Columbia University Libraries Digital Collections: The Real Estate Record

Real estate record and builders' guide: [v. 93, no. 2410: Articles]: May 23, 1914

Text version:

May 23, 1914 RECORD AND GUIDE 913 partments each issue four items. When a property owner wishes to comply and ,is represented by a proper architect, the architect studies the "violations and after consultation with the various depart¬ ments he is able to report to his client in very accurate form just what is to be done. In many cases, however, owners are reluctant to comply with violation or¬ ders because the orders represent an "outlay of money for which no return can be seen. From a real estate own¬ er's standpoint, I do not see any ne¬ cessity for consolidation or centraliza¬ tion of bureaus'. From an architect's standpoint, my opinion is that while it would be benefi¬ cial to do business with one department to be known, perhaps, as the "Depart¬ ment of Buildings," it would not greatly facilitate the work of the architect, for it would still be necessary to have sep¬ arate and distinct divisions. A steel en¬ gineer is not properly equipped to ex¬ amine tenement plans as to the law, nor is a tenement examiner qualified to pass on plumbing, etc. At present, when one files a plan for plumbing work in a building, it is not necessary for him to make out tenement or construction blanks, but if all the departments were consolidated there would be many blanks to file, one in each separate di¬ vision. Instead of the work being re¬ duced, it would be multiplied. From a financial standpoint and under certain conditions I would favor a spe¬ cial consolidated bureau with special divisions. The head of this bureau to be the Borough President, and the heads of the divisions to be known as "chiefs" instead of commissioners; the blanks accompanying plans to be simplified and in loose-leaf form, so that one general question page may be used for the gen¬ eral information describing the build¬ ing location, owner, etc., and the pages to follow to be specification pages pertaining to each division and describ¬ ing the particular kind of work to be done and examined by the particular di¬ vision so that the same piece of work shall not be examined by more than one division. If this should be done, it would (1) reduce printing bills, (2) reduce labor for the architect, (3) re¬ duce unnecessary examinations. The next item of expense and a source of annoyance is the inspection depart¬ ment. A tenement house should not be inspected as to construction until com¬ pleted. This may sound interesting if not astounding. Why? you ask. My answer is that it is not necessary. All that a tenement house inspector should look for in a tenement house that is be¬ ing erected under the proposed consoli- .dated department plan would be to see that the stories are the proper height, that the rooms are as shown on plans as to size and shape, that the windows are as marked on plans as to size, that the courts, yards, etc., are as marked on plans, that the stairs are of the proper width and a few other items of similar nature. Plans and specifications as approved by the tenement division call for cer¬ tain definite figures and it should be up to the owner to see that these figures are carried out. If the builder is not competent to follow the plans, he should employ a competent superintendent or the architect, or a surveyor to layout his work, and not depend on the inspector to point out the mistakes. For this work a high grade special inspector shall be employed, who upon making examina¬ tion, will issue violations which will not be petty or technical, but real violations; and when these have been issued the work of such special inspector shall cease and the following up as to com¬ pliance of the violations shall be done ..by a corps of less efficient inspectors, who do not inspect to find violations, but only to see that the violation is¬ sued by the special inspector have been complied with. The getting of the proper grade of men should not be a matter of great concern, because under the new plan the city will be able to save hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, even though it may be required to pay more for the better grade of help. If there be any doubt that men thor¬ oughly familiar with building construc¬ tion can be obtained' to inspect and re¬ port intelligently with speed and pre¬ cision, let him ask a dozen architects to act as volunteer inspectors of certain buildings in definite sections apportion¬ ing a number of houses a day, and I am sure that the result would be gratifying to the city and its Borough President. I for one am ready to do my share. Effi¬ ciency is the keynote of all business to¬ day, why not in the greatest city in the country. MAXIMILIAN ZIPKES. 220 Fifth Avenue. Skyscrapers Depress Values. Editor of the Record and Guide : I have read the arguments advanced by Messrs. Robert E. Dowling and Jefferson DeMont Thompson against height restrictions, zones and districts, and consider their contentions wrong. Notwithstanding their assertions to the contrary, the fact remains that exces¬ sively tall buildings affect detrimentally light and air about them, produce con¬ gestion of traffic, and depress values in small real estate properties adjacent lo them, besides which they have contribut- _ ed to the disfigurement of the city gen- ' erally. Instead „i frogressit.g by the con- vnued erection of the so-called "sky- Ec:aper,''we ire actually retrogressing in permitting an already intolerable con¬ dition to become worse. By adopting reasonable restrictions respecting h'"ig!it limits for buildings, and by the estab¬ lishment of zones and districts, the~ci'c/ will eventually become a more desirable place in which to work and live. JOHN R. HINCHMAN. 437 Fifth avenue. May 18. Brooklyn and Queens Should Help Pay. Editor of the Record and Guide : The Civic Center plan now purposes creating a d-agonal parkway ending at Williamsburgh Bridge plaza. In the dis¬ cussion on this matter at City Hall on Tuesday it developed that the charge for this would be levied on a separate area of assessment, as it is not included in the proceedings for the Court House site. Now, it behooves one to ask why should not Brooklyn and Queens pay the major portion of the cost' of this diagonal parkway, as it is certainly in¬ tended to facilitate travel between the bridges to Brooklyn, rather than to be of any direct value to people residing in New York proper. LEWIS PHILLIPS. 158 Broadway, May 20. --------------♦-------------- Will the Courts Uphold the Heights of Buildings Plan? Editor of tlie Rbcokd and Guide : It would seem futile to add anything to that which the weighty supporters of the plan of /'building districts and re¬ strictions" said at Tuesday's meeting at City Hall. It all was good, and should certainly meet the approval of every one who has the welfare of the city at heart and takes pride not only in its appearance, but also in the general well-being and prosperity of its inhabitants, property owners and business people. But, while heartily in favor of this and any forward move¬ ment, it strikes me as of doubtful prac¬ ticability, in view of the' loose attitude taken by our courts on the subject of restrictions. Granting, for the sake of argument, that restrictions imposed by or under the guidance of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment are feas¬ ible and legal, the question presents it¬ self as to how long the courts would uphold them. All covenant restrictions have the full power, authority and solemnity of con¬ tractual obligations, and any imposed by the city could not possibly be more binding; yet what have the courts done with them here among us? The courts delilDerately destroy, despite restrictions delightful private house neighborhoods by allowing apartment houses to be built on West 72d street and West 145th street. They call an apartment house a "family residence" in West 78th street They deny that an undertaking estab¬ lishment is an objectionable neighbor to a high-class private residence on Madi¬ son avenue. They permit a loft building in a restricted part of West 26th street, and do not allow a business building on the south side of 40th street, between Fifth and Sixth avenues. Will these same courts have any re¬ gard for these contemplated new re¬ strictions, or will they in a longer or shorter time invent and use some change in the character of the neighborhood, or other argument which in their ex¬ alted opinion will make it inequitable to enforce such restrictions? If so, what is the use? Shall we have our restriction troubles all over again and then, again, will the banks, trust companies and title companies refuse otherwise good loans because no one will be able to say what the restriction's effect may be? The courts, thanks to their weak and strangelv inconsistent attitude, have caused enough havoc with values now. Do let us be extremely careful of giving them any new oppor¬ tunities to do more damage. A. T. SIEKER. 32 Liberty street. May 20th, 1914. --------------♦-------------- Heights of Buildings Not a New Theme. For a generation off and on New York City has been talking about limiting the heights of buildings. The discussion antedated the era of steel construction for buildings and was directed at first against such great piles of solid masonry as the Tribune building and the Western Union building. Until 1879 these two stood alone as examples of modern tall buildings, not because of financial ill success, but because of hard times. In that year under more prosperous con¬ ditions, the era of high buildings com¬ menced in earnest. The Morse building, at the northeast corner of Nassau and Beekman, the London, Liverpool and Globe, the Smith building in Cort¬ landt street, the Mills building in Broad street, the United Bank building at Broadway and Wall, Temple Court on the site once occupied by Clinton Hall, at Beekman and Nassau, were among the first of a large number of tall buildings whose construction preceded the introduction of steel framed build¬ ings. They shut out the light and drained tenants frora lesS attractive neighbors for a time, arousing many protests, among which there appeared the following in the Record and Guide of January 20, 1883, thirty-four years ago, from Messrs. James C. and Robert Lynd: "We think the time has come when some legal limit should be fixed upon the height to which buildings may be erected in the city of New York. In the first place, the rapid¬ ity with which ten-story structures are thrown up is appalling, the cost of the ground on which they are erected being so great'that no time is wasted in getting them in condi¬ tion for tenants. "Then, again, we consider it next to impossible to construct buildings of this character so as to render them absolutely fireproof. In the bill drawn up by Mr. Esterbrook, in relation to the erection of buildings in this city and which willcome be¬ fore the Legislature now in session for action, there is no limit fixed to the height to which anyone may build." A generation of experience with sky¬ scrapers has finally convinced the city authorities that "some legal limit" should indeed be fixed. The modern reasons therefore are succinctly set forth in the report of the Heights of Buildings Commission. -----------•----------- —The weekly payrolls of industries in New York State are on the increase according to the report of the secretary of the Manufacturers' Association of New 'York State. This healthful sign is to be shown in every other State soon, in the belief of Colonel George Pope, president of the national association.