The San Francisco call., 1906-06-19
new LAW
IS AGAIN
DELAYED
Building Ordinance Must
Be Held Over for
Two Weeks.
Full Discussion Of Its
Provisions Heard by
Board.
Adherents and Opponents
Of Concrete State
Their Views.

the official publication that neeeSSitate
delay. the new building ordinance will
not be ready for a final vote of the
Supervisors until Monday, July 2 At
that time, If the plans of Supervisor
Coleman. chairman of the special COM
mittee, do not miscarry, the ordinance,
in substance as has been announced,
will be passed.
For three hours yesterday there were
arguments for and against reinforced
concrete, which was the storm center
of the entire discussion, but it can be
stated that unless the Supervisors
change their minds, the reinforced ce-
ment section will stand without altera-
ton. a special meeting will be held
Saturday morning for further consid-
Grafton.
The Supervisors chamber was packed
long before the time set for holding
the session, which was delayed in
opening until after IL o'clock Then
everybody wanted his say. 1t was
free-for-au discussion with few limits
and although DR. Boxton declared his
idea was to pass the ordinance at once
and let amendments be presented later
if necessary others of the Supervisors
quietly passed from the building until
there was no longer a quorum. The
takers talked themselves out and then
the meeting was adjourned.
Through all the dispute Of the ce-
side and the bricklayers and their
allies ON the other, the one important
key note was struck by Frank B. Gill
bert, a contractor from New York, who
| urged a building ordinance of some
| kind and that at once
BUILDING WORK DELAYED.
81 have been here for three weeks
| he declared, with contracts in my
pocket to start million dollars worth
of buildings. I am tied up, unable to
do anything. 1t is for the Supervisors
to decide how many obstacles are to
be put in the path of those who want
to rebuild San Francisco. Let US have
something at once
Aside from the stand taken by
Charles Alpers there was ne argument
in regard to the height of buildings.
and the limitation as stated of not
| more than one and one-half times the
width of the street on which the build
/ ing will be located, is sure to stand.
| No one appeared TO protest against
| such a limitation and Charles Alpers
wanted to go the proposition one bet
ter. He wanted all buildings limited
to the width of the street on which
they may be located He declared that
such a procedure would produce a
more artistic city and that it would
be good thing for the people in gem
eral, forcing capitalists TO construct
]. c. Sims of Santa Rosa opened the
war in the matter of reinforced con-
crete, and the brick end of the argu-
ment had the first inning. He expressed
it as his opinion that buildings of re-
| inforced concrete would not stand the
test of fire as well as brick and also
declared the concrete to be more or
less of an experiment If buildings are
! to be erected of this material, he said,
| they should be limited in height to
three or four stories. In closing he
cited the Palace Hotel as brick build
/ ing that well withstood the fire.
ARGUES FOR CONCRETE.
! Representing the structural engi-
i neers' association. William Hammond
Hall made the principal argument in
| favor of concrete. "The construction
of a reinforced concrete building" he
said, comes nearer being a scientific
proposition than the construction of
| points to the Palace Hotel as an ex-
ample OF what brick will stand II
you will notice that building you will
find that every wall in the building is
! tied together with steel rods That is
the principle of reinforced concrete
to tie the walls together with strong &
iron or steel rods. A reinforced con-
crete building rs designed much the
same as a steel structure. Its load is
carried on columns. and the walls of
such a building never carry the weight.
1t is merely a proposition of whether
you make these columns strong
/ enough
Following the Hall argument. Super
visor Boxton delivered himself of the
opinion that the board might as well
adjourn. He said no ordinance would
suit every one. and he was in favor of
pushing the present one through. and
amendments could be made later If
necessary.
Wilson championed the cause Of the
people who wanted to talk, and they
were allowed to proceed.
w. r. Sherman asked to have the
| limit on frame buildings increased from
forty five feet to fifty, and Fire Chief
Shaughnessy opposed this because of
the difficulty in fighting fires.
Others who addressed the board were
w. f. Burbank. to- limit the height of
| buildings; w. r. Schultz. favoring re-
j inforced concrete; II. ". Postlewaite. in
favor, of the brick men; Edward Bran
don, against reinforced concrete: John
| Scheerer. favorfng concrete: Thomas X.
! Keogh. for the cement workers; Henry
Gervais. for concrete; Charles J. Muir
: ply, for concrete,