 1, Par. (1). The height of yards and courts will as a general rule be measured as they are in the Light and Ventilation Article of the Build- ing Code, that is, from the lowest level of the yard or court. In a business district the lowest level might be the top of the ground story or it might be 23 feet above the curb. To allow for stairway and elevator pent houses, the highest level of a court or yard wall can be the mean of all of the highest levels of such wall. As an exception to the above rule for all build- ings that are subject to the provisions of the Tenement House Law, the height of yards and courts will be measured from the curb level even though the yard or court actually starts at or above the second floor level. Sec. 1, Par. (m). If a court or yard is of irregular shape, say, for example, a trapezoid, the mean clear horizontal dimensions in each direc- tion will be calculated and the least of these would be the one taken for the "HEIGHT OF AYARD OR A COURT. Nop -LCPEIMLUS Mean helgly Mean height Mean heght Of well OF wel! leigh} Of COUT ‘Or yall Lotto of Courtoryerd Lortor or COU OLYHA — Cyrh Jeve/ Height of court or yard > He Gf OF COUN U1 yaa Curb feve/ Bottom oF Court or yard Curb seve. The height of yards and courts provided for JER CTICMIS unider fhe Tenemert House law tall Lesjegsured 2s gpeciiied in that [eK Fic. 138. purposes of this resolution. The exact method of computing such dimen- sions will presumably be covered by a rule of the Board of Standards and Appeals. Sec. 1, Par. (n). The length of an outer court should always be measured from the closed end. This is done with a view to encouraging the widening of courts near the open ends. Sec. 8, Par. (b). Exactly the same principles apply in all five dis- tricts. The accompanying diagram shows the five curves of limiting heights. In a one and one-half times district the height of all buildings will be made to conform approximately to that now provided for in the Tenement House Law. However, on account of the difference in definition of curb level, buildings other than tenement houses will take their height from the widest street and not from the street of greatest grade. A setback means briefly this: that if an owner wishes to carry a building to a greater height than that allowed on the street line, as, for example, above 90 feet on a 60-foot 258 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS Chert showing Height Linurs at the streer line ror fl Steel widies 1 EM Hel gfel LSI ICT. Payee u/ eet YW eee ie 110 PEEP ie ae iooL | | | | VAY a7 | Ta ee VS af The. ST ee) 11e 50 sees ttftitte nae FEE H+ Witte orf sireer Fic, 139. DISTRICTING RESOLUTION ANNOTATIONS 259 street in a one and one-half times district, he can add on an upper 30 feet provided he sets the’ upper 30 feet back 10 feet from the street line. He can make that setback right from the height limit in the form of a mansard which would slope back in a ratio of one foot horizontally to three feet vertically, or in a setback of three and one-third feet for each of three stories, or in a setback of 10 feet for the whole height of 30 feet; then he can set back again above the top of this set-back provided he keeps in the same set-back plane. In general the set-backs might be determined by a line drawn from the centre of the street up through the horizontal line iti the street wall on the street line at the level of the height limit on the street SETBACK PRINCIPLE. Typical example in a 1% times district, for streets 5070 /00'wide. \ The setback line always lL \ runs up from the cen- 4 Ye ter of the street / through the limit- ing height at the 7 street line. iH / lo ta) / 20! IZ \ / \ / \ 1S \ So] S19 Ss = oa \o SH 3 Oo roy iS) wm NS Oly ee oe a 3S = ae & S$ S Zz Ss 3 Z 5) — o \ / ro) a es ao \ / oO oO / Street 100' wide Fic. 140. line for that district and street. In the street in question this horizontal height limit line would be at a level of 90 feet. These two lines would determine a plane which might be called a setback plane, and no portion 260 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS of the building erected above the height limit would project in front of this set-back plane except as allowed in the case of dormers, towers and parapets. Sec. 9, Par. (a). It is intended that a building should be permitted to go just as high under this resolution on a 30 or 35-foot street as it could HEIGHT LIMITS - I4 TIMES DISTRICTS Same principles apply ip each of the other ast 1crs. Sel backs may £6 af Cach story or several Sorses af once Of Ie the fortran Of 8 (nEnsHa. Typical buidieg 7 on Waertor lor ee & “Ce 5ulldng on inferior eg Jol Wh SEL LBCKE. “s Building on teferior Jot rurting through Irom street lo street Xe “ex & wi Pi = 3 Lypieal Building oe SS on corner lot Fic. 141. on a 50-foot street, and, conversely, a building facing on a street or park or open space more than 100 feet wide, including the bordering street can go no higher than it could if it faced on a 100-foot street. Sec. 9, Par. (b). Any building or any part of a building within 100 feet of a corner regardless of whether its front actually turns the corner or DISTRICTING RESOLUTION ANNOTATIONS 261 not, and regardless of whether the lot runs through to the wider street or not, may take advantage of the height allowed on the widest of the inter- secting streets. A single building on a corner may carry its height on the wider street back for 150 feet along the narrower street. CORNER BUILDINGS One and One-half 117es Lisiric/ 60 Street gd aces eee) Typical example showing Influence of wider street at intersections. Figures in buildings,as 150, show height limit at the street line, in a /%2 Times Height District. Fic. 143. ; Sec. 9, Par. (c). This provision is intended to allow for dormers in a mansard roof above the height limit on the street line. It will permit one large dormer on each mansard or a number of small dormers on each mansard, provided their aggregate frontage does not exceed the provisions 262 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS here stated. It will also permit elevator headhouses on or near the street line and permit a tower or belfry or other such feature to be carried up on the street line, a feature which would hardly be possible under Section 9, paragraph (d), except on a street over 100 feet wide. On a 100-foot frontage this dormer provision will mean that the dormer on the street line at the height limit can be 60 feet wide; by the time it has gone up 10 feet it can be only 50 feet wide; by the time it has gone up 30 feet it can be only 30 feet wide, and by the time it has gone up 60 feet it will be reduced to a point. This rule will créate at least three limiting planes which intersect the setback plane, as shown on the accompanying diagram. D2Y alr ShOWING Miitiitag polaties For ore Central Corer Fic. 144. Sec. 9, Par. (d). Ifa street, park or open space is 150 feet or more in clear width in front of a building, a tower may be built directly across the whole front of the building provided the tower does not cover more than 25 per cent of the area of the lot. On a street 100 feet wide a tower can be built across the whole front of the building provided that it sets back 25 feet from the street line and also that it does not occupy more than 25 per cent of the area of the lot. If the building has 200 feet frontage on a 100-foot street, a tower with a 50-foot frontage may be built on the street line to any height and then splay back on either side in a ratio of DISTRICTING RESOLUTION ANNOTATIONS 263 one foot in increased width parallel with the street line for every four inches back from the street line, but in no case can a tower occupy more 1S Times District Fic. 145. than 25 per cent of the area of the lot. A tower on the corner of a park and a 60-foot street can rise directly on the street wall on the park side, but will have to set back 45 feet from the 60-foot street line. If, however, its frontage on a 60-foot street were only a quarter of such street frontage, the tower might approach within 20 feet of the street line. The increasing sizes of yards and courts would be constantly operative and it would be desirable so to place the tower that the yard and court provisions would not interfere with it. (See Fig. 146.) Sec. 9, Par. (e). Let us suppose it were proposed to erect a building on an inside lot on a 50-foot street in a two and one-half times district and a large building across the street was 525 feet high, an existing building on one side 225 feet