Please note: this text may be incomplete. For more information about this OCR, view
About OCR text.
October 24, 1908.
RECORD AND GTTTDE
773
@DII«
ESTABUSHED-^MJU^HSiy>1668.
De^teD p Re^l Estate . BuiLdti/g %:j^iTEeniKE .Household DEOonfTKsf,
BUsn/ESS AffoThemes OF Get^r^L !Ktei\esi..
PRICE PER YEAR IN ADVANCE EIGHT DOLLARS
Communications should be addressed to
C. W. SWEET
Publisfied Every Saturday
By THE KECORD AND GUIDE CO.
Preddent, CLINTON W. SWEET Treasurer, P. W. DODGB
Vice-Pres. Sc Genl. Mgr., H, W. DESMOND Secretary, F. T. MILLER
Kos. 11 to 13 East 24tl» Street, New York City
(Telephone, Madison Square. 4430 to 4433.)
"Entered at the Post Office at New York, N. 1'.. as s eond-class matter."
Copyrighted, IOOS, by The Record & Gulcie Co.
Vol. LXXXII.
OCTOBER 24, 190S.
No. 2110
F, as has been frequently stated, the failure of the Hotel
Gotham to pay expenses was due to the inability of its
proprietors to sell liciuors on the premises, the case is only
another instance of the useless and burdensome limitations
frequently Imposed on the owners of real estate. The pro¬
prietors could not, of course, obtain a license, because a
church was already in existence within the prescribed dis¬
tance from the hotel, and inasmuch as the law forbade the
granting of the license under such conditions, the owners
of the hotel were unwise to have risked their money until
they were sure of their license. On the other hand, no pos¬
sible harm could have come to the membership of the church
from the sale of liquor within the premises of the hotel; aud
this fact is so obvious that it is not worth arguing. Of the
pew-holders of the church, probably nineteen out of every
twenty have wine or liquor served in their own houses under
substantially the same conditions that it would be served
in the hotel; and yet, the proprietor of the hotel is forbid¬
den to sell wine to his guests because these gentlemen might
be contaminated on tiieir way to church by a spectacle which
they do not see and with which they are familiar in their
own houses. Could any example of regulation in the inter¬
est of public morality be more ludicrous than that? The
real object of the law forbidding the granting of a license to
sell liquors within a certain distance from a church is that
of doing away with saloons so near to a church that they
might constitute a temptation to the younger visitors to a
church; and it should be so limited as not to apply to hotels
in which liquor is served under suhstantially the same con¬
ditions as it is in private houses. Moreover, from any point
of view the existence of such a regulation is a curious com¬
mentary on the way in which the churches regard the Com¬
petition of saloons. The time was when a church would
have heen situated as near as possible to some possible source
of popular corruption, so that the evil influence could have
been fought and conquered; but now a wholly opposite prac¬
tice prevails. The Insistence by the clergy upon such a
regulation can be explained only hy the fact that the saloon
is regarded as a more efhcieut power of evil than the church
is a power for good. Why not place saloons next door to
churches, so that the beneficent influences of the latter could
diminish the patronage of the former?
AMONG the most encouraging signs that the period of
business depression has had its proper and salutary
effects are reports of the increased efRciency of labor. Mr.
Finley, president of the Southern Railway Company, has re¬
cently stated that one cause of the much more economical
operation of the service of that company was due to a con¬
siderable reduction of the labor cost—a reduction, not ef¬
fected by the decrease of wages, but by the ability to obtain
a much better class of work for the same wage. Mr. Fin-
ley's testimony to this effect is merely one among many.
Building contractors in this city, for instance, state that they
can flgure much more closely than they could a year or two
ago, because they can depend upon getting a steadier and
higher quality of work from the mechanics they employ. A
reduction of the labor-cost of all kinds of industrial ser¬
vice and product w^as an essential condition of renewed in¬
dustrial American efficiency, and if it has been brought about,
the way has been largely cleared for a genuine industrial
revival. There is every indication that such a revival is
at hand. Railway earnings, in spite of the continued dull¬
ness of certain important industries, such as the steel trade,
are but little below the level of the large totals of last fall.
