The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-23
REVIEW OF REAL ESTATE
Interviews With Brokers Upon
the High Building Or
dinanCe.
BRANDED AS SILURIANIsM.
a Consensus of Opinion That the
Proposed Limitation Is Very
UnWiSe.

The sales Of the week indicate healthy
condition of the real estate market. Prl-
Vate sales were more numerous than for the
previous week and the results of the auc
ton last Tuesday were such as to
strengthen existing confidence. The con-
sensus of opinion among real estate deal
ers is that values will not soften unless
some great hindrance be thrown IN the way
of the Citys progress. Such a calamity
they consider the proposed City ordinance
limiting the height of freproof buildings
TO 100 feet, for it would cause deprecia-
ton in the value of property in the central
portion of the City. With such a law Chi
cago and New York realty could not have
attained its present value per square foot,
because the expenditure could never have
been warranted by the rent income of the
improvements.
\ OF the least of the factors that enter
into the problem of the development of a
CITY and its transition from village condi-
tions to metropolitan proportions is
the erection from time to time OF
buildings OF striking proportions. San
FranciSco's architectural advancement to
a city of metropolitan character is compar-
atively of recent date, yet this advance
ment has been so rapid that it has been
ings, the tallest being the first pointed out
as monuments to the progress and growth
of the City.
Better offer a premium to capitalists to put
up tall buildings and put us in line with
Chicago and New York than cast any hindrance
in the way of the Clty's development al this
time" said Wendell EaStOn, in speaking of the
proposed ordnance. He continued: 1.-The
Board of Supervisors had better encourage
than discourage the few capitalists we have
ITn 10 0lSnoSed improve
metropolitan lines 1t is good plan not to
restrict too much. but let such matters regulate
themselves"
In discussing the same matter Gustave
II. Umbsen said:
The resolution before the Board of Super
visors TO limit the height OF fireproof buildings
to 100 feet and to so feet for non-freproof
buildings savors too much OF silurianism ian
epoch of which we, are presumed to have
passed), and no sound argument can be made
in favor of it.
We should encourage our capitalists and
those who come here to improve San Francisco.
Should the resolution of the Board of Super
vlsOrs become an ordinance it will have the
effect of depreciating the value OF real estate
because it affects the revenue and consequently
the investment. A fair interest upon the in
vestment must be had, and in centers where
the price OF property is high, buildings only
can be made to produce fair returns by allow
Jig the air space to duplicate terra firma.
Limiting the height and style OF the buildings
does well enough in European cities with
narrow streets but not in American metropoli
tan centers.
Will E. Fisher was particularly caustic
in his remarks. He said:
am as much opposed to q law restricting the
height OF buildings as l am to law restricting
the amount of money l may invest in a suit of
clothes or any other law restricting my per-
sOnal liberties. The man who has money to
put in a high building is too cautious and too
prudent man to put it into building which
demands protection from fire department,
and lack OF such protection is one of the chief
arguments urged against the construction of
such buildings. The restriction in question
would undoubtedly lower the value per square
foot Of our business property and lead our rich
men TO find investment in Eastern localities
where silurians do not rule the roost. Fur
thermore our limited experience IN this town
with high buildings has shown that many ten
ants prefer TO get as far away as possible from
the noise and dirt and atmosphere OF the
street, especially where the same narrow
minded people who are making this fight
against progress have rendered it desirable to
get away as far as possible from our streets be-
cause OF their roughness and noise and dirt.
The nearest approach to this proposition that
] can recall just now was an attempted enact
ment by the last Legislature of the anti-thea-
ter hat bill.
George D. Toy of Bovee, Toy & Co. took
the following view of the proposed ordi-
nance:
Too many tall buildings will not be erected for
the reason that they will not pay interest on
the investment. There are many things that
regulate themselves and this is one of such
IT has been suggested that the proposition of
limitation originated with the owners OF low
business buildings. These men need have no
fear if they will only put their buildings in
modern condition, because tall buildings ne
cessitate extra outlays which must be compen-
stated in rent The erection of modern build
ings cOmpels the owners of old structures to
improve them, hence there viii always be an
element opposed to architectural progression.
A. S. Baldwin pointedly observed:
alone. The whole proposition is antediluvian.
1t is going back to the spirit OF the age of the
Mexican adobe and miners shanty. We must
be progressive and public-spirited. The board
had better extend the fire limits than object to
tall buildings.
Henry P. Sontag, when interviewed on
the subject, replied:
1t should be the pride of our people to have
the tallest buildings in the United States. The
supplanting o: the low shanties along up Mar
ket street with big, tall buildings would make
1t one OF the grandest thoroughfares imagin-
able and place San Francisco in the forefront
of the large cities of the world. High build
ings are demanded. They are an ornament to
the City and preferred by tenants, the latter
fact being shown by the renting OF the upper
floors first. Other cities have had the same
silurian element to contend with.
i. C. McAfee had the following to say:
The height of buildings not fireproof should
be limited, but believe in allowing owners to
build TO any height provided the structure is
absolutely freproof. If properly constructed
which can only be accomplished by strong regu-
lations strictly enforced, the Fire Commits
siOners or any one else can have no reasonable
objections to "skv-scrapers." For my part
would like to see more of them, but don't ex-
pect that san Francisco will be at all burdened
with great numbers of men of enterprise
enough to make such expenditures of wealth
Herman Shainwald was unreserved in
his remarks. He said:
II is burning shame for such proposition
TO be dignifed with a discussion or a news
paper article in these days. We have been be-
hind the times long enough Let us propose
and discuss measures OF advancement. In do
ing this we may reasonably proceed upon the
lines that other cities have followed and be-
come great The ordinance TO limit the height
OF freproof buildings to 100 feet is the work
of the silurian, who would keep this place a
village and make San Francisco the laughing
stock of the world.
L. r. Ellert, manager of the California
Title Insurance and Trust Company, said:
1t would be disgraceful to have it published
broadcast that q San Francisco capitalist could
not put up freproof building more than 100
feet high. Additionally we are passing
through a transitory period where every step
is OF great Importance. We must make no
mistakes in laying the foundations of our City
because it would take several centuries 10
correct them. AS we build so will many of our