REAL   ESTATE







AND







NEW YORK, JULY 26, 1913





I WHAT IS THOUGHT OF THE NEW BUILDING CODE





Views of the Most Competent Critics—Commended as a Conscien¬
tious Effort to Do the Right Thing, But Scored in Some Respects.





■





^aliMliMIM^





■■■■■■■^^^^^^^





A PUBLIC hearing will be held next
Tuesday, beginning at ten in the
morning, at City Hall, on the Amended
Building Code proposed for enactment
by the Building Committee of the Board
of Aldermen. During the past week the
document has been the subject of care¬
ful study by many interests concerned,
as such a code of laws affects nearly
everybody. The Record and Guide has
obtained the views of some of the most
representative experts and finds that on
the wliole the code is being treated as
a conscientious effort to bring our build¬
ing regulations into harmony with mod¬
ern building practice.

Another factory holocaust has
strengthened the hands of those who
have been contending for a more gen¬
eral use of fire-resisting construction
and of fire-prevention methods. It is
being said that the Binghamton case
will have an influence in the framing of
the new ordinance, yet the saying is
true that New York is in a class by it¬
self and should by lawmakers be con¬
sidered apart from small places up the
state.

The  Most  Important  Change,  as  Supt.
Miller  Sees It.

The Superintendent of Buildings of
the Borough of Manhattan, Hon. Ru¬
dolph P. Miller, when interviewed for
the Record and Guide, said that proba¬
bly the most important change in the
proposed Building Code is the require¬
ment for a certificate of occupancy. Here¬
tofore it has been possible to erect a
building for one purpose and then, with¬
out alteration, convert it to another pur¬
pose, often defeating the intent of the
law. Under the proposed code, it be¬
comes unlawful to change the occupancy
of a building without first submitting
the question, whether this occupancy is
proper or not, to the Superintendent of
Buildings.

Supt. Miller considered the lower¬
ing of the limit of height for non-
fireproof construction for commercial
buildings a radical change. All loft
buildings, factories and buildings of a
similar nature must hereafter be fire¬
proof if over 40 feet in height, whereas
heretofore such buildings could be built
non-fireproof up to 75 feet in height.

"Greater provision is made for light
and ventilation of buildings," remarked
Mr. Miller further. "At the present
time, only certain buildings (private res¬
idences, hotels and lodging houses) are
restricted to a certain proportion of the
lot area. Under the proposed code all
buildings will be restricted in this par¬
ticular to secure proper light and ven¬
tilation.

"More detailed requirements are to be
provided for e.xit facilities in buildings,
improving generally  their  safety,





"In the matter of flreproofed floor
construction—while the provisions of
the law have been entirely rewritten,
the effect will be to permit generally
constructions as they are now being ac¬
cepted by this bureau. So far as can be
seen from a cursory glance of the pro¬
posed ordinance, there is no discrimina¬
tion against any particular material.
New types of fioor construction that
may not be provided for in this code,
may be used, provided they meet the
fire tests prescribed. No types are
necessarily excluded.

The   Fireproof   Provisions.

"A form of construction that has not
heretofore been provided for in the law
itself, but which has been covered by
regulations issued by the Superintend¬
ents, is now included in the sections
governing reinforced concrete construc¬
tion. The provisions for this construc¬
tion are practically the same as those
now in effect by the Superintendents'
regulations.

"Whether the average cost of con¬
struction under the proposed code will
be increased or lowered is a little diffi¬
cult to say as yet. In Manhattan it will
probably not make much difference, in¬
asmuch as the tendency at the present
day, in the erection of business buildings,
is toward fireproof construction. The
requirements for the enclosing of stairs
in flreproofed walls, being already in
vogue, will not materially affect tthe cost
of construction. It may be that the
limitation as to the lot area to be cov¬
ered by buildings will have the effect
of reducing the rentable areas that
might be obtained from a piece of prop¬
erty, but even here the common prac¬
tice at the present time is to utilize only
as much of the lot as will be permitted
under the proposed code."

The Best Code Yet.

Supt. P. J. Carlin of the Brooklyn
Bureau of Buildings, who was one of the
advisers of the Building Committee,
said that except in some minor particu¬
lars and a few clerical errors that have
crept in, and which of course will be
righted, it was his judgment that the
amended code is the best measure of its .
kind the city has ever known. The new
regulations would generally make no
material difference in the cost of con¬
struction, either way. In some instances
fireproof construction would cost no
more  than wood construction.

Favors Hollow-Tile Houses.

Supt. James .\. Henderson of The
Bronx agreed that several of the sec¬
tions as drafted should be amended, and
he had no doubt that as the result of
the hearings clianges would be made by
which the value of the code would be
increased.    Mr- Henderson added:





"In general, the proposed code, is in
my opinion the equal of any code that
has been prepared and offered for adop¬
tion to the Board of Aldermen and will
provide for better and safer building
construction  in  New York City.

"While the cost of construction of
some classes of buildings may be in¬
creased by the requirements of the La¬
bor Law as to exits and fire walls, the
general cost of construction will not be
raised or lowered to any appreciable ex¬
tent by the requirements of the pro¬
posed code.

"If the new code becomes a law I ex¬
pect a great increase of dwellings with
walls of brick and hollow tile instead
of frame construction in the suburban
districts of New York City."
Behind the Times, Says Mr. Flagg.
Ernest Flagg, the architect of the
Singer and many other monumental
buildings, resigned as a member of the
.\dvisory Commission to the Building
Committee of the Board of .Mdermen
when he found that the methods to be
used in making the revision of the
building code were of a kind which he
thought would end in failure. A few
years ago Mr. Flagg could find no one
who thought there was anything wrong
about those methods; now he finds a
very general impression among those
who have given most thought to the
matter that the specification method of
making a building code is not the cor¬
rect one.    He said:

"I have not had time to examine the
revision carefully enough to be able to
say what effect it will have upon the cost
of building construction in Manhattan.
I do know, however, that it will per¬
petuate the method of construction
which is giving us our preposterous fire
loss; because, under it, the general use
of incombustible material will not be
possible, and under it we will still con¬
tinue to build walls too thin to stand
upright except for the bracing afforded
by the inflammable floor systems which
rest on them. This is a method of con¬
struction which, so far as I am able to
learn, is only used in this country, and
strange to say, I have never been able
to get a single engineer who was willing
to go on record as advocating it as a
sound engineering practice, yet it finds
its place in all building laws of Ameri¬
can cities.

"I believe that if our whole building
law was abolished and people were al¬
lowed to build as they chose, except that
walls supporting wooden beams should
be designed to stand upright of their
own strength, and cellars be covered
with vaulting or non-inflammable ma¬
terial, that our fire loss would constantly
decrease. Under the present elaborate
building  law   and   the   substitutes   pro-