New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-03-23
DRAWBACKs OFTALL BUILDINGS.
HOW ADJACENT PROPERTY Is INJURED.
DEPRECIATION IN VALUES-BAD ARCHITECTURE
CHIMNEYs THAT REFUSE TO DRAW.

DEPRECIATION IN vALUEs-BAD ARCHITECTURE
CHIMNEYs THAT REFUSE TO DRAW.
Among the evils of the tall apartment-house
system on which little stress has yet been laJ the
depreciation u adjoining property consequent upon the
erection Of these Towers Of Babel To the general
community this Is perhaps such vital Obtc as
the sanitary Danger but 1t could easily be shown mat
the damage done far outweghs the advantages gained
Another point also which has yet received the at
tenon At deserves the unavoidable architectural DO
forInes produced by the conditions uuier which these
houses are built Upon this latter Point Albert b.
Doeaeh insre ctor Duldings dwolt at some length
when asked what his views upon the tall house
question. He said:
consistent architectural treatment IL lmp"sslDe
with .uch budings They tall Il at the details OF
the upper stories either be exaggerated ont Of all
proportion To below eIso he almost lost to view
and become Of no effect DO what you will, you cannot
pre- the eev becoming more brick wall win
holes cut In IT, while good skymo or any attempt AT
gaining good eject of light AMI shae by Jnhicious
disI oston OF masses becomes cut Of tho question.
structurally TOO they liable u question The bare
requirements Of the may be compiled With aud this
department have choice but pass the plans and yet
the structure may actively dangerous TO life aud the
surrounding property. In an apa tmcnt hose uptown
10 which attention has recently been called by rnprs OIL
diabJlical dynamite plots against tue peace OF It's In
mates the wall has settled perceptbly As to become
several inches out Of plumb. The foundation In this
case is unequal wall being built upol solid rock,
| the othor o made ground"
From another point OF view these houses arc artsti-
oay atrocous Go uto Central Park day and looB
| around The immense buildings rising all sides
above the make feel as though In pit or dc
preston, and rural feeling which should be the first
thing aimed at In public PARK Is entirely lost despite
tue immense spent to All hill IL when the park was
laid As Tue dire effect on neighboriLg buildings
which are dwarlcd into nOthngncss need not speak.
These exaggerated examples of domestic architecture
| are % mistake and a nuisance however Flswel nave
no authority however, 10 object u passing the plans
should such be submitted to me; but can insist on
proper precautions being taken 70 rchner ei as sait
as possible Time. however, viii perhaps do much u
abate the craze for them now ohSng Out any measure
restrict the height OF houses u reasonaDe seae
will receive my earnest support such lroyislohs arc
| and THIS s,srid be tho case Ia NCw-York also"
Mr. DOench also referred TO the injury INFLICTED on
surrounding properties ana TO the danger RON IRE even
| with the so-callrd lre-prOoi" constructions which IN
! many cases not fre-prDof at all.
For several years Thatcher NJ Adams has taken keen
interest IN question and has carefully considered
in all its bearings He said recently: think better
To cOnhne myself to single one OF the many objections
which can urged against these brOOdDgnagian build
ings refer to the depreciation In value oil tue property
is. think, sufficiently proved by tue action
of the Commissioners who have in every case re-
apartment houses upon application OF the owners
have appeared before them more than once IN behalf o.
force OF the argument The depreciation OF property
those living la the shadow OF these huge structures sne
from loss OF light but II is invariably the case tbat OWNS
the perversOa Of the arcurrens the chimney rclus'
| TO draw. A friend OF mine who lived on the corne
diaeonally opI the building recently referred q
In THE TRIBUNE by Loring was Obliged to move OF
that account Another friend VINO has for many years
lived In University place obliged TO discontinue thu
use her dining entirely shortly after ten story
house had blocked up the rear OF her property. Now,
a not at all without additional legislation
snOec courts would not interfere TO stop tbes'
buildings common nuisance. They are III many
started by OF little means who get sucen
capital inducing others To subscribe and become thu
owners OF their apartments They iniure others
a far greater extent than they benefit themselves Fol
instance understand that twelye-slory building lO(
| bv fppt %
crown OF Murray Hill. On the opposite corner is tn
property of Mr. Aston from which the sun will be prac
ticaly excluded Estimating the value OF the property
at $3.50 O00 the deI recitation will amount 10 somethln
like $4,000 Mrs Stewards property will suffer To IN
extent OF least 100000 the precise sum being am
cult computation OtDer properties VIII suffer In tn
aggregate extent of 100000 at least that thi
Que mouse will entail dead loss OF nearly half million
Now does It not rather hard on property Owne
who has invested perhaps all his savings In real
a provision for his family 10 have thus large slice
| bis income taken awayf Ought he not to have som
rsdressl Then the insecurity OF such buildings must
construction that In the OF few years they wi
become positively unsafe not only 10 their inmates b
to their neighbors. This, again, further reduces til
value OF surrounding property Already the tenants ar
moving OF OF these houses uptown owing to II
real or fancied insecurity This Of course also tends
reduce TIE value Of surrounding houses. / have nc
touched on the sanitary dangers the dangers from fire
the many other arising from these ARCH
tectural monstrosites. have only attempted to sho
that they In Law a common nuisance and as sue
should be suppressed"