Columbia University Libraries Digital Collections: The Real Estate Record

Real estate record and builders' guide: [v. 96, no. 2468: Articles]: July 3, 1915

Text version:

1 REAL ESTATE AND %) BUILDERS /v NEW YORK, JULY 3, 191.5 iiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii REALTY INTERESTS IN THE CONSTITUTION A Large Delegation Asks for Limitation on the Dimensions and Character of Buildings in Accordance with the New Zoning Principle ■Iii ■ SELDOM has Albany witnessed a more representative delegation ap¬ pearing in behalf of economic principles vital to real estate than that which advo¬ cated restrictions of buildings' heights and zones for all incorporated munici¬ palities in New York State. So much significance was attached to these par¬ ticular principles that a joint hearing was called of both the Committee on Cities and the Committee of Bill of Ivights, of which Seth Low and Louis Marshall. respectivpi>. are chairmen. In addition to the amendments pro¬ posed to restrict buildings' heights and to establish zones, there was a third amendment to the Constitution proposed which provides for the condemnation of unsanitary blocks when public health de¬ mands that they be converted into pub¬ lic parks. In this connection the power is also given to the city to condemn excess land which, if not needed for the public park, shall be no more than suffi¬ cient to form suitable building sites abutting on the park. This land may be sold or leased with or without restric¬ tions. Five ameadments in all, cover¬ ing all these phases of real estate im¬ provement were submitted to the Con¬ stitutional Convention. Three were introduced by William Bannister, president of the Brooklyn Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. These amendments were drafted by the Advisory Council of Real Estate interests and the Tenement House Committees of the New York Charities Urganization and the Brook¬ lyn Bureau of Charities. Limit Building Dimensions. They specifically provide that the Legislature shall have the power to limit the height and dimensions of buildings in cities, towns and villages of the State and likewise the use and character of occupancy of these buildings. According to these amendments this power may be exercised directly by the Legislature or by authorizing the vari¬ ous mnicipal corporations to exercise the same in the manner that may be provided by the Legislature. The third amendment confers upon the Legislature power to take real prop¬ erty which is dangerous to pulilic health or safety and sell or lease the same, subject to such restrictions as may be deemed to be in the public interest. These amendments are the first public step taken by the Three-Family House Committee of the Advisory Council upon which the New York Charities Organi¬ zation Society and the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities are represented by .\lfred T. White and Darwin R. James, Jr., with Paul D. Cravnth, ex-officio. In order to encourage the construc¬ tion of small-family houses and, if pos- sil)le, to decrease the construction of 50-ft. tenements and regulate height of office buildings, it was deemed expedient to impress upon the Constitutional Con¬ vention the wisdom of incorporating these amendments into the Constitution. The general sentiment among real es¬ tate men was said to be that restric¬ tions upon height and zoning would be able to do much to stabilize property values and simultaneously prevent val¬ ues from shifting. Experience had con¬ clusively demonstrated that the erec¬ tion of mammoth l)uildings caused ad¬ joining property to depreciate in value and deprives smaller buildings of ten¬ ants, in many cases, the larger build¬ ings had taken over leases of tenants in other buildings, at great expense, with the result that unrestricted building has been detrimental to l)Oth small and large property owners. If real estate owners would not conserve their own interests by moderation, then it was necessary that in the interests of the community as a whole certain restrictions be estab¬ lished. It was said that the large office build¬ ing was far from a paying investment, wliile the avidity with which favorable locations are seized upon, to the depreci¬ ation of the value of adjoining property, had been one of the elements in depress¬ ing the real estate market. The his¬ tory of real estate development, in so far as the invasion of residential blocks by industrial and business enterprises was concerned, had been able to illustrate that the zoning principle should prove to be of considerable benefit to a health}' real estate growth. Would Encourage Property Ownership. One of the most discouraging features in the real