WHY Ik Law Limiting i Height of Dwelling Bouses SHOULD BE REPEALED. WILLIAM J. FRYER, Jr. ■ New York. MARTIN B. BROWN, PRINTER AND STATIONER, Nos. 49 and 51 Park Place. 1886. WHY Tie Law Limiting tie Height of Dwelling Bouses SHOULD BE REPEALED. BY WILLIAM J. FRYER, Jr. New York. MAETIN B. BROWN, PRINTER AND STATIONER, Nos. 49 and 51 Park Place. 1886. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 http://archive.org/details/whylawlimitingheOOfrye THE LAW LIMITING THE HEIGHT OF DWELLING- HOUSES, Passed by the Legislature during the Session of 1885, is a very short law, as follows : CHAPTER 454. An Act to regulate the height of dwelling-houses in the City of New York. Passed June 9, 1885 ; three-fifths being present. The P.eople of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows : Section 1. The height of all dwelling-houses and of all houses used or intended to be used as dwellings for more than one family, and hereafter to be erected in the City of New York, shall be regulated in proportion to the width of the streets and avenues upon which they front. § 2. Such height, measured from the sidewalk-line and taken in all cases through the centre of the facade of the house to be erected, including attics, cornices and mansards, shall not exceed seventy feet upon all streets and avenues not exceeding sixty feet in width, and eighty feet upon all streets and avenues exceeding sixty feet in width. Nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting build- ings for which contracts have been signed prior to the passage of this act, or for which plans have been filed and approved by the building department. § 3. This act shall take effect immediately. 1 The high building act was introduced in the Legislature of 1884, but the bill failed to get through. In anticipation of its reaching the executive's hands, I filed with Governor Cleveland my objections to the bill. In 1885 the bill passed both the Senate and Assembly, and duly reached Governor Hill's hands. An Albany newspaper correspondent wrote as follows: One gentleman who lias devoted a ^reat ainountof time in advocating a new building law for the City of New York, Mr. Fryer, has not thus far daring this session opposed the bill restricting the height of dwelling houses for fear of creating an antagonism to the voluminous building law upon tin; pass- age of which his heart is set. Mr. Fryer announces his in- tention, however, to use his utmost endeavors to induce the Governor to veto the high building act. On May 16th, following, I made a request to Governor Hill to be heard: I. In favor of Senate bill KM-— the new build- ing law; 2. In opposition to the bill appointing a Deputy Superintendent of Building; 3. In opposition to the High Building Act. The Governor set all three bills down for a hearing on Monday, June 1st, at 3 P. K. The New York Times, of May 26, 1885, in an editorial, said : A GOOD MEASURE IN PERIL. The High Buildings bill is in danger of an Executive veto. Real estate speculators, contractors and avaricious property- owners are making strenuous exertions to have this excellent measure set aside for their own personal interests without regard for the welfare of the city. This would be a serious misfortune. There is in this city a decided public opinion on this subject, which not even an ambitious politician can safely outrage ; and Governor Hill ought not to be tempted by special pleas to disregard the sober judgment of influential residents, competent physicians and public-spirited sani- tarians who have earnestly supported this measure. The Governor is to hear argument on the bill on June 1, and since the opposition is determined to fight to the last, those who have befriended the bill need to bestir themselves. 5 The bill was backed up by well-known and representative men — well-meaning men, no doubt, but of that class whose names and money, too, can always be got in any plausible scheme for the apparent amelioration of mankind, no matter whether they quite understand the subject or not, as long as they are brought into public prominence. The tide of public sentiment was running in their direction. With only one or two exceptions, the press of the city advocated the bill. The notable exception was the Herald. In several editorials that paper made reference to the subject, and took a common sense view of the matter. [The Herald, April 10, 1884] HIGH BUILDINGS. A bill has been brought forward at x\lbany to limit the height of apartment houses to seventy feet in certain streets and eighty feet in others. This is not what is wanted. There is no serious objection to reasonably tall houses — say eight or ten stories — if they are properly built and absolutely fireproof. High buildings have become a necessity in this city. The bill should be amended so as to prohibit the construc- tion of apartment houses and hotels beyond a specified height unless they are made as thoroughly proof against fire as it is possible to make them. The requisites of a fireproof build- ing should be prescribed and the most stringent means adopted to secure compliance with them. [ The Herald, April 23, 1884.] HIGH BUILDINGS. We printed the other day