Pittsburgh City Council Votes for Congestion in the “Golden Triangle” A PITTSBURGH architect has been asked by THE AMERICAN CITY to indicate whether there has been a clear conception in the public mind as to the intent and effect of contemplated changes in the Pittsburgh zoning ordinance which, as this issue goes to press, are reported to have been made by the Council of that city. Our informant states that he has set down an editorial comment from one of the newspapers of August 10th (while the amendment was resting in City Council), and, in contrast with this, has offered what he believes to be a more accurate and less misleading statement. He tells us he does not criticize an editorial writer for an occasional failure to seize upon the essence of a situation, but he believes the contrasting statement is the best answer he can give to our question. The comparison is shown herewith, the paragraphs in quotation marks being the editorial quoted verbatim with [brackets] enclosing the phrases or statements which our correspondent believes to be incorrect or inadequate. In the rewritten editorial which follows, italic type has been used for the correct and adequate statements that would have given the people of Pittsburgh a more accurate knowledge of the scope and probable effect of the amendment. The Editorial as Printed "Councilmanic approval of an amendment to the zoning ordinance to permit the [erection of] tower super-structures on Grant Street is a recognition of the [topographical conditions which confront Pittsburgh capital and construction engineers in the building of large office buildings]. The present height limit of actual buildings is 265 feet. By the amendment towers [are permitted to rise above the 265 feet to twice the width of the widest street on which the buildings abut, going straight up on one side and then passing through a setting-back process on the others so that they will not cover the full area of the building proper]. "The attitude of council involves no invasion of the zoning plan of building for the remainder of the city. It is applicable solely to the downtown district. It is reasonable to believe that for years to come the business of Pittsburgh will be constricted within the Golden Triangle, and to meet this situation [some laxity is almost mandatory regarding height restrictions]. Land within this section is so costly that every foot of it [must be utilized to the last possible degree]. To follow any other course, to keep buildings closer to [the ground, would mean future increases in office rent, and a demand for space which could not be met]. Pittsburgh has not the opportunity to spread its business district that is possible in other cities which with great level spaces have room to throw out commercial picket lines. "With the setback system of tower building [there is no serious light obstruction on the street levels], one of the first considerations in the drawing up of a zoning ordi nance." The Editorial as It Might Have Read Councilmanic approval of an amendment to the zoning ordinance to permit the enlargement of now permissible tower super-structures on Grant Street is a recognition of the demand of property owners to be allowed to build structures as large as they individually think desirable without regard to any excessive burdens thereby placed upon the municipality. The present height limit of actual buildings is 265 feet plus an additional superposed tower portion whose height may equal twice the width of the widest street upon which the building abuts. By the amendment the face of towers need not be set inward from the lot lines so far as they are now required to do, this "setback" distance being lessened on three sides and entirely eliminated on the fourth; while the area occupied by the tower is no longer restricted so as not to exceed one-fourth the area of the site. The attitude of council involves no invasion of the zoning plan of building for the remainder of the city. It is applicable solely to the downtown district. It is reasonable to believe that for years to come the business of Pittsburgh will be constricted within the Golden Triangle, and to meet this situation a most careful and even distribution of floor area throughout this district would appear to be the only practical solution. Land within this section is so costly that every foot of it should be assured the greatest possible opportunity to be developed without endangering a similar development of all other properties. To follow any other course than to keep buildings closer to that modest height limit to which all downtown structures might be reasonably expected to rise would mean that a few privileged structures would in advance corner all the space, anticipate most of the future requirements, and knock the so-called law of supply and demand into a cocked hat, while at the same time placing undue concentrations of burden upon public streets, transit and other utilities, and preventing adequate sunlight and ventilation from being assured to the adjoining streets and buildings. Pittsburgh has not the opportunity to spread its business district that is possible in other cities which, with great level spaces, have room to throw out commercial picket lines. With the setback system of tower building pretty well shot to pieces by the proposed amendment, even less light and air will be assured than the present ordinance assures. One of the first considerations in the drawing up of a zoning ordinance having been originally provided for by the planning commission, the city council and the public have successively beaten down those safeguards, as, of course, they have a perfectly legal right to do. NSTITUTE O AMERICAN OF STEEL CONSTRU NSTRUCTI FOUNDED 1921 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS York Building Congress, and the Pacific Coast Building Officials Conference. The American Institute of Steel Construction has developed a