Year: 1872




The disastrous fire in Boston, like the great
confagration in Chicago more than year
ago, will provoke much criticism upon the
ordinary methods of constructing large build
ings in our great cities and the general and
absolute insecurity against similar calamities.
New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore are in
as great danger to-day as were these burned
cities previous to their destruction. If
fire were to occur in one of the i'm
mense warehouses in the district
bounded by Broadway and Chatham
street. where the thoroughfares are narrow
and sinuous and the buildings combustible,
nothing could prevent its sweeping all that
part of the city known as "down town."
Even Broadway ITSELF intersected as it is by
narrow streets and Offering constant tempta-
tions to the flames, might be destroyed block
by block. This should not be the case in any
great city, the danger to life and property
being too great to be disregarded in view Of
the awful warnings of these two great dis
asters.


1t is easy enough to teach the lessons of
these confagrations, but the lessons are apt to
be forgotten with the disappearance of the
alterations of s'burned Boston and ''charred
Chicago" When the sensation is over the
duties imposed by the calamity are disregarded.
If Boston had learned from Chicago New
York might not now be required to learn from
Boston. For those places like calamity may
never come again, for neither is likely to
repeat the error which gave it to the flames,
though we are told Chicago is once more to be
hastily constructed town, full of danger.
There is no real security against repetition of
the blunders of the past. Freproof buildings
which are not freproof except in name may be
built in either place, as they have been built
year after year in New York. Besides. fire.
proof building has no chance to Withstand the
fame and heat of burning city, when it is
surrounded on every hand by combustible
structures. The most secure edifces both in
Boston and Chicago crumbled and fell because
there was fuel for combustion everywhere
round them. It follows from this that every
building in large city should be freproof,
and that no others should be allowed to stand.


The safety Of the whole people is to be pre-
ferred to the selfishness Of part. A great
calamity is not to be risked because individuals
will not voluntarily guard against it. The law
should provide for the removal of all structures
which do not afford the most absolute security
and the law should be strictly and thoroughly
enforced


If it were not for the danger Of being
charged with mocking at the calamities Of
others, we should say this Boston fire was
good thing. Sooner or later calamity like
this was certain to come, just as it came last
Saturday night. The streets in the burned
district were SO narrow and so irregular and
the buildings offered such constant temptation
to the fire fend as to make the catastrophe
possible and very probable accident. Now
new city will rise on the site of "old Boston,"
The narrow and winding streets have disap-
peared with the structures which made them
unsightly. Wider and better thoroughfares
| will take their places. Frmer and more sub
stantial buildings will replace the burned struc-
tures It is fair to assume that Boston will
not allow combustible warehouses to be built
side by side with freproof edifces. The lives
that were lost will become sacrifice to greater
security in the future, and the capital which
turned to ashes in an hour will spring up
again in renewed activity and beauty. The
poets and antiquarians who used to brood
over the historic ground and regard the un-
safe buildings as monuments to be reverenced
will miss their customary occupation; but
Boston can 60 without her poets and anti
duarians in the newness Of beauty and
security


The first consideration in great cities is fire.
proof buildings but surrounded by COM
bustible structures, they are comparatively
valueless. It is for this reason that we urge
the necessity of making all buildings fire.
proof even to the extent of tearing down
structures which are, in fact, unsafe, but re-
garded by their owners as perfectly secure
against the flames. The next thing to be done
is to replace narrow streets by broad avenues
1t is to-day almost impossible to burn Paris,
for the reason that its magnificent boulevards
are strong barrier against the spread of fire.
We may credit without exaggeration, the
safety of the French capital during the
siege and while the Commune held the city
to Haussmann-the expensive "Board of
Public Works." in the imperial reign of Ma
poleon III. Had Paris been city like some
parts of London, or like old New York or old
Boston, nothing could have saved it from the
spark of the enemy or the torch of the incen-
diary. Its wide streets and substantial build
ings were better protection against destruc-
ton by fire than the weapons or the courage
of its defenders. So it must be with every
city we'll and wisely built. If Boston had
long ago exchanged its crooked cowpaths for
wide and straight avenues fire at the corner
of Kingston and Summer streets would not
have swept everything before it from Wash
ington street to the water and almost as far as
Faneuil Hall Failing to take this necessary