the reasons advanced by its ad- vocates in favor of the bill now pending at Albany to limit the height of apartment houses hereafter to be constructed in this city. Considerations against the measure are put forth in a communication in another column. Whatever may be said for or against the proposed law, it is of more vital importance to secure fireproof buildings than simply to limit their height. The bill in question allows apartment houses to be built eighty feet high. Now, it is obvious that even such structures are dangerous to life if they are mere tinder boxes, and therefore they are more objectionable than higher ones that are safe against fire. [The Herald, March, 1883.] HIGH liUILDIV.S. The " Cambridge flat " jury advise the Legislature to pass a law prohibiting the erection of dwellings more than six stories nigh, for the alleged reason that "the Fire Depart- ment seems to be unable to cope advantageously with fires above that height." Had these jurors intelligently under- stood the snbjeet* which they undertook to investigate they would have known that if a high building is thoroughly fire- proof tin; firemen will never have any occasion to cope with fire above the sixth story, and they would have recommended the Legislature to prohibit the construction, not of high apartment houses, but of those which are not fireproof. In a crowded and growing metropolis where land is precious buildings of eight and ten stories high have come to be a necessity, Such buildings can and should be substantially built and made thoroughly fireproof. W hen so constructed the upper stories are just as sale for habitation as the lower ones, and in many respects they are more desirable. [The Herald.] TALL BUILDINGS. The scare about tall buildings seems entirely without reason. There will never be enough very high houses to de- prive the streets of light to any troublesome extent ; and as the tall houses are. almost without exception, built with great care and at great expense they are likely to be better pro- vided with fire escapes and means for extinguishing fire than any of the buildings of more modest height. If the Legisla- ture, or better still, our own Building Department would compel owners of very high buildings to maintain a water supply on the roof the tall houses would be preferred by the majority of persons wdio hire offices and apartments. [ The Herald, July 13, 1885.] THE HIGH BUILDING LAW. The laws relating to buildings in this city, as revised at the last session of the Legislature, have just been published in pamphlet form by Mr. William J. Fryer, Jr., a member of the Board of Examiners. In this publication he expresses his serious doubts whether the act limiting the height of dwelling houses will amount to anything. It declares that all houses used as dwellings for more than one family shall not exceed 7 seventy feet in height on certain streets and avenues, nor eighty feet on others. But no provision is made for the en- forcement of the law, and no penalty is prescribed for its violation. Furthermore, it is a question whether the act is not impliedly repealed by the provisions of the General Building law subsequently enacted, which contemplate the construction of dwelling houses more than one hundred and fifteen feet high. These are points which can be settled only by the courts or remedied by the Legislature. The law is likely either to become a dead letter or to give rise to litigation. At the hearing granted by the Governor on June 1, 1885, quite an array of gentlemen were present to urge the Governor to sign the bill. Addresses were made by D. Willis James, Dr. S. O. Vanderpoel, Thatcher M. Adams, and others. From the great City of New York, with its vast building interests, only one other person besides myself appeared at the hearing in opposition to the bill, and that was a Mr. Gustavus Isaacs, who presented a printed slip, signed with the mitals E. L, to the Governor, the same being printed on a subsequent page in this pamphlet. This was all. In the, course of the hearing, one of the Committee spoke of the shadows cast by high buildings and that the erection of high buildings deprive people of the light and air which are necessary for health. The Governor, iu a colloquial mood, said : "I can see very well in theory that this is a dangerous practice, but many things in theory are dangerous, but in fact are not. I am told by parties that these houses are sought for. Has this matter been investigated by your health authorities ? '' " Only by this self-constituted body of citizens," replied Mr. Adams. " We thought that the laws of the great cities of Europe were sufficient. There were 105 buildings put up by skin builders last year, and all of them were of greater height than was safe.'' How do the owners and builders of the long list of magnifi- cent tall buildings erected during the year 1884, like the imputation cast upon their property and their work ? 