THE ENGINEER IN HIS RELATIONS TO THE CITY PLANNelson P. Lewis
Proceedings of the Engineers' Club of Philadelphia 29 (July 1912):198-215.
Lewis (1856-1924) graduated with a degree in civil engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1879 and began his long and productive career with several western and southern railways in Colorado, Louisiana and Alabama. In 1884 he joined the engineering staff of the City of Brooklyn, was put in charge of that city's Bureau of Highways, and in 1902 began an eighteen-year tenure as Chief Engineer of the City of New York Board of Estimate and Apportionment, the highest engineering post of the metropolis. His most important participation in city planning matters beyond those of municipal engineering was his service on the New York Heights of Building Commission than led to the country's first comprehensive zoning regulations and as director of physical surveys for the Regional Plan of New York and Environs--work cut short by his death at the age of 68.A great deal lately has been said about what is called city planning. Everything relating to municipal affairs has been very fully discussed, including accounting, budget making, 100 per cent. efficiency, commission government, and many other things which might be classified as ideas or idiosyncrasies, as facts or fancies. City planning has been the subject of local, State, national, and international conferences, conventions, and exhibitions, has been discussed in lectures, newspapers, periodicals, and books, and one quarterly publication is devoted exclusively to this subject. Such evidences of wide-spread interest could not well have been manufactured by those having some selfish interest to promote, but it seems quite clear that the public is becoming greatly interested in the subject. It cannot, therefore, be dismissed as a fad or as a matter that appeals only to theorists, but we must recognize it as something real and vital to the proper growth of our cities. In this paper an effort will be made to discuss the following questions:Nelson Lewis was a member of many professional organizations: American Society of Civil Engineers, American Society of Municipal Improvements, American Road Builders' Association, and he played an active role in the meetings of the National Conference on City Planning. His professional interests and experience took him into overseas activities as well. He represented the City of New York at international road and street conferences in Paris, 1908; Brussels, 1910; London, 1913; and at the International Congress of Cities at Ghent in 1913. Also in 1910 he toured many cities of Europe to report on subsurface structures.
His book, The Planning of the Modern City (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1916) was the second such book to be published in America, a work later revised and brought up to date by his son in a two-volume publication following the Second World War. This paper is nearly a word-for-word copy of one presented by Lewis at in September, 1911 at a meeting of the Municipal Engineers of the City of New York and published in the Proceedings of that society for 1911 as Paper No. 66, "The City Plan and What it Means." The Municipal Journal printed an abstract of the paper in its issue of November 1, 1911. In the version below, Lewis added a paragraph or two with references to Philadelphia. He used all this again four years later in his book, a work that is effectively summarized in a very long paper, "City Planning" he presented at a meeting in 1915 of the International Engineering Congress and published in the volume of the Transactions of that meeting devoted to Municipal Engineering.
Lewis lost no opportunities to emphasize his belief that civil engineers should be recognized as the most important professionals in city planning, and the essay to follow makes a strong case for this position. In one passage he clearly expresses ambivalent feelings about the architect-planners of his generation: "The author has no desire to detract from the credit which has been given to men like Carrére, Burnham, Brunner, Olmsted, Nolen, and a number of others, for the admirable work done or proposed by them to redeem some of our cities from the commonplace. Their plans are, many of them, inspiring--some of them extravagant beyond hope of realization."
Lewis included a long summary of the British town planning legislation adopted in 1909. Toward the end of his paper Lewis proposed a procedure for subdivision plat review that--expanded and more detailed--became part of the early city planning enabling acts of many states. His proposal was a simple one: "Inasmuch as property sold as city plots depends for its value upon a street system which will afford access, it would not appear unreasonable to prohibit by statue the sale or offering for sale of lots in unmapped sections, unless the proposed plan of streets should first have been submitted to the municipal authorities for their examination, approval, or correction in order that the proposed streets might be made to conform with the general plan of main highways proposed for the part of the city in which the property is located." Lewis's contribution to American planning is the subject of Jeffrey K. Stine, Nelson P. Lewis and the City Efficient: The Municipal Engineer in City Planning During the Progressive Era, Essays in Public Works History, No. 11 (Chicago: Public Works Historical Society, 1981).