high and one on the other side 150 feet high. The height limit on the street would be 125 feet normally. All three of these sur- rounding buildings are well over that limit; one of them by 400 feet; one by 100 feet and one by 25 feet, or a total of 525 feet. Dividing by three would give an excess average height of 175 feet, therefore, according to this provision, the proposed building might rise to a height of 125 plus 175 feet, or 300 feet. If at some future time the 225-foot building on one side were to be torn down and a new building erected on this site, the new building could use the 300 feet of the first new building in computing the excess height to which it might rise. Existing buildings lower than the height limit or vacant lots would be considered in this computation as though they were at the height limit. If within 50 feet on either side and directly across the street there were, for example, five buildings, only two of which were higher than the height limit, the excess height of these two buildings would be divided by five in determining the excess height to which the proposed buildings might go. Buildings directly across either street from corner buildings should be considered, but a building diagonally across the corner could not be considered. The proposed building should not be counted in arriving at the above divisor. (See Figs. 147 and 148.) 264 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS Sec. 9, Par. (f). If a street is 100 feet wide a cornice nay project five feet. If the street were 50 feet wide it might project two and one-half =—TOWERS— Fic. 146. feet. The projection allowed on the wider street can not be carried back on to the narrower street. It is obvious that a parapet on a setback portion could be higher than on the street wall. A cornice could project its full five per cent in front of the parapet wall even above the height limit, but not above the height limit for the parapet. If on a 100-foot street a build- ing or the upper stories of the building set back 20 feet from the street line, a cornice might project six feet in front of such set-back wall at the height limit, if it were not for the provision that no cornice shall project more than five feet beyond the street wall. If it should be desired to have DISTRICTING RESOLUTION ANNOTATIONS 265 a projection of 10 feet to a cornice on a 100-foot street the whole wall should set back five feet from the street or set-back plane. Sec. 11. This agrees with the Light and Ventilation chapter of the Building Code, which provides that a court for the lighting and ventilation Existing Building 525° High © é Excess=400'. 90 160" No | | Bidg | Bldg 35° Street in 2% Times District influence No excess| Excess «40° Normal Height Limit: 125 60' Street in a 2 times district=120' limit. 50° Existing Bid’g : Proposed ann 60° 180° o) 150° High. : Proposed Id; 40° Building 9 300’ | Street Building Bldg pa Excess= 25. Bldg Excess = 60’ 0! {80° 80° Ee 100’ Bldg 180° ; 50 No excess 6) 360 Proposed Building may go to 300. Excess. 00s 200 Bldg Extra Height= 60 » 100° Excess:80° 3)525° ; : Extra Height= 175° Proposed Building may go to 180. Fic. 147. Fic. 148. of any room shall have a width at any point of not less than one inch for every foot of height. Of course any tenement house in an A district would CORNICES AND PARAPETS ina 2times district. | = Height limit H : on street line a) ~=x- S Height limit S Height limit 1 on street line 1 i) i) i) . 1 se? ! 1 1 f 1 ! \ 1 1 i H \ =) | ‘5 o \ Ss 1 < 1 ! a — | 1 3 3 | v1 y o 21 ==) 2 el 2 el = ae = sat = ey a Gel = = sl a SI o ‘ ‘Si B Ll oO 1 ram) o. 1 al o eel ay 1 oO! = ! oO! = =a o +1 Oo i +} (O) H _ ! cj a 1 et oy Up) y Oo; 1 o! , I SI I oO 1 | 1 | 1 I i ! ' \ 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 H H 1 peo EY smal i i if | =the SSS ee sa ES — ! \ ! ' i Fic. 149. have to conform to the Tenement House Law as to required yards and courts. Sec. 12. Where a building is back to back with another building a required rear yard at 150 feet in height will be 25 feet in least dimension ; at 90 feet in height it will be 15 feet in least dimension, all heights being 2066 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS taken from the curb level where they relate to buildings in a residence dis- trict. If the building is not in a residence district, 3 feet 10 inches may be One Durding, Fic. 150. subtracted from each of these least dimensions as the yard may start 23 feet above the curb. An outer court at 150 feet in height at the top will be 12% feet in least dimension, but if its length is more than eight times its width, it will have to be widened out somewhat at the open end. At 90 feet in height, such outer court will have to be 7% feet in width. If in a building 150 feet high, where an outer court would normally have to be 12% feet wide, the court, instead of being eight times, is not over four times as long as it would have to be wide—that is, not over 50 feet long—then it could be 6 inches narrower for every 24 feet of height or 3 feet narrower for a building between 144 and 168 feet high. This would bring down such width to what 1s required under the Tenement House Law. By the same rule the side yard required under the Tenement House Law may be reduced from 12% feet to the 10 feet required in that law provided such yard is not more than 50 feet in depth from the street. (See Figure 151.) © Inner courts, whether on the lot line or not, will be about half way be- tween the required yard and the outer court in dimensions. For example, in a building 150 feet high, an inner court at the top could be 25 feet square or a little less than 18 by 36 feet; at 90 feet in height at the top it would have to be 15 feet square or contain 225 square feet, provided that it were not more than twice as long as it were wide for that area. In the case of a building which was not back to back with another building, an outer court could use the minimum provisions here stated for outer courts only in case the rear yard on which it opened was of the dimensions here given for an inner court; that is to say, at 150 feet in height, 25 square feet or 18 by 36 feet, or with dimensions somewhere between, giving an area of 625 feet (see Figure 152). However, a special exception is made to the above espe- cially for corner buildings on narrow lots according to which the size of such an inner court may be reduced if connected with the street by a side yard. DISPRICLTING RESOLUTION ANNOTATIONS 267 Sec. 13, Par. (a). Ina building five stories, or approximately 56 feet in height, a rear yard under these provisions will have to be 14 feet wide AREA B DISTRICTS INTERIOR LOTS KJRS a> CS SS fear yard for “> Kear yaa ror buisaia ROSA ues 4 z piece Wait oer PULLAT RULE ATTEN . SIT ICT Yards eh course may Le WeCreased in 3636 nearer the bottom key keep wiltina Me pr OvVislong LS: & any given (evel. Ourer COUrT. s So) I> Court width for height of 20ft=l0ft — *ag® Sass See §\2 ror deduction Fie. 151 at the top or 2 feet wider than required under the Tenement House Law. An outer court will have to be 7 feet or 1 foot wider than required under the Tenement House Law. An inner court will have to be 14 feet square or a little less than 10 by 20 feet, while under the Tenement House Law an inner court on the lot line would have to be 12 by 24 feet. How- ever, the 70 per cent area clause in the Tenement House Law is very apt to require increases from the minimum widths and depths of courts and yards 268 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS greater than the difference between this resolution and the Tenement House Law. An outer court 7 feet wide can be 56 feet long before it will have to be widened out at its extreme end. A special exception for outer and inner court provisions was made in lots 30 feet or less in width on account of the extra difficulties of planning Building 120 high ing Bd istrict 20'x20'= 400 3g. Tt. ‘| /4'2°x 28'4°= 400 Sg.TT. Inner court of wised equivalent area. H Fic. 152. practicable buildings for such lots. On a lot 30 feet or less in width an outer court in a building five stories or 56 feet need not be more than 4 feet 8 inches wide under this resolution, although under the Tenement House Law it would have to be at least 5 feet wide. For a width of 5 feet it could be 40 feet long, but if it were desired to make the outer court 60 feet long, the 20 feet of length nearest the open end would have to gradu- ally widen out to 7% feet. The side yard of such building need not be over 4 feet 8 