8 At the hearing, the writer stated that the limitation of height for "all dwelling-houses and of all houses used or intended to be used as dwellings for more than one family," would include hotels. The Governor, seemingly surprised, turned to tin; Committee and inquired if that view was correct, and the Committee was forced reluctantly to admit that it was. The victory was with the eminently respectable and numer- ous advocates of the bill, and who had with them the approval of the Health Department, the Fire Department with its .Building Bureau, and almost every newspaper in New York. Judging from the silence of builders, they too were all on that side. An ebb tide always follows a flood tide, and the reflux in public opinion on the high building question is already here, so that now ten men see the wrong of this law for each man who saw its effect a year ago, and the number who will cry out for a repeal will increase ten fold before another year rolls around, if the law remains upon the statute book. Many lots along choice avenues and streets have restrictions in their deeds and leases which prevent any- thing but dwellings being erected thereon. The growth of the city, and the march of business demand these lots for other purposes than were originally contemplated, and although stores cannot be built by reason of the restrictions in the deeds, yet the statute now steps in and says that the owner cannot erect a high building to be used as an apart- ment house or a hotel. And the owner, knowing that only a high building will pay on the valuable lots, abandons the project. This is exactly what has happened in at least one case during the last year. The remarks which I made to the Governor against the Act were in print, and handed to him at the close of the hearing, and were as follows : 9 IN OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL NO. 287 LIMITING THE HEIGHT OF DWELLING-HOUSES IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK. To Governor Hill : May it please your Excellency : In the passage of this bill through the Senate and Assem- bly, I have refrained from opposing it through fear of raising an antagonism to the Building Law — Senate Bill No. 109. The marvelous advance in the construction of business and residence dwellings in New York during the past fifteen years is due to two causes : 1st. The use of the elevator ; and 2d. The use of the Kreischer patented system of light hollow-tile flat-arches between iron floor-beams, forming a level ceiling underneath, which rendered possible and practicable fire- proof buildings to be carried to any height without requiring the excessive thickness of walls to wastefully occupy the valuable area of a lot, as required when the old-fashioned brick arch floor construction was in vogue These tiles, which were first introduced in the New Post-office, in 1873, produced a revolution in the construction of fire-proof build- ings. Fifteen years ago, great business and apartment houses were unknown. The possibilities of the elevator were only then beginning to be understood. The elevator has made the construction of such edifices profitable. They are the outcome of our latest civilization, and they enable persons of moderate means, to live in dwellings and get the advantage of accommodations not to be found in the palaces of kings. The public have a right to demand that life and property shall be protected within such structures. To that end the amended building law — Senate bill No. 109 — provides that all buildings hereafter erected, exceeding seventy feet in height, shall be built fire-proof, and that law proceeds to state what shall be considered fire-proof construction, brick and stone, and iron and burnt clay. Beyond that, there should be no interference with capitalists who wish to invest in the latest outcome of business and domestic architecture. The long and narrow shape of the island upon which New York City is built, with a park some two and one-half miles long taken out of the very centre of the residential portion, compels a vast population to be concentrated within a con- tracted space. Without the erection of great apartment- houses the present population could not be accommodated. High buildings have become a necessity to the city. They are changing the architectural appearance of the city and ennobling our business edifices as well as our homes, by giv- ing them magnitude, for a ten or twelve-story building, by its very size, must have some architectural significance. By to utilizing the space above the earth instead of along its sur- face, we can command unlimited room, and enjoy better air, light and space khan is possible under the old' conditions. When any business quarter of New York becomes over- crowded, the smaller buildings give way to huge, many-storied establishments. So, too, the choice resident portions of the City will be occupied by immense apartment-houses; and a given quantity of ground, instead of being occupied by ten families with their individual houses, will be covered by a vast structure, which will give ample space and verge for a hundred families. Whatever may be said for or against this proposed anti-high building law, is of more vital importance to secure fire-proof buildings than siniplv to limit their height. An apartment-house under seventy feet in height, constructed with wooden floors and stairs in the usual wav, is, indeed a dangerous