The sun., 1909-02-21
THE new TENEMENT BOOM
DUE TO CHANGES EXPECTED
~ THE BUILDING LAW.
builders Are Filing Plans for q Record
Number OF Six story seml-F1reproof
Tenement Houses as the New Code
May Abolish This Type OF Dwelling.

tenement Houses as the New Code
May Abolish This Type OF Dwelling.
The unusually large number OF plans
for new tenement house construction
recorded OF late at the building bureaus
Of Manhattan and The Bronx is admitted
by some Of the architects interested to be
due to desire on the part Of investors TO
discount possible legislation blythe Build
.rg code Revision Commission restrict
ing non-hreproof tenement construction
restrictive action by the authorities ap-
pears widespread among realty folk and
is much akin to the excitement created by
.he advent OF the tenement house law
itself In 1901.
It is recalled that the early days OF
April OF that year brought an unexampled
aood OF plans to the Manhattan Build
ing Department. which then had juris-
dction over building in The Bronx as
we'll, filed by builders fearful of the finan-
cial effect OF the then radical "hreproof'
requirements OF the impending tenement
law. These plans covered a vast number
Of sites in various parts ~ the two bor-
oughs, and very many Of them provided
for non-freproof "dumbbell- tenements
Of seven stories that the new Law pro-
hibited,
CONSTRUCTION df0 Oh inteTeBt IN COnneCttOD
with the present agitation. The figures
for the greater city during the final four
months preceding the enactm ent OF the
law are:
Houses. Cost
I.nusry:. .'''...''''''''...'., 81 ,SIsssoo
February, y,'..'.,'.,'',,,..,... l0l 6.Oe350O
March. ch..,...,..............,.,. loO 7.lii,OO0
April il..........,...........,. Ti S06Si 600
Total. l.................,..,.tOs t7ss4, 900
Between April 3 and 10 the number of
plans filed daily was: April 8. 70 buildings;
April 4, 1lO buildings; April 8, 90 buildings;
and April 10. IS buildings.
Concerning iplans, thus filed the tene-
ment law made the provision that build
ings the excavatiop~for which should
have been begun before June I, 1901. and
the first tier OF beams OF which should
have been set on or before August 1
should be subject only to the provisions
affecting then existing tenement houses.
provided the plans were in accordance
with the code as IL existed prior TO June /.
1901. which was the code that is now being
revised by the Building Compassion.
IL Is the expectation that some like lib
eral exemption will be accorded in the
revised code that has inspired the recent
rush Of builders 10 submit plans to Supts.
Murphy and Reville before the new code
is adopted by the city authorities. The
rush is all the moro noticeable by it's strik-
Ing COuttHbb 10 tft6 bttkiidttOD III hoW ttut-
mount house projects that marked Feb
rlary last year.
The increased cost Of building involved
IN the elimination Of the present semi
freproof construction appears as the
prime factor in the agitation against the
proposed restrictions. and upon the
cost question there appears TO be marked
division Of opinion. Some advocates
OF the restriction have made What they
claim to be a liberal estimate. placing
the increased cost at between 25 and 30
per cent. while others place the cost
The restriction, il adopted. would Of
course require the use Of steel beams and
fireproof floor arches throughout the en-
tire building. the interior trimming re-
naming practically as IL Ii now. IL is
the additional use Of fireproof structural
material which would be necessary over
and above the first tier Of beams and the
fireproof stairs, halls. staircases and
enclosing walls required by the present
tenement house law which would add the
percentage in question 70 the cost OF
construction. Whatever the increase OF
construction cost might ultimately prove
10 be. it has had the effect Of alarming
speculative builders.
In addition to the proposal to limit the
height Of the seml-freproof tenement
there is also before the code commission
a proposition TO revise the present limi- !
ration on semi-freproof loft buildings |
changing the exempt height from rs TO
80 feet, cutting OF ie feet Of the present |
height. This revised regulation has ap- !
parently attracted less attention from
architects and builders, possibly owing !
20 the fact that sites available for improve !
ment with seventy five foot manufactur- |
ing buildings are comparatively few. The !
bulk Of the recently projected commercial
buildings are above 70 feet In height and |
represent the best class OF freproof con-
struction upon which the insurance cost
ia very materially 1essened by reason OF |
the superior construction and reduced
combustibility. The use OF steel beams
and incombustible floor arches and floor
ing in loft buildings over SO feet high but !
less than ten or twelve stories would OBJ
viously increase considerably the cost OF
construction. but those friendly to the
enforcement of the new freproof restric-
tions in such structures claim that there
are compensating advantages OF lowered
insurance rates and increased value OF
rhe site and building incidental to the
improved form Of construction.
The Manhattan record for the present !
year up to February 10 In projected tene-
ment house and loft building construc-
ton is:
TENEMENT HoCsEs
No. Cost.