inches wide through from street to prescribed rear yard. An inner court in such a building under this resolution might be about 61% by 13 feet, although under the Tenement House Law it would have to be at least 8 by 14 feet, if on the lot line. These narrow lots are virtually put in the B districts except for rear yards. (See Figure 153.) Sec. 13, Par. (b). The recreational problem is so important in resi- dential districts that a concession in the yard and court provisions is made in order to obtain additional space for playground use. An individual developer or a group of property owners may, by giving up 10 per cent additional of their space, be relieved from the yard and court requirements of the district in which they are located and follow the yard and court requirements of the next less restricted district instead. The 10 per cent given up for recreational use might be provided in the center of the block in addition to the required yard space or it might be in any lot or lots run- ning through to any bounding street, or it might be on an adjoining lot. Of course, this 10 per cent would have to be in addition to any yard and court provisions required in this resolution and also in addition to the requirements of the Tenement House Law if they were greater than those in this resolution. Sec. 14, Pars. (a) and (b). Ona residence street, a tenement or apart- ment house on an interior lot in a D district covering 60 per cent of its lot and four stories or 44 feet in height on a lot 100 feet deep would have a rear yard 20 feet deep: an outer court would have to be at least 7 feet 4 inches wide and not over 44 feet long for such width. If the outer court were longer the open end would have to be wider; an inner DISTRICTING RESOLUTION ANNOTATIONS 269 court of such a building could be 14 feet 8 inches square or about 10% by 21 feet. Where a required depth of a rear yard at the curb level would AREA C DISTRICTS INTERIOR LOTS Least horzolia! dinensions of yeas ail COWS where reguired #€ Shown below On lors 30 feel or less tn width le COUT PL OVIEIOS Tor B MsrricTs (ray be Tolowed: Bires 153" be over 10 feet and the building sets back from the street line across the whole front of the lot at the curb level, the rear yard may be decreased in depth by one foot for every foot of setback in front but the rear yard must not be reduced to less than 10 feet. In the case of a building on a plot 30 feet or less in width, the sizes of outer courts and side yards and inner courts would be the same as required for buildings on plots over 30 feet wide in the C districts. In the case of a one or two family house, three stories or approximately 34 feet 270 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS in height, the rear yard would be 20 feet deep if on a residence street; an outer court would be 4 feet 3 inches wide and a little less than 34 feet long without being wider at its open end. An inner court would be 8 feet 6 inches square or about 6 by 12 feet. Sec. 14, Par. (c). No building within a residence district and within a D district can occupy more than 60 per cent of any interior lot. In a AREA D DISTRICTS INTERIOR LOTS Least horlzolte UneNs1008 OF Yaas ahd Cours where reguired ae SOW? LElOW On lols 30 feet or /ess te Width Ihe COUT pl ISOS Yor C astricrs fray Le Followed eave = QS ese O SSNESH : 5 Yords| YARD No: REQUIRED <6 Sixth Avenue Corner NW4 —GG7 Y) AA yarns AMG Fe REQUIRED | 4 | comn Z A3"! Street Street Avenue YARDS NoT REQUIRED Street Street KR MB. GG Street CUUUUU //0' less thon Avenue Avenue WUE ae Street Fic. 156. lesst A 45° feet, giving a house 30 by 50 feet in size. The percentages specified in this section include all garages and other out buildings as well as porches, sheds, bay windows, balconies, etc. The occupancy of 40 per cent of the rear BISTRICTING RESOLUTION ANNOTATIONS 273 yard is intended to allow flexibility in placing accessory buildings without increasing these percentages. Sec. 16, Par. (a). Im this rule it is assumed that within 55 feet of a street a building can usually be lighted directly from the street. If a block is 110 feet.deep through irom street to street it is hardly appropriate to de- mand rear yards but when blocks become deeper than that rear yards become _ more and more necessary (see Figure 156). On a lot 60 feet deep a rear yard would be 5 feet deep; on a lot 65 feet deep in a B or C district a rear yard would be 6 ieet 6 inches deep; on a lot 80 feet deep under similar conditions a rear yard would be 8 ieet deep and so on. lia block were 200 feet through from street to street and two lots were back to back with one another, one of them 50 feet deep and the other 150 feet deep, no rear yards wouid be required for either building except that the building on the lot 150 feet deep would have to conform to Paragraph (d) of this same section. No rear yard is required on a comer lot. Sec. 16, Par. (b). The statement that the rear yard need not exceed 10 feet at the base means that the depth of 10 feet at the base required on a lot 100 feet in depth need not be exceeded in lots of greater depth. In any building which occurs_in a residence district, evén though it be a club or a school, a required rear yard would have to rim down to the ground except that garages and other out buildings may occupy 40 per cent oi the required rear yard space but they must not be over one story high. How- ever, an exception would be allowed for the apse or choir of a church which would allow it to occupy 40 per cent of the rear yard up to a height of 30 feet above the curb level. Sec. 16, Par. (d). Under the Tenement House Law a building over 70 ieet deep which runs through the block or from street to street not on a comer has to be built around a rear yard and thus the building is divided into two entirely separate units. In many non-residential buildings this is impracticable and thereiore it is provided that if a building runs through the block from street to street it must contribute to the light and air of the common rear yard spaces in the center of the block by giving up on each side an unoccupied space above the ground story equal at least to an inner court in area but differing from an inner court in that the least dimension need be no greater than that required for an outer court (see Figure 157). Ti, however, this court is necessary ior light and air under Sec. 17, para- graph (a) it should be at least of the dimensions required for inner courts. Sec. 16, Par. (e). In various instances, particularly in Manhattan, existing loft, warehouse and even office buildings, have been erected, some- times to 12 stories or more in height, with rear yards considerably less in depth than would be required under this resolution. In fairness to a person who would erect a new building back to back with such buildings this section will permit him to make his rear yard about the same as the average oi his back to back neighbor’s yards. In determining such an average of back to back yards, a rear yard as large or greater than that required under this resolution, would be reckoned as though it were of the size here required. Above the top of an existing building its rear yard would be reckoned as though it were of the required size. A rule to compute the average width of existing yards could appropriately be adopted by the Board of Stand- ards and Appeals. In a building 150 feet high in a B district the minimum size of such a rear vard must be in any case at least 12 feet 6 inches in least dimension at the top, which is the minimum width of an outer court at such level (see Figure 158). 274 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS LOTS RUNNING THROUGH FROM STREET TO STREET. Street All buildings 150 high B District. i = 2 > a ze) o o & ro) © oO Street Buildings marked A’are interior buildings, each back to back with another building, and therefore require rear yards 25 wide. The inner courts in the building running through from street 7o street are each the area of an inner court (25% 25= 625 sgTr) and the width of an outer court (150 inches or /2'6) Same courts are required for a-similar building running through from one street to within 55 feet of another street. Fic. 157. Sec. 17, Par. (a). A room which receives its necessary light and venti- lation from the street and also from a court or yard would have to have one of its windows open on a court or yard of the size prescribed in this resolution. Any room which was lighted or ventilated entirely from yards and courts would have to open on at least one yard or court of the pre- scribed size. Sec. 17, Par. (b). An outer court opening on a street might include part of the street within its required dimensions (see Figure 173). Sec. 17, Par. (c). In general the area of inner courts should be equal to the square of the least dimension of a required rear yard at the same distance above its lowest level. It would be the square of the least dimen- sion in inches per foot of height above the bottom of the court and not INFLUENCE OF EXISTING YARDS. 