structure, while a building constructed fire-proof, no matter what height it may be, is secure from fire. The Cambridge flat, in which Mis. and Miss Wakeman lost their lives, was only five stories in height. The St. George fiat, on East Seventeenth street' was higher, but was constructed with wooden fioor-beams, and was a perfect tinder- box although falsely advertised as fire-proof. One of the terrors of life in tenement and apartment-houses which are not fire-proof is that of being suffocated by smoke. Flames are not as destructive as smoke; the victims of a conflagra- tion are suffocated before they are burnt. If they could avoid the Suffocation, many of them would escape from the flames. Fire-proof structures are so expensive that it is necessary to make them high to make them profitable. The effect of this bill would be to cause the erection of non-fire-proof buildings. High fire-pr >of buildings stand as barriers to fire in case of a great confiagation in the city. Such buildings must necessarily be more substantial than low ones ; their foundations more massive, their walls heavier ; and they must be made fire-proof. The occupants of such buildings are safer than in the ordinary dwelling-house. The true theory of the age is that a city can be constructed that will not succumb to the devouring element. We want a prohibition not of high apartment-houses, but of those which are not fire- proof. The building bill makes provision for the future in the right direction. The proposed bill allows no dwelling on a sixty-foot street to be more than seventy feet in height, and on wider streets eighty feet is the extreme limit of height allowed. But why this requirement on a structure opposite a park? There are several thousand lots in this city which face a square, a park or a river-front. To limit the height of houses on these is a 11 senseless proceeding. Then, suppose a whole block should be secured for improvement, surrounded by sixty-feet streets and avenues, why not allow a hi^-h building, providing there is planned a sufficiency of sidewalk and a setting back of the buildings from the street, such a distance that no interference with the light and air of the houses opposite will ensue. The statements as to health are based largely upon the old style of building with shafts and dark bedrooms, which everybody condemns, and with which the height of a build- ing has nothing whatever to do. It is true, indeed, that the streets require air and sunlight. The avenues run north and south, the streets at right angles east and west from river to river. The sun rises in the east and its circling course to its setting in the west sheds its rays in every direction, so that the shadow cast by a building, whether three stories or ten stories in height, is not stationary. The streets are all of liberal width where dwellings are erected, and will neither be dark nor damp nor make strong currents of air. From a sanitary stand-point, no dangers are to be apprehended to the occupants of fire-proof high apartment-houses, either from contagion or from plumbing, or from ventilation. Our health laws are sufficient to guard against any such liability. The great fire-proof appartment-houses already erected are distinctive, so far as Xesv York is concerned. There is nothing like them in the world. We are ahpad of Paris and every other European city ; and the French laws securing a uniformity in appearance of blocks of buildings are of the class of laws Americans do not want. The modest two and three-story structures of our forefathers gave way to five-story buildings, and these latter are oroinsj down before the ten or twelve or more storied structures of to-day, until we shall see the metropolis a city of enormous structures, housing several millions of people. Against the progress of the age I ask you, sir, not to set your seal, but by withholding your ap- proval of the bill to let this matter work out its own natural course. Do not cripple the growth and capacity of Xew York City, and compel our citizens to find places of residence in other cities and in adjoining States. In the erection of large apartment-houses vast amounts of material of every kind are used, and their erection gives employment to a great army of mechanics in all branches of the building trades. Do not permit these interests to be injured. Do not place this restriction either on labor or on capital. Very respectfully. William: J. Fryer, Jr. June 1, 1885. L2 Immediately after the hearing, Mr. O. B. Potter wrote a letter to the Governor opposing the act, as follows : KB. O. B. POTTER'S LETTER. HI- BEMOV8 FOR OPPOSING THE BILL TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT OF BUILIdV.