1. What does city planning mean?
2. What are its economic advantages?
3. What progress has been made in city planning in this and other countries?
4. Who should be responsible for the city plan?
5. What general principles should govern city planning?
First, then--what is it? It is simply the exercise of such foresight as will promote the orderly and sightly development of a city and its environs along rational lines, with proper regard for the health and convenience of the citizens and for the commercial and industrial advancement of the community. It does not mean what has been so often called the "city beautiful." It does not mean or even include municipal art, nor does it, in the author's opinion, include the architecture of public or semi-public buildings.
A city planned in accordance with the principles laid down in the above definition will surely become beautiful; it will lend itself to artistic treatment (not adornment by municipal art, for it is difficult to explain in what respect "municipal" art differs from any other kind of art); it will provide adequate sites for public and semipublic buildings, which can be availed of by the architect when the time comes without the expense of rearranging the street system to give them a proper setting. To plan a city with its final artistic embellishment would be not only folly, but would be far beyond the capacity of any one man or group of men in any one generation. To attempt to designate the specific sites for future public buildings with a special regard to the size, shape, and design which those making the plan deemed to be most suitable would evidence an arrogance and self- complacency which would render one unfit for the task he has undertaken.
Reverting to our definition, the planning should include not only the city, but its environs--that is, it should bear some relation to the neighboring cities and the rural and small urban districts which are within easy reach. Every city is supported, to a large degree, by the country behind or about it. The idea that every effort should be made to confine its working population as far as possible within the red lines forming its boundaries is a fallacy having its origin in the selfishness of those who wish to maintain realty values within the city at as high a figure as possible. The object should be to reduce to a minimum the resistance to both intraurban and interurban traffic. This applies not only to ordinary street traffic, whether by vehicles or surface railways, but to steam and electrically operated railroads for the transportation of passengers and freight. The idea that railways are an evil which must be tolerated, but that they should be kept out of sight and should be compelled to carry on their business almost surreptitiously, is a grave mistake. A city cannot live, much less grow, without them. A city plan must, therefore, provide not only direct and ample thoroughfares for vehicular traffic and routes for the transportation of passengers to and from their homes within the city, but it must take into account the vital necessity of railway lines and terminals for the economic and expeditious handling of passengers and freight in such a manner as to reduce, so far as possible, the time and expense of transportation to and from home, office, shop, or factory, from and to points outside the city.
Thoroughfares should be both radial and circumferential. In every great city there is always one center of the first importance with a number of minor centers. The great radial thoroughfares will necessarily converge at the principal center, with minor radials reaching the subordinate centers, while the circumferential thoroughfares will connect the less important centers with each other and make it possible to go from one to another or to the suburbs without passing through points or districts of traffic congestion. The plans suggested almost simultaneously by Sir Christopher Wren and Sir John Evelyn for the rebuilding of the central portion of London after the great fire of 1666 illustrate this idea, but, unfortunately, neither plan was carried out. It is also shown, by the diagrams of radial and circumferential streets included in the report of the Metropolitan Improvements Commission of Boston, which shows how many links in such a system often exist, and how relatively simple a matter it is to supply the omissions. The possession of such a system of main thoroughfares would greatly simplify the problem of providing adequate transportation facilities, which most of our cities find so difficult of solution.
