perfect in the past that that method is really very valuable. Speaking, now, for the architects alone we claim we have been able to get representatives on this Board of Appeals whom we could never secure in any other way. We, as architects, ask one of our best men in the interest of the city and the interest of the profession, that he give five or six hours a week with practically no pay for this work (ten dollars for the session), a man who would command a good many hundreds of dollars for that amount of time. Such a man cannot be secured in any other way. The history of the Board shows we have been able to secure men of exceptional character when we ask it in this way. Now finally we say that the decisions of the Board of Appeals should be published and made citable as a precedent for future action. MR. ELKUS: Are any of them published now? MR. KOHN: Not to my knowledge, I think not. We call attention in this brief to the failure of the plan to provide for the inspection and supervision of elevators, and the surveys of unsafe buildings. That is a requirement of the present Charter a survey board is called in an emergency to pass upon the safety of a building and also— MR. ELKUS: Isn't it the plan if this should be adopted that all those functions should be discharged by the Board of Appeals? MR. KOIN: It is an entirely different function. MR. ELKUS: Do you think they should be separate boards? MR. KOIN: It might be the Board of Appeals could be so constituted as before with a sufficient number of men to be called on in emergency, but the qualifications are quite different, the qualifications that would be needed there. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kohn, in your opinion do you favor a consolidation into a city department or are you in favor of a consolidation under the borough presidents' offices? MR. KOHN: The Committee was, I believe, unanimous that it should for the time being be consolidated into boroughs. I think that was due to the fact whereas we realized that in Manhattan we would be equally as well off as we are now, as far as the time spent in appeals and otherwise is concerned; in the other horoughs the men would be at a great disadvantage with a centralized department. We have been influenced in that opinion to some extent by the expression of the opinion of other professional men. MR. FRANKE: Article 5 I think you did not dwell on? MR. KOIN: I think I did sufficiently call attention to the fact that the two functions of the Board of Standards and of the Board of Appeals should be kept distinct. MR. FRANKE: I do not think you mentioned the composition of that Board? MR. KOIN: We suggest that the Board of Standards should consist of the five superintendents and five experts to be appointed. I think technical experts could probably be secured without pay to cooperate with the superintendents in preparing those standards that would have to be supplied. MR. ARTHUR ARCTANDER: I would like to ask you if in your profession you have found any difference in inspectors of the Building Departments and inspectors of the Tenement House Department and which of the two would you consider to be most practical? MR. KOHN: I would rather not answer that question because I haven't any very great experience with inspectors of the Tenement House Department and am not qualified to answer. Mr. D. EVERETT WAID, addressed the Commission. Mr. ELKUS: You are representing what association? Mr. WAID: The architects and I am Vice Chairman of the joint committee which has been giving some years to the study of the proposed building code for the city and is now working with constructive criticism to assist Mr. Miller in the work he is doing for the new code. The points have been well brought out by Mr. Kohn. I think we could add only one word or emphasis on the matter of the Board of Appeals and call your attention to the fact that this proposed Board of Appeals, as it is proposed in the tentative draft, the legislative and executive and judicial func tions could all be combined in one official; in other words the head of the Bureau of Buildings should have under a flexible building law the power of issuing regulations which should have all the force of ordinances. That is very important in order to secure a properly flexible law and permit us to admit new ideas, new building materials and new methods. At the same time an executive officer, if any one appeals from his decision, he sits as Chairman of the Board to pass upon appeals from his own decision. That seems very wrong in principle. I have a memorandum covering this particular point. Mr. ELKUS: You may submit it and it will be placed upon the record. The memorandum submitted is as follows: Notes referring to the first draft of a tentative bill for the creation of a Department of Buildings of the City of New York, and a Board of Standards and Appeals therein. The public should be protected against faulty construction and other dangers due to bad planning and bad workmanship. At the same time progressive ideas should be encouraged. New building materials and ingenious construction are constantly causing revolutions in building methods. It is the belief of the Joint Committee that we can accomplish our purposes of being safe and progressive at the same by the following procedure: First.— Enact a Building Code based on general principles, and made as brief and comprehensive as possible. Second. Give the Building Department power to publish regulations which shall have the force of ordinances and be more easily modified in an impartial way. Third. Refer appeals from decisions of the Building Department to a Board of Appeals, whose findings shall be matters of public record and precedent. The proposed new State Law, in attempting to carry out this programme, contains, in its present form, a vital mistake, in that it combines legislative, executive and judicial functions, all three in one official, the head of the Building Department. This would be a proceeding subversive to the principles underlying our whole government machinery. However able and honest the head of the Building Department, the power of passing upon an appeal from his decisions and interpretations of the law should be lodged in a body of several men who could judge from several points of view more safely than any one mind could do. Mr. F. J. T. STEWART (Superintendent of the New York Board of Fire Underwriters) addressed the Commission: Mr. STEWART: Representing the Board of Underwriters I want to file with you a brief statement for myself and for Mr. Ira H. Woolson, on behalf of the New York Board of Fire Underwriters in which we endorse the scheme in principle and particularly the brief submitted by Mr. Kohn, of which I have attached a copy herewith and we also file a resolution adopted by the Board of Fire Underwriters on the 18th with particular reference to the Board of Standards and Appeals, their feeling being that they object to it as proposed but feel that it should be substantially as at present, and in subscribing to the brief that Mr. Kohn submitted we favor the separation of the Board of Standards from the Board of Appeals. The letter and brief are as follows: THE NEW YORK BOARD OF FIRE UNDERWRITERS, NEW YORK, November 23, 1914. Hon. ROBERT F. WAGNER, Chairman, New York State Factory Investigating Commission, 170 Broadway, New York City: DEAR SIR. In the matter of the proposed bill for the creation of a Department of Buildings for the City of Greater New York · and a Board of Standards and Appeals therein, the undersigned are authorized by the special committee of the New York Board of Fire Underwriters on this subject, to express our approval on behalf of the Board of the general object of the bill. We are further authorized to file with you the attached resolution passed by the New York Board of Fire Underwriters at its meeting held November 18, 1914, protesting against the uncertain provision for our representation on the proposed Board of Standards and Appeals which is intended to replace the present Board of Examiners of the Bureau of Buildings. We are further authorized to advise that the New York Board of Fire Underwriters approves in substance the attached brief approving the general plan of consolidation prepared by a special committee of the American Institute of Architects and, we believe, endorsed by the constituent members of the Joint Committee on City Departments. We especially call attention to the suggestions regarding the proposed Board of Standards and Appeals contained therein. In voicing our approval of the principle of consolidation of the administrative functions affecting buildings, it impresses us as the only logical plan to ensure efficiency and economy, and to eliminate friction and inconsistencies. We, therefore, believe that the principle of consolidation should be carried out somewhat literally to fully accomplish its purpose, and wish to caution against digressing from this principle for the sake of expediency. Respectfully submitted, F. J. T. STEWART, Superintendent, New York Board of IRA H. WOOLSON, Consulting Engineer, National Board of Fire Underwriters. RESOLUTION, NEW YORK BOARD OF FIRE UNDERWRITERS, NOVEMBER 18, 1914 WHEREAS, Under section 411 of the Greater New York Charter creating the Board of Examiners of the Bureau of Buildings of the City of New York it is required that one of the members of such Board shall be a member of the New York Board of Fire Underwriters, and WHEREAS, It appears from the first proof of a tentative bill for the creation of a Department of Buildings of the City of New York and a Board of Standards and Appeals therein, issued for criticisms and suggestions by the New York State Factory Investigating Commission, that it is contemplated to create a Board of Standards and Appeals to discharge the duties of what is now the Board of Examiners, and |