100 Street B and /4% Times District 40 x 10 = 400 SQ.FT. 40 x 20 = 800 SQ.FT. 20x 15 = 300 SQFT. 100 )1500 15 FEET: =Final depth of rear yard, although other- wise, for a 150 hui/d- ing, it would he 25 deep. 60’ Street Fig. 158. Alea B Dsiricl Least horlZ0/e7al QNnenslOS OL Yards al COUTE s Helgi in feel Helght in reel | iia Tj i | 1 1 E i f 170 t 1 ! }_ 0 5 10 15 20 2530354045 5055 Hiith meer Bi ath in feet Fie. 159, Ar ea C Listtict Area C Listtict Lors Over 30 feel wide least horiZolla OMeCPslOns y Le aot OEE. Of yards afi Courrs of yards and COUITS. SS un S . tat = Spree aly x ye oo ym a, Ha avi yA Ae Hi haa Ml a 0 5 10 15 20 25303540 0 15 20 253035 Hid ip reek Midth ir feet Fic. 160. Fic. 161. Area D istrict Area D Lisitict Lots over 30 feet wide. Lors not over 3OTT Wide. Least horizoftal QUMENSVONS Least horizontal UUMERHONS Of Yards ated COUrTS. L Sa08 ANT COTE. Height in feet Heigl 1reer we My 0 5 10 15 20 25 303540 45 5055 © 5 10 15 20 25303540 45 50 Hath infeet VLU Fic. 162. Fic. 163. Aree E LUSITICS » Area E Lisiich Lore over 50 feet wide lors notover 50/7 wae. Least horlZ0nal QUNCPONE Least horiZ0i1al QUINENS1ONE OF Yards aed COUrTS, YALE BT COULTE. 150 150 f | 140 Hd 140 i| { é “|: 130 a : 130 ooo ri 120 f izo,-| 1 Ts fi : é, 110 AE 110 ei f 100 1 Ty 100 ae 30 ©; E 90} te : Ss Tas & 80 3 - | g 80 4 & | 70 1 N 70 r & SS S| 60 LH | S | 60 ‘ g 8 50 50 i L t ot 40 G 40 / 30 Ll | “30 A 20 Mager eae horlzayie/ Taneinb OR Ter B/\ COUN aia 10 US FEOUITAd, OL VACOWS. | 0 Lt) 0 5 10 15 202530354045 505560 65 0 5 10 15 20 25 30.35 40 45 50 55.60 65 With in reer Hit i reer Fic. 164. Fic. 165. Area LB LSI Areal Lsiric/ ACE D LISI Reed Area FE DIstrict Loks rot fore hah WO7ee/ Wide Area D Lysiricl Least horizontal MINENS/ORE Least horlZ0le7eal QUNESHONS Least horlzonial QU7CL7S1O/ag OF OU/Ef COUTTS. OF OUlEF COUTTS: of OUIEL COUTTS. - ia] Sarna 150 150 x 150 | = 140 {40 140 | J i 130 oh 130 Bo al 130 | zo} t St 120} Sf 120 110 Wo} 110 100 100 j 100 90 ~ | oS | 90 90 w& S | 80 ‘S| 80 | > | 80 X& EN | G | & 70 |_| SS 70} | | S 70 < S < S 60 6 SI gp H LL S| 60 | Ss | v eT 50 50 Y 50|4 {Le 40 | 40 : 40 a0 30 Go 30 } | 20 20 | 20-4 l04—— 10 10 = 0 ol oL LT 0 5 1015 2025 0 5 1015 202530 0 5 10 15 20 253035. Width pret Hid meer Path infeet Fic. 166. rel G7 Fic. 168. Area B List ich Areal Listtich Area 2 Listtict Area D Listticl (Won-residence district Residence Listricl LE28/ (OT1Z011 2 QURERHONS Least horizontal HiNENSIONS Of yaras of yards. k iS AM Bj a | | | Death of lol a SESSEEEEETET AEE eee cee ce Deoth of lor in eer 0 5 10 15 2025 0 5 10 15 202530 4idth fees Wit mre Fic. 169. Fic. 170. Area E Sitch Area £ Listricr Non-restaence Leitich Residence LUSHIC). Least por/Zoleal MURENHONE least horizoral MMERHONE Of yards. Of yar OS. an 3 o [oj] Ses & & Bn s S | 8 S : SS s | 7 z= Ss Sn : S | 50, | Poa 4 + 40 30|_|_| 20 ——— JIE) 0 0 5 10 15 2025 0 5 10 15 20 253035 Hide in reef Hidth mfeet Fic. 171. Fic. 172. DISTRICTING RESOLUTION ANNOTATIONS 279 the square of the minimum depth of the rear yard as specified in terms of its ratio to the depth of the lot. This would mean that in B districts with a building 150 feet high, the depth of a rear yard would be 25 feet and the area of an inner court would be 25 by 25 feet, or 625 square feet, but such Street | create etre | Cour? A, opening on stree?, would often be too narrow POI anes unless Ye] stfeet area, gE shown by, dotted’ /ines, Is included. Building Fic. 173. an inner court would not have to be square. It might be any shape pro- vided that it were not more than twice as long as it were wide for such 625 square feet. After the first 625 square feet were satisfied, however, any additions might be made to the court as seemed desirable provided such additions conformed to the rules for outer courts or side yards or offsets as the case might be. A possible equivalent of a court 25 feet square would be one a little over 18 by 36 feet. In a corner apartment house 150 feet high, a rear inner court connecting with the street by a 10-foot side yard 50 feet long, would have to be 625 square feet but as the side yard is here 15 feet less than 65 feet long, 15 square feet for every 15 feet of height might be deducted therefrom. This, for a 150-foot building, would equal 15 by 10 feet or 150 square feet, which deducted from 625 would leave 475 square feet as the required area of the inner court, on the lot line. That would bring it down to 15% by 31 as compared with 16 by 32 as required at the same height for inner courts on the lot line under the Tenement House Law. Sec. 18, Par. (a). The provisions for skylights and projections beyond the walls of yards and courts follow the Building Code. A special excep- tion within 5 feet back from a street wall is made so as to allow cornices or eaves to return their full width for architectural fitness. Sec. 18, Par. (b). The provisions with regard to fire-escapes, fire- proof ouside stairways and solid-floored balconies to fire towers follow in general the rulings of the Tenement House Department. As it is not desir- able that fire-escapes, etc., should project 4 feet into an outer court no allowance for the same is made. Ina rear yard, however, the requirements of other laws as to lattice enclosed fire-escapes demand a projection of at least 7 feet 8 inches. Therefore, 8 feet were allowed. Sec. 18, Par. (c). A court corner might be cut off at an angle of 45 degrees, for example, and the length of the cut off might be as long as 7 feet, in conformity with the practice under the Tenement House Law. This would not affect the size of yards and courts but would affect the percentage of the lot that might be occupied. Sec. 18, Par. (d). The requirement for offsets in yards or courts is intended to be virtually the same as it is in the Tenement House Law. Off- sets could be shallower than they are wide but not deeper. It is not in- tended, however, that this clause shall be used to increase the length of outer courts. 280 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS Sec. 18, Par. (e). Where additions are made to an existing plan, even though they may be on separate lots adjacent on either side or to the rear, it is highly desirable that the whole plot should be considered as a unit in reckoning the distribution and sizes of yard and court spaces. Sec. 18, Par. ({). If in a B district an existing building 150 feet high had a rear yard only 15 feet wide instead of 25 feet as herein required, the first additional 12-foot story would not have to set back 27 feet from the rear line, but only 17 feet and in the case of a stair or elevator, the rear wall could go up straight on the existing rear wall. INDEX “A” AREA DISTRICT PAGE (Chemise ssbuboouopcosooeudocad coo nodoocUoDdooUbNoddeDUoaDUroUsdpU cd 39 (CORE ACBISTMEMES scogacoccucdooosacdocucdnondsccgcoUKodoDEDDeObaODeDE 39, 238 Coimrts meaginal .oscoonscaconobsoonscoooaddsodoosodouse Codd oUndauEUaD 240 IRGare wards moe meapiiedl. cococccccocooccugduccocoocououscooDSODoDSODDONC 38, 240 Accessory USEs OW? m@RGleMeeGy sa nbeae bol apeod 6 boouon Gomda ce moIno ape a rin hn Seema 15, 233, 234 ACCIDENTS, ELEVATOR IDevieint, lehaemel ooscoosoccvggan0vcacc0sa0c00Ke Si Seer Deere OS aE Ra 101-102 Maxedmoccupancyarcm cle lit ote benill dita osperrietete el -tel-festor-iitclerterellieeaiedens rel 101-102 ACCIDENTS, STREET CaAxo INDIES 28 bceosore concn ceccdn CU eine neC antennae Srismierrtaae 98-99 Duane, Jackin! je csotcos cme onidclono amcor ap peat eens. henna ores 12, 101-102 Goodktich, Ienestayyatecaagobaosees Baun bond nema r obec oaaho mo soe dros ote 12 Increase due to mixed OCCUPANCY. eevee sete eee e eee 98-99, 101— 102 IM@rEESS WHT TATE .coosconoanebossaaaoooacns SSC OC OSE CH RS EIS OOD 21- ze Niapelocabionmotertatalmstnectmaccid entsmmmeeeiatsiceiticiiareicercteiee tere follow p. 2 PolicesD epantmentestatisticsener reer eeeiee teeta crieiireci errr 98-99 WAT joe mecloeecl lox Ghiswricisiner, 510066000 ebbooS Deo SS oo0ba05GecDbCCDCOCDOD Wil, WA, al ACKERMAN, FREDERICK L. SOMEMOMIE? ON! GUGURICHING