Regard for the health as well as for the convenience of the citizens requires that there shall be ample provision for open spaces for recreation and amusement. In other words, that there shall be, within easy reach of every home, a park where the occupants of that home can find fresh air and out-of-door rest or play. This does not mean that the parks must necessarily be large, that they should be highly developed by the landscape architect, or that they shall be located upon most expensive property. There are many tracts of land of varying sizes which are passed over by the real estate operator as unsuitable for development, and the cost of which would be very small, but which, if secured and held, would become extremely valuable to the public as parts of the park system of the future city. Nor need they be developed for years to come. A piece of natural woodland, a creek bottom now little more than a swamp, a rocky ridge or steep slope which is unavailable for building purposes, can often, by the building of a few paths or drains, be made to serve their purpose as playgrounds at slight expense. The important thing is to secure them while they are still cheap, with the right to dispose of or convert to other uses such portions of them as may not be desirable for park purposes when the city plan is finally developed. The idea which seems to have controlled the park policy of most American cities is that parks shall be located and purchased only when the actual need for them is developed, but meanwhile property has been converted to other uses and has been covered with improvements, the destruction of which, as well as the enhanced value of the land and the disarrangement of the street system, would make the cost of the park so great that the project has to be either abandoned or curtailed. The cost of parks secured under a more rational plan, including loss of taxes and carrying charges, would be far less than under the policy generally prevailing, while if acquired in accordance with a plan which will be outlined later, they can readily be made to carry themselves. Boston and Philadelphia have followed a more enlightened policy in this respect than have most other cities. In both these cities large areas peculiarly suited to park purposes have been acquired while the land was still inexpensive. In the first named these areas have been generally outside, and in the latter they have been within the city limits. Neither of these cities, however, appears to have made adequate provision for small or neighborhood parks.
There is one other element in our definition of a city plan, and this is fundamental, namely:
The city plan, as the expression is used in this paper, is not a map upon which are laid down with precision all the streets which will be required for its ultimate development, but it is the general plan of arterial streets and transportation lines by which the different sections of the existing and the future city will be connected with each other and with centers of population outside the city limits, the parks and open spaces, and other resorts for recreation and amusement, the existing water-front development, and the space needed for its further increase, existing public and semi-public buildings, and sites upon which those required in the future may be advantageously grouped. This is the real city plan which will control future city development, stimulating it or retarding it, as the case may be. The block dimensions and angles, the widths of minor streets, and the subdivision into a vast number of rectangular blocks of standard size, with an explanation of or an apology for every departure from that standard, do not constitute a city plan. The city plan is something bigger and broader. It is something to which the city may grow, not something to which it must be restricted or within which it must be confined as in a straitjacket.
The economic considerations which should control the city planning are precisely those which should prevail in the design of a house, shop, railway terminal, or water-supply system, namely, adaptation to probable increase in demand and capacity to supply that demand. If the manufactory or the railway is foreordained to failure, the less spent upon it the better. There are a few towns which were laid out during "boom" periods on lines which were fancied to be those of a future metropolis, where the broad streets are grass-grown, where the public buildings are but half occupied, and where everything speaks of a splendid ambition which resulted in grotesque failure. When a city occupying a strategic geographical position has begun a natural development which causes growing pains indicative of a misfit in its general plan, it is time to look forward to adjust the plan to new conditions and to provide for still further growth. To tear down and enlarge is very costly-- especially so when there is no room for enlargement without the purchase of additional land, which has become far more valuable than when the original enterprise was begun. This is constantly being done by individuals and corporations whose domestic or business requirements make it necessary. In every case it involves a distinct loss, which may be justified by means to indulge in a luxury or by the prospect of increased profit. Cannot the city, it may be asked, instead of trying to provide for the remote future, well afford the expense of reconstruction to adapt itself to its growing needs, especially when it has the power, through its ability to levy taxes and assessments, to impose the cost of necessary changes upon the property which will be chiefly benefited? No expense involving the destruction of property can be justified if it can be avoided by the exercise of reasonable foresight, and the taxing power of the city should not be used unnecessarily. The requirements of the modern city are so great that the burden of taxation will inevitably be heavy. Improvements in the city plan may increase values to such a degree that they would be cheap at almost any price, but if the plan can be so made as to avoid the necessity for destructive changes, both