= 100 ft. Area inclosed is 10 x 40 =400 square feet as before. Thus there is a saving of twenty per cent. in wall by the former method. Moreover, there is another consideration of great importance, viz., no corridor is required by the first plan. The corridor is of no use to the tenant, and it costs as much to build as a like area in rooms. In the dwelling of the first type, divided as shown in Fig. 1, let A be the livingroom, B, C, and D bedrooms. Any of these rooms can be reached directly from A. Also in the dwelling of the second type, as shown in Fig. 2, let A be the living-room, and B, C, and D bedrooms. To reach any of these rooms from A without going through other rooms, requires a corridor of 3 ft. x 20 ft., or 60 square feet. There is thus a saving of space on this score, between the two plaus, of fifteen per cent. There is also a saving of fifteen per cent. in the num ber of running feet of interior partitions required to separate the various rooms. As a more complete demonstration of the importance of this principle, let us suppose these two figures to be the plans of one-story structures with interior dimensions as given, and having exterior walls of brick one foot thick; and that the cost to erect the one shown in Fig. 2, would be twelve cents per cubic foot. The contents of the building, supposing it to be twelve feet high, would be 6,048 cubic feet, and the cost to erect $725. Now, let us suppose that the cost of the other would be at the same rate, less the saving effected in the amount of wall required to inclose it. Its contents would be 5,808 cubic feet, which, at twelve cents per cubic foot, equals $697; from which deduct the cost of 20 running feet of wall 12 feet high; estimating the cost of the brickwork at $12 per thousand brick laid, this would amount to $60, making the net cost $637. Now, by Type 1 we have 380 square feet of available floor-space in the rooms after deducting space occupied by partitions, etc., and in Type 2, only 317 square feet of such space. By Type 1 each square foot of rentable floor-space in rooms would cost to erect $16.76, while by Type 2 each square foot of such space would cost $22.87. Therefore there is a saving in Type 1 over Type 2 of more than twenty-six per cent., to say nothing of the fact that it covers less ground, an item of great importance in cities. The comparison might be pushed farther, and an additional saving calculated on the partitions necessary to separate the rooms, cost of foundations, and other matters, all in favor of Type 1; but enough has been shown to demonstrate the principle involved; and one may say here, by way of parenthesis, that, if the art of commercial or economical planning were understood by our architects, enough money might be saved in a few years, on buildings erected in this city, to endow all the charitable institutions which we have. The Building Department records show that the value of tenements, flats, etc., erected in this city during the last fourteen years, amounts to three hundred and twenty-five million dollars; of this amount at least fifteen per cent. might have been saved, or nearly fifty million dollars, on this one class of buildings. The money has been worse than thrown away, because this vast amount of useless masonry has served no other purpose than to obstruct the light and render the buildings unhealthy. While it is possible to build dwellings exactly according to the first type in the country, where the cost of land is not a consideration and there is an open space on all sides, it is not practicable to so arrange them in the city, where the cost of land and the same conditions do not prevail. But, as will be shown, in order to arrive at the best results we must endeavor to conform to this law as nearly as circumstances will admit. The more nearly we can approach to Type 1, the more economical will be the plan. Now, the plans of our tenements, of necessity, owing to the shape of the lot, are based upon Type 2. The plans which are submitted herewith, in Figs. 3, 5, and 6 (following pages), are based upon Type 1. It will be shown that the actual saving by these plans over those in common use, while not so great as between the hypothetical plans shown Street PLAN A. FIGURE 3 in Figs. 1 and 2, is still very considerable. In the present tenement there is no proper provision for light and air. In the plans submitted there is such provision, yet, owing to the saving effected by the change of type the cost per square foot of available space by these plans would be much less than by the present vicious method. Fig. 3 represents a building planned as nearly as possible upon the system illustrated in the hypothetical structure shown in Fig. 1. from the well, all the other evils of the system are preserved. Let us call the plan shown in Fig. 3, Plan A, and the plan shown in Fig. 4, Plan D. These two plans have been carefully drawn to the same scale, and the following calculations accurately made. The size of the lot is the same in both cases, viz., 100 