Memorandum submitted to the Committee on buildings of the Board of Aldermen / by the Committee on the Prevention of Tuberculosis of the Charity Organization society of the city of New York, May 15, 1912.

  • Charity Organization Society of the City of New York. Committee on the Prevention of Tuberculosis
Date:
[1912]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Memorandum submitted to the Committee on buildings of the Board of Aldermen / by the Committee on the Prevention of Tuberculosis of the Charity Organization society of the city of New York, May 15, 1912. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library at Columbia University and Columbia University Libraries/Information Services, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the the Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library at Columbia University and Columbia University.

    17/24 page 11
    solidly there is no means by which the air in the interior of the block can be renewed. The only way that this can be secured is by requiring an open space on corner lots, as well as on interior lots, although this can properly be less in size. Moreover, the code is so loosely drawn that even this tiny space of 5 feet can be completely filled up with fire-escape balconies, cornices and outside stairs projecting into it, practically covering the entire space. Similarly, again, by exempting buildings from these re- quirements in the case of those houses which extend through from one street to another, the entire plan of block ventilation becomes void. THE RETURN TO THE DISCREDITED AIR SHAFT. The inadequacy of the provisions dealing with yards is equalled in the attempt to regulate the size of the other open spaces that are to be left unbuilt upon. The minimum size of courts is also established at the inadequate dimension of 5 feet, but strangely enough here, for the first time, there is evident some recognition of the principle which should govern. The minimum standard is established, inadequate though it is, and then it is required that for each increase in the height of the building above a certain height, the size of the open space shall be increased a certain amount. But even this principle could not be adequately carried out by the framers of the code. In the first place, there is no recognition of the essential difference between the different kinds of courts—the inner court and the outer court; the inner court enclosed on all four sides by walls, receiving its only light and air over the roof, and the outer court, open on at least one side, thus permitting the light and air to stream into it from that end. The two courts are essentially different. Their difference is well recognized in the tenement house law, where the inner court is required to be twice the dimensions of the outer court. But no such discrimination is made in the code. All courts are treated alike. The minimum width of 5 feet for a court for a building 75 feet, or seven stories in height, is grossly inadequate. In tene- ment houses of similar height an inner court, surrounded on all four sides, would have to be 25 feet in its minimum width, instead of 5 feet, as provided here for factories, hotels, lofts, office build- ings, and all buildings. Experience with the tenement house law shows that this dimension has proved to be a proper standard, not
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3