New-York tribune., 1879-03-27
TENEMENT REFORM.
THE TENEMENT PRIZES.
''p 'HA'''S@' hAbto.
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH INFLUENCED TUy r

CONSIDERATIONS WHICH INFLUENCED THy COW.
MIITEE-A LETTER FROM oSE OF TEE GENIE.
MEN VINO OFFERED THE PRIZES
To ne Bdifor Of The TrtbMns
SIR: THE TRIBUNE has shown so mncb on.
terprsc aud public spirit in its treatment OF the teno
ment-house competition that hesitate 10 crtclse i,.
course points. Yet 1t seems to me as II IDiu,
tce Is shown toward the committee ia your editorial ~
March H. and that objections TO their decision ara
based upon misconcepton.
The aim OF the competition first announced and q,
repeated in the committees report, was to obtain
house for workingmen. in which may be secured n
proper distribution Of light and pure air with an mr.
rangenent OF rooms that will yield rental sufficient IN
pay fair interest the investment and that as a re
suit the single lot well he capitalist NAV
be shown how they those who arc forced TO
live In tenements, andat the same time secure pay.
ing investment" Hence the question OF pruhtabeness
was Of prime consideration. The natural inference u
the socalled "practica man wOnd be that such
committee would take an aesthetic and theoretical view
OF tie problem and award prizes plans for attractive
and healthful houses which would manfesty not pay
to build But the judges. In awarding prizes, wisely
avoided his blunder and adhered % their tex Never
theIess, among the plans chosen for honorary mention
were many wholly free from the objections made to the
nrize plans-among these may be named sanias'
Light Air and HEALTH" etc.
In your editorial you state:
TheY Ohe comIntteel were deprived by death OF the
services OF the distinguished architect who lad drawn
up the conditions Gf the competition after having made
asptcal study OF the sject of tenementhOuse reform
Another architect took mis- place at the last moment
hut was unable 10 give the matter thorough eNamna-
ton His associates, the Rev DIR. John Hall. the Rev.
Dr. Henry G. Potter and Mr. Robert Hoe. trained
observers, whose hearts were IN their work. but they
old not have the exDrrience OF sanitary engineers
the instincts Of practical architects. The awards
virtually made by Professor Chandler, who laid less
stress upon having every room lighted and ventilated
directly than he did upon having three rooms
suite OF apartments and she living rooms where they
would command either the street or the area in the rear
Of the lot.
Permit me, one knowing the facts, to state that the
above statement contains many nagTnt In the
first place. Mr. Hat6cds death did not prevent the
miees having the OF detailed notes OF his examna
ton of most Of the plans These notes. well
versations with other members of the committee made
bis views pretty well known to the latter. Secondly.
Mr. Rcnwick was not unable to give the matter
thorough examination" but devoted much time 20
studying the plans and. with a majority OF the commit
tee carefully revised all the plans excepting those for
one or two families to each floor. Thirdly, Professor
Chandler did originate tho requirement. that each
family should have at least three rooms, and 1t was
held TO bssssentia 10y all Of the committee II the
mltee could have coBsCentiOusY approved OF plans
with but two rooms 10 ca family thelr ehoice would
nave been easy, but this point they were unit
80 long rs houses IKE hat SHOWN W. your ISSUE VI he
17th inst, with six deep allowed 10 be built
II not useless to expect capitalists with conscience
to compete with their Ownersl with legislation re.
strcng the number OF persOns dwelling under one roof
reasonable limits something may yet be done with
the single lot but not beforehand in this every sensible
man muSt agree WIN me committee NEhIiAs
Ne,o- York, March 23. 1879.
The main point seems to be this: Mr. Rem
wick had somewhat more and Professor Chandler
somewhat less to do with making the awards than
we supposed. We see no occasion TO modify any,
thing we have said as to the nature of The award
ELL