Standard Specification which is estimated to be saving building owners and other taxpayers more than $30,000,000 a year! The Specification covers the design, fabrication and erection of structural steel for buildings. It was developed with the cooperation of the ablest engineering talent in America. It is endorsed by such bodies as the A. S. C. E., the New AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, Inc. The cooperative non-profit service organization of the structural steel industry of the United States and Canada. Correspondence is invited. Address: Lee H. Miller, M. Am. Soc. C. E., Chief Engineer, 285 Madison Avenue, New York City. STEEL 87 The Institute supplements this Specification with a Code of Practice which is doing away with all misunderstandings between the buyer and seller of structural steel. You are invited to cooperate in the Institute's educational work, to avail yourself of the Institute's data and experience. Write now for the important fact-book, “STEEL NEVER FAILS." INSURES STRENGTH AND AND Mention THE AMERICAN CITY-it helps. SECURITY Zoning Notes Prepared by Frank B. Williams Author of "The Law of City Planning and Zoning" From data collected by the Zoning Committee of New York (233 Broadway) Recent Zoning Statutes and Ordinances ORLANDO, FLA.-Ordinance, March 16, 1927. EVANSTON, ILL.-Ordinance, February 15, 1927. INDIANA. Enabling Act for towns, 1927, ch. 3. SCHENECTADY, N. Y.-Ordinance, June, 1927. CHATTANOOGA, TENN.-Ordinance, January 25, 1927. Recent Zoning Decisions CONNECTICUT.-Fitzgerald v. Merard Holding Co., Inc., Supreme Court of Errors, July 26, 1927. A specially damaged property owner was held to have the right to compel enforcement of the zoning law regardless of whether or not the authorities are acquiescent in the violation. This decision is discussed at greater length by Edward M. Bassett at page 290 of this issue. ILLINOIS.-Village of Western Springs v. Bernhagan, 156 N. E. Rep. 753. The defendant, seeking to place a filling station on a lot zoned for onefamily residences, contended that the ordinance so restricting all the territory of the village except that small portion of it within a block of the railroad, was unreasonable. The village is a suburban residential community with no manufacturing institutions, its business district being limited to a small area along the railroad. Held, sustaining the determination of the Board of Appeals, that the ordinance is reasonable and valid. ILLINOIS.-Western Theological Seminary v. City of Evanston, 156 N. E. Rep. 778. A zoning ordinance authorizing in a given district the erection and use of buildings for schools and colleges authorizes the erection and maintenance, as college buildings, of dormitories and student commons conducted as part thereof in such district; dormitories not being a "lodging-house" nor student commons, "boarding-houses," within the meaning of the or dinance. MASSACHUSETTS.-Nectow v. City of Cambridge, Supreme Court, July 8, 1927. The plaintiff is the owner of land in a residential district bordering on an industrial district for the most part. He applied to the building inspector for a permit to erect a business structure on a part of his land, and his application was refused. He then applied to the Board of Appeals for a variance on the ground of unnecessary hardship, which the Board declined to give him. Held, after a careful review of the facts, that the ordinance was valid as to the plaintiff, the Court being unable to find that the zoning was unreasonable. The cases showing that the fact that the land would produce a larger return if used for business are not decisive, cited and reviewed. Missouri Supreme Court Upholds Zoning Zoning is now constitutional in the state of Missouri. The case of State ex rel. Oliver Cadillac out. Co. v. Christopher, Building Commissioner of the City of St. Louis is another notable victory for ,comprehensive zoning reasonably carried Zoning with compensation had been held by the courts to be valid. In a case arising under the so-called home rule charter of St. Louis, police power zoning, without compensation, in certain of its important phases, had been declared to be invalid. The advocates of police power zoning, believing that the trouble with it in St. Louis was the lack of proper enabling legislation, secured the passage of an admirable empowering act (Laws 1925, p. 309) and the city enacted a comprehensive zoning ordinance under it. The Cadillac case followed. The Court cites many of the cases in favor of zoning, in the state and the United States Courts, decided since its ruling adverse to zoning under the home rule charter, and evidently was much influenced by them. It is interesting to compare the situation in Missouri and in Maryland. In the largest city in both states police power zoning under home rule provisions was unsuccessful. In both states, as a result, constitutional amendment was advocated, but enabling acts were passed instead. This case is the result in Missouri. In Maryland the courts have not yet spoken. The Cadillac decision may be briefly summarized as follows: The company applied for a permit to erect a building for the sale and adjustment of automobiles, and the sale and installation of automobile parts and accessories in a multiple-dwelling residence district, to be created by a pending zoning ordinance, which was in fact passed ten days later. The permit was refused for this reason. The Court held comprehensive police power zoning valid under the constitutions of Missouri and of the United States, ruling that the provision of the Missouri constitution requiring compensation for property damaged, as well as for property taken, did not make a different decision necessary in Missouri. The Court also held that the fact that the ordinance was passed ten days subsequent to the application for a permit was immaterial in this case, the company having no vested rights against the exercise of the police power. The Court, after an examination of the facts, found that the zoning was reasonable and proper in this particular case. "An Undertaking Establishment Is Not a Nuisance Per Se" NEW YORK.