The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-19
FAVORS BIC BUILDINGS
Attorney Hart Argues i
Behalf of Fire-PrOof
Structures.
In Accommodation to the Board Of
Supervisors He Gives His
Reasons.
The following communication is self

The following communication is self
explanatory:
SAN FRANCISCO, Cal, Sept. IS, 1895.
To the Mayor and the Honorable Board Of Super
viSorS Of the City and County Of San FrdRciscO-
GENTLEMEN: l see by the morning papers that
a committee OF your honorable board has
recommended that the board pass new fire
ordinance relating to buildings, and that in
one OF the sections it limits the height of fire.
proof buildings hereafter 10 be erected in San
Francisco TO 100 feet and the height of build
ings not tire-proof to not exceeding 80 feet.
In behalf of my clients and myself write
this communication 10 your honorable body as
protest against the passage of any ordinance
limiting the height OF tire-proof buildings to
100 feet. There are many reasons why this
ordinance should not be passed, and why this
limit should not be imposed, among which
will give the following which suggest them
selves TO my mind:
First-1he City of San Francisco is now and
always will be, if not hampered by legislation,
the chief city OF the Pacific Coast, and the time
has arrived when the public spirit of the citi-
zens OF San Francisco and newcomers will ad-
vance the City 10 large proportions; that Tor
climate, health and availability as shipping
point it cannot be eXcelied, and we are now,
verify believe, on the eve OF great advance
ment in this City, and the restoration of Amer
lean shipping, the recoinage of silver the ad-
vancement of the South American trade and
American manufactures will cause San Fran
cisco, in my judgment, inside of twenty-five
years TO become city of more than l, 100000
population, ana IL is quite evident that when
persons now construct new freproof buildings
that those buildings ought to be constructed of
such material and in such manner that they
will be twenty-five years in advance of the
present condition OF the City. No one can
afford to build such building and limit the
height to 100 feet. One hundred feet would
not be more than sufficient for seven or eight
stories, and the passage of such an ordinance
would have the effect of absolutely preventing
the construction OF several new buildings in
San Francisco which will soon be undertaken
if the law is permitted to stand as it is.
Second-Ihe cities OF Paris, London and such
places ought not to be considered by your hon
orable body or any one else pattern to follow
in reference to the City of San Francisco, for all
persons know who have visited Paris and Lon
don that the streets, with but few exceptions,
are narrow and not of such character as they
are in the City of San Francisco, and that the
ordinances in Paris and in London limiting
the height OF buildings have been brought
about by reason OF the sanitary conditions of
those cities and the laws there which require
that no man should shut out the sunlight or
air from another mans building or property.
Those reasons and conditions do not apply to
San Francisco. Our streets are more commo-
diOus, wider and SUMMER, and under the Sys-
tenn OF laws In this country whoever owns lot
owns it from that point to the center of the
earth and from that to the sky, and he ought to
have the privilege of occupying any part of it
so long the building is fi1eproof and does
not endanger others. San Francisco can sus-
tain buildings of any height from a sanitary
standpoint better than Paris or London can
sustain them at six, seven or eight stories, by
here yentilating all parts of the City.
Third-If a building is constructed as an alb
solutely fire-proof building, ] respectfully sub
NIT to your honorable body that 1t would make
no difference as TO what height it was con-
structed; for, if it is fire proof it cannot be af-
fected by fires. OF course, acknowledge the
right Of the board to pass an ordinance in ref
erence to the construction OF buildings not
fire proof, and it is entirely proper to consider
the ability of the City Fire Department to ex-
tinguish fires in such buildings, but why
should person be prohibited from erecting
an absolutely fre-proof building OF any height?
If 1t can pc said that the buildings called
freproof buildings are not such, then 1t would
be entirely proper for your honorable body 10
pass an ordinance increasing or enlarging the
building is fire proof and absolutely so, why
should there be any prohibition in its height?
/ submit there ought not to be.
Then again, in reference to this subject, If
your honorable body has been properly in
formed, you will find that the city of Paris is
independent fire wall independent from the
buildings, and If the prohibition there did not
exist it would permit buildings to be built in
one district which would overtower the fire
walls Of another district, and thus furnish the
material for the spreading of conf1agration
in another district; but where we have no dis
tricts dlvisable by fire walls in San Francisco,
why should the condition be imposed here, eS-
pecially as TO fire. proof buildings?
respectfully submit that a fire-proof build
ing has the effect at least of stopping the fire
from passing from one side to the other, and
hence the higher it is the better it is as was
shown in the recent large fire south of Market.
street.
therefore respectfully submit that if your
honorable body passes any ordinance on this
OF fire-proof buildings to be hereafter con-
structed. Very respectfully, w. H. H. HART.