the city at large and the individual property- owner will be the gainers. To defer the correction of mistakes which are quite apparent in well developed sections of the city, or to put off the adoption of a broader policy in those in process of development, because land is expensive and costly improvements would be destroyed, is not unnatural, even though it be unwise. To fail to take advantage of such object-lessons in parts of the city where there are few, if any, improvements, or where the street plan has not yet been fixed, is the height of folly. Every large city furnishes numerous instances of changes manifestly desirable but deferred until their cost has become prohibitive. To show the money value of a good plan, not by forcing exaggerated values at some points, but by stimulating a healthy growth, through ease of access to all sections of the city, to schools, libraries, museums, parks, and playgrounds, it is only necessary to examine the successive annual assessment rolls of districts so favored. One specific instance will be given. During the sixteen years following the laying out of Central Park, New York, the average increase in the assessed value of real estate in other parts of the then city of New York was about 100 per cent., while in the three wards adjoining the new park the increase was approximately 800 per cent. Increase of population means almost invariably increase in wealth and taxable values. The most notable increase in urban population during the last quarter of a century has been in Germany. A comparison of the rate of growth of six American and a like number of German cities during the last thirty years will bear out this statement. These cities were selected at random by the author some years ago, simply because they had about the same population in 1880 and because they were believed to be typical. The increase by decades is shown in the following table:
|
|
1880 |
1890 |
|
1900 |
|
1910 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a brief reference to recent progress in city planning at home and abroad sharp distinction should be drawn between the ambitious and often spectacular plans to create civic centers with striking architectural features, and the less sensational, but often more important, efforts to correct, where possible, the present plan, and to provide for future development a scheme which will permanently fix the arteries of traffic and allow as great a degree of flexibility as possible in the filling in of details. The establishment of a civic center, such as that now in process of execution in Cleveland, but which is confined to a limited area, and the more comprehensive plan under consideration by Chicago, which extends over many blocks surrounding the proposed center, are certainly impressive. The former will, and the latter may, be worth while, whatever may be their cost. Their monumental dignity and beauty appeal strongly to the imagination and pride of the citizen, and the courageous optimism of the cities of the Middle West and the Pacific coast may bring about their realization, although it will involve the destruction of costly improvements and the entire rearrangement of the street system in their vicinity. Memphis and Kansas City, which once may have been considered somewhat featureless, not to say commonplace, cities, have been developing park and boulevard systems which have already made them notable, and they are doing it because it has been found to pay. Los Angeles, Portland, and Seattle are working out plans for their future development along lines which would stagger the more conservative cities of the East. Instances might be multiplied of cities which have awakened to the importance of correcting mistakes before it is too late, and providing for future extensions along more rational lines than those of the original plan, and of the striking increase in population, business, and realty values resulting from this awakening.
It would be impossible to do so within the compass of this paper, and the author will confine further comment upon progress in city planning to a brief review of what is doubtless the most conspicuous legislation along these lines which has yet been attempted, namely, the Town Planning Act adopted by the English Parliament in 1909. The material for this review was taken from the act itself, from the various explanatory memoranda issued by the Local Government Board to the local authorities, and to an analysis of the act which appeared in the initial number of the Town Planning Review, published by the University of Liverpool.
The underlying idea of this act, which applies not only to every great city, but to every town in England, Scotland, and Wales, is that every urban district has a powerful effect upon the territory outside of its corporate limits. The city plan is not and cannot be bounded by the red lines indicating the city or town limits. In the last analysis every part of a thickly settled country is either included within the limits of a municipal corporation, or is so powerfully affected by its proximity thereto that the entire territory will inevitably be influenced by the operation of a Town Planning Act as general in its application as that of Great Britain. Heretofore no project materially affecting any city, whether that city be great or small, especially one involving the power compulsorily to acquire land, could be carried out without the express authority of Parliament. Almost the only acts which were quite general in their application were those relating to sanitary housing, such as "The Housing of the Working Class Act" of 1890 and its several amendments. The most liberal enactment, so far as the delegation of powers to local authorities is concerned, was that of 1908 with respect to the corporation of the City of Liverpool.
The General Act of 1909 applies to the whole of England and Wales, and, with slight modifications, to Scotland. Its object, as defined in its opening section, is the "securing proper sanitary conditions, amenity, and convenience in connection with the laying out and use of the land and of any neighboring lands."