GoopanccoopoageanodmuscemedoodsssenauenougaseouD 58-59 ADAMS, THOMAS Disknicsme tia, Camack, ooosecocosactoeopoocdnnngmencdbeusooopuooonadaaDD 79 DiStCMS WACHM BEFEAS scoccvoovscoanoccpdoodaHnaancoroNdooguaDooBOuUDE 77 Lasiglaiion tm Camacek,,.ccccppogdcc00900bG000096 Eee NNR EL ORLA Sfae GAS TTS ah 79-80 New Worlk’s Gxarmpll® coococscocccc000000 Pee SHUR tet 5 ot Re: Cea een 77 Towm IPlarrmime tia CevmaGlsccocovcocoagcdcagbooaccsoob0cc abso UD coCDDEDG 77-79 AESTHETICS Baral, vAilyart S,, Mitwonieipall Avie S@CHa7so0c00ccad0q00a005090000000000000 81-82 Air. See Waaitleion AMENDMENT OF DistRIcTING PLAN Atuthornizedebyachanten erry eee crecre tier ROS eee unica cee 46 Bye boandioneestimaterandeApportionimnentaa pe eeecr cee eere aca 42, 43, 244 APARTMENT. See Tenement APPEALS, BOARD OF IDiGereiiom tingler ZONE TEs .coccou0cco0ccacdscccucuccogccud 15, 16, 235, 236, 242, 243 AREA DISTRICTS Comirtis einel SereGIS 265 Gap aere ates o's 6 cate Sha eee eee cee ee re eee 38, 39, 241 FESTUTITILO Tea C Cla ee MM eet sts aicic oes oe SERCH ROTO es Teh aco irene tne cctaks a cee etanst anaes 38, 238 INGEN? ‘SHENRGIG 16:6 gir eee RRO EO oOo: DIG ROTEL FET OOO eee ete can ey ee ee 38, 240 ZW IDIGUTREE! So wioickecs 6-OiS arc ERREENTO b.0ln DCI OD C1 OE ae eer oe eT tere 39, 238 265 13} IDIGIHIEEN S393 co's Sido og OID OL C.-b 0 On ISIE e Renee ree ee 39, 40, 238, 265, 266 CuDIGEBIEE Go.0 0050 do 0.0 SEMA EUG iu.0-5 UL8lG OHO EEO Oe eon RIE GR Sige Ins 40, 239, 267 1D) IDNSiHEE ococooocoo ao scaepss0000D 000 DDD NSOOGODODDOSEOAEHD 40, 41, 239, 240, 270, 271 AEPIB) TS feted Cees terre PP RCo Ten eae c chet ote ere oct ete bs vats alate) Stacalaiallan loess Davgreimvece 41, 240, 271-273 Mapmshowinewpercentares ons lonmcovercdher ne ermerrricnecer tenancies follow p. 50 Maj) OF, Iomomein Or IWleyolentiEN,.ocoso0ccaccanecHobodanco Fig. 132 follow p. 244 Wel dobh ose cop apo AHOUoD OOo ASHORE EDR RemeE noo ce Fig. 133 follow p. 244 Broolkikvn gingl OWES sooascocsocdocugcodbscooucuecede Fig. 134 follow p. 244 IGS ova VOh Kel CAa Ae aomneN ER Moto aob ead Racer aceon Fig. 135 follow p. 244 AREA, PERCENTAGE RESTRICTIONS 1D) JOG STC Ba ay mrchisia picra cist ab Ge nidlcd o:c. 0.5.4 Scie Rea NG Cn S/ ctor scre ee eR eee eer ee me 40, 239 1B, IDIGiale oagercisieero Hi.o 5 Se claiciaide.c od pha cc IA aE ROIE TOR Co eS eRe Ree meee eee 41, 240 ARTIFICIAL LIGHT Diagrevan, New Su; aimal edna Ilo cssccotsncsoccceccddcccusaaddn follow p. 10 Effect Oneal thivay awe ear REM ee erat ee ey sas, seit nn se ek 28 aehactonyabaildine swe eee eee Cr iC nN miter Tn fst onus tn suet bets 164, 165 Tn offices in midday, TURES nS cole tothe ym DEG OCA OLS ea rear follow p. 10 (Wiseaimmoficeyputldinesaeeeemrer eter rier este tal seats er srsvors aes 105, 150, 151 282 INDEX AUTOMOBILE PAGE Eifecton! Street: trates ecclesia eis rere stviarcicte siaretcts teretotel aininte fecha tel eLekete Nets 144 Map of main routes) with trafhic (Countse om etree eleler oieleleteteia lel venel- al follow p. 48 BALL, AINGEDT: Eliciacecpteietr ieee SEE OHS nEE Ln Dominance BHarapesoGpmosdnacos 80-81 BALTIMORE Gonstitttionalitiy = ctatetaretereie sistate ici terete eater reeatetateraelete ctecee etree tektites 61 Height districts 2a ac emoc che aici mictoiato crcielereter labial oie token steerer iene 61 USE \AISELICES so sk afonticce teeta > SS est Si oan a oa ate ccroke aye el le te orc azar ees 66 Barp, ALBERT S. : Aesthetic. comSid€rations: ss s:ars.s ivierstacare eerie iate ofetataaforetoles on eraversislorerete a eee EE 82 Districting necessary for orderly development...................00005:- 81-82 Safeguarding ‘oF parks 5.052226) cuu: cto cis Sateen te sestevere ats sa eiele ae Ree ee 82 “B” AREA DIstRIcT Compared with Denement) House awe... so--ee snes eee eee 39 Outer ‘court and! side yard) requicementsj.4-4 205 oo ee eee eee 39, 238 Rear yards: ‘required... sisivecnes cei terse poe eoee er nee 38, 238, en Rear yard requirements! 4sfcm0. saaenice cae ener en eno eee eee Resolutionannotations 2s -macceeee eee eee ore 265, 267, 275, 277, a8 Bassett, Epwarp M. iBexploitationvot Mareass privately srestrictedee see ee eee eee eee 83, 84 Municipal v. private restrictions Private restrictions ineffective Mbvatisateta(siorats, anvepuaied Seieietee ictaiae baer 30, 31, 82-84 BAUMANN: (Bia iiscins sissies sels doeainleamil eae oae eailenea sce eebn Eee ete 85, 86 BERNSTEIN, Ji cto. s1sis svare siaco ays nte)ststs)s cuopere atorsiscarsleie nerare el ele us eso oT 86-93 BINKERD;, ROBERT. |S ai5\s/2:-te\ss:d:0iste scale siarolevelete aissaveve ccais lee cisterns ehatelere etal ster ereeee te 93-94 Boarp oF APPEALS, JURISDICTION UNDER DISTRICTING PLAN........00j0eese000 43 Boarp or Estimate AND APPORTIONMENT Brilding: zone resolution ror ceste aces oer or ere. orererate Lasts ale ols erates oe te Te 232-234 @harter- provisions eh se se soaqace to aloniele coe cet ender Cee EE on nets 45, 46 Gommittee: on: Gitye Plane. 2775 corcreloro ais ore a oiats alate cao alotevoteVersiels «1= oe OATS ee 6 Committee ob they W holes reporter c.acc ceo eee ceieneee cece ees ete 213 alg Hearings on Dentative (Reportys 5 <1 cc. cinccrn coin shears oysieeyse ees ee ere May samend ‘districting (pleir oryarere retetete ateteieielatlelelatelele aint ek lolelelee)- erste tetera 42, 43, 46 Resolution creating Commission on Building Districts...............-..-- Resolution creating Heights of Buildings Committee.................... 3 BoEHME, Dr. Gustav F., Jr. Carzsickness'<2,5..c3aattitadew cetiges eal vie Dae chsine se etek oe eee ae 96 Gourteapartments inhealthysoeemneeee cme siiceeeciee en teree eee ena 95 Effect of ‘high ‘buildings onl! nervous system): .. .-.1..6 + e1- e1cl <1eleielo eles 10, 94, 95 Effectof noise On nervous SY¥SteMis) «ciclo eee eaio sem occa Oi aera EAR eS ei ee omen nae Mees athe Sa GanosompoUeeOsae nos o> 95,96 Boston Gonstititionality: © ..5542.3c Secoseerer suis eich ametele eee eae eee 59-61 Vere ht SGistricts: 2, s.scra-acsierstrersos eevee alae ciecors's e nietey er otalterieletereia et eee eee 59-61 Map showings GiStrictS: ink cla amscieciier «sis Seite. lei aie eloisterjete te aie eee follow p. 60 Bronx, BorouGH or THE ; Area. (Districts) map) OLS = c-erteleteiecleivie: = o/- sraleist sere erersiale siete Fig. 133 follow p. 244 Height SDistrictss) imaprot «2 .ciae aecieteaere =< «clam ertheless Fig. 129 follow p. 244 Wse Districts map -Obtaace ase ceeriionins aislatnetanetae etre Fig. 124 follow p. 244 BrookLyNn, BorouGH OF Aveay Districts) map! Of: ce cceeatmccise ses eae merrier Fig. 134 follow p. 244 Heizht Districts smap) Otece-becrere ene c eeieeeemcerre ee Fig. 130 follow p. 244 Wise Districts: smap “Os. caer pecteieetias ss sis seis me siseelete crs Fig. 125 follow p. 244 Brooklyn Bureau oF CHARITIES Gongestion of population sc ecemione seisce= rs lerecien eletereieel oleic iter eee eee 123 (operas etotal eneakp yee id 5 550 goon sceotanouganceoredencocemecaconacaco:: 123 Districting plan: too leniemta. qcyeciinsis sek ee iielsetarss severeistc tats ikea 121, 122 Tenement House Committee Gebhardty okie Gye rescte sere e etecote eneleccinle te eiet ke peter e net checked token 121-123 BrookLyN CoMMITTEE ON City PLAN ; Brooklyn’s inadequate park system.........2-.2eeeee esse e eee s sees eecee 160 General approval of Commission’s report...........-+eeeceeeeeeeeceees 160 Stricter restrictions: SUpeeSteds. Sree store leteie oe eee 109 Drgare:- "parks: a2 sess aS ote eere eat n le ninhe oie ents oe Cen ee 160 Wihip ple; (GeorgenGin nit commen acters oe eet merece elo oleier eer nt neeh enaennae 29 DwicuHt, EpMUND Elevator sa CGid ents? cies snyaielareratece crave vies ete ae obeete eretereveterel chee rere. = Stee eee 101-102 Street) congestion! and! streetaccidents. .- aeercleiete cle ctelettele nets ieee 101-102 “E” Area District Character. ( cle oii vial re tele eee 123 PAING sian rates oa a ao SOIT SInTE aise olisfalete ic ators eC oTere Cee To CE eer ea 124 Population of Manhattan! <7. ctoccercte.ocnsiearicinc seniors crete eee 126, 127 Sidewalk CongesttOmn’ asec. isi scis ophereteinetarsiern! Aeiesereiereyelatetel lols oe ieee eee 125, 126 Street’ ACGidentts) s.2-sS0yesu7 sce seywyaveraserovnie’eievetevord eialeleiefoleteereseeie eters ye ee Tere ee ene 12, 124 Ta fE res bays), ee cre. axeicidin,claiataie.c calm ayes ceeeetaleloiovae ie etoveta tele iotecs migteiegs sisi sone ete eee eee 123, 125 GRANT) “MADISON! 