The Washington herald., 1910-07-17
MILLIONS SPENT
UPON BUILDINGS
Activity Back to the Basis
of Year 1906.
FIFTY.oNE CITIES REPORTED
Statement Issued by the Geological
Survey shows Operations 10 Per
Cent Greater in 1909 Than Ia 1906.
Aggregate Is s7O0,OOO,OOO Animals
Iy-Charaeter of Construction.

An interesting statement has just been
issued BY the United States Geological
Survey relative to building operations in
hfty-one cities Of the country, covering
the year 1909 and the four years prior to
that time.
The statement shows, so far as build
Ing Is concerned, that for the year 1909
the volume Of operations had swung back
to the basis OF 1906, and shows an in
crease OF about 10 per cent over that
year. The statement IN part follows:
The cost Of building operations In fifty
one cities that reported for all three
years was Se4s o5s SIS In 1907. 1855. is5. 4o4 in
1908, and s771. ss7. 564 in 1903: an increase
for 1909 over 1907 of 1888 T.7o9. or 1913
per cent. and over 1908 OF s2o5, 772,1eo. or
1854 per cent. The estimated cost Of
building operations in these fities in
1865 was sos. 10000, so that there was an
Increase in 1909 over 1906 Of more than 10
per cent.
Increase and Decrease in Cities.
The increases and decreases for inai-
vidual cities in 1903 as compared with 1903
are not significant. because 1903 was not
q normal year The largest increase
reported for 1908 was $s.11.73O, or 1878
per cent. by Chicago, and the next larg-
est was s4.44s. zoe. or 3.sz per cent. by New
York: the Increases in 1903 by these two
cities were, respectively. $2S,003.5So or
A.s5 per cent, and SIS, %, Cos. or 57.S per
cent
Brooklyn. which had the largest de-
crease (s25 1850. in 1903, showed the
third largest gain IN 1909-s1s 402.o6l OF
the cities that showed decreases in 1903.
San Francisco had the largest. S. 4s4,zls,
OF 1882 per cent: Dayton was next. with
s.. 5ss 80. or 47.42 per cent. the largest pro
protional decrease; and Oakland was
third, with s1,002,051, or 1915 per cent.
The decreases in these cities may be
ascribed to local causes. The significant
decrease in San Francisco indicates that
the building activities OF that city have
probably reached a nearly nomal con-
dition after the abnormal condition fol-
lowing the great fire Of 1896.
The annual cost Of building operations
in San Francisco for the last i've years
has been as follows: 1905. SIS. 26S. 753; 1896.
So. s27. sse; 1907. s5s.574.s44: 1905 Ssl.6ssS1;
and 1909, s2s.lsi.oss
Comparison of Permits.
The number OF permits issued in these
ffty-one cities increased from 179.5s4 in
1908. when there was a decrease from
1907 of l2.s5l. TO 21S.4ss in 1903. a gain Of
s. s04. or 922S per cent. The number Of
permits Of buildings does not seem 10
bear any definite relation 10 the cost OF
the operations. as several cities showed
increases in cost of buildings showed de-
creases in number Of permits or build
ings, while some of these showing de-
creases in cost showed increases in num-
Der of permits or buildings
The average cost of operations under
the total permits issued in these hfty-one
cities was 1855 in 1909. against $s.24s IN
building was s24.SsT in 1908. against 1886
in 1908: in Chicago it was S4.Sn in 1903.
against ss327 in 1905: in Brooklyn. $4s72
In 1909, against 1929 in 1905; in Philadel-
phia, s.. $50 In 1909 against s2.l07 in 1903;
in San Francisco. 1855 in 1909. against
s4.7Os in 1905
Character of Buildings.
For the first time an attempt was made
TO collect statistics Of the building oper-
atoms by character Of buildings and also
by additions. alterations. and repairs 10
each class Of buildings. Figures reported
from I2S cities gave details showing the
kinds Of buildings erected and the addi-
tons, alterations, and repairs 10 each
class Of buildings under 264 53s permits az
a cost OF sso3.3s5.s 54. the new buildings
constituting S03 per cent of the cost and
the additions. alterations, and repairs 81
per cent.
OF the cost OF these new buildings. 1874
per cent was for fire-reslsting buildings.
and 2s.76 per cent was for wooden Guild
ings. OF the total cost Of additions. alter
atoms. and repairs, $3.50 per cent was for
hre-resisting buildings. and 34.45 per cent
was for wooden buildings. The average
cost in 1909 for new wooden buildings
was g, 269: for new brick buildings, s., 80;
for stone buildings. s11.67S: for concrete
buildings, Sl7.0ss; and for miscellaneous
buildings, s63sso.
Varieties of Construction.
Seattle had the largest number Of new
wooden buildings. 1855. and Los Angeles
was second, with 5,2s4 buildings. Chicago
was the leading city in cost of wooden
buildings. with a total OF 1892, $50: San
Francisco was second, 81, 25Z $50; Seattle
was third. ss.S4S.sO5. Reading was the
only city that reported no wooden build
ings erected.
New York reported the construction OF
slS 2S7; Chicago was second, with a cost
OF $7s.105.500: Brooklyn third. s5465s. ~:
fourth. S42570.T70; St. Louis
fifth. s22, i22, s2s; and San Francisco sixth,
81. 124. ss7
The average cost of new fire-resisting
In the fifteen cities reporting
the greatest cost for this class ranged
from s3.151 in Philadelphia. 20 ss5.SSi in
New York. IN new brick buildings New
York was the leading city, Brooklyn sec.
ond. Chicago third. and Philadelphia
fourth. Chicago took the lead In stone
New York being second and
San Francisco third. Chicago was also
In the lead in concrete buildings, with
Seattle second and Philadelphia third.
Out of 1913 cities. considered. seventy-nine
erected new concrete buildings. i.7sI IN
number, which shows the widespread
use of this material.
In addition TO these rs cities. nine
others reported only totals for permits
and for cost of buildings. which brought
the total number OF permits up TO 27s. $50
and the total cost up to 500. 52e.7ls. OF
this total cost the ffty-one cities already
referred TO furnished s2s6 per cent.
Real Estate Men Unite.