-Potter v. Rothschild, Supreme Court, reported in the New York Law Journal, June 30, 1927. Action to restrain the defendant from using her premises in a business district as an undertaking establishment, in accordance with the zoning ordinance. Complaint dismissed. The opinion reviews the law on the subject as follows: "Only one case in this state in which plaintiff sought to enjoin an undertaker's establishment has been brought to my attention. It is the case of Rowland v. Miller, 139 N. Y. 93, in which the injunction issued was based upon a restrictive covenant. Of course, there is no restrictive covenant involved here. There are a number of cases outside the state of New York in which the conduct of an undertaker's business was enjoined, but in all of these cases the defendants sought to locate their business in strictly or essentially residential districts. In none of them did defendant seek to establish himself in a district allocated by the city to business, as here. The law as laid down in these cases is stated in Tureman v. Ketterlin (304 Mo. 221, p. 228) as follows: 'An undertaking establishment is not a nuisance per se. The business of preparing dead bodies for burial is not only lawful but indispensable. It may become a nuisance, however, from the manner in which it is conducted or because of the place at TH which it is maintained, and it is very generally held to be such when it intrudes itself into a strictly residential district. Beisel v. Crosby, 178 N. W. (Neb.), 272; Densmore v. Evergreen Camp, 112 Pac. (Wash.), 255; Saier v. Joy, 198 Mich. 296; Meagher v. Kessler, 179 N. W. (Minn.), 732; Osborn v. City of Shreveport, 143 La. 932; Goodrich v. Starett, 184 Pac. (Wash.), 220; Cunningham v. Miller, 189 N. W. (Wis.), 531. The essential ground of such holding is that the maintenance of an undertaking establishment in a residence district tends to destroy the comfort, the well-being, and the property rights of the owners of homes therein.'" Recent Zoning Literature "The What and Why of the Proposed Cleveland Zoning Ordinance" is an excellent brief by the City Plan Commission, for the zoning of Cleveland, so long delayed and so greatly needed in that city. Shortcomings in Assessment Methods, and Suggestions for HE Westchester County Research Bureau, of 31 Nassau Street, New York City, has recently issued a booklet which contains suggestions of value to county and local officials throughout the United States who are struggling with the problem of equalization of taxes. The Bureau's conclusions as to the shortcomings of the present assessment and equalization methods are summarized as follows: 1. "Full value" assessments are the exception rather than the rule. 2. There is a lack of equality in assessments between properties in the same town throughout the county. This is due primarily to the lack of property information necessary to make equal assessments, and to the absence of any scientific rules of valuation. 3. Approved rules for appraising land and standard building classifications are lacking in most of the towns and some of the cities of the county. 4. The work of assessing is usually carried on spasmodically by underpaid, part-time officials rather than as a full-time job whereby appraisal information might be collected continuously throughout the year. 5. Tax maps are not always kept up to date, and in some instances are missing. 6. The assessment of any property that runs through several towns, as railroads, and telephone lines, is generally done piecemeal by officials who, in many instances, have very little knowledge of the value of such property. 7. Party politics enter the work of assess ments. 8. The review of assessments is carried on, in most towns, by the assessors themselves, who pass on their own work. 9. There is useless and absurd duplication of assessments brought about by the town assessing on one hand, and the villages assessing on the other, each at different values for the same properties. 10. A double set of equalizing rates now exists; one, made by the county board of equalization, and the other by the state board of equalization. Though the rates are supposed to be based on the same underlying data, they usually differ widely. 1. The work of county equalization amounts to a reapportionment, and re-allocation of assessed values rather than an equalization of assessed values. RECOMMENDATIONS As remedies for these conditions, the Bureau makes the following suggestions: 1. That effort should be centralized upon so amending the state constitution as to permit the establishment of the county as the unit of assessment, with a single county assessor upon whose valuations throughout the county would be based local municipal as well as county taxes. 2. That, in the meanwhile, it be urged upon all the towns of the county, to adopt the plan of a single assessor for the town, appointed by the town board. 3. That tax maps be brought up to date and means devised for enforcing their being kept always up to date and always accessible. 4. That land-value maps be adopted for each tax district, to be marked with front-foot values for all parcels, and that appropriate depth rules and corner or other influence rules be adopted for village or city property, farm valuation rules for outlying properties, and other appropriate principles of valuation be devised and adopted for other types of property, so that the assessor will have definite printed instructions as a means of defense against appeals for favoritism and partiality in assessment. 5. That standard classifications of buildings be prepared and adopted, and suitable rules for the valuation thereof, either by cubic-foot ratings or otherwise, be established and used impartially. |