55 r-'o See lorclo ayes are orn arate etelere lieve Lote e\'s 1s fersVore eye ete RISIGT sen ROS a ene 127 GREENPOINT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION é Parks imrelation ‘to! districting ici. cert ec ecient see el eerie 85 Streets \asi-play” SpaceSiss cs cae om cute © be wrote cusieeitieis a Siesta ee eee 85, 86 GREENPOINT TAXPAYERS’ AND Citizens’ ASSOCIATION Need! of protectine parks) from factomiesi tae) jartesiel stele elelatetetede ie eiaietet ena 134 INDEX 289 Harper, JULIUS : PAGE Heo andeblockwsizeshaqwmics ence never eso is ciel esis aan gael eee emai ae 127 Mitarintian CHAGASHONG O% COWS, .c00000000000cbb000bonodubancacodaGabOND 128 WaliesrotaditherentakindSotmcountseee seer nieeree eee eee 128 TELAT: JB Nanel Rega op estan eso OR Te eoS OOo OCG Mad Ue eee ee tee ee een 11, 128-131 TRLAWINIDG, JRORMEAGSIN saeg bulb. 6g.coddd ed a6.6.0.0'n Bo Sania ole COE aire einen een ete GH IS eI SY2 HeEaLtH DEPARTMENT Attincialelluminationsineonmicesbuldingsmaaereeeeee cece sae cen 151 Wormicennegulation rm ecrvrersetiee tien aris eisbonel sveteisieaceisenh eaeeecs 105 IDE eauide A OSnrte Clo. ue a.bIG ok ala Ic HOS SIO S Der CE LOTR Cee eae 109 iEitectiot transit scongestion| on) public) healthe. 44. .4.006205-+5s5s000l. 8, 9, 106, 107 IRynaesecfoynl 1D hrs ale leh ake a cles cai6 OAs CGE reas Ore ele CU Ree ee 8-10, 105-109 loomspacespermoticeremployecesseeee eee eee eee ene ene 152 IEiain aor oGbiny TAS thn OWHCEIacaccocoscccovccg 90d an DDUGHOORDODHEHONDHONS 152 Inheromehiny sin Ooince numbing. co5ce00gcccdoungcdccvon cu ObUESHeHoaOnEnOOOS 152, 153 IMT DOHANES OF WEABAWIONs cocacavccdacdaconso00and00c000008 Peearton ec ees 108 MGM Gilling: ID ye IM Eile! dBactartcct oe Pag CON ene mo Coc moEd cro Dee ai one ean or 150-153 INGadl {ole Ghent Gon una ae oe Ono EO Oran arb a Ge canoer nce ern one 106, 152 INecdstomadequatematuralulichtiandtainseeeeeeeeeeri eerie ree: 9, 150, 151 Ropilationgecon gestions meme cere eee ea iatickicmteciee: 109 INGEIsOM Or Sieve Cites WO lveEVNNS 6506000000 c0cc0ss000cG0c00005G000000 108, 109 Samitanye conditions mingofhices binildingspeeeresecieeer cheese at ere 105, 150 Sunlight in relation EOMGUS CASE sciarcier arene cate Siar ea te SoU Aa Sasa eee aentier ne 9, 10, 107, 108 Muberculosisminetenem cnitshactrccrveterncie ottctehe ea rei Castano cs TSE 105, 106 Wentilationsoiothicesb iildincseeesse re reeeerieeeritetceenri ree ieeer 152 HEALTH, Pusiic AS eiieciecl by Gimeae Clearing. 55 5ccccn9005ed0000000bcc0eD Dn oOSDONOBUOOE 20 Rod min, Die, (Groh yw lied eosoepoodedede somuosous padbe be asisaceeaoredn 10, 94-96 IDERVihealote Ti OAM (hos pooccb5cbo0coDdoDOCOUIaDdNdEbobDOOE 28, 150, 151, 164, 197, 198 irector depreciation of realestate waluessee sae eaecer eens escola: 14, 24 Effect of heavy traffic in residential streets................2000e0eeeceees 20 DIESE OL TEMS GOMESSIHONs osncoccovegoccacdsogucuoouDbObEDS 8, 9, 96, 106, 107, 124 Emerson, IDie, Islbieneperoneb peso dos s pon ORO Doe cee aan arosion 8-10, 105-109 IMIGIMiilleey IDES IMENHOM Bs > colo copeuounsodoeoRduudoeoocsemueocaescoedone 150-153 INIGCOSSINT IOP manETAll ele ermal ies o cooossaccongc00 oD decacDG0GDDGDO 9, 142, 164, 165 RO DMEIKOM GONERATHOM sooacoocad900000000000 FO Ee ere eee Reno comitna moc 109, 200 HRELATIOMCORZOME MPL Arlerctapercsecsie caceaener eas cierovesets olenev eae’ = eusnsiet ro icneie Svea nevessnele Mhetevetere 8, 9, 158 ST1O EMTS tN TTOLS Cb yoperces ate sey esc cnctensis =/extaus caps) szeraeevsceae)lahus) staeisual steve aloeustardisetaiaievele 96, 199 Stair climbing USS DH OotORetS SET ROUUCCOe Tu cE oOne nce ae aenininn amen 108, 109 Sunlight in polation 1 GIGEEIGE. oodoccenuecs 9, 10, 27, 28, 95, 96, 107, 108, 142, 196, a Waluctofaprivatepresidencess vaccines trelenrenetstctects WSS ebalti Oriemey eyed sree ro ors is tesors cetiowe Geetede take eedesevarere aie sone yepeite sessile jevevia) spekre ial sualle"ovecelegeusie 3 198, 65) Wentilationgingrelatronmtoneeacoeereeccrncr creole crcinciiicici tert 105, 152, 198 Wiittinpila.' Geos (Goa aaereierranian oe oe sald seminine semanas Gor OS EHS 10, 27-29, 195-201 HEARINGS oN DistrictiInG PLAN BoardsonLstimatresandeANpportionmenteuereeer erect sereateeree reer 4 Conmmicson om Ikantlcliner IDNGEMCISs 5500050000000 0G0000Gu0500bansDEnGdE 73 HercHtr Districtinc BENUTIOTS 4co4000000 cna BEbee bo bioou ou do CO DIa ao tne oeuad cose tee aneGr ee 61 TROON. 6.5 ake ota b6.b.6 bo 6 DOERR eS ONE On Chai Ne epeieial oie oe Eis ries Gate sine renner 59-61 (Genmanieiti sie epee ee esa a ne eee or niaa late ioe pS net sina weeds TAs GZ Thivehiarne yao Spo boo plo a ueLn aoe bid Od eal aEOTe gle BIO COMI ER ROMaEe Gite neat aerane 62 \VEig aiteventoy ak saairin.ns coun 6 See dete D oD ODO C.O0 COO COMETS ate ete Set Rear 62 Herent Districts (Cornerslotssintuencesomawidermistieeeereeereeceeererenececiee ree 33, 237, 260, 261 IDrsumeirs IResoliniion AMMCTNROMS. 50500 ;000950000000000000000D000R0008 257-265 IDYayeiaN SPE ae tesa aha ere Gaasieco 8 6 OS ca Dloro bE Ie NERC ee ern een nS 33, 34, 261-263 IprovbbaavSipeMtetel | alae cisecyog aie ooo Gordo 010 6.4 GR Sn Gib oD MCE en ere oicnae emitter eee Ootr 32, 236 Height limits based on street widths......................---. 32, 236, 237, 256-260 ICO CENSTGNT GUS Ae or ata as Amie ctio'o: 010 ba. 0 OO RE REae OEE ce ERC ane eS 34, 35, 263 iMapedesienationsrandmni!|esheneerereeeer te err Ci acetic 250-252 Map of Borough of IMraniharttalniy sees cre essere een Te re oes raie ct ierawee as Fig. 128 follow p. 244 Mp ew R RO lexses niyte MN SoC Ie eee eM ne ha oalar eae Fig. 129 follow p. 244 Brooklynmandm © veenseeeeeeeeereeerterniieeioncniere Fig. 130 follow p. 244 IRS ovaRovaral Toop oslo bie s.6-000.0 0.6/0 0 cine A Bibio GS St ice ee rere Fig. 131 follow p. 244 290 INDEX Hetcur Districts-—Continued Pocketed buildings; sf fete csci-peteieyal« store ethers eee RO tee OTe 263, 265 Proportioned to character of developmentss2.5..-0-4¢+5--02 eee eee ee 37 Setbacks rules 0%. Set eee Ce ee ae eee 32, 33, 236, 237, 257, 259, 260 POWERS srt aAt as tee es 4 ine le EATEN gaat UR ee oe 34, 237, 262-264 Heicuts or Burpincs ComMMITTEE AND COMMISSION Greated by resolution of Boardiot Estimates cceeasseaeci eeeeeiae is) Report of - GommiSssio mary syersece.csvierece sicsele ewe tere. Mice ene ete eect eee 3,4 Reprint’ from) report ‘of Commiissionie.s.44--ee nce eee ee eee 51-72 HicH BuiILpincs (Gatisemstreet Concestiolherer reer e eee eae erae 18, 19, 25, 35, 36, 143, 188, 189 Depreciate) valuevor adjomune) propertyere- ae elie eleretettatereie eee 166-1 9 efiect ‘on nervous csystem=chine come meretinc: herent creer errs 94, 95, 162, 163 Efhect- on) ventilation: ass.cssts eee Sooo eon oO eee eee eee Fe Eslevator ‘SiCKveSsi 4 ic:cin.cvaioiere Serena ce ceeacloteus fesetetehele tacts Sain ere eee eae eee ee aa iter hazandsieshccpridemtcinaee cn CCE oe eee eee 35, 104, 138, 139, 143, 163- 19 Bireproohne 2a sa cacleec een tee doit ele cgee crete bacend die tebe eet eee eee Inereasevelevator’ accidemts..cts voces aera se saree aerate tie ae eee ea 2 OWVViertax SE WEES. c.coe isicyssarsis Decne tele re loretaternie evelensssietstereastints otcte tees clay ahebete ate 174 Photograph, lower Manhattan from Hudson River.............-...-+--- opp. 1 Photographs of congested side streets and high lofts................- follow p. 18 Photographs—Tall buildings overtax streetS...............-...----0> follow p. 38 Relation tovsumlight as atercuetseseelo secs ate coe ei everev sa evens enous eters eee rte eee 141, 142 Statisticss aower iMamhattant cancers erie ceere ities lel ieisil ale ieee een 35, 36 Swan Henbert) Siac. sien cncssae delete serene aoa Oot ete eet eee 188, 189 FT ORWELL J OSEDIR- 6) lay. 'cta:s cyevs orsreteveceteve ai arerere sieeve che Taco ctCh eceneee rare tenes a eee ea 134 HoRSESHOEING IN CONGESTED TENEMENT STREETS..............-- Fig.77 follow p. 24 Hotets ‘Allowed! in residence ‘distnicts 2. 12s eos cuciisietese eetnieieiete tr eee ee 15 INDIANAPOLIS lietohit: GiStrictsS: cic...4 screeds price eee tec ce seste ese. = illo dedntopap atte as RST Koko el chet ket eet ean 62 INDUSMRTATE (OISTRICES, | UhMiPIGAL: ce mneererencn mianieriae keer Figs. 100,101 follow p. 214 INDUSTRIES Y Benefited by ‘segregation. omc. sccuon soe tot keen eee ee 17 Employees umeliohtyindustriesa.n eile sence einen ene 17, 18 Excluded from business and residence districts........................-. 15 Bloor area dimited ampbusiness distnicts 7m. sessile eee 15, 92, 93, a ae Fistony of imyasiom ob Munthe Avientice +a. cenit ce sereeeiie eee 0, imma done iby, chemicalletactonies; eee tere a eee einer cia ee eee ul, 176 Tat enemients: 6 = -chy cen cerca ieee eee ere nein tee eee 104, 157, 165, 66 Location of light industries in Manhattan: 2 circa tars ntepe sieaen cries reine Photograph of factories in residence streetS...................