Upon the Local Government Board has been conferred authority formerly exercised only by Parliament itself, the latter retaining, however, certain veto powers. The area which may be included in a scheme is any land which is in course of development or which is likely to be used for building or for open spaces, roads, streets, parks, pleasure grounds, or incidental works, and may include land already built upon and even land not likely to be used for building purposes, if it is so situated that it ought to be included in the scheme. The Local Government Board may authorize a local authority to prepare a town-planning scheme if the Board is satisfied that there is a reasonable demand or call for such a plan. A scheme proposed and adopted by any local authority cannot become effective unless it shall first have been approved by the Local Government Board, which may refuse its approval with such modifications and subject to such conditions as it may see fit to impose. Before approval by the Local Government Board notice shall be published by the London or Edinburgh Gazette, as the case may be, and if within twenty-one days of the time of publication no interested person or authority objects to the draft or the order of approval, it shall be laid before both houses of Parliament for not less than thirty days during a session of Parliament, and if, before the expiration of thirty days, either house presents an address to the Crown against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken, without prejudice, however, to the making of a new draft scheme. A town-planning scheme once adopted may be varied or revoked by the same method of procedure as that followed in its original adoption. The Local Government Board is authorized to prescribe provisions for carrying out the general objects of town-planning schemes, these objects being given in the widest terms in a schedule which is a part of the act, including the laying out and improvement of streets and roads and the closing or diversion of existing highways; the erection of buildings and other structures; the provision of open spaces, both private and public; the preservation of objects of historic interest or natural beauty; sewerage, drainage, and sewage disposal; lighting; water supply; the extinction of private rights-of-way or other easements; the disposal of land acquired by the local authorities; the removal, alteration, or demolition of any work which would obstruct the carrying out of the scheme; the making of agreements by the local authorities with owners and by owners with each other; the right of the local authorities to accept any money or property for the furtherance of the object of any town-planning scheme, and the regulation of the administration of such money or property; the limitation of time for the operation of the scheme; the cooperation of the local authorities with the owners of land included in the scheme, and the imposition upon land whose value is increased by the operation of a town-planning scheme of the sum to be paid on account of their increase in value.
In addition to these general provisions there may be incorporated in any scheme special provisions defining the area and the responsible authority, and especially dealing with local conditions, and these special provisions may vary or supersede not only the general provisions, but even Acts of Parliament, although when any general act of Parliament is thus contravened, special opportunity is given either house by resolution to reject the scheme before it is finally approved.
A town-planning scheme may originate in any one of three different ways:
1. Land owners may formulate a scheme which the Local Government Board may authorize, or after public inquiry may compel the local authorities to adopt.
2. Any representation may be made to the Local Government Board that a scheme ought to be prepared by a local authority, and the Board may, after public inquiry, order a scheme to be so prepared.
3. A local authority may prepare a scheme, but before any public money is expended, a prima facie case must be made out and the sanction of the Local Government Board obtained.
The responsible authorities are given abundant power to enforce an adopted scheme by removing any building or work executed in contravention of the scheme, and by carrying out, at the expense of the person in default, any work which is so delayed as to prejudice the plan, and the responsible authorities may be compelled by the Local Government Board to exercise these powers.
The expenses incurred by a local authority may fall under three different heads:
1. The cost of preparing and promoting a scheme. The Act contains no provision as to this expense beyond the fact that it will be charged in the general tax of the district.
2. The cost of acquiring land for the purpose of carrying out a scheme. Compulsory powers of purchase may be exercised by order of the Local Government Board without statutory confirmation, unless an impartial public inquiry shows that the land is unsuitable for the required purpose or cannot be acquired without undue detriment, in which case any order made by the Local Government Board must be confirmed by Parliament. The price to be paid for land compulsorily acquired is to be determined by a single Government Board arbitrator, and no additional allowance will be made by reason of the purchase being compulsory.
3. Compensation may be allowed the land-owners for injury, and this compensation is to be determined by a single Local Government Board arbitrator, but no allowance is to be made for the limitation which an adopted scheme may impose as to the number, height, or character of the buildings which may be erected, nor for any requirement of a scheme which may be in force, nor for anything done after application has been made for the right to prepare a scheme. The principle of betterment is also recognized to the extent of one half the increase in the value of property by the scheme.
It will be seen that the powers conferred upon the Local Government Board by the Town-Planning Act are extraordinary, and perhaps unprecedented, and it is quite probable that the success or the failure of the act will depend to a large degree upon the manner in which the power is exercised.
