The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-05-20
HIGH BUILDINGS.
A Protest Against the Proposed plan
OF Regulation.

1t Is subject which should be studied
from every standpoint and In all Its bear
ings.
The Height OF Buildings Commission
has presented an able and elaborate re-
| port containing Information OF great
value for use In arriving at q wise de-
cision; but the commission itself has
reached conclusions which appear to rep
resent but a sirgle point Of view. for they
are in direct conflict with the uniform
practice of all European cires, with
| much OF the evidence OF their own re-
| port. and with me opinion OF many who
have given careful study here 20 the
subject.
In the report OF the commission we
| find the statement that out OF a total of
92.7t9 buildings In Manhattan only i.2tl
are as high as ten stories, that Is TO say.
| less than one and one-thrd per cent. OF
! tho total: hut even this comparatively
small percentage OF high buildings Las
| produced conditions which are fast be-
coming intolerable. Regulations for their
correction should certainly ne made, but
| II Is only reasonable TO demand that wher
made they shall be OF a KIND likely 10
be effective In accomplishing their object.
| II the plan proposed by the Height OF
Buildings Commission OF that nature?
Before attempting to answer this ques-
| ton. let us briefly enumerate the chief
/ causes OF complaint against nigh build
ings ana take note OF the evident disad-
| Vafdhges ana advantages whlch acquaint-
anco with them has disclosed:
The too great congestion OF the streets.
Inc shutting out OF sun ana Hsht from
streets and buildings.
Increase In the hre RISK owing to the
danger OF The spread OF hames from one
/ hlsh buiIdlhg To another ana the dlnl-
Guilty OF fighting fire at such great alti-
/ tudeP.
| injustice as between neighboring prop
ertV owners Ia the preempuon or hght
| The imitation or values within certain
| narrow limits at the expense OF the sur
| rounding land.
The obligation which these inflated
values imposes on the lana owner TO
build and add to the congestion to escape
/ ruin by taxation.
me disagreement OF the city
But the fact should not be overlooked
/ mat along with these disadvantages
nigh buildings have their good points,
which must be taken into account to form
I fair estimate:
When not too close together they af-
! FORD most agreeable, hcalthful and de-
sirsble quarters.
They Increase the available floor area
! They Increase the value OF land by
permitting greater use TO be made OF It.
! They swell the clty's tax roll.
SOmo OF them are very good looking
and have come 10 be regarded as dis
tlnctive OF our type OF architecture.
An examination of these two lists will
show that all the evils of high buildings
with perhaps the one exception OF uglI-
ness are due to overcrowding, while all
their good qualities are dependent upon
not overcrowdng we may therefore
safely conclude that no plan which per.
mts 'he crowdlng together of high build
lngs :an he successful. one cannot eat
hAN MOI ..H1I
ms light and still possess II.
there are evidently but two ways OF
securing light Tor cities:
Either to limit sufficiently the height
or the buildings, or else TO
Separate them so as to let in the air
and light The former plan is used II
| all European cities and the greatest
height which any city has thought prac
tcable TO permit is So feet. In tn,
Height or buildings Commissions report
| there Is table OF the height limits II
twenty-nlne OF the chief cities of Europe
| ana the average ~ 81 - feet.
Inc pan suggested by the commission
would permit the covering OF about 81
per cent OF the area or the lot to a
helght certainly three times and prob
ABLY four times as great as the European
cities after hundreds OF years or ex
perience, nave round ~ wise 10 allow II
such height practicable for New York
ana u 50. why?
can any one point 10 a single disad
vantage or nigh buildings, as enumerated
ABOVE "hlch would be overcome by thu
adoption OF that planT or TO one o.
their good features, which can be re
tanned by the adoption OF that plan?
THESE are questions which cannot b.
answered IN the affirmative because tn
pan permits or the crowdlng together o
hlsh buildings III adopted Il must fall
because 1t Is based on the false assump
ton that nigh buildings can DO crowded
together win impunty. Indeed, II Ii
probable that II adopted II Will prove
worse than failure ana actually ag
sravate ana intensity present evils.
IL Is wen known fact mat when
unit OF height Is once set In city al
most every new nuiiding Is carried VI
10 that limit Just as when street linei
are nxed almost every building Is bull
on the me We nave had practically
no experience with general height HIM
ltatiohs IN America, ana must look else
where TO observe results is II wise e
pesih our experience by going directl,
counter To what the experience of othe
places mas taught'
ANYBODY VINO Is acquainted with con
dluons IN me great cities or Europe nee'
nor DO told that IL would be impossible
10 accommodate much more trahc thar
now crowds the streets
IN the heart OF faris congestion ha