- His Excellency David 1>. Hill : Finding it impossible for me to be at Albany to be heard in person upon the bill to limit the height of * buildings in this City, I have telegraphed you this morning very briefly my convictions upon that subject. I now desire to add a few words, hoping that if the bill shall not be signed before they reach you they may receive your consideration. This City is the metropolitan centre of the capital, the business, and the enterprise of this great continent Upon it is already concentrated a present business scarcely less than that of any other city in the world. Our country already contains . more English-speaking people .than all the rest of the world besides, and it cannot be doubted that if it- Gov- ernment shall be hereafter administered to tin- great end and purpose for which it was founded, that of securing self-gov- ernment, and security in self-government, in the people of each State, we shall, within the lifetime of children now born, number in population a hundred million souls. This city is to be as much greater than London, as the resources of this vast continent and all its connections are greater than the resources of the kingdom of which London is the centre of enterprise, commerce, and capital. I do not believe that any judgment would now be counted sane that would dare to pre- dict what is likely to be, if not inevitably to be, the capital, the commerce, the enterprise, the influence of this city upon the destinies of this continent, and through it, upon mankind, before the close of another century. Our city is built upon an island. It can be built no further into either river than is now proposed. Its growth must be either by annexation from Long Island, or by exten- sion inland to the north. Either will be very much less con- venient than to make the most of the space that there- is upon the island itself before such annexation or greater extension of business of the island to the north. Fortunately for the growth of our great city and its ability to provide upon the island itself for the vast business that is being concentrated, and is hereafter forever to be increasingly concentrated, upon it, a modern invention, the elevator, enables us to build build- ings, with equal or greater security to life and property and health than has hitherto been practicable, to twice the height 13 to which they could be built without that instrumentality. It is a most wonderful illustration of the effect of a small step forward in the practical arts in reversing the opinions, habits, and modes of the past. By this instrument, we now pass in one minute of time, less than it formerly took to climb fifty feet, to the height of more than 200 feet from the sidewalk, and that without effort, and with far greater security to life and health than was ever attained before. As the result of this instrument New York island will provide for the business, the residence, the convenience of a population at least three times as great as could have been provided for Avithin it without this instrumentality. It is fortunate for the State of New York, and especially for the City of New York, as its proud metropolis and the metropolis of the country, that through this instrumentality it is afforded the means of responding to and answering the demands of this country and continent as their metropolitan centre. To refuse to let this city enjoy and make use of this progress in the arts, which thus enables her to maintain her greatness and her progress, and carry it forward so as to answer hereafter for- ever the demands of the continent as a centre of business and power, is to deny her her destiny and rob her of her natural rights and of the advantages which God and nature, as well as art, have concentrated upon her. This city is not excelled by any other in the world in the skill, the industry, and the love of country which characterizes the great body of her mechanics and the vast population that stand ready with willing and waiting hands to build her up as the wants of the continent require. This bill proposes to deny to these mechanics and to this army of honest laborers the privilege of building up this city till she shall become by their hands, and before those of them who are now young- men shall pass from the stage, the greatest and most influ- ential city upon the earth. There is no opposition upon the part of the laborers, the mechanics, or the capitalists of the city^ who have invested their means in building it up, to any requirements which can properly be made to make buildings to be erected perfectly safe, or as safe as human art can make them, against fire or any other danger. It cannot be pretended by any intelligent observer of the growth of this City in the direction of high buildings during the past ten years that these buildings are not the safest, the healthiest, and the most useful to those who occupy them of any that can be found upon the island. All that is said, and all that can be said, is that those who, through want of means or want of enterprise, or lack of interest in the growth and greatness of our city, desire to live 14 in and occupy buildings such as former generations Lave occupied, are unwilling that their fellow citizens of opposite views and interests should enjoy their own property with the same freedom from restriction which they claim for them- selves. For my own part, I believe it would be difficult to deal a more fatal blow to the progress of our city or a sadder one for the interests of its mechanics and its laborers than is to be dealt by this bill if it shall become ;t law. There is, there can be, no necessity for