estate world was the decline in the number of property owners. It was estimated that the actual numlier of owners, including corporations, is ap- pro.ximately 125,000. New York to-day liad less percentage of home ownership tlian any other city in the country, while Boston has a 10 per cent, increase over that of New York. Chicago and Phila¬ delphia had twice as many property own¬ ers; Cleveland and Milwaukee, Buffalo. Baltimore and San Francisco had three times as many, while Seattle and Los .'Vngeles had four times as many. It was, of course, understood that there are many families throughout the coun¬ try that are well able to own homes, but prefer to rent apartments, and this was especially true of New ^'ork City. It had been estimated that there are in New York City alone 200,000 families financially able to own $10,000 homes but prefer to rent apartments or live at hotels. To encourage this class of peo¬ ple to purchase property and also to augment the property owning class gen¬ erally were among the reasons for sub¬ mitting these amendments to the Con¬ stitutional Convention liy the .\dvisory Council and the Charities Organization Society of New York and the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities. That tlic sentiment for restriction of buildings' heights and zoning of the cily, likewise condemning of unsanitary areas for park purposes, extended beyond real estate circles, was evidenced by the introduction of similar amendments by other associations. The Fifth Avenue Association, through Mr. Baycs, intro¬ duced an amendment giving to cities directly instead of to the Legislature power lo estal)lish regulations and re¬ strictions for heiglits and zones. The Fine Arts Federation and the Citizens' Union, through Mr. Parsons, introduced an amendment purporting to elifect the same results as contemplated by the Bannister and Bayes amendments. In support of all these various amendments the real estate interests were repre¬ sented by Walter Stabler, of the Metro¬ politan Life Insurance Co.; F. G. Hobbs, of the firm of Slawson and Hobbs, and the Secretary of the Advisory Council of Real Estate Interests. The Fifth Ave¬ nue .Association appeared through coun¬ sel, Bruce Falconer, while Albert Bard spoke for the Fine .\rts Federation. The Charities Organization Society and Brooklyn Board of Charities were rep¬ resented by Charles Coleman Miller, John C. Gebhart and Lawrence Veiller. Lawson Purdy, president of the Tax Board, discussed the legal aspects of the various amendments, reinforcing the position taken by Walter Lindner, in his letter to Mr. Low. This letter to Mr.' Low, read at the commencement of the hearing, was as follows: "The Advisory Council of Real Estate Interests favors strengthening and in¬ creasing these public regulatory powers wdiich are in the nature of an exten¬ sion of the police power of the State. Arguments upon the social and economic aspects of this subject will be presented to you in such detail that it is unneces¬ sary in this place to add to the discus¬ sion. One aspect, however, of this sub¬ ject the Committee on Legislation of the .\dvisory Council of Real Estate Interests considers it proper to present. So far as the exercise of tlie powers now proposed to be specifically granted comes within the recognized police power of the State, it may be argued that it is not necessary to add further expression thereof to the Constitution. But, the question is one which will come up for decision not only in the State Courts, but one upon which appeal may be made to the Federal Courts on the ground that rights guaranteed by the LL S. Con¬ stitution might be infringed by the exer¬ cise of the powers now sought to be expressed. If it is wise that the State and cities shall have this power, and it is assumed that it is wise, "then the solemn declaration of the People of the State of New York contained in their Constitution that they desire to exercise these powers may have a great and even a controlling influence to sustain such action taken under them when the ques¬ tion is presented to the United States .Supreme Court. "It would seem, liowever, that in framing such constitutional provisions and the legislation to carry it out, care niust be taken to remain within the limits of the promotion of the general physical and moral welfare of the peo¬ ple and not to overstep these bounds by seeking to preserve mere property val¬ ues, as is contemplated in some of the propositions which are before your Com¬ mittee." .\t the conclusion of the hearing a special committee, with Hon. Morgan J. O'Brien as chairman, was appointed by Mr. Low, to confer upon these amend¬ ments with the various interests rep-: resented.