The recent interest in questions relating to city planning can be largely credited to architects, landscape engineers, civic organizations, and those who, from motives which may be altruistic or selfish, wish to see their city made more liable and attractive. To these men and bodies must be given much of the credit due for the movements which have resulted in the establishment of dignified civic centers, the effective grouping of public buildings, and in many cases the cutting through of new thoroughfares. In few instances have engineers taken a conspicuous part in the planning or execution of such improvements other than the mere work of physical construction. If the principles enunciated in this paper are accepted as sound, it must be admitted that these spasmodic efforts, admirable as may have been their results in many cases, are not city planning. They are often spectacular, and they attract the admiring attention of the public. Real city planning is more fundamental and will render unnecessary an enormous destruction of property before real constructive work can be begun.
City planning in the sense in which the author has used it is almost wholly constructive. Some demolition of improvements there must be but it should take place before they have assumed great value, and before the sections in which they are located have assumed a fixed character. The work will not be done in the limelight, and the men who do it will not receive the credit and the applause which will be the portion of those who might later, at great public inconvenience and expense, correct mistakes which but for their foresight the original planning might have made.
While conferences and exhibitions of city planning are doubtless of great benefit in enabling one to see what is going on in other cities, and in demonstrating the public interest in the subject, their greatest value consists, perhaps, in giving those responsible for the development of a city plan the opportunity of seeing the mistakes which other cities are striving to correct.
The creation of a city plan is no work for an expert temporarily retained for the purpose; it is no work for a commission specially created for the task, and upon which there is an attempt to establish a balance between engineers, architects, civic workers, business men, etc. It is work which must be carried out patiently every day in the year. The services of experts should be secured, and their judgment might properly be controlling in some respects. This is no one-man task, but it is essentially the work of the engineer, or rather of the regular engineering staff of the city. If the engineers are not alive to their opportunity; if they are not ready to profit by the experiences of other cities in all parts of the world; if they undertake the problem as one of more or less precise surveying; if they are content to prepare a plan for undeveloped portions of the city along the conventional lines followed in the older portions, notwithstanding the palpable defects of older plans-- then they need not be surprised if the architects and the landscape engineers are subsequently called in to correct their mistakes, or if the idea becomes prevalent that an engineer is qualified only to build a city after it has been planned by some one else.
Reference to what has been done and what is being done in Philadelphia has been purposely deferred until this subdivision of the subject should have been reached, as this city furnishes, perhaps, the best example of the results which may be attained by the patient but systematic study of a city's growth and needs, which its regular engineering staff should be in position to give. Philadelphia inherited from its founder a rectangular plan of the most conventional type. Its early expansion was doubtless along the prolongation of the lines laid down in that original plan. The great value of diagonal streets appears to have been recognized, however, and these were not only provided to establish direct connections with the highways outside the city limits, but they were extended toward the center, missing connections were supplied here and there until, before the public appears to have been aware of the fact, certainly before the professional city planner descended upon the city, the engineers of Philadelphia had not only gone a long way toward correcting the inherent defects of the original plan, but had provided a comprehensive and admirable scheme for future development. It is probable that much study and great expenditures will still be required to perfect this system in the older parts of the city, but there is much satisfaction to be derived from the knowledge that the mistakes of the past are not being repeated in the newer portions of the city, as is so generally the case throughout this country. Notwithstanding these facts we do not read or hear much of Philadelphia in city-planning literature and discussions, even though in this city has been held the greatest city-planning exhibition ever given in this country. This confirms the statement, already made, that the most valuable work of this kind, the work that involves a minimum of expense in destruction of improvements to attain the desired results, will attract little public attention or appreciation. The engineer who designs and builds a structure that is well adapted to its purpose and will last for generations will receive little recognition, but if such a structure fails, or if its capacity proves inadequate to increased demands, he who designs one more imposing and flamboyant to take its place will be acclaimed a genius.