ft. x 100 ft., giving an area of 10,000 square feet; taking the average thickness of the walls at one foot, the partitions at six inches, and supposing that the walls between the houses of Plan D are party-walls, then we have this area distributed at each of the upper floors as follows: Fig. 4 represents a block of four ordinary tenements of the most approved type, known as model tenements, the plan of which was taken from "How the Other Half Lives," by Jacob A. Riis, where it is given to illustrate the evolution which has taken place in the Space occupied by brick wall. plan of these buildings during the last twenty years. The plan is simply a partitions Plan A. Plan D. Sq. ft. Sq. ft. 650 850 350 515 "stairs and corridors. Available rentable space in rooms variation of the ordinary plan for a 25- Space devoted to light and air.. foot tenement-house, and although the hall and staircase are partially lighted about four feet wide; nor do these widths either represent the relative amount of light, as up to a certain point the light increases in a greater proportion than the increase in the width of the court. Also a court, unless very large, which is open on one side is of very much more service than one of the same dimensions closed on all sides. The difference, then, in the lighting of the two plans is out of all proportion to the increased light area. A building constructed on Plan A would be properly lighted; buildings constructed on Plan D are only properly lighted at the two ends. The available rentable space cannot be compared, for one is fit for human habitation and the other is not. Now let us com pare the relative cost of the two Street PLAN C FIG 6. structures, as shown by the following containing the same amount of rentable figures: floor area, would cost less to build than the other, even if both were calculated at the same price per cubic foot; but this would not be the case, for while 850 running feet of wall is required by Plan D, only 650 running feet of such wall is required by Plan A, nor is the increased amount of wall required by Plan D any advantage for fire or otherwise, but rather the contrary. For it will be seen that, while there are four divisions which might be called separate buildings in both cases, yet in Plan A the dividing walls are true firewalls, unpierced, extending from top to bottom, while in the case of Plan D the dividing walls are pierced by win Thus the well-lighted space shown on Plan A could be rented for fifteen per cent. less than the improperly lighted quarters shown on Plan D, and the owner would still receive the same rate of interest on the investment; or the owner of a house planned according to Plan A could give his tenants fifteen per cent. more room for the same rent than the owner of a building planned according to Plan D, and still receive the same rate of interest on the investment. The above comparisons have been made between four ordinary houses, and one building designed for a lot one hundred feet square; but the same principles which govern Plan A are applicable to buildings intended for lots of smaller dimensions, as shown in plans B and C. Plan B is for a lot 75 x 100 feet, and Plan C for one 50 × 100 feet. While the best results are obtained the more nearly we can approach to the square, yet economical plans can be made for buildings on lots not less than 50 feet wide. Plan E (p. 116) represents a building of the 25 x 100 feet type, of a kind much used during the last few years; the well at the side is extended back to the rear opening. While an improvement over the ordinary method in this respect, it is still far from satisfactory as regards the lighting of the rooms, almost all of which open upon a space about 4 feet wide, and that only under the best circumstances that is, when the adjoining owner leaves a corresponding recess; if this is not done, then the rooms look out upon a court about 2 feet wide, which is absurd. This plan and Plan D are for the best type of tenement, and illustrate about all that can be done on a lot 25 x 100 feet. They go to prove that satisfactory plans cannot be made for tenements on lots of that size, for if enough space is left unoccupied to properly light the rooms, then these latter will be so reduced in size and number as to make the investment unprofitable. Unless we are satisfied with our present tenement-house system, the sooner we realize this fact the better; a reform can only be accomplished by imposing such restrictions, in regard to the space to be left for light and air, as will make the erection of such houses unprofitable. The following table gives a comparative statement of the percentage of the total area of the lot which is occupied at the level of each of the upper floors by walls, partitions, water-closets, stairs, and public corridors; the area left for light and the actual area included in the rooms, after making deduction for the above items in Plans A, B, and C as submitted, and in Plans D and E, representatives of the ordinary tenement. |