The volume both of imports and exports has become about
normal. The revenue of the Government is again heginning
to increase. Tho number of immigrants for the first in
many months is exceeding the number of emigrants. Many
weak spots continue to exist in the husiness fabric, o£ which
the weakest is the indisposition or the inability of the rail¬
roads to resume the work of improvement, but if their earn¬
ings continue to hold their own, this indisposition can hardly
persist—particularly in view of the fact that the supply of
available capital is by way of increasing rather than diminish¬
ing. The danger seems to be that after election is over, the
process of improvement will be too much accelerated and
that prices may rise too rapidly. In the building trades, for
instance, a large proportion of the very considerable volume
of new construction, which is being undertaken, is dependent
on its moderate cost; and any sudden or formidable rise in
prices would in all probability check the process. Intending
builders would, consequently, do well to give out their con¬
tracts before rather than after election. Judging by the
people who are postponing their operations until after the
announcement of the results of the canvass, there is a real
prospect of, a very considerably increased, cost of production
before January 1. What is still needed is not a runaway
market with soaring prices, but a gradual and wholesome
process of recovery, which will retain the benefits of the econ¬
omies which have been forced upon business men during the
past year. A runaway market would, we believe, be suc¬
ceeded by a quick and discouraging reaction.
THE discussion provoked by the regulation of the height
of buildings, proposed by the Commission, has not heen
entirely favorable fo the details of the proposal. So far as
the Record and Guide can gauge public sentiment, a consen¬
sus of opinion would seem to exist in favor of the following
propositions: In the flrst place, some regulation of the
height of buildings is necessary, for the preservation of light
and air, the protection against flre, and the guarding against
congestion in a very narrow street. The Commission has
been wise in seeking to restrict the height of buildings to
less than 3 35 feet on streets less than 45 feet wide. It has
been wise in imposing an absolute restriction of 150 feet on
all structures except office buildings, hotels, apartment-houses
and churches. Such a limitation will not constitute any con¬
siderable hardship, because the conditions rarely exist which
justify the erection of a loft or factory building more than
eleven stories high. On the other hand, in the course of ten
years, it is probable that conditions will change, and that
the tendency will be lo erect lofts to a much higher level.
It is desirable, however, that buildings of this class, which
are very numerous, should be distributed rather than con¬
centrated, and a limitation of their height will facilitate dis¬
tribution, it is not likely, however, that any consensus of
opinion will be gathered in favor of the absolute limitation
of the height of offlce buildings, wherever situated, to 300 or
350 feet. Such a limitation would not accomplish the pur¬
pose which a restriction should aim to accomplish. It wouldr
forbid the erection of towers which might be wholly unob¬
jectionable, and which w'ould supply magniflcent architectural
opportunities, aud it would permit the erection of buildings
which might curtail light and air where it is really needed.
The objection to this method of restriction has been admir¬
ably stated by Mr. B. D. Litchfleld, of Tracy, Swartwout and
Litchfield, in an interview recently published in the Record
and Guide. "The fallacy," he says, "of the flat limit of
height is easily realized when one considers the fact that the
comfort of the people, not only in the building itself, but in
the street and in adjoining buildings, will be better served,
in case a certain cubic contents of building be constructed
high, and surrounded by generous air spaces, than in case it
is built solid with the minimum of court required by law.
It is perfectly reasonable to limit the amount of light and
air which the owner of a piece of property may use, because
light and air are iu a sense public property and necessary
to the public comfort and health; but on what ground can
be justified any limitation of the shape of a building, pro¬
vided it is safely constructed and does not take away the
light and air necessary to other people?" This statement
of the matter leaves little to be desired, and it constitutes
the only reasonable basis for any legal limitation o£ the
height of office buildings and hotels.