Evening star., 1926-09-09


wealth, Barnett has spoken of his
desire to carry out his alleged
promise, the court is told, and
Walker presents an order. under
date Of June 10. 1925, addressed to
the General Indian Bureau at Wash
ington. and signed and acknowledged
ment here under cOnsidera tion. and in
districts best adapted to detached
and semi detached single family
dwellings. there should he stimuli
taneous raising of the standard re-
quired width for side yards.
Narrow Yards Opposed.
'In cities and districts where there
is widely prevailing and strong
local prejudice against row or group
houses. and especially in areas
where Ahere are many single lots in
separate ownership which can
economically he used only for de-
tached or semi detached dwellings
with side yards as narrow as feet.
it would presumably be unreasOna BILE
to require more than 5-foot mini
mum width for side yards But |
am strongly OF the opinion that nor
ma!lv people get better living con-
ditions for their money il the prey
alence Of such narrow side Yards
is discouraged or prohibited, and that
II is reasonable to Gel. higher
standard Of side yards in the absence
OF such special conditions as above
cited.
I'm other words. where there are
TO he side yards. with windows open
ing out upon them and looking
is,tA h ivN.l r
next house. II is empha tically de-
sirahle that there should he as a
rule more than 10 feet between the
buildings.
"Where all the people cannot afford
detached houses with really ample
side yards 1t is better to have a
smalle number Of side yards and
leave such yards as there are really
adequate for light. air and reasOna BILE
privacy. EconOmtzing OF costs should
take the form not Of providing every
home with an inadequate pretense Of
side Yards hut of providing some de-
tached houses with adequate side
yards. some semideta ched homes with
an adequate yard on one side and
none on the other and some group
houses Of which the end dwellings
will have adequate side yards and the
intermediate dwellings will have only
front and rear yards.
Toronto Example Cited.
Every one agrees that to permit
very narrow slts between buildings
with windows facing on them IL bad
business. as has happened, for exam.
pie, In Toronto, where many buildings
are spaced only to feet apart
a 'ciHA dc ID
yards are worse than useless My
contention Is that even 10 feet he
tween buildings as rule falls short
OF securing the advantages which
alone Justify the economic cost Of
leaving any side Yards at all
That cost is represented. first, by an
initial fixed cost which IL the differ.
ence between half the cost Of a cheap
party wall and the whole cost Of
finished wall with windows in it and.
second, by cost prOportionate to the
frontage added to the lot by leaving
one side yard. This second element
in the cost Of side yard is not
strictly proportionate to the width of
the yard. because II the yard is wide
enough really to make II a suita BILE
outlook for windows. the depth of the
house and therefore it's cubage per
front foot can he increas without
loss in quality Of living conditions.
In other words the economic cost
Of side yard Is disproportiOnately
high for narrow yard but for yards
Of more than certain width is in.
creased by an amount directly pro
portionate to the increase In width.
whereas the value Of side yard
space between buildings is less than
mo- hing for a very narrow width. In.
f..., 10 l. l.
vicinity Of 70 feet between buildings
snd increases at a rapidly diminish
ins rate after the width becomes suf-
fcient TO give a reasonably satisfac-
to,v degree of light. air and privacy.
ut would be OF great value to make
= careful and dependable analysis OF
these costs and values and OF the
varying 70 tes at which they both In
crease with increase Of space between
buildings.
I'm the absence Of such thorough
and dependable analysis | may state
certain tentative conclusions which ]
have reached in studying the matter
from the point Of view of large land
compa MES engaged in developing and
marketing land for suburban use
where the demand IL for detached
houses. They are that the highest
aggregate values are 10 De ODtaineu
by % requiring for each building a
minimum aggregate width for the two
side yards of not less than Is or Is
feet. C2) increasing this minimum on a
sliding scale for buildings Of more
than a certain frontage (abOut 80 to
35 feet. t3) permitting this aggregate
side yard space TO he uneQually 'di
vided between the two side yards tsO
as to facilitate garage entra noes and
for other reasons). provided that
neither side yard may he less than
one-third Of the required aggregate
width for both yards. This results, In
the case OF minimum size houses. in
securing an average distance between
houses of at least Is tor 1S) feet. al
though a few of the spa ces may be as
narrow as 10 feel, the more impOrta nj
windows usually looking out on the
wider spaces.