124 COMMISSION ON BUILDING- DISTRICTS 



serve property. The conservation of life and health is through reduction in 

 crowds, both in buildings and on the streets of the City. 



I want to call your attention to the report of the Board of Health of 

 February in which some observations on the recent outbreak of grippe are 

 discussed. In that report the congestion of pedestrians, particularly in the 

 street cars, is cited as the probable cause of the rapid spread of the infec- 

 tion. The health matter, therefore, is of intimate relationship to the number 

 of people who occupy the street cars and who move about the streets. It 

 also has to do with accidents to pedestrians crossing the streets, and, in con- 

 nection therewith, the number of vehicles which use the streets. 



Street accidents 



I exhibit for vour information the number and locations of fatal acci- 

 dents from vehicles in the Borough of Manhattan during the year 1913. If 

 you study this carefully you will find that accidents vary, first with density 

 of population, and second with density of vehicular travel, as well as with 

 pedestrian travel. 



A careful study of this map would be very illuminating as to condi- 

 tions where building heights should be restricted on the basis purely of 

 the accidents which happen every day. 



Danger of panic 



I 'anics have occurred within the memory of all, at the Baltimore fire, 

 the Charleston earthquake, and the San Francisco earthquake and fire. We 

 often hear the statement made that New York is not subject to earthquakes. 

 The same statement was made with regard to Charleston that it was impos- 

 sible. Now. it was not impossible. New York may have an earthquake 

 as well. Almost anything that can be done to prevent panic under such 

 circumstances will be considered by the court as entirely proper and 

 reasonable. 



Determination of height limit 



This has a relationship, not only to the maximum limit of building 

 heights, but it has to do with conditions in the buildings. If you simply 

 place a maximum height, without relation, for example, to the present 

 maximum height, you are raising the factor of loss and of difficulty up to 

 that probable maximum. It seems to me that the reasonableness of the case 

 should dictate to you reducing the height limit below the maximum condi- 

 tions which now exist. If three buildings out of fifteen exist which are 

 over the limit which might be more or less arbitrarily fixed, it would seem 

 to me that the thought of what would happen if all buildings were raised 

 to the present maximum, would dictate also a limit within that present 

 maximum, and the court would sustain you in reducing such limits. 



The conservation of property is always acknowledged as a proper exer- 

 cise of the police power with reference to fire losses, and thieving of course. 

 We know that pickpockets frequent crowds. Perhaps it is a long stretch 

 of imagination, that building heights should be restricted to prevent pick- 

 pockets. It is entirely within the police power, and it should be so con- 

 sidered. 



My idea as to the proposed height limit is that it is too high. I would 

 take a district of a dozen blocks and analyze it roughly and if fifteen per 

 cent of the frontage exceeded a given height, I would use that height as a 

 limit, and let the higher buildings remain, but limit height in future to the 

 low er level. 