The author has no desire to detract from the credit which has been given to men like Carrére, Burnham, Brunner, Olmsted, Nolen, and a number of others, for the admirable work done or proposed by them to redeem some of our cities from the commonplace. Their plans are, many of them, inspiring--some of them extravagant beyond hope of realization. Their genius can and should be availed of in the constructive work of making our cities beautiful, but the destructive features of their- plans could be largely avoided if the engineers generally, as they appear to have done in Philadelphia, would bestow more careful study upon their task of preparing the original plan.
The general principles which should govern the creation of a city plan may be summed up under three headings:
Provision for future growth.
Reasonable regard for the interest of the property owner and the tax-payer, as well as the public.
Economy, or an attempt to secure what is needed at a minimum of expense.
In making provision for future growth, some imagination is required. There appears to be a belief, more or less general, that imagination is something that the engineer should studiously avoid, but failure to exercise it is probably responsible for many of the defects in original city plans made by engineers. By imagination the author does not mean a capacity to dream and to produce results which he may think artistic, but the ability to estimate the future by the past, to grasp the probable, and even possible, growth and development of the city in population and commerce, to anticipate the various needs of a great number of people, to repress, to a certain degree, his own preconceived notions of the precise lines along which a plan should be evolved, and to take counsel with others and not to limit such counsel to men of his own profession. No human being can foresee the precise lines along which a city will grow. Electric traction, the automobile, and the telephone have made it possible to extend the radius of action of the average citizen to a degree which would scarcely have been credited a generation ago. The quiet suburb of the last decade has already become an important business center of the city of today. While no one can anticipate such changes, it is a mistake to assume that the character of any particular district is permanently fixed. The problem is to devise a plan so flexible that, with a minimum of expense for rearrangement, it can adapt itself to changed and changing conditions. This is what is meant by the exercise of imagination tempered by common sense.
Regard for the interests of the property-owner as well as the public implies a capacity to reach a desired result along the lines of least resistance, and to discuss frankly and freely with the owners of property the rational and most economical development for each section, insisting, however, upon the superiority of the public to the private interest. While directness and continuity are essential in main traffic thoroughfares, it must be remembered that by far the largest mileage of city streets are not traffic thoroughfares, but will be devoted to dwellings, and that their function is to provide light, air, and access, with facilities for reaching as readily as possible the main traffic thoroughfares upon which will be located the shops and places of amusements, and which will be the route to be followed in reaching more distant places of recreation, such as the public parks. To plan a series of residential streets with the same directness and continuity which should be given the traffic streets is not only unnecessary, but the result is unpleasantly monotonous and uninteresting, with no compensating advantage. There is no reason why individual preference and ideas should not be exercised by the private developer, provided that his development does not interfere with the main arteries of traffic, and provided, also, that it is not inconsistent with good sanitary conditions. Some of the plans evolved for private development may cause a distinct shock to the engineer. This will do him no harm; in fact, he needs it occasionally for his own good.
Many developments made by individuals or corporations before the completion of the plan for the district in which they are located could be incorporated in the final plan, provided there were a disposition on the part of the developers to confer and cooperate with the city authorities before making their improvements. Inasmuch as property sold as city plots depends for its value upon a street system which will afford access, it would not appear unreasonable to prohibit by statute the sale or offering for sale of lots in unmapped sections, unless the proposed plan of streets should first have been submitted to the municipal authorities for their examination, approval, or correction in order that the proposed streets might be made to conform with the general plan of main highways proposed for the part of the city in which the property is located. A reasonable time say six months--should be allowed for the acceptance, amendment, or rejection of the plan submitted, and if the opportunity to do so were not availed of within that time, the owner might be absolved from any obligation to further delay the improvement and sale of his property. Such a requirement would not appear to be an unreasonable restriction upon the right of the owner to use his property to the best advantage, but would be a recognition of the right of the city to control in some degree the street plan upon which that property depends for its value, while the assurance to purchasers that the street plan is definitely fixed and that the homes they build will not be destroyed by a rearrangement of the plan would add materially to the value of the property. It is quite probable that reputable real-estate developers would not oppose legislation of this character. Philadelphia does not appear to suffer from this practice as much as do other American cities, first, for the reason that its city plan seems to have been developed well in advance of improvements, and, secondly, because the erection of buildings within the lines of streets which have been laid down by competent authority is forbidden except at the risk of the builder, who can recover no damages for the destruction of buildings so erected. It is said that this statute, although specifically referring to streets, has been construed as applying to parks also, so that Philadelphia appears to have the power to preempt land which may be needed for street or park purposes, and prevent the erection thereon of buildings for the express purpose of securing an extravagant award. Such a power may be abused by the city as well as by an individual, but it may be assumed that the retention of such power by the city is good evidence that it has been used wisely and fairly. The disposition in other States and in other city charters appears to have unduly emphasized the rights of the individual as against the rights of the community. This may be a heritage of our English common law, for it has been said that in England the law is disposed to treat the State as an instrument of the citizen, while in Continental Europe the interests of the State are paramount, and those of the individual are incidental and entirely subordinate to the greater interest.