such an enactment. Modify the laws as the judgment and the wisdom of the State may require so as to provide for the security and the health of the city and its citizens by making most ample provision for strength, stability, light, ventilation, security against tire, or in any other respect that is within the proper field of legitimate restrictions, and no protest will come up either from the capitalists who build up this city or from the greater and more important factor of its strength and greatness, its labor- ing and mechanical population. During the last twenty-five years the habits of the National Government have sadly changed, so that it is difficult to see how the rights, the individual liberty, and the dignity of the citizen are any longer regarded as the most important object of its legislation and administration. Through the infection of this example, of late years many of our States, and the great State of New York among them, have become, or are becoming, forgetful that self-government by the people and the independence of the citizen is the only adequate object and purpose of our complex American system of government. I protest as a citizen of the City of New York that the Legislature of Albany is out of its sphere and away from its duty when it presumes to dictate to this great City to what height its citizens may build their buildings or their ware- houses, so long as in the manner of their construction they obey the laws of the State. If such laws are to continue to be enacted, I earnestly pray it may be done wholly in conception, passage, and Executive sanction by those who believe that the rights of the citizen spring from and depend upon the Government, and not from those who still hold the once respectable doctrine that Gov- ernment rests for authority upon the consent of the governed. Then, at least, there will be hope for the future from the con- victions of those who dissent and protest, though for the present overborne. Very respectfully yours, O. B. Potter. 15 Printed slip signed E. I., handed to the Governor by Mr. Gustavus Isaacs. INCONSISTENCIES AND DANGERS OF THE BILL LIMITING THE HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS IN NEW YORK CITY. A bill limiting the height of buildings in this city to seventy feet on side streets, and to eighty feet on our widest streets and avenues, provided the buildings are intended for dwelling purposes, has passed the Senate, and has been ordered to a third reading in the Assembly. The Committee on Cities gave two hearings to arguments pro and con. The advocates of the bill claimed that in tall buildings the lives of the inmates were in danger from fire, their health would be injured from necessarily bad plumbing, and not only the occupants of the tall buildings, but also those living in sur- rounding dwellings, would be deprived of the sun-light which was necessary to health. And last of all, that these tall buildings were, artistically speaking, hideous monstrosities. The Committee at their last session acknowledged that the danger from fire was not to be considered, as all building could be made thoroughly fire-proof ; that the plumbing could be as perfect in ten stories as in one, and that proper ventilation could be secured. The only question undecided was the one of sunshine. The chief advocate of the sunshine business was Ex-Judge Horace Russell, who represented the interests of Ex- Judge Hilton and the Stewart estate. It was stated by him that a large dwelling or flat was about being erected on the corner of Thirty-filth street and Fifth avenue, and the health of those in the surrounding houses would be injured by the obliteration of sun-light. Should this apartment-house be constructed it will prevent the rays of sunshine from striking the solid marble walls of the Stewart mansion during the early morning hours — and may also interfere with one hour of sunshine in the rear of Judge Hilton's house and two other houses in Thirty-fourth street, against which twenty families will have sunshine in the morning and twenty more families in the afternoon, who will occupy apartments in the tall building alluded to. There is no street in the City of New York where the sun shines on the southerly side after the early morning hours, even though the buildings are only two stories high. The fault is that the streets were not originally laid out in lines parallel to the sun's rays. The health of the L6 people is a matter of the Largest importance, and I would be the last man to desiie anything done that would injure the physical comfort oi our citizens. I would much rather see every practical method carried out to destroy existing evils in preference to making arguments to prevent imaginary ones. I would clean out the filth in the tene- ments of the poor. I w mid compel the wealthy owners of the hovels in the slum portion of the eitv to replace the rot- ting wood and cheap plumbing. I would insist that the streets which the aristocrat never sees should be swept and the garbage removed as often, if not more frequently, than it is done in the dean streets, and 1 would not oppose the erection of a building where every modern appliance