+++es: follow p. i: Residence sections tor employeesen-.- a. = shee nee to eee Sporadic types harmful to business and residence sections............-.-- 13 Wathouwt tendency, to segregate ry. -rs = cts ele ete reietetetete tetas ate encase ere ete ete 13, 17, 18 INSURANCE EXCHANGE, NEw York FIRE Distrchne: willereducestine qwaste-r..-eeeereeeetere eee eaet neers 11, 128, 129 Hitech onunixed occupancy on insurance rates emi: ec sielestressleieettelteetee 129 IBIr@ *StatiStiGS: 2 srcsyssisevave sae eeevaiete oe 410s wis ls Cha ere ARG LA he ee ee ee eae 129-131 Hardy, Bidward AR .i:sa-jciscccia svajessgereeie wre ns; atari teterenntetraye cnet terete eee 11, 128-131 INSURANCE, FIRE Mandy vEdwandeR asc sac. coterie tate eee eee eee eee 24, 128-131 Increased rates for mixed occupancies: =e haere ee seee eee eeenen eee 24, 129 INTENSITY OF BuILpInG DEVELOPMENT Proportionedste character of occupancye eee eenee ee eee eee 26 INVASION Causes decrease in real estate values—Fifth Avenue District............. 112, 113 Fitth, Aventie— History. o.ooogoconoccaconGGboso0DDbuobUOUDGO BH OnEOUS 27 Standardsirenectedsinezoneslawerereererer tierce neeorcnneece eee 29 Wiltim plese Georo enn Gecrer terrae remit sores Grivel Naat aticrsan de ansiaiaactnie 27 Wand owsmonlotellime scr yers rn prcncrereercttecieis ie oitie me cela exis /e sielenelovekevelicvsieve 25 Werle" anal Gommtiondoaracctocs odbc. cotemb phon abe Aa Oe eee oe ee eben tae ear 25-27 ICON, TRAIT soocotuacbsoneo dato 05000 CaCO MEE SURED ERO EC OURO Rhone ma Rmam ait 149-150 Los ANGELES IDIGIS ESHA? 456 hen ple b ma..n GAG Cd WO. OO LG 2 Lot ONCE Ee Cree oe Ree eee eee ee 67-70 Miapmeshowan cum oistiictsouiti errr err cere cerita ciercers cia iat oe eiaeels follow p. 68 292 INDEX Lor Liner, WINDows on 2 : PAGE An, ‘economic mistakerj-ces ceicela cere cere tee teen ee eee Photographs’ yiccudnn tare eee ee eee Figs. 105,106 follow p. 214 MeMirnan; Dr MARION, (Bvtiasap eer at - athe cer meee ie em eee nee Tinee ee eee 150-153 MANHATTAN High: busldingsi is. sadiisietieayceteior enelsiorinees eek Ree ee Oar ae aL ERE Eee 35, 36 Eocationvot Might industriesminkn: ene -eeerrnerieie entre eer eee renee 18 IMieias (Git NES, IDNSUS sc oncusdssuacssnecscascanccasasood Fig. 132 follow p. 244 Mapvotsileiehte Districts sneer eset et neet ener setter Fig. 128 follow p. 244 Manor UsemDistrictsssnca-sosceree eee ee ree ee eee Fig. 123 follow p. 244 MANuFAcTuRING. See Factory; Industry. Maps, ZONE Aiea Gesicnatiousmatd sc ules eels eee eee eee 252-254 Height designations danderulesme-mececmeceieie erie eee ee ania ee ee 250-252 Use designations andertiles=..2.;-20) ci -i ence oe en ee eee Eee 245-250 MARSH: (BENJAMIN \Goaisicni2 cs aceieaye sien cee te everane Cte CsIo ae eae Pe To Cae 153-156 MASSACHUSETTS AUMEORIZES) DISTRIGIIUNG sate arse lalereretelstelsist ete een eteettere 64 MILWAUKEE lO odlan hee eee aE RO ROR Tad GU.AauiocaoG EA OOmteOC OOOO OSdaUSnoo 704 « 65, 66 Map showings sGistrichsi imine recertete mere ort errs teicher ee follow p. 66 MINNEAPOLIS DDISERIGEIME. SS sreerars Saewrnc sre he aie Bore ore Teo aT e rene SOO Te eee eee 65 Mian eshoiwdn em districtsy stir. terest oti sete e tne iia tener arene wei gqsscerehe follow p. 64 MINNESOTA SEES (SHS ChSwsCHeGooooanagoansaosne cos ooo ga DOaGOn SOOO oN 64 Minneapolis. 2% baerncerenteeteele stom cera whiarese sateee tocel seer era ate eee ee 65 Moskowitz, HENRY . Congestion om thesleowen last S10 eer ceriecr ee cet nicie testa 157 Exits in factory loft buildings...........2.20.+-+0+eeee esse eens seen en ee 156 Wnncheowm facilities) imelonte bri) dinos ae see eiteertre ieee teint tte eee 156, 157 APSaaalasns IMCS Ab oUII Ole Somos on ong aouduooDGOdOdDSDoDe Smo S TSS 157 Mounicrpat Art Society Mio iacne Oi Uscemar ko con toods Gos ho oonnocHodSoDaoKoDoSdcocdenasDousoocK. ls 157-159 Mio Nie egodwocrdccsacsbo sdb aude pesuuaddosoUacas CodocOMOODSGEOGO GCS: 160 NaturaL Licht AND AIR ’ INgGxacHell toy pybllhte WMI, osooeodonacnonosdacogusnosE cons vans noaesSTer 9 Mssential tol persomal health pve sere e tere cieterasiop-telarernetatstatake tele ter tear 9,10 New_York Borantcar GARDEN Bactonies anjune vewetatlomec.--rea-e eae ct voles ae ieee eee 160 New York CONGESTION COMMITTEE Recommends Stricter mcestriChiamSeeyeercrerere crareieletotseteteretsetate re elena eet tate tea 153-156 New Yor Court oF AppEALs ? POMS Gigk INGINIES gape oooo bone cocooDoOgHOoIGnGdGc 002 SousaGKmanUSaSonESOS6 32 New York Zoo.ocican Society (Sere Mile ab Sop Ree enn ar ns oes O UMS EaG Eo nance chGaRGOORSnoEaHES coos 1% Protech om otepanks ete erie celta ieee eee eee ee 12 NoIsE Business.inl reSidence «StreetSicavers cc cusses severe casshsyetatier esa siete onehsuner sists eee 137 Eifiect om nervous; SY Stems cece sister ole cterers selieriotersinvcicke eee rete eee 96 Photographs, Noise and the Home.................... Figs. 64,65 follow p. 214 Occupancy, M1xep Hampers street cleaning................ eee seen cette eee ee eens 120 THGREASES:.TOISE® epee lars by: districting). -/<:.11 «2c sjeccjaeyvis's deaiate state ce a reig woe a. tetera lo oye bl otele ie arent veyeter sy oroete tee eee 15, 233, 234 Existing residential areas should be preserved.....5...........-cceeseus 201 Eirethazard increased by, busimess tel -cia-scaciser eterertertietiee aieleteraetc ieee 24 Bhotorraphs: (of) factoniesymi-5).\4)-,5 seuss us elec ete tee Minera follow p. 20 Photographs showing the environment of the home.................. follow p. 20 Bhorographs) showinewsstOLes ane eivact nthe serenein erates Figs. 78-81 follow p. 214 Photopraphsmote caracesmineer ernment ieiaeiiere Figs. 68,69 follow p. 214 Photographs of types of residence streets.................. Fig. 91 follow p. 214 Preservation ob private Mouse GISELIGtSee: «. scleieeenieteriemtese lie eines eee 100, 101 Ouletia prime requisites, £2 jarre ctv cnt saa slereaysisieyrseeeioe rere stereee ee 20 Require more sanitary streets than other districts....................0- 21, 120 Require small business districts’ for local stores...) .)....... ssn nee 20 Stores! inj xeSidence: streets... o.occcoggn0casu0boo0000000000 13, 19 Will benefit factory employers and employees....................2.-0: 19 Wall Stacihitateteth crentwstrectacleaninowmeeesaeecieiine ce ociceeecieoe ene 21 WWaliilesSenthinesdancenseMrbrsnnecrreree mre ates ecto ai oie to terrae 139 Wiallgrelievespopulationmcongestioneepeeeerer cee eee ener eee eee 17 Will relieve street and transit congestion....... Poa OMAee ae me aeonte 19, 143, 144 SETBACKS Ojar (Giireae GIGS SoS aeco ono eos RCs be REECE Oe rere 32, 33, 236, 237 irateyatid Syteaty CC OMA ES iene erveneeee sen Regevenon cacusveYoveye.tsegevs yeni sacie eoapste.nieisiee mioitversieisherautielsy 38 SEWER SYSTEM Conalition im Ney Wonks ooeebeusbeeonosee sco nuaseucod ep panes pon ode boas 172, 173 Development ormtheusanitary usystemiencerceciccinictereretcrncrccenice cs 172 ieee OF Inekalnt: Ow lvevtlabyes Os ocooocnocebb0aaq60000000000cc0000000006 174 Rollutionvofuthephar bork eeva cree hte) sererers ctckors avd etere tssaval store ate sere aeeiensavarereans 173 Rupiicationsotthersewaces eee ceseseeetee reece oer tener erence 173, 174 IRedesigonwmotadnainagenaneasey. scemicisv sieteclac icine sakes cieleieteris ctniseieeuiaeteele 173 RelatiOnmtom ZOMeMp latin ier ee ric tal dette nieree tsar acyonai dts loensleone ere 7, 8, 147, 172-174 Sdinoiar: INOS) Sel esecnaenoo nanos DC On nec Soins CUonO nT Eno ote CHne Sete 172-174 “TRVBEG * adeld edd tid duct onet accede on ORC rune Gem enin Hem ca heer creer 172 SIDEWALK CONGESTION (GoackGns Base les papadaasoodaton cue Croce mua does ato colrm em aceSeeae 125, 126 TNPMINC: COUMUG VS bh eEOD 6 COG AT OU ODOM OOOO SE OOC On aa Gna Emr rnEe One eames 86, 87, 90 Photographs showing obstruction due to business........ Figs. 84-89 follow p. 214 Photographs showing perils of the sidewalks............ Figs. 97-99 follow p. 214 SMOKE Danceneimmmixed Occupancy anerrreet er ecrcraciichicciniciceiniiiciiccncaae 24, 129 Death sminmtemenne mtmtine sey tee ticyeticrysiye ve ieceSretapavsiaie vsusiai ns Varese iteersievanis 159 IAHERES WEIS cocoandgaconosscobodsonodde nO acats es Heese cameo aa Scraper oe 160 Relationmtompublyemlreall thie meray eerste: icra sie vepstevepeyeietor tere etaieieietetaie te acres 199 Sraptes. See also Garages Photographs, in congested tenement districts........... Figs. 66,67 follow p. 214 Photographs, stable and garage blocks..................... Fig. 73 follow p. 214 Photographs, roadway obstruction due to stables........... Fig. 72 follow p. 214 IS DE VVZATR DAMES Vim WAV EMTS iM rtetcn sci ore case evra eTeten veel oysoevioye Veiaie’ a sla) arse suse clapotereievatsravie stare 176 SroraAGE WAREHOUSE IN RESIDENCE STREET.........