The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1906-01-21
DANGER LIES IN
BIG BUILDINGS
District Regulations Do Not
Compel Fireproofing.
DESSEz TALKS
Member of "Citizens' Committee" on
Building Regulations Says Import
ant Legislation Must Be Had.

The shocking news from Minneapolis
of the death OF nine persons from fire in
the West Hotel, building supposed to
be "1reproof." has excited attention to
the subject of fireproof apartment
houses in the District.
Leon Z. Dessez, the well-known archi-
tect. who has been prominently identi-
fed with the work of the Citizens
Committee on building regulations, in
discussing what has been done By the
local authorities IN the matter OF fire.
proof construction. said yesterday:
''The question OF regulating the con-
struction OF tall buildings, more partie-
ularly of apartment or tenement houses
was last year brought TO the attention
of the Commissioners OF the District. 1t
became evident at once that radical
changes were imperatively needed in
the building regulations. A hearing on
the attn OF April. 1890. at the District
building, WAS well attended by property
owners. citizens ana residents.
Formed Citizens Committee.
when the hearing closed those pres
ent al the suggestion OF the Commits
sioners, organized themselves into q
meeting for the purpose Of deciding up
on a plan Of operation II was proposed
10 get information. particularly as 10 the
action of building authorities in other
cities. both In the United States and
abroad. and then 10 aid the Commits
sioners BY sending to them suggestions
Of changes in the regulations.
The meeting appointed a committee
- oh r.
man. and John Joy Edison. Frank w
Hackett, Joseph g HOrnblower. and my
self. Mr.. Hornblower and I are archi-
tects The committee accepted the
duties, and we held several meetings.
where we discussed the building regula-
tons Our first aim was 20 secure proper
light and ventilation IN buildings that
should hereafter be erected. The reSula-
tons In force were very far from what
they ought 20 have been After much
labor. and a careful revision Of our first
draft. We submitted TO the Commission
ers The text of certain proposed new
regulations.
TIE Commissioners proceeded eau
tiousIy, and az "A later date adopted IN
part og.r recommendation. Meanwhile.
one member OF the committee. Mr.
Hackett, bestowed special attention up
On the subject OF fiTeproof buildings. de
found that Congress. BY act OF March l.
1897. had prohibited an apartment house
to b.. erected or more than sixty feet n
height above the sidewalk, unless IL
were a areproof building. BE also found
thar the Commissioners had been In the
habit OF issuing permits for tail build
ings. which were considered nrepFOoI'
and vet had wooden window frames
Protested Against Building.
..RsUeving that the use Of window
flames OF Vsod was not fulfilling the
raoutremcnts 4 the act OF Congress, Mr..
ua.l,att addressed the Commissioners a
letter. on The 18th OF October last, pro-
testing against permitting BUILDING
then in course Of erection 10 be con
rinued 10 sie height allowed nrepFooi
building. This protest was put on the
ground that the apartment mouse Ia
question was being furnished Win
wooden window frames.
a nortton of Mr.. Hackett's lette. was
rrinted IN one of the newspapers OF inc
district. The Commissioners appear 10
have been OF the opinion that they were
powerless in the premises Having grant
/ ed the permit they conceived that IL was
/ Impossible for them, after having 10
sued II. 10 make a change in the re-
ouirements. The Commissioners furtHeT
( EXPRESSED themselves as OF the opinion
| trat reasonable fire protection would De
4 obtained with wooden window frames.
/ II the remainder of the building were
/ fireproof.
"Our committee have been unable 10
share this opinion of the Commission
ers. We think that when Congress says
! hreproof. Congress means that every
/ preeaution for safety. which can be APP
piled. is required. We cannot help think
ing that the permission TO so up very
! high in the air (which is virtually putting
one house on top of .another} Is a priv
| leg, n be enjoyed only by adherins
strictly TO the law providing for the
safety OF life. We consider it the duty
! OF The Commissioners 10 enforce this
provision of the act of Congress with q
rigid hand.
Assume They Are Secure.
people are not oyercareful about
/ looking after their safety In these large
t buildings. They take il. for granted that
the building regulations have provided
( all the security that is needful; AND
/ therefore. when the law says very til
| nuildfng shall be fIrepro1f, almost every
I body assumes, as a matter OF course,
/ thar ii is so.
Now, IT is perfectly well known that
| such a thing as an absolutely fireproof
structure cannot be put up. The act q
Congress means that the nearest 4p-
/ proach to an absolute fireproOf stand
| ard must be insisted upon by the Com
| nnissioners. Ii is only fair TO say OF
/ the Commissioners. and the building
/ inspector, that they have great difficult
/ ties to deal with. We recognize that
| in the main they are vigilant 10 pro-
. tect the lives of citizens exposed to perl
| by fire.
| ut is evident, however, that iegisla
| tior in positive terms is needed: and II
seefs O pity. in this instance, where
riEid enforcement of the law might have
| beer expected. that the Commissioner
: feel that they do not have the power
+! This is a question of the construction OF
| a law, and ] do not feel competent Il
express an opinion about X. I do be-
| lieve. though. that the subject is OF very
great consequence. II viii not do tc
| neglect IL.
This tragedy at Minneapolis may
awaken our people here - realization