is used for the furtherance of increased health and comfort. These tall buildings, instead of being injurious, are a benefit to the people of this great city. The air of the upper stories is purer than in a number of low dwellings. The water runs with more force through the drain pipes, and the plumbing, through self-interest, as "well as by law. Is more thorough. A few years since the chief opponent of a surface road on Broadway was the representative of the late A. T. Stewart. Yet about four weeks ago, Ex-Judge Kussell appeared before the Supreme Court, representing the Stewart estate, and advocated the building of a surface road. What was, ten years ago, an injury to property, is to-day a benefit. So, ten years from now, Ex-Judge Kussell would ask for the repeal of a law limiting the height of buildings for dwelling purposes, if he thought that the health or comfort of the people required a hotel, and that the best location for such hotel was the Fifth avenue, from Thirty-fourth to Thirty- fifth street. The ground being very valuable, it would then be unfair to have a law injurious to the income of the City. Has it occurred to the Legislature to what extent values will be reduced and the necessarily increased rate of taxation ? An owner cannot obtain for a plot of ground on any of the wide avenues or streets more than one-third of its supposed value, because of the restriction as to building. Who will pay $50,000 per lot on wdiich they can place a hotel or apartment- house not over six stories high, even though it be thoroughly fire-proof and facing on Madison Square, or the Central Park, or on Broadway and Fifty-seventh street? Mr. Daly's bill, which has just passed both Houses, ought to be sufficient without being impeded with such a bill at that of Mr. Howe. The Daly bill compels buildings to be properly constructed, and does not allow them to be over seventy feet in height unless thoroughly protected from fire. 17 Judge Russell did not advocate the limiting of the height of office buildings. The addition of three stories to the Stewart Building at Broadway and Chambers street is an im- provement not consistent with such an argument. The Dakota, Navarro and numerous other apartment-houses are not gen- erally considered hideous monstrosities, although they are not built of white marble, with a solid side wall, through which the sun's rays have never yet entered, and whose win- dows are curtained and closed through summer and winter. When apartment-houses and hotels cease to be erected, the mechanics must look to other cities for work they cannot find here ; the brick-layer, carpenter, stone-mason, steam-fitter, plasterer and all branches of trade, cannot have employment, because those who have sold their wares can now look with scorn on those who have yet some to sell. The architect can discharge his clerks and the improved modes of construction become worthless. The interests of the City of New York are the interests of the State. May it not be said that the present Legislature retarded the growth or advancement of the greatest city of the United States. There is sunlight for all, even though the buildings are twelve stories high. Is any one solicitous for the health of the bookkeeper or saleswoman Avhose incarceration in the poorly ventilated store, from sunrise to sunset, leaves them with disease and poverty in their mature years? I have not yet heard of the philanthropic merchant who has allowed a daily airing of one hour or so to the sick clerks. It is not yet too late for a merchant prince to say to his thin and sparefaced employee : An hour's walk on the shady side of street would be good for you this summer's, afternoon. Let the advocates of low buildings, only through anxieties for public health, begin at the root of the evil, and when all the work is done up to the point of limiting the height of buildings, then, if the sanitary improvements and protection from fire are correctly arranged, let it not be proven that healthy dwellings are injurious and unhealthy ones are proper. Do not make the sunshine question all moonshine, or pass a law which, after doing incalculable injury, will be regretted and repealed. A tall office building or a storage-house are excepted in the House bill, because it would interfere with some scheme of the promoters of such bill. Yet such build- ings would stand between the sun's rays and other buildings at some special time of day. E. I. L8 Let the reader bear in mind that eighty feet is the extreme height that dwellings, hotels, apartment-houses, etc., can be built, while on all streets not exceeding sixty feet— the cross streets— seventy feet is the extreme height allowed. The latter height will only enable a first-class hotel or apartment house to be erected four stories in height. In the 8un of June 7, 1885, appeared the following : II Kill AND LOW UUILDINGS. a i'hactk ai. bi ii ,rai htm torn BaAMrni roiwwwtowowm law. A practical buihhir said yesterday that the High Building law now awaiting the signature of the Governor would work a great deal of injury if it was signed. He said : "The La* savs that seventy feet shall be the limit of height on streets less