^K^J^^' / i¥s." t*^ % CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY GIFT OF Arthur B. Cozzens Sec. Of City Plan. Com. Newark, N, J. ARCHITECTURE Cornell University Library NAC 768 .N54C74 Conference on Inter-urban improvement of 3 1924 024 464 418 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924024464418 No. 3 Property Development Inter-Urban Real Estate Committee Cornell Hnitjersitg OF THE Colleae of Hrcbitccture a^f^.^ii^.i. \ Conference on Inter- Urban Improvement of Newark and Adjacent Municipalities Newark, New Jersey Report of the Real Estate Committee October 14, 1914 Newark, N. J. Published by the City Plan Commission 1914 NftC !\r, SHI -op-V V of " " ., ^^ornoii Univf;ryt|_-„. Regulations and Restrictions Upon Property Development Upon the proper development of real estate in any- city depends the efficiency of the street plan, the char- acter of occupancy and, in general, the vitality of the living organism itself — the city. The development of real estate is fundamental in the growth of a com- munity and determines whether that growth shall be good or bad. In the Metropolitan District with which we are concerned are found the many kinds of development common to all municipalities. For residence and for business the land of any city is always in demand. It may be used intensively for either purpose, or in varying degrees for both. The greater the area the greater the difference in character of the several sub- divisions and the more intensive the use of each. Wit- ness, for example, the purely residential character of many districts in the Oranges, Montclair and Short Hills; and the exclusive business development of Broad Street and Market Street, Newark. Each of these districts needs protection in many ways along the lines of these developments. This protection usually exists in the form of restrictions arbitrarily assumed by owners or occupants of the land, seldom by municipal regulation. EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN METHODS CONTRASTED. Europe and America differ greatly in the methods used by each for this regulation and restriction upon property development. In Europe the municipality is .supreme, and land is developed only according to the Conference on Inter-Urban Improvement requirements of the City's Plan. In America land is developed only for the greatest financial return to the individual owner. One of the best illustrations of the European conception of proper real estate develop- ment is the practice in German cities known as "Umle- gung." Under this practice a city purchases land for a number of square miles outside of its official boun- daries, irrespective of the manner in which it may have been already developed. The area so acquired is then so plotted as to make it conform to the general plan of the city in question. The land is then redistributed to its former owners, giving them lots in the locality of their original holdings, after making due recom- pense for loss, if necessary. All future developments are required to conform to the new plan. The city of Frankfort, having a population of but 335,000, has recently expended over $50,000,000 for land outside its inhabited area. German cities even go a step further and sub-divide their total area into districts or zones, in each of which certain classes and kinds of building and development may alone take place. In some cities there are as many as twelve of these zones. The restrictions in these zones include character of occupation of build- ings, as for business, for industry, for residence; the heights of buildings, the widths of streets, the percent- age of ground which may be covered by buildings, and so on. Thus we see that city building in Europe has become a scientific process. European practice differs from American in that the municipality deliberately enters the field of real estate development for the avowed purpose of check- ing speculation and preventing overcrowding. This municipal control of land prevails in the United States only as far as to permit the city to acquire land for a specific "public use." Our constitutional limitations make impossible here such radical restrictions as are common in many German cities. Conference on Inter-Urban Improvement PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE RIGHTS On the other hand, it is beginning to be realized by the American people that the rights of the individual over his land is supreme only when its exercise does not inter- fere with the health, the welfare and the convenience of the general public. In other words, we are learning that the right of the municipality is greater than the right of the individual, wherever the general welfare can be pro- moted only by the exercise of its power. This is well shown by the fact that in the past eight or ten years many laws have been passed in several States permitting the practice of, (a) excess condemnation; (b) the estab- lishment of thoroughfares upon building lines to which abutting property owners must conform ; (c) the estab- lishment of city plan commissions with more or less authority to regulate the development of private prop- erty; (d) the establishment of restrictions on building heights, and (e) sign construction. All of these powers have been approved by the courts in various instances as being in the "public interest." ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS. In America there are Boards of Health whose duty it is to enforce the sanitary regulations. There are also Tenement House Commissions, which command proper housing conditions. But there is not as yet any authority which can enforce the scientific layout of streets and regulate by districts the sizes of lots or the percentage of lots which may be built upon. That to attempt to grant such powers would be unconstitu- tional is claimed by many on the ground that this would place restraint upon the individual owner and developer. Yet such restraint, while not often neces- sary, is in the public interest. A question, then, of supreme importance to our community is, what restric- tions, if any, should be placed upon the manner in which private property is developed. Conference on Inter-Urban Improvement REAL ESTATE OPERATORS. Among real estate operators are many classes. One develops his property with the highest civic ideal in mind; another wishes to obtain only a fair and rea- sonable financial return. At the other extreme is one who develops in the quickest and cheapest possible way, conforming only to such regulations as are required by law, and hurriedly disposes of his entire holdings to make quickly the largest financial return possible. The latter is the get-rich-quick speculator. Of the first it must be said that he seldom controls sufficient area to enable him to protect his interests. An attempt to shield wise and far-selling development from the encroachment of the speculator would call for a greater outlay than conditions warrant. The result is that the more progressive operators seldom produce the best results they can and would produce were they not harassed by the speculator. They haven't suffi- cient protection. The undesirable operators, of whom there are many, should be subjected to rigid restric- tions. Only in this way can our most serious difficul- ties be avoided and a deliberate and wanton method of imposition upon the poor and ignorant be pro- hibited. Your committee is informed of an example of these' land pirates, selling lots 14 feet wide and 50 to 60 feet deep upon narrow and poorly laid out streets in which there are no improvements. The shame of it is that when errors like these are corrected those who suffer are the innocent purchasers, while he who is really responsible, and knowingly so, goes securely on his way, unmolested, and repeats the same despicable operation in another locality. These practices the municipality tries unsuccess- fully to prevent by threatening refusal to improve streets which are improperly laid out with paving and sidewalks and by not allowing sewer, gas and water connections. Meanwhile the operator departs, having CoNPERBNCE ON Intbr-Urban Improvement disposed of his holdings, and the purchasers, instead of pursuing the offender, seek to prevail upon the munic- ipal authorities to waive the requirements and accept the street. Sometimes the municipality yields and attempts to rectify the mistakes at the public expense. Many municipalities now require by law that operators submit to the proper authorities their plan of streets and lots for approval. But this does not always work successfully, for the operator often does not follow the plan submitted, or sells his lots before submitting a plan or even develops in a crude fashion and maintains the streets at his own expense until such time as he sees fit to get out. To summarize: there has been a lack of scientific procedure in city extension and we should now meet this lack by a definite and carefully prepared plan laid down either by each municipality, or by a group of districts, or by some such central authority as the county. A CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY. Assuming the creation of such an authority, its procedure might be somewhat as follows: First: To co-operate with such local planning authorities as may exist to provide an efficient and well-considered street plan for the entire district in question, including street widths. (This would include a plan for vacant areas and a method of rectifying mis- takes now already made.) Second: To make a detailed study of the char- acter of occupancy of all land in the district, with an aim to restricting building heights, and lot sizes, and the districting and proper restrictions of certain kinds of structures. Third: To restrict as far as possible the sale of any land not developed in strict accordance with the 8 Conference on Inter-Urban Improvement official plans devised either by local boards, by the authority in question, or by joint action of each. This Committee recommends that such a board be created and that our Legislative Committee submit to this Conference a draft of proposed law embodying the ideas above suggested. That its creation is greatly to be desired goes without question. A precedent for the creation of such a board is to be found in Chapter 226 of the laws of Pennsylvania for 1913, and in Chap- ter 108, of the laws of Massachusetts for 1907. DUTIES OF A CENTRAL BOARD. Of the first duty mentioned above, the creation of a plan, there are few who do not now realize and appreciate the advantages of such an undertaking, and the communities which constitute this metropolitan district are already possessed of such power, to a limited extent, by virtue of Chapter 242 of the Laws of New Jersey for 1912. The second duty of this Board — to study the re- strictions and districting of buildings of every char- acter — while more or less of a new undertaking, is work in which our cities are vitally concerned, and we find several municipalities are already taking it up. New York City has made a most comprehensive study, the results of which have been published in the report of the Heights of Buildings Commission. Boston has a law (Chap. 233, Mass. 1904) which divides the city into two districts, and limits building heights in each. This law the courts have upheld. Baltimore limits the height of all buildings within one block of the Wash- ington Monument to 70 feet. The third duty, to restrain the sale of improperly developed land, is essential to the success of any plan, and is apparently the only way in which to circumvent the evil work of the land speculator. /^{;% ■^m"^"" .J r- -"3 p'^s^S^V, "';/'- «'-_,, -m-^ ,^-r. r--^.; ^v '/Vtei», |i i«^*,' r'; f / .^A V Sv^ ?§1 >, ¥