---0-+ee0 ees Fig.90 follow p. 214 Stores In RESIDENCE BUILDINGS IMGREASCMCONREStI OMe iiss rverwe ieee Reet yertc Sain Use aeie ara e/ocelcbeieistavenalencie eres 99, 100 Imeraase time ame eanolza GAMEEP. oo go00c0cppD D0 DDD OOD ODDEHODOSFOEOOGuORS 129. 146 photos raphismpe ere ietic. iter ety eter ier oles aeidiaxvsvelsisia yan: Fig. 82 follow p. 214 Street Accipents. Sce Accidents, Street STREET AND Brock SysTEM IL@t armel lode GHB osccocbdoscanesosbanneas eoseoue nue aus bEOMeaSuden ee 127, 146 RelatronatomZOnemplanrycy eee Cet erence Paiyociete wei Oa rerate ineseeeeaeees 6, 7, 146 Risidityecondemned by, NelsonMbPeewisea- sss) - sees dace sce aece se 7, 146 STREET CLEANING . IBGdncrano! | Ola IPs swatbetso.ce-cloruicis ono Hire echo per ee oa ERG pee CHRO TS SIE 20, 21, 120, 121 With ine facihtiatcal jy Zone WEIN. oo onosovdcvndoovvccdnvcbo0gscueouncuDS 20, 21, 120 Street CoNGESTION Cameeal byy lvein lorie lopilebreves. o nao poacodevasacdboonDDGDadboDOUODGROA4UD 18, 19 Caneadl try Inrain @ffitee Iatilabings. oo.cccocsvsenosovocedaecngv0ccondanEROnS 35, 36 RAGIOAY GODIVA ooocagcccnsosccngeovangooaAunseodpooURnDObamoouD 89, 90, 111, 112 Photographs of lunch-hour crowds of factory workers................... 117 PCOS Ok MECN CPS. cccccosngdseacnbogesoacand Figs. 102-104 follow p. 214 Photographs of side streets in Fifth Avenue district........... povgoowans 119 Photographs’ of street obstruction.................-.------- Fig. 72 follow p. 214 Bhotosraphs) tall buildingssovertass streetss eee se follow p. 38 296 INDEX STREET CoNGESTION—C ontinued PAGE Relation ‘to fire fighting::;.,.sci.ssecseids see ae eeieioceiee ee Ree ne Ree one 10, 11, 35 Relation. to;street accidents: .1c stasa 2<.01s. nis sainteeaienee aemeh ecient rane 12,21 Trafkic: counts! <5 2/40 jec3 sinrescrere creroieie’s tie bioleloleee cee ee teen ee Cee eee Street Trarric. See Traffic, Street STREET WIDTH Basis ot height ‘nestrictionS yi eee oociicecee eee eee eee eee 32, 236, 237 Intersection of wide withinarnow: streets. a4.cea. cere coca cece oe aeeeee 33, 237 STREETS Gontours and*erades; imap' (Of sic. nic, sisi Seine heise eee Cee Morac eees follow p. 46 Wse-as- playgrounds: :c..ocecccce emcees serene eee ee ee 85, 86, 133, 136 Photographs the street assa’ playground... -s-msc- eecie eo ncee eee follow p. 22 SUBWAY Car: sickness®. 0.73250 .eet sacs occ ad pod cbldon Reece epee eee eee eee 96 GON PESHON fe is.. Satedisiw cord wis Sisters res Sere Savaere Ore lO eie an Se eee eee OEE 147, 190-194 SUNLIGHT Boehme, Dr. Gustav EF. Jie osc e2 iin wga mcmbewe wee eo mae eee eee SACRE 95, 96 Diagram of maximum possible in New. York..2....~.0cc.s-e0s eos essen 163 Diagram of volume admitted by window.............++seseesscesscccees 180 Emerson, Dr. ‘Haven ic occ ceca scars ais sles asinsisina ss es eva sie nesses eee 107, 108 Effect: upon’ ‘ventilations Xe. =-sie ars vie scarce ce oisieoreie ele teieel ele ele eretoleieeneeeeeteiees 27 Influence of neighboring: buildings=< <2 sco<- 2. cee elite selene 27, 28, 141, 142 Relation to disease and personal health.............. 9, 10, 27, 28, 95, 96, 107, 108, 142 Relation of height and area regulations to..../.......2..00+0000eerseses 176-182 Swan, HerbertiS.c:esse scone ok sce eee esta eee Oe nec eee eens 176-182 Tuttle, ‘(Georee (Wises estas on consi een hig mere ee OOo OO nee eens Wihipple: (George Gee. 2ecn koe scenes cinncie, sii sa eines otdl htoteretan teers SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDINGS Miscretion’ in residence “GistrictS., cer XCEELED EPROM HI hIGH Te TNLCADTONSmaseieiaciciieierciiascceiicese ce 34, 237 Town-PLANNING (Catiadky ooé'Sen coemenoouooreoode cacti ceo OL aE Ga DOSE deers Ocoee uer enn na 77-79 TRAFFIC, STREET Accidents due to.......... ‘50 0000009000000000004 Teno SECO ne ae pearine ets 2AEZ2: Counts, Fifth Avenue district................ Son COI Oe GROIN TER CR a rOC ite 86-88, 112 Effect of the automobile......... D GOOD CA OEO COTO CADE ress Donec 144 NACE OR Gato ooconacn colon en COUR CE ae Hee.cm.cd cme aanseOaoa aon 143, 144 Epdamcears Ives @F Caitilkrem aie MeN coscocosonccoccooDcenapDUG000000dGR00" 22, 85, 86 reac Wiel TO SSSA O8 CltAyococooscogdacoqscqougsuagccoGD40c0KN0eD 19 Gooden, JBC! 1? odcosece soponds carbaun que Roos Gao AGT OnE Onan anos 123 HiTMMRESI AEM Gem CISERIGES a syareiasy cis ay iersi) alte ronseaPetel ayia retevarats ays) alan’ sete rs lavays reyals aleve 20, 23, 132, = TiGriores TaN Sere GAMING. cooonpacndaocdbbSoooDDOOdSaOnDDDGDONbODNE MapmonemainmtnuckinesOutesseeeeeeneneeoeereere ee eeneeeaecee cence follow p. a PICiOSrADIS Or Comeesiad GS SeHeESs5occovo ones oosescooobnecaoonse follow p. 18 ZESSNENE UE VEN <5 6 8 6 PHN OO AISA BO CO Oo DE CU MR OE a NOC ccc came ear ore 48 Transit. See Rapid Transit TUBERCULOSIS inl ONSMOATIMENntanWOLKELS meee rrcioemersveiccrrveiel creer ieacheieacteiisiersetorereiers 142 ID ERIS Anne Goh neocon ae PH eSmon ooo RUd EO OA OO ee Coe Te Te cc enE ere eerees 142 lin mevy ame Olel JEwy TeTeMEMID. oo45o000b0090090000 0000 Db00UG000000000000 105, 106 iki. ‘Sy, AGolinoS; IMEID Ess ooucaacopdeadouUoUboE edn soso cu oCeOr oOo ReD .. 141-143 Relationietom lic litera Claim ers ctererer feelers ce crsivar ee iehaie oicviovigin a ous ei tetas ones 142 Turner, Dante L. Recommends control of building development.........-.......-.....-0- 8, 193, 194 Suilpwen? Gomayeqnan” poossonceoas soca an Oue OAR TED anno Dao UTiC Oe eee nan 190-194 Tuttle, GrorcE W., AND Hergert S. Swan Relation of height and area regulations to sunshine...................... 176-182 Relation of height and area regulations to daylight...................... 182-188 Types oF Bumprnc Occupation anp CoNnstTRUCTION Natturalilitendencymtowandsmsesrerationnaee sere eerererceerinentee reese 12, 13, 19 Naturalltendency wallihe strencthenedaeeseere ce. eee eeemeee ceeceneeee 13 Sialiliay assumed tmaler zome Mlains oooccccossoncd0soboConcauapacuanuobbous 30 UNDETERMINED Districts IDXSHID@GL 5 esters aro Geng alate ERE RE IOI Clens chore eres ERECT Gee 16 UNIMPROVED PROPERTY IN BROOKLYN MA) ‘O8 loge. eb no Wd cape DAA OO old GLa EES PRO Ces cere et ene follow p. 14 Unitep States SUPREME CourT CRB RCO MRailwayaum Drainage srry tree oe reer ernee on cae 52 yells Caay Ox Ricans. ooocoucoodduccooob onoendunadouguoaunnbonue 52 HLearyeiriyal) 11S tI ery ai euel ey raseve tate re Ate Totoro RePSTe LS oe estinse sree fie gle teenie leariemn es 51, $2 McKenna; Justice! -2.-..-5---- IOAN CBU RUNG OO NOOO OSU MRD C Ce c oe MORE Ar 52 eckarn hy tisticemse rts tie cisco tere Cine Seater eee eRe esac ees 52, 60 Wald a Swwesaimocareucsnedandcoducod ce canon taco c en eee note 52, 59, 60 Unrestrictep Districts IDS TSG! “seucoo spor oMUede sennGO ree au Oboe Aan Oars Ine OO Se eee 16, 235 Waterman temerrs crc cveretalsie soar e mertees moto rahcens oxen aioisis wlcteub ne ebileveiens » W/ Photographs of typical industrial districts............ Figs. 100,101 follow p. 214 Use Districts IRAGHTCSE, GTEC cogee Sooseds DOSdE oe CORO IO AO ae a Ee eC R eats 15, 234, 235 Residences, Caine! sse5 coud beens nO MG On ian EOC oa ean aT 15, 233, 234 (Wnrestrictedmdenined ware ener mercer tiace ee tarie einen senna 16. 235 Wrndeterminedycdefinedmpeean rere arto nnectiericnien acinomae meen sens 16 Map Gesignaiions amal mUEScocoonnsoonssovcgonocc on eeudodonbonneobencas 245-250 298 INDEX Use Disrricts—Continued Map, Borough of Tae WIE TIEN ETI SS coms pocbo cob esoguaonoEnEs Sob nbosaunbetur oC Fig. 123 follow p. 244 Mhey Bronk? Fae tuckeanetergsie oc Mee eee Fig. 124 follow p. 244 Brooklyn Sace-seee ees A ERR TION tonto a doch ine Ae ae Fig. 125 follow p. 244 Queens secrets. oer eee rar inte ce eee eee Fig. 126 follow p. 244 RIGHMONG tye cere cee CORRE ee R EERE nee Fig. 127 follow p. 244 Vacant AREAS Importance of restricting hccets see cece sat heen Eee 77 VEGETATION Destroyed bynearby andustriesseesasce eee en eee eee eee ene 160, 171, 176 Relation itoypublic healtheinc.acemene cree teen eer eee eee nne _. . 108, 198, 199 VENTILATION Courts audi yards; when! reqaireds..c. s+ ee acces ceenier ee ener een 38, 39 actorsaitectingy a: sajna cs che Oe eine ene eee ee eee 28 Inskofkice: buildings: