Columbia University Libraries Digital Collections: The Real Estate Record

Real estate record and builders' guide: [v. 94, no. 2417: Articles]: July 11, 1914

Text version:

REAL # ESTATE BUILDERS AND NEW YORK, JULY 11, 1914 iiliiiii^^ .....■■| i TO SIMPLIFY ADMINISTRATION OF LAWS | I Pertinent Suggestions Made by Well Known Architect, Tending I to Eliminate Conflict of Authority and Unnecessary Red Tape. I By JULIUS FRANKE the occupant or tenant. It makes the owner responsible for certain conditions dtie to the action of his tenaiit over whom he has no control, particularly on the question of keeping aisle space, having doors unlocked, keeping place free of rubbish, and last, but not least, keeping the place in a sanitary condition. Carelessness o£ Occupants. From the agitation against our fire- resistive buildings, one would imagine they were the worst in the world, when, in reality, there are none superior. On the other hand, the carelessness of the occupants, the way rubbish accumulates, and the way goods are stored and man¬ ufactured, or the "house-keeping"_ is, I believe, worse than in Europe. Given a building with all possible means of exit, lives will still be lost by fire, if the "house-keeping" is not proper. The theory that "house-keeping" is of more importance than the building con¬ struction is accepted by an association of New England insurance companies, who will not insure a factory unless they are assured there will be proper ''house¬ keeping," and this theory on their part is proving wonderfully successful in keeping down their fire losses. / I particularly dwell upon this to il¬ lustrate the fact that the activities of the Industrial Board, the Labor Depart¬ ment and the Tenement House Depart¬ ment should be in the matter of "house¬ keeping;" and the construction of the building itself, which in comparison is easy, can readily be taken care of by the Bureau of Buildings. The Industrial Board, the Labor Department and the Tenement House Department will have all they, can do if they only take care of the "house-keeping." Placing Responsibility. To the Industrial Board and the Labor Department should be assigned the ad-" ministration of the laws which deals with the conditions under which labor may be employed, such as safeguards about machinery to prevent accidents, ventilation to take off poisonous gases, dust, fire-drills, removal of waste and cuttings, smoking in factories, keeping the place clean, providing emergency rooms, toilet and washing facilities, hours of labor, overtime, and many other matters of this kind. The Tenement House Department should relinquish the construction of tene¬ ment houses. This could be just as well done by the Bureau of Buildings as it has been in the past. The exits of a factory should be pro¬ portioned to the number of occupants. Why should we assume that those work¬ ing in a factory are more easily killed by fire' than any other of the human species? I believe that the Labor Law, with few exceptions, in regard to new buildings, is about right. The real trouble is with old buildings. These old buildings should be treated separate and apart from the law for new build¬ ings. In dealing with old buildings it must be borne in mind that new build¬ ings soon become old ones, and to "or¬ der" radical and expensive changes to buildings that have been built in good THERE is much criticism at the pres¬ ent time with the workings of the Labor Law as affecting the building in¬ dustry, as well as New York City real estate. The criticism is due, first, to conflict of authority and the unneces¬ sary cumbersomcness of administering the law aft'ecting buildings, both old and new; second, because of the numerous "orders" and many inspections from dif¬ ferent departments; and, third, the ex¬ pense that property owners are being put to in remodeling old buildings to suit the new Labor Law. At the present time the Building Law requires that all buildings of whatever nature, erected in the Citv of New York, must have plans filed in the Bureau of Buildings and permits obtained. This is a wise procedure. Past experience teaches us too much care cannot be ex¬ ercised in the erection of buildings. Many lives have been lost due to col¬ lapse from reckless construction, and although there has lately been a meri¬ torious agitation for fire-prevention measures, the danger from poor build¬ ing construction should not be lost sight of. Pertinent Suggestion. There is no reason why the Bureau of Buildings cannot take charge of the proper construction of buildings to pre¬ vent the spread of fire, as well as of the proper construction of buildings to pre¬ vent collapse. The bureau has all the plans and records of old buildings, has the experience, and is, therefore, more qualified to take care of the fire-pre¬ vention subject as it affects buildings, than any new department which would require at least four or five years to get the proper men and accumulate the necessary experience to do what the present bureau could more efficiently and without additional expense, do; be¬ sides which, if other departments con¬ tinue to have parallel jurisdiction, such as they have now, with the Bureau of Buildings in the matter of plan and construction, there is bound to be con¬ flict of authority. Should one department have exclusive charge of the construction of one class of buildings, and another department have exclusive charge of the construc¬ tion of another class of buildings, there would be different standards of work¬ manship and materials. This would be confusing and uneconomical. If. on the other hand, the present system is modi¬ fied so that the Building Department were to have exclusive charge of the construction, that is workmanship and materials only, and the Labor Depart¬ ment have charge of the planning of the building and exits, the dealings with these two departments on practically the same subject would lead to same mis¬ understandings, conftision and dissatis¬ faction that now exist, and would be , little or no relief from the present un¬ satisfactory conditions of affairs. Simplifying System. Even the nlans for tenement houses must, at the present time, be approved by the Bureau of Buildinps. But they JULIUS FRAXKE. must be first filed and approved by the Tenement House Department before the Bureau of Buildings will consider them and give a permit. There is no sane reason for this. Whether a building be a tenement house, a factory, a theater, a lodging liouse, or any other kind of a building, the law affecting plan and con¬ struction should be explicit, and the Bu¬ reau of Buildings could readily, and without any additional expense, pass on all such matters. The present justifiable movement for reform in factories originated from the lamenta'ble catastrophe of the Triangle Waist fire. The lesson taught by that fire was not that the danger to the work¬ er was from the construction of the building or its plan, but that it was from what I will designate as "house-keep¬ ing," meaning the management and ar¬ rangement within the building itself. This fire brought forth tremendous agi¬ tation, though it was afterwards dis¬ covered that the particular building itself was not at fault; still the impulse of that agitation has resulted in certain new laws affecting new buildings, and made necessary radical changes in old build¬ ings. Too Little "House-Keeping." In the agitation following the Tri¬ angle Waist fire, undue prominence was given to ])uilding construction to pre¬ vent fire, and too little to "house-keep¬ ing." Most of the lives lost in the fire could have been saved. First, had the doors been unlocked: second, more would have been saved had the aisles between the sewing machines been wider and had there been more of them: third, had there beeii some systematic clean¬ ing up of rubbish and proper storing of the inflammable material as soon as it came from the operators, still more would have been saved; fourth, there would have been no loss of life had there been no carelessness due to smok¬ ing; and, fifth, and lastly, there would have been no loss of life had there been sprinklers. The present Labor Law. as well as the Tenement House Law, places too much responsibility on the owner of the build¬ ing, and too little or no responsibility on