Time will not permit a discussion of the important principle of excess condemnation and the enormous value which this right would confer upon the city in developing, and especially in correcting, its plan. The beneficial working of excess condemnation in Europe is well known. In this country State legislatures have been loath to grant such a power to any municipality, for the probable reason that it is believed that it would be used either recklessly or corruptly, or that it would encourage speculation in real estate by the city. While these are the reasons usually given for opposing the right of excess condemnation, many of those who have objected to it have undoubtedly been prompted by a desire to have perpetuated a system which those who are shrewd enough to acquire property on the line of some great improvement have found so enormously profitable to themselves. This is particularly noticeable in cases where it is necessary to extend or widen existing streets through the built-up sections of the city, but it would be particularly advantageous in securing a system of small or neighborhood parks in the undeveloped sections of the city.
If acreage property could be secured even before the development of the street system, and of sufficiently large area to permit the laying out of a symmetric park when the street system is finally determined, leaving the surplusage for sale, the financing of a system of neighborhood parks in the undeveloped sections of the city would be a very simple matter. In disposing of the surplus property, sites for schools and other public buildings, commonly bought at enormous expense, could properly be reserved for future use, and it is not unlikely that both park and building sites could thus be made to pay for themselves. In the cutting through of new or the widening of existing streets in built-up sections of the city the simple right to acquire entire parcels, portions of which are needed for the new or widened street, and the sale of the surplusage after the street shall have been constructed along the new lines, would, on account of the enhanced value, enable the city to recoup a large portion of the expense, instead of adding the entire cost to the permanent debt of the city, and at the same time enriching abutting owners, first, through awards made for damage imposed, and then for the enormously increased value of the property which is left.
As already stated, there is no reason why subordinate residential streets should follow long, straight lines. This is in a measure true of main traffic thoroughfares, but in them the changes in direction should not be permitted materially to increase distance or impair directness. Topography and existing improvements may be such that expense may be saved by easy changes in direction, while at the same time the street will gain in interest and admirable sites will be afforded for important buildings, the lack of which sites is so painfully evident in a rectangular street plan.
It may be thought that the title of this paper has been forgotten, and that it has been devoted to a discussion of what the city plan is, and the effect of an intelligent plan upon the growth of the city, rather than to an attempt to point out the relation which the municipal engineer should bear to city planning. The writer has endeavored to draw a specification, crude and incomplete though it may be, of the materials to be used and the work to be done in the preparation and development of a rational city plan. Who will best measure up to the specification--the architect, the landscape architect, the civic worker, the lawyer, the business man, the real-estate developer, or the municipal engineer? As already stated, it is no one-man job. The advice of every one of the above would be valuable and should be sought. The engineer will naturally be the first man on the ground. If he is a broad man,--a man of imagination, of human sympathy, of business ability, with a proper sense of proportion,--he will so lay the foundation of the city plan that an orderly development will follow, and a large part of the vast sums required to reconstruct the plan and make it fit changing conditions or adapt it to rapid growth will be saved. Some changes will inevitably be required as the city grows, but the necessity for them should be discovered by the engineer, who should not be content to let things drift until conditions become intolerable, and the task of doing that which is obviously necessary is intrusted to some one else, who in connection therewith will be tempted to create at great and perhaps needless expense a monument to himself which will be founded, alas! on the incapacity, the indifference, or the lack of vision of the municipal engineer.
|
|