crown CU Home > Libraries Home
[x] Close window

Columbia University Libraries Digital Collections: The Real Estate Record

Use your browser's Print function to print these pages.

Real estate record and builders' guide: [v. 92, no. 2383]: November 15, 1913

Real Estate Record page image for page ldpd_7031148_052_00001057

Text version:

Please note: this text may be incomplete. For more information about this OCR, view About OCR text.
BUILDERS AND NEW YORK, NOVEMBER 15, 1913 ■iiiiiiiiiiigiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii LIMITATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT ASSURED No Determination Yet of the Question of Dividing the City Into Fixed Zones, But Some Plan For Protecting Residential Neighborhoods Is Probable. I nni ■■■■■aiMiiiiM^^^^^^^^^^^^ FROM the progress reports that have come from the Heights of Buildings Commission it seems assured that the commission has practically de¬ cided that a limitation upon the height of buildings to be erected in this city is practical, economically advisable and legally permissible. Further than this it is believed that the commission has virtually resolved not to recommend an absolutely horizontal line for the limi¬ tation, but instead a method by whicli allowances will be made for tower buildings, especially at corners and prominent places. It is understood that the prevailing opinion favors a normal limitation pred¬ icated upon the width of the street, with further allowances for setbacks. In regard to the proposal for dividing the city into permanent zones, while no definite determination has been arrived at in the commission, it is considered doubtful, if not quite improbable, that the commission will advise an absolute division of this nature, but some ac¬ tion may be recommended that will have the ultimate eflfect of sparing well de¬ fined residential neighborhoods from undesirable invasion.. Informal intimations have come from members of the commission that, if the Board of Aldermen does not grant the legislative relief desired, the State Leg¬ islature will be asked to enact the neces¬ sary laws. The chairman of the commission, Ed^ ward M. Bassett, of Brooklyn, stated this week that height limitation is not of doubtful legality. Presumably the com¬ mission has definitely taken a stand on that point, notwithstanding that a pre¬ vious corporation counsel once advised the Board of Estimate that an ordinance limiting the building height would be unconstitutional. "Practically every great city of the world, including those of this country outside of New York City, has limited the height of buildings," declared Chair¬ man Bassett. "And the courts have al¬ most without exception upheld such limitations. If our city should today take steps in this direction it would be nearly the last city in the world to come into line." Is New York Different? "Some say that New York is not like any other city and that where space is so limited buildings should be allowed to go any height. Is this true?" "There is ten times more space in lower Manhattan covered with low buildings than is covered with high ones," answered Mr. Bassett. "The theatre, retail shopping and hotel dis¬ tricts, built up with tall structures, are almost infinitesimal on the map of Manhattan, which is commonly thought of as the congested borough. Tunnels and bridges under and over the EDWARD M. BASSETT. Clialiman Heights ot Buildings Commissiou. surrounding rivers will soon make New York city a round city, the same as London, Berlin and Paris, and it can¬ not claim exemption from rational treat¬ ment on the ground that it differs from any other city in the world. This is not to say that its problems are the same as in other cities, or that the remedies can be copied from elsewhere. Each city presents its own peculiar problems and good sense demands a remedy adapted to its particular needs. Copying is usually a mistake." "Some consider that restricting the height of buildings in New York city is locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen?" "To some extent this is true in the lower end of Manhattan and here and there alon,g its backbone; but what shall we say of all the other parts of this great city where high buildings do not prevail and where in some future age there may be a development of which we do not now even dream? Street Capacity. "Street capacity in lower Manhattan has much to do with the problem. In fairness to all land-owners in the south¬ ern end of the city, can the city allow, the continuation of the building of sky¬ scrapers? Where would it stop? The streets will hold just so many people in rush hours and no more. Lower Broadway and Nassau street are now crowded nearly to the limit three times a day. If a hundred more buildings the size of the Woolworth and New Equit¬ able buildings should be erected and filled with tenants, the streets would not hold the traffic, to say nothing of the dangers of panic conditions. When that day came, the city would have to prohibit anything except very low build¬ ings in the district. This would almost amount to confiscation, but what other alternative would there be? Every year makes it more impossible to widen streets. Then, too, come the difficulties of transportation. There is a limit to the number of subways that can be built through this district. If all of the workers capable of being housed in the new Equitable Building should go to the subway at once it would take twenty minutes for all of the trains, express an(i local, to transport them, if devoted ex¬ clusively to their service. About Natural l^aws. "Some say that the whole question in lower Manhattan should be left to the working of natural laws. They say with much truth that there is an economic limit of height for buildings, and if own¬ ers transcend it they get hurt. It is well known that the cost of construction per cubic foot becomes much higher as ad¬ ditional stories are added, also that more space must be set aside for elevators. A modern office building that does not give quick elevator service is doomed from the start. To give quick service groups of elevators must run express to a cer-j tain height. .A.11 of this requires addi¬ tional space and an office building that is a mere shell of offices around a great elevator system cannot produce a fair return. "It is a popular fallacy that office buildings pay in proportion to their height. The reverse would be quite as near the truth. But apart from the fore¬ going considerations, which ought to impose natural limits on heights, how can a community protect itself against the new experimenter who is determined to put up a building higher yet, or who decides to leave a monument in the form of a hi.gh building, or who desires to put up a conspicuous advertisement, charging the loss to his advertising account? Corporations have done these things, as welF"as individuals. "I blame nobody. The law allows it. The question is whether the time has not arrived when, for the benefit of the community and for the sake of equal treatment to all land owners similarly situated, the city should enforce a measure of protection in a field where private protection is impossible." What Some Cities Are Doing. In the mass of information collected by the Heights of Buildings Commis¬ sion, which was appointed by the Board of Estimate upon motion of George Mc¬ Aneny. Borough President, the ques¬ tion of districting stands out as imoor- tantly as any other detail upon which the experts in city planning who have