than sixty feet wide. That is all very well tor a private dwelling l>ut*suppose vou want to erect a fireproof hotel or apartment-house. What will be the result ? To show it prac- tically I will give dimensions : Height of first floor from euro 3 feet Height of first floor * ° feet Height of second floor J| J ee J Height of third floor lee * Height of fourth floor M teet Height of beams, flooring, and roof 8 leet Total 69feet "That is as far as we can go and keep within the law. Only one foot is allowed for ornamental cornice, towers, or pitch of the roof. You must admit that it would be unreason- able to confine a fire-proof hotel or flat to four stories. It would cause the removalof elevators, which are a great saving of steps, and would greatly lessen the value of ground for building purposes. On streets over 60 feet wide an extra ten feet is allowed on the buildings, and in that five stories might be put. But this is also too little." 19 WHY THE LAW IS BAD. Immediately after the passage of the law (June, 1885), I caused to be published, the following reasons for deeming the law of no effect, viz. : It will be observed in this law which attempts to limit the heights of dwellings, and which would apply to hotel, apart- ment houses, or other buildings which are to be used for the residence of any person or persons : 1. That it stands by itself, independent of the " Building- Law,'' and of the Consolidated Laws relating to New York Cit y- 2. That no penalty is provided for any violation of it, nor is any provision made for its enforcement ; and certainly not by the Fire Department. 3. It would seem possible to evade its terms easily, in a variety of ways. 4. The " Building Law," chapter 456, of the Laws of 1885, was passed subsequent to the law regulating the heights of dwellings, which is chapter 454, of the laws of 1885. It is a well-established principle of law that if the provisions of a later statute are in conflict with one passed earlier, the law first passed is repealed. In view of the provisions of § 476 of the " Building Law '' (section 6 of the neAv Law of 1885), which expressly provides for walls of dwelling-houses not only of seventy to eighty-five feet, but for eighty-live to one hundred feet, and of one hundred to one hundred and fifteen feet, and of over one hundred and fifteen feet in height ; and in view of the want of a penalty and of provisions for enforcment in this law limiting height ; and also in view of the question of the constitutionality of the latter (opinion as to legal questions obtained from Mr. Geo. W. Van Siclen) men having always owned land " usque, ad ccelum" (from the centre of the earth to the sky), it is a grave question whether this law, chapter 454, limiting heights, can be enforced or whether it is even now in existence. But until these serious doubts are removed, either by the courts, or by repealing act of the Legislature, as they probably soon will be, those who con- template erecting tall apartment houses, hotels, etc., exceed- ing seventy or eighty feet in height, would do wisely to build to the full thickness of walls and other requirements of the " Building Law," so that the structure can afterwards be legally carried up to the original contemplated height. 20 | The Sun, July 5, 1885.] The act passed at the last session of tlx- Legislature intended to restrict the height of apartment-houses, seems likely to la; of little practical value. Only the owneifl of adjoining property injuriously affected can take proceedings for the purpose, and how they are to do it remains for the legal profession to determine. The check in the progress of New York during the past year, caused by the High Building law, is vast. Think of the great number of enormous apartment-houses, hotels, etc., erected during the past ten years preceding tins law. During the past year not one. The law should be repealed. I know of no reason for changing my views, as expressed in June last, that the law is not only unconstitutional, but in reality is not in existence ; still, as the serious doubts can only be removed by the Courts or by a repealing act of tlie Legislature, the latter course is the wisest and most effective. A REPEALING ACT. The law limiting the height of dwelling-houses is a very short law. An act to repeal that law is still shorter, as fol- lows : AN ACT To repeal chapter four hundred and fifty-four of the Laws of Eighteen Hundred and Eighty-five, entitled " An Act to Regulate the Height of Dwelling-houses in the City of New York," passed June ninth, eighteen hundred and eighty-five. The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows : Section 1. Chapter four hundred and and fifty-four of the laws of eighteen hundred and eighty -five, entitled " An act to regulate the height of dwelling-houses in the city of New York,'' passed June ninth, eighteen hundred and eighty- five, is hereby repealed. Sec. 2. This act shall take effect immediately. Reader, are you in favor of the Repeal of the Law Limiting the Height of Dwell- ing Houses ? And will you take part in an effort to secure its Repeal ? If so, address the undersigned, WILLIAM J. FRYER, Jr., P. O. BOX 3438, NEW YORK.